Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Pit Bull Kills Puppy in Sudbury

Shaykeija
September 27th, 2006, 09:31 PM
Made the front page................:sad:


Pit bull kills pup in front of family
Owners refusing to surrender terrier; charges pending

By Laura Stradiotto/The Sudbury Star
Local News - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 @ 11:00

The Bohren family was on a waiting list for one year before Rocco came into their lives.

As Jennifer Bohren takes out the birth announcement that came with the purebred Pomeranian, her eyes gloss over.

Traumatized, she has taken the day off from work.

Nine-week old Rocco was killed by an apparent pit bull Monday afternoon in front of her, her two small children and their friends in the Cambrian Heights area.

Jennifer usually brings Rocco to the school bus stop at the end of the street to meet her children Myah, 6 and Madison, 10.

Like many times before, at 3:40 p.m. Monday, neighbourhood children were huddled around, petting Rocco, as Jennifer held the little fury animal in her arms.

Jennifer then placed Rocco on his four feet not aware of what was quickly approaching her from behind.

"I saw something from behind," said Madison.

"I thought, 'Hey, doesn't that look like Don Cherry's dog.
' It was acting kind of weird, looking at my dog."

Jennifer said she had no time to react.

"The dog came in between us and I tried to shoo him away. Then, I couldn't see my dog anymore and the next thing I know, he bolts."

The pit bull grabbed Rocco by the throat and ran down the street.

The children screamed as Jennifer and a neighbour chased the two dogs, hoping to free the puppy from the jaws of its attacker.

The pit bull dropped Rocco at his owner's feet. Jennifer went "hysterical" when the puppy didn't move. She assumed the dog escaped from its owner since she never saw it in the area before.

Still, Jennifer couldn't bring herself to carry the lifeless puppy home and had to ask a friend for help.

"What would have happened if one of the kids were holding the dog?" she said.

Jennifer called 911, and then redirected to Greater Sudbury Animal Control, to take her dog away and pick up the pit bull to be euthanized.

"I couldn't bury him here," she said. "I don't want to remember any of this."

But 24 hours later, although Animal Control has since placed Rocco in a garbage bag and taken him away, its attacker is still at home. Jennifer said she hasn't been assured the dog is "locked up and muzzled."

According to Jennifer and a city official, the pit bull owner has refused to give up the dog.

"I want that dog put down as fast as possible," said Jennifer.

"I want them charged. He could do this again. I want them to pay for my dog and all the vet bills. I've already sought legal council."

Jennifer's children and their friends are left with the horrible image of how Rocco died.

Her daughter cried in her sleep that night.

"At first I was sad, then angry, then sad and angry again," said Madison.

His sister Myah said she's "just sad."

"The right thing to do is bring the dog in," said Jennifer. "That would bring me comfort."

Although there's a ban on pit pulls in Ontario, there is nothing in the legislation that gives animal control and bylaw enforcement officials the authority to seize a dangerous dog from a home.

According to the law, only in "exigent circumstances" where there's an imminent threat could authorities intervene and seize the dog.

If the owner does not voluntarily give up the dog, authorities must obtain a warrant from court.

Brian Gutjahr, the city's bylaw enforcement manager, says he hopes officials won't have to resort to obtaining a warrant.

"We believe the owner will voluntarily turn the dog over to Animal Control, but we're not there yet," said Gutjahr.

Gutjahr said the case is under investigation and charges are pending.

lstradiotto@thesudburystar.com

LM1313
September 27th, 2006, 09:44 PM
I feel terrible for the poor puppy, but as far as I know it's not criminal for a dog to kill another dog (or cat or other animal) unless the owner specifically encourages it or makes it possible, in which case it's animal cruelty. For example, "baiting" a fighting dog with a puppy is illegal, but if a dog kills a puppy without the owner knowing about it, it's not illegal. (After all, mother dogs sometimes kill sickly puppies . . . you'd look pretty stupid bringing in the mother to get euthanized and leaving all the other puppies motherless. :rolleyes: )

That said, the pit bull owner is an irresponsible moron for letting a dog-aggressive dog wander the streets. In fact, even if the dog WEREN'T dog aggressive, it would be irresponsible--what if his dog got stolen or hit by a car??

mona_b
September 27th, 2006, 11:14 PM
How very sad...And those poors kids.To have to witness that...:sad:

but as far as I know it's not criminal for a dog to kill another dog

Actually here in Ontario under the DOLA(Dog Owners Liability Act)it is.If my dog runs loose and kills another dog,I can be charged.

