Cat Owner Turns To Dna To Implicate Dog

[pica_nuttalli]

http/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_fe_st/dog_dna_case

LEESBURG, Va. - When Loudoun County officials dropped the case of Lucky the dog killing Cody the cat, Cody's owner took a cue from television's legal dramas: she hired a laboratory to analyze DNA evidence she collected from her neighbors' pet to proved he was the killer.

After discovering Cody's body under a tree in front of her home in August, Marylin Christian set out to find the killer. She went to Lucky's owners, neighbors Sean and Janet Daryabeygi, who consented to giving her samples of Lucky's saliva and fur.

A lab in California confirmed Christian's suspicions.

Christian said that since Cody was killed, she has repeatedly asked Lucky's owners to return the dog to the local animal shelter, where they adopted him in the summer. The Daryabeygis think she's asking too much. They said Lucky would never harm a human, though they don't dispute that the German shepherd mix could have been a cat killer.

"It's the nature of the dog — chasing cats, squirrels and small animals," said Sean Daryabeygi, who said his neighbor "is obsessed with something natural."

Christian asked the county to declare Lucky dangerous, a legal designation that requires the owner to carry at least $50,000 in liability insurance; keep the dog locked up at home; and muzzle it during walks. But county officials say they need an eyewitness, which they don't have, to make a case.

It's also likely that the DNA evidence might not be admitted into court because it wasn't collected by officials, said Thomas Koenig, Loudoun County's animal care and control director.

"There's nothing we can prove," Koenig said.

About 10 days after Cody's death, Lucky was found running loose, and Sean Daryabeygi was fined $116. There have been no issues since. "We cannot overenforce," Koenig said.

Christian is mulling the possibility of privately prosecuting the case, which is a rarely used option, according to the county prosecutor James E. Plowman.

For their part, the Daryabeygis said they're saddened that it has come to this.

After Cody's death, they gave a condolence letter to the Christians. Christian wrote them, too, recounting that Cody sometimes tried to brighten her mood by offering her a dead mouse. To the Daryabeygis, that anecdote simply reinforced their view of the natural world: Cats kill mice. Dogs kill cats.

Lucky, meanwhile, romps obliviously around the back yard, now a more secure space.

"He is very happy here," Sean Daryabeygi said.

___

Information from: The Washington Post

so, what do you guys think about all this? is it the dog's fault for following it's predator instincts? the dog owner's fault for not securing their backyard properly? or the cat owner's fault for allowing her cat to be outdoors unattended?

 

[flips]

i think that when you have an outdoor cat, you have to accept that things can happen. cats get hit by cars, killed by other animals... and kill other animals. that's why in our house, cats stay indoors

 

[Lexie3787]

agreed.

 

[SRC]

It depends on where the cat was killed. If the cat stayed in your yard and the dog came into your yard and killed the cat..then it's the owners fault for not keeping their dog confined to their yard.

I say this..because it happened to me last year. My cat snuck out and was getting herself a good scratch in the gravel section of our drive...and our neighbors dogs attacked her (she wasn't afraid of our dogs, so he wasn't afraid of any dog), then they carried her back to their house and she died in their yard.

If they hadn't allowed their 4 dogs to run loose, as a pack...she would have been sitting on the deck, meowing pittifully at the door, when I came home.

I'll let it be known, the owner of the dogs told me himself that the dogs had killed a cat they once had when it got outside, said it didn't last long enough to even try to get away. They knew the dogs were vicious and still allowed them to roam. They have also chased my son on his bike before.

Cats may kill birds and mice and squirrels....but those aren't family pets...cats and other dogs, however, are.

 

[juliehainsworth]

I've just read the article and what the cat owner hasn't thought of is that the cat could have been hit by a car and gone to die under the tree and the dog could have just gone up to the corpse and lick it or try to take it away. It does not say in the article if the cat was mutilated as most are after being attacked by a dog.

Also like the dog owners say it is a natural thing for dogs to chase other animals........ You don't see the cat owner offering support to mouses family that the cat has just killed........... At the end of the day it is an animals natural instinct to be a predator....... Fish eat fish, dogs eat well anything they can, and its the same with cats, birds, insects, even humans kill..........

I think the dog deserves to live and have a happy home where it is looked after even if it means that it spends its day in the house or backkyard and taken out for plenty of walks and not just left to wander the streets.

