Bachelor star nearly killed by his rescue “boxer” (it’s clearly a pit bull mix)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That family is clueless about dogs and/or simply doesn't have what it takes (time/patience/knowledge) of dealing with powerful breed dogs. Apparently, they had a bull mastiff puppy before, raised her for a year and had to re-home due to aggressive behavior. And after that they decided to adopt a rescue boxer...
Oh my, play stupid games - win stupid prizes

Yes. Unfortunate, and also avoidable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the dude's YouTube

*insta

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol that absolutely a boxer. So even when the breed is specified as a non-pit, people still try to blame it on them. Y’all rabid!

There is a particularly unhinged anti-pit contingent on this forum. It's ridiculous. "Rabid" is right!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate pit bulls and love boxers and this does look like a boxer to me. Maybe not pure bred but definitely looks more boxer than pit. Boxers are not known as attack dogs or as having a particularly vicious bite—my guess is that this “rescue” had significant past trauma that was not disclosed or maybe not known by the rescue. I really wish rescues were required to do more extensive testing of dogs, particularly before sending to a family with kids and particularly if the history is unknown.

I really wish potential "rescuers" were required to do more extensive testing of their knowledge and handling abilities before adopting or purchasing a dog, especially if they have a home with small children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate pit bulls and love boxers and this does look like a boxer to me. Maybe not pure bred but definitely looks more boxer than pit. Boxers are not known as attack dogs or as having a particularly vicious bite—my guess is that this “rescue” had significant past trauma that was not disclosed or maybe not known by the rescue. I really wish rescues were required to do more extensive testing of dogs, particularly before sending to a family with kids and particularly if the history is unknown.

I really wish potential "rescuers" were required to do more extensive testing of their knowledge and handling abilities before adopting or purchasing a dog, especially if they have a home with small children.

With history of returning a similar dog - they shouldn't be allowed to get that dog.
Get a cat or a rabbit, not a 80lb+ dog!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That family is clueless about dogs and/or simply doesn't have what it takes (time/patience/knowledge) of dealing with powerful breed dogs. Apparently, they had a bull mastiff puppy before, raised her for a year and had to re-home due to aggressive behavior. And after that they decided to adopt a rescue boxer...
Oh my, play stupid games - win stupid prizes

Before their kids were born, hopefully? but probably not. 3 kids under 10 and they got a puppy? Can't help stupid and all, but... damn.

Universal canine ownership license requiring a knowledge and handling exam. Plus proof of insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate pit bulls and love boxers and this does look like a boxer to me. Maybe not pure bred but definitely looks more boxer than pit. Boxers are not known as attack dogs or as having a particularly vicious bite—my guess is that this “rescue” had significant past trauma that was not disclosed or maybe not known by the rescue. I really wish rescues were required to do more extensive testing of dogs, particularly before sending to a family with kids and particularly if the history is unknown.

I really wish potential "rescuers" were required to do more extensive testing of their knowledge and handling abilities before adopting or purchasing a dog, especially if they have a home with small children.

With history of returning a similar dog - they shouldn't be allowed to get that dog.
Get a cat or a rabbit, not a 80lb+ dog!

It's almost like it isn't necessarily the breed, it's the competence (or lack thereof) of the owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if it's a pit or a boxer. It attacked unprovoked. It should be destroyed.

It probably will be, which is sad, but I don't think it's fair to say it 'attacked unprovoked'. The story the guy was willing to tell on himself involves several elements that would excite a dog, especially a high-energy working breed. The bites are to his shoes (allegedly) and his forearm(s). That doesn't scream dog attack.

I'm not saying he should keep the dog. At all. That dog needs to be rehomed immediately. People with 3 kids under 10 shouldn't have a dog at all, IMO, unless they're qualified handlers with a lot of experience and no day job. But I don't think you can put 100% responsibility for this incident on the dog.

It's moot. The dog will likely be destroyed anyway, because who wants a dog with a bite history when so many don't have that. How sad.

Umm what part of all those stitches “doesn’t scream dog attack”?

They're punctures, not tears, for starters. The long one, in the straight line, (that isn't all the way through in all parts) says "deep scratch" not "grab and shake". While they don't look great, these aren't really significant injuries. The fact that they're localized to the body part he was likely trying to use to control the dog also says bite, not mauling/attack.

He has multiple bites on both arms. I would call it a maul because it is so many bites.

Definitely a boxer. I don’t like pits or boxers or rotties, but that’s a boxer.

A mauling dog doesn't scratch your forearms. This is owner/handler error.

It’s both a dangerous dog and owner error.

I had a dangerous horse once who attacked humans and almost killed a veterinarian. as a very experienced handler, I kept her alive and everyone safe until her foal could be weaned. Then I euthanized her because not everyone can be perfect all the time, and even experienced people make the occasional mistake…plus if she got loose she could have killed someone.

It was the responsible thing to do but it SUCKED and I could in fact handle her myself. That isn’t enough when it comes to animals.

