# Ohio woman killed by family pet dog



## Armed Citizen (Nov 24, 2012)

Not sure if everyone has heard this story yet but about a week ago a Ohio woman mother of two was killed by the family gsd 100lb male in her backyard. The dog warden said we'll never know what set this dog off, The dog was put down about a day later but I don't understand why they wouldn't have waited to do testing some kind of testing on the dog b4 putting him down. The news also never said what breeder the dog came from, which I think would be good for some people to know who might have a sibling from the same litter. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Armed Citizen (Nov 24, 2012)

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...-euthanized-after-woman-killed-in-attack.html


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## FlyAway (Jul 17, 2012)

Probably money. I would have done the same thing.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

So sad. I would have thought they would have done a necropsy, but it sounds like they only did rabies testing.


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

Very sad. This is one of those situations that is just bad for everyone. I hope the family can get through this.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Armed Citizen said:


> Not sure if everyone has heard this story yet but about a week ago a Ohio woman mother of two was killed by the family gsd 100lb male in her backyard. The dog warden said we'll never know what set this dog off, The dog was put down about a day later but I don't understand why they wouldn't have waited to do testing some kind of testing on the dog b4 putting him down. The news also never said what breeder the dog came from, which I think would be good for some people to know who might have a sibling from the same litter.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


The dog has *KILLED *his owner and you want it to be more tested before put to sleep? 

What kind fo tests are you talking about? 

What I would like to know is where that dog came from.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

They should have temerament tested him before putting him down. That's the only way to know what set this dog off. Would be curious to know what kind of life the dog had; socialized, trained, isolated, spoiled ("he is my baby") etc.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

A dog kills a woman and you want to temperament test that dog? 

Sorry, but any dog, killing a human being, is BEYOND any temperament test.

Put a Bullet into the head of the dog or PTS... it's the only option!


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

A dog that kills a human being has to be euthanized!

That dog is not safe around any one. When a dog gets that bad, unfortunately there is no other option for any one's safety.


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

*Testing Useless*

It does not matter what set this dog off. It is too late to do testing. The dog's other littermates may be problematic or not. Just because he attacked does not mean his littermates will.

This is a horrible story and scares me.


----------



## curedba (Mar 31, 2013)

This is my biggest fear  my thoughts are with this family


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

No GSD should be inherently aggressive. That is an unacceptable fault!

The dog must always be calm, gentle and loyal to its owner. No one wants a dangerous dog!


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

Mrs.K said:


> The dog has *KILLED *his owner and you want it to be more tested before put to sleep?
> 
> What kind fo tests are you talking about?
> 
> What I would like to know is where that dog came from.


Tests for rabies, disease and any signs of abuse or neglect. The dog needs to be put down but tests should have been performed to ascertain what set the dog off. If its genetic, no one wants to breed a vicious dog; if its environmental, to determine what made the dog kill its owner. Such information would help the public and prevent future tragedies.

I think that's not too much to ask in the way of a determination of the dog's state. Again, that's not give that dog a reprieve, its to make the public safer.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

NormanF said:


> Tests for rabies, disease and any signs of abuse or neglect. The dog needs to be put down but tests should have been performed to ascertain what set the dog off. If its genetic, no one wants to breed a vicious dog; if its environmental, to determine what made the dog kill its owner. Such information would help the public and prevent future tragedies.
> 
> I think that's not too much to ask in the way of a determination of the dog's state. Again, that's not give that dog a reprieve, its to make the public safer.


Rabies is a No-Brainer and doesn't even need to be mentioned. It's the law. 

Temperament test on the other hand? For what? Not even the bullet is worth it's money for a dog like that. 

What environmental stimulation could possibly make a dog snap? 

Show me one neglected and abused dog that has ever killed his owner? Most of the time, in the really severe abuse cases, the dogs NEVER snapped. 

If a dog is going for the kill, something is not right with that dog, period!


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Mrs.K said:


> The dog has *KILLED *his owner and you want it to be more tested before put to sleep?
> 
> What kind fo tests are you talking about?
> 
> What I would like to know is where that dog came from.


I think a lot could be learned if the dog was available for additional testing. Like thyroid, or something that might be helpful to vets and dog owners regarding health issues. 

