Dog Kills Elderly Man

[Roxy's CD]

I just caught a glimpse of it on the news last night but it's a sad sad story. Apparently an elderly couple owned a 5 year old pittbull. The man was 77 years old, and the pitbull attacked him and ripped his throat out! The neighbors witnessed the attack and were shocked. They said the couple AND THE DOG were the sweetest creatures, the only reason the believe it is because they witnessed the attack.

I'm going to look for more info on it, I assume the pitt must've been adopted, I can't see a dog that's been raised by soft hearted people just attacking....Has anyone heard about this story?

[casablanca1]

Even if they raised the dog from birth, there could have been a physical/genetic reason, like Springer Rage Syndrome.

[Bailey+Ralph]

:(

It is horror stories like this that give Pitts and the like a bad name too :(

[Roxy's CD]

I know!! And with the pitt ban in court now....*sigh*.
Spring Rage syndrome??? What exactly is that?

It's very sad to because the elderly man died. On the news they said that going for the throat was a "basic instinct" of a pittbull. I know for a fact, that neither of my dogs would ever attack me let alone even bite me!!!! I wonder if because the people were so soft-hearted maybe it was just an accident waiting to happen. I mean, a lot of people don't agree with the "alpha"/dominance thing, but I firmly believe that you can be assertive and let them know your in charge without being "agressive" or physical with them. Maybe the pitt had just been treated like the boss for so long and the man tried to take his bone or toy or something......

[Roxy's CD]

It was on Global News, last night. I checked their website, no information. (It was one of the in betweener news things) So I called and asked "seeing as you have no information on your website, could you perhaps fill me in on the "pitbull incident" that you had on your news cast last night... NOTHING!

I hate that. Don't put something on national television if you don't know all the facts!!! I asked the girl, if they knew what they think caused the attack, or what the neighbors had said about the dog in it's better days, yano, was it friendly towards neighbors, did it bark a lot etc. NOTHING!! AHHHH!!!!

For all the news reporter on the site (I doubt there are any, but if your thinking about working at a news station LOL) DO NOT go on live, national television, so the whole country hears and speak about something that you know NOTHING about!!! How careless is that??????

I'm writing a letter....to someone......I don't know who yet, but I'll think of someone who deserves to get in **** for this.

[casablanca1]

There is, of course, considerable disagreement about Springer Rage, but basically - starting I think in the 1980s, an unusually large number of seemingly out-of-the-blue attacks by English Springer Spaniels led to the investigation of the breed as possibly having a genetic disorder leading to uncontrollable, unprovoked aggression. While there's dispute that many cases are just ordinary dominance/fear/etc. aggression, there do seem to be a number of dogs who behave abnormally - and these dogs are all linked to the same bloodline, leading to the conclusion that it was not nurture, but nature for these dogs.

http://www.essfta.org/Health_Research/aggression.htm

"Whereas most dominant dogs gradually escalate the level of threat in social situations, moving from a stare, to growl, to lip curl, to snap and finally to bite, springers seem to move from stare to full-blown attack, skipping the intermediate stages. These dogs lacked impulse control and over-reacted in situations they perceived as threatening. Pedigree research showed that the most severe cases in springer spaniels could be traced back to a common bloodline. Cornell was very fortunate to be located in the geographic location to work with large numbers of these dogs, with the cooperation of breeders and owners.

Many of the dogs studied by Dr. Reisner had abnormally low amounts of serotonin metabolites in their urine and cerebral spinal fluid. This suggested that the dominance aggression was associated with abnormally low levels of serotonin in the brain. This corresponded with findings in violent mental patients and prison inmates. Serotonin is one of the neurotransmitters, brain chemicals, that has a calming effect. In most mammals, it seems to decrease the amount of aggression associated with dominance. While it doesn’t necessarily change the social status of an animal, higher serotonin levels decrease the likelihood aggressive displays will be used to maintain that social position. Based on these findings, medications that increase serotonin levels were used to treat dominance aggression in dogs. About 50% of the dominant aggressive dogs respond to these drugs, with a decrease in aggressive displays. The drugs don’t solve the problem, but they can make it safer and easier for owners to use behavior modification techniques to change the dog’s social status in the home. This indicates that dominance aggression may, at least in some individuals, result from a brain abnormality on the chemical level."