LM1313
September 27th, 2006, 11:34 PM
That makes sense in this case, but does it also apply in cases like "two dogs in the dog park, suddenly they start fighting" type situations? Just curious. ;)

Yeah, I imagine it would be very scarring for the kids. :(

erykah1310
September 28th, 2006, 03:49 PM
How sad.

But... wasnt Don Cherrys dog a Bull Terrier??? Idont see much resemblance between Pits and AmStaffs with a Bull Terrier:shrug:

technodoll
September 28th, 2006, 03:57 PM
"The right thing to do is bring the dog in," said Jennifer. "That would bring me comfort."


sure. an eye for an eye. :thumbs up

so, woman brings tiny 9-week old pom puppy on the sidewalk, unleashed, surrounded by kids. next to a street. way to GO! sorry but again... dumb owners left and right!!

erykah1310
September 28th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Oh, but Techno..... The kids are traumatised... it only makes sence that the other family be equally traumatized!!! ( sheesh) *** extreme sarcasm****

I think the owner of the other dog should face some form of a fine, and that particular dog be muzzled AND kept under control (ie. not wandering around the city alone)

Conners
September 28th, 2006, 05:15 PM
There are leash bylaws. All dogs must be leashed in public with the exception of the off leash parks.
The owner of the dog is fully to blame here. This is why we need a firmer way of dealing with irresponsible and neglectful owners. The owner didn't have his/her dog under control, no matter what type of breed it was.
It's tragic what happened to the pom and all the kids and people that witnessed it. But it was as if the owner him/herself had killed the pup.
It burns me up every time there is an avoidable attack and it's always the dog that gets put down while the owner might get a small slap on the wrists and fines.
People who will not abide by the law and take care of their dogs properly, by socializing them, training them, etc., should NOT have a dog(s). How is the dog to learn social skills if owners aren't teaching them the same way as you would a youngster. :evil:

mona_b
September 28th, 2006, 05:33 PM
But we don't know if the pup was leashed or not right?It didn't state"the unleashed puppy"...For all we know the pup was leashed.

Do I blame the pups owner?No.How can I.

When my dog was a pup there were times when I had to carry him(leashed)...The area kids came up and wanted to play with him(also had Yukon at that time)...So say a loose dog came up and snatched them(while on their leash)that would make me a bad owner?

Sorry,but with my line of work I have to look at all aspects in a situation....:)

susieqt
September 28th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Truth is, even if the little dog was leashed, he would still have been attacked.

mona_b
September 28th, 2006, 06:53 PM
Exactly my point.....:)

technodoll
September 28th, 2006, 06:55 PM
both owners are in the wrong. one for letting his dog run loose, and the other one for having such a small, young, fragile puppy in a dangerous environment *yes a street sidewalk is dangerous: viruses (no 9 week-old puppy has been fully vaccinated yet), broken glass, excited kids who can accidentally step on the tiny puppy and hurt it, etc* The first owner should be fined for reckless endangerment due to irresponsible dog ownership, and the second one should not own another dog again until she has some common sense knocked into her head re: handling & protecting puppies. Who pays for this tragedy? one dead dog, one potentially dead dog, and a couple kids suffering emotional scars. WAY to GO, people! m.o.r.o.n.s :mad:

wdawson
September 28th, 2006, 07:08 PM
here is the link to the story,seems it is a bull terrier...NOT A PIT...oh do we pit owners get the blame right away:evil: .......seems the dog got out through an open door...dog now deemed dangerouse and must be muzzled and owner fined $105.00.
http://www.thesudburystar.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=208999&catname=Local%20News&classif=

