2-year-old boy killed by pit bulls at baby sitter's house

[evenifigoalone]

Another recent one - though I suppose a tiny and likely unsteady little person toddling around covered in food probably contributed to what happened.

http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomane...es/-/12530084/22100756/-/137jl7a/-/index.html

Yes, definitely. It is called resource guarding. And it is not at all uncommon in any breed of dog.

My little dog even has some resource guarding issues. Kibble is not valued enough in his eyes to get upset over, but toss him a meal of chicken and then try to take it away and you may very well get bitten. Possibly badly. Why? Because chicken is a high value food item to a dog. Wouldn't you be upset if you were eating your favorite meal and someone just took it from you?
I've never known him to be a biter and even when he has resorted to it in the past--such as when I picked him up in such a way that it hurt him--was a gentle nip. But the way he reacts to high value food? He sounds like he'd be willing to do defend it with his life.

Resource guarding is a bit of a tough issue to mend as you don't want to reinforce the dog's fear of you taking the food away by going all alpha and taking it away by force because you can. This may work on some dogs, who may be more likely to submit in this scenario. But, with others it only makes the problem much worse. Why? Because you have reinforced their fear. They see you as a threat.
With my dog, I try to reinforce trust. If I need to take food away from him I trade him for something else instead of just taking it.

In most cases I'd say resource guarding is manageable and no reason to have a dog put down. Just use common sense and don't let children approach a dog during his meal or with food in general, etc. Know thy dog and take the necessary precautions to avoid accidents.
That said, it some cases getting a professional trainer or behaviorist involved may be a wise decision. Be careful, though. Not all trainers or behaviorists are good ones.

This is my dog:

The picture is him at my church during vacation Bible school this past summer when I was volunteering. The little vest he is wearing is his thunder shirt.

(Now, ideally, my dog would not have been at VBS. But that day he was already with me and dropping him off at home was not an option. (Long story. Has to do with an out-of-town trip that ended with a broken down vehicle.) Because my dog has a fear of loud noises and children when they are rowdy, I had to keep a very close eye on him and to some degree keep my distance while still helping out when I could. When he began to get nervous I had to walk him out of a room and pace around the hallway or outside to calm him down. And, yes, I made sure the church people were aware of his issues when I showed up with him. Treader loves people, as a general rule. It was the factors of loud noises and children being children--namely my dog's fear of these things--that made this a somewhat risky situation to be in.
There are body language signs to look for that can clue you in on how the dog is feeling. Yawning, or even panting I believe, can be calming signals--meaning the dog is feeling uncomfortable and is trying to calm himself down. Of course, since these can also happen when the dog is perfectly calm--some dogs pant all or most of the time--it's not always a sure-fire sign. So I guess your main clue regarding those would be if the dog is doing them much more than normal. And of course, growling is definitely a sign to quickly and calmly get you and your dog the flip outta there and away from whatever is scaring him. Don't take a chance. It takes one bite to get a lawsuit on your hands.)


So, um...yeah, this concludes my essay for now....can you tell I'm a dog person?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Questdriven, thanks for that informative post!

 

[Sapper Woody]

We recently received a dog from a battle buddy of mine who could no longer take care of him. He's a well behaved dog, has some chocolate lab and Australian shepherd in him. Perfect breeds for kids.

However, he was a rescue dog. He has some PTSD, and some past issues. Perfect dog for me. We "get" each other.

Now, Rusty got ahold of some food my daughter had dropped. She tried to take it back, and he growled and snapped at her. When I got onto him, he ran. I was going to smack him to teach him that he shouldn't do that to my kids. I reached for his collar, and he nipped my hand.

My wife and I almost overreacted. We thought we might have to get rid of him. Then my conscience hit me hard. Did my wife get rid of me the first time I lashed out in anger as a defence mechanism? No. She learned what sets me off, explained to me what I was doing, and helped me learn to control it.

Instead of getting rid of Rusty, we taught our kids to let him have food if they dropped it. I still get on to him for it, but not in an angry fashion. I hold his head in my hands, force him to look me in the eye, and very sternly tell him no. I actually explain to him what he did wrong. Dogs are intelligent creatures, and understand more than we tend to give them credit for. This method has helped. He doesn't immediately snatch food he can reach. In fact, if it's on a plate, he leaves it alone.

I am teaching him to sit next to me at the dinner table, and he's doing excellent. My hope is that I can register him as an emotional assistance animal.

I said all that to say this: you have to know your dog. You have to train your dog while respecting them. Don't treat them as inferior, something to just be around at your convenience. Dogs have emotions and needs. If you aren't willing to take proper care of them, then don't get one.


As for the OP, I still don't think that the parents should be charged with anything. They trusted the babysitter, the same as they trust a babysitter not to drink and drive with their kids. The babysitter may or may not be at fault. I don't know.

But to blame the breed us ignorant. Sure, it may have been bred for violence. But all breeds have the ability to snap. In my experience, Dalmatians are more likely to turn on their owners than pit bulls, given a loving home. Proper education and care are required to own a so called "high risk" breed. But don't blame the breed for the inadequacies of the owners.

 

[Aaron]

I'm not sure if any statistics, but this blog post has some thoughts: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/10/pit-bull-rights-verus-pit-bull.html?m=1

Even as a pit advocate myself, I can't just pass off what this guy is saying as hogwash.

