Current Events > 6-week-old mauled to death by family husky while sleeping in his crib

(+) Yeah! (+)

Seems unlikely that a Husky would attack a child for no reason, especially a baby. But I suppose it's possible. Huskies are very emotional dogs and are prone to emotional fits and whining, but are not random attackers despite being big dogs, at least the vast majority of the time. Even a German Shepherd, one of the most dangerous dogs that exists, are very kid-friendly and are unlikely to ever attack a child for no reason, or any reason, unless the kid were trying to kill it or something. Even a kid annoying or punching a German Shepherd would unlikely cause a German Shepherd to seriously attack a child.

A Pit Bull however, or a Rottweiler, either one of those, especially a Pit Bull, can and will attack a child, or anyone else, for absolutely no reason at all. Even that is UNLIKELY, but they are known to do that, especially Pit Bulls.

EventualDecline posted...

Even a kid annoying or punching a German Shepherd would unlikely cause a German Shepherd to seriously attack a child.

You are too reliant on stereotypes

EventualDecline posted...

Seems unlikely that a Husky would attack a child for no reason, especially a baby. But I suppose it's possible. Huskies are very emotional dogs and are prone to emotional fits and whining, but are not random attackers despite being big dogs, at least the vast majority of the time. Even a German Shepherd, one of the most dangerous dogs that exists, are very kid-friendly and are unlikely to ever attack a child for no reason, or any reason, unless the kid were trying to kill it or something. Even a kid annoying or punching a German Shepherd would unlikely cause a German Shepherd to seriously attack a child.

A Pit Bull however, or a Rottweiler, either one of those, especially a Pit Bull, can and will attack a child, or anyone else, for absolutely no reason at all. Even that is UNLIKELY, but they are known to do that, especially Pit Bulls.

Maybe stop with the stereotypes?

I wouldn't own any pet if I had a baby. I'd only get if my kid was at least old enough to be in elementary school.

The dog and the baby should have never been left alone by themselves.

Southernfatman posted...

Is anyone even doubting that the dog mauled the baby? This seems odd to say. Nobody should have big aggressive dogs around small children, pits or not.

Its because pitties get the most hate regardless of the situation. In this case it was a husky and people immediately redirected the blame on the parents.

If it were a pittie those same people would be calling for extermination of all pit bull terriers.

Weird how two people immediately chimed in with the word "stereotype". Very bizarre. I know a lot about dog breeds in general, so I know what I'm talking about. And I'm a proud owner of a German Shepherd (the best dogs, in my opinion, with Golden Retrievers a runner up).

Also, I'm not going by "stereotypes", that's an odd word to use when referring to dogs. I'm going by statistics. You can look up the stats for dog attacks. Pit Bulls attack and kill humans more than any other dog breed, followed by Rottweilers being the second deadliest dog. German Shepherds are the 3rd most dangerous dog, but they are a DISTANT 3rd after Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. So no "stereotypes" involved here. These are stats tracked over a very long period of time for these breeds, so this is accurate information about which dogs are the most dangerous in general, and which ones are prone to random attacks. When it comes to random, unprovoked attacks, Pit Bulls are the clear winner, and everyone knows this.

Anyway, yes, it's possible that a Husky randomly attacked a baby. But unlikely. If it were a Pit Bull though, no one would be surprised.

LonelyStoner posted...

If it were a pittie those same people

Because of statistics and factual information. You should look into both.

EventualDecline posted...

Weird how two people immediately chimed in with the word "stereotype". Very bizarre. I know a lot about dog breeds in general, so I know what I'm talking about. And I'm a proud owner of a German Shepherd (the best dogs, in my opinion, with Golden Retrievers a runner up).

Also, I'm not going by "stereotypes", that's an odd word to use when referring to dogs. I'm going by statistics. You can look up the stats for dog attacks. Pit Bulls attack and kill humans more than any other dog breed, followed by Rottweilers being the second deadliest dog. German Shepherds are the 3rd most dangerous dog, but they are a DISTANT 3rd after Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. So no "stereotypes" involved here. These are stats tracked over a very long period of time for these breeds, so this is accurate information about which dogs are the most dangerous in general, and which ones are prone to random attacks. When it comes to random, unprovoked attacks, Pit Bulls are the clear winner, and everyone knows this.

Anyway, yes, it's possible that a Husky randomly attacked a baby. But unlikely. If it were a Pit Bull though, no one would be surprised.