LibbyP
September 29th, 2006, 04:10 PM
Okay I'm quite sure I'm going to be thrown into the fire for this one.There seems to be a bit of a little dog and children bashing going one and this article just roles them both into one. Was there not a thread awhile back as to why little dogs are carried? I do not think that the pom owner was in the right or wrong but her and her children were very excited about getting a new puppy,(as would any new owners) yes it was a very tiny (breed) puppy but (IMO) not much would be said by some members here if it was a larger (breed) puppy that had went with the woman to the bus stop, do you not see this a part of positive socialization and training? (IMO) little dog owners are being crapped on if they pick them up or put them down, would you rather they(little dogs) stay at home and become crazy little biters. Where did it say the pom puppy wasn't on a leash, and where does it say these weren't well mannered children? The terriers owner is clearly in the wrong, off property,not under supervision, attacked without warning, Nobody said that the terriers owners let it out to run ramped in the neighbourhood attacking willy-nilly? It was an bad accident that ended in tragedy. Under the DOLA act (I) don't think the dog has to kill the other dog just cause harm. Even if the pom was an adult, it still would not have been able to fend off a attack by a clearly larger breed dog. Poor children at the bus stop to have witnessed this horrific event:sad: Correct me but don't ALL dogs fall under the DOLA act? Not just pit bulls.

Puppyluv
September 29th, 2006, 04:24 PM
I feel horribly for the pom owner. Was it responsible to bring the pom? I don't know, the article doesn't explore that part of the story well enough to judge.
Do I think the attacking dog should be put down? no. Restrained? possibly rehomed? yes. However, I have a problem with this article. The pom owner said it looked like Blue. Blue was an English Bull Terrier. Why the hell does the journalist have to refer to the dog as a pit bull? :mad:

mastifflover
September 29th, 2006, 06:14 PM
One of the first things that jumped out of the article to me was the Don Cherry dog comment and then they call it a pit bull not same dog by any means. But of course because it was an attack it was deemed a pit bull. The other thing is why was the 9 week old puppy in public there is no way a pup that young should be out in public for its own safety without shots. I am not blaming the owner of the pup but she needs a little puppy education. The other dog should never have been out loose either and there lies the responsibility of the owner of the Bull Terrier, not the dog.

babyrocky1
September 29th, 2006, 08:33 PM
I have aread on other sites as well that this was a bull terrier and not a "pit bull". I think it is horrific and if the bull terrier was off leash it was totally the responsibility of the owner.
Again, and as usual, the headline "pit bull" is used to grab attention and as is often the case, not applicable to this dog.
If this were a "pit bull" under DOLA it would automatically be seized and then destroyed. Since it is clearly not a pit bull a muzzle order might suffice.

Shaykeija
September 29th, 2006, 08:44 PM
Canine to be labelled a 'dangerous dog'
Will have to be muzzled, but won't be put down; is a bull terrier, not pit bull

Laura Stradiotto
For: www.thesudburystar.com

Previous Page

Local News - Thursday, September 28, 2006 @ 11:00

The dog that killed a Pomeranian puppy Monday will be deemed a dangerous dog under the city's Animal Control Bylaw.

Rocco, a nine-week old purebred Pomeranian, was killed Monday afternoon in front of children returning home from school.

Jennifer Bohren, the puppy's owner, said she and her children are traumatized by the incident, which occurred in the Cambrian Heights neighbourhood. She wants the dog euthanized for what she calls a vicious attack.

But since the attack, city officials have visited the home and confirmed the dog is not a pit bull, but a bull terrier. Since the dog is not a pit bull, the incident doesn't fall under the province's dog Owner's Liability Act, said Brian Gutjahr, the city's bylaw enforcement manager.

The province amended the act to ban pit bulls in Ontario. With the ban came stiffer punishments for pit bull owners who don't follow the new restrictions.

Instead, the city has charged the bull terrier's owner under the Animal Control Bylaw with having an animal at large and permitting an animal to bite.

Each offence carries a $105 fine and victim surcharge.

Classifying the Bull Terrier as a dangerous dog means it must be muzzled and on a leash every time it steps outside the door, said Gutjahr.

The owner of the Bull Terrier told The Star she feels "horrible" about the incident. The woman did not want to be identified due to an unrelated family matter.

She fully co-operated with authorities, she said. Before giving up her pet, she wanted to know what her options were, she said. The woman was not certain her dog fell under the same conditions as a pit bull would with the province's dog Owner's Liability Act.

She insisted her dog, which coincidentally has the same name as the deceased Pomeranian, is not an aggressive dog.

The bull terrier escaped from its home after the door was left slightly ajar, she said.

She thinks Rocco mistook the Pomeranian for one of its teddy bears, picked it up and brought it to its master. The Bull Terrier dropped the Pomeranian at his master's feet, wagging its tail.

