Resource Guarding Aggression

The Aggression Question, Part 2: Resource Aggression

We are discussing aggression, and aggressive display, as a response to environmental stimuli. But we need to remember, as a refresher, that we must address the reaction to the stimulus as seen by the dog, not a human observer.

We must remember is that the dog is responding to the perception of the stimulus. Perception is dependant on a number of factors, including the dog’s past experience, training, socialization, physical limitations (hearing, sight, etc.), reproductive status, and nutrition level. The dog’s perceptions may not be grounded in objective reality. 

We have defined aggression as a behavior pattern that allows a dog to change or alter its environment in some fashion.  We have listed three specific incidences in which aggression has value; response to perceived threats, protection of resources, and altering of social status.  We have discussed perceived threats, so let us move on to protecting resources.

Protecting resources is easy for humans to understand. All animals need certain basic resources; food, water, shelter from adverse environmental factors, and reproductive access (if the species is going to survive).  In times of plenty resource protection may be relaxed somewhat.  In times of scarcity, resource protection is vital and can be a life and death struggle.

Our pets generally operate in an atmosphere of plenty.  Except in rare cases (post-Hurricane Katrina for instance) our domesticated pets do not have to fight for food access.  Begging at the table works fine.  But these drives still exist, and can affect our day to day interactions.  We have all seen the dog that growls when someone approaches while they have a favorite toy or food item.  This favored item is a resource, and the dog in question is guarding that resource.

The drive to protect resources is powerful and hardwired into animals.  Some dogs react to the presence of a resource as if they are likely to be in a scarcity situation and therefore, to protect that resource, use an aggressive display.  Audible signals such as growling combined with visible cues such as raised hackles and bared teeth serve to warn an approaching animal (even a human one) that the resource is not for sharing.  This warning may not be dependant on a true likelihood of scarcity or pending removal of the resource; the key here, as always, is the perception of the dog at the time of the incident.

Ideally these cues progress from a low level warning (audible growl followed or accompanied by initial level visual cues) through a forceful audible warning (bark and loud, overt growl/snarl) to a full frontal bare teeth snap and lunge, ultimately culminating in contact and a bite. If the initial bite does not deter the perceived resource threat then a full fight may ensue, depending on how attached the initial possessor is to the resource.

This sequence may be interrupted by several occurrences.  The possessor may, depending on the size and status of the offender and the perceived value of the resource, decide that the resource is not worth defending and withdraw the defense. The offender may similarly evaluate the size and status of the possessor and decide the resource isn’t worth fighting for. Withdrawal of either party may occur after an exchange of communication signals that result in a mutual appraisal and agreement over this particular resource. After all, the survival of a species is not served by every conflict devolving into a fight over every resource. That would result in a population of injured and dead animals that would not be viable long term.

We usually teach our dogs not to blatantly guard resources.  Many training books over the years have strongly suggested that we, as owners, teach puppies to “share” by taking food and toys away from them at will, and then returning them, so the puppy does not develop resource guarding behavior.  This is a good safety measure. But not all dogs are adequately socialized and trained to recognize humans as non-threatening to resources.  In fact some humans are valid threats to resources. A dog that has been habitually short of nutrition may have perfectly valid reasons not to surrender a treat or bowl of food to a human.

This gets us into trouble when a child, or a person unable to perceive these warning cues, persists in the perceived removal of the resource. In the case of a person that fails to recognize such cues and continues with a behavior the dog perceives as interfering with his resource, the dog follows a predictable sequence of protective moves. The sequence of warnings and escalation may happen very quickly; dogs interact rapidly and this progression may, in normal dog-dog interactions, flow through in a flash. Dogs perceive interspecies signals very quickly and can evaluate the sometimes subtle nuances in rapid sequence.

The sequence of negotiations and postures make sense to the dog and are part of its hardwired behavior. The human target of the dog’s warnings may not be able to respond quickly enough to avoid escalation, or the human may not understand dog signals, and fails to either redirect his or her behavior or adequately negotiate with the dog. The dog follows the (to him) logical “use of force matrix” and a bite, perhaps even a serious attack, follows.

