# My Dog Has bit 3 people



## Hudson Tacheny (Apr 19, 2013)

My 4 year old GS has bit 3 people. Each situation has been the same thing, he was in the fenced yard, and one 12 year old boy reached down over the fence to pet him, and he jumped up and left teeth scrape on his chest. Another time a boy hid by our fence and he nipped him in the back leaving no mark. Today he bit a girl he knows as she reached down into his fence to pet him. He has fence line aggression if you can call it that, but when people are in the yard or the house, he has never shown any type of aggression to anyone. He barks at the door, and barks at anyone passing the fence line, even people he knows, but once inside the fence he is totally fine. I am really nervous about todays event. I am taking him back to his original trainer, and meeting with his vet tomorrow, any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

grrrr -- management .

If you know the dog has a problem and a history at the fence line then prevent the dog from being there . So simple. Put the dog into a safe enclosure closer to your house , in a nicely landscaped sheltered area providing some esthetic appeal and shade and windbreak for the dog.

Level the ground , put down patio tiles or poured concrete . Get an escape proof kennel and when the dog is not under your direct supervision (with training and consistent response from your dog) then the dog is put into this 10 x 10 or whatever size you want to make it kennel. This way people can't reach over . He won't be fence running or agitated by passersby or dogs . If the dog can jump up and scrape the chest of a 12 year old dog I bet you anything the dog can and , one day, will, jump the fence . Big fiasco.

3 times --- . Original trainer is not responsible to how you manage the dog for the rest of his life . You have to do it.

You openly admit the dog has fence line aggression -- take him away from the fence .


----------



## curedba (Mar 31, 2013)

Put a muzzle on him when he is outside or simply do not leave him out there unattended or build a bigger fence 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anthony8858 (Sep 18, 2011)

For starters, you need to fix that fence.

It's obviously too short, if someone had their back nipped by the dog.
Again, ... If a girl was able to "reach down into the fenced yard", it's just too easy for someone to access the dog.

Put an extension on the fence.
Put signs, warning people to stay away from the fence.
Secure any openings that might endanger someone standing near the fence.

AND, you also need to train your dog to stay away from the fence


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I would say this is a really easy fix since you say he is fine in all other situations,,

Agree with the above, PREVENT people from sticking their hands OVER the fence..


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I would go with a 6-8 ft privacy fence and work with him from there.


----------



## LoveEcho (Mar 4, 2011)

Why was this allowed to happen more than once?


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

Do not allow your dog to be in a situation where obviously he WILL bite again and unfortunately suffer the consequence.
He may have gotten away with the last 3 situations but next time you could be in serious liability.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

I have most of my yard double fenced with 4' between the outer most fence and the inner one ... maybe something like this would help.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

New higher fence - preferably solid. Do not leave dog out unsupervised - Put up signs - DO NOT TRESPASS - DO NOT PET DOG

This is not a hard fix. This is manageable. This is your responsibility to handle more responsibly knowing there is a problem. I only hope your dog does not pay the price for your lack of diligence so far. If you love the dog and want to keep him safe - change the way you are managing him or he will have to be put down if someone sues you.

Lee


----------



## BMWHillbilly (Oct 18, 2012)

I agree with a taller fence but I also believe that when your dog is in their *own* fenced yard and anyone that comes up *IN* your yard without permission is trespassing. If they stick their hand over/through the fence and get bit then that's on them. I see no problem with fence line aggression. They are protecting their property. Geez, it doesn't take a genius to know not to stick your hand over a fence when there is a barking dog on the other side.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

You need to protect your dog. I have a fenced area inside my boundary fence where no one can reach my dogs without climbing over the first one. That way if anything happens they are clearly trespassing on my property.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

I agree with the above -- a solid fence possibly with a buffer zone of some nice landscaping shrubbery so that the dog does not get a visual on passersby - kids, cars, joggers, dogs , which excite him . 

" He has fence line aggression if you can call it that,...............
He barks at the door, and barks at anyone passing the fence line, even people he knows, "

This causes another problem which could get the neighbourhood against you and that is a barking nuisance. 
The more he is allowed to do it , watching people go by and continue with their business the more in his mind he thinks he is moving them off . The postman syndrome. Mail delivery person comes, dog barks, mail delivery person goes away. Dog gets reinforced by the normal routine of the person . 

Take some of the edge off the dog by taking him away from the fence line .


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

BMWHillbilly said:


> I agree with a taller fence but I also believe that when your dog is in their *own* fenced yard and anyone that comes up *IN* your yard without permission is trespassing. If they stick their hand over/through the fence and get bit then that's on them. I see no problem with fence line aggression. They are protecting their property. Geez, it doesn't take a genius to know not to stick your hand over a fence when there is a barking dog on the other side.


Except the fact the each bite was to a child. Not an adult. And children cannot be expected to see things the same way. Sorry. It's not acceptable that a dog with serious fence aggression have a fence do easily reached over by a 12 year old. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I also double fence. I think it offers many safety advantages and I do not have a problem though I would not predict with certainty that an invader without me present would be unscathed - AND - I do not leave the house with the dog in the inside fence without someone at home.


----------



## BMWHillbilly (Oct 18, 2012)

gsdsar said:


> Except the fact the each bite was to a child. Not an adult. And children cannot be expected to see things the same way. Sorry. It's not acceptable that a dog with serious fence aggression have a fence do easily reached over by a 12 year old.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


When i was 12 and even younger than that, I had the sense not to do something like that with a BARKING dog on the other side. At that age knew they could get bit but did it anyway. I also knew NOT to go on other people's property well before the age of 12. The "child" argument on this doesn't fly with me.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I agree with the suggestions here to prevent this but BMWHillbilly has a point too.

I think as a society we have gotten a bit looney when it comes to protecting children. 

A 12 year old should know better too.

Just yesterday a child playing on a school playground was hit by a falling branch from a tree. It's all over the local news being reported as some huge deal (the kid will be o.k. btw) but you'd think it was another attack like in Boston. 

The school cuts the entire tree down, it was a large oak.

They are going to have professional arborists come and check all the other trees and decide if they all need to be cut down now.

The parents are in agreement that the trees are dangerous and should be cut down.

We have just gone way overboard with this 'kids can never be allowed to be hurt' meme.

Where does this end? 





gsdsar said:


> Except the fact the each bite was to a child. Not an adult. And children cannot be expected to see things the same way. Sorry. It's not acceptable that a dog with serious fence aggression have a fence do easily reached over by a 12 year old.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yup.

When I pulled a silly stunt and got hurt this is exactly what my Dad would say to me, "Did you learn something?" in a stern tone of voice.





BMWHillbilly said:


> When i was 12 and even younger than that, I had the sense not to do something like that with a BARKING dog on the other side. At that age knew they could get bit but did it anyway. I also knew NOT to go on other people's property well before the age of 12. The "child" argument on this doesn't fly with me.


----------



## Chaps (Feb 3, 2013)

Anthony8858 said:


> For starters, you need to fix that fence.
> If a girl was able to "reach down into the fenced yard", it's just too easy for someone to access the dog.
> 
> Put signs, warning people to stay away from the fence.
> ...


I completely agree with this. Putting up signs would be the easiest option.

You mentioned that the three times it was with kids by the fence. Would he act this way with adults by the fence? Or what about acting aggressive towards kids away from the fence? I would eliminate all other variables 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I don't think this is fence line aggression in the way that I have come to understand the term...

IMO fence line aggression is when a dog is contained by a fence, and the fence ramps him up to bark/act aggressive towards anything on the other side of the fence. Either over a fear of that thing coming into the fence, or just an extension of other aggression issues (DA or HA).

If the dog is calm within the yard...to the point that people seem to think its alright to come near the fence and reach into the yard...the dog must not be acting that "aggressively." Unless they're inherently stupid...I don't see a rational person (or 12 year old) walking towards a dog behind a fence that looks like it wants to tear them apart and then reaching in. So if your dog is calm...and then as soon as they reach into the yard he gets them...its a defense of property. Personally...I don't see any issues with that.

The problem only comes up because people seem to be able to get away with trespassing these days and the courts/law enforcement agrees with them. So you just need to contain your dog and protect the DOG from the stupidity out there. Sadly, the dog might end up losing its life over an idiot kid jumping into its yard.

Again...another thread where it becomes very apparent that society expects dogs to be furniture with tails.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Some cases have shown signs to increase liability in as much they indicate the dog owner was aware they had a 'problem' dog.

So that can backfire....not always but it's not considered a warning as much as an admission of guilt sometimes. Just fyi.




Chaps said:


> I completely agree with this. Putting up signs would be the easiest option.
> 
> You mentioned that the three times it was with kids by the fence. Would he act this way with adults by the fence? Or what about acting aggressive towards kids away from the fence? I would eliminate all other variables
> 
> ...


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Some cases have shown signs to increase liability in as much they indicate the dog owner was aware they had a 'problem' dog.
> 
> So that can backfire....not always but it's not considered a warning as much as an admission of guilt sometimes. Just fyi.


This is true, but here in Florida having "BAD DOG" signs help protect the dog owner from liability. I don't know if there are other states with such laws, but it's something each dog owner should find out for their own state or jurisdiction.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

I don't expect dogs to be furniture with tails. At all. Dogs will be dogs. And kids will be kids. A kid playing outside a yard that does not put a hand over the fence should NOT get bit. Yet that's one happened in one case with this dog. 

I think it is over simplified to say that a dog has a right to defend its property. In some cases you are right. But not in all cases. And not in many adjudicated cases. 

The dog has bitten three people, children. There are easy steps to take to fix the issue. Or avoid it. I did not read anywhere that any if these situations were truly threatening to the dog. 

The OP liability is protection of the dog and the people near her property. If she knows there is an issue, she needs to take steps to prevent it. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## BMWHillbilly (Oct 18, 2012)

One time there was a lady walking up the street while pushing a stroller with a young child in it. I'd say the child was close to two years old. My fence line is a good 35 feet from the street. My dogs were barking up a storm so I went outside to see what was going on. The lady was actually pushing the stroller up my driveway and telling her child "do you want to pet those pretty doggies?" WTF???? The child looked terrified! My dogs were going ape **** since someone was getting close to the fence and on my property! I yelled at her to back off and no way was she going to "pet" my dogs. What is it with people!!!!!


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

gsdsar said:


> I don't expect dogs to be furniture with tails. At all. Dogs will be dogs. And kids will be kids. A kid playing outside a yard that does not put a hand over the fence should NOT get bit. Yet that's one happened in one case with this dog.
> 
> I think it is over simplified to say that a dog has a right to defend its property. In some cases you are right. But not in all cases. And not in many adjudicated cases.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent post.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

One incident where the kid "hid by the fence" what does that mean? How does the dog have access to someone hiding by a fence?

I'm not saying the dog is right...I'm just saying that the dog is acting like a dog would.

Threatening to a dog? Unless 100% protection trained...most dogs will react the same way to an "older child" as they would to an adult. They don't really have a "height requirement" to attack. I'm with you that this is pretty easy to avoid, but to dump a lot of liability on the dog is just wrong. The kids are the issue...not the dog.

Funny how someone made a thread to comment how society has changed and our dogs are so much worse than they were 50 years ago...and most people were in agreement about the fact that kids and parents are the issue when it comes to respecting dogs and not the dog. Yet when a case does come up, everyone jumps on the dog and owner and could care less that people are INVADING the dog's space.


----------



## Diesel and Lace (Apr 15, 2013)

IMO without knowing the full situation it sounds like the dog has excessive energy and needs more exercise and stimulation from his family. My dogs use the fenced portion of the yard to relieve themselves not to hang out in. Of course there are times when its really nice out and they enjoy laying out there but they are able to expend their energy else where when we play and engage them to do so. Yes there are times an animal comes up to the fence and they charge it but when kids go running by they dont even move because they dont have the built up energy. I am willing to bet with proper exercise daily and the OP engaging the dog more often, and not leaving the dog out there for anything other than to relieve himself or to play directly with the OP things would change. If my dog is not out there going to the bathroom or hanging out with me they are in the house.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

". I see no problem with fence line aggression. They are protecting their property"

I do . 

