If a shelter dog has been evaluated as a non risk.....

[~flower~]

And a shelter worker goes to take the dog for a walk that has shown no signs of aggression when it was picked up, brought in, or at any time since it has been in their care, is the woman at fault if the dog makes an unprovoked vicious attack that causes them great bodily injury such as the loss of a limb of two?  Would the person be at fault because they trusted the evaluation?  Should certain dog breeds immediately be put down because you may not be able to trust the evaluation and the dog might make an unprovoked attack? It seems to me that if the shelter worker would be considered at fault for thinking evaluations should be correct and for trying to do their job, that the only way they couldn't be at fault was if they never had to deal with these certain breed dogs because they should automatically be put down, and if the worker goes in anyways to tend to one of the certain breeds even though the evaluation showed no risk, then she would be at fault for not knowing that some breeds you should never trust the evaluation and they should be destroyed with minimal contact with the animal.

 I don't think the above, I don't think certain breeds should be destroyed and not adopted out, but if the worker is going to be considered at fault by some people, then maybe they should be?

[temper35]

And a shelter worker goes to take the dog for a walk that has shown no signs of aggression when it was picked up, brought in, or at any time since it has been in their care, is the woman at fault if the dog makes an unprovoked vicious attack that causes them great bodily injury such as the loss of a limb of two?  Would the person be at fault because they trusted the evaluation?  Should certain dog breeds immediately be put down because you may not be able to trust the evaluation and the dog might make an unprovoked attack? It seems to me that if the shelter worker would be considered at fault for thinking evaluations should be correct and for trying to do their job, that the only way they couldn't be at fault was if they never had to deal with these certain breed dogs because they should automatically be put down, and if the worker goes in anyways to tend to one of the certain breeds even though the evaluation showed no risk, then she would be at fault for not knowing that some breeds you should never trust the evaluation and they should be destroyed with minimal contact with the animal.

 I don't think the above, I don't think certain breeds should be destroyed and not adopted out, but if the worker is going to be considered at fault by some people, then maybe they should be?

"Should certain dog breeds immediately be put down because you may not be able to trust the evaluation and the dog might make an unprovoked attack? "

No.  The breed has nothing to do with it.  Let's not have this debate please.

I said whoever evaluated the dog and deemed it non aggressive should be held responsible.  It also depends on the dog laws for that country.  Wasn't it in England?

edit:  Very diff case but if you go to a Pharmacy and pick up your meds and they say X med can be used with Y med safely, and then theres a reaction and you are rushed to the hospital...who's fault is it?  You are relying on expert opinion, same as in the dog case.

[~flower~]

I don't believe the breed has anything to do with it either, but some people have come across that if a shelter worker goes to take care of a dog that has been deemed to be safe and that has shown no aggression they are "at fault" and are a "dumbshit" for going in to take care of the dog and it attacks unprovoked.  That would imply that someone who thinks like that also thinks that some dogs you should never ever trust despite evaluation and maybe they should just be put down.

  I don't think that way of thinking helps either animals in shelters and is a slap in the face to the people that work at shelters.   

[Deadpool]

who "evaluated" it?  was it an expert opinion of like say a vet?

did the worker use reasonable care, like use a leash?

[temper35]

who "evaluated" it?  was it an expert opinion of like say a vet?

did the worker use reasonable care, like use a leash?

No offense to those who do but Vets pretty much know nothing other than straight medical info.  I have had the head of the vet I take my dog to, a woman whom graduated from Cornell and is published look me right in the eye and tell me that Eukanuba is one of the best foods on the market.  Vets also will generally pet and comfort dogs like "awww its okay itll be over in a second" when they are scared and nervous.  This is the worst possible way to handle that.  Veterinarians treat your dog for medical issues, that should be it.

I would assume that there is someone at a shelter that can accurately administer the proper tests to cover all types of aggression.

[Vet]

And a shelter worker goes to take the dog for a walk that has shown no signs of aggression when it was picked up, brought in, or at any time since it has been in their care, is the woman at fault if the dog makes an unprovoked vicious attack that causes them great bodily injury such as the loss of a limb of two?  Would the person be at fault because they trusted the evaluation?  Should certain dog breeds immediately be put down because you may not be able to trust the evaluation and the dog might make an unprovoked attack? It seems to me that if the shelter worker would be considered at fault for thinking evaluations should be correct and for trying to do their job, that the only way they couldn't be at fault was if they never had to deal with these certain breed dogs because they should automatically be put down, and if the worker goes in anyways to tend to one of the certain breeds even though the evaluation showed no risk, then she would be at fault for not knowing that some breeds you should never trust the evaluation and they should be destroyed with minimal contact with the animal.