Resource protection goes beyond simple food and toys. Protection of territory is a version of this, as the animal’s territory is often the source of food, water, shelter, and in some cases his/her breeding stock. Humans may not perceive the limits of a dog’s territory. Many times physical boundaries, such as fences and brush lines define a territory visibly, but that is not an absolute indicator.  An individual dog may regard a smaller area inside an otherwise physically delineated area as his actually territory worth defending-or may consider an area outside the physically defined space as territory. This is one of the ways humans such as utility workers, meter readers, and others get bitten; the particular dog may let them into the fenced yard, but when the worker violates the dog’s personal territory the dog’s demeanor changes and a confrontation ensues.

Is an attack or confrontation in such a resource guarding situation aggression? Yes, as we have defined it-aggression is a strategy to affect its environment for survival by protecting resources. To adequately evaluate the aggression the investigator must consider the potential of resource protection from the dog’s point of view. Was the bite victim within the dog’s perceived resource territory? Was the human perceived to be threatening the dog’s access to one of the key resources? In such a situation the aggressive response may well be understandable, and even a logical response. Should this response have been anticipated and guarded against by the owner through training, socialization, and even management? That determination is a central portion of the investigator’s job.

Earned Bite

I have to throw this out and give a comment here....According to Examiner reporter Penny Eims, this fresh out of New Zealand. Seems a dog bit the guy who was yanking on his (the dog's) tongue.

From the article:

"According to one report, the injured man was drinking at a party when he decided to wrestle a dog to the ground and yank on his tongue. After the dog maneuvered his way out of the partygoer’s hands, he lunged at the man’s face, inflicting serious wounds."

This should be unbelievable, but after all the bites I have seen, I can believe it. Fortunately the Kiwis seem to have enough sense to NOT label this a Dangerous Dog. Is this aggression? NO. This is a dog that was the victim of a stupid human trick. The guy bought and paid for this.

Next post on the nature of aggression: "Territorial Aggression and Resource Guarding" coming shortly. I have been a bit busy but promise it will be in soon. Meanwhile, here is the link to the full story on the Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-national/dog-bites-man-that-yanked-his-tongue

Update-back on line after too long

Good morning all:

First, I have been off this blog for too long. While employed in my previous job I had to reduce my public output due to rules, etc. So the blog kind of languished. I have not stopped working on the issues of dog related fatalities and digging out the facts behind these cases. I am still dedicated to finding out what happens when the human-canine bond goes so wrong that a fatality occurs, and to preventing these tragedies by educating and informing dog owners and the public alike.

In light of that, here is part 1 of my examination of dog aggression;what it is, and isn't, and how it applies to our interactions with our companions.

The Aggression Question, Part 1: What is Aggression?

Aggression is an adaptive behavior that allows a dog to alter his environment in order to increase its chances of survival. Aggression is defined in textbooks as behavior that 1) establishes access to or protects resources, 2)establishes or alters social standing, or 3) defends against perceived threats.

Defense against perceived threats is probably the most common of these three factors in aggressive displays toward humans. Animals have three basic responses to perceived threats; freeze (stand still and hope the threat passes), flee (RUN AWAY!) or fight. This applies to dogs, horses, or humans.

The perception of threat is affected by a number of factors; experience, training, environment, and adaptability to novel situations. Dogs, horses and humans perceive threats differently. One’s place on the food chain has a lot to do with that perception; as prey animals, horses tend to perceive threats in plenty of innocuous situations. For now let’s look at the dog’s perceptions as we understand them.

The world of a dog is split along some very general lines: Scary Things and Not Scary Things. Scary Things are the things that initiate the freeze/flee/fight response. Scary Things are basically, in survival terms, Things That May Eat or Hurt Me.

When a dog is presented with a Scary Thing, a perceived threat, he chooses a response based on his perception of the level of threat and the potential avenues to relieve that threat. Dogs that simply run from a threat don’t present a concern to investigators-they are absent from the conflict. Freezing is likewise a benign response. The choice to fight, however, brings conflict with humans, and the involvement of the investigator.