While she intends on reimbursing the Bohren for their loss, " I can't euthanize my dog knowing it's in spite," she said.

Jennifer Bohren said she's not comforted by the outcome.

"I'm devastated knowing there's nothing I can do," she said.

"I can't believe all they have to do it promise to muzzle the dog."

"My worst fear is it will happen to someone else. To me, they were negligent."

Previous Page Article Search




Past 7 days - FREE
Archive Service

Special Interest

Subscribe
Contacts











Disclaimer Privacy Website Advertising Opportunities Osprey News Feed 2006, Osprey Media

technodoll
September 29th, 2006, 08:54 PM
seems fair enough for everyone involved :shrug:

babyrocky1
September 29th, 2006, 09:18 PM
seems fair enough for everyone involved :shrug:
True, after reading the more recent article, it seems more like a very unfortunate accident, they are dogs afterall, not people, .... not meaning they are worth less than people, meaning that dogs will behave like dogs and sometimes they do get by one when one opens the door etc. etc.
Still its a very sad situation and also sad that if it were determined immediately that the dog wasnt a pit bull it wouldnt have been news!

Conners
September 30th, 2006, 03:48 AM
True, after reading the more recent article, it seems more like a very unfortunate accident, they are dogs afterall, not people, .... not meaning they are worth less than people, meaning that dogs will behave like dogs and sometimes they do get by one when one opens the door etc. etc.
Still its a very sad situation and also sad that if it were determined immediately that the dog wasnt a pit bull it wouldnt have been news!

But...had it been a bullie, there would have been two dead dogs instead of one. Other breeds are allowed accidents. Not the bulls.

erykah1310
September 30th, 2006, 10:41 AM
I am almost in disbelief here ....

This is slightly threadjacking and I do appologize, BUT right after I had posted my "isnt a Don Cherry dog a Bull Terrier " post. I emailed the woman who wrote this article.

I expressed my confusion and annoyance for EVERY dog attack immediately being called a Pit attack.

And it has been corrected.

Does anyone know what page this correction/update was on? I dont buy the paper.

wdawson
September 30th, 2006, 10:45 AM
i posted the link...to the artical posted on the second day

OntarioGreys
September 30th, 2006, 05:57 PM
There are a lot of dogs that are not good around other smaller animals, even early socialization may not cure them of thinking a "strange" small animal on the street that they do not know is prey.

Yes the puppy owner should be educated by animal control on their mistake of taking a puppy that young out in public before its shots are completed but this same incident could have happened even if the pup was 6 months old and fully vaccinated, so age of the pup really has no bearing in this case.

Mistakes and accidents do happen in life, just because the dog accidently got out of the house does not make the owner any less responsible for it's actions.

Example if you are driving a car and accidently put your foot on the gas pedal instead of the brake, you are still held responsible for an accident is caused by your action, you will lose demerit points on your licence possibly be fined and your insurance will have to pay for damages, the same goes if your dog gets loose from you, your still responsible for not having control, therefore any damages done by a dog who is not under control should be the responsibility of the owner to pay for and there should be a fine.


The muzzle enforcement won't prevent an event like this from re-occuring again in the future as the muzzle law does not require the owners to muzzle their dogs in their own home, so if they escape out the door again it will be unmuzzled and likely it would never have occured had the dog been onleash all it does is protect another dog who is offleash and not in control of their owner and could lead to injuries to the bull terrier as it now cannot defend itself in an attack, Muzzle laws are only useful if every dog no matter what breed is muzzled.

So what is needed is mandatory training to teach the dog to sit while the door is opened, because dogs can forget if they are excited also a secondary barrier at the door whether it is a gate or small entry room with a second door and training of children to use.

For example at my home I have an enclosed porch at the front of the house so that is the main exit/entrance so on exiting and entering I have to pass thru 2 doors, one is closed before the other is opened, the dogs are not allowed into the sunroom unless they are already onleash, if something large needs to be brought into or out of the house the dogs are babygated away from the entry or closed into rooms. this prevents any accidental escapes and friends and family all know the rules about having one door closed before the other is opened and they will get chastised heavily if they forget. I live on a street that can get quite busy at times, I also have a dog that would be extremely hard to recover should she escape due to her extreme fearfulness.

