Muddy Waters
Posted By Randy on August 14, 2011

Anything that bears this logo is certified as "intrinsically safe". You will NEVER find it stamped on an animal.
Intrinsic (adjective) – Belonging to or part of the real nature of something/somebody.
Safe (adjective) – Not likely to lead to any physical harm or danger. Not involving much or any risk; not likely to be wrong or to upset somebody.
I obtained the definitions above from the online Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Please note that the definition of “safe” includes that word’s meaning as it applies to where I’m going with this article.
Now here’s a term many of you may not be familiar with – intrinsically safe. This refers to engineering and manufacturing measures employed to ensure that electrical and electronic systems can be used in the presence of explosive gas/oxygen mixtures without blowing the user to kingdom come. This is important in certain industries, such as oil and natural gas drilling and fuel refining. Whether it’s an on/off switch, an electric motor, a camera, a hand held communications device, a test instrument, or a flashlight, intrinsically safe technology ensures that no matter how tired, distracted, stupid, negligent, untrained, misinformed, delusional, or intoxicated the user, normal interaction with the device will never end badly because all the real smarts went into the item long before it got into his hands.
By extension, we can see that when something is declared to be “intrinsically safe”, then by its very nature it is not likely to lead to any physical harm or danger, nor does it represent much or any risk, so it isn’t likely to be wrong or upset anybody. We can’t say the same for such items as chain saws, lawn mowers, firearms, knives, axes, jack hammers, and wood stoves because they are designed both to interact destructively with matter, and to do so in a controlled fashion under the guidance of a human operator. Likewise for things like motor vehicles, nail guns, and gas barbecues that are not intended to be instruments of destruction but clearly can be, again because of the human factor. Because they aren’t proofed against the tired, distracted, stupid, negligent, untrained, misinformed, delusional, or intoxicated user, each item in both classes is more than capable, to quote my father, of creating all manner of hellery . These items are useful but each, by its very nature, comes with intrinsic risk that society finds acceptable in the expectation that they will be employed by people who themselves accept the intrinsic responsibility of owning and/or operating them.
Today I’m going to take the use of that term out of the realm of industrial engineering and apply it to biological organisms – specifically to dogs and dog ownership. My inspiration is the recently publicized case of Sarge, a dog accused of attacking a 5 year old boy who is the son of a woman visiting Sarge’s family on the fateful day. Details, as reported to the press, can be found here in the article posted to the South Shore Now website on 2 August 2011. I have read a few press articles on this incident, and watched some of the television coverage. While I regard the South Shore Now article as being the most balanced because it makes an effort to give both (human) sides of the story, it doesn’t escape my notice that the article’s title proclaims New Canada incident involves Rottweiler, results in hurt child.
Sarge is a dog who happens to be a Rottweiller. As experienced professionals in canine behaviour rehabilitation, most particularly with cases of dog-dog and dog-human aggression , Mrs. LFM and I are both professionally and personally offended by this seemingly inevitable sort of smarmy sensationalism. It takes very little internet mining to turn up the facts of reported dog bite statistics from around the world. Yet watch only the headlines and you will get the impression that only Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and Bull Mastiffs ever get involved in bite incidents. The report histories going back many years prove otherwise, but a headline that reads Second Labrador Retriever Attack in Ontario This Week isn’t going to sell newspapers. Don’t forget the line from the great Sir Elton John’s song, Candle in the Wind –
Even when you died
Oh the press still hounded you
All the papers had to say
Was that Marilyn was found in the nude.
Some things never change, and you can still fool some of the people all of the time.
End result – Sarge has been seized by Municipality of the District of Lunenburg animal control. He is being held at a local kennel and his family have been permitted to visit him, but his ultimate fate will be decided when his case comes up for a court hearing. If he is declared a “fierce and dangerous dog” under the law, he could be sentenced to death or placed under a muzzle and leash order. My suspicion is that one or the other will be the outcome, and complete exoneration is not in the cards for Sarge because of the unassailable facts that his actions injured a child – his tooth marks were there for all to see – and misinformed public clamour has branded the incident as an “attack”.
This incident has polarized the community into two camps – those who want Sarge to return to life as it was before the incident, and those who want him dead. In all the shots I’ve seen sent back and forth by people with no first hand knowledge of what actually happened that day in the presence of nobody but two little boys and a dog, I have seen a mob mentality start to prevail that is all too common in the comfort blanket of perceived anonymity that is the internet. In that place, truth doesn’t exist because its voice gets drowned out by the screech of old axes being ground. Governments and courts should seek to find truth in matters that arise from the laws they create and administer, but sadly their efforts all too often lead to outcomes where all parties to the matter at hand walk away equally unhappy.
