Dog Bite Question

[Gempress]

It is normal for a dog to shake a smaller animal in order to break its neck. That is how a lot of wild canids kill small prey. My friend's golden retriever does the same thing to squirrels that he catches. And I'm sure many of your dogs do the same thing to their toys. People have bred dogs to help them in the hunt, but now that we live in Suburbia and those skills are no longer needed, dogs who use them become "vicious killers".

Because something is understandable doesn't make it acceptable. And I don't think anybody called her dog a "vicious killer".

It if a dog's normal behavior makes it a potential threat to other domestic animals, people, or anything else that is a part of normal, everyday life, you take steps to prevent it. It's part of responsible dog ownership. That's why APBT owners take such care with their dogs. Or why terrier lovers do not let their dogs play off-leash in the yard at the same time the neighbors are letting their pet bunny rabbit run around.

Yes, this whole thing could have been prevented with advance notice. But everyday people on walks don't give advance notice. What happens if a passer-by is taking their toy poodle for a walk, on a leash, and Rudi doesn't like it? And what if she kills the little dog next time?

If your aunt reports this to Animal Control, that's one strike. I don't think anything bad will happen, but it'll be on Rudi's record. But if Rudi does this again, I don't think her chances are good.

It's already been mentioned that Rudi's responses are not under verbal control. So she needs to be under physical control. What's the harm in putting your dog on a tie-out when she's in the yard? I don't understand why the OP seems to be unwilling to take a simple precaution. You can try to excuse Rudi's behavior all you want, and you may be right. But all the excuses in the world won't matter if this happens again. It can result in Rudi being euthanized, plus legal action against you. So why risk it? Isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

 

[SarahFair]

I mean I dont mean this as an accuse I see what you are saying but Im saying I saw no immidate danger because my dad lives far back in the woods as I live far back myself. Whenever I do see a risk I do leash her.
This will not happen again. I can promise you that.
My aunts dog has 2 strikes and she still brings it around unleashed. She laughed when her dog chased a lady nipping and snarling at her up a electric box.
The dog in this case picked a fight with the biggest kid on the play ground and lost. Im sorry it happend, it will not happen again.
I have done my part to make it as right as I can.

 

[JennSLK]

Because something is understandable doesn't make it acceptable. And I don't think anybody called her dog a "vicious killer".

It if a dog's normal behavior makes it a potential threat to other domestic animals, people, or anything else that is a part of normal, everyday life, you take steps to prevent it. It's part of responsible dog ownership. That's why APBT owners take such care with their dogs. Or why terrier lovers do not let their dogs play off-leash in the yard at the same time the neighbors are letting their pet bunny rabbit run around.

:hail:

Just like Jazz. She is DA, do I EVER let her off leash not in a fenced yard? NO because I would hate it if another dog got killed.

 

[HoundedByHounds]

Yes the blinders need to come off, and the excuses need stop IMO. A dog that reacts in this manner should always be under 100% verbal or physical control...contained within a fence or on leash...it's not really too much to ask I think?

But I feel that way about most all dogs out there...leashes are your friend...training is essential...tie outs are useful for temporary use...and a secure fence is a wonderful wonderful thing!

 

[dr2little]

It's already been mentioned that Rudi's responses are not under verbal control. So she needs to be under physical control. What's the harm in putting your dog on a tie-out when she's in the yard? Honestly, I don't understand why the OP seems to be unwilling to take a simple precaution. You can try to excuse Rudi's behavior all you want, and you may be right. But all the excuses in the world won't matter if this happens again. It can result in Rudi being PTS, plus legal action against you. So why risk it? Isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

This is so true. Honestly, none of us, I don't care what breed you have or even the history of your dog, can totally predict how our dogs will react in a very stressful situation. What we can do is insure that we have total control at all times so that 'accidents' don't happen.

Sophie for example, was attacted by 2 smaller dogs while she was ON LEASH and the little dogs attacking her were not. I have never, nor will I ever put her in a situation that may test how she will react to another small dog approaching her in a stressful situation. Is a grab and shake a possibility....maybe, I'll NEVER allow this question to be answered.
There were known variables in the OP's post that were not properly addressed.
AC may or may not see fault the same as some on here but the bigger picture is how you move forward with the knowledge that you now have about Rudi.

 

[Dekka]

I don't think anyone is saying the dog does not need to be closely superivized around other dogs, or that it needs to be restrained so it can not get to a small dog again. Of course you need to take steps to keep incidents like this from happening again. But when something happens like this for the first time I don't think the dog is 'BAD' But if it happens again then I do think the 'owner' is BAD.

 

[corgipower]

It is normal for a dog to shake a smaller animal in order to break its neck. That is how a lot of wild canids kill small prey. My friend's golden retriever does the same thing to squirrels that he catches. And I'm sure many of your dogs do the same thing to their toys. People have bred dogs to help them in the hunt, but now that we live in Suburbia and those skills are no longer needed, dogs who use them become "vicious killers".

