'Ax Men' star's daughter mauled to death by dog

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Cpanye- you're obviously a big dog lover/owner, so I get your viewpoint. My closest friend has a 14 month old toddler that he is raising around two very sweet male labs (one chocolate, one golden). Totally incident free, and the dogs are great around the baby.

I don't have a dog, but I love them nonetheless. Great, great animals. All that said, I would definitely not raise a child around dogs. Sure, the chance of a well behaved dog attacking a child is slim to none. But you just never know what the kid may do to the dog during a moment when you may not be looking. This kid Jerry that I grew up with in my neighborhood had a gigantic half-moon shaped scar on the side of his face courtesy of a dog. Horrific story really. When he was 4 or 5 years old, he was sitting on the carpet eating some peanuts. The family dog (German shepherd) was hanging out with him. I guess Jerry harmlessly tried to feed the dog one of the peanuts, and accidentally stuck in the dog's nose. Of course a dog's nose is so sensitive, and this dog perceived it as an attack and latched on to Jerry's face. His father and brother beat the dog off of him, but he's permanently disfigured and they had to get rid of the dog.

Those kind of unpredictable situations are why I would never raise small children around dogs. Ever.

You sound like you'd be a very responsible dog owner. You are saying a lot of the same things that I have further up. ^

You absolutely cannot leave a young kid like that alone with a dog. Kids just do not know how to act around dogs and can get themselves into trouble very quickly.

I couldn't imagine raising a kid without a dog or two around the house. It is a great social activity for both dog and child. I'm 27 and kids aren't really in the plans for me and my wife right now, but I definitely want my kid to grow up with a Rottie. Hopefully with the two that I have right now.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Nope, got me pegged wrong. I don't think that everyone thinks my Rotts are vicious and scared of them. I would admit to plenty of complexes, but that isn't one of them.

I wasn't there with you the day the dog bit your friend, so I won't comment on what I think happened, but I have my ideas. It serves no purpose to keep going back and forth.

I grew up with probably a dozen different dog breeds (all sporting and working dogs). My experience with all those breeds is a factor in my conclusions. You should get a Rottweiler. I was very apprehensive when I got my first one, too, but I've found that they truly are no different than the other dogs I have had. If you're a dog lover who truly knows how to properly care for a dog, you can't go wrong.

Someday, I have wait for my current two to drop first, three would be too many!

Also, never ever get a Boarder Collie they are so damn smart they are impossible to "trick". Like if I have repair guy coming over I will tell the mutt look a bunny and he will run outside in to the gated back yard, works ever time! The BC will not fall for it,she gives you a look like there is no damn bunny out there it is winter jack ass, I am staying inside so I can sniff the repair guys balls!

[Schneed10]

See, the point is who the hell wants to live a life where a kid has to be supervised around the dog at all times? So I can't leave the room to get a beer, to go downstairs and put in a load of laundry, to hop in the shower real quick?

Dogs might have a 0% chance of attacking if trained properly, but training goes out the window if a kid cracks him in the nose with a sippy cup or pulls his tail.

The difference between a rottweiler or pitt bull and say a miniature schnauzer, is that the schnauzer will not kill a child when it attacks. And please, don't bother lecturing me and saying something like "well kids shouldn't be pulling dogs' tails". Well no shit, but they're kids, they do shit you don't want them to do and no parent can stop it 100% of the time.

And that's why the chance of attack is never 0% when you combine children and dogs.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

See, the point is who the hell wants to live a life where a kid has to be supervised around the dog at all times? So I can't leave the room to get a beer, to go downstairs and put in a load of laundry, to hop in the shower real quick?

Dogs might have a 0% chance of attacking if trained properly, but training goes out the window if a kid cracks him in the nose with a sippy cup or pulls his tail.

The difference between a rottweiler or pitt bull and say a miniature schnauzer, is that the schnauzer will not kill a child when it attacks. And please, don't bother lecturing me and saying something like "well kids shouldn't be pulling dogs' tails". Well no shit, but they're kids, they do shit you don't want them to do and no parent can stop it 100% of the time.

And that's why the chance of attack is never 0% when you combine children and dogs.

I never said that, Schneed. What I said is still accurate.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I agree with cpayne's argument. You can't blame the dog in some instances, but i dont think that is the point we are trying to make.

The point in this case is that this dog was already a problem, and had attacked before. Leaving a 4 year old around a known dangerous animal was not good either.

