Seven dogs bite five students in Mie school grounds

doesnt sound like hunting dogs, put em down

The students who were bitten were practicing baseball

well, I certainly hope they got in a few good swings at the muts. Farmer should pay for all medical expenses.

He told police that he had “set them free to hunt.”

and indeed they did just that!!

This was a calculated, cold-blooded group attack. I hope the police hunt down these sociopathic mutts and punish them severely.

Farmer sounds like a right loony, he should pay all the medical expenses and be arrested and charged with reckless endangerment/negligence. The dogs (especially hunting dogs) also need to be put down because once they have bitten into people, they will do it again.

They shud put the farmer down & have someone who knows dogs give them some proper training!

No, don't put the dogs down. Give them to better owners who will train them properly. Dogs do dumb things in groups, a lot like people. Putting them down is the lazy way out.

Anyway, they bit people. That is a far cry from killing or eating them or even trying to do either. If we put dogs down for biting people, even tiny lapdogs would have to die.

dont blame the dogs for the farmers mistakes

a pack of savage dogs? put em down, sorry your owner was an arse

Let's all hope the remaining dogs are found and killed as soon as possible. They are only dogs and they could possibly attack children again.

I agree with you "odeman" the dogs are trained to hunt and to be agressive. The only person at fault is the owner of the dogs. Put him in some stocks in the middle of the town and let all the children bite him!!!

once they have bitten into people, they will do it again

That is so not true. I think you're confusing domestic dogs with man-eating tigers.

When our Shiba first came to us his philosophy in life was 'Bite first, think later', but after a couple of months of training he's a pussy-cat. What you put into a dog is what you get out, but more so.

He told police that he had “set them free to hunt.”

And he had no control over them. Reading between the lines here, but it sounds as if he set them loose to catch their own food - he couldn't even be bothered to feed them properly.

The farmer needs to pay all medical costs plus compensation of course, fined heavily for animal abuse, charged the cost of the dogs' food and training expenses for the rest of their natural lives, and banned from ever owning an animal again.

I've been saying that public education in Japan has been going to the dogs for a long time.

He told police that he had “set them free to hunt.”

American lawyers would have a field day (and a big pay day) with this case. Here, I reckon each kid will get 10,000 en and an apology because, you know, 'shou ga nai'.

Seven severely starving shetland sheepdogs savagely snap at five feisty footballers in the foot following fitness fun.

If we put dogs down for biting people, even tiny lapdogs would have to die.

Sorry, but I'm OK with that.

Where were the teachers? Baseball bats on hand, that should be 7 dead dogs and one or two teachers with and adrenalin rushes. With pack dogs you take out the leader and the rest will run.

The owner off the dogs should be jailed. The dogs should be put down.

Unique chance to have the bunkasai theme song changed to "Who let the dogs out" this year.

As much as I agree the farmer should be held responsible of those consequences, I disagree with the idea of taking the dogs down. They need to be disbanded and properly taken care of, no more.

Cleo gives a very balanced answer. Two words make me think that trying to reform the dogs might be wasted time.

HIGH SCHOOL

These are not little kindergartener pit bull happy-meals. This appears to be seven dogs going after large humans as a pack. Did the humans try to defend themselves? Probably. Did it help? Apparently not. Very bad medicine. Scary enough to take the least risky way out. It is not the dogs' fault, but they should all be killed. The boys should be applauded for restraining themselves from using the baseball bats.

I come from an area where we were educated from a young age about dog packs. They are murderous little mammal cultures that are incompatible with humans and wildlife. Frankly, "letting them hunt" turns my stomach. If they had killed a tanuki or kamoshika, it would be a terrible loss. That they attacked humans is unforgivable.

I vote for Sushi no Inu. LOL

"With pack dogs you take out the leader and the rest will run."

I like to play Biohazard as much as the next guy, but given a baseball bat against a pack of seven medium sized dogs, I think I would briskly move behind a locked door before trying to swing for the bleachers. In Steven Seagal movies, the bad guys always attack one at a time, so he does ok with a pool cue, but even against four reasonably coordinated dogs, you can get one from each side, plus one low and behind one high and in front... all coming at once. Could be bad. Plus rabies. Truly scary stuff.

This is a case where good sense and testosterone don't mix.

no rabies in Japan. Shoot the dogs nd fine the owner tons as an example. Sorry Cleo a pack mentally from bred and trained hunters is nothing like your Shiba breed.

