Posted on 09/10/2010 12:01:58 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs
A TERRITORY girl is lucky to be alive after she was mauled by a savage dog.
Seven-year-old Meg Croton and her brother Connor, 9, had been feeding their family's dog - an eight-year-old mastiff cross - in their Humpty Doo back yard when the girl was attacked by the vicious hound.
"I tripped on a rock and fell, and I think I kicked his leg," Meg recalled the attack. "And then it hurt very badly and he was on top of me and ripped on my head. "But my brother saved my life."
(Excerpt) Read more at ntnews.com.au ...
I gotta admit, I find this thread *endlessly* fascinating.
And totally off-topic, do you have any advice for dealing with destructive separation anxiety? I have a friend with a newly adopted pit bull that’s having problems when he’s left alone in his kennel.
Of course, I *TOLD* her she should just take him out’n shoot him for being an adult as well as a pit bull, but she stubbornly insists on keeping him around. :-P
That would make you a retard unable to learn from life.
Knowing this alone about you is enough.
TheMom came in from the backyard and said she had stepped in some Rachel.
Now I know what she meant.
I know you didn't ask me, but, since we are learning about one another, I thought I'd offer an opinion for which you and I may have more common understanding.
Dominance. That is the most likely cure for SA in the animal. Since dogs are instinctively pack driven, the dog may not see the owner as the Alpha. This MUST be established and firmly but of course reasonably. A leader is "responsible" for the pack and "lessor" dogs do not wander off. The lessor dogs will stay while the leader goes hunting or on patrol.
Thus if a dog shows signs of anxiety when the "owner" is absent, is it a sign that the DOG thinks IT is the leader and cannot "deal" with the pack just running off.
So, the owner must establish dominion over the dog. Clearly, forcibly, gently and rationally. And most of all CONSISTENTLY.
Then, with the dog in the lessor role, the "leader" can come and go and the dog will STAY and be calm.
Omyfrikkingod. I should have known.
You are assuming that I am putting my experience in a position greater than yours, when I state that your experience is of no relevance to my opinion.
No, I'm QUOTING you when you said "Your post is clearly and example of a limited self perception. Your experience accounts for nothing. Period. Not a valid sample or example.
We're not talking about my personal dog at this point. We're talking about your statement that adult dogs are unpredictable time bombs that are innapropriate for adoption and my disagreement with that opinion based on my experience with adult dogs I have owned. I back up my opinions with my experience, which you then inform me is invalid.
Can you please stop trying to answer what you think I am 'implying' in my posts and address the question?
2.
Neither set of experiences act as predictors to future events in and of themselves. You just assumed that because I ruled your experience out as a predictor, that I was exempting mine.
No, you offer your experience and articles you found on the internet as unassailable proof.
I further site, this very article which conforms to this situation, as the proof of my claim and of this context in particular, making it clear that the attack was more likely the result of the unknowns and the age of the animal and the fact that it was introduced to the situation only a year ago, as the majority contributing factors.
If you have an unknown adult animal, you do not even have Los Vegas odds. Maybe it won't be BAD... But it will NOT be exceptional. That only comes from a lifetime of work.
My post #79 "Since you’ve discounted my opinion as useless and probably false since it’s based on my own personal experience, what do you base yours on?"
Your #103What do I base it on? Hundreds of books, classes, and hours spent with dogs and other animals. Hundreds of articles like this, all with the one common thread: An unsocialized dog with children.
Once again, citing your personal experience.
I would assume from your previous testimony that you do NOT have children at home? Or perhaps ever? Your experience in such a case would be, as I stated, irrelevant to this topic.
You said this before we had established my personal situation. You invalidated my opinions based on your presumtion of my childless state before you had any knowledge of my children. Now please, answer the original question.
3.
If you understand sarcasm, then why ask this question?
*sigh* I knew this would come down to your misuse of the /sarc tag. The fact is, your post was not sarcastic. Neither was it ironic or sardonic. It might be characterized as wry because that I'm sure you meant it humorusly, but taken in context with the whole of your post, you truly meant what you said. So tell me why you said it, reassure me that you didn't mean to use it to preempt all debate, all disagreement. Go ahead.
Wednesday, 22 February 2006 * outgoing personality. takes risks. feeds on attention. no self control. kind hearted. self confident. loud and boisterous. VERY revengeful.LOL, psycho!
I have so many replies for this, and they’re all so funny, I don’t know which one to post.
So I’ll just say that I asked someone I trust, someone that I have learned to respect, someone that has personal experience with integrating adult dogs into homes.
Not you. :-)
Excellent post!