Barking nuisance. The rights of the person who is on public ground to pass by without being harassed . 
The image or the impression the public has of the dog , the breed. 
The aggression of the dog tends to escalate and fences can be breached or compromised by disrepair.

We've had complaints on this forum from people wanting to walk their dog who has some issue or someone who is trying to introduce their new pup to a larger environment. 
I hope one day some person who is secretly bearing a grudge and won't face you with a complaint , won't lob a piece of poison or tainted food that will make the dog very ill or worse.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

the dog does not sound to be protecting the property -- in my opinion this sounds like stimulated prey drive -- there is no threat


----------



## JackandMattie (Feb 4, 2013)

I definitely think it won't hurt to up your obedience (if that's why you're going back to your original trainer), and also to check for health issues at the vet.

But I agree with others that you need to manage the dog better, _immediately_, and it's pretty simple. Keep him away from the fenceline. You can try the double fence, or the kennel in an area away from the fence, or keep him indoors when you're not supervising will probably be cheapest, even if you have to crate him.

It's good that you're worried and looking for help. Yes, 3x could have been too long to wait, but thankfully you're on top of it now, before anything TOO awful happened and you got sued or the dog had to be put to sleep.

Keep us posted with your chosen solution!


----------



## LoveEcho (Mar 4, 2011)

martemchik said:


> The kids are the issue...not the dog.
> 
> .


I beg to differ...the kids are not the issue (not here, anyways- clearly, kids shouldn't be reaching over fences to pet strange dogs), the dog is not the issue...the owner is.

The owner clearly has inadequate fencing (it sounds like a five foot fence, if that...way too low), KNOWS that the dog is a nuisance and has a bite history, and has allowed now three people to be bitten. The owner can't really alter the behavior of neighborhood kids, so instead he needs to be taking responsibility for his dog and creating an environment in which both the dog and the children are safe from each other. 

In the ideal world, the dog would be stable enough to differentiate a threat, children would be well-mannered enough to not trespass, and an owner would be responsible enough to nip a problem in the bud. None of these things are occurring here.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

BMWHillbilly said:


> I agree with a taller fence but I also believe that when your dog is in their *own* fenced yard and anyone that comes up *IN* your yard without permission is trespassing. If they stick their hand over/through the fence and get bit then that's on them. I see no problem with fence line aggression. They are protecting their property. Geez, it doesn't take a genius to know not to stick your hand over a fence when there is a barking dog on the other side.


Yes, but dogs will be dogs, and people will be people. You can control your dog, but you can't control what other people will do, and especially children. Just because you SHOULD be able to leave your dog in your yard, and people SHOULD have the good sense not to come in, or lean over, or stick their fingers through, that doesn't mean that's how things actually are in the real world.

This has happened three times already, so something needs to be changed. How many more kids does he need to bite? Is standing on principle worth the life of your dog, is it worth being sued? For me it's an easy choice - managing the situation so my dog/s would never be in a position that this could happen again.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

carmspack said:


> ". I see no problem with fence line aggression. They are protecting their property"
> 
> I do .
> 
> ...


You're assuming that the fence is right up against public ground. Depending on where the OP is, it's unlikely that's the case. I'm visualizing a back yard fence, with some space in between where kids can get into and up the the fence. Where I live, we generally do not have fences in the front yard (I believe they're against city codes) and so they are only the back yard. This means people (kids) would have to come onto private property just to get to the dog.

Nothing was said about the dog doing any barking or aggressive behavior. My opinion is that the dog doesn't show any aggressive behavior, which leads the kids to reach their hands over the fence. If they're stupid enough to reach over the fence while there is a barking dog on the other side...I still can't blame the dog. The dog is telling them it doesn't like their presence, and they're not listening...and pushing the dog further by reaching into the fence.

I don't know how many 12 year olds you all know...but when I was 12, the last thing I would've been doing is reaching my hand into a fenced in yard to pet a dog that was barking at me. And that was a kid that was never raised around dogs, and not taught anything about approaching dogs...just taught to avoid dogs.

You also completely took my statement out of context...the context said that I don't see a problem with fence line aggression as it relates to THIS dog because it is probably not showing fence line aggression (as I understand that term to mean). Yes...over all in the grand scheme of things fence line aggression is a terrible thing...but I don't believe the dog is showing it in this situation.

Maybe OP should come back and answer some more questions before the rest of you crucify their dog.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I definitely think this is a very easy issue to manage...but I also just don't agree with everyone ripping on the dog, saying it shouldn't be doing that. I have a pretty well trained dog, and I have a feeling he'd react the same way if anyone was sticking their hands over his fence. I don't have a problem with it, I'm responsible enough to manage this type of situation and not let it happen (as the OP should). But I don't think this dog has problems. 

Sadly some people on here think every "issue" that gets brought up on this forum is the dog's fault unless it was bred by an acceptable breeder and the pedigree spells out that it has good nerve. Then its all the owners fault for ruining said dog.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

That is why I used the words "in some cases" and "not always". 

Not sure if it's state level, probably best to check with county ordinances *as well* but it does vary.

Florida had a 'loophole' called "attractive nuisance". It affected everything from pool owners to farms with horses and dog owners. The general jist of this was if you had something which was 'attractive' to children you would still be liable if they should be injured while trespassing on your property or otherwise engaging with the 'attractive' nuisance. This is why pool owners, even if they don't have children of their own, must secure the pool.

I was heavily involved in horses and we had some cases where people would enter the pasture to pet the horses, get kicked and injured and then sue the horse owner. Some cases I was familiar with the horse owners lost. 


This was quite a few years ago now so *it may have changed*...so just another FYI.



arycrest said:


> This is true, but here in Florida having "BAD DOG" signs help protect the dog owner from liability. I don't know if there are other states with such laws, but it's something each dog owner should find out for their own state or jurisdiction.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't know the OP's situation but I have always lived in the city with a tiny yard and just a few feet between houses. I actually *like* living in a lively neighborhood with kids and plenty of pedestrian traffic, but along with that you cannot go all "castle law" and assume that people won't put a toe onto your lawn. My street is crawling with kids and they just don't know better. I've come home from work and had to stop my car on the sidewalk and move kids' bikes out of my driveway to pull in. Last week I saw Coke go over to the gate and start wagging his tail excitedly and then realized there was a little boy (about 4 years old) who had toddled up my driveway and was about a foot from reaching his hand out to my gate when his mom called him back. If I have a dog out in my front yard, kids naturally come over and want to pet it.

I've found that it's far easier to just manage and protect my dogs with adequate fencing than try to get other people to keep their kids off my property (I really don't mind them there) or assume that people in an urban neighborhood are going to keep to themselves. 

When we moved in our yard had a 6' wooden privacy fence, "shadowbox" style, around three sides of the yard. The front part across the driveway had a small section of 4' chain link and a 4' chain link gate for the driveway. The first upgrade we did to the house was replace these sections of flimsy 4' chain link with professionally installed heavy gauge 6' chain link including a 6' gate across the driveway which is basically child proof and also can be locked. My dogs have never bit or tried to bite anyone through a fence or reaching over, but dogs are dogs and I can't say "oh they'll never...." My mail lady loves my dogs and is always petting them through the fence and giving them treats if I'm home when she comes by and I don't mind because she came over to meet them each when we moved in and I trust her with dogs. But I didn't trust the 4' fence with all the traffic, didn't want people actually reaching over or being able to easily open my gate.

Like I said, my dogs have no bite history and generally bark in excitement for people TO approach the gate or come in the yard, but I don't want to have to worry about anything and since it's my property it's still my liability even if someone is technically trespassing.

Whether or not the dog should have done that...well people own dogs with all manner of behavioral problems and levels of aggression but better management is a pretty easy fix.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Who is crucifying the dog? The owner knows there is a potential for damage as has been demonstrated. They are responsible for mitigating that damage.

I think everyone is saying that it is their responsiblity for managing it. I don't think the owner has said anything to the contrary. Just that physical control, not just obedience control should be excercised.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

this " and barks at anyone passing the fence line, even people he knows" from page one gives the impression that the fence is against public space so I don't see people skulking around a laneway deliberately harassing the dog " I'm visualizing a back yard fence, with some space in between where kids can get into and up the the fence. "

be responsible and take action to stop this behaviour because you are responsible and there are repercussions whether financial to you , and/or the dogs life.


----------



## bga (Jan 30, 2013)

BMWHillbilly said:


> I agree with a taller fence but I also believe that when your dog is in their *own* fenced yard and anyone that comes up *IN* your yard without permission is trespassing. If they stick their hand over/through the fence and get bit then that's on them. I see no problem with fence line aggression. They are protecting their property. Geez, it doesn't take a genius to know not to stick your hand over a fence when there is a barking dog on the other side.


You may or may not be technically right but ...

If I cross the street when I have a walk sign, and get flattened by an 18-wheeler running a red, I'd be right, but dead. Practicalites have to matter here... Kids are kids and you can't count on them considering the law when they reach down to pet that sweet doggy.


----------



## bga (Jan 30, 2013)

bga said:


> You may or may not be technically right but ...
> 
> If I cross the street when I have a walk sign, and get flattened by an 18-wheeler running a red, I'd be right, but dead. Practicalites have to matter here... Kids are kids and you can't count on them considering the law when they reach down to pet that sweet doggy.


Just to add to that .... This has happened three times. What if the next time a kid jumps over the fence and gets mangled or worse? Would you really stand on principle because you were in the right. This should be resolved with proper fencing now, before the OP ever has to answer that question for real.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Plus the owner is still liable (can be sued) because someone was bit on their property. Fence or not they could still be taken to court which could be annoying and expensive. Their home owner's insurance could drop them whether it was "their fault" or not. To most people a dog that bites people is a dog that bites people, regardless of circumstance.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

Liesje said:


> Plus the owner is still liable (can be sued) because someone was bit on their property. Fence or not they could still be taken to court which could be annoying and expensive. Their home owner's insurance could drop them whether it was "their fault" or not. To most people a dog that bites people is a dog that bites people, regardless of circumstance.


Absolutely

I'm dealing with a fence fighting dog that belongs to a neighbor, our property is fenced with a 6' high privacy fence between us and this small dog is bonkers. I know my dogs can't and will not go through the fence to get at this dog, but the neighbors dog just might be silly enough to try. I'm keeping a very close eye on the ground under the fence and making sure there's no weak points

Why? Because *I* don't want my dogs being blamed for anything, if the dog did somehow get through it would be on MY property but in the end it could be MY dogs who could end up in deep trouble if they hurt it. A Dangerous Dog label on a dog is a awful thing to carry for the rest of it's life

Part of responsible pet ownership is protecting your pet from anything that could threaten and/or harm them. That means at all times inside and outside


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you like your dog, fix your fence. 

This is totally infuriating from the point of other owners of this breed. You have allowed this dog to do this three separate times. Totally unacceptable. We think that our dogs are safe because they are used as SAR dogs and Police Dogs, but there are people out there that really do not want them around at all. And there are insurance companies that will not insure your home if you have GSDs. And that is because people are allowing dogs to do things exactly like this. 

If you do not want Animal Control to come and take your dog away, and the court to say the dog must be euthanized, then fix your fence AND go out with your dog when he is outside. 

I'll give you a _should --_ You _should _have changed the situation after the first incident. 

Dogs are an attrative nuisance. Babies and children are attracted to them. You need to protect children from your dogs. That means containing them properly so that they cannot bite a kid. If the kid jumped over your fence, I would probably say a different thing. But your dog can jump up and bite a kid OVER the fence. That means your fence is inadequate and you cannot leave your dog in your yard -- even if you are out there until you get it fixed, because you _know _what your dog _will _do. 

Please, I do not want for you to be saying, "I wish I would've..." after your dog has been given a death sentence that you can't change. 

This is totally on you.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

First, I agree the OP should take steps to prevent this from happening again, totally agree with you and others.

Secondly, we haven't heard all the details, just one brief post and I'm sure the OP will be surprised when he/she sees the responses here. It's possible the kids may be teasing the dog, or other circumstances that caused the dog to act like it did.

Third in blue: now I'm speaking to a *general meme* (not this specific case) but the more this argument is made the less rights we have over our property. I am not saying this is in a sarcastic manner - the attractive nusiance loopholes aren't just loopholes in limited liability laws but also gaping loopholes in personal responsiblity. 

