TSA dog bites woman in ATL
May 13, 2013, 9:22 am
#61
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,331
.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNPROVOKED BITE!!!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNPROVOKED BITE!!!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNPROVOKED BITE!!!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNPROVOKED BITE!!!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNPROVOKED BITE!!!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNPROVOKED BITE!!!!
You said it was okay...
Anyway, I'm not saying the victim actually DID something to trigger the dog's aggressive response. I don't know what caused it, and in the end, it doesn't matter what or who actually triggered the response.
What matters is that the handler:
A) Gave his animal too long a lead in a crowded area where the animal might have contact with people
B) Failed to anticipate, recognize, avoid, or block a stimulus that triggered his animal's aggressive response
C) Failed to properly restrain his animal when the aggressive response was triggered
Given such innocuous circumstances, it seems likely that the trigger was something undetectable by humans, such as the scent of the victim's dog on her clothing. But that is a trigger that can be encountered by a working dog almost anywhere, anytime, and the aggressive response should have trained out of the dog before it was ever certified for work in a public setting. Since it obviously wasn't trained out, I have to lay some blame on the trainers for certifying an animal that was not properly conditioned for work in a public setting.
The last place that blame should be laid is the dog itself. It's just an animal; it didn't make a decision to bite, it simply reacted to some stimulus and acted on its instinct.
I agree that this animal should not be in service today; it needs to go back for a full re-training. Likewise, the handler needs a complete refresher course on - Uh-DUH! - shortening the lead and holding the leash tighter when he's in a public place.
Given the DHS enormous boondoggle that we euphamistically call a "department of the federal government", I am not surprised to hear that they improperly certify animals for use in public settings where improper training could lead to people getting hurt. Remember, this is the same department which deployed whole body imagers that used ionizing radiation to airports around the country, without any prior safety testing, without any routine maintenance or adjustment program, and forbade its employees from wearing dosimeters to find out whether the machines may have leaked dangerous radiation after time in service. DHS, and its little child agency, TSA, care absolutely nothing for public safety, individual rights, or personal liberties.
Which is an incredible irony, since DHS and TSA were created specifically to protect the American people from attacks by those who wish to do us harm and wipe out our freedoms.
May 13, 2013, 9:44 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
I think that some of us may be talking past each other. Some (myself included) have stated that there is no such thing as an unprovoked attack/bite by a dog. Some have stated that because the female that was bitten did nothing to provoke the dog directly, it is an unprovoked attack. Something triggered the dog to bite, something, somewhere, made this dog think that a bite was needed. It could be a scent on the female, a scent in the vicinity of her, a sound in the vicinity of her, or other events in that vicinity that (based on the dogs instinct and history) indicated that a bite needed to be dealt. Based on the accounts by the female, she did not directly trigger this response, she did not make boogie, boogie faces at the dog, or take a swing or kick at the dog or even poke the dog in the eye. This is not an indicator that it was an "unprovoked" attack, it simply means that she did nothing wrong, did not knowingly do anything to trigger the dog - which means she was completely not at fault in this scenario, she was an innocent caught in an unfortunate situation that caused her pain. The fact still remains that something triggered an aggressive response from the dog, meaning that something, provoked the aggressive reaction. As mentioned before, it could be any myriad of reasons or actions on the part of someone else that could be the provocation.
Personally, I place the blame on the handler for not applying proper techniques in a crowded area, as the handler is always ultimately responsible for the dogs behavior.
Personally, I place the blame on the handler for not applying proper techniques in a crowded area, as the handler is always ultimately responsible for the dogs behavior.
The animal was trained by TSA. That tells us all we need to know.
May 13, 2013, 9:52 am
#63
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 172
Dogs who attack humans are not euthanized because they are "at fault." Fault is a moral concept that implies need for punishment, and that is not what is at issue here. Indeed, the woman who was attacked is likely not "at fault" either. If the attack was caused by her having a subtle, likely unintentional and unperceptable to humans, 'cue' that somehow aggravated this dog into not one but apparently two attempts at an attack, that isn't 'at fault' either.
It is irrelevant, candidly, as to why this particular dog attacked. If a dog has a propensity to attack given the kind of amorphous 'cues' that have been advanced so far, then literally thousands of airport visitors every day are in danger of being attacked and mauled by this dog.