 I don't think the above, I don't think certain breeds should be destroyed and not adopted out, but if the worker is going to be considered at fault by some people, then maybe they should be?

Flower, I've missed part of your and Knny's pissing match, so I'm going to try to answer this based on my experiences.  I've worked with animal shelters and rescue dogs (primarily breeds that are labeled "dangerous" by some media sources such as pitbulls, mastiffs, german shepards, and dobermans).   In the situation that you describe, the shelter worker would be liable for what that dog does and the dog would most likely be destroyed.  It boils down to repsonsible handling of the dog and controlling the animal.   You have to be a responsible person with a dog, even if its a foster animal that you do not own.  When people learn this, we will see a significant decrease in dog related issues.  Responsibility includes anticipating and taking the steps to avoid confrontation with the dogs you are in charge of. 

I personally had a situation with one of the foster pits when I was in veterinary school.  Basically the neighbors dog and this dog got into a fight in my yard.  The neighbors dog was off leash.  I personally evaluated the foster dog and he was evaluated as a "friendly, nonaggressive dog".   I had 5 other dogs in my house that he not one time got into it with----I still think the neighbors dog started the fight, but it became a moot point.  The rescue was cited with a warning by animal control for allowing the fight to happen.  I cleaned up and provided antibiotics for the bite wounds of both dogs (if I hadn't been a veterinary student, I would have had to pay for veterinary care out of pocket) and the neighbor was cited for having their dog off a leash off their property. 

The problem with these kind of situations as a whole/universal ruling is that there are no universal  federal or state pet laws in the US.  What happened to me happend in one town in one state, but in another it may have been very, very different depending on the animal control officer and the judge involved.  Hell, its illegal in some places to own pitbulls and at the same time they run free in other juristictions.  That "freedom of control" of animal control laws by local juristictions also means that there is absolutely no consistancy with interpretation of the law and that things very greately from one place to the other depending on how stupid the city council/county government enacting the laws are when they are passed. 

[Vet]

No offense to those who do but Vets pretty much know nothing other than straight medical info.  I have had the head of the vet I take my dog to, a woman whom graduated from Cornell and is published look me right in the eye and tell me that Eukanuba is one of the best foods on the market.  Vets also will generally pet and comfort dogs like "awww its okay itll be over in a second" when they are scared and nervous.  This is the worst possible way to handle that.  Veterinarians treat your dog for medical issues, that should be it.

I would assume that there is someone at a shelter that can accurately administer the proper tests to cover all types of aggression.

You know what, after this last weekend, I am questioning how much some veterinarians even know about "straight medical info".  

[~flower~]

The issue is that a shelter work went to walk a dog (a rottie) that had shown no signs of aggression when picked up or since it had been at the shelter. The dog (according to the article) started to play with her and grabbed her arm and then turned vicious and attacked her to the point that she lost one arm and may lose the other.    I don't think the woman was at fault and certainly shouldn't be called a "dumbshit".    Should she have gone to take him for a walk with a stun gun ready? 

 To say that the person was at fault and the dog was put down because of her fault is ridiculous.  If the dog made that kind of unprovoked attack it should be put down.

You know what, after this last weekend, I am questioning how much some veterinarians even know about "straight medical info". 

     

[Vet]

The issue is that a shelter work went to walk a dog (a rottie) that had shown no signs of aggression when picked up or since it had been at the shelter. The dog (according to the article) started to play with her and grabbed her arm and then turned vicious and attacked her to the point that she lost one arm and may lose the other.    I don't think the woman was at fault and certainly shouldn't be called a "dumbshit".    Should she have gone to take him for a walk with a stun gun ready? 

 To say that the person was at fault and the dog was put down because of her fault is ridiculous.  If the dog made that kind of unprovoked attack it should be put down.