A dog that chooses the fight response is not limited to an all out fight to the death. Fight, as a response to a perceived threat, is moderated based on the level of threat perceived. Social behavior has evolved to produce a range of postures, vocalizations and actions that other animals perceive as defensive and help avert actual contact.

The initial level of fight is an aggressive display. For dogs this includes body position, raised hackles, eye focus, exposing teeth, growling, and making initial lunges toward a target. If this display mitigates the threat, makes it go away, then the dog deescalates and the situation returns to neutral. If the simple display does not effect a solution, then the conflict can proceed to contact. The dog chooses to escalate, or not, based on the continuing presence of the perceived threat.

Aggressive displays are reinforced by success-if they result in the departure of a Scary Thing then the dog will try them again for another Scary Thing. Continued success means that the behavior will be repeated. But success is strongly based on trial and error. Success is based on a dog’s perception of the chain of cause and effect, a perception that may not reflect human reality.

A classic case of perception reinforcing an aggressive display is a dog’s interaction with a Postal or delivery person. A dog is at home and sees a potential Scary Thing (unfamiliar person) approaching up the walk. The dog starts to bark, posture, and in general show an aggressive display. The delivery person comes to the door and deposits their item. The delivery person walks away, ignoring the dog. The dog, however, is not aware that the delivery person was leaving anyway, and finds that their aggressive display made the Scary Thing go away. Success! The behavior worked.

The next time the delivery person comes up, the dog tries the previously successful behavior. The delivery person leaves, and the dog perceives that it works again! Now we have a successful behavior that has been reinforced by repetition. With enough successes it starts to become a default response to the approach of an unfamiliar person.

Later, the same house is approached by a child selling cookies. The front door is ajar. The dog sees unfamiliar person approach and begins an aggressive display. This time dog is not restrained by the closed door. The approaching child sees the aggressive display and runs. The dog reacts, the dog’s prey/pursuit drive adds in, and we end up with a bitten child.

Preventing this chain of events is a separate topic involving socialization and training, but the end result is that the dog is labeled aggressive. But is it, in the sense of being a dangerous, mean, vicious animal? Not really. Dangerous, mean and vicious are human terms, placing human values on an animal’s behavior, or more exactly, a dog’s response to a perceived threat. In our example we have a dog that has been set up for failure by the combination of a lack of human guidance and misapplication of a survival oriented behavior.

A similar series of events seems to be magnified in dogs that are habitually chained. If a dog feels threatened, their first response is usually to try and flee the Scary Thing. The chain leaves the dog out in the open, with no place to hide, and no place to run. Freezing may work-the dog cowers down and doesn’t respond and the perceived threat may just go away. But the Scary Thing may keep coming-for instance it may be a passing person who has to come close, but not necessarily all the way up to the dog. The dog, fearing that the freezing isn’t working, goes to Plan B: an aggressive display. Sure enough, the Scary Thing goes away. The fact that the Scary Thing (stranger) had no intention of approaching or harming the dog never enters into the equation. Dogs perceive situations as immediate cause and effect. The aggressive display worked.

Constant reinforcement of this success results in a typical fearful chained dog. The person feeding them may be able to approach easily, but others are repelled by the aggressive display. Now, add someone without the ability to recognize the warning signs or who’s recognition abilities are impaired by drugs, alcohol, or a lack of knowledge, and you have an attack.

If the same habitually chained dog gets loose it may be confronted by a Scary Thing while not restrained by the chain. The dog has few tools to handle novel situations due to a lack of socialization, so he defaults to the successful behavior strategy from before-an aggressive display. In this situation the dog is much more likely to attack and the result is a bite. Is this a vicious dog? We may perceive it as such, but the behavior is the result of a series of events that has its roots in the human behind the chain. In both cases there has been a human cost and the result is a need for control, management, and responsibility.

2007 attacks part 2: The breed question (or not?).

I am amazed at the attention my post on the dog fatalities for 2007 generated. My friend Karen Delise (author of the great book “Fatal Dog Attacks; the stories behind the statistics”-READ IT!) called and we discussed at length the subject of breed citation. Understand, we share information on a regular basis, and both work hard to make the best decisions and assignments of contributory factors (I think) of anyone out there. And the question of breed identification, listing and importance is a real late-night toss-and-turner for both of us.