You cannot teach children about personal responsibilty while telling them it's o.k. they can ignore signs, warnings, trespass, and pester other people animals/livestock/jump in a neighbor's pool and then lay blame at the property owner's feet. 

The litmus test often was phrased as what a 'reasonable person' would do. We've moved that bar so ridicously low that indeed insurance companies don't want to insure certain breeds, home owners with pools pay much higher rates.

In essence what we are paying for is the dumping of the responsibility of a child's safety on society, unreasonably, at large rather then where it belongs, with the parents. 



selzer said:


> If you like your dog, fix your fence.
> 
> This is totally infuriating from the point of other owners of this breed. You have allowed this dog to do this three separate times. Totally unacceptable. We think that our dogs are safe because they are used as SAR dogs and Police Dogs, but there are people out there that really do not want them around at all. And there are insurance companies that will not insure your home if you have GSDs. And that is because people are allowing dogs to do things exactly like this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think each person has to weigh the pros and cons. Personally I would not be comfortable living where I live and owning a dog that would bite kids *through* a fence, even if the dog was properly contained and the kids were trespassing on my property. If I owned a dog like that, I'd probably double fence or kennel inside a fenced yard. Yes I agree that kids need to be taught how to behave but if I was the OP I would not want to teach that lesson at the expense of my dog and putting him in a situation where he will bite.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> First, I agree the OP should take steps to prevent this from happening again, totally agree with you and others.
> 
> Secondly, we haven't heard all the details, just one brief post and I'm sure the OP will be surprised when he/she sees the responses here. It's possible the kids may be teasing the dog, or other circumstances that caused the dog to act like it did.
> 
> ...


Yes, ultimately a child's safety is on the parents, but if you kept loaded guns on your front porch and some kid came up onto your porch and shot himself or someone else, can you totally be exonerated from any blame? I think that you really do have to maintain a reasonable level of security when it comes to your dogs. 

If you have a fence on your property, the dogs need to be contained behind the fence. Someone walking by the fence should not be concerned that the dog will be able to come right over the fence and take a chunk. And no one should be able to put their arm over the fence to pat the dog. 

Four foot fences might work for some people, with some dogs. But I think that is a liability. 

And parents do not hold their children's hands until they are 18. 12 year olds do go places on their own, even though they do not always make good decisions. The community does need to ensure that hazardous situations are secure at least to the degree of the threat.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Well you cannot sue the gun manufacturer and whether you can sue the gun owner depends (so yes sometimes your point will hold true) but dog owners seem to be far more liable (there is an assumption of guilt as per the 'attractive nuisance' baloney). A dichotomy that has always made me a little :crazy:

Incidents like this should be based on one litmus test only, proof of negligence as it pertains to each case rather then this knee jerk foisting of responsibility onto property owners. It's gone too far IMO.

When I was in Florida I seriously considered starting a 'Pony Party' business. After investigating the amount of liability I was exposing myself too, it just wasn't worth it to me. The core problem being I could have the safest ponies, the tack and equipment top notch condition but a little kid just looses his/her balance falls off and gets hurt and it's ALL my fault.

Tree limb falls on a kid's head, school is at fault and ALL the trees are going to be cut down.

I don't think society should bear the brunt of Acts of God type accidents where no negligence is found OR negligence on the parent's part.

When my Dad would say to me "Well did you learn something?" he was teaching me to be responsible for my behaviour.

I'd like to see a LOT more of that.







selzer said:


> Yes, ultimately a child's safety is on the parents, but if you kept loaded guns on your front porch and some kid came up onto your porch and shot himself or someone else, can you totally be exonerated from any blame? I think that you really do have to maintain a reasonable level of security when it comes to your dogs.
> 
> If you have a fence on your property, the dogs need to be contained behind the fence. Someone walking by the fence should not be concerned that the dog will be able to come right over the fence and take a chunk. And no one should be able to put their arm over the fence to pat the dog.
> 
> ...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The dog bit three separate kids on three separate occasions. What more do we need to know!?!

If I was on the jury, I would award the victims the maximum they were suing for as _punitive _damages. 

Anyone can have a dog that does something stupid or unexpected. But not three times. That's total negligence. 

I just don't understand why we are so afraid to have an opinion that holds a GSD owner at fault. 

GSD owners should be furious. GSD owners should hold themselves to a much higher standard. Do we like it that people see our dogs as viscious nasty child-biters? Do we like it that vets often have a pre-concieved idea of every shepherd they see? Do we like it when people herd their children to the other side of the street when we walk along with our very friendly dog? 

Three times! 

Do we like it that the GSD is ALWAYS at fault regardless to whatever happened? Do we like it that landlords and insurance companies won't do business with us? 

Gosh people, you have to draw the line somewhere. 

We GSD owners are our worst enemies when it comes to our dogs. 




Gwenhwyfair said:


> Well you cannot sue the gun manufacturer and whether you can sue the gun owner depends (so yes sometimes your point will hold true) but dog owners seem to be far more liable (there is an assumption of guilt as per the 'attractive nuisance' baloney). A dichotomy that has always made me a little :crazy:
> 
> Incidents like this should be based on one litmus test only, proof of negligence as it pertains to each case rather then this knee jerk foisting of responsibility onto property owners. It's gone too far IMO.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zookeep (May 17, 2012)

selzer said:


> The dog bit three separate kids on three separate occasions. What more do we need to know!?!
> 
> If I was on the jury, I would award the victims the maximum they were suing for as _punitive _damages.
> 
> Anyone can have a dog that does something stupid or unexpected. But not three times. That's total negligence.


Exactly. The first time your dog bites, you can argue that it was not foreseeable, which is required to have liability for negligence. The second time is foreseeable. If the harm is foreseeable, and you could have prevented it but didn't, you will be found liable.


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

> and one 12 year old boy reached down over the fence to pet him, and he jumped up and left teeth scrape on his chest. Another time a boy hid by our fence and he nipped him in the back leaving no mark. Today he bit a girl he knows as she reached down into his fence to pet him. He has fence line aggression if you can call it that, but when people are in the yard or the house, he has never shown any type of aggression to anyone. He barks at the door, and barks at anyone passing the fence line


the first two "bites" were nips.. teeth scrapes and no mark on back.. the 3rd incident states a "bite" but what type of bite??none of the children were ripped to shreds- none were bleeding profusely or lost a body part- therefore the dog is giving a warning... the dog is showing alot of constraint by not inflicting severe damage to each child- which is a good thing... the fact that the dog nipped 3 children is not good.. BUT- the dog didnt kill or maim the 3 children which is good.

honestly, be outside with the dog, put a 2nd fence inside the first one so the kids cant get their hands over, and put lock on gate so kids cant get in yard.. talk to parents about keeping their kids off your property.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

selzer said:


> The dog bit three separate kids on three separate occasions. What more do we need to know!?!
> 
> If I was on the jury, I would award the victims the maximum they were suing for as _punitive _damages.
> 
> ...


I understand all of this and I agree with most of it. But I wouldn't award anything if I was on a jury. They put their hands over the fence, which means they were trespassing. None of them belonged doing what they were doing. I would change the set up as the owner, but I would be furious if kids kept putting there hand over the fence. As the owner of the GSD I would go out of my way to talk to all the kids parents in the neighborhood to make sure they understand what they can and can't do.The law might say something else, but that is how I would think if I was on a jury. It would be a completely different scenario if the dog bit a kid while walking down the street, then I would vote to award money and lots of it.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

On this particular case *we don't know*. One of the kids had a problem as he 'hid' behind the fence, what is that about? We don't know. It's entirely possible that there is some negligence on the OPs part in THIS, but we can't be sure so I'm not going to say either way. EXCEPT that at this point it certainly is prudent that the OP take steps to prevent AND figure what is going on as well. I totally agree with that. 

Now setting aside for a moment the details as it pertains to the OP, the problem is making the larger argument assuming guilt on the part of the dog owner has become the larger narrative and that is wrong.

When children are involved we've gone too far as a society of *assuming guilt* when they somehow are hurt/injured. See the 'attractive nuisance' codes. Why should I be responsible for a child falling into my pool? Climbing into my fenced yard or coming onto my property and teasing my dog? That's where personal responsibilty comes into play. A 12 year old should know better and a younger child should be attended by an adult (parent).

Since when did property owners automatically become responsible for the mistakes, poor choices and poor parenting of others? 

Good grief now we are going to start suing people because tree branches fall and hit kids at a park or play ground. 

What I'm saying is that the arguments, _when made assuming guilt on the part of the property owner _is what LEADS to dog owners having to be HYPER vigilant, pay more for insurance, because we as a society have decided that kids and their parents should not be held accountable. That is VERY wrong and IMO we should be aware of this very definitive trend.




selzer said:


> The dog bit three separate kids on three separate occasions. What more do we need to know!?!
> 
> If I was on the jury, I would award the victims the maximum they were suing for as _punitive _damages.
> 
> ...


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> What I'm saying is that the arguments, _when made assuming guilt on the part of the property owner _is what LEADS to dog owners having to be HYPER vigilant, pay more for insurance, because we as a society have decided that kids and their parents should not be held accountable. That is VERY wrong and IMO we should be aware of this very definitive trend.


Since I'm familiar with how people think and even though I agree with you, its not going to change the fact that the owners of the dogs will be held responsible. I'm in the process of looking for house and as I'm looking, the yard area is very important. I have to be able to have a 6-8 ft fence and then a fenced in area for the dogs closer to the house for when I can't be out there with them. I'm thinking about a in ground pool, so that is another fence. I'm sure I will be spending thousands on keeping my dogs safe. I'm not chancing anything. My house will be like Fort Knox, no one is coming in or reaching over


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

LOL! 

Too bad you didn't live near me, my DH builds fences as part of his business. We'd cut you a good deal. 

He's helping a lady improve her fences to keep dogs in and strangers out next week. 


Thanks for the note of humor and good luck with your house hunting! 




llombardo said:


> Since I'm familiar with how people think and even though I agree with you, its not going to change the fact that the owners of the dogs will be held responsible. I'm in the process of looking for house and as I'm looking, the yard area is very important. I have to be able to have a 6-8 ft fence and then a fenced in area for the dogs closer to the house for when I can't be out there with them. I'm thinking about a in ground pool, so that is another fence. I'm sure I will be spending thousands on keeping my dogs safe. I'm not chancing anything. My house will be like Fort Knox, no one is coming in or reaching over


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think for me the thing is, whoever is responsible I'd still feel terrible and mortified and guilty knowing my dog bit a kid, or more than one kid. I don't know, I guess that's just me.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

We choose to own a breed of dog that _can _be very similar to a loaded gun. Only it thinks and acts for itself, where the gun stays put until someone picks it up. 

These dogs were not bred to sit on laps and look pretty. They were bred to have guarding instincts. They were bred to protect/guard the farm and flocks of their owner, against 2 and 4 footed predators. They are large, and they can do considerable damage. And they have agression, it is part of their make up. 

Children and dogs go together like peanut butter and jelly. As a child, I was attracted to every dog I saw, and especially German Shepherd Dogs. I still am. I just hold it in better, usually. 

Children are not little adults. Their thought processes are not the same. They often do not consider all the possibilities and consequences of their actions. And, how dog-savy they are is totally reliant upon the humans in their lives. 

Now, take a look on this forum at how many individuals have trouble with potty training, puppy nipping, adolescent dogs acting out, and young dogs biting. For the most part, these are adults with little or no experience raising dogs like ours. This is a fractional biased cross-section of our population. These are people who have actually chosed to own a GSD. That makes them biased -- maybe not the right word, but people who are not totally ignorant of the breed. 

And it is not just our breed, but breeds that were bred for human or canine aggression, guarding, herding, intelligence, size, strength and courage. The only thing in our favor, maybe, is the fact that there are a LOT of these dogs out there, but, a person's experience with them is either so highly positive that they do not have a healthy respect for them, or so terribly negative that they can have a completely unreasonable fear of them. 

Children raised with dogs are not immune to acting stupid around other people's dogs. If a 2 year old is allowed to maul and wrestle with their GSD, they may do the same with a friend or family members dog that is not accustomed to that behavior. And kids do not automatically grow out of that. They can litterally be twelve years old and shooting out their hands to maul a dog's head, because that is what they do with fluffy at home. 

