17-month-old mauled to death
Why must a child and a dog die because of lack of adult supervision? First the child, a 17 month old toddler is put in the back yard, but is able to wander out from the yard to where the dog was tied.
Another horrendous story of dog attack from an non-aggressive dog and no charges laid. Sure, kill the dog and that settles everything. Whoever was responsible for that child at the time was the one at blame...not the dog. If the child had been hit by a car, would they have destroyed the vehicle? That's how stupid these articles make me feel people are and where they put the blame.
Worse yet, the reporter goes on about dangerous dogs and the grandmother calls the little girl, her little spitfire. That tells me the toodler was on the go all the time and needed to be constantly supervised, yet the dog that never harmed a hair on a child suddenly turns when it's been used to children? Did the child get caught up in the rope or chain? Was the dog trying to snap and chew the tie out from the child and gotten the child instead while trying to free her?
There's more to this story the meets the eye and I guess it's for that family to know and we never will. It's so sad!
17-month-old mauled to death
Family dog attacks girl at grandparents' home near Smiths Falls
Ciara Byrne and Katie Lewis,
Published: Tuesday, July 03, 2007
MONTAGUE TOWNSHIP - Korie Lyn Edwards, a bright blond-haired, blue-eyed toddler had spent Canada Day at her grandparents' house.
A little before 6:30 p.m. Sunday, the inquisitive 17-month-old was playing outside in the yard, when she wandered over to the family dog, a 10-year-old Rottweiler-German Shepherd cross that was tied up outside her grandparents' home in Montague Township about 70 kilometres southwest of Ottawa,
The dog had no history of violence, but for reasons still not known, it snapped, mauling Korie Lyn so viciously that she died of her injuries after being airlifted to CHEO from the Smiths Falls Hospital.
"She was my spitfire and she's gone now," said Katherine Ivey, the little girl's grandmother yesterday, adding she was too upset to say anything more.
Outside the bungalow on Montague Boundary Road where the attack took place, family and friends were stunned and distraught.
A cluster of mourners sat on the lawn of the woodframe bungalow. A man, voice worn by sadness, said family members were simply too devastated to speak. Nearby, a woman paced the length of the driveway.
Hester Grodde, who runs a cattle farm on the rural road, said she didn't know Korie Lyn, but called her death a tragedy. "Like everyone I'm saddened," she said. "This is very, very unfortunate."
OPP Const. Paige Whiting said the family dog was socialized and accustomed to having children around.
"The dog did not have any prior history," said Const. Whiting.
Neighbours said they recalled a number of dogs living at the house, but were unaware of any problems with the animals. Others, however, said they'd been concerned about the pet Rottweiler-Shepherd.
Emile Therien, a spokesman for the Canada Safety Council, estimates about 460,000 Canadians are bitten by dogs every year.
"It's an awful way to die," said Mr. Therien. "It's vicious and brutal. These dogs are very strong and when they do attack, the severity is extreme."
In 2005, under the Dog Owner's Liability Act, Ontario became the first province to ban people from acquiring pit bull-type dogs. Existing pit bull-type animals must be neutered as well as leashed and muzzled in public. Violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000.
Although Mr. Therien says he doesn't agree with breed-specific bans, nobody has died since the implementation of the ban.
"Actually, the lead biter is the Labrador retriever," said Mr. Therien. "The problem is that if you try to ban a particular breed, you never stop."
The dog that mauled Korie Lyn was a Rottweiler-German shepherd cross.
Adele Foley, president of the Rottweiler Club of Canada, says Rottweilers are often portrayed as vicious dogs.
"The breed itself is actually a cattle dog," she said.
"It's a big, smart, muscular dog. So if people want to use this dog for the wrong reason, they do it."
Ms. Foley said above all, the responsibility lies with owners, not the dog.
"Owning a dog is not a right, it's a privilege," she said. "People can't leave children alone with dogs. The dogs need to be fenced."
The dog that mauled Korie Lyn has been turned over to animal control and will be euthanized today, at the request of the family.
The Lanark Country OPP continue to investigate the case in Montague Township, but "charges are not expected," said Const. Whiting.
An autopsy is scheduled for today.
7 comments:
"Others, however, said they'd been concerned about the pet Rottweiler-Shepherd."
It's patently untrue that attacking dogs have no history of aggression, as the above statement clearly suggests.
I've researched dog biting incidents for years. Owners often claim their dogs had no history of aggression. What they really mean is they'd never been reported for biting.