While this was mostly in ESS and Cockers, it's an obvious possibility in any animal - an abnormality that is unaffected by training, handling or treatment. I don't know if that's what happened in this mauling, but given what pit bulls are often bred for - either by serious fighting breeders or by complete idiots who want macho dogs - it's at least possible that the quest for confident, dominant, indomitable dogs could spit out a few screwballs.

[Tinaweena]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/05/31/1607808-sun.html

[LabBreeder]

put down a dog that protected you from a "poke" by your husband who got killed. why do i think they left something out of that story???

[Meggie]

There is a little more to the story.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/05/31/1607391-sun.html

Elderly couple, untrained (hadn't been to a vet's in 5 years, not likely they got any obedience training) dog offleash with previous aggression issues.

[LabBreeder]

so basically someone gave an OLD couple a pit/lab cross that NEVER went to the vet and probably never had training. these people were old...who gives an old person a dog that could end up being big, unmanageable and possibly aggressive??? what were these "gift givers" thinking?
obviously the elderly couple didn't drive anywhere (since their groceries were delivered) so how would they get the dog to a vet...why give someone a dog if they can't take care of it properly?
sounds like they didn't train it (showed past aggression) cause it wouldn't listen and had been aggressive before. again, who gives an old couple a puppy that'll grow up into a big dog that they can't handle?

it's sad her husband had to die...really, it is. but they should have given the dog to someone who could actually care for it and train it...especailly after it was aggressive the first time.

[Roxy's CD]

I'm thinking it's what I thought before... they probably didnt train him or take control ever... just a disaster waiting to happen....

[Melissa_W]

How horrible. :( That dog must have been terribly imbalanced.

[casablanca1]

Trained or untrained, that was a pretty nasty dog. I mean, come on, most untrained dogs just pee on the carpet or bite the hand that feeds them. Ripping out a throat is insanely aggressive behavior, especially when the victim posed no threat to the dog.

[RD]

How terrible. :( I agree, regardless of training, that was NOT a nice dog at all.

[dr2little]

Trained or untrained, that was a pretty nasty dog. I mean, come on, most untrained dogs just pee on the carpet or bite the hand that feeds them. Ripping out a throat is insanely aggressive behavior, especially when the victim posed no threat to the dog.

Exactly! It just goes to show that this breed/mix requires an experienced owner.:eek: Awful!!

[bubbatd]

So horribly sad ! We had another attack here in Indy today. The pittie had bitten before and today attacked a 2 yr. old girl. Blinded her in one eye and the other eye had to be put back into the socket . Her face is a mess and she's in critical condition.I know there are good dogs and bad dogs....good and bad owners , but something has to be done or the banning will grow.

[Amstaffer]

I know there are good dogs and bad dogs....good and bad owners , but something has to be done or the banning will grow.

Its very simple enforce the current dangerous, neglect and abuse laws for all dogs. If you eliminated bad owners you will eliminate almost all of these attacks.

However, we will never be able to wipe out dog attacks. We share way too much of our lives and family time with these animals. No creature, even the wonderful animal of the Dog can be expected to be 100% trustworthy. If you think about the shear number of dog/human combos there are in the world it is very suprising that we don't have way more attacks.

Think of how many people are attacked by other people and injured seriously or killed. The only way to completely stop dog attacks is to make the species extinct. More people are killed by falling coconuts in the world than Pit Bull attacks every year.

