GSD Scheduled to Die for Defense of Family Member

Dog_ma

dyan

The big thing to me is that the guy was warned to not get out of the car....and he did. He is wrong and he is stupid. That alone should save the dog.

 

 Legally, you can be held responsible if someone trespasses and your dog bites.

Is it not worse if you have a "BEWARE of the dog" sign?  Anything that might suggest that you know, before the incident, that the dog is unsafe?  Might the bloke telling the guys to stay in the car constitute that?  I'm not defending the judge's decision, I vehemently disagree with it.  But I am scratching my head and wondering... how on EARTH did a normal, sane, sober person come up with that judgement...??

I read about this case on another board.  Something just doesn't sit right with me....I dunno.  So the landscaper was actually hitting other dogs and assaulted the woman on their property and then the shepherd attacked?  You all know how I feel about German Shepherds, but I'm also the first person to be pretty skeptical of how mainstream news channels deal with dog attacks/bites.  It seems like they often grab at bits and pieces of fact and then rearrange them in the order that creates the most shock value and often the information that is published leaves out important details and/or is not chronologically accurate.  I'm on the fence with this one b/c as much as I love German Shepherds, I do not like coming to their defense when they attack b/c to me that's like admitting that all the negative stereotypes are correct.  I'm not saying I believe this dog was wrong in what it did or that the owners are at fault, simply that I'd like to read the transcript of the case preceding the judge's ruling before decided which side I'm on.  I don't trust newspapers one way or the other when it comes to dog bites.  Like Chuffy, I don't see how any judge in his/her right mind could rule this way considering the "facts" presented here.  I hope there is more to it....

Liesje, I wouldn't be surprised if the story is not quite as it was presented, but if it is - that is not a bad GSD for biting.  I can't fault a dog with protective instincts for attacking in the situation described.  

And Chuffy, it is my understanding that having a Beware of Dog sign does increase liability in the case of a bite, because it demonstrates that you know your dog is a danger.  Better to have a Dog on Property or some such sign.   

Dog_ma

And Chuffy, it is my understanding that having a Beware of Dog sign does increase liability in the case of a bite, because it demonstrates that you know your dog is a danger.  Better to have a Dog on Property or some such sign.   

In Florida here is the signage requirements.

However, the owner is not liable, except as to a person under the age of 6, or unless the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner, if at the time of any such injury the owner had displayed in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words "Bad Dog."

I also believe that there is more to this story.  Considering that the training school that the dog went to also does protection and prominately advertises that, it makes you think.  If a person has a protection trained dog their liabilities are much higher and the level of protection that they must provide to the public is also higher.

Dog_ma

Liesje, I wouldn't be surprised if the story is not quite as it was presented, but if it is - that is not a bad GSD for biting.  I can't fault a dog with protective instincts for attacking in the situation described.  

I disagree.  A dog, especially a breed like a GSD always under the microscope, should NEVER make its own decision to attack.  Protective instincts will go baaaaaad a lot more often than good, IMO.  A GSD that excels at protection work excels b/c it is so well controlled and well trained, not because it is allowed to develop some fear aggression, resource guarding, and reactivity.  The working drive and courage of the dog are honed and proofed during years of professional training.  The GSD is a velcro dog that bonds to its "person" and will do exactly what the handler asks when trained correctly.  I don't fault the dog either, but I fault any owner that gets GSDs and just calls them "protection dogs" or excuses "protective instinct".  That's like seeing your dog jump over something once and telling people it's an agility champion.  More often than not, it's a dog with some form of fear aggression or reactivity that is biting and it has nothing to do with a properly trained attack.

I have three Border Collies, wonderful friendly dogs--however; if someone tried to hurt me---my sweet loveable boys were definitely do anything and everything to protect me!!!  It's not just GSD, dogs that are totaly into their owners will do anything to protect them!!!  It's their natural pack instinct to protect.....

We had a situation when my youngest were nine months old, our neighbor has a 5 year old who would alwarys run up to the pups when I had them out for a walk and when I would let him pet them he would hit them on the head  One day he walked into our house (not invited) I was upset and got him out of the house, but till this time my Maverick does not trust this kid or the parents; hence we just put up a vinyl privacy fence.  Unfortunatley the parents of the kid don't care-to make matters worse, they bought a lab puppy, no fence, etc----I never see this dog playing ball, etc only outside once and a while on a leash!!!  This kid would still tease the dogs over our lawn fence--we put up the vinyl fence to protect OUR dogs, if something happened,, even if the kid was provoking the dogs, it would be my dogs fault not the bratty kid!!

Please follow this link for assistance in preparing to save your GSD.

www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/DangerousDog.pdf

Nathan J. Winograd is the author of REDEMPTION The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America.

I apologize for just hearing about this case. I will attempt an email in every effort to help save your dog.

We are the proud owners of an adopted GSD who we train with in Search and Rescue and are sympathetic to this event. No dog should be put down for doing his job.

 Susan and Chris Johnson

Update

The hearing was today...
Apparently the judge upheld the ruling and the dog is scheduled to be PTS. You can still help by calling Gov. Corzine''s office ASAP!!
(609) 777-2500

(Princeton - WABC, November 13, 2007) - The case of Congo the dog is heading to a higher court. The German Shepard faces death row for mauling a landscaper.

**Congo's death sentence is on hold because the case is on appeal. The judge did tell the family they could take Congo home, provided they declared and tattooed him as a vicious dog. They said they declined because they were worried their children's friends would not be allowed to visit the home.**

EXCUSE ME? Did I read that right? They had a chance to take him home, love on him but they declined???? There are ways to work around having the childrens friends over.

Sorry, but that statement would be enough to make me stop supporting them. Something is not right here.

I wonder if part of the reason was because it would involve declaring him a vicious dog.... might that hinder their chances in the appeal?  From what I can make out, law is sticky.  Once you admit you're in the wrong, you can't back pedal....

I wonder what their "vicious dog" requirements are, or if it's totally subject to a judge's ruling?  I'm still on the fence with this one.  I just don't get why anyone would invite a landscaper over knowing that their dogs didn't like people on the property.  Kenya is in no way protective or aggressive, and even *I* am careful about making sure she is safe and comfortable when I know guests are coming (always people she's met before). 

yeah, that statement threw me for a loop as well.  The kids FRIENDS are more important than this FAMILY MEMBER who is doing so poorly in the shelter????

 I think I'd have made a similar decision. Not because of the friends, but because I would not be willing to declare my dog vicious and have him tattooed as such while I'm fighting to save his life on the basis that he is not a vicious dog.

If I read that right, they refused to bring him home because of the kids/friends thing, not because of the new label or tattoo. Nothing was said about objecting to those stipulations. It is either poorly worded, or that is just exactly what he said.

Oh, wasn't trying to say what the people said or didn't say.  Just what my reaction would be.