Anytime someone posts on this forum that their normally happy go lucky dog is becoming aggressive, the first advice provided is to get it to the vet. 

I'm certainly not saying the dog should not be PTS. Personally, I think it should be. But if it were my dog and this was abnormal behavior (which going for the neck would be - I could see leg bites or arm bites, but not an intentional lethal bite to the neck) I would want a full medical evaluation done first. I'd have to know why. And I wouldn't want the death of a family member (in this case the mother) be in vain.


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

Mrs.K said:


> Rabies is a No-Brainer and doesn't even need to be mentioned. It's the law.
> 
> Temperament test on the other hand? For what? Not even the bullet is worth it's money for a dog like that.
> 
> ...


If something is not right with the dog, you want to find out what made it snap. You ask good questions and that's why we need answers to keep the public safe! That's worth a lot more than a dog that has killed its owner. Tests can provide people with the information to make sure other dogs don't turn on their owners. We do that in human criminal cases and it should be done where the dog is responsible.


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

Mrs.K said:


> Rabies is a No-Brainer and doesn't even need to be mentioned. It's the law.
> 
> Temperament test on the other hand? For what? Not even the bullet is worth it's money for a dog like that.
> 
> ...


 
Everything you just posted is what would make me want to figure out exaclty what did make the dog kill. That way people could do everything in their power to prevent that situation from happening again. I don't know if there is any testing that could have shed more light on that or not. 

I agree with you that you have to put the dog down after it kills a person but without any knowledge of what led to this people will assume GSD are unsafe and will turn on their owner. Maybe there is no type of testing that could have shed light on what lead to this horrible situation, but if that is the case it will further backup people assuming that the GSD can turn on its owner at any time.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Lilie said:


> I think a lot could be learned if the dog was available for additional testing. Like thyroid, or something that might be helpful to vets and dog owners regarding health issues.
> 
> Anytime someone posts on this forum that their normally happy go lucky dog is becoming aggressive, the first advice provided is to get it to the vet.
> 
> I'm certainly not saying the dog should not be PTS. Personally, I think it should be. But if it were my dog and this was abnormal behavior (which going for the neck would be - I could see leg bites or arm bites, but not an intentional lethal bite to the neck) I would want a full medical evaluation done first. I'd have to know why. And I wouldn't want the death of a family member (in this case the mother) be in vain.


Honestly, once you are dead, you are dead. If I'd be there and witnessed an attack like that and had a gun on my hands, I'd shoot the dog. 
No family member in their right mind would say "Sure, take the dog for testing." they are way to grief struck to be rational. The dog is going over to the Authorities, held in quarantine and I doubt anyone outside Authority figures is getting near that dog. 

I can see a necropsy, but definitely no temperament testing. Once the dog has killed, the fate is sealed and rightfully so.


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

Okin said:


> Everything you just posted is what would make me want to figure out exaclty what did make the dog kill. That way people could do everything in their power to prevent that situation from happening again. I don't know if there is any testing that could have shed more light on that or not.
> 
> I agree with you that you have to put the dog down after it kills a person but without any knowledge of what led to this people will assume GSD are unsafe and will turn on their owner. Maybe there is no type of testing that could have shed light on what lead to this horrible situation, but if that is the case it will further backup people assuming that the GSD can turn on its owner at any time.


A GSD doesn't turn on its owner! GSDs are not as I observed, inherently aggressive. They should be calm, gentle and loving dogs! I love the breed and its horrible when something goes wrong with a GSD vis a vis its owner. Unjustified assumptions about GSD behavior are no more valid than they are for pit bulls. Any dog can be dangerous. What we usually don't hear is about the dogs that are truly "man's best friend."


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It would be interesting to know as much as possible why the dog attacked. It is really rare for a GSD to kill an owner, so many of us might want to be able to pin point it to something physical, like a brain tumor or rage sydrome, or something genetic -- seriously weak nerves, fear, super high drives/aggression. 

We might want to know if this was a puppy mill dog, or BYB, or if it was a show line, or working line, was it a rescue, was it raised from a pup by this person, or if it was treated like a child rather than a dog, or if it was fed gun powder to make it aggressive, if it was abused, or if it was otherwise poorly managed so we can look at our dogs and say, that won't happen to me because...