LL1
September 30th, 2006, 06:25 PM
That poor pup and family.

babyrocky1
September 30th, 2006, 06:57 PM
But...had it been a bullie, there would have been two dead dogs instead of one. Other breeds are allowed accidents. Not the bulls.
Exactly!

On Ontario Greys point about the dog being taught to sit before going out the door AND have a barrier! Excellent advice.... i know with my Rocky, his separation anxiety was getting the best of him and every once in a while he would boudn out through the door as I was trying to leave, I live in an apt so never had to worry about cars and he is great with all the dogs in the building, but thank goodness none of the usual cats were roaming the hall!

Finally I put up a barrier between the door and Rocky, it calmed him down once he knew for sure he could not escape and ofcourse helped in the safety issue.

A few weeks ago a "pit bull" escaped a through doorway just like in this story, however, she caught up to our co-op walk and just joined in...a happy accident in this case! The poor girl almost got hit by a car though, she bolted through a busy intersection. A few minutes later an out of breath, freaked out, owner caught up to all of us as well
:)

LibbyP
September 30th, 2006, 08:46 PM
VERY WELL SAID ONTARIOGREYS,:thumbs up

Conners
October 1st, 2006, 05:23 PM
I agree. Training is totally essensial for all dogs and it's the owners responsibility to make sure they get trained properly. Hopefully more owners of dogs will get educated and give their dogs the training they need and deserve.
Because I live in an apartment on the first floor and my young grand children come over quite often and the last thing I need is for a mistake to happen. I have trained Shasta to always sit/stay while I get her ready to take her out. She is not allowed out the door before me.
The kids have accidently not shut the door properly and Shasta didn't even attempt to go out. She would have bolted prior to the training once her freedom was taken from her, but whether see sensed my fear and panic, she's never done it again and I've reinforced all the precautions. Even so, accidents can happen, so I'm always alert when the kids are here and going in and out.
Matter of fact, while I was in one of my groggy, pain flares, I got her, what I 'thought' was ready to go outside, but she wouldn't budge and only looked a me. Confused, I looked to see why and I had her leash in my hand but forgot to attach it to her collar.
Sometimes I wonder who is taking care of who? :confused: LOL

A Dog's Life
November 1st, 2006, 08:07 PM
Good Evening Everyone,

I just wanted to update you all on the attack that this forum is discussing....I am the adult resident where this Bull Terrier had escaped from.

Rocco belonged to my daughter's boyfriend...who is 19 and in the middle of residence at the time...we were dog sitting for him until he found an apartment and was out of his aunts house (who owns pitbulls herself) therefore the Bull Terrier needed a place to stay. We opened our home to Rocco and treated him very well....which also meant giving him toys that he loved......one toy in particular was a small brown fuzzy teddy bear...the approximate size of a pup (in hindsight---not a great idea)

The day of the attack, Rocco - who has NEVER EVER been aggressive (other than the bark!!!) got out as the door was left a jar in error. He bolted down the street and saw the pup. In my own mind I TRULY believe that he
saw "his teddy" and brought it to his owner...the 19 yr old man. Unfortunately he shook the pup on the way and it died.

Our entire family was EXTREMLEY remourseful the moment it happened.
Since the attack the I have been served with a notice from the city stating that I (not the rightful owner) owned a "Viscous Dog" and my home and story have been blasted in the media...papers, radio, and televlsion. As the owner of the pup felt it was neccesary that she give out our personal info to the media...address and phone number etc. Which has posed as a problem in the safety of my daughter in an unrelated matter.

I have also been served with a notice to evict the premises or remove the dog. Under the viscous dog registration the only way to allow a viscous dog to leave the premises is to have it destroyed.

The saddest day in my family was October 25,2006 as that is the last day that any of us saw Rocco as he was led away by Animal Control to be destroyed.

The owner of the pup has also attempted to get a court order to have Rocco destroyed - I was summoned to appear in court today - but the dog has already been destroyed and she has also requested that I be prohibited to own another dog. As well as she is taking me to Small Claims Court to pay for her pup, lost wages as a result of the pup's passing (3 days off work) previous vet bills (prior to the attack) , along with punitive damages.

SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Remember that before you read something and make judgement (although many messages on here seem to see both sides) please make sure that you consider BOTH sides of the story and take good care of your pets...I truly am an animal lover, myself and my two children miss Rocco very much, and have had many many crying nights since September...not just for the Bull Terrier but for the pup as well.