     

I find it hard to believe that an accurate personality evalutation was done on a dog that does that.   I also think that if this was a foster dog, she should have been on her toes "evaluating" every behavior of that dog so that she had information to pass on to a possible adoptive home.  The fact she put herself in that type of a situation cannot be ignored.  In my mind to be mauled that severely, she had to have done something stupid. 

[temper35]

I find it hard to believe that an accurate personality evalutation was done on a dog that does that.   I also think that if this was a foster dog, she should have been on her toes "evaluating" every behavior of that dog so that she had information to pass on to a possible adoptive home.  The fact she put herself in that type of a situation cannot be ignored. In my mind to be mauled that severely, she had to have done something stupid. 

Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.  And if you noticed, I used the word "some".  My personal vet and you are two people who seem to have good all around knowledge regarding everything.  It is amazing that some people are vets.  Shit, I think we can all agree it is amazing that some people are doctors.

[~flower~]

I find it hard to believe that an accurate personality evalutation was done on a dog that does that.   I also think that if this was a foster dog, she should have been on her toes "evaluating" every behavior of that dog so that she had information to pass on to a possible adoptive home.  The fact she put herself in that type of a situation cannot be ignored.  In my mind to be mauled that severely, she had to have done something stupid. 

Well could be that the people that evaluated the dog didn't do a thorough or accurate job?        The article to the story is in the locked thread - stay away from strays.

  So she should of had a stun gun or something ready?  If I am told a dog has been evaluated and has shown zero signs of any aggression I would still be cautious, but certainly would not expect the animal to attack me like that unprovoked.  Everybody who gets attacked by a dog has not necessarily done something stupid. 

[~flower~]

In a follow-up story it says this:

"The dog had been picked up as a stray by New Forest District Council six weeks earlier and had not shown any signs of aggression."

So would she be at fault and a dumbshit for taking the dog for a walk? It's been there for 6 weeks with no signs of aggression and the attack was her fault, and the poor dog had to pay with it's live for her stupidity? 

   

 

[Vet]

In a follow-up story it says this:

"The dog had been picked up as a stray by New Forest District Council six weeks earlier and had not shown any signs of aggression."

So would she be at fault and a dumbshit for taking the dog for a walk? It's been there for 6 weeks with no signs of aggression and the attack was her fault, and the poor dog had to pay with it's live for her stupidity? 

   

 

Thats six weeks of stressful time for the dog in a shelter---that has to be considered.

I've "personality tested" hundreds of dogs for the rescue and shelters I've worked with---and many of these dogs were "dangerous breeds".  I've gone so far as to purposefully doing stupid things like try to get the dog to bite/attack me by doing things like putting my hand in food bowls, taking food away, holding the dog down, taking away toys for dogs that i had a question about their personality.   In my mind the only way to find the dogs limits is to push them.  Its not ideal for the dog and it puts me at risk, but I'm giving my OK on the personality of a given dog, so I'm not dinking around and I'm taking these actions very seriously because they are things a child would do.  Its also important while evaluating the personality to look at every reaction the dog has.  Unfortunately, the depth of personality evaluations done from one shelter to the other are not this detailed.   Who knows, it may have been a dumbass that did the first evaluation and when the dog whined and sat down wagging its stump when they walked by with a food bowl, they decided he was a "loving family pet" because they like rottweilers and have always wanted one (I've seen this kind of evaluation done in a humane society)

Again, I find it hard to believe that that dog would do this severe of an attack without telegraphing some type of information that it was heading down that pathway.  It may have been very subtle, but she should have been watching for those types of behaviors because this was a shelter dog-----one who'd been in the shelter for 6 stressful weeks.  This was a rottweiler, so monitoring ear position, head position, and eyes are very, very important.  This isn't just a "snap and bite" this was a severe attack.  That degree makes it hard for me to believe the dog didnt' tell her he was going to do it. 

[Vet]

Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.  And if you noticed, I used the word "some".  My personal vet and you are two people who seem to have good all around knowledge regarding everything.  It is amazing that some people are vets.  Shit, I think we can all agree it is amazing that some people are doctors.

Haha..... thanks for the compliment.... 

I personally find it hard to believe some people can breath without telling them how to do it, and then doing it for them.   

[temper35]

Thats six weeks of stressful time for the dog in a shelter---that has to be considered.

