All I can discern from this story is that a child got bitten on the head. This is a story that highlights the public and media's schizophrenic relationship with dogs based on how they look. Let me guarantee this for you: If this dog had been a muscular, short-haired, blocky headed dog, there would be no question as to who was at fault. But because this is a long haired, golden-looking, dog, questions arise!
According to this story, the child had wandered off and was bitten by a dog.
Here's NewsChannel3's article which describes the attack as such: The child is playing in a neighbor's yard with his father and relatives. Somehow everyone misses a large dog leaping over a fence and biting the child on the arm, leg and face. And somehow no one can identify the dog, but they guess its the Golden Retriever living next door.
The story garners 50 comments. One commenter claims to be the grand-daughter of the dog's owner. She claims that the dog wears a shock collar all the time, and thus is incapable of barking. And she says that the dog just scratched the kid and that the ONLY thing wrong with the kid was the fact that he had half his ear missing. But hey! grand-daughter, who is in medical school, claims that her grandmother says that it was just a flesh wound, so geez people, chill out. Nail in the coffin? Well shoot, there was a Pit Bull in the kid's house and THAT is the dog who bit him! So there. She said she said she said = FACT! Or, if it wasn't the Pit Bull, it was some piece of metal that sliced the kid's ear right clean off his head. She then goes on to claim that MAYBE the dog is also a seeing eye dog. Maybe. Like is she for reals?
Another commenter says s/he's been around Golden Retrievers all his/her life and, well, it just isn't possible for them to be mean. Amazing, folks. In fact, there are several comments along the same line. If a dog bites, that dog cannot be a Golden Retriever, even if he looks like a Golden Retriever or has the pedigree of one. Must be a different dog. Irrational logic for the fail!
The absolute final comment is that the dog was actually a Pit Bull and they had updated the article (they hadn't). Well world, breathe a sigh of relief. Order has been restored.
3 comments:
I've been around goldens my entire life.
However, it is possible for one to be aggressive.
Expectation is what drives a lot of this.
Nasty dog? Must be a pit bull. I see them on tv tearing pieces out of children.
Golden retriever? Can't be. I see them on TV all the time as family pets!
Golden retrievers are suffering from mass production, a not too dynamic gene pool, and ignorance. People think that if it's a golden, they don't have to train or socialize it.
Okay, I'm trying to get my head around this. Several people are witness to the event, but no one can actually recount what happened. The kid is missing half an ear, but it's just a flesh wound. There isn't a Golden on Earth who could be aggressive, and that's that. And the Pit Bull next door must have done it.
Okay, got it. Thanks! ARGH!
Doesn't it just make you want to shake someone and say "ALL DOGS CAN BITE!"? Last I checked, they haven't created a toothless dog. (Although, I love that one of the Vick dog that was deemed "the most dangerous" has no teeth.)
Post a Comment