Shoot them, with bow and arrows if necessary. No guns in Japan, right? Well, do what it takes! Smash the biters!

"He told police that he had “set them free to hunt.”

Well it seemed to have worked! Is it possible that these were fighting dogs and this "farmer" was worried about the police catching him with fighting dogs? (are fighting dogs even illegal in Japan?)

By the way TJ your headline "Seven dogs bite five students in Mie school grounds" makes this sound more like a High School Math Question - lets see if I divide 7 dogs by 5 students I get ??? number of students bitten.

New ground being broken everyday...

What should and what will actually happen...?

A) Do nothing, it was an act of God, or Shoganai that the students were bitten.

B) Send papers to the Prosecutor on the Farmer for Professional Negligence resulting in injury.

C) Students will file law suits against Farmer, who will pass it off to his insurance company, to compensate all the students for pain, suffering and medical bills. Farmer will be ticketed and fined for allowing dogs to roam unleashed, Dogs are taken away from Farmer and placed in kennel.

D) None of the above, but police charge several students with Illegal bicycle parking while on school grounds.

(If you answered (C) and (A) Or (C) and (D) You are most likely correct.)

Thanks Spudman. You are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies

the dogs are trained to hunt and to be agressive

Hunting dogs are not trained to be aggressive towards people.

It sounds like these dogs weren't 'trained' at all in any recognisable sense of the word. According to the vernacular news, the owner (a member of that intrepid band, the Local Hunters' Association, Ryoyukai) set the dogs (medium-sized mongrels) free in a forested area near the school to hunt inoshishi. There is no way a medium-sized mongrel is going to take down a full-grown wild boar, so presumably the dogs were 'trained' to chase the boar out into the open where the intrepid hunters could enjoy killing it. Not being trained, the dogs wandered off into the school grounds where more exciting things appeared to be going on - kids running around and probably shouting to each other. It sounds like we're talking about a few over-enthusiastic nips that unfortunately broke the skin, not a concerted attack by a crazed pack.

Still all the owner's fault, and he deserves to be dragged every which way over the coals, hit hard in the pocket, expelled from the Hunters' Association and banned from hunting and owning animals for life.

Hopefully the inoshishi got away.

I hate to agree with cleo, but the dogs bit the kids. If the dogs full on attacked a kid, even if they were medium sized, those kids would be a lot worse off. And if any of you saw the dogs in the news, they were not big at all and scared witless. Most animals run away from humans, even dogs unless cornered. No teachers, just a bunch of teenage kids with what may have seemed to be stray dogs...teenagers either trying to shoo away of play rough...who knows...

I think they should be put down.

In New Zealand, under the Dog Control Act, any dog that bites a human or other domestic animal can be destroyed. I don't think there's a law like that in Japan, though.

Cleo I think you have got it wrong, and your comparison is mute point. I seem to remember that your Shiba came to you as a pup? Puppies bite everything in sight until their teeth settle. What you have here, however, is something completely different. Hunting dogs (and I would assume that these dogs have been hunted) are not your normal house pet. Furthermore, once they have been out hunting a couple of times, they get a certain taste for blood. Now the responsible handler knows this, and he makes sure his dogs don't free-lance, whether the target is cats or small children. The reason being that, if the dogs do act up, it will be impossible to rein them in, especially a pack hunter like this animals seem to be. Moreover, you should view it from the dogs mentality. Which is the easier kill option, kids down the local park or a pxssed off wild pig. Not really a contest is it. So as I said, these dogs will do it again if given the opportunity.

PS. Hope both of your dogs are in good health. We have just had a litter of pups.

Seven dogs bite five students in Mie school grounds

I am glad it was not the reverse!

I'm afraid I have to agree with 5SpeedRacer5 here.

It's extremely unlikely that these dogs won't do this again given the opportunity. It's also extremely unlikely that they were being playful. When a fully grown dog is being playful, you don't end up with high school students needing medical treatment. The likelihood of them being reformed into household pets is virtually nil, and still would leave a risk of sudden dog attacks. It's kinder to put them down really, it doesn't hurt much and they just go to sleep forever. If I could die like that when my time comes I wouldn't complain. The alternatives are either keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives, or risking other children being ripped apart. The first is unfair on the dogs, the second extremely unfair on the potential victims. It's a shame, and it's all the damned farmers fault. He should be severely penalised for this, what a total moronic prat. If only they could shut him up in a room with his dogs for a couple of weeks. That would spare them the trouble of giving him a trial. Wouldn't help the dogs though. But he deserves it for such irresponsibility.