 

[SRC]

You don't see the cat owner offering support to mouses family that the cat has just killed...........

At the end of the day it is an animals natural instinct to be a predator....... Fish eat fish, dogs eat well anything they can, and its the same with cats, birds, insects, even humans kill..........

So that being said...if the dog stalks down a child and eats it...that's ok, right? I mean...come on..seriously.

Cats may kill birds and vermine...but when dogs starts stalking things down and killing them..it's time to be worried. A cat cannot stalk YOU or a 2 yr old down and make a kill (ok, well maybe a maine coon could kill a2 yr old, but not YOU. But come on..those type cats aren't just running rampant in everyone's backyards, right?)..a dog can easily maime or kill YOU or a helpless 2 yr old if it so chose. Once a dog gets a taste for that "game" it's only a matter of time before the inevitable could/will happen.

 

[juliehainsworth]

Technically yes as humans go round killing all types of animals every day for profit, recreation etc...... Humans are just animals too only difference is that we believe we are a higher being to all animals yet if you look at animal society most of them create a natural balance where as we have a tendancy to destroy everything and anything all in the name of profit

 

[catxx]

natsuko has a point. was it definately a dog bite that killed the cat?
it doesn't say! but if a dog finds anything a bit dead or dying they're going to investigate, it smells interesting after all!

 

[juliehainsworth]

I have a feeling I might have upset a few people in my last comment so SORRY about that not intending to upset people but that is just my opinion

 

[SRC]

You must be a vegan? right?

Technically yes as humans go round killing all types of animals every day for profit, recreation etc...... Humans are just animals too only difference is that we believe we are a higher being to all animals yet if you look at animal society most of them create a natural balance where as we have a tendancy to destroy everything and anything all in the name of profit

I'm sorry...we are the higher mammals (we are human beings..which are mammals (warm blooded)..not animals) here on earth, God made us that way. We are the top of the food chain.

We have the ability to learn to walk upright, we have the ability to learn to use our hands for our greater good, we have the ability to learn to talk, we have the ability to learn to drive, we have the ability to figure out how to build houses/cars/machines/airplanes/ect, we have the ability to learn how to cure illnesses and make vaccinations, we have the ability to learn to use a toilet (and the reason why we should)...ect.

Animals are smart in their own rights..but they are not smarter then human beings (ok, most..there are those questionable individuals out there).

Animals were put here, on this earth, for an intended purpose (otherwise their bodies would not have been "designed" the way some of them are..just like ours are), not for us to cater to them and let them just run rampant all around us. If we did that..we'd all still be living in grass huts, wearing fig leaves, carrying sticks with rocks strapped to them, and worrying about when the next big cat/bear/wolf was going to stalk us down and kill us.
Is that how you think it should be? Because without the advancement human beings (not animals) have made..that's where'd we'd be.

Sure some people have taken it to the extreme...and they destroy the things around them....but so do animals. Ever watch shows on Discovery talking about how the large numbers of Elephants are destrying the savannah..by uprooting all the trees? Ever seen where Warthogs have been..and they kill all the trees by digging up the roots? Every specie can be destructive to the environment in one way or the other..if you stop and look deeply into the situation surrounding it.


**************************
Domesticated dogs today are not bred to kill things..they are bred to be social companions...so when one does kill..it's a serious event, due to their background (wolves/wild dogs). Cats aren't as anywhere as domesticated as dogs are.

• Cats have been domesticated for half as long as dogs have been.
  
• The Pilgrims were the first to introduce cats to North America.
  

http/www.xmission.com/~emailbox/trivia.htm

If you've ever seen a cat that has been killed by a dog..you'd know if the cat had been attacked or not. The wounds would not be the same (not to mention there would be crushed bones from a car impact..that would not have been caused by a dog biting). If the cat was already dead there would be punctures in the body..not tears (as the cat would have struggled and caused).
Most (not saying all) dogs may play with a dead animal..but they usually don't "eat" them). A dead body also takes wounding differently then fresh flesh will. There are tale-tell signs to let you know what happened. How do you think they can figure out on a dead person what was done post-mortum or not?

That is what autopsies are for. And if she took the time to have DNA testing done..I'm pretty sure they did an autopsy as well. They can't put every single detail in a paper article..they are only allowed so much space.

I mean I can't say this for sure..but the logical conclusion I come to..says that's the most probable thing that happened.

