Marauding pit bulls attack six - 10 year old boy, Critical

[Casshew]

but when the dog is a pit bull, the only conclusion that you can come to is that it was the breed?

Because it is the breed, thats why :slap:

 

[curlytone]

If a child or an adult is ripped apart by a pitbull and a newspaper reports it - it is not sensationalism - it is just what happened.

Thank God there is a ban where I live, people have to register their pitbull or pitbull cross, it must be sterilized and when it dies eventually, 5,6 8 - 10 years - thats it... no more pitbulls, you can't buy them, you can't sell them and if one is seen without the special pitbull tag on it's collar it is taken away - and I believe destroyed, but I am not sure on that.

A 12 year old girl had her throat torn open by a pitbull and bled to death in a park not too far from me. What a waste of a life and what a way to die - can you imagine the horror?

Also, in my neighbourhood a Mom and 2 little girls 3 and 5 were attacked on the sidewalk by a pitbull.

The 5 year old was it's target - the Mom was trying to pull the dog, kick the dog - cars stopped and a man came out to try and help the dog turned on him and tore his arms up.. the police came and had to shoot the pitbull point blank 4 times to kill it.

The little girl has had several surgeries to repair her face.

There is no place in civilized society for a killer animal. It is like walking a shark on a leash.

It really is horrible, but the only thing that is being reacted to is the final outcome. What are the facts of the situation? Do you think that with two dog attacks like this in the same neighborhood that maybe something clandestine could be going on?

Please explain to me why it makes sense to ban an entire group of something for the actions of one or even a few. We don't hold our own species to that standard and we are far more dangerous than any dog. How many people are killed by other people every day. Do you think that this is not gruesome and horrible? Is that not a waste of life? How many people die in car accidents every day? They drive past our homes and loved ones all the time. The chance that any one person in the U.S. will die in a transportaion accident is 1 in 77 over the course of thier life, the chance that any one person will die from a dog (any dog) over the course of thier life is 1 in 206,944. The chance that any one person in the U.S. will die by being bitten or struck by other mammals (not dogs) is 1 in 49,666 over the course of thier life. (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm). Yet all that people want is a ban on a subset of dogs. How many people smoke themselves to death? We could ban so many things and save thousands and thousands more people than if we ban pit bulls. When all the pit bulls are dead and gone in your area, but people still get killed by dogs, what then? Of all the dangers in the world, why is it so important to put pit bulls in the cross hairs?

Go read the post by forthekids. It gives many accounts of how dog attacks can be sensationalized in the news, simply with incorrect facts or failure to investigate. It also talks about a situation where a pit bull did kill someone and the story ran "in over 30 separate national newspapers and was also picked up by FOX news, CNN and two British newspapers. Two weeks earlier a man was killed by his German Shepherd Dog and this story ran only in the local community newspaper"

 

[curlytone]

Because it is the breed, thats why :slap:

That is all you can say. Show me how it is the breed. Come up with a fact or a statistic that demonstrates that remotely. Show the ability to actually think and research. Millions and millions of pit bulls in the US and Canada with single digit deaths anually. How is that in the breed? Other breeds kill people, but it is not in the breed. :waitasec: If that is your evidence for condemning a breed, than for you all humans are killers. It is in our breed because our breed kills thousands of its own anually. Can you show me a semblance of a logical argument based on any facts? If so, please do. Why not take comfort in the fact that they are banned where you live. Still don't feel safe enough. Unless you can kill them all, they might migrate to where you live? After all, I read somewhere the breed is know to migrate, it must be true.

If you were trying to be funny, I am sorry for the rant.

 

[Details]

The great dane who attacked was scared of with a loud voice. The pit bull who attacked couldn't be pulled off, and had to be shot 4 times to get it to stop. They are massively different.

No need to kill all existing pit bulls if they are in good houses where they are well controlled - just neuter them so when they die, there are no more.