Neither I, nor any other human being I’ve ever met, even comes close to meeting the requirements for being certified “intrinsically safe”. If you have an issue with that statement because you honestly believe that, by your very nature you are not likely to lead to any physical harm or danger, nor do you represent much or any risk, so you aren’t likely to be wrong or upset anybody, then I don’t want to know you.
Before the advent of mechanized and electronic everything, animals in concert with knowledgeable people were the go to source for getting things done. Anyone skilled in handling horses or dogs will quickly laugh you off the property if you bring the term “intrinsically safe” anywhere near their animals. And yet, in this day of the worldwide childproof daycare centre, this is exactly the attitude being embraced by society. Even a familiar and well trained animal can behave unpredictably, including people.
The use of the word “attack” in the Sarge case makes my eye twitch. All emotional, axe grinding public outcry aside, I can safely say this was NOT an attack by the dog on the boy cast as “victim”. I can say this with certainty, even though I was not a witness to the event, and declaring all claims of negligent parenting, clueless dog handling, and ulterior motives by any party to be of absolutely no consequence. I KNOW this because the child is intact and alive.
If my 50 pound Australian Cattle Dog actually ATTACKED a 5 year old child with INTENT to attack, in the truest canine sense of that word, the child would be dead with little chance to cry out for salvation. Does that make him a demonic force of blind destruction? No. It makes him a beautifully efficient Force of Nature whose 50 pounds of pure attitude was carefully crafted over generations, by humans, to dominate something the size of a bull into capitulation. He is not intrinsically safe, nor do I expect him to be, and no amount of socialization or training of any kind will permit him, or any dog, to be declared so, but that doesn’t make him a walking antipersonnel mine.
Substitute that 50 pounder with a mature Rottweiler, a dog bred for purposes not unlike the Australian Cattle Dog, with a strong drive to work, herd, and guard. Massive, powerful, and tireless, a Rottweiler that is truly bent on savagery is a formidable adversary for even an armed man. Make the target of its onslaught a 5 year old boy and it would be a closed casket funeral where the parents would be burying pieces of their child.
This was an unfortunate accident engendered by events, actions, and inactions that are not being examined by any of the parties that have involved themselves because of the tendency of our culture to look for someone else to blame. This has become a matter of vengeance for the people who consider themselves aggrieved, and this dog is quickly becoming the poster boy in what I see as yet another battle in the ongoing war between those who understand the responsibilities that come with owning a dog on the one hand, and those who seek to press “delete” on specific breeds they consider too intrinsically dangerous to live. Where a breed ban doesn’t exist, then killing the target breed one animal at a time will suffice. In between these two camps are the actual parties involved, with all their human frailties, foibles, and self-interests, and a dog that, to one degree or another, will suffer human administered “justice” for being a dog who, on the day, acted as his dogness said he should.
Remember this – movies and TV shows notwithstanding, a dog is not a cuddle toy, a child’s playmate or bedfellow, a babysitter, or an animated piece of furniture. Society has lost this Great Truth, and dogs are the ones that pay the price.
[…] The following is my response to the blog, Muddy Waters, sent to me by Randy Whynacht, the link is http://cyberstud.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/a-response-to-muddy-waters-as-seen-on-lfm/
Thanks as always Stu. I laughed my ass off, and can’t wait for your regulatory updates.
To be honest, I had no idea this had happened. I don’t follow the news all that much, but events like this sicken me.
The problem of the lawmakers grouping everything together, such as these “attacks” by certain breeds, is much like the problems we can see with most any law. They don’t seem to take it case by case, rather take it by a VERY large group of events, and base everything from them. I could go on for hours about this problem!!
Aside from my ranting about problems in the Government, I strongly believe you would make a huge difference by voicing your knowledge, and experience during all of this.
I’m kind of stuck for words, and trying to stay away from talking about the Government, maybe it will be a blog post of my own soon 😉
Speak your mind Sean. Speak your mind.
As an owner of a “pit bull” type dog (my 4th), I also find this kind of slanted journalism to be very frightening. A couple years ago there was some kind of bill going around in NJ where owners of specific breeds, e.g., Rottweiler, Pit bull, etc., would have to pay huge fees and muzzled in public. Fortunately people spoke out and the bill did not go through, but there was one Congressman who obviously had an agenda about this.
In NYC, the District Attorney (Cyrus Vance Jr.) has made pocket knives his pet war. Many businesses in NY were threatened with huge fines over folding knives and utility knives. Try to walk down the street in NYC with a knife clipped to your pants pocket, if the police see it, you will be stopped and the knife likely confiscated.