I know when I was twelve, I had gone to the neighbor's house and they weren't home but their newfoundland was hanging around with his bone, and we used to play with my grandmother's dachsund's bone and I knew this dog since he was a tiny puppy. The neighbor's daughter was nine days younger than me, both moved in within months of each other and were best friends. I was at their house as much as my own. And I still have the scar that I deserved from playing/teasing that dog with his bone. 

My point is that we can teach our own children how to behave around our dogs, around friends and neighbor's dogs, and around strange dogs, but we cannot guaranty that every child that our dogs encounter will have benefitted from that type of up-bringing. 

So we need to protect our dogs from children. 

And kids have since time began teased dogs through fences. They poke sticks at them. They throw rocks at them. They try to get them to bark and agress at fence lines. This is great sport to them. Until someone drums it into their hide why this is bad they simply don't get it. And it will not necessarily be the agitator that gets his hand burned by a dog that has been teased to no avail at a fence line. It can be a kid that has never teased the dog. It could be a kid that is skateboarding down the sidewalk minding their own business. The dog might just go over that 4' fence and go after a completely innocent kid because someone allowed their dog to be constantly accosted by brats at their fence line. 

It is obvious to me that this dog's containment system is inadequate. I have seen dogs leap a 36" x-pen, and have seen 8 week old puppies climb over 2' x-pens like they aren't there. 4' isn't that much of a challenge to an adult GSD. Mine will stay behind a 39" baby gate, but that does not mean they could not manage to get over it. And while I am gone, I make sure there is nothing on the other side of that gate that might make one of the girls go over. 

Now had I children, I would beat the tar out of them if I cought them teasing a dog behind a fence. But as a dog owner, I protect my dogs from having that ever happen. When I am not right out there with them, they are in kennels within a privacy fence. 

So whether or not the children were acting stupid, or deliberately teasing the dog on three separate occasions, it doesn't matter. The owner is still at fault for continually subjecting his dog to the actions of children around his fence line.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

selzer said:


> Children raised with dogs are not immune to acting stupid around other people's dogs.


I was just thinking that the other day, lol. In fact, lately I've begun to think that the children who *aren't* raised with dogs are easier for me to socialize my puppy with. They may not know how to act appropriately around a dog, but they also won't molest mine. There are some incredibly docile dogs out there, judging from what I've seen.

There's lots of members here who have rats and birds and such: the number one rule is, "Don't put your fingers through the cage!" and we all know why. That's probably why OP's dog went for the children, because the adults know better. It's still a terrible thing to happen. It's not fair to the children or the dog. But there's a very simple solution: don't allow the dog access to the fence line. Even if you have to set up an elaborate mix of hedging and an electric fence, it shouldn't be difficult to find a solution.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In blue, why should you be* legally responsible* if something happens and the kid teasing your dog gets bit though? (presumed guilty because A) it was a minor who got bit B) your dog was considered an 'attractive nuisance)

My problem is when it involves children and dogs the knee jerk reaction is to presume the dog/dog's owner are totally at fault.

This is perpetuated by a societal meme based on blaming rather then taking responsiblity.



selzer said:


> We choose to own a breed of dog that _can _be very similar to a loaded gun. Only it thinks and acts for itself, where the gun stays put until someone picks it up.
> 
> These dogs were not bred to sit on laps and look pretty. They were bred to have guarding instincts. They were bred to protect/guard the farm and flocks of their owner, against 2 and 4 footed predators. They are large, and they can do considerable damage. And they have agression, it is part of their make up.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No it's not just you.

The question is why should you be held automatically liable for incidents that happen with your dogs on your property.

What you're talking about is empathy what I'm talking about is assumption of guilt because of A and B I listed in the above post.

BTW- I'm just pointing this out because I think we've become accustomed to shouldering SO much responsibility for the absolute safety of kids, even under circumstance where we dog owners have not been negligent, that we've become used to it. It didn't used to be this way.






Liesje said:


> I think for me the thing is, whoever is responsible I'd still feel terrible and mortified and guilty knowing my dog bit a kid, or more than one kid. I don't know, I guess that's just me.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

btw- regarding the guns and dogs vs safety of kids.

If a strange 13 or 14 year old kid barged into your house in the middle of the night and you shot him that would be self defense.

Same scenario except the dog bit the kid, better have good insurance even though it's far more likely the kid will survive a dog bite.

It's odd because kids rarely die from dog bites but not a day goes by where a kid is not wounded/killed by a gun in the house and it's just a blip on the news radar.

A kid gets bit by a dog and next thing you know people are calling for breed bans. 

A friend of mine calls that 'wackadoodle'.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I protect my dog from being teased by kids because it is very dangerous, not only to the brat doing the teasing but to all boys with baseball caps or long pants or whatever. Dogs don't see so good, and if they are irritated over and again by a type of individual, they can become a danger to any individual that roughly meets the discription. 

It is up to us to protect our dogs, and letting kids get up close and personal to the dog on multiple occasions is on the owner. Yes it is on your property, but if there is access, then you haven't protected the dog enough. 

There is a big difference between hooting at a barking dog as you are walking down the side walk, than bursting through your door into your house. If my dog bites a 14 or 15 year old brat that came uninvited into my home, then I would fight tooth and nail against paying any damages. I would get a good lawyer and demand a jury trial. 

But if someone is able to reach over your fence to pet the dog, or the dog is able to reach over the fence and bite someone in the chest, you just don't have a leg to stand legally besides being responsible for the dog's protection in a non-legal sense. 

Who of us would leave our dog in a situation where it can be teased regularly?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Should you be legally liable if your dog bites a kid, where you have NOT been negligent? 

btw- I get what your saying about protecting dogs. I have 6 1/2 foot solid (no gaps, no shadow boxing) privacy fences to the sides and two wire fences to the back AND I never leave the dogs out unattended, NEVER.

The last company I worked for thought about putting in a daycare when they built a new building. They didn't because the liability surrounding having kids on the property was crazy. A couple of people in our neighborhood suggested a neighborhood playground, we asked them "are you going to pay for the liability insurance?" That put a stop to that.

The fact of the matter is we shouldn't have to have yards like 'fort knox', build the fence higher and the little buggers will crawl under or get a ladder. 

Where's the limit? When do we stop enabling this lack of responsibility?




selzer said:


> I protect my dog from being teased by kids because it is very dangerous, not only to the brat doing the teasing but to all boys with baseball caps or long pants or whatever. Dogs don't see so good, and if they are irritated over and again by a type of individual, they can become a danger to any individual that roughly meets the discription.
> 
> It is up to us to protect our dogs, and letting kids get up close and personal to the dog on multiple occasions is on the owner. Yes it is on your property, but if there is access, then you haven't protected the dog enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

If I were you, I would be very much aware meeting THESE kids in the street without a muzzle, and won't bother about ALL OTHER kids too much. All depends how much obedient your dogs are. I believe, your dogs are well trained and they would give up the idea of approaching an unknown naughty child with your first call. Stay calm, your calm voice, or your whistle will indicate to your dogs that there is nothing important about the child and his/her smell. But, the story will be different with THESE kids. Like us, our dogs choose their friends and their enemies and I doubt very much you would be able to tell your dog that the enemy isn't important. Every human individual has his/her individual smell, sure, your dogs are living in anticipation of just a closer encounter, they know that these are coming half a mile ahead.These kids are the bullies, they have mentality of young beeves, strong in heard only, forgive them!


----------



## katdog5911 (Sep 24, 2011)

In Ct this is the law....
_By law, a dog's owner or keeper is liable for any damage caused by his or her dog to a person's body or property, unless the damage was sustained while the person was committing a trespass or other tort or was teasing, abusing, or tormenting the dog. The law presumes that anyone under the age of seven was not committing any of these actions (such as trespassing or teasing the dog) unless the defendant can prove otherwise _

But trespass does not mean just walking on your property. The has to be intent to do something wrong. 

I think people should know better than to just pet strange dogs, but they don't. I had a man stick his head INTO my back car window to say hello to Stella, while I was turned the other way to get my purse! 
I have kids run up to Stella often to pet her, right up into her face! And the parents don't say or do anything. Fortunately, Stella hasn't done or said anything either. But I don't think she loves it and I certainly don't. 
I have seen kids and some adults, get a kick out of riling a dog up. Guess who would be at fault if they got bit!?!?!

Bottom line...I don't really fault the dog. He is being a dog. But I would want to protect my dog and myself. You can't change someone else's behavior, only your own and your dog's......


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

selzer said:


> And kids have since time began teased dogs through fences. They poke sticks at them. They throw rocks at them. They try to get them to bark and agress at fence lines. This is great sport to them.


Years ago I had four dogs, lived in an apartment and had a nice fenced in courtyard for the dogs. These kids used to come around and just taunt, tease, and throw things at the dogs almost everyday(while I am out there yelling at them to stop). Well one day the gate wasn't completely closed and 3 of the dogs ran for those kids. All of the kids ran except one, which is normally the right thing to do. Well the smallest of the three escape artists weighed about 30 pounds and he brought a 8 year old girl down. I have to admit the first thing that came to my mine is that these kids deserved it, but I snapped out of that thought process pretty quick. I wasn't about to lose my dog because of some ignorant kids. The other two dogs chased the kids away and came back and I got my little guy off of her. I immediately had her take her jacket off..thank God it was winter because all she had was a bruise. No teeth marks, no ripped jacket. I walked with her to her parents house so I could explain what happened and why. They were very understanding and I never seen those kids come by and tease the dogs again. I'm sorry it happened and I'm thankful it wasn't worse.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

keep him away from the fence line. what do you think? if you keep
him away from the fence line he wouldn't be able to bite in that
situation, yes or no?



Hudson Tacheny said:


> My 4 year old GS has bit 3 people. Each situation has been the same thing, he was in the fenced yard, and one 12 year old boy reached down over the fence to pet him, and he jumped up and left teeth scrape on his chest. Another time a boy hid by our fence and he nipped him in the back leaving no mark. Today he bit a girl he knows as she reached down into his fence to pet him. He has fence line aggression if you can call it that, but when people are in the yard or the house, he has never shown any type of aggression to anyone. He barks at the door, and barks at anyone passing the fence line, even people he knows, but once inside the fence he is totally fine. I am really nervous about todays event. I am taking him back to his original trainer, and meeting with his vet tomorrow, any suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

if you were the OP you would be doing the same thing the OP is doing.



David Taggart said:


> >>>> If I were you, I would be very much aware meeting THESE kids in the street without a muzzle, and won't bother about ALL OTHER kids too much.<<<<
> 
> All depends how much obedient your dogs are. I believe, your dogs are well trained and they would give up the idea of approaching an unknown naughty child with your first call. Stay calm, your calm voice, or your whistle will indicate to your dogs that there is nothing important about the child and his/her smell. But, the story will be different with THESE kids. Like us, our dogs choose their friends and their enemies and I doubt very much you would be able to tell your dog that the enemy isn't important. Every human individual has his/her individual smell, sure, your dogs are living in anticipation of just a closer encounter, they know that these are coming half a mile ahead.These kids are the bullies, they have mentality of young beeves, strong in heard only, forgive them!


----------



## Renofan2 (Aug 27, 2010)

Although my dogs have never show aggression to a child or person in my neighborhood, I still take all precautions to protect my dogs from any possibility. I have a 5 foot split picket fence in the back yard, a 6 foot metal fence with gate to access the front part of the house and have another 5 foot chain link in a smaller section within the larger split picket, with gates to get to various sections. I rarely let my dogs out unattended, but may run into for a minute so wanted to make sure that if someone entered the yard, it would take a lot of effort and there would be little chance of a child getting thru all the gates to put there hand thru the fence. It is just not worth the risk of something bad happening and me be facing losing one or all of them.

Cheryl


----------



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

Wow, this is a lot of pages and still no replay from the OP?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> *Should you be legally liable if your dog bites a kid, where you have NOT been negligent? *
> 
> btw- I get what your saying about protecting dogs. I have 6 1/2 foot solid (no gaps, no shadow boxing) privacy fences to the sides and two wire fences to the back AND I never leave the dogs out unattended, NEVER.
> 
> ...