Whenever tragedy strikes it is human nature I think to want to explain it. That is not all bad. I mean if the dog was a weak nerved dog, unsocialized, and being kept mainly outside as a guard dog, we can say, see--we shouldn't do that with these dogs. 

But the sorry fact is that whatever we do to try and figure out the dog, at least environmentally reeks of blaming the victim. And we really don't want to do that. 

It is sad.


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

Selzer,

Good points.

In the end though, Mrs. K is right - the dog has to be put down once it killed a human being - it crossed all acceptable lines.

There's no way it can ever be trusted again! Whatever we do, we should keep in mind in circumstances like that, human safety is always paramount.

Its a sad situation all around.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Necropsies are not cheap, tests are not cheap. Who is paying for all these tests? You don't need a live animal present to do them. Put the dog down so it can be tested *for sure* for rabies (can't do this *without* putting the dog down). Then maybe draw some blood and whoever wants to pay for all these other tests can go ahead and do them. You don't need a live animal present to test the thyroid. I sent blood serum from my dog to Dr. Dodds and it was viable even without being chilled for like 2 weeks.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mrs.K said:


> Rabies is a No-Brainer and doesn't even need to be mentioned. It's the law.
> 
> Temperament test on the other hand? For what? *Not even the bullet is worth it's money for a dog like that*.
> 
> ...


This bothers me. 

I agree that the dog should have been euthanized, and I would not be against being shot (humanely) or euthanized by the vet. 

But you are acting angry at a dog that is clearly not right. Punishing human beings for acts of attrocity makes sense. It simply does not make sense to punish a dog with death. And certainly to withhold a bullit because the dog is not worth a bullit. 

That is a thought of people who really do not understand dogs/animals at all, that blame dogs for pottying on the carpet or take it personally when puppies bite. Or blaming a killer whale or tiger or polar bear for killing someone. Yes, you might want to euthanize the critter that kills a human -- no problem with that, but the idea that such a critter is not worth a bullit -- that is just mean. 

The dog is off. Either bad genetics, or serious illness. I do not think bad management/abuse could have caused this alone, in conjunction with an illness or bad genetics, but there are just too many dogs that have been badly managed or abused to have a dog go that far. A dog with bad genetics or a serious illness deserves to be put out of its pain humanely regardless of what he did while suffering.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

NormanF said:


> Selzer,
> 
> Good points.
> 
> ...


I know it had to be put down. I never suggested otherwise. I just think it is human nature to know why a dog like ours went so wrong.


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

Maybe it was just an assumption on my part but I figured when they said that "The investigation is complete" and "We will never know why this happened" that implied that no more tests were going to be done.


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

*Liesje,*

The economics of a case like this make one question whether such tests have any real value.

With wild animals, no other fact than the inherent dangerousness of the animal needs to be presumed. With a domestic dog on the other hand, any unrestrained aggressiveness that results in a human death is always shocking, because this is not expected behavior.

We don't need to know why a wild animal is dangerous; this is the way nature made it. On the other hand, a dog is the product of thousands of years of human breeding, selection and domestication and is not supposed to be inherently dangerous.

And when a dog kills someone, that is news.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

selzer said:


> This bothers me.
> 
> I agree that the dog should have been euthanized, and I would not be against being shot (humanely) or euthanized by the vet.
> 
> ...


No. You are not getting what I'm saying at all. I am not angry at all. I just don't see the point in temperament testing a dog after it killed a human being. And it's the truth. A dog like that ain't worth the time temperament testing him. A dog like that, isn't worth the bullet and I'm not saying that out of anger and it's not mean either. It's a simple fact.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Additional testing should have been done IMO. A better understanding of exactly what transpired cannot hurt & could be useful. 

Karen Delise, in her book 'Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics', states that the vast majority of fatal dog attacks involve 'resident dogs' rather than dogs living as family members. Rarely is this important distinction made when investigating serious dog attacks & yet it's crucial to both understanding and preventing such attacks.