Again, this doesn't make the dog "at fault" or a "bad dog." It does make that dog a dangerous dog and a dog with an established track record of behaving viciously against humans. I would have no problem with someone adopting the dog and always keeping them muzzled and under restraint. But I would also have no problem euthanizing such a dog. Not as 'punishment' for being 'at fault', but for being an unreasonably dangerous source of potential harm.
Sorry if this makes me a bad person. But in our neighborhood, we had a two year old severely mauled by a dog--she has already had several surgeries and will likely be permanently brain damaged and disfigured. So I am less tolerant of the 'let's try retraining and see if the dog loses its taste for mauling people' approach..
It is irrelevant, candidly, as to why this particular dog attacked. If a dog has a propensity to attack given the kind of amorphous 'cues' that have been advanced so far, then literally thousands of airport visitors every day are in danger of being attacked and mauled by this dog.
Again, this doesn't make the dog "at fault" or a "bad dog." It does make that dog a dangerous dog and a dog with an established track record of behaving viciously against humans. I would have no problem with someone adopting the dog and always keeping them muzzled and under restraint. But I would also have no problem euthanizing such a dog. Not as 'punishment' for being 'at fault', but for being an unreasonably dangerous source of potential harm.
Sorry if this makes me a bad person. But in our neighborhood, we had a two year old severely mauled by a dog--she has already had several surgeries and will likely be permanently brain damaged and disfigured. So I am less tolerant of the 'let's try retraining and see if the dog loses its taste for mauling people' approach..
May 13, 2013, 10:04 am
#64
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 825
I don't know that this dog must be euthanized - but it shouldn't be working in a public area in the future. Perhaps the animal could still be useful sniffing luggage behind the scenes (especially if it can be fitted with a basket muzzle). Given the time and effort required to train a sniffing dog, I'd be reluctant to use the same standards for euthanasia as befits a pure pet.
May 13, 2013, 10:47 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
May 13, 2013, 11:05 am
#66
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 219
Dogs who attack humans are not euthanized because they are "at fault." Fault is a moral concept that implies need for punishment, and that is not what is at issue here. Indeed, the woman who was attacked is likely not "at fault" either. If the attack was caused by her having a subtle, likely unintentional and unperceptable to humans, 'cue' that somehow aggravated this dog into not one but apparently two attempts at an attack, that isn't 'at fault' either.
It is irrelevant, candidly, as to why this particular dog attacked. If a dog has a propensity to attack given the kind of amorphous 'cues' that have been advanced so far, then literally thousands of airport visitors every day are in danger of being attacked and mauled by this dog.
Again, this doesn't make the dog "at fault" or a "bad dog." It does make that dog a dangerous dog and a dog with an established track record of behaving viciously against humans. I would have no problem with someone adopting the dog and always keeping them muzzled and under restraint. But I would also have no problem euthanizing such a dog. Not as 'punishment' for being 'at fault', but for being an unreasonably dangerous source of potential harm.
Sorry if this makes me a bad person. But in our neighborhood, we had a two year old severely mauled by a dog--she has already had several surgeries and will likely be permanently brain damaged and disfigured. So I am less tolerant of the 'let's try retraining and see if the dog loses its taste for mauling people' approach..
It is irrelevant, candidly, as to why this particular dog attacked. If a dog has a propensity to attack given the kind of amorphous 'cues' that have been advanced so far, then literally thousands of airport visitors every day are in danger of being attacked and mauled by this dog.
Again, this doesn't make the dog "at fault" or a "bad dog." It does make that dog a dangerous dog and a dog with an established track record of behaving viciously against humans. I would have no problem with someone adopting the dog and always keeping them muzzled and under restraint. But I would also have no problem euthanizing such a dog. Not as 'punishment' for being 'at fault', but for being an unreasonably dangerous source of potential harm.
Sorry if this makes me a bad person. But in our neighborhood, we had a two year old severely mauled by a dog--she has already had several surgeries and will likely be permanently brain damaged and disfigured. So I am less tolerant of the 'let's try retraining and see if the dog loses its taste for mauling people' approach..