We can protect ourselves but the dogs need us to protect them against these ignorant fools. As I begin learning from my past mistakes with dogs, I become a better dog owner. It is especially sad to see pit bull owners who are clueless to the power there dogs have. When these good dogs go bad, whose fault is it?
Amen Randy, amen.
Julio
so effing true! why was the child near the dog to begin with?
“If good men do nothing evil will prevail”
May would say what relevance does this have with a bad interaction ( aka attack) between a dog (ANY) and a boy . The animals were here long before humans .Somewhere along the way DOGS befriended man and became an inseparable symbiotic team . One would hope that during all this time humans would have learned what the dogs have had to say .Dogs have never changed their language ,action ,reaction ….ever . WHY THE FUCK CAN”T DOG OWNERS ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for their pets ( DOGS SEE THE FAMILY AS A PACK , ) this includes eating , playing ,sleeping ,standing guard , etc…. UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE OWNER . Would you let you 5 yr old and visiting friend play with a sharp knives ? Dogs can’t pull their teeth to go play . I have been bit by dogs in the past . One such occurrence was do to a bad bitch attitude of the owner .The dog was doing its part in guarding the pack .The owner knew the reaction her dog was going to have to her mood . She used her dog as an extension of her bitchiness. It did not attack , it simply bit ,and did it well .I wouldn’t put a complaint in as the old dog would have paid for the act of an evil person. I can totally corroborate your position of fact that the Dog in question WAS NOT ATTACKING . Society for the most part is BLIND, DUMB,and DEAF to how well dogs behave all the while in a society that sees them as humanized. GEEESSS !!!
IF ONLY THE COURT WOULD RULE THAT ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED INCLUDING THE COURT BE TRAINED AS DOG OWNERS BY A QUALIFIED EXPERT !
For dogs It is high time that good men speak up .
How do we think we will measure up when our Master asks how we have treated each other ?
I am sad to say our species would not be just muzzled . What would He say about how we have misused,tortured ,condemned, the animals He has put under our care ? Dogs will always fare better on judgment day.
Randy & Diana I always find your blogs entertaining , truthful ,and to the point ,and the ones of animals inspiring .
In my opinion, an attack is whenever a dog’s motivation is to get rid off a real or perceived intruder. That can mean to drive away or eliminate, and which one it is depends on the dog’s genetic make-up, past learning and feedback from the environment at the moment. Behavior is always a combination of nature, nurture and present situation. That means that even though a dog might have the opportunity to kill, an attack doesn’t always end in a kill – in fact regarding dogs it typically doesn’t.
There are other reasons why dogs bite children, which I would not classify as an attack: over-the-top, out-of-control play, a correction the dog gives if he’s learned that kids can be treated like litter mates, self-defense if parents allow children to treat dogs like toys – something I think you referred to in your August 15 post, Randy, and something I see often in my line of work as well. While the little darlings are allowed to do anything to the dog, he isn’t even allowed to give a growling warning of displeasure, and if retreat is prevented as well, the dog eventually explodes.
What motivated Sarge to bite the boy we won’t know cause adults weren’t present, and even if they were, sometimes it is difficult to determine where a dog’s coming from. I do wonder about the owner’s comment though that he is protective of his territory, so that might be an indication.
In any case, should a dog who could have severely maimed or killed but didn’t, so had a good amount of self-control and inhibition, be euthanized? I lean toward no, and I say lean because I would never make definite comment unless I see the dog.
Should he be returned to the owner?
My personal criteria if a dog with a bite history should continue to live in the same home are: does the owner(s) comprehend and acknowledge the mistakes made that led to the bite, and is s/he willing and able to take the necessary steps to prevent an incident in the future.
Again, I lack the necessary facts for me to have a definite opinion about Sarge’s owner, but I wonder about the comment that in future he will investigate how comfortable his visitors are around his dog. How about managing his dog in a way that prevents him from deciding what to do with someone who enters the property? That would keep all visitors safe, regardless of their comfort level.
Wisdom as always Silvia. We always appreciate your replies. As of a few days ago, we have been retained to assess this situation, and more will be revealed in future posts.
[…] kick in the ass because of Sarge, the Rottweiler I wrote about in my 14 August 2011 article, Muddy Waters. If you haven’t already read that, please do it now before […]
[…] face of my dog as it would if the same child threw a rock off an overpass into speeding traffic. The world is not a child proof daycare centre, nor should anyone reasonably expect it to be, and this is particularly important to grasp if you […]
[…] Posted By Randy on December 26, 2012 Remember this – movies and TV shows notwithstanding, a Dog is not a cuddle toy, a child’s playmate or bedfellow, a babysitter, or an animated piece of furniture. Society has lost this Great Truth, and Dogs are the ones that pay the price. ~ Muddy Waters […]