Biting is aggression's end game. It is the last, most severe, example in a laundry list of behaviours that need to develop and escalate before they approach anything resembling aggression.
Owners of biting dogs invariably had every opportunity to protect everyone from their dogs' increasing aggression, when the dog was still at the barking, growling, or raised lips stages. For some reason, whether it's ignorance or apathy, they don't, and just let the dog develop more, and more severe, aggressive behaviours.
Just like you don't ask the parents of incorrigible teenagers about the "innocence" of their spawn, you have to go to more reliable sources, like neighbours, to see if the dog had exhibited any of these telltale signs of aggression, prior to a reported successful bite.
Every claim I've heard of a dog exhibiting it's first aggressive behaviour, in the form of a successful bite, has turned out to be a complete lie. And knowing how likely it is for chaining to cause aggression (and why would anyone choose to "chain" a well-behaved, friendly dog, in the first place?), I'm sure the "others" mentioned in the story would contradict anyone who says this dog was a friendly, well-mannered angel prior to killing a child.
It just doesn't happen. The owners knew, or should have known, prior behaviours were aggression, and were indicating the dog would bite in the future.
This case is nearly identical to the vast majority of dog-related fatalities that occur in Canada.
- Unsupervised child and dog.
- On private property.
- Victim knew the dog.
- About 1/5 involve chained dogs.
- known history of aggression.
I could very well agree with you Marjorie had it not come from the neighbours themselves saying how good this dog was with people and other children.
It doesn't state the age of the dog, now why the dog was chained. So there is always room for questions and although I'm only trying to look at another view of why this tragety took place, it just another way of what could have possibly happened.
With a back yard, it doesn't make sense the dog was tied up or chained in the first place, but neither does it make sense that a 17 month old girl could get out of the back yard unless it wasn't fully fenced in.
Either way, that child should have been supervised by an adult, so I still see this misfortune to be on the adults head.
I wholehearted agree with you a chained dog is definately not an ideal situation and if this dog is always changed with no interaction with people, it can cause the dog aggression. Dogs NEED to be socialized properly.
But if this child did somehow get tangled up in the chain and the dog saw she was in destress, it's possible the dog in a frenzie was trying to free the child also.
This is the part we will never know the whole truth.
Uh, Conners, the quote at the beginning of my comment is FROM the neighbours.
"Others, however, said they'd been concerned about the pet Rottweiler-Shepherd."
In the context of the story, that statement was meant to suggest the dog DID have a known history of aggressive behaviour.
And since I began researching dog biting incidents eight years ago, I've never found one of these claims about the dog never having behaved aggressively prior to a successful bite, to be true.
Sure, I've investigated countless cases where that's what was reported. "No history of aggressive behaviour."
But when I go to the neighbours or make the telephone calls, I find that many people admitted the dog would bark menacingly or growl or lunge or raise its lips or even attempt bites. (And a whole host of other forms of aggressive behaviours.) And people were afraid of the dog, at least in some situations. ...All the while the owners STILL claim the dog had never behaved aggressively before.
After so many years of hearing these stories, I know they're primarily a media device to promote fear amongst the populace. If a dog with no history of aggression can bite, and even kill, then we're all in mortal danger from every dog we see. This is a very good marketing strategy. It keeps people fearful and keeps them tuning in or buying newspapers.
I also know, having spoken with the owners of attacking dogs, that they tend to fall into a few categories.
There are the ignorant ones. These types don't know much about dogs or dog behaviour, and consider all manner of aggression to be "normal" or "expected" in dogs. Thus, they don't recognize the initial signs the dog was developing a perverted perception of its environment, which then leads to behaviours known to lead to outright aggression. Similarly, this mindset also has them doing nothing about the blatant aggression their dogs exhibit, once they get to that point. It's all "natural" to these types.
Many dog owners are pleased when their dogs behave aggressively, even towards perfectly innocent targets like the paperboy, the mailman, or the neighbour's dog. They feel "protected" by their dogs threats towards perfectly harmless people and animals. They don't see the obvious consequence that the dog could get to one of its targets one day, and will not only cause harm, but will then likely pay the biggest price for that mistake.
(If your dog is telling you it is threatening to bite an innocent individual one day...believe it. Seek help now. Address the problem before an unprovoked bite occurs.)
Then there are the dog owners who know their dogs are aggressive, but they don't understand how it leads to bites against humans.