I can’t-and won’t-speak for Karen, but I do want to share some of my thoughts, concerns, and ramblings on the breed question.

First off, I work very hard to be cautious in assigning a breed label. If the dog is listed on recognized registration papers as breed X, then the assessment is relatively easy. Of course we all know that there are those registries out there that are meaningless, so as such I look for recognized, real registry papers.

Purebred dogs are by no means the norm in these cases. Then we have to match photos, owner claims, and when I can hands-on examination of the subject dog, and the issue becomes a bit dodgy. One dog may be clearly, say, a Lab. No question, it is just oozing “labbiness”. On a scale of one to ten, this dog is an eleven in the class of “Labrador Retriever”.

But what about the sixes, fives, even fours? If it drops off enough I readily tend to classify the dog mixed breed, or better “NPB” for no predominant breed. Sure, there are those new DNA tests that are being sold to “..tell you the breed makeup of your dog…”, but the genetic scientists I have spoken too generously call those tests “well marketed consumer products.” In other words in the scientific class of those late night infomercial products.

Sometimes we have to make judgment calls. This truly affects the accuracy of the numbers. Forget trying to go as far as “Red-nosed Pit”, “American Pit”, or any of the more discriminative labels. It often just can’t be done.

More sinister is the use of breed statistics to establish “proof” that just isn’t there. Sure, a dog that kills someone may be a Left-Handed Chilean Truffle Hound, but how much does that have to do with the attack? Usually not much.

The reality is that fatal dog attacks are strongly multi-factoral. Dr. Randy Lockwood of HSUS called it “…a perfect storm…”, and I have to agree. A fatal dog attack is the result of a conglomeration of many things, all joining up in one perfect storm that goes directly against thousands of years of physical and social evolution. After all, humanity selected dogs as companions because the DIDN’T present a threat, and because they DID evolve as part of and hand in hand with human social units.

Problem is, some people, often media, seize on the breed of the dog and THAT’S IT. End of report. End of listening to the facts. And that does a disservice to all of us, dogs included.

If I just completely ignore breed, I lose credibility. No one is going to buy the “It’s just a dog-leave it at that” statement. Someone is going to trot out breed, usually in the first reports, and then breed becomes the elephant in the living room.

Yet listing breed, as I did in the last post, leads to people seizing on that factor and twisting the data to fit their pre-conceived notions. If we give irresponsible reporters an opening to seize on any easy explanation, even if it is wrong, they will. Boil it down to an eight second sound bite and move on. And then politicians and enemies of dog ownership use that to further their arguments. So we are screwed.

So what am I doing to do? I’m not sure yet. I refuse to depart from the data-that is where I have to be unswervingly honest. Part of the data stream is breed. Yet that is not the only part, not even the most critical part. Maybe just listing the breeds involved in general terms for the year instead of numbers of each breed? That may be the answer, but then the next question is always “How many X?” Trying to redirect then looks like evasion.

I welcome comments and opinions here. It is not an easy question, and I don’t have the answer.

Jim

2007 - Fatal Attack Facts and Figures

2007 was a banner year for dog attacks. 2006 had been a record for the US with thirty-one fatalities, but we beat that in '07.

Here is the full update on the thirty-three fatal attacks by dogs in the US over the year 2007. Look through the list, and then we will talk about what we see.

1 - 1/12 – San Antonio, TX: 10 year old girl-Pit Bull-male-intact-chained.

2 - 1/16 – St Louis, MO: 69 year old woman-German Shepherd-intact male-not chained.

3 - 1/24 – Richmond, VA: 6 year old boy-2 Rottweillers-intact females-not chained.

4 - 1/29 – Escambia Co, AL: 18 month old girl-Rottweiller-intact male-tethered.

5 - 2/16 – DeKalb, GA: 2 year old girl-1 Pit Bull mix, 1 Boxer X Bullmastiff mix-intact male, female pregnant-not chained

6 - 3/20 – Friendswood, TX: 50 year old woman-1 Catahoula X American Bulldog mix, 1 Golden Retriever-intact males

7 - 3/23 – Combine, TX: 2 year old girl-2 Pit Bulls-intact male, female with puppies-chained.