 

[pica_nuttalli]

while you make excellent points, SRC (as usual ), my impression from the article is that the dog in question was not allowed to roam wild and had merely escaped from its enclosure. i also recieved the impression that the dog was quite young, perhaps merely an older puppy.

i know our older puppies have always played rough with their toys, including shaking stuffed toys viciously in such a way that would quickly snap a small animals' neck. i have no doubt that a young dog without any training to not bother cats would treat one much like a stuffed toy and could easily kill it in a burst of rough play. however, i don't dispute that this "play" originates from a kill instinct. i merely want to point out that providing dogs with animal-like toys and/or encouraging rough, neck-breaking play mingles these hunter instincts with bonding activities. thus "i'm going to kill this and eat it" is partially mixed with "look, a chewtoy!" i'm not saying the end result is any different for the cat, but the "malicious" intent (which could be expanded to view humans as prey) could also be a "playful" intent (which is unlikely to result in adult human injury).

a further point from my own experience is that my family has owned many rescue dogs over the years that displayed strong instincts to hunt down and kill accessible small animals. primarily mutts with obvious working dog heritage such as spaniel and retriever, these dogs could not be trusted around any cat or rabbit, leashed or not. these dogs would display the chase instinct even when completely isolated from any other dog, eliminating the pack-mentality influence. these dogs also never displayed any tendancy to harm even very small children, whether in the presence of other dogs or not. they were also never violent towards other dogs, except in self-defense (stupid terrier ).

thus i believe that it would be fully possible for a dog to display an independent desire to chase and kill a cat without that dog becoming a danger to other dogs or people. however, such a desire should be very readily apparent to said dog's owner and that owner should be beaten with iron rods if he still lets such a dog run loose around the neighborhood.

 

[SRC]

Sure..there are dogs that will chase anything that moves...mostly sight hounds. But "theorectically" they aren't supposed to kill what they catch...they are supposed to chase it down and point it out to the hunter; except for maybe a Rat Terrier or Jack Russell Terrier (I know they changed the name recently, but I can't think of it..Parson something or other perhaps lol)..which was bred to track down and kill rats and burrowing rodents (which they don't really have a need for these days, but instead hold "mock" trials...where they never get to actually catch and kill anything).

A single dog might not run down a child..but you don't know that...until the moment that child takes off running...and there aren't any adults in sight (this is key..most animals won't attack when there are more of you then there are of them...unless they are just alot bigger and they know it) Fear/adrenaline hormones produced from the child could aggitate the dog into doing something not "normal" for the particular animal as well.

Could have been playful intent..but as you said..the outcome was still the same for the cat.

I agree that play toys should not emulate anything you don't want them to chew on for real..I've been telling people that for years. Don't give your dog an old shoe or a toy that looks like a shoe..if you don't want them mauling your $150 pair of pumps.

I don't understand people who do that...give them the item then chastize them for gnawing on the real thing..like they are smart enough to realize the difference.

 

[OohFeeshy]

My quotey things are playing up, I'll bold the quotes.
which are mammals (warm blooded)..not animals)
Uh, mammals are part of the animal kingdom, therefore animals. The animal kingdom is divided up in accordance to stuff like 'vertabrate' or 'invert', 'warm blood' or 'cold blood', not 'those what can watch Eastenders on telly' and 'those what can't ', or something more sensible to that genre...

here on earth, God made us that way.

You must be vagan? Right?

You must be Christian? Right?
Your view of vegans roughly equals my view of christians, but religious arguements are the kind of thing that gets a topic into 'can I keep an oscar in my 5g' into locked topics.

We are the top of the food chain.
Debatable, IMO, there are more than enough other animals we don't eat, and many that are perfectly capable of eating us, although depending on whether or not we cheat by using a gun

all the stuff before 'etc.'
Why? Self-preservation and laziness, mainly. Other animals have pretty constant lives, adaptation isn't really needed in most cases. But because I'm off to bed, I can't be bothered to debate this particular bit any further.

Animals are smart in their own rights..
Exactamente. A chimp may not be able to drive a 4x4, but you couldn't live life as a chimp for a day... Or any other animal. You'd be eaten, run over, or whatever. Comparing stuff human brains do to what, say, stick insect brains do, defeats the object.

(otherwise their bodies would not have been "designed" the way some of them are..just like ours are)
If thats true, and they're designed for human use, then why don't chinchillas come with zips Or ready prepared Tesco Value Chicken Fillets roam free in the national parks...