And anyone trying to blame the kids is really going OTT. I don't care how much of a dog lover you claim to be, but if the kids were actually tormenting the dogs they'd surely have run away rather than staying and biting. Dogs aren't stupid. Farmers apparently are.

Poor dogs, their lives completely ruined by the misfortune of ending up in the hands of a fool. It's lucky the students weren't more badly injured.

Cleo: dogs typically will bail up a pig by taking small nips at it until the pig makes a stand, this is where the hunter will either shoot or stick the pig. medium sized dogs are quiet adept at nipping prey. Death by a hundred bites, same tactic wolves use.

This dog owner is a slimeball with low morals. The guy needs to serve some time in jail to understand the severity of the offence. He should also have to pay for all medical bills and comensate the kids for their injuries.

Dogs, should be part of the family, interacting with humans and other family pets and trained from a young age to never bite. This works with 99.5% of dogs, though there will always be a dog that is crazy, in the way humans are and does not respond well to training.

Even if the dog is a working dog, it must be in the humans living quarters and made to feel part of the pack. That is what adog needs to feel secure about itself.

dammit posted: "It's kinder to put them down really, it doesn't hurt much and they just go to sleep forever."

I'm sorry to interrupt this discussion between you guys but as a matter of fact Japanese Animal Shelters are nothing like back home. Here they put the dogs/cats inside a gas chamber after 7 days. They do not use anesthesia or any kind of intravenous solution. I'd think twice before putting down any of my pets for "X" reason.

I hate to agree with cleo, but.....

...you know it's the right thing to do? :-)

If the dogs full on attacked a kid, even if they were medium sized, those kids would be a lot worse off.

Quite. It's very unlikely this was any kind of frenzied attack. Five of the dogs were 'captured' in the school yard - probably by simply calling to them and grabbing their collars. When the slightest thing happens schools see that the kids get proper medical treatment; could be anything from sticking a plaster on a scratch to reattaching a limb. (only joking, that wouldn't be a 'minor injury'). In a case like this the kids get taken to hospital as much for insurance as anything else; the school doesn't want to be accused of not providing proper care, or of ignoring an injury that later turned out to be more severe than it appeared to be at the time.

timorborder -

Puppies bite everything in sight until their teeth settle. What you have here, however, is something completely different.

Believe me, I do know the difference between puppy play-biting and real, aggressive biting!

Now the responsible handler....

Which is not what we have here, by any stretch of the imagination....

Congratulations on the babies.

spudman -

So the dogs and hunter should be together, right? They weren't.

I'd also like to echo KyokoSmile's comment. 'Unwanted' animals are killed by CO2 poisoning. It's a slow, horrendous death. I would never, ever, under any circumstances, let any animal of mine go down that path.

What is this with putting down pets? If you really love the animal, you do it yourself. It is one part (a somewhat unsavory part) of being a responsible owner.

If you really love the animal, you do it yourself.

I for one don't have the medical knowledge to kill painlessly. When my epileptic mongrel needed to move on, I took her to the vet's and held her in my arms while the vet did the 'unsavory' thing

Our intrepid farmer has already demonstrated that he's not a responsible owner.

Timor, we have similar ideas about respecting animals. They differ from what I see in a lot of people. Among responsible animal owners, I guess there are Jack London types and Brigitte Bardot types. We can split hairs on what we would do with the dogs, I guess. I would not let those dogs near children again though, being a Jack London type myself.

The old man in Mie is neither of those. He created those monsters through neglect or through training them. He needs to take responsibility for them. If he can't, the law must.

LOL

Speed -

'those monsters'?? You make it sound like there was total carnage on the playing fields, mad dogs foaming at the mouth and tearing kids limb from limb.... More likely that the dogs were attracted by the young folk running around and yelling and wanted to join in, and a few over-exuberant nips drew blood. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the kids didn't wave their bats around, too.

Still, it shouldn't have happened. There's no reason to imagine the dogs can't become perfectly normal, happy pets if they are placed with responsible owners. The farmer needs to be taught a very hard lesson, though.

In Japan a trained dog is rare, a properly trained dog even rarer. Another rarity is Japan is properly trained children. This article does not tell us how the children behaved before they were bitten. Is it possible that one of them attacked a dog with a baseball bat? If so, the little monsters deserved to be bitten.