Thank you for listening...Reading.
I welcome any comments.

babyrocky1
November 1st, 2006, 08:55 PM
Im very sorry for your situation, Itsadogslife, those of us that own bullies know very well that the media doesnt often do a fair job of recounting these stories and we know from experience, lots and lots of it, that they look for the sensationalism in the story. As many of us have said, these things can happen, and its very sad for all involved.
I wish you and your family all the best and again I am very sorry for your loss.

technodoll
November 1st, 2006, 10:47 PM
thank you so much for posting and sharing the other side of the story. i am so very sorry for your loss and hardships, all because of one door accidentally left ajar :( what really angers me though is had this dog been a lab, or a golden, or a dalmation, etc (you get the idea), the consequences for the dog would no doubt have been a lot less tragic... :rip: sweet rocco :( and :grouphug: to you for doing your best in such a difficult situation.

Prin
November 1st, 2006, 10:56 PM
I'm so sorry for your loss. :grouphug:

Conners
November 2nd, 2006, 12:59 AM
Simular instances with unproperly shut doors have placed dogs at the Bridge that had never bot in their lives.
It's a sad, sad day when our dogs are somehow suppost to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the law!
Thank you for clearing up the story. The media NEVER gets details right when it comes to bullies and look-a-likes.
I'm really sorry for your loss and what you say makes perfect sense. A playful pup chasing his toy and I know Shasta can give her stuffed animals some pretty violent shakings and that makes all the more sence to me.
Nothing can undo the hurt and loss you are suffering and especially when this tragedy came not because of sickness or old age, which we can understand, but by an accident. Any other breed would have been ordered to be muzzled and perhaps a fine, but not a bullie.
The woman, I can understand her anguish, but to want a life for a life, that seems a bit harsh to me too. What satisfaction does that give her knowing two dogs are dead?
:grouphug:

erykah1310
November 2nd, 2006, 06:12 PM
I am terribly sorry for your loss.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Now 2 families have suffered.
RIP Rocco.


Why was he taken by animal control????

Eek46
November 14th, 2006, 02:40 PM
It killed an innocent puppy why chance that it might do that again to another dog or a child!! Why Risk it?? And really it doesnt matter what type of dog it was... If it was a damn poodle that killed the Pom it should be put down!!!

erykah1310
November 14th, 2006, 02:52 PM
It killed an innocent puppy why chance that it might do that again to another dog or a child!! Why Risk it?? And really it doesnt matter what type of dog it was... If it was a damn poodle that killed the Pom it should be put down!!!

Ok, come into a dead thread with arms swinging! Not a great idea!

However As stated previously in THIS thread, IF it had been a poodle the outcome would have been far less likely to be put down.

Now if there is any input that is backed with any kind of knowlege please feel free to post it! Otherwise , choose where you start ranting.

Prin
November 14th, 2006, 04:28 PM
And even if it had attacked out of malice, dogs who attack dogs are not necessarily going to attack kids.:rolleyes:

technodoll
November 14th, 2006, 05:54 PM
hmmm what if the dog had bit the :troll: instead :D

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
November 15th, 2006, 04:48 PM
It killed an innocent puppy why chance that it might do that again to another dog or a child!! Why Risk it?? And really it doesnt matter what type of dog it was... If it was a damn poodle that killed the Pom it should be put down!!!

Dog aggression is not the same as human aggression. :rolleyes: Ask any good behaviorist, they will back me up on this.

To Rocco's owner, I am so sorry to hear this.

Scubagear92
November 16th, 2006, 10:22 PM
It killed an innocent puppy why chance that it might do that again to another dog or a child!! Why Risk it?? And really it doesnt matter what type of dog it was... If it was a damn poodle that killed the Pom it should be put down!!!

You're being melodramatic there. If you read the posts in this topic [and by the owner of Rocco himself] you'd realize that this unfortunate incident is nothing more than an accident. This could've happened to any dog, and IMO there's no justification in punishing [fatally, much?] a dog that had no control over what it did, and what it didn't mean to do. Not that the media cares; it looks like they didn't take Rocco's owner's reasons for the dog's action into consideration and convicted the dog as they've seen fit. Mind you, the owner of the Pom didn't help much in this matter either, quite the contrary...

les
November 17th, 2006, 08:40 AM
I wanted to stay out of this one .. but, I can't ...