[LabBreeder]

i don't know about falling coconuts...:) but here's the stats I found (assuming they are accurate)

From 1979 through 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the United States. (Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489-92; Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.) In the latter study, which covered six years, the researchers made these findings:

There were 109 bite-related fatalities.
57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age.
81% of the attacks involved an unrestrained dog.
22% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog OFF the owner's property.
59% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog ON the owner's property.
18% of the deaths involved a restrained dog ON the owner's property.
10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants.
The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths).
The authors pointed out that many breeds are involved in fatal attacks. The death rate from dog bite-related fatalities (18 deaths per year) in the 6-year study period remained relatively constant compared with the prior 10 years. The authors emphasized that "most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners." They recommend public education about dogs and dog ownership.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

[LabBreeder]

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020719.html here's the only decent "coconut death/injury" page i could find

[Amstaffer]

.
The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths).

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

Nothing against Rottie owners (I was one for a long time) or GSD owners but these stats are useless unless you know what the total number of dogs in the areas where these deaths.

Here is something I posted earlier ( http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?t=525&page=5 )

First: There are WAY more Pit Bulls in Urban areas. (site of most fatal attacks) Because of the sheer number of them, of course they would account for more fatalities. Please don't quote AKC numbers, if you drive through the inner cities you will find Pit Bulls out number the next closest (Rotts) by at least 5 to 1 if not more.

Let me give you an example of what I am saying. If there are 1000 Pit Bulls in a city and 100 Chows in the same city you would assume that Pit Bulls should have 10times as many attacks right? To really find out how dangerous a dog is you must take its total number into consideration. Pit Bulls often account for far fewer attacks if you consider the attacks/population ratio.

Stats are so tricky.

Somethings I have reseached (compared several websites) and are more dangerous that Pit Bulls.

Pit Bulls (which includes several purebreeds and mixes)-- 24 deaths

Farm Machinary -- 350 deaths
Poison Gases -- 700 deaths
Poisoned by Solids or liquids -- 8600
Motor Vehicles -- 43,250
Drowning - 4000
Accidental Suffocation -- 3,300
Medical care mistakes -- 500
Tobacco related -- 435,000
Illegal Drug abuse -- 17,000
Slips and falls -- 14,900

Pit Bulls also save some lives
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4949039/detail.html
http://www.theparrinos.com/apbtgooddogs.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html

[dr2little]

I am no fan of breed bans and have done behavior training for more pit bulls than most people will ever meet so I do care about this breed, but to protect them we must also be honest about their potential. The bite cases with pits are not the same as with other breeds. Yes, goldens bite more dogs and people (due to sheer numbers), but they don't mutilate them. Pits have not only an enormous amount of strength but the fact that they are a terrier is what makes them both wonderful and formidable. Most attacks, not all but most that I deal with involving a pit or high% pit mix, are significant enough to warrent the dog being destroyed first offense. They are not simple bite and release cases. I have to grade bites on a scale when they're reported, and believe me, there is a difference. My point is not to vilify pits, quite the contrary. I truly believe that part of the reason that they're in the trouble that they're in is because well meaning dog lovers minimize their abilities and potential. This is likely why some pit attacks that seemingly come out of left field happen in the first place. This is not a dog for a first time dog owner, nor should one ever be placed if they're of unknown origin with and inexperienced owner or in a home with other pets or children. Rescue pits are constantly set up for faiure when placed in an enviornment that they haven't had a history with. (this is not the case with PBFL in Calgary)
I'm finding that now with all of the breed ban talks and the subsequent overflow of pits in rescue, this problem is escalating. More pits are adopted out to inappropriate homes and more incidents are occurring and being reported. Its a sad day for this this breed or any other terrier that even resembles them.:(

[LabBreeder]

i have no doubt that there are other more common, and stranger accidents that result in fatalities than dog bites. i'm not saying the numbers i found were exactly accurate, or perfect. they were up to 10 years old...and it didn't say how many per state/county/etc. but you get a general idea. :)

[Amstaffer]

i have no doubt that there are other more common, and stranger accidents that result in fatalities than dog bites. i'm not saying the numbers i found were exactly accurate, or perfect. they were up to 10 years old...and it didn't say how many per state/county/etc. but you get a general idea. :)

I was just addressing the issue not your statement exactly. :)

[LabBreeder]

oh, no, i didn't mean anything by it...i just thought i'd clarify. :) i know some will look at the stats and may get upset or disagree. it's good to have a discussion without everyone arguing...:P

[Roxy's CD]

dr2little I agree. But one thing I must disagree on is "first time" dog owners. I think there are some people who may have had 10 dogs and some breeds aren't right for them. You have to be assertive especially with breeds like rott/dobe/pitt (of course there are exceptions within the breed) People with an understanding of "the pack" and how to assert their order, at the top, of the pecking order regardless of it being their first animal I believe could do fine.