Nope, pitbulls aren't the only threat and hazard in the world - but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem that should be solved. It's possible to work on solving more than one problem at once, thank goodness, or all cancer research would have to be stopped until we got terrorism under control, etc.

 

[SadieMae]

First off, you missed the point. It wasn't to start trashing Great Danes, so you don't have defend any breed for me. Remember, I am one of the few here that doesn't think that breed is the issue. So thank you very much for taking the leap to consider that it might not be the breed in the three Great Dane stories above. My point was that other breeds, one that has been described on this forum as one that would never hurt anyone, can and do hurt people.

:banghead:So why is it that when it is a Great Dane that actually hurts someone, it is okay to review the events surrounding it and not blame the dog, but to blame the circumstance or mistreatment or owner, but when the dog is a pit bull, the only conclusion that you can come to is that it was the breed?

I don't care what scared the dog off, it mauled a kid. How would that defense hold up in court? "Your honor, my client did assault the man in question, but when the police yelled, he ran. Plus I bet if it were different kind of guy, he would have killed him".

Once again, a breed OTHER than a pit bull attacks someone, the other breed is defended and it is speculated as to what a pit bull would do. What do you even base this speculation on, clearly statistics do nothing for you. The American Temperament Test Society, ranks the temperament of pit bulls higher than the vast majority of breeds: http://www.atts.org (pit bulls are called American Pit Bull terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers). I am sure that this research is meaningless to you, data doesn't matter, after all the news papers tell us otherwise.

Is it anecdotal evidence you need? I know more Pit Bull owners than any other breed owners. None of these pit bulls have ever attacked anyone or hinted at it. My friend was walking his two pit bulls when an unleashed Rhodesian Ridgeback ran towards them. The ridgeback bit his dog in the face and my friend in the hand, his dog bit the other dog to protect him. He yelled "let go" and his pit bull let go. The pit bull required stitches, the ridgeback did not.

Someone else talked about a Dobe that attacked someone. By that, I assume Doberman. Again, the conversation drifts towards pit bulls. Do you ever think that maybe the media, which people refuse to believe might NOT be the best source of information, work like the conversations on this site? Any time a dog attack is mentioned, it seems the words "pit bull" must be mentioned.

These were listed a failures in the ATT test...
"Failure on any part of the test is recognized when a dog shows:

• Unprovoked aggression
• Panic without recovery
• Strong avoidance "

The test results of the dogs tested only list how many "failed" in each breed, but not in which of the above categories. I would like to know how many of each breed failed the "Unprovoked aggression" portion of the test. My personal opinion from being an owner of the breed for almost 25 years, is the Great Danes probably "failed" mostly in "strong avoidance". Is there anywhere they show the breakdown on which breeds failed in "Unprovoked aggression"? That would give more information than lumping all three in a group. I wonder where the Pit Bulls would rank among other breeds given that test alone. JMO

When a Pit Bull attacks, I conclude it IS the breed. Why would a well taken care of, well treated, loved family pet, turn into a killer? I do consider the surroundings of the dog. And in many cases it is the family PET that attacks with no provocation.

 

[curlytone]

"The great dane who attacked was scared of with a loud voice. The pit bull who attacked couldn't be pulled off, and had to be shot 4 times to get it to stop. They are massively different."

But it still tore up a kid, so why is that okay? It doesn't matter that a loud voice scared the dog. I provided a story where a pit bull was easily stopped with a voice when bitting another dog (when protecting his owner from a different breed), but that doens't seem to matter. You have made up your mind so you pick and choose what to read, what to listen to, what to believe. And if you cannot understand why 1 news story or even 100 news stories about pit bulls over the course of the last 36 years are not representive, even a little bit, to the entire population of pit bulls, then you have no chance of truly solving any problem with dog attacks. The best you will ever do to is to rid the world of all the large dogs, beacause many of them do kill also. 36 breeds have killed since 1965, but again that stat is lost on you, because you are comfortable explaining away all incidents involving other breeds.