You're being melodramatic there. If you read the posts in this topic [and by the owner of Rocco himself] you'd realize that this unfortunate incident is nothing more than an accident. This could've happened to any dog, and IMO there's no justification in punishing [fatally, much?] a dog that had no control over what it did, and what it didn't mean to do.

"Unfortunate incident" - that dog KILLED another dog.

"Nothing more then an accident"?? - and that's supposed to make it "better".

"Happened to any dog" - what does that mean? Any dog could have killed the puppy? Could have I suppose, however "would have" is another question. My dogs chew on stuffed cat toys .. and guess what, (big surprise) I have 2 cats .. and you know how many times they've "killed" my cats?? NONE. A stuffed toy and a breathing creature are different things - even to a dog.

If the dog had "no control" over what it did then it must have been a really messed up in the head dog and it's a damn good thing it was put down.

To say ... oh he thought it was a toy and think that's a great excuse??? IT ISN'T. Thank god he didn't have a toy that was a doll ... then the kids might have been in trouble huh? Although, I'm sure then you'd find some way to blame them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Personally .. if I was the owner of the Pom ... I'd have done the EXACT same thing. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right ... but that dog KILLED her dog and it has NO right to be living when her's got that (it's life) taken away.

Dogs who attack dogs may not be prone to attack people BUT what makes those dogs more important then a dog that isn't dog aggressive? (Does that even make sense?? lol) What I mean is, why is your aggressive dog even ALLOWED in society? So dogs like mine, that don't have a mean bone in their body have to be on high alert (as do I as an owner) that some dog aggressive dog might have "accidentally" got out?

Another thing ... "accidentally got out"? There are no accidents ... only negligence. You know how many times my dogs have "got out" when someone left the door open?? NONE You know why?? Because I pay attention to what's going on. If, for whatever reason you can't, probably, you shouldn't have dogs and that is NO excuse for killing another dog.

Melodramatic??? I bet if one of your pets had been "accidentally" killed you'd be singing a different song.

erykah1310
November 17th, 2006, 01:11 PM
Dogs who attack dogs may not be prone to attack people BUT what makes those dogs more important then a dog that isn't dog aggressive? (Does that even make sense?? lol) What I mean is, why is your aggressive dog even ALLOWED in society? So dogs like mine, that don't have a mean bone in their body have to be on high alert (as do I as an owner) that some dog aggressive dog might have "accidentally" got out?


Melodramatic??? I bet if one of your pets had been "accidentally" killed you'd be singing a different song.

I have one of these dogs you are talking about, he is VERY dog aggressive... Luckily, he has only " gotten into it" with other larger dogs, still with very traumatizing results, these being other males who have wandered in our yard and unleashed dogs on our walks. I make sure to keep him on lead and close by in situations where I KNOWhe will react... I dont know why you feel that my Meik isnt allowed in society?? With lots of work and training he has become far less aggressive with other dogs ( but still has a tendancy)

He has "accidently" killed two of my pets... I never wanted to bring it up here but one time we were playing in the yard and he decided to " herd" my chickens, killing 2 of them. I loved them chickens as much as anyother animal on my property, so i see no difference with him killing them as if he would have killed Nikita.

Perhaps I am wrong....:shrug: its a possibility.... or.... is it because he is a Border Collie that it makes it different????

erykah1310
November 17th, 2006, 01:12 PM
I forgot to add too, that I dont think he is more important than other non dog aggressive dogs... each dog/cat/bird ect is equally important to those who love them

Prin
November 17th, 2006, 01:17 PM
but that dog KILLED her dog and it has NO right to be living when her's got that (it's life) taken away.Have you ever hit any animal with your car?

Life is fragile and accidents do happen.

All a big dog has to do is assume a little teacup is a squeaky and squeak it ONCE. It's not like he ravaged her there on the street and ripped her apart in a frenzy. He "squeaked" her. :shrug:

technodoll
November 17th, 2006, 01:19 PM
Personally .. if I was the owner of the Pom ... I'd have done the EXACT same thing. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right ... but that dog KILLED her dog and it has NO right to be living when her's got that (it's life) taken away.

so... you admit you'd do something wrong then (wish for one dog's death because it accidentally killed yours), and not carry that on your conscience? :confused: sounds like emotional revenge... nothing logical there. nothing will bring that puppy pom back, why kick a dead horse so to speak? :confused:

Prin, you hit the nail on the head.