I think it's more of a personality thing than experience, although don't get me wrong experience is good. If your personality is to be soft-hearted and lovey (although you can be with pitts as long as your assertive when you need to be) than there are some breeds that will take advantage of that soft, lovingness or it can be mistaken for vulnerability.

[casablanca1]

Most attacks, not all but most that I deal with involving a pit or high% pit mix, are significant enough to warrent the dog being destroyed first offense. They are not simple bite and release cases. I have to grade bites on a scale when they're reported, and believe me, there is a difference. My point is not to vilify pits, quite the contrary. I truly believe that [I]part of the reason that they're in the trouble that they're in is because well meaning dog lovers minimize their abilities and potential. This is likely why some pit attacks that seemingly come out of left field happen in the first place. This is not a dog for a first time dog owner, nor should one ever be placed if they're of unknown origin with and inexperienced owner or in a home with other pets or children.

I wholeheartedly agree, especially with the section I underlined. I've met too many people in the last few years who refuse to admit any drawbacks in the pit bull. That's willful blindness. Any dog can bite, and any dog with the build and personality of a breed developed to fight other animals can bite worse.

[dr2little]

dr2little I agree. But one thing I must disagree on is "first time" dog owners. I think there are some people who may have had 10 dogs and some breeds aren't right for them. You have to be assertive especially with breeds like rott/dobe/pitt (of course there are exceptions within the breed) People with an understanding of "the pack" and how to assert their order, at the top, of the pecking order regardless of it being their first animal I believe could do fine.

I think it's more of a personality thing than experience, although don't get me wrong experience is good. If your personality is to be soft-hearted and lovey (although you can be with pitts as long as your assertive when you need to be) than there are some breeds that will take advantage of that soft, lovingness or it can be mistaken for vulnerability.

I'm not sure what you mean by assertive. If you mean showing leadership in a non-physical way, then I agree. Bite cases with all breeds are more prevalent with dogs who are shown the wrong kind of leadership but it's glaringly more problematic with breeds like you describe. Fear and retaliation are the two most investigated bites. Neither type of bite is typically seen when a dog is shown proper non physical leadership that any human can show. More kids are bitten by dogs who's adult owners think heavy hands make for well behaved dogs. It's a common mistake that people make with their capable breeds but one that I would chalk up to inexperience rather than cruelty. Those are the kinds of people I'm referring to, the ones who think tough dog=tough leadershep style. I still think that it is a huge mistake to adopt a pit out to a first time dog owner, or anyone who does not respect their potential and understand the breed. We probably agree, but I wasn't sure what you meant..:)

[Roxy's CD]

By assertive I mean 99% non-physical (body language, verbal) and 1% physical, touching of the face and neck, which shows dominance. Before I took Roxy to school, she wouldn't let anyone touch her face and neck, she'd show her teeth, shy away from you, I've been told that by rubbing the face and neck your showing dominance.

I agree, that bites most offen occur when people are WAY to physical with their animals (grabbing collars esp.!, smacking in the face! :(, kicking :(:( I've seen it etc), but I think a lot happen too with people who allow their dogs to be the leader. We've all seen it, a dog acting out aggressively and an owner talking baby talk, and literally submissing to their own dogs behaviour. I think it's a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Their whole life you treat the animal as "the boss" and one day you do something, like move their food dish, or take away a bone and BAM! they bite you. You can't blame the animal, it's how it was raised but that's different than this situation.

I think if you have any kind of you dog you need to be responsible, but with aggressive breeds if your not willing to put in the time and effort to ensure the animals safety and others go for a breed that doesn't have a reputation for being agressive/stubborn/hard to manage.