Most children, and adults for that matter, in Japan do not know how to treat or behave with animals. That is the problem.

Like the rest of nature, they believe animals should not be given any freedom. This belief can make dogs dangerous. A dog that is changed up most of its life or otherwise can become dangerous.

So who is to blame? The owner of the dog, the children or the dog itself? I have no idea and the article give us no idea of the true situation. It just gives us the standard Japanese response: you cannot blame the kid even if it is a monster or the owner as he is Japanese, so it must be the dogs that are bad.

Thank goodness they weren't pitbulls! It also seems a bit abnormal for a farmer to have so many dogs and to just let them all run loose at the same time like he did.

Lack of information to make a judgment call on this one. My question is why is the school so close to a farm?

So who is to blame? The owner of the dog, the children or the dog itself?

When a dog misbehaves in public, it's always the owner's fault.

If a dog bites a child, the owner is at fault for not training the dog not to bite/for allowing a potential biter near a child.

If a dog bites a child after being hit/punched/kicked/eye-gouged by the child, the owner is at fault for not protecting the dog from the child. Never mind that the little monster deserves to be bitten.

Where does it say in the article that you cannot blame the owner as he is Japanese??

Dogs are a burden on the environment.Most people who are serious about global warming and reducing personal carbon footprints are making the conscious decision to NOT keep a pet.

peace.

Cleo as much as you are a very knowledgeable dog lover and defender, I think your knowledge of hunting dogs is off the mark. Not all dogs are created equal. We know this as certain breeds are naturally good at being seeing eye dogs, gun dogs, avalanche rescue dogs, workdogs (sheep dogs), fighting dogs and certain breeds make good hunting dogs.

Yes, many characteristics can trained in (and out of) dogs but some dogs, just like people are just plain nasty. I love dogs but have deep suspicions of pitbulls; I don't trust them, no matter how well trained and lovable their owner may claim them to be.

I have met some well trained hunting dogs and some pretty nasty hunting dogs in my time, and if they (the ones with mean streaks) ever bit you it wouldnt have been "over-exuberant nip" it would have been a fair old chomp.

Farmer Yamada in this case should be prosecuted to the full extent of whatever laws, if any, exist. The dogs should be rounded up and put down, sad - but unfortunately they ended up with the wrong owner and their Pandora's box has been opened.

What would the dogs have been hunting actually? Wild boar? Just the kids?

"Why is the school so close to a farm?"

In most cases of schools being close to farms there's no problem.

Hmmmm.....

This will open up a new thread and series of stories.

The dogs that bit the children should be euthanized. If they did this once in a pack they will do it again perhaps with more devasting consequences.

"It's kinder to put them down really, it doesn't hurt much and they just go to sleep forever."

someone here has not seen "the cove" yet.

"Never mind that the little monster deserves to be bitten."

Cleo, you questioned my calling the dogs monsters: they went onto the kids' playground, messed them around and sent them to the hospital bleeding.

Now you say that somehow children playing sports deserve to be bitten because the CHILDREN are monsters?

I fail to see what information in the story makes you think that these kids had it coming. I don't know, you were getting reasonable there for a while, but you slipped back into your ANIMAL=GOOD HUMAN=BAD default mode again. There really truly are nasty animals, you know. I think I am right in saying that dogs are carnivorous predators. Why do they deserve better treatment than a gang of humans would get for assaulting 5 kids and sending them bleeding to the hospital?

I called them MONSTERS because either they were in control of their actions, in which case they premeditated an assault on these students, OR they were out of control, in which case they cannot be turned loose and trusted around children period. Either way, if they were humans, there would be consequences. The dogs are monsters until proven otherwise, IMHO. The bloody hospitalized students seem to put the burden of proof the dog's side, if you ask me.

You have a tendency always take the animal's side. I guess there is a career for you in that, actually, but you really contort logic sometimes to take that point of view. Personally, I think you value "pets" way more than you should. In many ways, they are dangerous to humans and habitats, and people generally do not care for pets well. They just don't. Go ahead and call the humans devils, but that does not automatically make the animals angels.

dolphingirl

School location near farms is a great thing. In many rural settings, the farms put aside some land so that kids can grow things like sweet potatoes, beans, rice, etc. Fresh air. Big skies. Putting farms near schools is really a good thing.

