http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/03/25/phoenix-mickey-pit-bull-fate/6879191/
I don't see how that is supposed to help any at all, for either the dog or the kid. Removing a dog's teeth will eventually cause a plethora of painful health issues and result in an early death, anyway. The dog bit because it was starved and someone tried to take away all it had been given to eat-a bone. Any starving animal or human will defend a scrap of "food". Even most dogs that are well-fed have limited tolerance of anyone messing with their food, which is why I was taught from a very early age to avoid any animal that was eating. I can't blame the kid, though, if no adult had taken the time to teach him that, anymore than I can blame a starving dog for defending all it had to eat. Blame goes to the adult(s) who were supposed to be caring for the dog AND the kid.
I can't fault either the kid, who was only four, or the dog, who had been starved and probably abused in other ways as well. The dog(which is probably a Catahoula mix) was a walking skeleton when it was brought in. There was an adult present who was keeping the child, but did not interfere when the child went over to where the dog was chained and attempted to take away a bone that the dog was trying to eat. The adult should have kept the child from going over to the dog in the first place, and certainly you would think that most adults would know that MOST dogs will defend their food, but I can tell you from my own personal experiences that many people have no clue. They do assume that because THEY would consider something wrong, that a toddler or an animal would also consider it wrong, and avoid doing it, just by default.
Would this be the OJ Simpson-Lindsay Lohan-Chris Brown form of criminal justice? (Aka, giggle and run). Okay okay. Getting serious. If the dog was human... there could not possibly be demonstrated malice aforethought or premeditation. Therefore at best the perp would be charged with second degree assault which could be considered felonious or a simple misdemeanor. Taking into account the perp REacted and did not initiate any action, and there being no mention of prior incidents. this would normally be considered a misdemeanor. In layman's terms, the perp acted inappropriately under the circumstances. This would result in anything from a warning and maybe a fine to a short stint in jail.
Actually there WAS a prior incident, but it involved another dog, not a human. The dog that was chained to a tree allegedly killed a German Shepherd puppy that belonged to the same woman that was keeping the child(the biting dog was not hers but a relative's, though it stayed on her property) when the puppy approached it while it was eating. Given the condition of the mixed-breed dog, it's not surprising that it would demonstrate extreme food-protecting behavior. That seems to be the trigger for its aggression: food.
The judge in this case was required to intervene in state law, which requires that an animal which has been declared "vicious" or "dangerous" be put to death. There was a side here who was arguing that the dog was not vicious, but reacted simply in defense of its food( a bone, some meal, huh?) because it was literally starving, which made this case different from one in which a healthy dog bites or attacks. Ordinarily, there would be no one even considering sparing a dog that has bitten someone, especially if the victim was a child, but the shelter workers realized that the dog was in such poor physical condition that its lack of food had resulted in its behavior. I don't understand the removal of its canines, though. That makes no sense at all. A dog's canine teeth are deeply rooted in its jawbones and occupy a lot of space, and when they are removed the other teeth are going to move around into abnormal positions, resulting in unusual wear on those teeth. Removing the canine teeth of a large dog usually requires more than simply pulling the teeth and often requires surgery to actually cut into the bone to loosen the tooth at the root. I had a dog who had to have a canine tooth removed after he broke it off about mid-way its visible length, and that was a pretty extensive bit of surgery to get that tooth out, because I could not afford to have a full root canal and capping done. That also is something that is bugging me, that they will just have the dog's canine's teeth lopped off with bolt cutter, leaving the pulp and nerves exposed, such as what is required of sled dogs in Greenland when they turn a year old. Those dogs, the sled dogs, are also required to be shot and killed on their 7th birthday, because by that time, tooth decay will have set in and dog will be in pain constantly due to having had its canine teeth chopped off with bolt cutters.
Truthfully though, removing only the canines would not help if the dog bites a human again. Have you ever been bitten by a rabbit before? They have no canines or otherwise sharp teeth, but HOLY CRAP does it hurt!! And breaks skin easily. The remaining teeth on a dog would do the same.
I've been bitten by rabbits, rats, mice, and even a GOAT! The goat broke the skin and left a nasty bruise that lasted for weeks, and goats don't even have any teeth in the front of their upper jaw at all! The mouse bite severed a blood vessel and lymph node in my finger, resulting in massive swelling of my entire forearm, necessitating a trip to the ER and having to use bolt cutters to remove a ring, due to the swelling happening so fast I did not have time to remove the ring myself. I've had rat bites that required stitches. None of those animals have anything resembling canine teeth, and then there's horse bites. Talk about a bad bite! Horses do not have canine teeth, either.In my search for a follow up article the other day (of which I didn't find one), I did see reference to a group of attorneys that do nothing but represent animal interest, and they were responsible for making sure this turned into a court case. I have a feeling the judge's ruling will be challenged by that group.
PBL, I love reading your posts because of all the great dog knowledge you bring on dogs. But I 'll admit that I could have gone my whole life without knowing about dogs' teeth being cut with bolt cutters. Wow.
That is MUCH worse than removing the teeth! Grinding down the teeth is the same as breaking them off with bolt-cutters; it will leave the nerves and pulp open and exposed to bacteria, resulting in constant pain and inevitable tooth decay and abscesses unless a full root canal and capping is done on each tooth, and who is going to pay that for a quadruple root canal on a dog? Imagine having YOUR teeth ground down to expose the nerves inside, trying to eat and chew, how that would feel, and tell me how that is supposed to improve the behavior of the dog? The dog will be better off being put down, honestly, than being condemned to a life of horrible pain and infection.
I didn't have time last night to post my reaction to the grinding down teeth statement, but you've illustrated my thoughts exactly. Including the part about it being better for the dog to be put down. Do any other states have such strict laws regarding "vicious" animals?