Dog attack article in Herald, 10th June.

Discostuy

Sorry if this was posted elsewhere, i just can't find anything on it. Mods feel free to delete if you need to.

Did anyone see the article in yesterdays Herald on the boy who had his arm bitten by a dog.

It says he put his arm through a fence to retrieve a ball and the dog latched onto his arm.

Now without getting into too much politics, i was just wondering if anyone had more info on this story.

It states the dog was a Jap Akita..it then says it was "a large Husky type dog", and then says the owner "had a special license for the dog". The dog has since been "destroyed".

As an Akita owner, this sort of story bothers me. It was covered on the radio last night too, with the usual "ban and cull all 'them' dogs"...

morganafay

Does the story bother you because they say all Akitas should be banned, or just because the dog only bit his arm because he put it through the fence?

I don't like dogs having to be put down, but if they bite people, well I don't like aggressive dogs either . . . I know the kid put his arm onto his territory, but it's still pretty much unprovoked and I don't think a dog should be like that.

seamus

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/dogs-savage-attack-on-boy-7-was-like-scene-from-jaws-says-mum-2215098.html

Gardai confirmed that they are investigating. The dog, which resembled a large husky, has been destroyed.

Gardai said that the owner had obtained a special licence for the dog, but Angelaine said that she wanted the Government to investigate banning these type of dogs completely.

"I just want to say to other parents that this type of dog is not to be trusted around children," she said.

*facepalm*
So many things wrong with those 3 sentences.

Fair enough, the dog clearly attacked unprovoked, though if the dog saw nothing but an arm poking through, it may not have understood that there was a human on the end of it. The dog however clearly poses a threat to anyone (human or animal) entering the property and putting it down may have been the best course of action.

No dog should do this, and I would expect most dogs to bark or growl in this instance, but this is not the same thing as the animal jumping over the fence and indiscriminately attacking children. We could equally say that seven year-old children should not be playing unsupervised and going onto people's properties to retrieve their balls.

Discostuy

A bit of both really i guess.

I dont like aggressive dogs either, but if they are in their own fenced area, then dont put your hand in. It was something i was thought as a child, not to pet a strange dog, or go into a garden with a strange dog.

While i hope the child is ok, i feel sorry to hear the dog had to be put down. I mean there has to be a line at some point that says the human was in the wrong.

At the rate laws and rules are being made and hysteria is being fed, in 20 years your dog will be PTS for sniffing someones crotch uninvited.

People need to stop humanising dogs and animals so much, and remember dogs can bite, cats can scrab and horses can kick.


In saying that this case bothers me also, because an Akita is mentioned. As i said, i have 2, and i work very hard at keeping them well socialised and people friendly. But i wouldnt ever be naive enough to think they aren't capable of biting someone.

I already get enough "oh Akitas...arent they vicious fighting dogs"...so this isn't going to help my cause

In this article it mentions, Akita, Large husky type dog and a "special licence"...i wonder was it a Hybrid of some sort?.
Is there a special licence for certain dogs?

seamus

Discostuy wrote: »

Is there a special licence for certain dogs?

No, it's lazy journalism. The Gardai probably confirmed that the dog was licenced, and the journalist - being ignorant of the law - presumed that only certain dogs required licences.

morganafay

Discostuy wrote: »

People need to stop humanising dogs and animals so much, and remember dogs can bite, cats can scrab and horses can kick.

Yeah I was thinking this myself. I'm usually the kind of person who really doesn't like aggressive dogs, but then I was thinking, I wouldn't suggest an aggressive cat be put down for biting somebody. Lots of dogs can be snappy and won't be put down, I guess the line is drawn if it is a serious bite/dangerous dog. But who knows, maybe this dog just didn't know what the arm was and bit it. It might never have attacked anybody.

A lot of dogs are capable of biting, some most likely won't bite, but we can't ban every dog that might bite somebody.

crotalus667

seamus wrote: »

No, it's lazy journalism. The Gardai probably confirmed that the dog was licenced, and the journalist - being ignorant of the law - presumed that only certain dogs required licences.