I know a lot of farmers for different reasons. Let's say 50. I don't know of one with more than three dogs. The average is probably 0.3 or something. I also don't know of any farmer with a fenced area for growing. I also know that dogs can destroy crops. Putting all that together, my image is of some guy with 7 dogs he keeps in a pen most of the time. He lets them out periodically to wreak havoc on nature. They roam around and do whatever they feel like.

This is not a problem with farms, students, or farmers. It is a problem with THIS farmer and his decision to keep so many dogs without controlling them.

"If a dog bites a child after being hit/punched/kicked/eye-gouged by the child, the owner is at fault for not protecting the dog from the child. "

Cleo...

I really want to make sure I am reading your post correctly. You highlight three scenarios above and in EVERY scenario, you place the blame on the OWNER, is that right? I think you state that clearly.

Then you say that a child DESERVES to be bitten? Huh? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I tell you what. You scare me. In your world view, everyone should be allowed to have pets, and everything the pet does is the owner's fault or some other human's fault. Fine. If we assign all responsibility to humans, then pets exist in society by the permission of humans. If they are incompatible with human society for whatever reason, they must be destroyed. You see, giving pets a special pass for bad behavior AND letting the owner off the hook with a lame excuse puts the full burden of pet ownership on society at large. That is called a meiwaku. If that is how it is going to be, then I say society should do one of two things: 1) Make pet owners entirely responsible for everything that their animals do (up to capital punishment?), or 2) ban and destroy all pets, or at least all carnivores.

Roughly, number 1 above is a code that ranchers and others have lived by for centuries. Animals were and still are tools for work or liesure. If people cannot observe the code, then it should be law. In many places, it is the law.

Logically, if you do not accept the arguments and outcomes above, then we have to question whether humans really CAN control the animals or be responsible for them. In other words, if you truly believe that a child can DESERVE to be bitten by a dog, then you are assigning the decision to the dog, and the dog should be punished, not the owner. However, if we have no way of verifying whether the dog's behavior can be changed, that dog needs to be separated from humans permanently, just to be safe. Would you agree?

Unless pet owners can control their pets better, society will adopt solution 2 above sooner or later. Ignoring that these dogs who bit the students are dangerous and not putting them down responsibly makes solution 2 above all the more likely.

Sorry to be such a jerk, Cleo, but if you really care about animals, you are going to have to face this argument sooner or later. Pets, especially neglected pets, are a huge social problem. I am interested in what you have to say.

flammenwerfer -

I think your knowledge of hunting dogs is off the mark. Not all dogs are created equal. We know this as certain breeds are naturally good at being seeing eye dogs, gun dogs, avalanche rescue dogs, workdogs (sheep dogs), fighting dogs and certain breeds make good hunting dogs.

According to the vernacular press, these dogs are not hunting breeds, they are medium-size mongrels. If they were trained for hunting, they certainly weren't well trained. Why weren't they well trained? Because they owner didn't train them well. That's the only reason. The owner let poorly-trained, excited dogs run loose, and that is the only reason anyone got bitten.

Speed -

Now you say that somehow children playing sports deserve to be bitten because the CHILDREN are monsters?

Not at all. You misunderstand me. I was saying that even if a child provokes a dog into biting, it's still the owner's fault for letting it happen. I was not suggesting that these particular kids did anything bad to the dogs, or that they 'had it coming'.

they were out of control, in which case they cannot be turned loose and trusted around children period.

The most placid, docile dog should never be 'turned loose and trusted around children' without proper adult supervision. In this case we're talking about teenagers, not little kids; but even so the onus on ensuring safety is on the owner.

I think I am right in saying that dogs are carnivorous predators.

They're omnivorous, but never mind.

if they were humans, there would be consequences.

But they aren't human. (How novel that for once, I'm not the one being told to stop anthropomorphising animals! :-))

I think you value "pets" way more than you should. In many ways, they are dangerous to humans and habitats, and people generally do not care for pets well. They just don't.

I agree with you that many people do not care for their animals well. This hunter-farmer certainly didn't. A well-cared-for dog is not a 'pet', he's a member of the family. If you think that means I care too much for my animals.......what can I say? shrugs.

