Chihuahua saves 1-year-old

Yeah, with the speed snakes strike I'm sure a little rodent dog had time to 'heroically' jump in the way...

The snake was trying for the dog in the first place.

 

Hurray for the huahua-s!!

 

The dog's a heroine! :tongue2:

 

I think the snake was a philantropist, but a misocynist.

 

I'm quite unenteratined by "heroic pet!" news stories. Overanthropomorphization?

 

Well, it CAN be difficult to ascertain whether the dog was trying to "save" the baby (being heroic), or joyously thought it had found a new, rattling playmate..

To assume it had SOME motive for its action, though, does not in itself constitute overanthropomorphization.

 

Ungutted??
Is that what it means, unenteratinated?? Isn't that what enterologists peek into? Or am I wrong here?

Anyhow, I hope I'll never be unenteratinated, whatever it is. Sounds ghastly.

 

Perhaps not as bad as Attila's favoured technique of impaling his victims (with due care, so that they lingered for a couple of days), but bad enough.

 

I've encountered a great deal more overly aggressive Chihuahuas, than ones exhibiting any sort of heroic proclivities. So as to what actually happened, I have to wonder.

It was already pointed out that if the snake struck the dog, it likely meant to. Of course this could mean something worse than the rather neutral story of a dog playing with a snake and suffering from it. We might be praising a dog that not only did nothing to protect a toddler, but in fact placed the toddler in danger in the first place by antagonizing an otherwise passive snake in the vicinity. Given the rather biased nature of reports delivered by the owners, I suspect a significant number of heroic animal stories could be open to this form of interpretation.

 

The grandparents are trying to shift attention away from their own stupidity. They allow a one year old to play in the yard, without close supervision, in an area where rattlesnakes are known to live, with a dog of a breed often known to be aggressive.

This dog then proceeds to antagonize a potentially lethal snake, and gets bit in the process.

The dog should have been put down, and the grandparents should not have been allowed to supervise children anymore.

 

Actually, what REALLY happened is totally different from what the grand parents let on.

Here is the REAL sequence of events.
The chihuahua is sneaking up on the infant in order to ravage him.
Startled by such malice, seeing no grandad around, the rattle-snake swiftly slithers into the garden in order to rescue the poor boy from grievous harm.

Not only that, but the snake also shows extreme lenience in not giving a lethal dose to the dog, but enough to teach it a lesson.

The snake is the real humanitarian here.

 

Maybe I overreacted a bit by saying it should have been put down, but I know that if an animal I owned was acting in a manner to endanger my son, I would not own that animal for long (I wouldn't necessarily have it put down, but at least removed from situations where it could hurt him).

I still say the blame for the incident lies with the grandparents, and that it had the potential to be a lot worse than it was.

 

I'm curious. Why is it so hard to believe that the rat-thing went for the snake? In fact, why is it hard to believe that it was trying to protect its family? That's what dogs do.

I mean, I think throwing itself in front of a striking snake to take the hitis preposteroous but dogs will naturally raise h*ll if a perceived dangerous animal is in the vicinity.

 

I checked with my cat on that one. She says no.