8 - 4/23 – Dorchester County, SC: 18 month old boy-Pit Bull-female intact-chained but in laundry room.

9 - 5/13 – San Antonio, TX: 90 year old man-2 Pit Bulls-intact male, pregnant female-not chained.

10 - 5/25 – Ft. Meyers, FL: 71 year old woman-unknown-loose dogs

11 - 5/25 – El Paso, TX: 95 year old woman-Doberman, German Shepherd-both intact males-no chain

12 - 5/26 – Savannah, GA: 3 year old boy-1 Pit Bull, 1 Pit Bull mix, 1 Terrier mix-the two males, intact-not chained

13 - 6/17 – Connorsville, IN: 63 year old woman-Chow-neutered male-not chained

14 - 6/29 – Deltona, FL: 62 year old woman-Pit Bull-intact male-not chained

15 - 7/12 – Carroll Co, GA: 5 year old girl-Rottweiller-intact female-chained

16 - 7/23 – Cookeville, TN: 11 month old boy-2 Siberian Huskies-intact-no chain

17 - 7/29 – Bath, NY: 6 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact-chained

18 - 8/16 – Minneapolis, MN: 7 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact-chained with puppies in basement

19 – 8/18 – McMinn County, Tn: 15 month old boy-stray female mixed breed-intact with puppies, newly acquired with fresh puppies

20 - 8/ 31 - Dallas Texas: 3 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-not chained

21 – 9/14 – Warren, MI: 4 month old girl-Rottweiler-intact male, previous bite-not chained.

22, 23 - 9/13 – Iosco Township, MI: 56 year old woman, 91 year old man- 4 American Bulldogs-all intact-no chains

24 - 9/25 – Boger City, NC: 2 year old boy-(2) German Shepherds-chained-intact males

25 - 10/2 – Middleburg, FL: 42 year old woman-(2) Pit Bulls-neutered males-no chain.

26 - 10/7 – Parumph, NV: 73 year old woman-8 wolf hybrids-all intact, one female in season-not chained

27 – 10/15 – Pontotoc County, OK: 65 year old woman-mixed breeds- (5 to 7), breakdown unk. Loose pack.

28 - 11/01 – Phoenix, AZ: 4 year old girl-American Bulldog-male-neutered-not chained.

29 - 11/03 – Killeen, Texas: 11 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-No chain.

30 – 11/13 – Knoxville, TN: 21 year old woman-Pit Bulls-1 male, 1 female in estrus with puppies-all intact-not chained.

31 - 12/13-Dorchester County, SC: 2 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-chained.

32 – 12/17 – Rabun County, GA: 61 year old woman-Pit Bull-male-chained.

33 – 12/25 – San Bernadino County, CA – 45 year old woman-unknown pack of loose dogs.

Looking at the numbers here, a few things jump out. Twenty-six of thirty-three involved intact animals. Fifteen of thirty-three involved Pit Bulls. Ten of thirty-three involved chained animals. Does that mean intact Pit Bulls are chained up and waiting to kill? Not hardly.

What I see these numbers indicating, based on my on-scene investigations, is that irresponsible owners tend not to spay and neuter, tend to chain their animals out for extended times with little or no socialization, and that Pits are currently popular with owners who maintain their animals with less wisdom and care than most of us. Once again, it's the two-legged problem behind the four legger that precipitates the problems.

I also have to point out that eighteen of thirty-three were kids, all eleven or under, mostly under three. If ever there was proof of the need to supervise children with dogs - ALL DOGS - this should be it. Don't expect the DVD player and video games to keep them safe. Pay attention and be a parent, not just a piece of furniture.

Canine PTSD in disaster and war

Happy 2008 everyone! Along with my good wishes to all, two and four legged, I have a bit of a different post today.

Recently I was talking to friend and author Julia Szabo, who's great blog is at http://www.fetchdog.com/blogs/nosetotheground/General (and of course http://www.pet-reporter.com ) about dog aggression, and the case of the Blackwater mercenaries shooting the NY Times compound dog Hentish came up. For those who have not read the story, a dog named Hentish, who lived in the compound occupied by the NY Times in Baghdad, allegedly attacked a bomb detector dog used by the Blackwater operatives in Iraq. The mercenary handler then shot and killed Hentish.