It is simply not okay for a dog to threaten any innocent individual. Period. And when owners allow this kind of behaviour, it typically escalates over time. The predicted result is a bite, one day. The target of the aggression will also likely grow to encompass other targets, in the future. (There are so many myths about dog behaviour, it's partly why we created GoodPooch.com.)
What many of these owners mean when they say "no history of aggression" is the dog had never been REPORTED for biting before, or it had never SUCCESSFULLY bitten a PERSON before (despite admitted attempts at biting).
But a successful bite is never the first sign of aggressive behaviour in dogs. It's the last, in a long list of increasingly threatening behaviours that must go unchecked if the dog is ever to reach the point of biting.
Every unprovoked dog biting case I've investigated involved a dog with a known history of aggressive behaviour. If I had a penny for every owner who claimed that, because the dog had never been reported for biting a person prior to its first successful bite, they shouldn't have been expected to know their (clearly aggressive) dogs would do so, well...I'd have an awful lot of pennies.
Every dog trainer I know who works with aggressive dogs is astounded (myself included) at the behaviours so many dog owners permit and even encourage in their dogs. We trainers just shake our heads in disbelief. We wouldn't let it go past the discomfort stage. Staring???? Oh, come on. Ridiculous! Lunging or growling? ...Would never happen twice. Attempted bites? It's certainly a behaviour we only see in dogs brought to us for re-training; not our own (properly raised) dogs. My 8-year-old Great Dane, for instance, has never growled. Not one of my own dogs has ever bitten a living creature.
This story was written like so many others. The admission about concerns about the dog's prior behaviour was buried (in this version, and completely absent in most accounts).
Oh, I forgot the other kind of dog owner. They know their dogs are aggressive, but they hope that by saying the dog had never behaved aggressively before, they can deflect responsibility for the attack. "Oh it's such a shock to us that 'Ripper' broke free from his chain and mauled the neighbour's child." Riiiight.
Of course they "couldn't have known" the dog was aggressive all those times it strained at the end of its chain, threatening to harm anyone who walked by. Or how about all those times it raised its lips and growled whenever someone tried to take away a toy? That's not blatant aggression? Okeydokie...anything you say Mr. Oblivious. Good luck with your next dog!
Then you go to the neighbours and find out they were so concerned about the dog, they had a whole strategy developed to avoid being outside when the neighbour's dog was out there.
You know, the Presa Canario/Mastiff crosses that killed a woman in San Francisco were said to have "no history of aggressive behaviour". In reality, those dogs had attacked several other dogs, and lunged at people, to the point the entire neighbourhood created a 'walking schedule' to avoid them. Their previous caretaker demanded the owners (who were in jail) re-home the dogs, because they were so aggressive and had even killed other animals. That's how they came to live with the San Francisco couple.
No history of aggression? Yeah, right.
You know the Bullmastiff that killed Courtney Trempe was said to have "no history of aggression", as well. Yet that dog was known in the neighbourhood as an aggressive dog and had not only attacked other dogs, but had successfully killed at least two dogs previously.
No history of aggression? Ssssuuuurrrre.
I could go on and on. The fluffy Shepherd/Husky cross that took a chunk out of a boy's leg was said to have...you guessed it..."no history of aggression", even though it had attacked several other dogs previously, and was so dangerous, the owners would lock it up whenever anyone came over, for fear it would bite. Even after admitting this, they STILL claimed the dog had "no history of aggressive behaviour"...presumably all because it had never been REPORTED for successfully biting a non-family member.
The list would be lengthy, if I were to include all the applicable cases from the past 8 years.
I wish I could impart the telltale signs of developing aggression in dogs to all dog owners. Evidently, I can't. In an environment where people routinely dismiss unacceptable dog behaviour, then exacerbate that with inhumane or unethical training or housing, we can expect dog attacks to continue long into the future. And many of those future biting dogs will be reported as having had "no history of aggressive behaviour" despite a long list of previous victims or near-victims.
The Courtney Trempe case I am so familiar with and even with that tragedy, the lawyer was never charged and far as I know the dog still lives while Courtney's mother only has memories and what she would be doing now if she were still alive.
I did see the statement where some neighbours were concerned about the dog, but they didn't say why. Was it because they had seen any aggressive behaviour or was it because of the look of the dog?
I understand where you are coming from Marjorie and I can see you have done a thorough study.
All I'm trying to say is you can't always know all the facts from a newpaper article and there will always be neighbours concerned about dogs that they feel may be dangerous just by the media hype and the dogs breed. I've come across people like that with Shasta until they really got to know her. Their fear was based on breed not actions.
