Inevitablue Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 and throw in a couple of broken, jagged teeth and suddenly the damage is far greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I'd still not be comfortable about a dog that caused damage in response to play-fighting, but it does depend a lot on the antecedents. My old GSD would respond very quickly to things that she perceived as a threat, but her response was to intimidate and hold the threat back, biting was a last resort. She did, however, bite other dogs in redirected aggression. Did not ever draw blood. In a different home she may have learned to bite and cause damage, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdogs Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Redirected aggression is a well known and relatively common phenomenon. The report (which may be exaggerated) makes it sound like a very deep wound, which would be uncharacteristic of social aggression. I'm not sure that I'd want to take a risk on having that dog around, even if the owner had some part to play. That's true too. He could have redirected onto the owner. It's hard to tell without seeing the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Redirected aggression is a well known and relatively common phenomenon. The report (which may be exaggerated) makes it sound like a very deep wound, which would be uncharacteristic of social aggression. I'm not sure that I'd want to take a risk on having that dog around, even if the owner had some part to play. That's true too. He could have redirected onto the owner. It's hard to tell without seeing the incident. We don't know what the owner did to the dog to trigger a reaction or whether the dog just ran up and took a bite? Sound's to have a low threshhold to a defensive response or the dog is a bit spooky?. A police spokesman said the owner of both dogs was visiting the house in Stephen St just before 10pm Had the owner taken his two dogs to someone elses place, or did the dog's owner not live with them and was a visitor in their territory?. Perhaps he owned the dog but didn't know the dog well?..........comment above is a bit strange?? Did the dogs live with the bloke who didn't get bitten and have a bond with him perhaps? Edited November 6, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now