I don't think you are legally liable when you are not negligent. But the jury decides what negligent is. If you have a dog on a chain and a 2 year old can wander over to the dog that can be negligent. Why would having a fence the dog can leap up on and bite someone over the fence?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

in red: See that's the crux of the matter. I ran into this with my horses in Florida. A kid crawled over a fence, went into a horse barn, opened the stall door and went into the stall with the horse. The kid was kicked. Parents sued and horse owner lost. Not my horse but because I was involved in boarding and training at the time I kept track of this sort of thing. 

When it's minors and there is an 'attractive nusiance' argument brought you MAY still be 150% liable even if you weren't negligent.

I say 150% liable because not only actual damages but pain and suffering too.

IMO we as a society have become so risk averse, especially when it applies to children, that a jury will fault you even if you weren't negligent, simply because we've bought into this presumption of guilt meme when it comes to kids getting hurt.

This thread wends it's way through many aspects of dog owining life. Dogs are expected to be 100% kid proof at all times to the point we can't even let them have 3 minutes to eat their food in peace. They have to tolerate with 100% reliability a complete stranger getting right down into their face. 

Just the other day a neighbor kid asked to pet Autumn, who is just the sweetest, softest, kissy little aussie. The little girl did everything wrong a little kid could possibly do, touch, jerk hand back in fear, touch, jerk hand back in fear. She's even pet Autumn before. Autumn was wiggly and happy and gentle, licked the little girl's hand and the girl turned and ran squealing in fright. Autumn was confused and thought the little girl was playing made a little 'yip' sound wanting to follow the girl. I had Autumn on leash told her to sit and she did. 

Still the incident got me thinking. It's just not worth it. If the kid is not dog savvy or scared of dogs and the dog happens to react badly then it's my fault. My dogs are all used to kids and have never aggressed to kids but I think since they are all adult dogs now, no more kids petting them. It really is just not worth it. 




selzer said:


> I don't think you are legally liable when you are not negligent. But the jury decides what negligent is. If you have a dog on a chain and a 2 year old can wander over to the dog that can be negligent. Why would having a fence the dog can leap up on and bite someone over the fence?


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

One time I ran to pick up my son from school, which was 2 blocks away and I must have forgot to lock my doors, but I did lock the dogs up(Thank God). When I came home cops and animal control were everywhere. There was this lady who was always at the laundry mat next door with her kids never watched them. Well one of my cats was in the window and the kid decided to open my door. Now this kid had to come up at least 10 stairs which would bring him into a long walk way which was private. The kid grabbed my cat from inside the house and the cat went ballistic. The girl downstairs tried grabbing the cat and it ripped her to shreds. She was in the middle of the street screaming dripping in blood, for my dad who was at the pizza place we owned across the street. Of course I was over my limit on pets allowed and my sister was staying with me with hers. Every neighbor in the building took a dog and cats were thrown in the closet, well the ones that I could. All others were taken away, they were all my sisters cats and my sister was issued a citation. They NEVER did or said anything to the lady that was to lazy to watch her kids It was a mess and that idiot lady never apologized and continued to not watch her kids, by far the worst mom I have ever seen The kids ended up getting taken away from her for neglect because someone called the local Department of Children Services The girl that was injured never sued me or anything, she was actually happy that she could help.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Wow. I feel bad for the kids, they didn't have guidance at all it sounds like.

I had a similiar incident when I lived in a ground floor condo apartment. At the time I had a lab/dobie mix and a cat. My door wasn't locked and some kids barged in, very aburptly, suddenly without knocking. Just hit the door and ran into the entry way. My dog charged forward barking. I had never seen that dog act that way before. The kids freaked (they were pre-teen age) and ran out the door. I caught up with my dog and caught her collar and closed (and locked!) the door. 

I'm not sure what the kids were doing/thinking, but it never happened again and I am very thankful my dog did NOT bite them.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> in red: See that's the crux of the matter. I ran into this with my horses in Florida. A kid crawled over a fence, went into a horse barn, opened the stall door and went into the stall with the horse. The kid was kicked. Parents sued and horse owner lost. Not my horse but because I was involved in boarding and training at the time I kept track of this sort of thing.
> 
> When it's minors and there is an 'attractive nusiance' argument brought you MAY still be 150% liable even if you weren't negligent.
> 
> ...


I get that you feel in general that parents are teaching their kids to act with common sense and respect for other people's property and for dogs. And that is true for a lot of people.

But I just cannot comprehend why we are having this conversation on this thread. Someone coming up onto a porch and opening a door to let animals out, or a kid going through gates, and into a barn, and into a stall is a lot different than three separate kids being bitten by a dog left repeatedly in a yard with an insufficient fence. 

I do not think every dog needs to be 100% kid proof or bomb proof, but if you have one that is not, you have to make sure you containment is kid proof. One bitten child is enough to figure that out. Three bitten children is criminal. That type of aggression can escalate and it is only a matter of time before that dog goes over the fence to get to someone. Then what is this guy going to post, "Please help, my dog just bit a fourth person, and animal control has been called" or "I am beside myself, they say I have to euthanize my dog." 

But we are going back and forth about attractive nuisances. It is unreal. This guy is doing damage to the repuatation of GSDs.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

After the first incident, the fence should've been built up and reinforced. No excuse for not doing it. I agree, it's absolutely stupid that we even have to do it as I never would've thought about sticking my hands over a fence to pet a dog without the owners' approval, but now that it has to be done, it's either done before a problem arises, or the minute something happens, you make sure it doesn't happen again.

At this point, it's 90% the OPs fault that it was allowed to happen two more times after the first one. You have to give the kids some of the blame for being stupid enough to stick their hands over a fence, but the OP is being very irresponsible about this whole situation and I pray it doesn't end up with a kid getting their face ripped off after the dog has had enough of the fence drama and decides to stop it himself.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

check these out for training ...... https://www.karenpryoracademy.com https://www.karenpryoracademy.com/find-a-trainer


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Because there's a presumption of guilt that often accompanies incidents involving children. That translates into judicial reactivity. 

Even if the OP has been negligent the broader argument of general liability shouldn't be brought forth.

It should always be on an individual basis. The core factor in the OPs case is the number of kids involved, three.

We don't know if they happened all with in a day or two. We don't know if the kids were climbing onto the fence and how high the fence is. It's all supposition. The OP mentioned he had used a trainer and was going to call that trainer for help with this as well. 

The particular problem is really undeterminable unless the OP comes back and elaborates. My guess is he/she is thinking I shouldn't have posted this on open forum because people are thinking I'm the bad guy.

This was an opportunity to discuss on a individual level AND a macro level some of the problems dog owners face. Mostly that when it involves kids there's a presumption of 100% guilt on the part of the owner.

I think I'm more aware of this because it got so bad with horses that in Florida and other states we passed Equine Limited Liability laws. 

Here's the kicker about most of these limited liability laws, their core purpose is to force the claimant to PROVE negiligence before they can win in a court case. That's because of this whole presumption of guilt by association (own horse = guilt if you're negligent or not). It's ridiculous that we need laws to enforce innocent until PROVEN guilty.

This trend of not proving negilgence, of NOT even sharing responsibility. Let's say the kids are 40% at fault for climbing up on the OPs five foot fence and the OP is 60% responsible. Often we can't even get to that point of responsibility. 

Agree there are going to be cases of clear negiligence on the owners part, but that's not every case.

As far as doing damage to GSDs on the whole, we can't protect people from their own ignorance all the time, right? So why feed into the larger meme?





selzer said:


> I get that you feel in general that parents are teaching their kids to act with common sense and respect for other people's property and for dogs. And that is true for a lot of people.
> 
> But I just cannot comprehend why we are having this conversation on this thread. Someone coming up onto a porch and opening a door to let animals out, or a kid going through gates, and into a barn, and into a stall is a lot different than three separate kids being bitten by a dog left repeatedly in a yard with an insufficient fence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Philosophical discussions about how things should be aren't really helping in dealing with how things ARE. We could all agree 100% that parents _should_ be doing a better job raising their children, that people _should_ be held responsible for their actions, but wishing and hoping isn't going to change laws and absolve people of legal liability if their dog bites someone. 

It's OUR responsibility to control our own dogs and keep them safe from stupid actions by others because we will simply never be able to control what people do around our dogs, no matter how much we rant about the unfairness of it all. :shrug:


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Totally agree. OK here's another scenario that actually happens quite a bit with the amount of kids in my neighborhood: you're backing out of your driveway and a little kid on foot or on a bike darts in front of the vehicle. Do you just ram the kid over? Blame the parents?  No. I personally head check one, two, three, FOUR+ times while backing out (inching out slowly) to make dang sure no kids are behind me. I could complain all day that they need to be better supervised, their parents need to make them more aware of what they are doing, but that doesn't change the fact that if I ever were to hit a little kid I wouldn't be able to live with myself.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I wish it were philosophical, but it isn't.

People who are not negligent in the handling/containment of their animals have been and are loosing in court.

That is real you see? 

Part of the reason things are less of the way they should be is because we don't hold ALL parties responsible. If people can get off the hook with a nusiance excuse then most people will take that route.

We did something about for real with the horses too, Equine Limited Liability laws. Those laws came into being for a reason, because it was so patently unfair and unbalanced against equine professionals and owners that many were going out of business. 

I see the same trend with dogs and only awareness is going to change the trend. Just a friendly warning from someone whose been there, seen that. 





Cassidy's Mom said:


> Philosophical discussions about how things should be aren't really helping in dealing with how things ARE. We could all agree 100% that parents _should_ be doing a better job raising their children, that people _should_ be held responsible for their actions, but wishing and hoping isn't going to change laws and absolve people of legal liability if their dog bites someone.
> 
> It's OUR responsibility to control our own dogs and keep them safe from stupid actions by others because we will simply never be able to control what people do around our dogs, no matter how much we rant about the unfairness of it all. :shrug:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Empathy is natural- but it's a red herring because a normal human being will feel horrible. The quesion is should you loose everything you have worked for all your life - If you did *all* your safety checks and still hit the kid how liable should you be? Accidents happen!


I'm talking about people who are responsible and have done nothing wrong being held 100% liable. This seems to happen a lot with cases involving dogs and especially kids.

FWIW my dogs haven't bitten or even aggressed at any kids. If they did I would take steps immediately to prevent any accidents within my power and budget. We put up a second fence to the back because the neighborhood kids have been cutting through the woods between my and neighboring houses. We incurred that extra expense just for the purpose of protecting our dogs/property from any potential problems. I also mentioned to my neighbor (whose kids are of the group that uses that path) that I don't mind them being back there but they need to stay off our fences. The first time I find one of the little munchkins so much as leaning on the post, I'm going to file a complaint with the HOA. Now lest you think I don't like kids, not true. I get along great with them and we chat and on Holidays I give them fun little gifts. But I have drawn a line in the sand with them and their parents as to what behaviour I'll tolerate on my property.



Liesje said:


> Totally agree. OK here's another scenario that actually happens quite a bit with the amount of kids in my neighborhood: you're backing out of your driveway and a little kid on foot or on a bike darts in front of the vehicle. Do you just ram the kid over? Blame the parents? No. I personally head check one, two, three, FOUR+ times while backing out (inching out slowly) to make dang sure no kids are behind me. I could complain all day that they need to be better supervised, their parents need to make them more aware of what they are doing, but that doesn't change the fact that if I ever were to hit a little kid I wouldn't be able to live with myself.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Empathy is natural- but it's a red herring because a normal human being will feel horrible. The quesion is should you loose everything you have worked for all your life - If you did *all* your safety checks and still hit the kid how liable should you be? Accidents happen!
> 
> 
> I'm talking about people who are responsible and have done nothing wrong being held 100% liable. This seems to happen a lot with cases involving dogs and especially kids.


It will forever be the owner of the animals' fault. I can't count how many true accidents I've worked on where the injured party loses their mind on the other person. A teen was climbing fences, running through yards to avoid the cops. He went over one fence and landed in the yard of a Rottie. Needless to say, the Rot was not happy and bit the teen. It was a huge incident and the teens' parents sued and won money off of it and the Rottie was euthanized. 