As much as I love Shasta, she still is a dog and I would never leave her unsupervised with children and take precautions.
I teach my grand kids never to play tug with her, or go to her food dishes or take away a toy even though she has never shown any aggression in any of these areas and even eats at the food dishes with my cat stealing bits of her food. Leave her alone when she's sleeping, etc.
I'm teaching them this way because perhaps Shasta will allow it, but will the dog at another home? It's best to teach them do's and don't with ALL dogs and thereby teaching them bite prevention which should be taught to all children starting at a very early age and continued.
I totally agree with you about the different types of people and their mind set of aggression. Many of these people do not even know how to read a dogs body language and need education themselves let alone the kids.
It just sickens me to see where a child has been injured or lost their life and all the blame goes on the dog especially when there is no supervision by either the owner or the person responsible for the child. People that can not maintain, contain and train a dog properly have no business owning an animal and that would prevent bites and attacks. Whoever is responsible for the child where the dog is shouldn't get off the hook, just as it says no action will be taken. That's what angers me.
Well, you're right, of course.
It has always been my position that owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their dogs. When owners ignore the initial signs their dogs are uncomfortable with a situation, there's every reason to believe the dogs will not only remain "uncomfortable" with those situations, but will likely escalate their behaviour, over time. This is how mere stiffened body posture leads to bites, down the road.
OWNERS could, if they wanted to, recognize their dogs are perceiving a situation as being threatening...when it isn't, and teach them to both accept it, and even teach them an appropriate response. Owners could train and socialize their dogs. They could see their dog's undesirable behaviour as a wake-up call for training, rather than denial or wishful thinking.
I spent about a year researching the disposition of dog bite cases. Most of the time, even in cases where a dog bite victim suffered very severe injuries...sometimes even death(!), owners typically only face fines for by-law infractions, like licensing, leashing, or vaccinations. Rarely does a dog owner face any kind of penalties for allowing his/her aggressive dog to bite. (Responsible dog owners obey dog-related laws, without excuse. No wonder so many owners of biting dogs face fines for such basic violations, such as failure to license, leash, or vaccinate. They're not responsible, if the unprovoked bite wasn't enough of a tip off.)
...But, there I go, assuming that people will admit/acknowledge when their dogs have behaved aggressively in the past. They don't. And the media likes to play up that angle because it instills more fear in people.
I recently read a media story about an animal control worker who says he'll walk along trails where dogs are supposed to be leashed, and an off-leash dog will charge him, menacingly, and the owner says, "Oh, he's never done that before." But the next week, he meets the same dog doing the same thing, and the owner again says, "Oh, he's never done that before."
Many dog owners lie about their dogs' behaviour. Many more are either ignorant or apathetic.
As I said, in over eight years of research, I've never found an unprovoked dog bite case involving a dog which TRULY had no history of aggression. Their owners often say they'd never behaved aggressively before. In every single case I've looked at, that's turned out to be a lie.
Naturally, I don't believe it for a minute, when I hear those kinds of claims now. More importantly, my research only validates what I've known for years, because of my work rehabilitating aggressive dogs. When a dog comes to be with a list of bites and attempted bites as long as your arm, and it attempts its last bite within the first week of my training, it's brutally clear where the problem lies: the previous owner(s).
I can't tell you how many people who've sent their dogs to me for assessment who, the day after returning their dogs to them, call me to ask what "miracle" I worked. I have to tell them that I don't do any active training on dogs I'm assessing, with the exception of some basic stuff, like sitting and waiting for collars to be put on and taken off, or heeling on leashed walks. Other than that, they just shadow my own dog(s).
So why do so many dogs (at least temporarily) become model canine citizens after just a couple of days in my home? Experience has proven it is a combination of things. The expectation of good behaviour. Clear and consitent expectations for behaviour. A trustworthy handler who never tries to frighten or force them into anything, but who makes demands as understandable to the dog as possible, and expects them to comply, every time. Redirection of undesirable behaviour. Adequate daily exercise. Socialization. Leadership.
I just treat assessment dogs as I would my own dog(s), for the most part. "Like magic" those reportedly "aggressive", "out-of-control" dogs go home significantly improved, in just a couple of days. Alas it isn't "magic". It's just responsible dog ownership that would only see that dog improving more and more, if the owners would behave responsibly every day from that point forward.
Speaking of consequences for biting incidents, you did notice that the dog's owners in this case won't be facing any penalties at all.
I also see you've since published the Kelly Egan story from the Ottawa Citizen.