If we did that..we'd all still be living in grass huts, wearing fig leaves, carrying sticks with rocks strapped to them, and worrying about when the next big cat/bear/wolf was going to stalk us down and kill us.
Whats wrong with that? Many people live like that, any they're much better off than, say, a fat erican atching tv all day, not giving a jot about the rest of the world and ordering in KFC every day.


Every species can be destructive in one way or another
But none as much as humans. What a wonderful world we've made it, I'm sure...


Domesticated dogs today are not bred to kill things..they are bred to be social companions

Some scientists believe that ancient humans observed and admired the hunting abilities of native predators such as wolves and recognized that if they could be domesticated, they could hunt and retrieve food items for people...

 

[juliehainsworth]

Nope I'm just a normal person that eats most meats except veal which I dont fancy, Venison is good lol!

Technically most mammals are warm blooded also, and God made the animals too he didnt just create humans! (If there is a GOD not too sure if its just one or many like in other religions, I don't have any proof either way so Can't speak for GOD)

We have the ability to learn to walk upright, we have the ability to learn to use our hands for our greater good, we have the ability to learn to talk, we have the ability to learn to drive, we have the ability to figure out how to build houses/cars/machines/airplanes/ect, we have the ability to learn how to cure illnesses and make vaccinations, we have the ability to learn to use a toilet (and the reason why we should)...ect.

Last time I checked we were training animals to act like humans, in fact animal art is being sold all over the world! Animals also build they're own houses and have pretty better social structures than us humans! Just take a look at what our super machines are doing to the rest of the planet! We are destroying everything just to make ourselves feel good! Well most of us are (even myself in some ways as I purchase these items and live a normal life (SHOCK HORROR I KNOW)!

If we werent out there destroying things then we wouldnt be keeping animals as our form of entertainment (inc fish) we would leave them be in the wild technically)

If animals werent smarter than us then how come they can manage to keep a semi equal balance (without human intervention) that doesnt involve chopping down and destroying things just so that they can have material goods

Would it be such a bad thing to live a little less luxury and know that we would actually have a place to live in the future because when the earth does go downhill again like everyone is saying it is in the future who do you think will still survive us or the animals I sure don't think its us! We seem to think that we know everything and anything when infact we don't!

Sure some people have taken it to the extreme...and they destroy the things around them....but so do animals. Ever watch shows on Discovery talking about how the large numbers of Elephants are destrying the savannah..by uprooting all the trees? Ever seen where Warthogs have been..and they kill all the trees by digging up the roots? Every specie can be destructive to the environment in one way or the other..if you stop and look deeply into the situation surrounding it.

Thats why the animals all have natural preditors and ways of controlling them such as various diseases! If a certain plant an animal thrives on is more or less completely destroyed that animals numbers will decrease until there is sufficient food for it! Its called the natural balance and we distrub that in a big way!

Some are actually like the dogs used for hunting! And it is physically impossible to fully breed out a dogs natural habbit yes you can subdue it but its instinct will always be there! Why do you think that domestic animals still hunt prey (be it toys or other animals, my dog still chases things that move, I wouldnt fully trust a dog not to kill anything. But then again I wouldnt trust a human not to either after all we created the spear, the knife, the Gun, the bomb need I say more! You don't see an animal creating a Nuclear weapon just to terrorise its neighbours now do you they actually fight to the death where as we just push a button and rely on others to do our dirty work!


Cats still hunt, they might be domesticated but they still retain they're hunting abilities (Or do they not catch birds etc)

Proof that we upset the natural balance we also put other species in countries which are now upsetting a natural balance and are being persecuted by us and its our fault that they are there not the animals

I'll look at that sight in a sec

Actually cats tend to give as good as they get when it comes to attacking dogs, my neighbours cats are always tormenting my dog, he is intrigued by the cats I must admit.

It might be the most probable cause but surely if she had an autopsy performed it would have been mentioned in the statement like the DNA testing was!

Hey its all part of life and death mice get killed by cats, cats killed by dogs, dogs/cats/birds/mice etc by us and us by well each other and by the animals of course

Ok that being said I'm off to get some work done! Bearing in mind this is my view and your entitled to your own view too! Its called the freedom of speach which some of us are allowed to do

 

[SRC]

Animals also build they're own houses

Really...I wasn't aware that animals went to work everyday and could establish lines of credit to buy houses...or for that fact, tell us what kind of house they were interested in. How odd.

ok, ok I know what you meant...lol...sorry I thought it was funny.