"just neuter them so when they die, there are no more."

The reason that neutering is used is not to wait for them to all die, it is to control backyard breeding and beacause the [font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH FOUNDATION found that 94% of the fatal dog attacks were the result of dogs with their reproductive systems intact (unaltered).[/font]

"Nope, pitbulls aren't the only threat and hazard in the world - but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem that should be solved. It's possible to work on solving more than one problem at once, thank goodness, or all cancer research would have to be stopped until we got terrorism under control, etc.

It is possible to solve more than one problem at a time, but you can't seem to wrap your mind around this one to realize that the problem is not the breed. Rather than bother to address the root cause, irresponsible and often crimal owners, you just use a handful of headlines to go after the 99.999% of dogs that have never, and will never harm anyone.

It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me if the can support their argument. What bothers me is that people don't bother to research, to learn, to make valid points, to do anything other than look at the very surface of an issue. If you look above you say "thank goodness, or all cancer research..." It is nice to see that you understand that problems require research, otherwise we might just recommend killing everyone with cancer, because then, temporarily, there would be no cancer.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

GOOD MORNING YA'LL

SSDD I SEE!!! lol

 

[Sassygerl]

GOOD MORNING YA'LL

SSDD I SEE!!! lol

Yeppers....just reading along LOL

 

[beakiebean]

In the city where I live, the SPCA will spay or neuter anyone's pit bulls and pit bull mixes for no charge. It is an attempt to reduce the backyard breeding of this breed. Accidental breeding and backyard breeders are the source for most of the dangerous pit bulls around here. Less PB puppies, less PB's. Hopefully this free program will spread to other cities throughout the country.

Spaying and neutering is a good idea for any breed of dog. Dogs that have been spayed and neutered tend to be less aggressive overall in addition to not producing gobs of puppies.

Becca

 

[Details]

It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me if the can support their argument. What bothers me is that people don't bother to research, to learn, to make valid points, to do anything other than look at the very surface of an issue. If you look above you say "thank goodness, or all cancer research..." It is nice to see that you understand that problems require research, otherwise we might just recommend killing everyone with cancer, because then, temporarily, there would be no cancer.

The support for the argument is the media articles, not to mention personal experiences, not to mention pit bull owners themselves admitting it is a more agressive dog. You want to see the support for the argument, look at Jenna's post a little ways down. Pit bulls are a problem. As some responsible pit bull owners have learned the hard way.

And, I'm sorry, but I see the sites you are pulling up about the same as the smoking sites that say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, etc. Anyone can write a website, and link to selected news articles to make nearly anything seem true.

 

[curlytone]

The support for the argument is the media articles, not to mention personal experiences, not to mention pit bull owners themselves admitting it is a more agressive dog. You want to see the support for the argument, look at Jenna's post a little ways down. Pit bulls are a problem. As some responsible pit bull owners have learned the hard way.

And, I'm sorry, but I see the sites you are pulling up about the same as the smoking sites that say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, etc. Anyone can write a website, and link to selected news articles to make nearly anything seem true.

I provided statistics from:
American Temperament Test Society
National Safety Council
Centers for Disease Control
NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Those seem pretty trustworthy to me. If millions of people smoked cigarettes, but they killed less than 3 people per year, then they really wouldn't be dangerous, would they?

I provided personal experiences. Why are they less valid than yours? I volunteer with a pit bull rescue orginization that has placed hundreds of pit bulls over the last 7 years. They have had ZERO human bite incdents. One of the volunteer's pit bull is a therapy dog that is used in dog bite classes in elementary schools.

The media is about as reliable as a weather man. The media picks and chooses what they want you to hear. There are 4.5 million dog bites reported every year. How many news stories do you read? If you read 100 stories about dog attacks in the media in a year, I would be willing to bet that 95 of them would be about pit bulls. I really don't think that this can be the basis for any conclusion. I doubt that you read that many stories per year, but if you do that would cover 2 one thousandths of a percent (0.002%) of the dog bites for the year. If they wrote a story on all 4.5 million reported bites, then they might provide some credibility, but I still doubt they could get the facts right.

