Posted on 08/03/2005 10:19:25 AM PDT by Travis McGee
Dog Rips Child From Mother Arms
GLENDALE A Rottweiller ripped a toddler out of her mother's arms in Glendale, dragged the child up a driveway and mauled her to death, police said today.
The dog, which belongs to the victim's grandparents, pulled the child from her mother's arms about 7 last night in the 2300 block of Via Saldivar, said Sherri Servillo, a Glendale Police Department spokeswoman.
The infant was taken to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead, Servillo said.
The woman was housesitting for the child's grandparents, Servillo said, adding authorities received a "hysterical 911 call" after the attack.
The dog is being held by Pasadena Animal Control, she said.
The woman holding the child was also holding a hose and watering a lawn when the 150-pound Rottweiler attacked, said Glendale police Sgt. Tom Lorenz, calling it a "horrific and tragic incident" that has shocked crime scene investigators.
He said the dog dragged the infant several feet down the driveway before mauling her. The mother suffered no major injuries.
After being notified of the attack, Glendale police officers went to the place where the victim's father works in Pasadena and drove him to the hospital where his child was pronounced dead, police said.
A 150# chihuahua would be as dangerous as the velociraptors in Jurassic Park!
ahem... you've surely heard the phrase, "Never say never" right?
One of my son's playmates was attacked by a black lab two years ago and he still has more rounds of reconstructive surgery to go - thank God the thing only got his legs!
I've personally owned two black labs over the years and believed them to be the sweetest breed on the planet, but then I heard about Dillon and realized no breed is exempt from the animal status.
Rumor has it the people who owned the dog were getting divorced and both had left the dog alone in their house for extensive periods of time. Dillon just had the bad luck of walking past the house at the same time someone happened to be letting the dog out.
I had a 120 lb male Rott that was a big lap dog. Sweetest thing. His sister however - from the same litter - had just the opposite disposition. She finally had to be put down due to her aggressiveness.
This is suspicious. I can't think of a mother who wouldn't put herself between anything and her child. Of course my opinion is only personal experience and should not be taken as a blanket statement of all mothers.
IF the alpha female takes the young pup away from its biological parent and adopts it for its own, then the other members of the pack will protect it. If not, then the pup and young dog will be a rival and subject to fights for supremacy.
If the grandparents (the alpha male and female) had been holding the baby, there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Your son's playmate needs surgery after being bitten by a lab, and that's terrible. If the dog had been a 150# rottie, he would have needed a coffin and a tombstone.
World of difference
Scary picture. Imagine the scene...Pomerania circa 1400. A low dust cloud on the horizon. The distant drumming of thousands of tiny paws then the yips and yaps of the advancing herd. Then the begging starts..the peasant farmers are reduced to near starvation. Entire villages are enveloped with great rolling bales of shedding fur...Come to think of it, I've never seen a person who claims to be from Pomerania...
"It is normal for a wolf/Dog to attack a young rival in the order".
I was refering to incoreect statement that was made regarding wolf/dog order. Not children.
It came naturally to the toy poodle we had when I was growing up.
I agree, see 151.
"I can't think of a mother who wouldn't put herself between anything and her child."
Fear and panick!
Some people just respond by being 'frozen' with fear!
The panick generally happens afterwards!
Rottweilers were bred to herd cattle.
They are not hunters.
do you also know what runs through their mind when they pee next to lampposts?
I'll bet your naturally vicious toy poodle never ripped a baby from its mothers arms, dragged it up a driveway, and mauled it to death.
It couldn't, even if it fantasized doing so.
The Humane Society of the United States offers the following position regarding breed-specific policies.
The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.
There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year. This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.
It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.
While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community. A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report) further illustrates this point. The report details dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1979 through 1998, and reveals that over the nineteen years examined in the study at least 25 different breeds or crossbreeds of dogs were involved in fatally wounding human beings. Breeds cited range from oft-maligned pit bulls and Rottweilers to the legendary "forever loyal" breed of St. Bernards. The study was conducted by a group of veterinarians, medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts.
The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.
Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.
Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.
Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite. Rather, a dog's tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including but not limited to:
Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.
Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?).
Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
Behavior of the victim.
Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.
If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order. Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks. Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.
Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed. The HSUS encourages you to read the Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
The HSUS is committed to keeping dogs and people safe and is available and willing to offer advice, educational materials and model legislation to communities interested in decreasing the incidence of dog bites and aggression.
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html
My turf?
I agree.
But even beyond that . . .
When you stop to think about it, a large dog is capable of doing severe damage to a person.
Dogs have teeth.
Isn't it ironic that society allows dogs to enter human society and trusts them to use their teeth responsibly . . .
Yet those same societies often would not trust people to go about with large knives in their belts--let alone handguns.
Where people aren't trusted with weapons, then why should dogs be trusted with teeth?
Did I even come close to implying such a thing?
"I've done Australian Shepherd rescue and it AMAZES me the people that get rid of them because they "chase my kids around and bite their ankles".."
I hear ya! I do Cocker Spaniel rescue and I will just say PEOPLE amaze me!
They get a puppy then complain about how hard it is to house break it and they don't want to spend the time or money for obedience classes so they get upset when the result is a teenage dog who doesn't obey them. The solution... they dump it at the pound or with me. The worst part is they often go looking for a new puppy! Last week I had someone call me wanting to adopt a puppy, the SAME DAY they had dumped their 10 yrear old at the pound because she wasn't playful with the kids annymore and they didn't want the kids to see her age and die. And don't get me started on the people who have a pet for 8-10 years or more but then it gets blind or sick so they dump it at the pound! Or they call me and want me to take their pet to be euthanized. Dogs good, people bad!
My beloved cocker who we rescued years ago died in her sleep Sat night...I have little patience for these people at the moment.
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.