A few weeks back, I posted "Jail Time For A Hoax?  Not Likely…"  It was a critical examination of an article at Cryptomundo.  In a sense, it was making a mountain out of a mole hill.  And…here we go again…but a slightly different twist.

Recently, an elderly couple were killed in Georgia by a pack of wild dogs.  Just sad all the way around.  Here's the story from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/19/georgia.dog.attack/index.html?eref=ib_topstories

Here are the two key paragraphs from the story:

"Although no blood was seen on the dogs, other evidence and autopsy results convince authorities that the pack killed the Schweders, said Jim Fullington, special agent in charge of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's office in nearby Athens.

Black bears occasionally pass through the area, but none have been reported recently, said Sgt. Doyte Chaffin, a wildlife officer with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Investigators found no prints other than those of dogs and humans, Fullington added."

Now here's the article at Cryptomundo:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/schweders/

Everything seems ok until we get near the very bottom.  Then, we find this:

"The account seems to raise several questions. Has there been a rush to judgement on the part of authorities? Could some as yet-unidentified animal killed the Schweders, and only the evidence of post-attack dog bites from the feral dog pack been found on the bodies? Was a verdict against the non-aggressive dogs found at the scene too quickly brought forth?"

What?  

Could some as yet-unidentified animal killed the couple?  You mean like a black bear, a wolf, or a coyote?  It can't be one of those because he didn't use the word "misidentified," he used "unidentified."  So…does it mean…an unidentified cryptid…a monster?  I mean why else is the story featured at Cryptomundo?  Technically, the dogs aren't "feral dogs."  From the MonsterQuest (in which Mr. Coleman has a long history with) episode on feral dogs, we learned that the term "feral dogs" implies dogs which that have been breeding in the wild for generations.  These were simply abandoned or wild dogs that had a few pups.  By MonsterQuests own description, these dogs are not feral dogs.  So there is no feral dog/cryptozoology pull to the story.  And why cryptozoology has anything to do with feral dogs in the first place baffles me…but that's another post entirely…  

The loss of the Schweders was a tragedy.  The abandoned dogs just left to fend for themselves is just utterly irresponsible and sad.  Yet, to propose a theory of a monster upon this story is simply not right.  Usually, I like Loren Coleman and his website Cryptomundo.  But with this, he crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed.  Want to theorize on Bigfoot and Loch Ness?  Have at it.  But to give a wildly absurd cryptozoological slant to such a tragedy is just wrong.  There is absolutely no evidence to support any such questions as to the existence of a "yet-unidentified animal" in this story.  Mr. Coleman, with all due respect, you should be ashamed…

Leave it to Cryptomundo to step in and be the National  Enquirer  and take a tragic but explainable event and try to transform it into something from the GREAT UNKNOWN.

Agree with alicat.  The woman no doubt was exuding the scents of other canines and that may be a big factor as to why she was attacked.  When I lived near a Pinelands Reserve I had seen a pack of abandoned dogs-not feral, as Revenant pointed out-quite a few times.  They were actually timid though they tried to put on a big show of bravado.  What I would do was psych them out using dog body language and emitting a low growl.  OK, I probably looked stupid but it always worked. 

  The poor couple probably gave off all the scent and body language of being afraid (as they no doubt had every reason to be) and may have been simply overwhelmed.  I'm equally sure this pack are not "man killers", something the press loves to create.  Hope a killing frenzy of loose dogs by misinformed humans does not result.

Several years ago, Alan Robson of Scariest Places (among many other credits) took off alone towards one of the castles associated with Dracula in Romania.  The locals had warned him about packs of wild-meaning feral-dogs, and unfortunately he was attacked and bitten quite badly before the chauffeur found him.  He was in a hospital for treatment and had to undergo a painful series of rabies shots.  Since he lived through it, nobody could concoct a story that something mysterious was responsible for his attack, especially since it took place in the very mysterious forest of Transylvania which surrounds one of its famous castles.

Cryptomundo  is being totally irresponsible by throwing in that ridiculous paragraph.  It did make me wonder, though, if the couple may have been killed by another very dangerous animal, namely a human or humans.   Then perhaps they had to make a quick exit, leaving their bodies to be found by the pack and they did what any other scavenger would do.  If an autopsy showed them to be have been covered by dog bites, then assuming the pack killed them would be the easiest conclusion and perhaps other evidence may have been missed.

Another point is that sometimes the public image of animals is skewered.

My beagle recently killed some baby rabbits before I even realized what she was doing.  I was upset, until I reminded myself that she is a predator/carnivore.  One look at a dog's teeth is enough to remind of that. 

It's the extremes that I hate–some animals like wolves are viewed as horrible monsters; yet, the reverse of that coin is that they are highly social creatures who possess rational thinking skills and also can feel many of the emotions we do.  Nature is not clear cut into black and white.  They are so many shades of grey, but all too often esp. on TV an animal will only be shown from one viewpoint.  Sad, really.

Nosfer said:

Completely philosophical question here:

At what point to the predatory actions of a predator, then, become unacceptable? Killing birds? Killing rabbits? Killing humans?

Hmmm…

From Wiki on Predation: "In ecology, predation describes a biological interaction where a predator (an organism that is hunting) feeds on its prey, (the organism that is attacked).  Predators may or may not kill their prey prior to feeding on them, but the act of predation always results in the death of the prey."