Locally A Giant Schnauzer attacked its owner some yrs back. She would probably have been killed except that her 2nd GS took on the attacking dog & recued her. The attacking dog was pts & autopsied which showed that the dog's behaviour was due to a brain tumor. It was an unusual situation b/c her dogs were truly family members & not backyard 'resident dogs'. For her the autopsy results proved invaluable as she was devastasted that her loving, loyal companion, so inexplicably turned on her.


----------



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

NormanF said:


> No GSD should be inherently aggressive. That is an unacceptable fault!
> 
> The dog must always be calm, gentle and loyal to its owner. No one wants a dangerous dog!


Actually GSDs are inherently aggressive. Proper aggression is normal. There was something wrong with this particular dog but GSDs are not Toy Poodles and aggression is part of their make up.

Without inherent aggression, you do not have Law Enforcement, Military or protection dogs. Might as well get a cat.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mrs.K said:


> No. You are not getting what I'm saying at all. I am not angry at all. I just don't see the point in temperament testing a dog after it killed a human being. And it's the truth. A dog like that ain't worth the time temperament testing him. A dog like that, isn't worth the bullet and I'm not saying that out of anger and it's not mean either. It's a simple fact.


Dogs do not comprehend death, they kill. They do not murder. They do not kill people to try to gain their wealth, or because they want thier husband or unborn child. 

Yes, they can do something they know they should not do, but they are not responsible the way a human being that is not very low IQ is when they do something henous. 

It is not a fact. It is a fact in YOUR mind. EVERY creature is worth a quick dispatch if we can provide it, because NO animal deserves to be tortured to death. 

The attitude that a dog is not worth a bullet because it has done something unacceptible IS punitive and it IS angry, and it DOES indicate a total lack of understanding of the difference between humans and dogs. It is humanizing of dogs to say a dog isn't worth a bullet. 

If someone said that to me, I wouldn't let them touch a dog of mine for any reason.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

RubyTuesday said:


> *Additional testing should have been done IMO. A better understanding of exactly what transpired cannot hurt & could be useful. *
> 
> Karen Delise, in her book 'Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics', states that the vast majority of fatal dog attacks involve 'resident dogs' rather than dogs living as family members. Rarely is this important distinction made when investigating serious dog attacks & yet it's crucial to both understanding and preventing such attacks.
> 
> Locally A Giant Schnauzer attacked its owner some yrs back. She would probably have been killed except that her 2nd GS took on the attacking dog & recued her. The attacking dog was pts & autopsied which showed that the dog's behaviour was due to a brain tumor. It was an unusual situation b/c her dogs were truly family members & not backyard 'resident dogs'. For her the autopsy results proved invaluable as she was devastasted that her loving, loyal companion, so inexplicably turned on her.


I agree a hundred percent. I don't understand why a necropsy wasn't done. The Dog Warden said we would probably never know why the dog attacked. Of course we won't, because the investigation is closed and no necropsy was performed.

Someone mentioned the cost. Well, the dog was euthanized. Who paid for that? Rabies testing was done. Who paid for that? Surely, it would have been worth the expense to at least attempt to find a reason.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

selzer said:


> Dogs do not comprehend death, they kill. They do not murder. They do not kill people to try to gain their wealth, or because they want thier husband or unborn child.
> 
> Yes, they can do something they know they should not do, but they are not responsible the way a human being that is not very low IQ is when they do something henous.
> 
> ...


You are still not getting it. 

I am not humanizing the dog and yes, there is a line being crossed. If a dog doesn't know the difference between nipping and a full bite, going in for the kill, we wouldn't have any biting inhibition. 

A dog sure knows the difference. They are predators for crying out loud.


----------



## Courtney (Feb 12, 2010)

How sad.

Apparently her wounds were critical in her neck, she died 4 days after the attack. The below article states the family also owned a female GSD & a Border Collie.

The dog did have to be euthanized. Of course the dog has to be tested for rabies, no one disputes that. No way do you bother with temperament testing the dog, pointless.

I'm sure the family could care less about testing after their loved one died. Further testing probably never crossed the their mind. I don't fault them for that.

Now, *my* inquiring mind would like to know more because this is shocking to me. Was it medical related, a genetic crippled dog, where the heck did he come from, etc.??