After reading it, I contacted Mr. Egan to discuss some of the data presented in his piece. He wrote back in defense of the story, and further called for things like a coroner's ingquest, and more research into the biting dog's breed, age, health problems, etc.
I said that was all well and good, but it's a bit misguided.
You see, the recommendations of dog bite fatality coroner's inquests aren't implemented. They were pretty much ignored in the Trempe and Waddell inquests. And I don't believe much was done as a result of the Anger-Fontaine inquest.
Dog bite research has not only been conducted for decades, but the findings are the same today as they were 20 years ago. Eduation about the factors we already know lead to dog bites is great. More pointless dog bite research with no strategy to educate the public is what we've been doing for too long.
More importantly, when you're looking at the dog for "reasons" why it might have bitten unprovoked, you're missing the only relevant part of the puzzle: the owner.
Any dog can be made "good" or "bad". It all depends on the owner. The old saying is as true to today as when it was first uttered, "You get the dog you deserve."
OWNERS choose to do all sorts of inappropriate things in rearing their dogs. They don't socialize them. They don't give them enough exercise. They don't pay enough attention to them. They chain, cage, or otherwise isolate this extremely social creature. They ignore or minimize bad behaviours, or outright encourage them. They don't properly supervise them.
Responsible dog owners don't raise aggressive dogs. Period. The corollary of my earlier statement about having found every dog involved in an unprovoked attack having a known history of aggression is this: I've never found one responsibly-owned dog invovled in an unprovoked attack.
With over eight years of research, that says everything we need to know about the causes for unprovoked attacks. ...Owners.
It's not "if" responsible dog ownership prevents dog bites. The question is how do we turn less-than-responsible dog owners into the responsible kind? Until we do that, unprovoked bites will continue to happen. As long as we focus on the dog (or its size or shape) unprovoked dog bites will continue to occur.
We HAVE to start targeting the appropriate end of the leash, or we'll never make any progress, and people will continue to be bitten, maimed, and killed by negligently-owned dogs.
Bill Bruce from Calgary would likely echo this concept. The Calgary model has been so successful in reducing dog bites because it both encourages more responsible ownership AND doesn't allow much in the way of irresponsible dog ownership. Any reported aggressive behaviour, even prior to a first bite, results in a visit from animal control with a warning about future consequences, if the behaviour is allowed to continue, and some helpful tips on responsible dog ownership. Whenever possible, they don't wait until the dog is a serious menace. And they don't focus on the dog, either.
That's the only way to improve the situation. Find a way to ensure more dogs are responsibly-owned. That'll work "miracles".
I have to agree with you, as I'm not looking at the larger picture like you are and your absolutely right. I see what you mean now and how owners could have prevented incidenses if they were really honest with themselves or looked to prior behaviour showing an incident was prevented from happening (so of course it didn't) but could have and nothing was done to train the dog differently.
Now I understand more from where you are coming from.
It's important that owners of any dog gain knowledge of how to train, maintain and contain their dogs properly and it's also the responsibility of parents to teach their children about dog bite prevention. The problem is, so many adults don't understand that themselves, so are not able to teach their children properly.
I've had experiences where children run up to Shasta to pat or hug her as the parent smiles on. I then educate the kids (and hopefully that parent) about bite prevention and how if Shasta had of been another dog, that same reaction could have brought fear to that dog and they could have gotten bitten.
I talk to them and use the Meeting Milo - Stop the Bite referance to them so they can understand how they would feel is a stranger suddenly ran up and tried to grab them. How would that make them feel? And that's how many children get bit by doing so. I also tell them how lucky they were THIS TIME, but may not be so lucky the next time and NEVER approach a strange dog without asking permission of the owner.
It gets exasperating at times that I'm trying to hurry to do something and instead I'm having to educate children with their parents on bite control when it should be the parents duty to teach them and that's a big problem.
Responsibility does not only lie with dog owners. Perhaps this should be manditory to teach in school in the junior grade levels. I know when I used Yvette's book and workbook http://www.meetingmilo.com/ on 3 - 6 year olds, they were very excited to learn and I used Shasta as Milo to deminstrate.
Either way, it's both dog owners and the public that need to be educated or bite stats will never decrease.
My in-laws have a dog that has growled and snapped at my 2 year old a few times and they are positive that the dog would NEVER bite him. How can they be so stupid?? We don't go over there anymore because they refuse to put the dog in the garage. It makes me sick. It's a freakin dog, not a human! We feel like they are choosing the dog over our kids.
Post a Comment