Still have her last baby and he’s a sweetheart. This kind of thing is rarely genetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That family is clueless about dogs and/or simply doesn't have what it takes (time/patience/knowledge) of dealing with powerful breed dogs. Apparently, they had a bull mastiff puppy before, raised her for a year and had to re-home due to aggressive behavior. And after that they decided to adopt a rescue boxer...
Oh my, play stupid games - win stupid prizes

Before their kids were born, hopefully? but probably not. 3 kids under 10 and they got a puppy? Can't help stupid and all, but... damn.

Universal canine ownership license requiring a knowledge and handling exam. Plus proof of insurance.

No, about 3 years ago, their youngest was 2 yo at the time (I'm lazy to search for it again - there is a link to the story in the article from OP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if it's a pit or a boxer. It attacked unprovoked. It should be destroyed.

It probably will be, which is sad, but I don't think it's fair to say it 'attacked unprovoked'. The story the guy was willing to tell on himself involves several elements that would excite a dog, especially a high-energy working breed. The bites are to his shoes (allegedly) and his forearm(s). That doesn't scream dog attack.

I'm not saying he should keep the dog. At all. That dog needs to be rehomed immediately. People with 3 kids under 10 shouldn't have a dog at all, IMO, unless they're qualified handlers with a lot of experience and no day job. But I don't think you can put 100% responsibility for this incident on the dog.

It's moot. The dog will likely be destroyed anyway, because who wants a dog with a bite history when so many don't have that. How sad.

Umm what part of all those stitches “doesn’t scream dog attack”?

They're punctures, not tears, for starters. The long one, in the straight line, (that isn't all the way through in all parts) says "deep scratch" not "grab and shake". While they don't look great, these aren't really significant injuries. The fact that they're localized to the body part he was likely trying to use to control the dog also says bite, not mauling/attack.

He has multiple bites on both arms. I would call it a maul because it is so many bites.

Definitely a boxer. I don’t like pits or boxers or rotties, but that’s a boxer.

A mauling dog doesn't scratch your forearms. This is owner/handler error.

It’s both a dangerous dog and owner error.

I had a dangerous horse once who attacked humans and almost killed a veterinarian. as a very experienced handler, I kept her alive and everyone safe until her foal could be weaned. Then I euthanized her because not everyone can be perfect all the time, and even experienced people make the occasional mistake…plus if she got loose she could have killed someone.

It was the responsible thing to do but it SUCKED and I could in fact handle her myself. That isn’t enough when it comes to animals.

Still have her last baby and he’s a sweetheart. This kind of thing is rarely genetic.

While there are dangerous animals, they rarely start that way. As you say "this kind of thing is rarely genetic". Inexperienced owners/handlers make for problematic animals. I highly doubt this dog was evaluated as "a dangerous dog" by the rescue that placed it with a family with small children. I don't doubt at all that the lack of skill shown by its owner/handler contributed to its behavior and the eventual attack. 3 months isn't enough time for a rescue to even be fully settled in, and they were giving that dog WAY too much stimulation and access, and not nearly enough training and control.

An aside: Growing up, I was one of 3 people who could ride the mare we all called "Hell B¡tch". She 100% lived up to her name, and your story reminds me of her. Mares are no joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter if it's a pit or a boxer. It attacked unprovoked. It should be destroyed.

It probably will be, which is sad, but I don't think it's fair to say it 'attacked unprovoked'. The story the guy was willing to tell on himself involves several elements that would excite a dog, especially a high-energy working breed. The bites are to his shoes (allegedly) and his forearm(s). That doesn't scream dog attack.

I'm not saying he should keep the dog. At all. That dog needs to be rehomed immediately. People with 3 kids under 10 shouldn't have a dog at all, IMO, unless they're qualified handlers with a lot of experience and no day job. But I don't think you can put 100% responsibility for this incident on the dog.

It's moot. The dog will likely be destroyed anyway, because who wants a dog with a bite history when so many don't have that. How sad.

Umm what part of all those stitches “doesn’t scream dog attack”?

They're punctures, not tears, for starters. The long one, in the straight line, (that isn't all the way through in all parts) says "deep scratch" not "grab and shake". While they don't look great, these aren't really significant injuries. The fact that they're localized to the body part he was likely trying to use to control the dog also says bite, not mauling/attack.

He has multiple bites on both arms. I would call it a maul because it is so many bites.

Definitely a boxer. I don’t like pits or boxers or rotties, but that’s a boxer.

A mauling dog doesn't scratch your forearms. This is owner/handler error.

...even experienced people make the occasional mistake…plus if she got loose she could have killed someone.

It was the responsible thing to do but it SUCKED and I could in fact handle her myself. That isn’t enough when it comes to animals.

I put down a Very Good Doggo for the same reason. Being a responsible animal owner isn't always easy. 💔❤️‍🩹

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are insufferable who TF cares what breed it is? This is scary as hell.

These adoption agencies are run by reckless maniacs who value “saving” a bad dog over the safety of people who adopt them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the dude's YouTube.