There is relatively little solid information about the incident, but Julia asked about the likely behavior of a dog living in or around a military-style compound in a war zone. To answer that I had to back up almost three years to the animals I dealt with in New Orleans post-Katrina and a dog that I worked with for a time after the animal airlift from Lebanon that happened in the wake of that recent Mid-East flare-up.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD is well defined in humans. According to the NIMH website (http://www.nimh.nih.gov ), “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, or military combat.”

Although the literature is less definitive about the presence of PTSD in companion animals, the dogs that I observed on the streets after Hurricane Katrina exhibited symptoms that seemed to be a canine analog of human PTSD. These animals were depressed, lacking in normal affect, startled easily, agitated, and shy of human contact. More importantly, some of these animals exhibited generalized aggression.

An aggressive response in such stressed animals is not surprising, nor unobserved outside disaster situations. Many dogs, especially those who are under- or un-socialized, default to an aggressive display when frightened or exposed to a novel situation. The destruction of homes and evacuation, even death, of the human population of New Orleans was certainly frightening and novel, even to the best socialized of pets.

What did this mean for the dogs of Katrina? In my case, I set up a quiet treatment area, apart from the hustle of the rescue operations. The dogs got personal attention, most often after I built a working relationship through the use of non-verbal communication signals (body language is the basis for about 95% of inter-canine communication – NOT “whispering”, ESP, or other nonsense!) and let the dogs know they were once again safe. They were then introduced to other friendly, non-threatening humans and gradually returned to a ‘normal’ environment.

Did this ‘cure’ the dogs? Absolutely not. Many of these animals have had lasting effects, physical and behavioral. Some, such as Winnie (my Katrina Pit Bull rescue), still show fear during storms. Some have shown varying degrees of suspicion and aggression towards humans. Some have recovered exceptionally well.

Another personal observation, directly applicable to Iraq, was Rudy. He is a German Shepherd mix that was rescued from the bombing of a shelter in Lebanon. He was place in a home here in the US, but began showing aggression towards humans. A delayed reaction in stressed and traumatized dogs is not uncommon; some of the dogs from Katrina only started to show symptoms after they had been removed from the ‘war zone’ and had started to adapt to their rescue. Rudy showed just that delay.

As time went on he showed increasing sensitivity to loud noises (gee, ya think?) and became spooky and likely to give an aggressive response with minimal non-verbal warning signals. He trusted me, but even my daughter, a very dog-savvy teenager, did not trust him.

Rudy’s issues were too much. He was eventually transferred to a safe, permanent shelter where the handlers are skilled and accustomed to difficult animals. He will live out his life safely and in peace, but sadly is unlikely to ever transition to being a family dog. The reason? Lasting PTSD.

What does all of this have to do with Hentish and Iraq? The situation with Hentish just illustrates the many casualties of war. Blackwater claims that Hentish attacked a bomb dog to the point that the handler had no choice but to fire. I find it difficult to believe that this was the first time that Blackwater had ever swept the NY Times compound for explosives. I certainly agree that a bomb dog is a valuable resource that should be protected, but I question the skill and planning of the handler that allowed an unknown dog to approach closely enough to his working dog to actually become a valid threat. Meanwhile, Hentish was killed as a result of behavior that was fully preventable, and may well have been nothing more or less than a manifestation of the war zone he was living in.

Fatal Attack, Boger City, NC

First off, let me give a quick shout out to Brent Toellner at the KC Dog Blog. Brent’s blog is a breath of fresh air in the world of dog legislation and fighting the unsubstantiated junk that passes for mainstream reportage of dog issues, especially those orbiting around Planet Pit Bull Hysteria. To get a balanced view of a wonderful breed visit with Brent.

Now on to the first case. This case is not unusual; in fact, I am going over this case to introduce you, the readers, to a textbook example of the typical fatal attack. This one has it all; trailers, chains, a history of escalating aggression, unneutered dogs, no public education, no response by local authorities to the early signs, and a child caught in the middle.