From the article cited:

Yes, any large breed can do horrible damage. But in fact, Pit Bulls are currently implicated in more serious bite cases in the U.S. than all other guarding and molosser breeds combined.

​

 

[evenifigoalone]

From the article cited:

Yes, any large breed can do horrible damage. But in fact, Pit Bulls are currently implicated in more serious bite cases in the U.S. than all other guarding and molosser breeds combined.

​

Yes, that's the point of the article. The writer himself is a pit bull advocate, as he is against a breed ban. But he doesn't sugar coat and deny that a problem exists like many pit bull advocates do.

 

[Sapper Woody]

From the article cited:

Yes, any large breed can do horrible damage. But in fact, Pit Bulls are currently implicated in more serious bite cases in the U.S. than all other guarding and molosser breeds combined.

​

You are ignoring the point that the article made about pit bulls being used more today. You must have glossed over the part where he was using the handgun analogy.

Like I've said, there are inherent risks to owning a pit bull. But they can be trained. Don't blame the breed for the irresponsibility of the owner.

 

[Aaron]

See post #'s 8 and 9.

 

[Sapper Woody]

See post #'s 8 and 9.

So, what you're saying is that those dogs had attacked people before, and those people told the owner, and the owner did nothing, allowing this incident to happen?

That passage doesn't say that if the ox kills someone at random that the owner should be punished. Nor does it say that you should wipe out that breed of ox. On fact, that passage has just as much to do with your argument as Job 1:1.

 

[Aaron]

Pit Bulls are known to be more dangerous than other breeds, if extraordinary measures are not taken.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Pit Bulls are known to be more dangerous than other breeds, if extraordinary measures are not taken.

Again, not true. The breed is only seen as dangerous because the dogs are more often trained as attack, or fighting, dogs. They don't train poodles and collies this way. Nonetheless, you can make a poodle or a collie a killer if you bring them up to be a killer. It is the upbringing, not the breed, anymore than a gang member's son will naturally, due to genetics, without a doubt, or hope, become a gang member.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Pit Bulls are known to be more dangerous than other breeds, if extraordinary measures are not taken.

Nice of you to ignore my post and instead insist on touting non fact. It doesn't take "extraordinary" measures. It takes the measures that we should be willing to take with any animal.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Extraordinary measures? I don't know about that. The breed is certainly not for everyone as an owner should be aware of what traits in a dog he can and cannot handle.
This is true for any breed, they all have different traits that make them suitable for this person but not that one. I know I wouldn't be able to handle a pit's high energy and drive. I can't own a Jack Russell for the same reason.

On one hand, many dog bite incidents could be prevented with some applied knowledge on animal behavior and training as most of them arise out of not knowing a dog's body language and basic instincts, and training/upbringing issues like poor socialization.
This is one big reason why I believe it's important to research on dogs and the various breeds before getting one.

On the other, as a former fighting breed*, some pits still have those instincts that made them good fighters in them. One of these traits is to not back down from a fight. So if I recall, this is why when a pit does attack, whether out of defense or not, it may be more likely to keep at it until serious damage is done.
Another issue within the pit breed that needs to be bred out is dog aggression. Animal aggression does not lead to human aggression, but it can be dangerous to other people's pets. That said, not all pits are dog aggressive and some get along quite well with other dogs.
Additionally, the vast majority of pits are never going to maim or kill anyone.


*Well, technically pit bulls are a breed type rather than a breed, seeing as the term "pit bull" could be describing the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bulldog, and some others. (It's also possible for someone not too familiar with dog breeds to mistake another type of dog for a pit bull. I'd say they're not as hard to identify as some would have you to believe, though.)

Interestingly, if I remember what I read correctly, Boston Terriers are, or were at one point, closely related to pit bulls.

English Bulldogs were once a fierce fighting breed as well, but they are anything but today. It can be bred out.

 

[Aaron]

Nice of you to ignore my post and instead insist on touting non fact. It doesn't take "extraordinary" measures. It takes the measures that we should be willing to take with any animal.

Regardless: your animal kills someone, you've killed someone. Life for a life. Willing to stand by your dog under those conditions?

 

[Sapper Woody]

Regardless: your animal kills someone, you've killed someone. Life for a life. Willing to stand by your dog under those conditions?

Not according to the bible. Oh, and not according to common sense. But, in answer to your question: yes. My dog would not kill anyone except in self defense. I have confidence in him and in my training enough.

Edited to add: also, I love how you tout the Bible, but when it's pointed out that you're using it incorrectly, you throw it out with one word, "regardless". To paraphrase, "Regardless of what the bible says, here's what I think."

 

[evenifigoalone]

Our nation already has laws dealing with dog bites. They could be improved upon, I am sure, but in any case I don't think we need to follow the laws that OT Israel did.

But I can appreciate the need for the owners to take responsibility. That is important.

 

[annsni]

As much as I have loved my animals, if any one of them killed a child, they would be dead. End of story.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the dog shouldn't be put down if he's known to attack and kill. If an individual dog is that much of a danger to people, then certainly.
The hard place to draw the line, from what I can see, is where you decide whether the dog can be rehabilitated or not. But then, once he's killed someone, who'd be willing to try? Dogs need to be taught better and the owner take responsibility before it gets to that point.

One factor usually considered in dog attacks and what happens to the dog afterwards, if I'm not mistaken, is if the attack was provoked or not. But on that I can't comment much as I'm not an expert on laws.