Who knows what the issue is.
But… what does seem clear is that despite someone claiming that they have decades of “fixing” physical and behavioral issues in horses and dogs…
their dog seems to still require extreme measures to manage it whenever they go out of town.
So it doesn’t sound like issues have really been resolved?
If we take that thought back to the context of the original story… and apply it to a dog that viciously attacked and killed a 95 year old woman…
How can anyone be sure their “rehabilitation” program really worked, and the dog will never try to attack and kill somebody again? Is 50% better really ok for a dog like this? What if it gets loose and roams?
And therein lies the problem, and the reason why any dog that kills a person like this in an unprovoked attack must be euthanized. The risk of a second tragedy is too uncertain and too great.