In reality, Karson Gilroy never had a chance. A lovely two year old boy, he had two great dogs in his family that taught him dogs were wonderful pals. His uncle next door owned a German shepherd who was tolerant and gentle with little Karson. Karson could tug, pull, and clamber all over the Shepherd. No problems, no issues, nothing but a gentle loving relationship.

Karson had his own dog too. Thirteen months old, his Boxer pup was exuberant but gentle, a good, stable family dog. Remember that-a family dog.

Three trailers away the story was different. The man there owned two Shepherd mixes. Both males, father and son. Both dogs were kept outside twenty four-seven. Both dogs kept on chains. Both dogs intact.

The chained Shepherds were known well by the neighbors. They had broken free of their chains several times. During their tours of the area they had reportedly chased several people, fought with a number of dogs, killed at least one cat and allegedly killed as many as two dogs.

The younger of the two dogs was poorly socialized, to say the least. Fearful, the owner described him as skittish and spooky. The younger dog was also the more agile escape artist. The owner said that the dog had learned to shuck out of the standard buckle collar, so he placed the dog in a choke collar. On a chain. And since the dogs barked at any passers-by they could see through the woods in front of the home, he tied them out in the woods behind the home, almost a hundred feet back into the woods. With no fence or barrier to keep other dogs – or children – from wandering up to them.

Karson typically stayed with his Grandparents while his own folks were at work. His aunt and uncle live next door, and Karson was a regular visitor, playing and watching TV with his cousins. One fine North Carolina afternoon Karson and his cousins were watching TV together while Karson’s aunt went into the other room to finish a few chores. When she returned to the living room a few minutes later, Karson had let himself out the door to go play in the yard. Karson’s aunt immediately began to search for the boy, and the search quickly turned frantic. Neighbors and police were called, and within thirty minutes of Karson’s flight the area was swarming with help. The yard and house were double checked and deputies began combing the woods.

A short time later Karson was found by a deputy, tangled up in the chain of the younger dog, mauled and bleeding. Karson was rushed to the hospital, but died a short time later.

So what can we take from this as lessons learned? The first issue here is the function of the dogs and their place in the family and community.

Karen Delise, author of Fatal Dog Attacks and The Pit Bull Placebo (www.canineresearchcouncil.com) uses a pair of terms that I also use, gladly crediting her for their development. She makes the distinction between a family dog and a resident dog. A family dog is just what it sounds like; a dog that is an intrinsic part of a human family. This dog hangs out with the kids, rides in the car, eats under the table, sleeps in someone’s bed, sneaks shoes out of the closet, and saves Timmy from the well. This is the dog that most of us who are dog people have under our foot as we read or write blogs.

A resident dog, on the other hand, is what we see far too often. The dogs are tossed in the back yard, or worse tied or chained out, and never integrate with the family. They are usually poorly socialized, have little to no training, have food tossed to them pretty regularly, may see a Vet once every year or so, and are only peripherally part of any human-canine social grouping. Perhaps the owners meant for them to be family dogs, but time got away from them. Or they were supposed to be the “kids’ dog” and the kids lost interest. Maybe they had behavioral problems that led to their exile – or maybe their exile has caused the bad behavior. Either way, they have become a sad reflection of what they could be.

And they, the resident dogs, are by far the largest group of dogs involved in fatal human attacks.

So back to this case: two resident dogs chained and unsupervised. The least socialized of the two not only chained, but also on a choke collar, set up to panic if the collar tightened. No provisions to keep unwary toddlers from stumbling into the dogs’ area. A toddler who loved his own dogs and didn’t believe that other dogs were any different. And an accidental slip of attention that led to a toddler becoming a victim in what should have been a safe environment.

Tragic? Absolutely. Predictable? Certainly. Avoidable? Without question. The dogs’ fault? Not hardly. And just the setup that Karen and I find far too often.

COMING UP SOON (and WAAAY quicker than last time- I promise!) A list of the fatalities to date in 2007, a look at the attack in Middleburg, Florida, and a discussion of canine aggression and PTSD in traumatized dogs!