Labradors are better than German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and Pit Bulls in nearly every way.

EventualDecline posted...

Because of statistics and factual information. You should look into both.

I have. Capacity and aggression arent the same. With that being said, Labradors are the best family dog.

LonelyStoner posted...

Its because pitties get the most hate regardless of the situation. In this case it was a husky and people immediately redirected the blame on the parents.

If it were a pittie those same people would be calling for extermination of all pit bull terriers.

The ratio of pit bull maulings vs huskies is probably like 500:1 lol

Mr_Karate_II posted...

The dog and the baby should have never been left alone by themselves.

Do we even know they were left alone together? Think about how weak a newborn is, how strong a husky is, and how the adult's reflexes compare to that of a husky. It could happen right in front of the adult and they'd likely be to slow to stop it.

Mew posted...

The ratio of pit bull maulings vs huskies is probably like 500:1 lol

The ratio of bad husky owners to bad pit bull owners is definitely not 1:1.

EventualDecline posted...

Weird how two people immediately chimed in with the word "stereotype". Very bizarre. I know a lot about dog breeds in general, so I know what I'm talking about. And I'm a proud owner of a German Shepherd (the best dogs, in my opinion, with Golden Retrievers a runner up).

Also, I'm not going by "stereotypes", that's an odd word to use when referring to dogs. I'm going by statistics. You can look up the stats for dog attacks. Pit Bulls attack and kill humans more than any other dog breed, followed by Rottweilers being the second deadliest dog. German Shepherds are the 3rd most dangerous dog, but they are a DISTANT 3rd after Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. So no "stereotypes" involved here. These are stats tracked over a very long period of time for these breeds, so this is accurate information about which dogs are the most dangerous in general, and which ones are prone to random attacks. When it comes to random, unprovoked attacks, Pit Bulls are the clear winner, and everyone knows this.

Anyway, yes, it's possible that a Husky randomly attacked a baby. But unlikely. If it were a Pit Bull though, no one would be surprised.

Your post seemed shocked that an individual dog didn't behave the same as the aggregated average of all dogs in that breed and stereotype is a good descriptor for that. You say German Shepards are the 3rd most dangerous breed but you also said German Shepards are highly unlikely to cause serious harm if punched in the face by a child. Those statements don't agree. It sounds like you used an anecdote of one German Shepard and generalized it to the whole breed, a stereotype. Yes the attack rates between breeds isn't even close but before we jump to correlation = causation I'd like to see just one study taking training quality into account. I've seen so many people/sites rank breeds based on friendliness, aggression, etc. but I've never seen one let 2 breeds have a statistical tie. I'd love to see a breed comparison that used confidence intervals and other statistical analysis methods.

Huskies are high energy dogs. They need lots of exercise and metal stimulation to prevent boredom & destructive behavior.

Totally not the kind of dog that (most likely) exhausted parents should have.

EventualDecline posted...

Weird how two people immediately chimed in with the word "stereotype". Very bizarre. I know a lot about dog breeds in general, so I know what I'm talking about. And I'm a proud owner of a German Shepherd (the best dogs, in my opinion, with Golden Retrievers a runner up).

Also, I'm not going by "stereotypes", that's an odd word to use when referring to dogs. I'm going by statistics. You can look up the stats for dog attacks. Pit Bulls attack and kill humans more than any other dog breed, followed by Rottweilers being the second deadliest dog. German Shepherds are the 3rd most dangerous dog, but they are a DISTANT 3rd after Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. So no "stereotypes" involved here. These are stats tracked over a very long period of time for these breeds, so this is accurate information about which dogs are the most dangerous in general, and which ones are prone to random attacks. When it comes to random, unprovoked attacks, Pit Bulls are the clear winner, and everyone knows this.

Anyway, yes, it's possible that a Husky randomly attacked a baby. But unlikely. If it were a Pit Bull though, no one would be surprised.

pitbulls are also vastly overrepresented compared to basically any other dog. 'pitbull' has become a catchall term for dogs that vaguely resemble each other and there are definitely more than 10x more pitbulls than german shephards. naked statistics mean nothing without controlling for population.

bfslick50 posted...

Your post seemed shocked that an individual dog didn't behave the same as the aggregated average of all dogs in that breed and stereotype is a good descriptor for that.