If we weren’t out there destroying things then we wouldn’t be keeping animals as our form of entertainment (inc. fish) we would leave them be in the wild technically)
Hmm...if that is how you feel (not saying it's correct), why do you keep fish then?

If animals weren’t smarter than us then how come they can manage to keep a semi equal balance (without human intervention) that doesn’t involve chopping down and destroying things just so that they can have material goods
Because they don't need material goods. They don't drive cars, they don't wear clothes, and they don't live in houses (unless we choose for them to live with us).

Would it be such a bad thing to live a little less luxury and know that we would actually have a place to live in the future because when the earth does go downhill again like everyone is saying it is in the future who do you think will still survive us or the animals I sure don't think its us! We seem to think that we know everything and anything when in fact we don't!
Sure we could live in a little less luxury..would you like to be the first to do so? how about getting rid of your TV, PC, Gameboy, PS2..ect. That would reduce the amount of energy we waste every year. How about filling in that swimming pool, walking to school/work, drinking hot..oh wait...no more sodas....

While what you say sounds good in theory...it would be very hard, as the humans we already are....to do those things on a wide scale basis. We do need to help preserve what we have left...but so many eco-nuts have gone about it the wrong way in the past...most people don't listen to what they say anymore.

That’s why the animals all have natural predators and ways of controlling them such as various diseases! If a certain plant an animal thrives on is more or less completely destroyed that animals numbers will decrease until there is sufficient food for it! It’s called the natural balance and we disturb that in a big way!
So what, should we kill off some humans...or maybe restrict people from having children of their own accord (like in China) then? We live longer then they do and there are more of us..is that not natural selection as well?

Some are actually like the dogs used for hunting! And it is physically impossible to fully breed out a dog’s natural habit yes you can subdue it but its instinct will always be there! Why do you think that domestic animals still hunt prey (be it toys or other animals, my dog still chases things that move, I wouldn’t fully trust a dog not to kill anything.
We bred dogs to have specific hunting traits, yes. We bred them in the beginning to help us hunt..before we created guns and vehicles to help us move quickly over the terrain.

Your dog is merely exhibiting the traits of whatever breed it is/mixed with. Dogs were mainly bred to protect (from predators) and to retrieve hunting prey after it was killed..not go out and do the killing themselves.

But then again I wouldn’t trust a human not to either after all we created the spear, the knife, the Gun, the bomb need I say more! You don't see an animal creating a Nuclear weapon just to terrorize its neighbors now do you they actually fight to the death where as we just push a button and rely on others to do our dirty work!
So first you say animals are smarter then people..then you say we are smart enough to create WOMD? I'm confused.

We created weapons to defend and feed ourselves. We don't have claws or long sharp teeth. That's why God gave us superior brains...so that we could figure out ways to help ourselves with "man-made" devices.

Animals do harass and torture other animals. They don't always kill for food..watch Discovery Channel...they have shows on that all the time. that some animals just kill to kill.

Actually cats tend to give as good as they get when it comes to attacking dogs, my neighbors cats are always tormenting my dog, he is intrigued by the cats I must admit.
Unless it is a full grown cat and a puppy or extremely toy size breed dog...the cat is not going to do nearly as much damage to a dog as a dog will to a cat. A cat will fit in a dogs mouth, not true for a cat.

It might be the most probable cause but surely if she had an autopsy performed it would have been mentioned in the statement like the DNA testing was!
You might be surprised what they leave out of the papers, and last time I checked...DNA testing being performed on a dead subject...is usually part of an autopsy.

Uh, mammals are part of the animal kingdom, therefore animals. The animal kingdom is divided up in accordance to stuff like 'vertabrate' or 'invert', 'warm blood' or 'cold blood', not 'those what can watch Eastenders on telly' and 'those what can't ', or something more sensible to that genre...
Well, If you want to consider yourself an "animal", go right ahead. I consider myself human/mammal..not animal. Zoo's are for animals...why don't they have humans behind some of the cages then?

You must be Christian? Right?
Your view of vegans roughly equals my view of Christians, but religious arguements are the kind of thing that gets a topic into 'can I keep an Oscar in my 5g' into locked topics.
I am Christian...because my parents are...but I believe in what I want to, which isn't exactly how they believe. I believe God created us all...yes. Do I believe animals are better then us..no. Do I think we are better then animals...yes. Will I put a human life before an animals life..no, not even my own animals...regardless of the human.

