Michael Smith is the Florida man whose infant son, Alexander, was snatched out of his crib by the family pet, Dakota, a “wolf hybrid” according to this story. Dakota picked up the child and ran out of the house with him, presumably intending to find a spot where it could eat him in peace. Curiously, Mr. Smith did not kill the dog after retrieving his child, nor does he wish to have the dog put down.
Can anyone explain this to me? Not the behavior of the animal: the curious lack of killing rage of the father.
i can’t explain it, either. But then again, I wouldn’t have a wolf hybrid in my home. They are not domesticated dogs. I have heard accounts that hybrids are even more dangerous and unpredictable than full-blooded wolves. I could see it from the standpoint of an animal handler who has been bitten by a lion or tiger and does not want to see the animal killed. But lions and tigers are not (usually) kept as pets and are in licensed zoos or rehabilitation facilities where they are quarantined from the public. If the wolf dog’s life is to be spared, it should be kept in such a rehabilitation facility, and not returned into a domestic setting. It most certainly should not be re-homed as a domestic pet.
If you want to explain people behavior, you need a ‘people lover’ not a ‘dog lover’.
Wolves and dogs have different instincts. Wolf hybrids are not really dogs. They’re not really wolves either. They’re notoriously unpredictable.
As a wolf lover and a dog lover, I always think the onus is on the human to properly socialize and manage the animal. I think he’s the one who should bear the brunt of the penalty here.
That said, I would put the wolf-dog down in this case. I doubt the dog was really trying to eat the infant but still. I wouldn’t trust it with other children (although I’d trust it with my own safety) and the pounds are full of perfectly lovely and gentle dogs being put to death everyday. There are too many nice dogs looking for homes to keep one who’s already attacked a child.
Someone in that thread mentioned that the dog apparently had a history of dragging stuff out of the house before, and that the dog may have even been trying to take the baby out to attempt to nurture it, in some kind of misguided parental instinct. (Puppies have handy “scruffs” and thicker skin than human infants, which leads to trouble.) I suspect the owner thinks that the dog did not act maliciously.
It’s extra simple, Skald. He doens’t think the dog attacked his kid, he thinks the dog was being a dog. You don’t destroy and animal for being itself if the act was not in any way malicious. Besides, this was completely the parents’ fault for not keeping the dogs away from the kid. I believe the parents realize they are the one who screwed the pooch on this.
I understand that he doesn’t want to keep the dog anymore because obviously this behaviour could be dangerous around infants. But if the dog is in the proper home, there is no reason to destroy it. IMHO.
That’s what I’m curious about. I don’t see the logic in flying into a rage and destroying the dog right then and there. If he doesn’t have a stray rifle lying around to pull an Old Yeller, then how is he supposed to do it? Beat the dog to death?
And the answer is still that you don’t punish an animal for being itself. The parents did not kill the dog in a rage because you don’t punish the animal for being itself especially when you are the one that fucked up. If in fact you are the sort who would kill in a rage, then you should probably not be around small children yourself.
I completely agree with you. I just wanted to sidestep the whole argument of ‘but now it is a dangerous animal that might hurt children!! won’t we think of the children!’ jazz. That is beside the point of the OP.
Somehow I overlooked the “lack of rage” bit. I don’t blame him for not angrily killing the dog on the spot; he loves the animal and only thinks it’s a bad idea for her to live in their house anymore. I disagree but I understand. But if I had a dog that harmed my child, if I had either of those, I’d have said dog put down. What if the dog went to another home and hurt somebody else? I wouldn’t take that chance.
And I am a huge dog lover. But sometimes you have do things you really don’t want to.
I think he’s probably so worried about his baby and so guilt stricken that what happens to the dog is the absolute least of his problems. I doubt he has time to rage at the animal when his baby has been fighting for his life for the past 4 days.
I had a similar problem with Celtling’s Dad. His dog attacked Celtling, by some miracle I was close enough and quick enough to prevent serious damage. There was a long red streak down the side of her face where the dogs tooth grazed her as I pushed him back with my foot. He then attempted to scramble over my blocking leg to get to her as I was picking her up.
My choice? Dog goes down, and now, by my hands. His choice? Pay $500 for a trainer, then refuse to go to the trouble of following his advice. Let TC buy a soft, comfortable, basket muzzle for the dog and then conscript my friends and family to help convince her that she is just a mean old B**** for making him wear it.
Have I mentioned that he doesn’t live with us anymore?
There’s no way I could put myself in this guy’s shoes; I don’t much care for dogs to begin with, and I’d absolutely never own a dog that would pose any sort of threat to my child. Michael Smith really only has Michael Smith to blame. I could certainly understand him killing the dog in a fit of rage, but he should spend some time mastering the art of kicking his own ass first.
From everything I’ve read, this ‘dog’ did NOT “attack a child”. If it had attacked the child, the child would be dead. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD. The boy would have been dead before Mom & Dad figured out he was missing, much less got him to a hospital.
The critter picked the child up and carried it off, accidentally causing some damage, which is an entirely different thing.
I say ‘dog’ because now they’re saying it’s a wolf-hybrid, which I don’t really consider a dog, and which I think should bel illegal for individuals to own. Wild animals are not pets. But that’s still not a reason to kill it if, for instance, a hybrid-rescue/shelter was willing to take it.
If my dog ATTACKED someone, I’d have it put down. This dog didn’t attack anyone. I wouldn’t have it around children, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’d kill it if I could find a good home.