The fence was 6' tall, wooden, and the dog was just out there going to the bathroom. The owner did all the right things, yet the dog still paid the price. I will never forget what the teens' lawyer said: "It is the fault of the dog owner for allowing the dog to be outside in the first place." 

The OP's situation is one of negligence, but generally speaking, most people are very dilligent about their animals; training/raising them well, socializing them, ect. One of the biggest problems is that, the minute someone gets hurt, no matter what they were doing, it is the other persons' problem. Heck, I was told that, if Finn bit someone who was trying to break into my home, he would be PTS because he was a 'dangerous dog'...and that came from a cop!

We have become such a litigious society that any infraction ends with someone going to court over it and as long as juries continue to award settlements with more than five zeros at the end for ridiculous lawsuits like getting bitten by a dog after violating the perimeter of a fence that a reasonable person wouldn't, it will keep happening until we as dog owners, have to keep our dogs indoors 24/7 unless they need to pee/exercise, and for that, they need to be muzzled so they can't bite, debarked so they can't bark and scare a kid, and on a 2ft leash so they can't get near anyone...


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> FWIW my dogs haven't bitten or even aggressed at any kids. If they did I would take steps immediately to prevent any accidents within my power and budget. We put up a second fence to the back because the neighborhood kids have been cutting through the woods between my and neighboring houses. We incurred that extra expense just for the purpose of protecting our dogs/property from any potential problems.


See we're pretty much on the same page....


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

First...

THANK YOU!!! For understanding!!  (geez normally I don't have this urge to give a stranger on the internet a big ole hug.. LOL!!)

...and let's not forget breed bans.

The good news is the trend can be bucked! 

I'll end (hopefully) on a positive note. I mentioned my neighbor. He's (and his wife) a little 'old school' with his kids. They don't get to whine and cry their way out of trouble. He doesn't buy into his kids are always right and always perfect.

His kids are wonderful to be around, to talk with, they have a good chance of growing up to be productive responsible adults and I make sure to compliment both the kids and the parents from time to time too. 







Shaolin said:


> It will forever be the owner of the animals' fault. I can't count how many true accidents I've worked on where the injured party loses their mind on the other person. A teen was climbing fences, running through yards to avoid the cops. He went over one fence and landed in the yard of a Rottie. Needless to say, the Rot was not happy and bit the teen. It was a huge incident and the teens' parents sued and won money off of it and the Rottie was euthanized.
> 
> The fence was 6' tall, wooden, and the dog was just out there going to the bathroom. The owner did all the right things, yet the dog still paid the price. I will never forget what the teens' lawyer said: "It is the fault of the dog owner for allowing the dog to be outside in the first place."
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yes we are!

Except for when the dog owner is not at fault but treated as though they are. 

Someday I'll start a thread on dogs and liability issues. Someday, maybe... LOL!!!




Liesje said:


> See we're pretty much on the same page....


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yes we are!
> 
> Except for when the dog owner is not at fault but treated as though they are.
> 
> Someday I'll start a thread on dogs and liability issues. Someday, maybe... LOL!!!


Well I think the problem is that there is the hypothetical and then there's reality. I never said the owner was at fault, but I'm not going to suggest that they don't reinforce their fencing and/or address the behavior of the dog. 

The way I see it is that as an owner of dogs, I don't ever want my dogs to be in situations where they will bite someone that is not truly threatening them (like protection work, someone actually overpowering me, etc). For me it's not about what I think vs. what the kids thing or their parents allow them to do, it's about the DOG. If my dog is provoked to the threshold of biting, then my reaction is to address that by better management and training of my dog. Who is at fault is a separate discussion.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I wish it were philosophical, but it isn't.
> 
> People who are not negligent in the handling/containment of their animals have been and are loosing in court.
> 
> That is real you see?


Of course it's real. That's exactly MY point - that because this is how things are these days, it's up to us to make sure that we manage our dogs to prevent them from being put in a situation where they could do harm, either to a person or another dog. You have obviously done so, which is great. 

But time and time again we have these discussions about "fault", and people get so caught up in whether or not they or the other party is to blame, and to me that's sort of beside the point. If my dog bit a kid, or injured or god forbid killed another dog, I really wouldn't be worrying about whose fault it was, I'd be horrified that it happened in the first place, and I'd feel terrible for the other party, even if their own actions led to the tragedy, because I still failed to prevent it. People are unpredictable, dogs are unpredictable, stuff happens. We do what we can do, just in case someone else isn't doing what they should be doing.

If you want to try and change the laws, good luck. I agree that we live in an overly litigious society, but I don't see things going back to the way they were.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Liesje said:


> For me it's not about what I think vs. what the kids thing or their parents allow them to do, it's about the DOG. If my dog is provoked to the threshold of biting, then my reaction is to address that by better management and training of my dog. Who is at fault is a separate discussion.


Exactly.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

*In red:* I have said and agreed with that point a few times in this thread.

In blue: You can only do so much, no matter how responsible and careful accidents happen, poor judgements are made....the question is how do you want to be treated after an incident out of your control has happened.

To re-clarify - I have not been saying irresponsible behaviour on dog owners should get a pass, absolutely not.

What I have been saying is cases should be judged on an individual basis lest we loose more rights......(in a nutshell)

Agreed and admittedly (as I mentioned earlier) better for a topic specifically addressing liability and dog ownership.






Liesje said:


> Well I think the problem is that there is the hypothetical and then there's reality. I never said the owner was at fault, but I'm not going to suggest that they don't reinforce their fencing and/or address the behavior of the dog.
> 
> The way I see it is that as an owner of dogs, I don't ever want my dogs to be in situations where they will bite someone that is not truly threatening them (like protection work, someone actually overpowering me, etc). For me it's not about what I think vs. what the kids thing or their parents allow them to do, it's about the DOG. If my dog is provoked to the threshold of biting, then my reaction is to address that by better management and training of my dog. *Who is at fault is a separate discussion*.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It can be done! Not back to the way it used to be but at least horse owners aren't automatically *100%* liable. We did it with Equine Limited Liability Laws. It just must hit a critical mass where the problem becomes so bad that enough people say....enough, which really was my intent here, just to highlight that aspect...having said that....

Someday, if I have a good illustrative case to use, I'll post the topic in "Current Dog Affairs' forum...which probably would be the appropriate place for that topic! I'll move along now.  




Cassidy's Mom said:


> <snipped>
> If you want to try and change the laws, good luck. I agree that we live in an overly litigious society, but I don't see things going back to the way they were.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> It can be done! Not back to the way it used to be but at least horse owners aren't automatically *100%* liable. We did it with Equine Limited Liability Laws. It just must hit a critical mass where the problem becomes so bad that enough people say....enough, which really was my intent here, just to highlight that aspect...having said that....
> 
> Someday, if I have a good illustrative case to use, I'll post the topic in "Current Dog Affairs' forum...which probably would be the appropriate place for that topic! I'll move along now.


I think that if you want to change the way things are, you need to pick a case where:
a. the dog did not bite three separate children in three separate incidents.
b. the child had to climb over the fence, and not just reach over the fence or stand near the fence.
c. there was clear criminal intent, or teasing of the dog on the part of the child. 

Today I was in Pet Co with Dolly. I was standing in line waiting to pay, and there was this woman with a kid who was about six. The child was not exactly hyper, but she was dancing around, playing with a plastic bag like it was a balloon, going back and forth in circles, playing with and dropping a dog toy, and generally keeping Dolly's entire focus. At one point, I stepped between Dolly and the child. I explained to the lady behind me in line, that I didn't think she would do anything, but I have no kids, and she is not used to kids. I think that paying attention to our dogs and to our surroundings, we can avoid a LOT of nasty incidents. 

And, if I saw a pet tiger or pet bear behind a 4' fence, I would assume that the tiger or bear was totally domesticated (even if I know that is never the case). We are programmed to believe that no one would put up an insufficient barrier between the public and a seriously threatening animal. If a dog can jump up reach over and nip a chest, then the fence is totally insufficient, and any dog contained in that fence had better be totally kid-safe. 

I just don't see this incident/these incidents the ones we should raise our banner up as a poster-child for more reasonable legal treatment for dog-owners. I think that most dog owners do feel like, "if you are so stupid to reach over and into my fence or car window, and get bit for your stupidity, than good, it serves you right." But no way will most of us trust our dogs to the mercy of the court system by leaving them in such situations. And that the reaching individual is a child, gives even those who feel the above pause.


----------



## GregK (Sep 4, 2006)

llombardo said:


> But I wouldn't award anything if I was on a jury. They put their hands over the fence, which means they were trespassing.


Yep! Trespassers don't get rewarded!


A MAJOR problem in society today is people not taking responsibility for their actions!!

Fences are not put up for people to reach through, reach over or climb over.


----------



## AngelaA6 (Jan 20, 2013)

The OP hasn't posted since the first post....


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No they haven't and that is telling as well.......

We have to be so careful what we say these days, in person or online. 




AngelaA6 said:


> The OP hasn't posted since the first post....


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

AngelaA6 said:


> The OP hasn't posted since the first post....


The OP probably came here seeking someone to say, "Stupid kids! Your dog didn't do anything wrong...it's all the kids fault!" Instead, he was told it was his problem and he needed to fix it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Shaolin said:


> The OP probably came here seeking someone to say, "Stupid kids! Your dog didn't do anything wrong...it's all the kids fault!" *Instead, he was told it was his problem and he needed to fix it*.


Which is correct. 

It is an easy problem to fix, though it could be expensive. 

Still, in today's society, his dog is in danger of being euthanized for the behavior. 

And, as much as we might not like it, it is up to us to ensure that our dogs are safe from the bad judgement or children, adults, and the court system which is representative of those same people. 

And yes it is telling that the OP is not back, we have to be so careful what we say these days? Yeah, this is true. We daren't tell someone go out with his dog and fix his fence, because they may leave the site and call us a bunch of bullies. It is much better for us to tell them that the legal system sucks, the dogs are perfectly normal, the kids are brats and trespassing -- serves them right. Because then we will have the opportunity to offer the man our pity when he comes on to report that they made him put down his wonderful dog because he bit another dumb brat.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Nope because what you say online or in person can be used as an admission of guilt is what *I* meant. Comments posted on Facebook/forums things of that nature can get people in trouble. 

(btw I am* not* defending every thing about the OPs actions...but he/she did say they had a trainer they worked with, going to the vet and would be contacting them....so the trainer may have put them on the right track by now too...just sayin')


From OP:


> I am really nervous about todays event. *I am taking him back to his original trainer, and meeting with his vet tomorrow*, any suggestions would be appreciated.





selzer said:


> Which is correct.
> 
> It is an easy problem to fix, though it could be expensive.
> 
> ...


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Yeah from the get go I knew that the OP wanted TRAINING advice. Problem is, there isn't really much training you can do for a dog doing these types of things. Months and maybe years of consistent training would stop a dog from barking at everything that moves and believing that anything that comes near it's territory is a threat...but most dogs will react in the way that this dog would. So without knowing the OP has the ability to train non-stop for the next few months, there really isn't a training answer.

The easiest answer to the problem was to build a better fence. Then a philosophical discussion began about how bad the OP and the dog was.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

I'm sure OP's dog isn't the only GSD here that would nip at someone over their fence. But we really don't know how many, because we haven't given them that opportunity.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Blanketback said:


> I'm sure OP's dog isn't the only GSD here that would nip at someone over their fence. But we really don't know how many, because we haven't given them that opportunity.


I am sure you are right on this. In fact, many years ago I had a situation that could have been disastrous. 

My boy Ike was in the backyard, and I looked out the door to see a young boy "teasing" him with a stick. Ike was toy crazy, so he was jumping up on the fence trying to grab the stick. DISASTER waiting to happen. 

I ran outside ready to read the riot act to the boy, but the boy was happy and smiling and told me how cool it was that Ike wanted to play. I explained to him that what he was doing could get him bit by mistake. He stopped and looked ashamed. So we talked a bit and I worked a way for him to play with Ike, safely. 

I fact, I brought Ike out of the yard, and let the boy meet him and play two- hose with him. It was a great learning experience, in fact, once other neighborhood kids saw what was happening they asked to play too. Ike was great and respectful with kids. So it was a big neighborhood play session. But I used it to educate as well. 