I remember a story a few years ago where a police officer brought his K-9 to the vets office because his behavior, he would suddenly become aggressive like he didn't know his handler. As they were waiting to be seen the dog attacked the officer, the officer shot & killed him. Witnesses said the dog was out for blood and before the attack was just sitting there calmly. I do wish the story would have been updated because I really wanted to know what testing revealed. Does anyone remember this story??

While this story is sad and scary, it does not make me raise an eyebrow about my dog.

Neighbor stopped attack by family pet, but mauling proved fatal for woman | The Columbus Dispatch


----------



## JackandMattie (Feb 4, 2013)

RubyTuesday said:


> Additional testing should have been done IMO. A better understanding of exactly what transpired cannot hurt & could be useful.
> 
> Karen Delise, in her book 'Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics', states that the vast majority of fatal dog attacks involve 'resident dogs' rather than dogs living as family members. Rarely is this important distinction made when investigating serious dog attacks & yet it's crucial to both understanding and preventing such attacks.
> 
> Locally A Giant Schnauzer attacked its owner some yrs back. She would probably have been killed except that her 2nd GS took on the attacking dog & recued her. The attacking dog was pts & autopsied which showed that the dog's behaviour was due to a brain tumor. It was an unusual situation b/c her dogs were truly family members & not backyard 'resident dogs'. For her the autopsy results proved invaluable as she was devastasted that her loving, loyal companion, so inexplicably turned on her.


I appreciate the reasonable tone of RubyTuesday's post.

I would be devastated if any member of my family were killed by a dog, but I would also want to know WHY. We always want to know why. It's human nature. It won't take away the pain, but having some explanation can help to bring us closure.

Something went seriously wrong with that dog, and I really can't wrap my head around the closed investigation.

Such a horrific loss of life. My heart goes out to the woman's survivors.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Mrs.K said:


> Honestly, once you are dead, you are dead. If I'd be there and witnessed an attack like that and had a gun on my hands, I'd shoot the dog.
> No family member in their right mind would say "Sure, take the dog for testing." they are way to grief struck to be rational. The dog is going over to the Authorities, held in quarantine and I doubt anyone outside Authority figures is getting near that dog.
> 
> I can see a necropsy, but definitely no temperament testing. Once the dog has killed, the fate is sealed and rightfully so.


 
I think the thing thats a little freaky to me, is that the neighbor was able to grab it and kennel it. 

If it were one of my dogs - and God forbid they killed my family member - and the dog was kenneled - I'd want to know why. I'd follow my vets advice. If my vet stated they could do extensive testing even if the dog was dead, that would be fine. If the vet stated they could do more testing if the dog was alive, that would be fine. Either way, in the end the dog would be PTS. 

If I came up on the dog attacking a family member...or came up on a dog attacking another person, I'd do what it took to stop the attack. If that means killing the dog, then I'd kill the dog. 

I'd HAVE to know. I have no intention of living my life in fear of another dog attack. If the vet came back and said he couldn't find anything medically wrong with the dog, I'd never have another GSD.

Edit to add: I wouldn't give a flip about 'temperment' at that point. I'm strickly talking about medical issues.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mrs.K said:


> You are still not getting it.
> 
> I am not humanizing the dog and yes, there is a line being crossed. If a dog doesn't know the difference between nipping and a full bite, going in for the kill, we wouldn't have any biting inhibition.
> 
> A dog sure knows the difference. They are predators for crying out loud.


I get it just fine. YES a dog knows the difference between a for-real bite, and a nip -- I NEVER said that. 

Dogs do not murder. A dog has an emotional range of a 3-6 year old child. Children that young do not murder, though they may kill a younger sibling somehow. They would not be put into a place for that, it would be considered an accident. 

Dogs do not have the mental facilities, emotional range to commit a crime that requires the kind of anger/hate that would say they are not worth a bullet. These jerks in Cleveland -- _they _don't deserve a bullet. They deserve death, yes, but they deserve to die slow and horribly. Because they are humans, they are evil creeps that deserve to suffer and die for their crimes. 