In your world view, everyone should be allowed to have pets

Good Lord, no! How many times have I said on this thread that this hunter-farmer bloke, for one, should be banned for life?

letting the owner off the hook with a lame excuse

I'm sorry, but I don't see where I've ever said bad owners should be let off with a lame excuse. Far from it. I advocate throwing the book at them.

if you truly believe that a child can DESERVE to be bitten by a dog, then you are assigning the decision to the dog

As I've explained above (I hope), that wasn't what I meant at all. No matter how much provocation a dog receives, it must not be allowed to bite a child. I hope that's a given. But dogs are not superhuman; if the provocation is too great, a human will react, and so will a dog. It's nonsensical to expect a dog to have greater self-control than a human. It's up to the owner to see to it that the dog is not put into a position where it has to face provocation that it cannot deal with. (I'm not saying that the dogs in this particular case faced provocation.)

1) Make pet owners entirely responsible for everything that their animals do (up to capital punishment?)

That's what I've been saying all along - except I don't believe in capital punishment, even for people.

2) ban and destroy all pets, or at least all carnivores.

Don't be silly.

I do often wish that there could be some kind of system where people who have demonstrated that they are not fit to keep animals could be prevented from having them, but it seems to be a lot easier said than done.

just kill the dogs, lot easier than all this typing

SpeedRacer, I think it was pretty clear that Cleo was saying that a child (i.e. the "little monster") who intentionally inflicts pain on an animal deserves to be bitten by that animal. It STILL would be the animal owner's fault for the biting, though, because he let the animal loose without supervision. In the case of responsibility, the actions (or inactions) ofan adult always bear more responsibility than the actions or inactions of a child.

So... should we punish the farmer/hunter, or the trainer?

Look, 7 dogs, if they were seriously trying to hurt these students, this article would have been much much shorter.

Animals play rough. To a young group of kids this can seem like an attack. Animals do bite when they play. Dogs do know how to hurt someone. These are hunting dogs after all!

The kids more than likely had food with them.

Thanks Cleo. I understand you a lot better now, and I appreciate that. So I have you down definitely as this:

People are ultimately responsible for their pets.

I think we agree that some people should not be allowed to have pets, so maybe even licensing owners would not be a bad idea. People should not be allowed, in principle, to let their children roam off of their property. Strict leash laws, etc.

Then, in light of that, what should be done with these dogs? If the owner shows a lack of responsibility, then does society have the responsibility to destroy them? The answer seems to be "yes".

Fadamor. Thanks. I think it was not so clear what Cleo was saying, actually. After my first post, I thought..."wait a minute." But I read it again and again, and Cleo's presentation seemed confused. What Cleo said was that the OWNER is responsible for letting a dog near a sadistic kid. But using the phrase "deserves to be bitten" really muddied things up. Either animals are responsible for what they do or they are not. When you say that a kid "deserves" something, you are saying that it is ok for a dog to bite a human in some uncontrolled circumstances. If any dog owner takes that attitude, then I will be first in line to say that dogs should be banned as safety hazards. If owners and dogs can't keep people from being bitten, then somebody must stop it.

To their credit, pet owners have done a good job of walking a fine line for many decades, and I don't think dogs are inherently dangerous, but if things get out of control, pet owners, perhaps even ALL pet owners, have to accept the consequences. Cleo is all for that, apparently. People stop short of saying that dangerous animals should be destroyed, though, and I wonder why.

I apologize for droning on about this, but pet-related issues often pop up, and I am trying to educate myself. It makes me very happy to see Cleo state her principles very clearly because she is very well respected for animal-related issues on JT.

I like dogs just as much as the next die, but these dogs should be killed and this idiot farmer should be put away in some kind of prison for fools like himself.

Just to clarify.

In the post above: to let their children roam >>> to let their dogs roam

Then regarding some things Cleo wrote:

"But dogs are not superhuman; if the provocation is too great, a human will react, and so will a dog. It's nonsensical to expect a dog to have greater self-control than a human."

My point is exactly that dogs are SUBhuman. If it non-sensical to expect a dog to be self-controlled, then we agree that humans MUST control them, right? If so, then how can a child "deserve" to be bitten? We agree that the failure is that of the owner. The concept of a dog having "self-control" is an oxymoron. Why bring it up?

"I do often wish that there could be some kind of system where people who have demonstrated that they are not fit to keep animals could be prevented from having them, but it seems to be a lot easier said than done."

Well, frankly realizing that your wishes will not pay hospital bills, let me reiterate my silly suggestion. If pet owners as a group cannot prevent people from owning dangerous animals, then maybe all people should be prevented from having animals that might be dangerous.