I guess RachelFaith doesn’t realize that her previous posts are still there for everyone to see.
Well, she sure as heck isn’t reading them...Maybe she blocks her own posts?
I will give you the CORRECT answer when I get off the phone.
Unless RachelFaith posts a link to a real FireFox application add on that will actually block a poster on FR then I think that she is lying about this too. Maybe there is one, but the wee one needs to post a link before I believe it. She won’t.
She likes to start a fight but runs like a rat when she is responded to and proven wrong every time.
I am pinging Boxcar Willy as I simply don’t like her.
My sentiments exactly. ♥
Yes. That IS what I said. You are STILL not stepping back and just reading it. You interject it with your own feelings. I can't control that. I can't even address that.
As Bob Newhart said: STOP IT! Just STOP IT!
We're talking about your statement that adult dogs are unpredictable time bombs that are innapropriate for adoption and my disagreement with that opinion based on my experience with adult dogs I have owned. I back up my opinions with my experience, which you then inform me is invalid.
Again. Yes. It is INVALID.... ready... AS a Predictor or Proof. Sure you can offer it. SO WHAT? I offered Mine. Best case is a tie. Who cares? Why the hubris? Get over it. Let it go.
Now, see how, even when you totally "quote" things I didn't say, I reply? See that? I did not say "time bomb" You did. Just now. Don't think those words were ever here on this thread until now.
I posted my belief. You posted yours. You said "my adult dogs have never bitten my children" and I said "lucky you" "Don't prove a thing". And guess what. It doesn't.
Now maybe you are just used to getting your way or posting your opinion and having your friends back you up like it was the gospel.
Get over it. Sometime, you are going to encounter someone with a different opinion. Wow.
No, you offer your experience and articles you found on the internet as unassailable proof.
I further site, this very article which conforms to this situation, as the proof of my claim and of this context in particular, making it clear that the attack was more likely the result of the unknowns and the age of the animal and the fact that it was introduced to the situation only a year ago, as the majority contributing factors.
Hello? I cited THIS article. I did not go a "look up some proofs". I said "this" article.
Let me see if I can break it down for you.
This article, an adopted dog DID attack a child. Yes?
Then, ergo, that is A proof. That is what I said. It is. Man walking on the moon IS a proof that man has walked on the moon. Please!
You see the problem is, you are LOOKING for something to refute. I didn't offer anything to refute. Just my opinion. You can offer your own. But that is all it is. Yours and Mine.
Not a damned thing more. So, STOP IT! Stop reading into it. Stop adding to it. Stop stop stop!
My post #79 "Since you’ve discounted my opinion as useless and probably false since it’s based on my own personal experience, what do you base yours on?"
Your #103What do I base it on? Hundreds of books, classes, and hours spent with dogs and other animals. Hundreds of articles like this, all with the one common thread: An unsocialized dog with children.
Post 103. Do you see that? Not my first post by a long shot. I told you. I answer questions. YOU ASKED ME. I did not OFFER it. I did not say it was Better than yours. I did not do anything other than chase your latest strawman and burn it.
Discounting your experiences does not mean, placing anyone else's experiences into a superior position. How many times do I have to say this before you let that go?
Seriously.
You invalidated my opinions based on your presumtion of my childless state before you had any knowledge of my children. Now please, answer the original question.
That should prove my standing. That I dismissed your personal experience without regard to your status is THE PROOF that your status was not a determinate. I dismissed your experience DE FACTO. Without regard to anything. Other than common sense.
Again, I will say it. Just because your dog has not bit your children, has no other meaning, no other value, than... YET. That is all. Yet. YET YET YET.
Someday your dog MIGHT. Maybe they never will and here is hoping so. I said that too. Remember?
It is simple logic and you are unable to depersonalize it. Unable or unwilling to just SEE it as it IS and not as some judgment upon you.
Can I make it totally third party? I will try.
Experience in a given situation is not valid as a proof for or against any future situation, outside of the conditions of that experience.
For example. Someone who is violent when drunk, is not a predictor nor proof for everyone who drinks. It is as best, only an indicator for the specific person, in the specific situation who was drunk and then became violent.
So if I then said "You should Never Never Never be around violent people when they get drunk"
If I said this, and knew nothing of you. And you reacted to me by saying "My husband drinks all the time and He has never hit me". What should I say?
I should say as I have... so what lady? I ain't talkin' about your old man. Maybe he's not violent. maybe he's not violent to you YET.
Get it? YOU took... no... ARE TAKING this personally. You should not.
None of you. It is crazy and very unbecoming.
If you understand sarcasm, then why ask this question?