Dogs are not criminals. That dog did that because for some reason it isn't right. It probably had some sort of brain tumor. You might not pay $1.98 or the cost of a bullet to obtain that dog to use it for anything. But the dog is certainly worth euthanizing humanely.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Courtney said:


> How sad.
> 
> Apparently her wounds were critical in her neck, she died 4 days after the attack. The below article states the family also owned a female GSD & a Border Collie.
> 
> ...


Courtney, I agree. I don't think anyone is disputing that the dog needed to be PTS. That is a no brainer. I do not fault the family either, however I believe additional testing should have been done. Couldn't it have been done as part of the investigation? I'm sure it did not even occur to the family, at this time. I guarantee, however, that they will wish they had those answers in the future. You have three dogs in your home. Never suspected a problem. One dog kills a family member. What about the other two? That is going to run through their minds. If the necropsy could have pinpointed a medical issue - such as a brain tumor, it would lessen the fear that another dog is going to go ballistic. If the two GSDs are related, perhaps a necropsy would have alerted to a potential problem in the female, or allayed those fears.

Maybe a necropsy would have shown nothing, but now the possibility of learning anything is lost forever.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

selzer said:


> I get it just fine. YES a dog knows the difference between a for-real bite, and a nip -- I NEVER said that.
> 
> Dogs do not murder. A dog has an emotional range of a 3-6 year old child. Children that young do not murder, though they may kill a younger sibling somehow. They would not be put into a place for that, it would be considered an accident.
> 
> ...


You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that dogs murder or are criminals. You are putting that out there as if I had said that. 

All I said is that the dog is not worth the bullet, simply because it's not worth the money or time to temperament test the dog. 
Necropsy, I can see that to rule out something medical but simply not a temperament test. What more do you need to know other than that the dog has killed a person? THAT in itself should give you a hint about the dogs stability and temperament if there is no brain tumor or otherwise medical issue. 

Jeez Selzer, stop putting words into my mouth and implying something I've never even said. By now most people on this forum know that I am the least darned person that would EVER humanize a dog! 

In this case, I'm shutting emotions out. A dog with a temperament like that is not worth the bullet, it's not worth putting money into that dog, trying to rehabilitate the dog. You can't place a dog like that, ever. Not possible. 

That has nothing to do with anger. You are reading way to much into what I have said.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

And if you really want to read something that is upsetting, blaming the victim etc. 

Read the comments over there: UPDATE: Woman Dies After Being Attacked by Her Dog | Dog Haters Unite!

Now that is emotional and being angry at the dog AND owner!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mrs.K said:


> You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that dogs murder or are criminals. You are putting that out there as if I had said that.
> 
> All I said is that the dog is not worth the bullet, simply because it's not worth the money or time to temperament test the dog.
> Necropsy, I can see that to rule out something medical but simply not a temperament test. What more do you need to know other than that the dog has killed a person? THAT in itself should give you a hint about the dogs stability and temperament if there is no brain tumor or otherwise medical issue.
> ...


The thing is, Mrs. K, from my very first post I agreed with euthanizing the dog. I did not advocate temperament testing, but I would want to know as much as possible as to why the dog did what it did, just because, I would want to know what caused an animal to act in such a totally odd way. My guess would be physical. But no way would the dog be a candidate for rehabilitation. 

Your choice of words -- he isn't worth a bullet, really sounded like you were saying they shouldn't even waste a bullet on such a dog. That is what the red-necks around hear abouts will say when they have an animal that they don't care enough about to waste a bullet on to put out its pain. 

I am glad that you really weren't saying that.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

RubyTuesday said:


> Karen Delise, in her book 'Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics', states that the vast majority of fatal dog attacks involve 'resident dogs' rather than dogs living as family members. Rarely is this important distinction made when investigating serious dog attacks & yet it's crucial to both understanding and preventing such attacks.


This was a fascinating book, absolutely fascinating. Her research has continued, too. I would urge everyone to read this book. 
Sheilah


----------



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

This thread is getting a little far out for me.

I feel for the family but fail to see what good knowing the cause or not knowing does for anyone. If the cause was a brain tumor or something else then it could happen again to someone. If tests are inconclusive then it could happen to someone, somewhere again.