Bro took his rescued dog he'd only had for 3 months on errands. Leave your dog at home. This is what crates are for. A dog that new to the pack doesn't need that level of external stimulation until it has been tested/proven in a home environment. This dog wasn't being properly trained/handled. Dog also slept on the children's beds at night. That is way too new a dog to have that kind of "privilege". Owner error.

The dog had a history of biting his shoes, which he wrote off as being "a thing herding breeds do". Only this time, the dog bit hard enough to puncture his shoes and hurt his feet (not injure, though). That's owner error. The dog should've been trained to keep its mouth to itself.

Bro then took an agitated dog, stared it down and yelled at it multiple times. That's extremely aggressive behavior... from the human. Again, owner error.

He doesn't describe the process(es) he used to get the dog outside, but none of it seemed to involve a leash. Pushed it? Kicked it? neither is going to de-escalate the situation. Again, owner error. The still-agitated dog then allegedly attacks again. This is basically a provoked attack. Note that all the injuries sustained are shallow, and to the dude's forearms, near the hands. No leg, no thigh, nothing easier for the dog to grab (until dude put his hands into it...)

Where was the dog overnight? Left outside? Kids were home overnight, or at least that's what's implied by him saying the grands were coming to pick them up from the house "the next day". A crate would've been useful...

The next day, when the uncontained dog slipped past his wife (who he'd left alone with the dog?) bro ended up laying on his collared dog to restrain it, instead of, you know, using a leash? Nobody thought to get a muzzle from petsmart when they made the decision to let the dog with a bite history stay in their pack, even overnight? He's "hoping it's the sweet Moose he knows" but not acting as if it's a dog, and a dog who he knows can/will bite?

There's SO much owner error in this story. I hope that the people who hear it will think about how to avoid the avoidable problems this poor dog and its family encountered due to the owner's negligent failure to properly train and contain their animal.

Oy vey I take my mini doodle everywhere since birth. It’s never mauled anyone and never will. Only these violent killing machine breeds do you have to write a dissertation on how to property raise them and walk on egg shells. They need to be illegal - pit bulls, rotts, boxers and all the other adjacent breeds and mixes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insufferable who TF cares what breed it is? This is scary as hell.

These adoption agencies are run by reckless maniacs who value “saving” a bad dog over the safety of people who adopt them.

These reckless maniacs with 3 young kids adopting working dogs they can't properly train or handle and then blaming literally anyone but themselves, you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the dude's YouTube.

Bro took his rescued dog he'd only had for 3 months on errands. Leave your dog at home. This is what crates are for. A dog that new to the pack doesn't need that level of external stimulation until it has been tested/proven in a home environment. This dog wasn't being properly trained/handled. Dog also slept on the children's beds at night. That is way too new a dog to have that kind of "privilege". Owner error.

The dog had a history of biting his shoes, which he wrote off as being "a thing herding breeds do". Only this time, the dog bit hard enough to puncture his shoes and hurt his feet (not injure, though). That's owner error. The dog should've been trained to keep its mouth to itself.

Bro then took an agitated dog, stared it down and yelled at it multiple times. That's extremely aggressive behavior... from the human. Again, owner error.

He doesn't describe the process(es) he used to get the dog outside, but none of it seemed to involve a leash. Pushed it? Kicked it? neither is going to de-escalate the situation. Again, owner error. The still-agitated dog then allegedly attacks again. This is basically a provoked attack. Note that all the injuries sustained are shallow, and to the dude's forearms, near the hands. No leg, no thigh, nothing easier for the dog to grab (until dude put his hands into it...)

Where was the dog overnight? Left outside? Kids were home overnight, or at least that's what's implied by him saying the grands were coming to pick them up from the house "the next day". A crate would've been useful...

The next day, when the uncontained dog slipped past his wife (who he'd left alone with the dog?) bro ended up laying on his collared dog to restrain it, instead of, you know, using a leash? Nobody thought to get a muzzle from petsmart when they made the decision to let the dog with a bite history stay in their pack, even overnight? He's "hoping it's the sweet Moose he knows" but not acting as if it's a dog, and a dog who he knows can/will bite?

There's SO much owner error in this story. I hope that the people who hear it will think about how to avoid the avoidable problems this poor dog and its family encountered due to the owner's negligent failure to properly train and contain their animal.

Oy vey I take my mini doodle everywhere since birth. It’s never mauled anyone and never will. Only these violent killing machine breeds do you have to write a dissertation on how to property raise them and walk on egg shells. They need to be illegal - pit bulls, rotts, boxers and all the other adjacent breeds and mixes.

"Oy vey"? Really?

You're (probably deliberately) missing the point. A new dog isn't an accessory to be paraded around. A puppy shouldn't be, either. In addition to being overstimulating, and a potential liability with an untrained dog, a puppy hasn't even had all its shots yet.

Anyone referring to dogs as "violent killing machines" immediately loses all credibility. It's simply not true. And now it's "pits, rotts, boxers and all other adjacent breeds and mixes"? So any dog that has ever bitten? Okay, well, that's literally all dogs of all breeds, including your "mini doodle".

Or, you could be smarter, and put the responsibility where it belongs: with the owners. Always.