I've "personality tested" hundreds of dogs for the rescue and shelters I've worked with---and many of these dogs were "dangerous breeds".  I've gone so far as to purposefully doing stupid things like try to get the dog to bite/attack me by doing things like putting my hand in food bowls, taking food away, holding the dog down, taking away toys for dogs that i had a question about their personality.   In my mind the only way to find the dogs limits is to push them.  Its not ideal for the dog and it puts me at risk, but I'm giving my OK on the personality of a given dog, so I'm not dinking around and I'm taking these actions very seriously because they are things a child would do.  Its also important while evaluating the personality to look at every reaction the dog has.  Unfortunately, the depth of personality evaluations done from one shelter to the other are not this detailed.   Who knows, it may have been a dumbass that did the first evaluation and when the dog whined and sat down wagging its stump when they walked by with a food bowl, they decided he was a "loving family pet" because they like rottweilers and have always wanted one (I've seen this kind of evaluation done in a humane society)

Again, I find it hard to believe that that dog would do this severe of an attack without telegraphing some type of information that it was heading down that pathway.  It may have been very subtle, but she should have been watching for those types of behaviors because this was a shelter dog-----one who'd been in the shelter for 6 stressful weeks.  This was a rottweiler, so monitoring ear position, head position, and eyes are very, very important.  This isn't just a "snap and bite" this was a severe attack.  That degree makes it hard for me to believe the dog didnt' tell her he was going to do it. 

Your words are like music to my ears.  Someone who gets it.

On top of this, 6 weeks in a shelter is a long time for a Rottweiler.  Being next to aggressive dogs in cages, not being fed often enough, surely not getting enough exercise.  In a dominant breed this can all precipitate an attack.

Pent up energy + hunger + anxiety = dog bite.

[~flower~]

Again, I find it hard to believe that that dog would do this severe of an attack without telegraphing some type of information that it was heading down that pathway.  It may have been very subtle, but she should have been watching for those types of behaviors because this was a shelter dog-----one who'd been in the shelter for 6 stressful weeks.  This was a rottweiler, so monitoring ear position, head position, and eyes are very, very important.  This isn't just a "snap and bite" this was a severe attack.  That degree makes it hard for me to believe the dog didnt' tell her he was going to do it. 

If you go by what the article says the dog did go from playing to attacking. And going by what the article says I find it low and appalling that anyone would say the person was a dumbshit and deserved what happened, or that the dog should have lived after such a vicious unprovoked attack. This person had been working at the shelter for years and that is pretty sad that she is one of the "good people" and this is the appreciation she gets from people?   

I've seen dogs playing and then one gets pissed and goes off on the other one, it can happen pretty quick.  Again going by the article there was no reason the woman should of thought the dog would do what it did.

[~flower~]

Your words are like music to my ears.  Someone who gets it.

On top of this, 6 weeks in a shelter is a long time for a Rottweiler.  Being next to aggressive dogs in cages, not being fed often enough, surely not getting enough exercise.  In a dominant breed this can all precipitate an attack.

Pent up energy + hunger + anxiety = dog bite.

 then in some breeds after being at a shelter for X amount of time they should be put down because they are time bombs, even if they haven't exhibited any signs of aggression and attacks from some breeds are potentionally more damaging than from others?

[temper35]

If you go by what the article says the dog did go from playing to attacking. And going by what the article says I find it low and appalling that anyone would say the person was a dumbshit and deserved what happened, or that the dog should have lived after such a vicious unprovoked attack. This person had been working at the shelter for years and that is pretty sad that she is one of the "good people" and this is the appreciation she gets from people?   

I've seen dogs playing and then one gets pissed and goes off on the other one, it can happen pretty quick.  Again going by the article there was no reason the woman should of thought the dog would do what it did.

Have you ever seen a dog go from happily, submissively playing with someone to viciously attacking them?

When me and Plato play, he don't bite at me and tug at my clothes.  That isn't playing

[temper35]

then in some breeds after being at a shelter for X amount of time they should be put down because they are time bombs, even if they haven't exhibited any signs of aggression and attacks from some breeds are potentionally more damaging than from others?

Thats the thing flower...they DO get put down.

[~flower~]

Have you ever seen a dog go from happily, submissively playing with someone to viciously attacking them?