*sigh* I knew this would come down to your misuse of the /sarc tag. The fact is, your post was not sarcastic. Neither was it ironic or sardonic. It might be characterized as wry because that I'm sure you meant it humorusly, but taken in context with the whole of your post, you truly meant what you said. So tell me why you said it, reassure me that you didn't mean to use it to preempt all debate, all disagreement. Go ahead.
Go ahead you say? Go ahead and what? Convince you that I mean what I say and say what I mean?
As if hanging around here putting up with this abuse for 3 days isn't proof enough?
As if never once telling you go to #^#&@ yourself isn't proof enough?
As if not responding to those who insult my age, name, sex, hair color, breast size and intelligence and compare me to excrement isn't enough?
What kind of proof could I possibly offer which could be more convincing than to stay and reason, slowly winning over half of the most vicious crowd of angry self righteous people I have even encountered on this forum?
Go ahead yourself. Tell me. Tell me and everyone else reading this, how much MORE you demand before the blood lust will be sated.
Because you know what?
I will pay it!
LOL!
Name one person you have "won over".
To ‘cure’ separation anxiety you must -ignore- the dog’s hysterical reaction to being left alone.
Tell your friend to NOT make any fuss over the dog WHATSOEVER when preparing to leave the house.
She should let the dog out out, feed it, etc and then simply crate or confine it, as her situation permits and then continue her normal going-to-work routine.
She should offer NO reaction to any whining, howling, screaming, clawing or shouts of filthy religious epithets put forth by the dog.
As she leaves, a simple “I’ll be back” [or other -always- repeated similar phrase] should be said and then she should just leave without further ado.
The dog, of course, will shriek itself to sleep [or something equally dramatic] in her absence.
Now, this is the MOST important part; The Homecoming.
When she returns, she is NOT to immediately go to the dog nor speak to or even acknowledge it.
She can change clothes, take a shower, start supper, whatever.
The dog is to be utterly ignored, no matter what it does.
When the dog is finally quiet [and it will settle down because the “expected response” is no longer there] she should calmly, with NO fanfare, cooing, squealing, “oh poor baby! mommy missed you so much!” kind of talk at all, open the door and leash the dog and take it outside to potty.
When they come back in, -still- no “big reunion” scene allowed.
When the dog is -quiet- and calm, *then* the owner may cuddle it in a restrained manner....but NEVER when it’s being hysterical, EVER.
Doing that only reinforces the bad behavior since the owner is inadvertantly -rewarding- it with “pity” and “comfort”.
The new owner must always act matter-of-factly and calmly, thereby reinforcing in the frightened dog’s mind that indeed, nothing is “wrong”, nothing is “unusual”, nothing is “scary” and that nothng bad has happened.
Since the Alpha is utterly unconcerned about anything, it will soon pick up that so should it be, too.
ANY over stimulation of the dog will degrade the progress made so this may take a while.
To sum it up, the owner coming and going must -never- seem to the dog to be -anything- of concern.
It wil, eventually, learn to trust the “I’ll be back” [or whatever phrase is chosen] as a reassurance that all is perfectly well, there are NO threats, being solitary is not a death sentence and that it is perfectly safe until the owner’s return.
Stuffing a trat-toy with peanut butter or dog cookies will help occupy the dog’s mind during the day.
Leaving a talk radio show or TV playing can also be of comfort.
Human voices will make the dog feel not so alone.
This is a situation in which “dominance” can actually worsen the condition.
The dog is simply afraid and overly-dependent and must learn to trust both -itself- and that the owner will always come home.
By ignoring the dog’s puppy-like ‘solicitation behavior’, the owner is, in effect, “weaning it” just as its mother would, of dependence upon her for survival.
Calmness, consistentcy and lack of concern for the dog’s *apparent* “agony” is the key to curing this.
“Dominating” it is just showing it the attetion it’s trying to get in the first place.
[the ‘bad attention is better than no attention’ principle]
Plus, she would be domineering an already frightened and overly dependent dog.
Simple:
-Ignore-
-Ignore-
-Ignore-.
Reward only when the dog is -not- clamoring for attention.
[this also works great for dogs with noise phobias, BTW]
Yes. A coma. It's what I do nightly. Sheesh.
I rock *and* roll, baby.....:D
Might be talkin’ bout you Dude.
Rest of the pack has pretty much stopped talkin’.
(We can handle ‘tards and psychos, but *both* at once?!?)
This behavior is totally inconsistent with a theology major and “Christian”, don’t you think?
[to Shibumi; Suddenly, I’m not feeling so down on myself for my failure to always ‘walk with the Lord’ as much as I should...silver linings and all’a that]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.