LM1313
November 17th, 2006, 02:44 PM
I think there's a grey area between the dog realizing the pom puppy was a dog and realizing it was a toy. To us, the distinction is clear. A puppy is a living, breathing animal that we wouldn't harm because it feels pain. A toy is an inanimate object that feels no pain. It's acceptable to us if our dogs "kill" a toy, but not acceptable to really kill another dog.

For a dog, however, the distinction may not be there. The dog may realize that a smaller dog (or a cat or a squirrel) is alive, but still think it's acceptable to treat it as a toy. In such cases a dog usually won't growl or act socially aggressive because it does not regard the other animal as a peer to be threatened by or to warn off, but instead regards the other animal as delightful, fun prey.

Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? Wait until the mouse runs off the patio, then carry it back. Smack it with a paw if it doesn't move. Pounce on it again and again. Wheee, fun! The cat knows the mouse is alive, but it doesn't care; it has no empathy towards prey. Cats are amoral. So are dogs.

I don't think the dog should have been put to sleep, but I don't think it's safe to assume the dog "harmlessly" thought the puppy was a teddy bear, either. When a dog kills a smaller animal, it's always best to assume it has high prey drive for that kind of animal and keep it separated from them. But just because it has high prey drive towards [small dogs / rabbits / squirrels / cats] does NOT mean it will transfer its aggression towards humans. Although it's a moot point in this case, since the dog was PTS. :(

Scubagear92
November 17th, 2006, 04:09 PM
I wanted to stay out of this one .. but, I can't ...



"Unfortunate incident" - that dog KILLED another dog.

You're talking as if that dog brutally murdered and ripped the dog's body to shreds - it didn't.

"Nothing more then an accident"?? - and that's supposed to make it "better".

Better than finding out that the dog has a very violent nature and deranged in the head. Although that doesn't change the fact that a dog is dead, it's much more comforting to know that the incident was an accident and not a violent murder from a deranged dog with an aggressive nature.

My dogs chew on stuffed cat toys .. and guess what, (big surprise) I have 2 cats .. and you know how many times they've "killed" my cats?? NONE. A stuffed toy and a breathing creature are different things - even to a dog.

Just because your specific dog can tell the difference between a stuffed toy and a living, breathing creature, not all dogs can. Your dog knows your cat and most likely accepts them. And then there's the cat stuffed-animals that your dog plays with - your dog already know the cats to be living and breathing companions, and would not let the dog "play around" with them. Your dog knows the difference between your 2 cats and the stuffed toys from experience. But the dog that had killed the Pom had no experiences with the Pom and upon instinct, thought the Pom was nothing more than a new stuffed toy to play with. Bah, I can't really explain it. As LM1313 mentioned, there is a grey area of distinction for dogs - read her post, she explains the matter better.

Another thing ... "accidentally got out"? There are no accidents ... only negligence. You know how many times my dogs have "got out" when someone left the door open?? NONE You know why?? Because I pay attention to what's going on. If, for whatever reason you can't, probably, you shouldn't have dogs and that is NO excuse for killing another dog.

Accidentally leaving a door slightly ajar doesn't = negligence. Just because your pets never got out [yet...] when your door was open, doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. Accidents happen, and you can't pay attention to what's going on all the time, and that is the case here.

What I mean is, why is your aggressive dog even ALLOWED in society?

*Sigh* What agressive dog? The dog in question was never considered agressive until this unfortunate accident. Your question makes no sense.

Melodramatic??? I bet if one of your pets had been "accidentally" killed you'd be singing a different song.

Why are you acting as if that particular comment was directed at the owner of the dead Pom? It was directed at the user I quoted. And to respond to your post, the only reason I'd be "singing a different song" would be because I would be suffering from momentary hysteria from realizing that my dog is dead, in which case I wouldn't exactly be thinking straight, so your post doesn't apply. If anyone was thinking fairly and clearly, they would be fair upon the matter, and unlike you, would not be wishing death upon the Bull Terrier [well, most people atleast].

White Wolf
November 17th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Thread has run its course and will now be closed.