If we're talking about what is unacceptable about the act of a predator, we would actually be asking what is acceptable or unacceptable to a particular group of humans who are, essentially, effected by the action.

In this particular case, I will be discussing dogs.  I do not believe that a dog is typically looked upon as a predator.  There are two main reasons.  The first being that we typically look at the dog as a domesticated animal.  One in which, typically…and hopefully, is fed by humans as opposed to hunting for themselves.  The second reason is the great variety in breeds.  When one says the word "dog"…what do you think of?  A German Shepherd?  A Chihuahua?  One of these breeds would make for an excellent hunter.  The other, not so much.

So what actions of a dog, viewed as a predator, are unacceptable?  It would depend upon the breed of the dog and the role given to the dog.  Many breeds were designed for a variety of purposes, like hunting, tracking, retrieving, "cornering," and guarding.  They are used in this context so killing or hunting small game would be acceptable if not desirable.  Yet, many of those same exact breeds are used as house pets.  They have the same instincts, yet, they have been trained to resist them.  So again, it falls upon what role the dog is in and who is viewing the action.  To use Oubliette's Beagle, Cookie, as an example…the Beagle was designed to indeed track and hunt rabbits.  It is the dogs instinct to do so.  Yet, since Oubliette does not use Cookie in this fashion, the action is understood, but not overall acceptable to her.

As for killing humans, dogs have been used in tracking, subduing, and even killing people for centuries.  In the MQ Feral Dog thread, I highlighted the Anatolian Shepherd.  That dog is no joke.  It was bred to defend its herd from both animal and humans in Turkey.  To the people whose lives depended upon that herd to survive, a dog killing a human would be a very accepted part of their life.  Yet, we (in the U.S. and in 2009) view the couple who were killed in Georgia as a great tragedy.  Since we do not hold the same values and views of those in Turkey centuries ago, we view the essentially same act (or same result) in a very negative fashion.

So, I think it really depends upon who views the actions and the intent behind it that determines if it is acceptable or not.

Side-note:  However, I do think the conversation does change if the predator in question is a "true" predator, as in a wolf or cougar or whatever.  The dog aspect is much more complex given some of the reasons or examples that I've stated.  So it really is a different view.  Not sure if you were implying dogs and/or other animals, Nosfer. 

Nosfer said:

My whole issue is that we seemed surprised that things like this happen. It's like a man bringing a cow into his house to live and then becoming shocked and upset when it proceeds to "decorate" the living room in true cow-fashion. It's what cows have excelled at for a LONG time, we shouldn't expect anything else! This is the whole "needing to look to ourselves" point I was making in the first paragraph:

In essence, we have taken the dog out of the wild, but have forgotten that the wild is still in the dog. Domestication may have dampened the characteristics, but they are still there and will come out when the circumstances call for it. (another topic, but the same can be said for Man, himself) In some cases, at least in the past for some breeds, the characteristics were even amplified. And they have a leg up on their pre-domesticated ancestors. Today's dog does not fear man.

Like we discussed in the MQ thread, with more and more dogs being left to fend for themselves because owners can't afford to feed them or because they simply tire of them, look for such things to happen more and more frequently.

First off…love the cow reference. 

I think I'd go along with all of your points except maybe that "we seemed surprised that things like this happen."  Well, some people are.  But overall, I'm not sure if "surprised" really sums it up for most.  When people hear of lethal dog attacks upon humans, it just evokes a wealth of emotions.  I think the more that one knows about dogs, animal behavior, social issues like dog fighting, and the cruelty that man is capable of…it furthers the emotional response.

You said in reference to dogs still having a bit of "wild" in them: "And they have a leg up on their pre-domesticated ancestors. Today's dog does not fear man."  I wrote an article for the website a while back on the Beast of Gevaudan.  It hasn't been posted because I didn't like how the article went, still needs to be re-written and fleshed out more.  Anyway.  The story itself is quite fascinating.  The stripped down version of it by Wiki can be found here.

Today, it is extremely rare to find a documented case of a lethal wolf attack.  Of course, wolves, a "true" predator, are incredibly smart and have had a couple of centuries worth of experience with man and firearms.  They are extremely cautious around man and rarely interact with man unless pushed by extreme conditions.  The story of the Beast of Gevaudan, not saying that it's entirely true or anything, does remind us of how dangerous wolves once were to mankind. 

Which in turn shows how truly dangerous hybrids (crosses of dogs with either wolves or coyotes), feral dogs and wild dogs are.  You are absolutely right.  They have no fear of man.  And like I said in the Feral Dog thread, this situation is just going to get worse and worse.  And scientifically, we have no reference point.  We literally have no clue how certain breeds will react once they are feral.  Anything that you read or hear on TV is just speculation without a shred of real evidence to support it.

On second thought…maybe you are right about people being "surprised" at this.  In ten or twenty years (well, if we survive 2012  ), trust me, they won't be.  If anything, I think people may be grossly underestimating the problem.  We have done an excellent job in creating really intelligent breeds.  Wait until the feral dogs start using that intelligence against us.  The yearly death toll by "dog" attacks are going to sky-rocket.  And keep in mind, the dogs involved in the attack in Georgia were really smaller dogs.  I think the biggest were in the 40 lb range.  Now imagine a pack of 85-110 lb dogs.  They won't have to "settle" for children or the elderly…they'll be able to go after anyone, regardless of age or size, to defend their pack and territory…