by bearcups » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:33 pm
Thing is, whenever someone says "oh I've been bitten by a ____!" the story they tell is either a lie, an exaggeration, or the truth where the part that they did something wrong is missing. For example, I covered a story about a rottwieler killing a newborn baby. Here's what really happened;
Newspaper: rottie kills newborn for no good reason.
My results: ...no, she didn't.
I remember reading an article while ago in the paper that spoke about a Rottie that had bitten a newborn and taken it from its bedroom and down into her kennel. The parents had left the room to go and unload some boxes because they had just moved house and when they returned, there was blood drops on the floor. They found the child, screamed, and destroyed the dog.
I analyzed the article thoroughly, because I dont believe a dog will kill a child "just because". I highlighted ( Yep, I got highlighters out. This is how interested I was. ) key words, like "back of the neck" and "kennel." After that, I wrote a response to the article with no intention of sending it off.
The first factor that influenced the dog's kidnapping of the child has to be the fact that they just moved house. This dog is clearly unsure of the enviournment and feels that bringing the packs latest 'pup' into the area is not a good idea. The parents proceed to leave the dog and child alone in a room whilst they walk OUTSIDE to unload more boxes. The dog is now left alone in a house with the biggest responsibility she will ever have: looking after the packs 'pup'. This child is alone, no parents in sight, and the only familiar thing the dog thinks is safe is her kennel. This is the second factor: responsibilities and surroundings. Together, these can create a wonderful dog or a bad dog. Guarding - Responsibility, Home - surroundings makes for a passive aggressive dog that is partial to biting because it wants to protect the home. Thats only an example.
So, the dog takes the child down to her kennel and lays with the child until discovered by the parents. The locations of the bites scream "Not a killer bite!" The bites were on the back of the neck, but were very, very deep and the baby's neck was broken by its own weight. Newborns tend to have tender necks and cant support their own heads. Puppies have skin on the backs of their necks that stretch and lift for their mother to pick them up with - this is an inherited thing, its been introduced through evolution so that the puppies dont have their necks ripped apart by doting mothers that only want to carry them.
The canine teeth bites were on either side of the neck, suggesting that the dog had only picked the baby up once. They would not have been deep had this been, say, an 11 year old boy. Her teeth were simply too large for the baby to manage. The baby was discovered in the BACK of the dogs kennel, which suggests that she was shielding the baby from whatever danger might be outside of her small space.
To elaborate on the whole back-of-the-neck-bite thing:
When dogs attack, their usual target is the front of your body. Thats where all the soft stuff is, such as your face, your stomach, thighs etc. and those are the parts that you can bleed to death from. I believe that if the dog wanted to kill the baby, she would have easily removed the baby's head by ripping at the throat or tearing its stomach to ribbons. No, the bite was one gentle bite to the back of the neck so that she could remove the baby from the dangerous enviournment and place her in one that she felt the baby was safe in.
I could write for hours on this subject. I dunno. I just feel that every dog attack is "MAULED TO DEATH" "UNPROVOKED ATTACK" "DANGEROUS DOG." Well, every dog is dangerous and there's always a reason. Plus, Rottweilers always get the blame! Clearly,
┌────────────────────┐
you took me into your arms
you taught me to smile, be brave
you were my teacher, my lover, my life
but one day, you shot me down
and i never got back up
└───────────────────────────┘