I meant the Vegan question in no harm..I was merely asking a question. Being a Vegan verses a meat eater...has serious thinking differences, as I'm sure you know. There is no point in having a conversation like this with a vegan..as they will most always choose animals/eco over humans...or so has been my experience with my friends and co-workers that choose to live that lifestyle. I know not to have these type discussions with them..as it gets neither side anywhere. Which is why I asked.


We are the top of the food chain.
Debatable, IMO, there are more than enough other animals we don't eat, and many that are perfectly capable of eating us, although depending on whether or not we cheat by using a gun
We are top of the food chain. We have the means and brainpower to figure out a way to kill whatever we want when we want. Guns aren't cheating..that was human beings putting their minds to work...to figure out an easier/faster/more sure way to bring in food.

all the stuff before 'etc.'
Why? Self-preservation and laziness, mainly. Other animals have pretty constant lives, adaptation isn't really needed in most cases. But because I'm off to bed, I can't be bothered to debate this particular bit any further.
Animals are somewhat like children in that they are made to adapt to the world around them. Now whether that is right or not is debatable..I'm not saying it isn't, but that is just how it is..like it or not. I didn’t make it this way, but I was brought up living the way I do...changing back, would be rather difficult...even though it sounds great on paper.

Animals are smart in their own rights..
Exactamente. A chimp may not be able to drive a 4x4, but you couldn't live life as a chimp for a day... Or any other animal. You'd be eaten, run over, or whatever. Comparing stuff human brains do to what, say, stick insect brains do, defeats the object.
I might not could..because I wasn't raised to live that way. But you might be surprised what you or I could have the capability of doing/putting up with... if forced to do it.

I wasn't comparing brains...I simply stated that humans have a more superior brain then animals do. It doesn't matter what goes through the brain...ours is more capable of storing information and putting that information to use. It was designed that way.


(otherwise their bodies would not have been "designed" the way some of them are..just like ours are)
If that’s true, and they're designed for human use, then why don't chinchillas come with zips Or ready prepared Tesco Value Chicken Fillets roam free in the national parks...
As funny as that sounds....I think everything has a purpose and was designed with that purpose in mind. That is why animals were originally used as pelts...to keep non-fur bearing humans warm. God designed us with a brain capable of figuring that out.

Frozen Chicken Filets are just man using his brain to figure out a way to keep chicken fresh longer..so we don't have to go out and kill a chicken then pluck it everytime we want to eat.

If we did that..we'd all still be living in grass huts, wearing fig leaves, carrying sticks with rocks strapped to them, and worrying about when the next big cat/bear/wolf was going to stalk us down and kill us.
What's wrong with that? Many people live like that, any they're much better off than, say, a fat american watching TV all day, not giving a jot about the rest of the world and ordering in KFC every day.
I didn't say anything was wrong with it, and I'm aware people still live like that...but do YOU really want to live that way?
Again, this is something that sounds good on paper...but when it comes to actually living that way...it's a different story.
I know VERY few humans that would give up their HVAC equipped house, car, TV, radio, refrigerator, name brand clothes, makeup, hair products, shampoo/conditioner, or commercially pre-prepared foods...to go live in a grass hut, wear leaves, and kill their food for dinner.

The people who live that way, know no other way...we do though.


Domesticated dogs today are not bred to kill things..they are bred to be social companions

Some scientists believe that ancient humans observed and admired the hunting abilities of native predators such as wolves and recognized that if they could be domesticated, they could hunt and retrieve food items for people...
I know of no breed of dog that actually hunts down prey, kills it, and brings it back for the hunter.
I know of dogs that flush prey out for the hunter to come kill.
I know of dogs that chase prey down and corner it for the hunter to come kill.
I know of dogs that sniff out prey and alert it to its presence for the hunter to kill.
I know of dogs that retrieve prey that has already been killed by the hunter.
I know of dogs that chase down and kill prey for the sport of the hunter.

But I know of no dog breed that consist of all 3 attributes..stalking, killing, and retrieving prey for humans. While that may have been a novel trait that our ancient ancestors might have wanted dogs to do...I don't recall any breeds that do that, and if there were breeds like that (I haven't researched it to a full extent) they are not in use today, that I know of.

Man it's good to have alot of free time at work