Finally, I think I see where you are coming from with "pets as family members." I certainly know how you feel. When I was little, we had a family member put to death for threatening to bite.... well... charging a neighbor kid. The family member had been my favorite Christmas present of all time, and it was very sad. My little brother. We did the responsible thing, and most dog owners, for one reason or another, will not do so anymore. We avoided causing outrage by saying goodbye to our family member, and if dog owners are not willing to accept responsibility and do what is right, then outrage will gain the upper hand. It was an early lesson for me that many others have apparently never learned. That is where I am coming from.

OK. Again, pardon the novel.

If I had been there and holding a baseball bat I would have tried to hold them off at the end of the bat, and failing that I would have started swinging hard. Not sure how you identify the leader of the pack at a moment like that.

Knowing J schoolkids, I expect they just panicked, making the situation worse as usual.

Stupid old geezer! He should have his dogs killed in front of him and then he should be sent off to prison for being a threat to society! I feel so sorry for these kids, they had baseball bats right? Back in Jersey the kids would have used them.

Too bad for these kids.

I agree 100% with Javnation!

airrunwesker -

Look, 7 dogs, if they were seriously trying to hurt these students, this article would have been much much shorter.

I agree that it seems likely these were not seriously dangerous dogs on a rampage. If they were, we would not be reading about 'minor injuries' but major, disfiguring facial injuries. It isn't mentioned in this article, but the Japanese press reports that the kids suffered bites to the legs, which suggests to me enthusiastic play - nipping at the ankles of running kids - that got out of hand, not a deliberate 'attack'. An attacking dog goes for the throat and face.

Speed -

maybe even licensing owners would not be a bad idea.

It would be a very good idea, if it were practical. But you're always going to get some people (the irresponsible ones) who see no reason to register their animals and if they get caught, simply deny ownership.

what should be done with these dogs? If the owner shows a lack of responsibility, then does society have the responsibility to destroy them? The answer seems to be "yes".

I disagree. The responsibility is the owner's, not the dogs and not 'society'. As I suggested in an earlier post, take the dogs away from the irresponsible owner, rehouse them with people who will train and care for them properly, and fine the original owner enough to cover their living/training/housing expenses for the rest of their natural lives. Being CWU (Canine While Untrained) should not in itself be a death sentence.

What Cleo said was that the OWNER is responsible for letting a dog near a sadistic kid. But using the phrase "deserves to be bitten" really muddied things up.

I'm sorry you found that confusing. In the kind of situation I described (which should not be allowed to happen in the first place) I would hope the 'little monster' would get what it deserves in the form of a slap up the back of the head or at least a good talking-to by its parent. (Slapping a kid in front of a dog is not a good idea - it sends the wrong message, that little kids are fair game.)

The concept of a dog having "self-control" is an oxymoron.

No it isn't. One of the central points of basic dog-training is to teach the dog self-control. Sit, Stay, Leave it, Toilet, all depend on the dog developing self-control.

I don't think dogs are inherently dangerous

Really? I do. Any dog that isn't properly trained has the potential to be a dangerous animal. That's why training is so important. An untrained dog is just an animal.

Speed, I'm very sorry to hear about what happened to your dog. Without knowing the circumstances, it's impossible to say if your family's decision was the right one; but the responsibility for the incident was certainly your parents'. They took responsibility by making the decision they did, and I'm sure it was a very hard one for them to make. Sometimes it's the only one; often there are alternatives.

Cleo thanks for reading and responding. Frankly, your opinions are a lot more consistent than I had thought they were. I like you. My biggest remaining beef would be that you seem inclined to "muddle through" if owners and dogs are not held responsible for incidents like this. I am inclined to support harsh measures to solve the problem if owners can't take responsibility. The outrage must be acknowledged, I feel.

"As I suggested in an earlier post, take the dogs away from the irresponsible owner, rehouse them with people who will train and care for them properly, and fine the original owner enough to cover their living/training/housing expenses for the rest of their natural lives."

This is interesting and logically consistent. Some kind of pet tax or something could support this. This takes away a lot of the moral slime that we feel when we kill pets as though they were worn out tools. This is a burden that pet owners should bear. Maybe it would prevent people from "owning" seven dogs or twenty cats or what have you.