Had I not seen what was happening, my wonderful boy could have bitten a child and been labeled dangerous. As a working SAR dog it would have been career ending. 

This boy became a good friend if Ike, once he learned what he could and could not do. 

It's our lack of attention and diligence that causes issues. But as a GSD owner we have to ensure our dogs are above reproach, and if we can't, then we must take precautions. Ike was not born perfect. It was a lot of work to get him where he ended up. A LOT of work and some tough times where he was NOT good. 

It's easy to remember the wonderful, calm, stable boy he became. But I also have to learn from the 18 months of handler aggression, leadership issues, unruly attitude, and lack of respect that he threw into the mix. 

I hope the OP is getting the training she needs to help her dog and avoid further issues. Good dogs aren't born, they are made. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AngelaA6 (Jan 20, 2013)

Blanketback said:


> I'm sure OP's dog isn't the only GSD here that would nip at someone over their fence. But we really don't know how many, because we haven't given them that opportunity.


I understand that  and a lot of the other posts above. It was just really strange to me to see 99 posts and noticing the OP only posted once.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

The OP hasn't logged back in since making this thread. Read into that what you will.


----------



## GregK (Sep 4, 2006)

Troll?


----------



## AngelaA6 (Jan 20, 2013)

GregK said:


> Troll?


That was one of the possibilities I was thinking.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Possible... but you don't need to log in to view threads, so after viewing some of the responses the OP may have just hightailed it out of here.

Regarding your earlier observation about the number of posts in this thread, I see you registered just this past January so a little history. This has happened before, someone posts a question maybe a couple of responses and the thread takes a life of it's own. OP doesn't come back. It's usually due to what martemchek articulated earlier.

There have been discussions here about how sometimes newbies are intimidated (and those threads get long too) and quit participating. 

It usually breaks down into two groups the 'try to keep them on board and help get said newbie on the right track' group and the 'we shouldn't have to sugar coat it' crowd.








AngelaA6 said:


> That was one of the possibilities I was thinking.


----------



## bga (Jan 30, 2013)

gsdsar said:


> I fact, I brought Ike out of the yard, and let the boy meet him and play two- hose with him. It was a great learning experience, in fact, once other neighborhood kids saw what was happening they asked to play too. Ike was great and respectful with kids. So it was a big neighborhood play session. But I used it to educate as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is "two hose"?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Possible... but you don't need to log in to view threads, so after viewing some of the responses the OP may have just hightailed it out of here.
> 
> Regarding your earlier observation about the number of posts in this thread, I see you registered just this past January so a little history. This has happened before, someone posts a question maybe a couple of responses and the thread takes a life of it's own. OP doesn't come back. It's usually due to what martemchek articulated earlier.
> 
> ...


I see it a little different. I think we should be respectful to everyone, newbie or not. And yes, those people who want to get help and learn something from the information available from the people on the forum, will get plenty of help. 

But I do not believe we should not say it like it is, especially when a dog's life or children's safety is at risk. Some people really do not need to hear how ignorant children and parents are, so that they can feel justified doing nothing and letting it go on until someone decides to sue. Some people need to hear clearly and concisely the dangers of the current scenario, and what is likely to be the outcome. People can take that as a kick in the pants, but people who let their dog bite children in three separate incidents maybe need a kick in the pants to get them to understand the seriousness of what is happening.

This thread could have totally ended with the get your fence fixed, and supervise your dog. But yes, it took on a life of its own, when someone had to look at the larger issue of how dogs are treated unfairly by the justice system in our country. I think that would have been better served in a thread of its own, where the examples used -- some of the mentioned in this thread, like the rottie, and the horse, would be clearly better examples of why this should be changed. 

I don't think the guy is a troll. I think he came and told his story, and did not get the response he was looking for and left. Happens all the time. If we gave people the answers they are looking for, so that we could keep them here, we would be a totally useless site.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

As much as you want to, you cannot ignore human nature. MOST people don't like to be 'kicked in the pants' even if what you are saying is correct. Do it enough they get defensive, shut down and they say the heck with it and leave.

I was careful to explain only, not give my opinion on who is correct or who is not.

There were quite a few assumptions made about the OP..........

Anyhoo, it has gotten a lot better with the newbies here over the last year or so I must say.





selzer said:


> I see it a little different. I think we should be respectful to everyone, newbie or not. And yes, those people who want to get help and learn something from the information available from the people on the forum, will get plenty of help.
> 
> But I do not believe we should not say it like it is, especially when a dog's life or children's safety is at risk. Some people really do not need to hear how ignorant children and parents are, so that they can feel justified doing nothing and letting it go on until someone decides to sue. Some people need to hear clearly and concisely the dangers of the current scenario, and what is likely to be the outcome. People can take that as a kick in the pants, but people who let their dog bite children in three separate incidents maybe need a kick in the pants to get them to understand the seriousness of what is happening.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Basically - Using two short cut pieces of hose to teach focus on handler in a structured game of fetch. Think of it as teaching/using the fetch game with a purpose. 




bga said:


> What is "two hose"?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I long for the good old days when you had to have a back bone to stick around here. 

Where's that namby pamby vid when you need it?

Human nature might be for some people to not like a kick in the pants when they deserve it, and it may be for other people to deliver a kick in the pants when they feel it necessary. 


Remove the passion from the site, and the site turns into the Stepford Forum: 

Poster 1: Hi, How are you today?

Poster 2: Oh hello, I am good, and how are you?

Poster 1: Oh just fine, I love my dog.

Poster 2: I love mine too. 

Poster 1: I am off to say, "How Pretty" to all the new photos.

New Poster: My dog just bit the mail man and last week the meter reader had to go to the ER, what should I do?

Poster 2: Hi, Welcome to the site.

Poster 1: Welcome, I am sorry your dog bit the mailman. Do you have pictures?

New Poster: Of what? The mailman? The dog bit his bum as he was running off the porch. No I don't have pictures of his bum, sorry.

Poster 2: I think what poster 1 meant was pictures of your dog. We love pictures. 

Poster 1: Yes, we love pictures. Let us know if you need help posting. 

Poster 2: Yes, we are here to help.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

selzer said:


> I long for the good old days when you had to have a back bone to stick around here.


You still do. Anyone asking about wanting to become a breeder or someone who didn't do their research about the GSD breed and are coming in with a breed specific problem like, _My GSD puppy is destroying everything in the house. I don't walk him or play with him at all...didn't have to with my Shi-shi-poo puppy! What's wrong with him!? _is likely to get one heck of a smack down.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Shaolin said:


> You still do. Anyone asking about wanting to become a breeder or someone who didn't do their research about the GSD breed and are coming in with a breed specific problem like, _My GSD puppy is destroying everything in the house. I don't walk him or play with him at all...didn't have to with my Shi-shi-poo puppy! What's wrong with him!? _is likely to get one heck of a smack down.



Breeding isn't for whimps. If you think a few people that don't know you on the internet telling you that you are going to be a byb, or that your bitch may die, or asking what makes you think your bitch is breedworthy, is a major smack down, then I don't think such a one is prepared to handle breeding. It really isn't all puppy breath and soiled newspapers. You have to judge people, make hard decisions, tell people no, be objective about your dogs and critique them, listen to what people are telling you, even if it is accompanied by things you don't want to hear. You might put all your hopes into an awesome bitch and work and train her for a couple of years only to find that she fails in some major way. People who want to breed dogs need to be able to take the minor hazing that goes on here in these kinder and gentler forum days. There is no smack down that compares to losing a bitch or pup. 

The threads about common puppy stuff that I have seen have generally been really tame and helpful. But I am sure there are moments when people are human.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Shaolin said:


> _ *Shi-shi-poo puppy*_


 
thanks you just gave me some marketing ideas for my new designer breed.

you want a commsion for that or are we good?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

hehehe....

On_ this forum_ I'm a nice gal. It's the rules and plus this forum. If you want to come play at some other forums I'm on a couple that are very lightly moderated and let's just say it's more bare knuckles. If you want to get involved in some non-namby-pamby discussions around a much broader range of topics...just let me know I'll PM you a couple of links.  To be honest some of the things that get argued about here...well some of it is just silly.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. When a person comes on this board asking a question, looking for help, they are letting their guard down. *If they are sincere* being too hard on them will only shut them down. If they are not sincere and get belligerent then it's just best to ignore them or let one of the moderators know. 

So what is gained from being overly harsh on a person who sincerely didn't know something? Or is dealing for the first time with a problem they've never encountered before. What do you gain by shutting the sincere person down? Nothing. When we train our dogs we don't punish them for not sitting on the very first try. They don't know what the word 'sit' means. So why punish a human being who genuinely maybe uneducated on something? 

Btw- this isn't old school if anything I think we're far less polite and far more impatient as a society then ever before.

For the most part I agree with about 90% of your posts, like in the current dog affairs sub forum. You're usually on point and logical. The only difference here is I think being overly harsh when dealing with an individual is generally non-productive vs a general topic. I'm about results, not proving something.....




selzer said:


> I long for the good old days when you had to have a back bone to stick around here.
> 
> Where's that namby pamby vid when you need it?
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

selzer said:


> Breeding isn't for whimps. If you think a few people that don't know you on the internet telling you that you are going to be a byb, or that your bitch may die, or asking what makes you think your bitch is breedworthy, is a major smack down, then I don't think such a one is prepared to handle breeding. It really isn't all puppy breath and soiled newspapers. You have to judge people, make hard decisions, tell people no, be objective about your dogs and critique them, listen to what people are telling you, even if it is accompanied by things you don't want to hear. You might put all your hopes into an awesome bitch and work and train her for a couple of years only to find that she fails in some major way. People who want to breed dogs need to be able to take the minor hazing that goes on here in these kinder and gentler forum days. There is no smack down that compares to losing a bitch or pup.
> 
> The threads about common puppy stuff that I have seen have generally been really tame and helpful. But I am sure there are moments when people are human.


I'm not talking about the people who come on and say, "Can I put a WGSD and a BGSD together to get a Zebra GSD?" I'm just talking about people asking about breeding and getting, "Well, it's super hard, all these bad things happen, you have to find the right bitch and the right sire, and if everything works, congrats." 

I know when I asked the question, I was looking for what people went through to get into breeding; books they read, websites they learned from, how they learned, the ups and downs, stuff like that and most of what I got was, "Well, it's really hard, so don't even try it." Let's not even talk about the fact that I wanted to learn about creating a great line of SchH capable WGSDs.  

I also never said the smack down was a bad thing. I just said they get one. Trust me...I've gotten my pee-pee wacked much harder for much less during my lifetime. If they are brave enough to stick around, they will be rewarded with some seriously fantastic knowledge from people like you and a whole host of other members/breeders who open my eyes every day with things I didn't know about my favorite breed. Someday, down the road, I'll be able to absorb enough information and maybe be a part of the next generations of breeders.



x11 said:


> thanks you just gave me some marketing ideas for my new designer breed.
> 
> you want a commsion for that or are we good?


50% if you manage to get a GSD into a Pomeranian body.  If not, just the dog being called "Shao's Shishipoo" is commission enough.


----------



## Midnight12 (Jan 6, 2012)

selzer said:


> I long for the good old days when you had to have a back bone to stick around here.
> 
> Where's that namby pamby vid when you need it?
> 
> ...


 Thanks for making me laugh. It has been one of those days. And I agree with what you are saying. Would not learn much that way.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Shaolin said:


> If not, just the dog being called "*Shao's Shishipoo*" is commission enough.


wow that is brilliant, i can't wait for the official launch, you are a genius.

can anyone raise that, i was thinking the name should end in "ey" tho, sounds more cutesy??

lets workshop this guys, focus group?


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

x11 said:


> wow that is brilliant, i can't wait for the official launch, you are a genius.
> 
> can anyone raise that, i was thinking the name should end in "ey" tho, sounds more cutesy??
> 
> lets workshop this guys, focus group?


Gonna look on craigslist for a Pom/Shih Tzu mix and a GSD/AST mix. Badda bing!