Not really. Definition of stereotype: "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." Right, but what I said about dogs based on statistics isn't "oversimplified", and it's "fixed" because the statistics are fixed, and always will be fixed. So the definition of "stereotype" is nonsense, as is your usage of the word. And I wasn't "shocked" by a Husky attacking a baby, I was simply making the factual statement that it is unlikely that a Husky would attack a baby, although it is possible.

bfslick50 posted...

You say German Shepards are the 3rd most dangerous breed but you also said German Shepards are highly unlikely to cause serious harm if punched in the face by a child. Those statements don't agree.

The statement makes sense. German Shepherds are dangerous, but they are also smart. Yes, it is not recommended for a child to punch a German Shepherd, but if one did, it is unlikely the dog would maul the kid. The dog would likely be shocked, upset, confused, etc, and maybe growl, but it would probably not attack the child. Now, if a child REPEATEDLY punched a German Shepherd, well then, all bets are off. But think of it this way: What kind of kid would punch a German Shepherd? Let alone MULTIPLE times. In the event of some disturbed child behaving that way, any repercussions to that kind of goofy behavior should surprise exactly no one. For the record, German Shepherds, while potentially dangerous dogs, and very good pets. They are not statistically known to attack kids almost ever, and they are not known for random attacks on adults either. It's possible, but highly unlikely. That's pitbull territory.

bfslick50 posted...

I've never seen one let 2 breeds have a statistical tie.

You don't really understand statistics, do you?

andel posted...

'pitbull' has become a catchall term for dogs that vaguely resemble each other

And yet pitbulls exist and are a thing. Time to join reality, bub. It's true that they appear to be a collection of mutts that descend from bulldogs and terriers, but they are still a recognizable, similar type of dog.

Dogs were a mistake

EventualDecline posted...

Weird how two people immediately chimed in with the word "stereotype". Very bizarre. I know a lot about dog breeds in general, so I know what I'm talking about. And I'm a proud owner of a German Shepherd (the best dogs, in my opinion, with Golden Retrievers a runner up).

Also, I'm not going by "stereotypes", that's an odd word to use when referring to dogs. I'm going by statistics. You can look up the stats for dog attacks. Pit Bulls attack and kill humans more than any other dog breed, followed by Rottweilers being the second deadliest dog. German Shepherds are the 3rd most dangerous dog, but they are a DISTANT 3rd after Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. So no "stereotypes" involved here. These are stats tracked over a very long period of time for these breeds, so this is accurate information about which dogs are the most dangerous in general, and which ones are prone to random attacks. When it comes to random, unprovoked attacks, Pit Bulls are the clear winner, and everyone knows this.

Anyway, yes, it's possible that a Husky randomly attacked a baby. But unlikely. If it were a Pit Bull though, no one would be surprised.

Citation needed.

EventualDecline posted...

Not really. Definition of stereotype: "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." Right, but what I said about dogs based on statistics isn't "oversimplified", and it's "fixed" because the statistics are fixed, and always will be fixed. So the definition of "stereotype" is nonsense, as is your usage of the word. And I wasn't "shocked" by a Husky attacking a baby, I was simply making the factual statement that it is unlikely that a Husky would attack a baby, although it is possible.

Statistics is the best guess of the center of the population but is essentially meaningless when talking about a singular individual. Using incomplete statistics to predict the actions of an individual is the literal definition of a stereotype. And if you've never heard of a statistical tie then you probably don't understand confidence intervals and if you don't understand confidence intervals then you know next to nothing about statistics.

EventualDecline posted...

The statement makes sense. German Shepherds are dangerous, but they are also smart. Yes, it is not recommended for a child to punch a German Shepherd, but if one did, it is unlikely the dog would maul the kid. The dog would likely be shocked, upset, confused, etc, and maybe growl, but it would probably not attack the child. Now, if a child REPEATEDLY punched a German Shepherd, well then, all bets are off. But think of it this way: What kind of kid would punch a German Shepherd? Let alone MULTIPLE times. In the event of some disturbed child behaving that way, any repercussions to that kind of goofy behavior should surprise exactly no one. For the record, German Shepherds, while potentially dangerous dogs, and very good pets. They are not statistically known to attack kids almost ever, and they are not known for random attacks on adults either. It's possible, but highly unlikely. That's pitbull territory.

Your bias for German Shepards is not statistics. You have an oversimplified image of all German Shepards. They don't all fit the mold you have inside your head. There are many German Shepards that have unprovoked attacked children. In fact, looking at actual statistics it looks like German Shepards and Pitbulls only have a 5% difference in attack rates.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-facial-injuries-risk-breed-ownership-2019.php