A bunch of people, inluding yourself, have said essentially two things "most pit bulls want to attack" and "pit bulls are so strong and go for the kill". Since they only kill 3 people per year, you have to abandon at least one of your claims. If they all wanted to attack and all went for the kill, and because there are millions of them, the would surely kill more than 3 people.

You have also said that most pit bulls want to attack, but that they don't because of some self control influenced by humans. If you think about how a dog is trained, this doesn't hold water. A dog does what it wants to do until it learns otherwise or it does what you want it to after repeatedly rewarding it for desired behavior. For example, you buy a puppy, it doesn't know that it can't pee whenever it gets the urge. It only learns that after a long period of time with you showing it where to go and where not to. When it comes to attacking something, it doesn't know that you don't want it to. The only way that it would know that is if it attacked things all the time and you repeatedly told it not to. If your dog is constantly attacking things and you teach it this self restraint for that behavior, why would it be suprising when it has "an accident" and attacks?

If you can't understand me, or the data and sites that I have provided thus far, how about the Humane Society of the United States:

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

or how about a statement from the American Kennel Club (AKC):
"
“Dangerous Dog” Control Legislation
The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be "dangerous" may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs."

http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/position_statements.cfm#dangerousdog

 

[aussiegran]

The support for the argument is the media articles, not to mention personal experiences, not to mention pit bull owners themselves admitting it is a more agressive dog. You want to see the support for the argument, look at Jenna's post a little ways down. Pit bulls are a problem. As some responsible pit bull owners have learned the hard way.

And, I'm sorry, but I see the sites you are pulling up about the same as the smoking sites that say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, etc. Anyone can write a website, and link to selected news articles to make nearly anything seem true.

Details I couldnt have put it better myself :clap: and I have seen first hand what these dogs are capable of .

 

[Details]

A bunch of people, inluding yourself, have said essentially two things "most pit bulls want to attack" and "pit bulls are so strong and go for the kill". Since they only kill 3 people per year, you have to abandon at least one of your claims. If they all wanted to attack and all went for the kill, and because there are millions of them, the would surely kill more than 3 people.

You are seeing what you want to see - in the media, in my posts, in the real world. As I said with the pedophiles - it doesn't matter how many pit bulls you have seen that haven't attacked anyone (that you know of) - what matters are the statistics - the hard numbers that say that as a group, they do attack more than any other dog breed (and I think the numbers are even higher when you consider all serious attacks rather than all deaths; and then weight it for the dog population).

And this is an illogical argument I quoted above - just because a pit bull goes for the kill doesn't mean that it accomplishes that. They do go for the kill. You don't see reports on them like on other dogs - that they run up and bite someone once, then run away. They run up and bit someone, and keep on biting. They go for the kill. But humans are fair sized, parents are around, they don't always manage to do it. Doesn't change their intentions.

They attack more easily than other dogs (as I pointed out, even pitbull supporters admit they are a more agressive dog breed), and when they attack, they do more harm than other dog breeds.

Tell me - why should we keep them around? It's just one breed of dog, there is nothing, other than kill, that other dog breeds don't do as well or better than them.

 

[SadieMae]

I provided statistics from:
American Temperament Test Society
National Safety Council
Centers for Disease Control
NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Those seem pretty trustworthy to me. If millions of people smoked cigarettes, but they killed less than 3 people per year, then they really wouldn't be dangerous, would they?

I provided personal experiences. Why are they less valid than yours? I volunteer with a pit bull rescue orginization that has placed hundreds of pit bulls over the last 7 years. They have had ZERO human bite incdents. One of the volunteer's pit bull is a therapy dog that is used in dog bite classes in elementary schools.