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Shaolin said:


> Gonna look on craigslist for a Pom/Shih Tzu mix and a GSD/AST mix. Badda bing!


 
maltese / shih is the most popular around here.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Namby Pamby!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

hahaha  OR "You can't handle the truth" eh? LOL!. A Few Good Men, good movie.

The funny thing is this forum is pretty tame and well moderated....but it should be IMO. People come here for help and information about German Shepherds, not for a fight.

Love to see some you guys on my other forums. hehehe :devil smilie:



Jack's Dad said:


> GEICO - Sarge - YouTube
> 
> Namby Pamby!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I've been lucky enough to have met a couple of WGSDs that held their own in protection....

The sad thing is someone who has made their mind up to breed dogs (irresponsibly) will probably still go forward with their plans no matter what people say.

The other thing is (and I'm not an expert but I've picked some knowledge in my 49 turns 'round the sun) I see some bad advice given by I.E. (internet experts).

Sometimes if you're new it's hard to discern who is a 'real' expert and who is not.



Shaolin said:


> I'm not talking about the people who come on and say, "Can I put a WGSD and a BGSD together to get a Zebra GSD?" I'm just talking about people asking about breeding and getting, "Well, it's super hard, all these bad things happen, you have to find the right bitch and the right sire, and if everything works, congrats."
> 
> I know when I asked the question, I was looking for what people went through to get into breeding; books they read, websites they learned from, how they learned, the ups and downs, stuff like that and most of what I got was, "Well, it's really hard, so don't even try it." Let's not even talk about the fact that I wanted to learn about creating a great line of SchH capable WGSDs.
> 
> ...


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Going rogue on this topic. But years ago I fostered a WGSD and placed him with a county LEA. He was number one in apprehension 3 years running and dual trained in Narcotics. They are out there. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I've been lucky enough to have met a couple of WGSDs that held their own in protection....
> 
> The sad thing is someone who has made their mind up to breed dogs (irresponsibly) will probably still go forward with their plans no matter what people say.
> 
> ...





gsdsar said:


> Going rogue on this topic. But years ago I fostered a WGSD and placed him with a county LEA. He was number one in apprehension 3 years running and dual trained in Narcotics. They are out there.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


 
I know they're out there, but they are few and far between. The first breeding between Finn's Sire/Dam produced a K9 for...California I think, and a lot of pups from Yukon Dan or Josie Chaparral excelled at SAR or other working applications. I think there were a few more K9s that came from either one of them, but I couldn't tell you where they went to.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I suspect (and I'm admittedly not an expert on GSD genetics) but when you selectively breed for color it inadvertently will cause conflict of whether to opt out genetics for working ability. So the working WGSD will probably remain a rarity as it's not a dominant coat color. I also know that darker dogs (like darker horses) tend to be preferred for military and police as the darker animals look more intimidating. 



Shaolin said:


> I know they're out there, but they are few and far between. The first breeding between Finn's Sire/Dam produced a K9 for...California I think, and a lot of pups from Yukon Dan or Josie Chaparral excelled at SAR or other working applications. I think there were a few more K9s that came from either one of them, but I couldn't tell you where they went to.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I suspect (and I'm admittedly not an expert on GSD genetics) but when you selectively breed for color it inadvertently will cause conflict of whether to opt out genetics for working ability. So the working WGSD will probably remain a rarity as it's not a dominant coat color. I also know that darker dogs (like darker horses) tend to be preferred for military and police as the darker animals look more intimidating.


If you breed with absolutely no regard to color of the dogs you are putting together, you could end up with a working White. For example...and this is based on the very limited genetic knowledge I have...I could put a Sable and a White together and the pups are carriers of the 'White Gene' (first generation). Dog A (Black), with the gene, is bred to Dog B (Black and Tan) who doesn't, the second generation, and the pups still carry on the gene, even though no pup came out white. On the third generation, I put one of the offspring of Dogs' A and B together with a White, out pops a White or two with other colors of the GSD Rainbow. If every single one of the bred dogs were top notch working dogs, then there's no reason that the White wouldn't be "workable". 

That is how I would get my White foundation. Every 3-5 generations, I would outcross again to bring 'new blood' in, but keep working that White gene in. Not many WGSD breeders believe in outcrossing with color, which is where you run into a problem. I sat down and did some serious Pedigree work and while the "color" dogs were titled out like crazy, the last 'colored' dog was back in the early 1900's. His white goes back to at least 1930.

And I so didn't mean to hijack this thread...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Sometimes I think this forum is over-moderated, but not necessarily by moderators. I mean, let's take the example above:

Title: Breeding Question

"Hi I am new here and new to GSDs, I got a question. If you breed a black dog to a white dog, will you get a zebra or border collie type coloring? I mean, I have never seen one, but I think it would be so cool. And I really want to start breeding soon because my girl will be going into heat soon I think." 

And this is what happens:

A few of the breeders and members who have been around for a good long time look at this and choose not to comment because it is literally absurd, and they have better things to do. 

One or two people come on and try to "educate" the person as to why he should never breed his girl. 

One or two people come on and make a stab at his question, along with why breeding for color is generally frowned upon and why. 

The OP comes back on all defensive and digs himself further in a hole by explaining that all he meets are aggressive or high energy crazy GSDs, and he is sure he can make ones with a better temperament, etc. 

More people come on to explain about how many dogs are in rescues and shelters that need homes.

And other people come on to tell him all about BYBs, and what may happen to his girl and his puppies. 

The OP comes back and starts telling everyone that they are extremists, and crazy and the nasty smelly stuff I stepped on this morning. 

Then someone comes on to tell him that he is the only one calling people names. 

Then a couple of people who started out rough here, come on often being totally rude to tell everyone that posted (other than the OP) that they are mean and the reason people leave the site. 

The the posters that were only telling the guy what he really, really needed to hear, start getting PO'd, and say a few things.

At some point the mod-squad shows up and tries to calm everyone down. 

And maybe something goes off on a tangent and three days later, when it is still going on, some of the people that chose to pass this one by come on and give their opinions.

By then though the OP is angry with the mods for cutting up his posts and giving him a friendly warning, and angry with everyone else for not embracing his idea and telling him how excited they are for him to start pumping puppies out. He literally cannot hear the voice of reason. 

I truly believe that some of that happens as much because of the people slapping other people on the thread down, as it does from those people who tell him how hard it is, and how he might lose his bitch and the whole nine yards. 
************************************************

Ya have to stand for some things. The site cannot be all things to all people. It would be very sad if we could not help people out who want to be breeders, or who have a litter coming. But I think to stop telling people the realities of breeding, and to stop trying to get people to only breed if they are going to go about it properly, and even to not mention that there are many GSDs out there in need of homes, would be even sadder. The thing is, we can do both of these things. How it is delivered and how it is received is something I think an internet forum has little control over. They can try to limit colorful language, snarky comments and personal attacks, but they cannot control the tone of each poster, nor the way each post's tone is interpretated by every individual.

I can say, "I wouldn't let my dogs play with balloons, it's dangerous." And one person will take that as me being over protective with my dog, another will take it as me being off my rocker, another person will wonder how a balloon could be dangerous, and another person will take it as a personal attack or unsolicited advice. 

You just cannot please all the people all the time.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

We can be flowery and sweet when it comes to newbies with ordinary questions, but when there is something seriously dangerous going on, I think that it makes sense to be direct. When someone says their dog bit three separate children in three separate incidents, they need to hear direct answers that are not going to be easy to accept. 

I pick and choose those things I am direct on. I guess you can call it harsh. If there are children or dogs in serious danger, I am going to try to be direct. Someone who comes on asking questions about breeding, can be won or lost by getting answers the wrong way. They think we are extreme or PETA people, they are going to walk away and do exactly what they intended to. If they get their answers answered with good information, that does not cover up the less pleasent aspects of breeding, some of them might choose not to go forward. By answering and providing information respectfully, it is possibly that those people will not simply get defensive and ignore the whole of it.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

I have to agree with Selzer, most (not all) people come here for help. I admit there are threads which make me groan and want to thump my head onto the wall, but I do honestly try to be helpful regardless of the subject matter or question. Everyone has to start somewhere and attacking never ends well, there are certainly people that don't want to learn and just look for confirmation of how wonderful their choice is and how smart they are, but not everyone is like that.

Hot topics like breeding, training, and food are always going to spike people's emotions. It's even harder when you're reading a typed sentence and you or the other person really isn't sure whether it's honest or condescending. 

I always try to keep in mind the saying my mom drilled into me from day 1, "treat others as you would like to be treated"


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In blue, that's how I was raised too (and have been trying to practice that in this thread)..... :thumbup: 



Shade said:


> I have to agree with Selzer, most (not all) people come here for help. I admit there are threads which make me groan and want to thump my head onto the wall, but I do honestly try to be helpful regardless of the subject matter or question. Everyone has to start somewhere and attacking never ends well, there are certainly people that don't want to learn and just look for confirmation of how wonderful their choice is and how smart they are, *but not everyone is like that*.
> 
> Hot topics like breeding, training, and food are always going to spike people's emotions. It's even harder when you're reading a typed sentence and you or the other person really isn't sure whether it's honest or condescending.
> 
> I always try to keep in mind the saying my mom drilled into me from day 1, "treat others as you would like to be treated"


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I see what you're saying but still to get the combo of white *and* good quality working ability would be one out of many puppies wouldn't it? If when you aren't breeding for color some litters (from what I understand from WL) breeders don't always produce what they expect regardless of coat color.

Quite an interesting goal though! 




Shaolin said:


> If you breed with absolutely no regard to color of the dogs you are putting together, you could end up with a working White. For example...and this is based on the very limited genetic knowledge I have...I could put a Sable and a White together and the pups are carriers of the 'White Gene' (first generation). Dog A (Black), with the gene, is bred to Dog B (Black and Tan) who doesn't, the second generation, and the pups still carry on the gene, even though no pup came out white. On the third generation, I put one of the offspring of Dogs' A and B together with a White, out pops a White or two with other colors of the GSD Rainbow. If every single one of the bred dogs were top notch working dogs, then there's no reason that the White wouldn't be "workable".
> 
> That is how I would get my White foundation. Every 3-5 generations, I would outcross again to bring 'new blood' in, but keep working that White gene in. Not many WGSD breeders believe in outcrossing with color, which is where you run into a problem. I sat down and did some serious Pedigree work and while the "color" dogs were titled out like crazy, the last 'colored' dog was back in the early 1900's. His white goes back to at least 1930.
> 
> And I so didn't mean to hijack this thread...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In blue, that's how I was raised too (and have been trying to practice that in this thread)..... :thumbup:


See and my momma always told me to do unto others and run.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I see what you're saying but still to get the combo of white *and* good quality working ability would be one out of many puppies wouldn't it? If when you aren't breeding for color some litters (from what I understand from WL) breeders don't always produce what they expect regardless of coat color.
> 
> Quite an interesting goal though!


Oh, yeah! If the stars, planets, and genetics lined up, then every puppy that drops is a winner, but you are correct. That's why I said, if you negate color completely and just breed the dogs that, genetic wise, is what you want, as long as both dogs have the white gene, you have the chance to produce a good, WL white dog...even if both dogs are colored.

In theory, even if I started tomorrow with that exact plan, I probably wouldn't produce what I would consider to be the working white I'd declare the foundation dog for at least four or five full generations. Further still, I wouldn't be breeding just to make a white dog, but to bring back a solid, well rounded GSD, no matter the color. My breeding program would be focused on a dog that could win a Seiger Show, yet go and pull a BiS at Westminster, followed by roll around on the floor at home with a bunch of kids, before getting up the next morning and searing for an Altzheimer's patient that's lost in the woods.

That's what I want to do.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Where is the OP?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

LOL!!! That's a good 'un. I'm going to remember that.

Well behaved women rarely make history, I like your momma too! 



selzer said:


> See and my momma always told me to do unto others and run.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I dunno but we've got some people here with good SAR dogs! 



I know, we're bein' bad, but not real bad. 




Sunflowers said:


> Where is the OP?


----------



## Jo Ellen (Aug 30, 2011)

carmspack said:


> You openly admit the dog has fence line aggression -- take him away from the fence .


This is the best, clearest most pristine advice I've ever heard -- no lie. So simple. Take him away from the trigger ... I have to follow this advice myself.


----------