Just as there is no such thing as an "unprovked bite", there is no such thing as a "safe dog guarantee". Once a dog has shown it will bite a human without being ordered to do so by a handler, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is that the dog is untrustworthy, the fact that it is and will always be untrustworthy as a working dog means it needs to /go/.
It's not a companion animal. It is a trained working animal. It can no longer do its job. It needs to be put down - anything else is unsafe, and if the dog bites again, especially as a service dog, the taxpayers will be paying a LOT of money to the next victim (more than was ever spent to train it, and more than will be spent on victim #1). The risk by far outweighs the rewards.
This is different from a family pet or even a wounded animal biting out of fear or injury - you can't compare them. There is NO clue as to what triggered this dog, and therefore no way to guarantee that the same stimulus, whatever it was, will not exist in the dog's working environment again. Retraining is not an option.
May 13, 2013, 11:27 am
#67
Join Date: May 2007
Location: IAD
Posts: 2,060
The detail I find most telling is that this dog who was supposedly well-trained did not demonstrate any bite inhibition at all. Someone earlier in the conversation said the dog might have been stimulated by thinking the lady had - or smelled like - his training rewards. Sniffer dogs aren't rewarded by mauling things, like say an attack dog would be. If his normal training rewarded him with either food or toys, he might have nipped the lady but would not have mauled her like he did. I think that fact alone makes him too dangerous to work with the public. He's been very poorly trained, or perhaps mistreated, to make him respond like that while he was working.
May 13, 2013, 12:37 pm
#68
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
For sure, based probably on individuals' interpretation of the word provoke. To me that is an active verb requiring the provoker to do something, but I think we are all in agreement the dog is not fit for ongoing duty.
May 13, 2013, 12:46 pm
#69
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NoVA
Programs: IC RA
Posts: 232
The detail I find most telling is that this dog who was supposedly well-trained did not demonstrate any bite inhibition at all. Someone earlier in the conversation said the dog might have been stimulated by thinking the lady had - or smelled like - his training rewards. Sniffer dogs aren't rewarded by mauling things, like say an attack dog would be. If his normal training rewarded him with either food or toys, he might have nipped the lady but would not have mauled her like he did. I think that fact alone makes him too dangerous to work with the public. He's been very poorly trained, or perhaps mistreated, to make him respond like that while he was working.
I made an earlier comment that IF the dog was stimulated by perceiving its reward visually that it may have spurred the bite. Again, IF that was what happened then the dog "mauling" , in your words, it's reward is a perfectly normal and acceptable situation in detector dog work.
Secondly, I don't know if mauled is the right word to use with respect to what happened. Certainly, I believe it was an unacceptable behavior. But without seeing video, we don't know what happened. The woman said in her interview that the dog bit and then the handler pulled the dog back. The timing may have been such that the handler pulling back actually caused more damage. Regardless, it was the right response from the handler.
May 13, 2013, 3:08 pm
#71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 223
May 13, 2013, 3:11 pm
#72
Join Date: May 2007
Location: IAD
Posts: 2,060
I'll preface my comments by saying I think we are all starting to travel down the rabbit hole with assumptions.
I made an earlier comment that IF the dog was stimulated by perceiving its reward visually that it may have spurred the bite. Again, IF that was what happened then the dog "mauling" , in your words, it's reward is a perfectly normal and acceptable situation in detector dog work.
Secondly, I don't know if mauled is the right word to use with respect to what happened. Certainly, I believe it was an unacceptable behavior. But without seeing video, we don't know what happened. The woman said in her interview that the dog bit and then the handler pulled the dog back. The timing may have been such that the handler pulling back actually caused more damage. Regardless, it was the right response from the handler.
I made an earlier comment that IF the dog was stimulated by perceiving its reward visually that it may have spurred the bite. Again, IF that was what happened then the dog "mauling" , in your words, it's reward is a perfectly normal and acceptable situation in detector dog work.
Secondly, I don't know if mauled is the right word to use with respect to what happened. Certainly, I believe it was an unacceptable behavior. But without seeing video, we don't know what happened. The woman said in her interview that the dog bit and then the handler pulled the dog back. The timing may have been such that the handler pulling back actually caused more damage. Regardless, it was the right response from the handler.