The media is about as reliable as a weather man. The media picks and chooses what they want you to hear. There are 4.5 million dog bites reported every year. How many news stories do you read? If you read 100 stories about dog attacks in the media in a year, I would be willing to bet that 95 of them would be about pit bulls. I really don't think that this can be the basis for any conclusion. I doubt that you read that many stories per year, but if you do that would cover 2 one thousandths of a percent (0.002%) of the dog bites for the year. If they wrote a story on all 4.5 million reported bites, then they might provide some credibility, but I still doubt they could get the facts right.

A bunch of people, inluding yourself, have said essentially two things "most pit bulls want to attack" and "pit bulls are so strong and go for the kill". Since they only kill 3 people per year, you have to abandon at least one of your claims. If they all wanted to attack and all went for the kill, and because there are millions of them, the would surely kill more than 3 people.

You have also said that most pit bulls want to attack, but that they don't because of some self control influenced by humans. If you think about how a dog is trained, this doesn't hold water. A dog does what it wants to do until it learns otherwise or it does what you want it to after repeatedly rewarding it for desired behavior. For example, you buy a puppy, it doesn't know that it can't pee whenever it gets the urge. It only learns that after a long period of time with you showing it where to go and where not to. When it comes to attacking something, it doesn't know that you don't want it to. The only way that it would know that is if it attacked things all the time and you repeatedly told it not to. If your dog is constantly attacking things and you teach it this self restraint for that behavior, why would it be suprising when it has "an accident" and attacks?

If you can't understand me, or the data and sites that I have provided thus far, how about the Humane Society of the United States:

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

or how about a statement from the American Kennel Club (AKC):
"
“Dangerous Dog” Control Legislation
The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be "dangerous" may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs."

http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/position_statements.cfm#dangerousdog

A dog with aggressive behavior is a problem to begin with and I would try to train it, but I wouldn't ever trust it and I wouldn't keep the dog if I felt it would have an "accident" and attack. I would consider the dog, no matter what breed, not a safe pet for my family. I have yet to read your other links, I already made my comments of the American Temperament Test Society, and found those results misleading based on what fails a dog. I don't need to read statistics on Pit Bulls to know I don't want them in my neighborhood. In the last 4 years there has been a 16 y/o girl killed by 4 PB, a 5 year old maimed almost to death by a PB walking home from school, an 11 y/o girl seriously mauled by a PB while visiting a friends home, and a 35 y/o woman attacked and mauled in her driveway by 2 PB belonging to her neighbor. Nope, these didn't make national news, and only the death made the local papers here. The other 3 I heard about from friends here and that's all I need to know to not want those dogs near my home.

 

[Casshew]

bump

 

[curlytone]

A dog with aggressive behavior is a problem to begin with and I would try to train it, but I wouldn't ever trust it and I wouldn't keep the dog if I felt it would have an "accident" and attack. I would consider the dog, no matter what breed, not a safe pet for my family. I have yet to read your other links, I already made my comments of the American Temperament Test Society, and found those results misleading based on what fails a dog.

Please tell me that you are kidding. My god, I was proving a point, I also think that a dog that attacks should be put down. It is a hypothetical statement. The point was to show that Details agument about Pit Bulls not attacking all the time because they are trying to appease people is baseless. The dog doesn't know what you want it to do unless it has done the action and you told it not to, on repeated occasions.

Try reading it again NOT JUST THE PARTS YOU MADE RED:

Here are the two options:
1) A pit bull IS NOT born with a desire to attack people - MY POSITION
2) A pit bull IS born with a desire to attack people, but since very few actually do, it must be restraining itself for the sake of appeasing its owner and it is only a matter of time before it snaps. -DETAILS' POSITION

IF you believe number 2, explain to me how the dog knows not that you do not want it to attack unless you follow the hypothetical training scenario I gave? Dogs do not know what we want of them until we teach them. Since they are not clairvoyant, they can't read our minds. So, to get a dog to the point that it knows that it is not supposed to attack, but it really wants to as DETAILS suggests, it would have had to of attacked already and you scolded it. IF you have done all this, there is no way that it would be suprising if the dog "snapped", and in fact it would not be snapping beacuse you have seen the behavior before.

