Dog Community

Posted : 7/14/2007 7:21:58 PM

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: sillysally

Oh for heaven sakes, the breed had nothing to do with this. I got this link from a lab board, and pretty much all the members there were FAR more critical of the parents and the situation than the members here have been. Maybe they are all secretly pit bull owners. Maybe the labs in those pic really aren't labs at all. What is it with the reactiveness of this board lately? If I'd known Bob was going to go off on a pit bull conspirisy theory tangent I would never have posted this.

This has nothing to do with a Pit Bull conspiracy, it is just that I see the same type comments posted whenever a PB is mentioned in a news article, and that is that the reports must be fabricated or false, despite numerous witnesses in many cases. Obviously, the owner of the dog, who was one of the witnesses most certainly knows what kind of dog they got.

However, most dog savvy people would agree that the fact that this was very likely an unneutered male with little or no training, and a dog that was left alone with a naked child, might have more to do with this incident than breed. I sorta wonder what might have attracted the dog to the child in that way in the first place - we all know that scent is the dog's main sense. BTW, you never answered my question about your identity. Just curious.
Clearly this was a dog that made a grave error, but compounded by human error as Janet so graphically alluded to.

tashakota

Posted : 7/15/2007 8:54:17 AM

I'm glad that someone is at least looking at different possibilities here. It jut doesn't add up.

Mary Conley

Posted : 7/15/2007 10:23:45 AM

at 2 years old if the dog was unaltered
. it was hormonal
and it probly had no idea what it was doing .

we had a foster lab mix about that age that was a cronic humper.
he always had a very confused look on his face..like he couldn't really control it ....

he's much happier nutered .

alieliza

Posted : 7/15/2007 11:13:35 AM

at 2 years old if the dog was unaltered . it was hormonal and it probly had no idea what it was doing .

What is so sad, though, is that any person with no dog experience (or an uneducated dog owner) probably won't look at it this way, and this incident will further taint their view of pitties... [

]

Anonymous

Posted : 7/16/2007 1:00:59 PM

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: ark3

I don't care if it's a Pitt Bull of any other dog. I'm curious to know why so many people were needed to pull the dog off the boy? Hummmm? I would think a grab of the collar and and nice hard yank would be enough to pull the dog right off.... hardly necessary for several people to kick the dog. It wasn't being aggressive (as the Humane Society guy stated, there weren't even any bites!). So I find it hard to believe that extreme force was necessary to remove the dog from the kid. Maybe I'm totally wrong. I hope I'm totally worng. That last thing anyone needs now is for people for cry out that Pit Bulls are not only "killers" but also "rapists". Grrreeaat....

You ever try to break up large dogs that are mating?

Nope. And as I stated after I posted this, I was unaware that the mating involved the male getting further enlarged and that there would be possible damage if removed beform he was "done".

But for the point of argument, a 2 year old is not a "large dog". I understand your point though.

alieliza

Posted : 7/19/2007 4:27:53 PM

Another article:
http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/local_story_199153026.html

fuzzy_dogs_mom

Posted : 7/19/2007 5:13:44 PM

I can't believe it's taking them this long to figure out whether this happened or not. It just seems that if any part of the childs body had been penetrated by anything canine, there would be some DNA evidence of that. It makes me wonder if they even bothered to check.

Joyce

anne

Posted : 7/19/2007 5:23:29 PM

ORIGINAL: alieliza

Another article:
[linkhttp://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/local_story_199153026.html]http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/local_story_199153026.html[/link]

I just dont know what to say? People are f-ed up.

alieliza

Posted : 7/19/2007 5:50:53 PM

They are supposed to be doing DNA testing and a behavioral analysis on the dog.... but for some reason, either they haven't done it yet, or no one is writing about the results....

fuzzy_dogs_mom

Posted : 7/19/2007 5:57:00 PM

If they take too long, won't any DNA evidence be gone, or at least compromised?

Joyce

buster the show dog

Posted : 7/19/2007 6:04:31 PM

CSI really isn't the most realistic portrayal of forensic investigations. Although it is theoretically possible to collect, amplify, and type DNA in a couple days, the reality is that forensics labs have backlogs of samples to be analyzed, and it can often take weeks for results to come back.

houndlove

Posted : 7/19/2007 6:04:36 PM

DNA tests I think usually take a couple weeks, it's not like it is on TV where they run out of the room with a sample and down to the lab and then there's the Radiohead Power Hour (CSI watchers know what I'm talking about!) and then they have the results.

fuzzy_dogs_mom

Posted : 7/19/2007 6:31:39 PM

I understand the length of time it takes [][] but since the article didn't mention it, I've been thinking that they hadn't even taken samples yet. I guess they probably did.

Joyce

alieliza

Posted : 7/19/2007 6:48:39 PM

I imagine they must have already taken samples considering that the boy has already undergone surgery. Im sure that with all of that invaison, as well as cleansing, etc. Any pertinent DNA would have been destroyed through the processes. I hope it was taken already, anyway.

buster the show dog

Posted : 7/19/2007 6:51:51 PM

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_dogs_mom

I understand the length of time it takes [][] but since the article didn't mention it, I've been thinking that they hadn't even taken samples yet. I guess they probably did.

Actually, I remember reading in one of the first articles that came out about this that DNA samples had been taken.

WHOA--Did anyone else hear about this?