Just because it's a normal prey drive behavior doesn't mean there can't be training to control the dog's drive. A recall or a stop. There's a sticky thread for how to train an emergency recall. I've always had better results training an emergency down. Either one would have gone a long way in this case. Teaching the dog self-control would also be helpful.

Well like I said...If I knew the dog was coming over I would have restrained my dogs properly.

Hindsight is 20/20. Now, quit beating yourself up and go train the dog so you're better equipped for the next surprise.

 

[TheGoldenRetriever]

This is not to say that I don't think it's horrible. I feel awful for that little dog and it's suffering. If I had a dog that I thought might do something that serious, I'd probably be extra careful leaving it loose even if it stayed on my property, just because it would be so sad if it killed a little dog. I think I'd want a fence for sure. But that wouldn't do any good if "my aunt" brought her little dog and placed it on the ground near my dangerous dog. Maybe your aunt, although she knew her own dog was apt to antagonize, didn't think that your dog would hurt it. But that's just it. She didn't think at all.

^^^ Agree 100%

I don't believe the aunt was thinking at all either!!

What bugs me about this incident:

a.) The GSD does get along with other small dogs ... just not that particular one. So it does not seem like a DA issue with the GSD.

b.) It's the aunt's dog that has a DA problem ... the fact that it's a little dog with a DA problem means she (the aunt) must take steps to protect her dog. The fact is her little dog's DA could cost it it's life. This time she got lucky b/c if that GSD had wanted to kill that little poodle it could have in a hot second.

c.) And most of all ... WHY did she call ahead & ask if the other dogs were there and then bring her dog anyway?!? The fact that she did call ahead with that very specific question means, to me at least, that it was fair for the OP and her Dad to believe that the aunt was in fact *not* bringing her DA dog.

Yes, it's terribly sad the little dog got hurt .... and everybody laughing about a dog fight was pretty rank ... it's NOT at all funny!! That's likely what has caused the current family issues ... the fact that people reacted by laughing more than the incident itself.

I do hope the little dog recovers fully ... and that the aunt will be more cautious about situations she places her DA dog. A sincere apology about the laughing would probably help diffuse the family issues.

The OP got this dog from a man in a parking lott, so who knows her breeding.

Yes, but people adopt dogs from shelters and private rescues all the time ... also with no clue as to the dog's breeding.

 

[Squishy22]

I feel bad for the little dog as well as the GSD.

I think its mainly the aunts fault. I mean, the same thing would have happened if the GSD was on a leash and the poodle ran up in an aggressive manner...

 

[Sweet72947]

It's already been mentioned that Rudi's responses are not under verbal control. So she needs to be under physical control. What's the harm in putting your dog on a tie-out when she's in the yard?

In this situation, it doesn't seem like a tie-out would really have made a difference, since the aunt let her dog run at another, bigger dog. Its NOT ok for little dogs to be offleash either!!!

 

[corgipower]

But when something happens like this for the first time I don't think the dog is 'BAD' But if it happens again then I do think the 'owner' is BAD.

Very well said! :hail:

In this situation, it doesn't seem like a tie-out would really have made a difference, since the aunt let her dog run at another, bigger dog. Its NOT ok for little dogs to be offleash either!!!

True. Hopefully both owners will learn from this experience and work on training and containing their dogs.

 

[SarahFair]

I plan on it
Rudi safety and other dogs safety is very important to me so next time (which there will never be) we will be better prepared

 

[GSDlover_4ever]

I think the issue here is that this was a little dog that was "attacked". Morally that is wrong to US but not to the dog. A threat is a threat doesnt matter size, color, ect. Big dogs should not have to endure being rushed in an agressive manner, just because its a small dog. What if that was a bigger dog threatening Rudi? Would you say it would be acceptable for Rudi to just sit there and take it? Rudi could have very well tried to shake a larger dog as well but obviously it would not be as noticeble. I've seen many dogs thrash and shake dogs larger than them. Its not cut and dry, yes she may be in prey drive but can also be in defense as well. JMO

 

[Doberluv]

I completely agree GSDlover. But I think the bottom line here isn't so much what the dogs had in mind but that the humans could have prevented the whole thing by better management. And the OP has learned that although she probably wasn't obliged legally to lock up her dog since it was her own property, she is obliged in a moral senseto prevent the killing of a little dog. And is going to be more careful in the future. Personally, I'd give that aunt a piece of my mind and tell her to never bring her little dog around again.

 

[GSDlover_4ever]

Yes, the owners are responsible for their own dogs. Both owners were at fault, but I'm putting more blame on the aunt. She disrupted the "peace" when Rudi was (I assume) behaving perfectly fine.

 

[puppydog]

Yes, but people adopt dogs from shelters and private rescues all the time ... also with no clue as to the dog's breeding.

Yes, and it would still bear mentioning. Any dog who is of unknown origins, temprement wise, should be trained up to being 100% (or as close to as possible) reliable. All dogs should be, but more so with a dog of unknown origins.