I don't recognize your FT name, so I assume you don't know me much either, but I work in dog rescue and have greyhounds which is a breed used for hunting (i.e. have prey drive). Before I started working with greyhounds, I didn't have much dog experience, so I did a few stupid things with our first hound. She had sleep startle, a common issue with racers because they're used to sleeping in crates where nobody bothers them. It also takes a few months for them to learn to trust you. I've had a few occasions early in our relationship where she corrected me for waking her up or scaring her. Even now when remembering them, I marvel at her inhibition. She banged the front of her teeth against my forehead. She could have ripped my face off.
Another example with my greys was a near fight I had this weekend with my male. Greyhounds are notorious for having thin skin that tears like tissue paper. We were at an event, on leash but not wearing muzzles and another greyhound got the foolish idea to jump on my boy's back. My boy got his teeth around the other one's throat before I got them separated and calmed down. When I checked the other dog, he didn't even have a scratch.
Emotionally mature and balanced dogs can "pull their punches". The only time a dog sinks teeth into flesh should be if he is in fear for his life or has serious mental issues.
May 13, 2013, 3:49 pm
#73
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NoVA
Programs: IC RA
Posts: 232
If the teeth break the skin, that's absence of bite inhibition.
I don't recognize your FT name, so I assume you don't know me much either, but I work in dog rescue and have greyhounds which is a breed used for hunting (i.e. have prey drive). Before I started working with greyhounds, I didn't have much dog experience, so I did a few stupid things with our first hound. She had sleep startle, a common issue with racers because they're used to sleeping in crates where nobody bothers them. It also takes a few months for them to learn to trust you. I've had a few occasions early in our relationship where she corrected me for waking her up or scaring her. Even now when remembering them, I marvel at her inhibition. She banged the front of her teeth against my forehead. She could have ripped my face off.
Another example with my greys was a near fight I had this weekend with my male. Greyhounds are notorious for having thin skin that tears like tissue paper. We were at an event, on leash but not wearing muzzles and another greyhound got the foolish idea to jump on my boy's back. My boy got his teeth around the other one's throat before I got them separated and calmed down. When I checked the other dog, he didn't even have a scratch.
Emotionally mature and balanced dogs can "pull their punches". The only time a dog sinks teeth into flesh should be if he is in fear for his life or has serious mental issues.
I don't recognize your FT name, so I assume you don't know me much either, but I work in dog rescue and have greyhounds which is a breed used for hunting (i.e. have prey drive). Before I started working with greyhounds, I didn't have much dog experience, so I did a few stupid things with our first hound. She had sleep startle, a common issue with racers because they're used to sleeping in crates where nobody bothers them. It also takes a few months for them to learn to trust you. I've had a few occasions early in our relationship where she corrected me for waking her up or scaring her. Even now when remembering them, I marvel at her inhibition. She banged the front of her teeth against my forehead. She could have ripped my face off.
Another example with my greys was a near fight I had this weekend with my male. Greyhounds are notorious for having thin skin that tears like tissue paper. We were at an event, on leash but not wearing muzzles and another greyhound got the foolish idea to jump on my boy's back. My boy got his teeth around the other one's throat before I got them separated and calmed down. When I checked the other dog, he didn't even have a scratch.
Emotionally mature and balanced dogs can "pull their punches". The only time a dog sinks teeth into flesh should be if he is in fear for his life or has serious mental issues.
I'm not arguing the fact that the dog had no qualms about biting. I'm simply stating that our speculation on what precipatated it is simply that. Regardless on which side of the fence we stand on the issue.
Like you, I also work with dogs and I am extremely familiar with the drives in dogs and yes prey drive is highly desired in detector dogs. As are the hunt, air-scent, and retrieve drives.
For the record, it is my opinion that the dog should not continue to be pedestrian certified. I have no issue with the dog remaining in service otherwise.
May 13, 2013, 5:35 pm
#74
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Gold Medallion, AA
Posts: 347
nbcnews.com has a picture of the bite - it looks pretty bad. Seems strange no one has come forward to say they witnessed the attack when usually the first thing people do is whip out their cells phones to get a video. In any case, I'm sure the TSA just wants the story to go away.