If you decide that learning about the issue is for you, but you are crunched for time, read the Human Societies stance:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

I hope that we can at least agree that maybe they are in good position make a conclusion on the issue.

Also
"A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don't show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. There were a high number of fatal bites from Doberman pinschers in the 1970s, for example, because Dobermans were very popular at that time and there were more Dobermans around, and because Dobermans'size makes their bites more dangerous. The number of fatal bites from pit bulls rose in the 1980s for the same reason, and the number of bites from rottweilers in the 1990s. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting."

But why beleive the experts in the field???????

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't own a pit bull, but I have friends that do. Their dogs are sweet and lovable and well .............well to tell the truth.......... huge sissys! One is terrified of my cat. ( The cat knows this and really enjoys chasing the wuss)

While I like the breed and find them to be intelligent and loyal and great family dogs ........in someone else's house, I wouldn't have one because I have a 7 yr old. I would just hate to be wrong and fit out the hard way! I like to err on the side of caution.
I do have two dobermans though and they had a terrible reputation for years.

 

[Details]

Dogs are not human. Their ethics, morals, motivations and actions are not human. You need to recognize this to get out of this silly black and white idea that either dogs all want to kill humans or they don't.

According to pretty well every dog trainer - dogs, if reasonably trained at all, see your family as the pack they belong to, and you as the top dog in the pack. Being pack animals, they're subservient to the top dog, while trying to move up in status - sometimes by trying not to do what the top dog wants them to, or by attacking another dog to shift themselves above that dog.

Children especially, the dogs tend to see as another dog. All it takes is for them to come into the wrong area, make the wrong sort of gestures, movements, sounds, to make the dog think they are being dissed. If it's an agressive, jealous dog bred to fight and kill other dogs - then it'll attack, and try to kill the child or other person.

They don't have the human perspective that a child is not a threat, and the child and people don't have the canine body language to submit fast enough (even if the dog is open to that concept). Dogs don't just go kill everyone because they want the approval of the pack leader. But they may decide in their little canine minds that maybe they can take the pack leader, or maybe the jealousy gets high enough they attack what they see as a competitor even if the pack leader doesn't want them to.

 

[SadieMae]

Curly, then why in a lot cases, the PB owner's say the dog was never aggressive or attacked anyone before they killed? The owners say dogs had not shown any aggressiveness, then the next thing you know it kills. I could read about PB on and on, but sorry, I'm not nor will I ever be a fan of the breed. I have been bitten by dogs, but needed nothing but a little neosporin and bandaids. I still like Chihuahas, Poodles and German Shepherds even after I've been bitten by them.

I agree what you said about Doberman's. I had one in the early 70's that at 3 years old, after not ever showing aggressive behavior lunged and bit my husband when he told him to get off the couch. He was put down that night with a .38. That is another breed I would not have again as a family pet.

 

[concernedperson]

Curly, then why in a lot cases, the PB owner's say the dog was never aggressive or attacked anyone before they killed? The owners say dogs had not shown any aggressiveness, then the next thing you know it kills. I could read about PB on and on, but sorry, I'm not nor will I ever be a fan of the breed. I have been bitten by dogs, but needed nothing but a little neosporin and bandaids. I still like Chihuahas, Poodles and German Shepherds even I've been bitten by them.

I agree what you said about Doberman's. I had one in the early 70's that at 3 years old, after not ever showing aggressive behavior lunged and bit my husband when he told him to get off the couch. He was put down that night with a .38. That is another breed I would not have again as a family pet.

I know I have posted this before but not on this thread. My FIL was attacked by a Dobe that was his baby for years. He required skin grafting as his arm was almost totally obliterated. It still took them weeks to put down this dog. I personally hated the dog as I always saw how evil he was.