"The concept of a dog having "self-control" is an oxymoron.--- No it isn't. "

Yes it is. We agreed on this. Many times. If you say that a dog's actions are solely the responsibility of the owner, then "legally and logically" for want of a better term, you are saying that a dog is not responsible for its actions. There is no free-will component about it. Relying or assuming or promising self-control cannot be done. We have to rely on the owner's training and supervision at all times. Right? It might be cute to think a dog is a "good dog", but once you do that, you imply that there is such a thing as a bad dog, or a dangerous dog, and there is no such thing, right? Or maybe you are saying that "as a practical matter" a dog will do what it wants? Well be careful with that, because it decreases or eliminates the owner's culpability if something goes wrong.

"Any dog that isn't properly trained has the potential to be a dangerous animal. That's why training is so important. An untrained dog is just an animal."

We agree. What I meant to say is that a domestic dog is not inherently more dangerous than a wild dog. Or let's say that a pet is not as inherently dangerous as a loaded gun. Regarding "just an animal"...that grates a little. My personal opinion is that wild animals deserve far more from human society in terms of "rights" and "passes" than pets do, but that is a whole nuther can of worms.

"it's impossible to say if your family's decision was the right one; but the responsibility for the incident was certainly your parents'."

Well, I did not really have "parents", which was a big part of the problem, and it was why losing the dog hurt quite a bit. But yes.... in fact, it was the only alternative in that era. The "victim" child's grandfather made it pretty clear the dog had to "go", and that was that. Kind of like Toto in the Wizard of Oz. We children were taken on a short trip soon thereafter, and upon our return, the dog was gone. As I have become older, I feel not so much cheated out of my chance to grow up with the dog as I feel cheated out of my chance to say goodbye to a friend and member of the family. Not a good Christmas story... but... there it is.

And my dog never even BIT the kid!! It charged... but the societal norm then was that it had to be put down. I look at this farmer and feel some resentment that he can't own up to his mongrels' rampage, and my dog "got the chair" for not even actually hurting anyone. ...waaaaaah... If he gets away with this, then I want my childhood back!

Hence my novel and my obvious need for therapy.

Speed -

you seem inclined to "muddle through" if owners and dogs are not held responsible

I hope I'm saying that owners should be held responsible....maybe I'm not saying it very well.

Some kind of pet tax or something

Well, there's already the registration fee and yearly rabies jab, both of which are basically a dog tax. The problem is that far too many people don't register their dogs and don't get the rabies jabs either, and if they're found out they either pay up grudgingly or deny ownership and the dog is taken away. Or left to roam.

And let's not forget that the taxes of everyone - pet owners and pet haters alike - pay for the gas chambers in which hundreds of thousands of 'unwanted' animals are killed each year. Personally I'd rather my taxes be spent on supporting no-kill shelters and making sure that people who dump 10-year-old Fido at the pound for whatever reason pay for Fido's keep and are banned from ever owning a dog again.

On the 'self-control' and 'responsibility' thing: I think we have to remember that even a well-trained dog has no understanding of human morality. 'Right' and 'wrong' are alien concepts to them. They have no understanding of the consequences of their actions; biting a child is 'wrong' (from the dog's point of view) only because his owner has (one would hope) taught him not to bite. Any consequence of that action occurs between the dog and the owner. The dog has no understanding of compensation, laws and whatnot, all the paraphernalia of human society. So Yes, a dog can and should be taught self-control, but at the same time, absolutely, we have to rely on the owner's training and supervision at all times. That's why any misdemeanour on the part of the dog is 100% the owner's responsibility. Under human law, a dog cannot be held responsible for its actions.

There is a well-known saying, 'There are no bad dogs, only bad owners'; but dangerous dogs? Yes, there are plenty of those. As I said earlier, any dog has the potential to be a dangerous dog. I like to think I'm pretty savvy with dogs, but I approach strange dogs, if I approach them at all, with care.

The other weekend I took my 5-month-old pup to the local park. There were kids running around all over the place, and if I'd let him off the lead I'm sure he would have chased after them and nipped a few ankles - much like I imagine these dogs did. The difference is that unlike the farmer, I didn't let him run loose. If I had done, and some child had gotten bitten, it would have been my responsibility, not the pup's.

no such thing as dog tax.

According to authorities, the dogs were kept by a local farmer as hunting dogs. He told police that he had “set them free to hunt.”

Unleashing seven hunting dogs at the time!? What was this dog keeper thinking in his head???

Interesting thoughts on prior posts! But still, this farmer has plenty of time to tend to his land and Hunt? Sounds fishy to me. Did he train them to hunt humans or to attack anything that trespassed onto his land?

I hope the children are OK and the farmer is given a hefty fine for being negligent to release his hunting dogs without supervision.