When me and Plato play, he don't bite at me and tug at my clothes.  That isn't playing

Not viscious like chewing arms off, but you can see the play has upgraded in intensity.   Well actually I have seen people have to seperate dogs that were playing one minute and then hating each other the next.  

[temper35]

Not viscious like chewing arms off, but you can see the play has upgraded in intensity.   Well actually I have seen people have to seperate dogs that were playing one minute and then hating each other the next.  

I'm not saying it can't happen, because things can escalate...it isn't likely in this case.

[~flower~]

Thats the thing flower...they DO get put down.

 6 weeks is a long time to be in a shelter, but I wouldn't want dogs that haven't shown any aggression or problems have to be put down at a certain length of time just because they are a certain breed.   

[~flower~]

I'm not saying it can't happen, because things can escalate...it isn't likely in this case.

 where do you get that from?  What are you basing your opinion on? 


  I may be wrong, but I don't think I have read any dog attack thread on this board where people didn't blame it on the victim.  Seems like their is always "must be more to the story" or  "they most of done something".  I don't feel that attitude is very helpful to defeating breed specific laws because it makes it sound like around some breeds you have to be very very careful and you are always at risk around one because you might be a "dumbshit".

[temper35]

 where do you get that from?  What are you basing your opinion on? 


  I may be wrong, but I don't think I have read any dog attack thread on this board where people didn't blame it on the victim.  Seems like their is always "must be more to the story" or  "they most of done something".  I don't feel that attitude is very helpful to defeating breed specific laws because it makes it sound like around some breeds you have to be very very careful and you are always at risk around one because you might be a "dumbshit".

People don't know shit.

Dogs RARELY go from actual, and when I say actual I mean not a douchebag THINKING thats what they were doing, but ACTUAL playing...to a VIOLENT attack.  Dogs who are underfed, under exercised and under trained are prime candidates for this scenario...and its sitll unlikely.

Some breeds you do have to be very careful.  Breed specific legislation is there for a reason as much as bullshit it is.  The fact is the owners of dominant breeds get them because of what they represent and owning a dominant breed does not mean you are equipped to handle one.  75% of pitbull owners are uneducated morons.

[Vet]

 where do you get that from?  What are you basing your opinion on? 


  I may be wrong, but I don't think I have read any dog attack thread on this board where people didn't blame it on the victim.  Seems like their is always "must be more to the story" or  "they most of done something".  I don't feel that attitude is very helpful to defeating breed specific laws because it makes it sound like around some breeds you have to be very very careful and you are always at risk around one because you might be a "dumbshit".

This isn't really a breed issue, its a dog issue.  When I'm talking about stressful time in a shelter, I'm not saying a rotweiler will deal with that worse than a chihuahua, I'm saying its a stressful time period FOR THE DOG.  Breed specific laws are based on prejudices and fears that are often little founded in reality.  Because of that bluring of personal opinion, prejudice, and reality, it really blurs things.  In my experience with dog bites, the humans are at fault more often than not (be it the dogs owner or the person who was bitten), yet the dogs generally take the brunt of the punishment.  Why?  because humans suck. 

I've worked with some seriously dangerous animals--from wolves to tigers to elephants to rhinos to venomous snakes.  I've never been seriously bitten or injured by them.  Why?  Because I won't put myself in a situation where it might happen.  At the same time, I've had a few really bad dog bites.  Why?  Because I did something stupid.  Thats how I see it. 

Again, I find it hard to believe that this dog was the "angel" some may want to believe it was, especially after weeks in a shelter.  Why wasn't the dog adopted sooner?  Rotts generally go out quickly.  Why was it still there?  Was  there something it was doing that potential adopters noticed but this shelter worker didnt?  Why was she allowed to walk the dog after 6 weeks?  Was this a routine thing or was it something that had never been done before (this is a key point because of the excitement factor of the dog).  Also who did the personality evaluation and was the dog evaluated outside on a leash?  Cage aggression/cage suppression is a very real behavior in dogs or all breeds.  All of these things have to be considered to really understand what happened.  What we have is a biased account from a news report.  That isn't the complete story and like I said before I find it hard to believe that that dog did this severe of an attack unprevoked or without telegraphing what it was going to do.  It just doesn't make sense considering dogs.  Unfortunately the media is going to go apeshit about her getting mauled and we'll never know the truth.