It's a sad death, and one that perhaps could have been avoided.

I know here in virginia, if a dog attacks a human to the point that the person is injured/requires treatment, then the dog is taken by the police. I am not 100% sure that they euthanize it right away, but i imagine they do.

I know this because my neighbor 2 houses down had one of his dogs attack a runner last summer. No charges were filed on him, but his dog was taken and put down by the animal control.

I missed this post somehow. There is actually a dangerous dog listing very similar to the sex offenders list. LE takes the dog after an attack, but generally they get returned to the owner if the owner agrees to stipulations, one being the bad doggy registration list.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

I missed this post somehow. There is actually a dangerous dog listing very similar to the sex offenders list. LE takes the dog after an attack, but generally they get returned to the owner if the owner agrees to stipulations, one being the bad doggy registration list.

In Virginia if I'm correct its either the dog is found not be a threat or its put down and the owner has no say in the matter.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Raised and supervised properly, there is a 0% chance. If those two things don't exist, the chances, whatever they may be, are the same no matter the breed.

You're contradicting yourself. You said you have to correct them. If there was 0% chance then you would never have to correct them. I don't think anyone is saying these dogs, raised properly, aren't pet worthy. I think everyone is saying giving the risk factors, previous behavior and tendencies, then the dog should not have been in the house. It is the owner's fault for sure but it's hard to make an argument that this breed of dog isn't inherently more dangerous than say a lab. If only just a little.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by firstdown

In Virginia if I'm correct its either the dog is found not be a threat or its put down and the owner has no say in the matter.

Here's the dangerous dog registry...
VDACS - Regulatory Services - Animal Health and Welfare - Dangerous Dog Registry

The owner does have a say in the matter if the court does not rule that the dog must be euthanized. If the owner doesn't want the dog, it will probably be euthanized regardless. If the owner wants the dog, stipulations are placed, presumably.

[SolidSnake84]

Hey guys, i looked at that dangerous dog listing, and not to sound morbid, it is good for a laugh.

Loudon County, VA has more dangerous dogs than any city on the selectable list.

No kidding, there was a dog named "Poochie", who broke through a neighbor's privacy fence and killed the neighbor's cat...

Other reports of numerous mail carriers being bitten, and sadly, a few people attacked that led to their death.

Check out the list....it's very informative.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You're contradicting yourself. You said you have to correct them. If there was 0% chance then you would never have to correct them. I don't think anyone is saying these dogs, raised properly, aren't pet worthy. I think everyone is saying giving the risk factors, previous behavior and tendencies, then the dog should not have been in the house. It is the owner's fault for sure but it's hard to make an argument that this breed of dog isn't inherently more dangerous than say a lab. If only just a little.

No, I'm not. You stop behavior before it escalates to the point where someone can get hurt. Like I said, dogs have warning signs. When you first notice a warning sign, you can redirect its attention to let it know that that's not how you want it to act. Being a dog, it will listen to you, if you're firm. If you do nothing, the behavior will build to the point where either it fights or flees.

A dog doesn't have to bite someone in order to be taught that biting is not correct behavior.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

No, I'm not. You stop behavior before it escalates to the point where someone can get hurt. Like I said, dogs have warning signs. When you first notice a warning sign, you can redirect its attention to let it know that that's not how you want it to act. Being a dog, it will listen to you, if you're firm. If you do nothing, the behavior will build to the point where either it fights or flees.

A dog doesn't have to bite someone in order to be taught that biting is not correct behavior.

The point is though that your contention that there is zero percent chance is logically wrong. The chance can be mitigated to near zero but it requires you to be in constant supervision mode and to never allow interaction with the dog outside your presence.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The point is though that your contention that there is zero percent chance is logically wrong. The chance can be mitigated to near zero but it requires you to be in constant supervision mode and to never allow interaction with the dog outside your presence.

It's not logically wrong, it's just not something that people want to do.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

It's not logically wrong, it's just not something that people want to do.

But also not at all feasible if you have children, unless you plan to live a life where you never ever leave a room with the child and dog together. Which is ridiculous.

You might understand when you bear some young'ns.

[saden1]

Parents should be charged with manslaughter.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But also not at all feasible if you have children, unless you plan to live a life where you never ever leave a room with the child and dog together. Which is ridiculous.

You might understand when you bear some young'ns.

Maybe.