Frankly your odds of being killed by your own dog I'm guessing are astronomical to being killed by lightning. There is something like 30,000 people killed by drunk drivers every year. That number has now been surpassed by texting drivers. I can't remember if the texting were accidents or deaths but you get the point. If that's not enough there is heart disease, strokes,cancer etc.....

Again I feel for the family but I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether one of my dogs could someday kill me.

I think perspective gets lost in emotion at times.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Lilie said:


> I think the thing thats a little freaky to me, is that the neighbor was able to grab it and kennel it.
> 
> If it were one of my dogs - and God forbid they killed my family member - and the dog was kenneled - I'd want to know why. I'd follow my vets advice. If my vet stated they could do extensive testing even if the dog was dead, that would be fine. If the vet stated they could do more testing if the dog was alive, that would be fine. Either way, in the end the dog would be PTS.
> 
> ...


Exactly! This family is NEVER going to have those answers and that is wrong.


----------



## Wetdog (May 23, 2001)

I find it a little strange that a passing neighbor could walk in during an attack---the dog renews the attack on the owner, yet the neighbor, gets the dog and puts it in its kennel without being attacked himself.

I think there is some very important information missing in all this. 

It doesn't add up to me.


----------



## Dejavu (Nov 11, 2010)

So awful and scary. Poor family. 

I would also like to know why a dog would attack and kill his owner. As many have already said, I'd feel safer knowing the reason. My guessing it was some medical issue.

I remember some friends of my parents told us a story when I was younger about their loving GSD suddenly growling at them and acting aggressive towards them. They took him to the vet and turned out the dog was losing it's sense of smell.
Luckily they knew what was wrong with that dog and he didn't get to harm his owners. I don't know whether he was treated or not, or how can you even treat that, but at least they KNEW the reason their dog was being that aggressive and they could do something about it before a tragedy happened.

As for me, knowing that info makes me feel safer cause, God forbids, if I'm ever in a situation like that and I begin seeing any weird signs like that, first, I know I have to test my dog cause something is wrong with his/her health. I can also suggest that to the vet so they can test they dog for it.
Plus yes, it is human nature to want to know the reason.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

I agree that the dog should be put down but it would have been more useful to know more about it to protect the public from possible offspring or siblings. PLease read the post correctly and not jump to assumptions by commenting like "just kill the dog"; that is just an emotional response.


----------



## Msmaria (Mar 2, 2013)

Dejavu said:


> So awful and scary. Poor family.
> 
> I would also like to know why a dog would attack and kill his owner. As many have already said, I'd feel safer knowing the reason. My guessing it was some medical issue.
> 
> ...


Ditto.


----------



## Bubbles (Aug 31, 2012)

wow I'd never own a dog that could over power me. I don't know why people get dogs that are to much for them to handle. 

I do feel bad for the family though. tragic.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Bubbles said:


> wow I'd never own a dog that could over power me. I don't know why people get dogs that are to much for them to handle.
> 
> I do feel bad for the family though. tragic.


Many dogs can overpower people if they wanted to.


----------



## Bubbles (Aug 31, 2012)

wolfy dog said:


> Many dogs can overpower people if they wanted to.


only if you let them. I also said what I said as a personal preference.


----------



## julie87 (Aug 19, 2012)

They should have done testing, to know what caused it so it can be prevented in the future, how is killing he dog next day help anyone? Its not about justice to the dog, (who probably doesn't even know any better) Its an extreme case and someone should have investigated! All of us have GSDs and if this happened before it would be nice what caused it so we can prevent it!


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

But we can't prevent brain tumours, or stupid people owning GSD. Knowing will not save this woman. And to be brutally honest, the only people who would take heed of what was found, are already better dog owners than 99% of the country. 

The family may want to understand why it happened, but for the rest of us it is irrelevant. 

The dog was and should have been destroyed. Plain and simple. Medical/ behavioral reasoning aside. The general public, who understanding what happened so as to prevent it, don't care. Those of us that do care are the gross minority. And we are already searching for ways to prevent this type of aggression. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## julie87 (Aug 19, 2012)

I'm sure there were signs that dog is not well, no healthy happy dog is going to suck its teeth into their owner for no reason


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------