Lazy does not go far enough to discribe the idiot (and their editor) that writes for a paper about a 7 yo boy and adds "His younger brother Sean (8)"


in the uk the banned list has been slated by all the big dog welfare groups and the proposed ristricted breed list is getting slated aswell during it consatation

crotalus667

"His younger brother Sean (8) was at an after school group at the time. "It is a five-minute run back to my house, I nearly passed out when I saw him," his mother said." So she left her 7 yo to play unsupervised while she colected her other son , and she failed to teach him basic safty around dogs .

morganafay

crotalus667 wrote: »

"His younger brother Sean (8) was at an after school group at the time. "It is a five-minute run back to my house, I nearly passed out when I saw him," his mother said." So she left her 7 yo to play unsupervised while she colected her other son , and she failed to teach him basic safty around dogs .

:rolleyes:

It's like all those parents who say things like, I left my three year old alone with my 50kg dog, but he's never bitten before, I'm so shocked that this happened . . .

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I have first hand experience with these dogs, absolutely lovely dogs. An outright ban for these dogs because of one incident is a fcuking joke. Another knee jerk reaction it seems.

Hermit07

Regardless of lazy editors etc there was a 7 year old child severely mauled here:mad:

The child should not have been able to put his hands though the fence. No matter what breed/type of dog you have, They should be kept in a secure area, even more so if it is a restricted breed.

The human error was not down to an innocent little 7 year old trying to retrieve his ball. Hes only a child for god sake and he was out playing like most 7 year olds do, the creche could have been only around the corner.

I dont feel one bit sorry for a dog that could attack like that because even though in fairness he was guarding his own territory, there is no place in society for dogs like that.

I also have extensive experience of the breed and in the right hands they are a fantastic dog but I also come across some with fearful aggression which needs corrective training to resolve. Responsible owners will work to correct this, irresponsible owners will encourage the behaviour.

I am a mother myself and I can tell you hell has no fury if this was to happen to my child.

peasant

Hermit07 wrote: »

an innocent little 7 year old trying to retrieve his ball.

When I was seven, I had been taught and did understand that if my ball ever went onto somebodies grounds, I was to ring at the front door and ask to have it back ...not to climb over fences, trample flower beds, etc ...never mind getting bitten by dogs.

Basic manners ...parents need to to teach them (again) ...kids do understand.

Hermit07

peasant wrote: »

When I was seven, I had been taught and did understand that if my ball ever went onto somebodies grounds, I was to ring at the front door and ask to have it back ...not to climb over fences, trample flower beds, etc ...never mind getting bitten by dogs.

Basic manners ...parents need to to teach them (again) ...kids do understand.

I take it a lot of replies on here are from people who dont have much experience of 7 year old children or who dont have children. The child didnt climb over fences, trample flower beds etc, he innocently put his hand tru a fence to retrieve a ball and was savaged. I know lots of kids of that age who would do the same.

As I have said I have vast experience of the breed in question. The dog was not properly secured if the child was able to put its hand though the fence and be mauled.

Im quite shocked at some of the replies on here to be honest, for any of you who do have children, how would you feel if this happened to your child? Those who dont have children and think its ok, well your priorties will soon change when you become a parent. Regardless of whether the child should have been taught to knock on the hall door to retrieve the ball. He got savaged by a dangerous dog.

It is people like the owner of the dog in question who give the responsible owners a bad name. If this is the attitude of people on this forum that a 7 year old is to blame because a dog who may be a restricted breed was not properly secured, then I shall be taking my posts elsewhere.

peasant

Hermit07 wrote: »

how would you feel if this happened to your child?

responsible


Without knowing the full facts of the incident I would say that the responsibility here is probably split 50/50. The dog owner could have made sure that the fence was safe (I would ...because people are stupid and accidents happen) and the parents could have made sure that their kid either understands not enter other people's property (especially if there are dogs on it), not even with their arm only or else should have supervised it.

Hermit07 wrote: »

I shall be taking my posts elsewhere

might be an idea if you insist on dicussing dogs on the sensationalist terms below

Hermit07 wrote: »

savaged... mauled....savaged by a dangerous dog.

Discostuy

Hermit07 wrote: »

I take it a lot of replies on here are from people who dont have much experience of 7 year old children or who dont have children. The child didnt climb over fences, trample flower beds etc, he innocently put his hand tru a fence to retrieve a ball and was savaged. I know lots of kids of that age who would do the same.

As I have said I have vast experience of the breed in question. The dog was not properly secured if the child was able to put its hand though the fence and be mauled.

Im quite shocked at some of the replies on here to be honest, for any of you who do have children, how would you feel if this happened to your child? Those who dont have children and think its ok, well your priorties will soon change when you become a parent. Regardless of whether the child should have been taught to knock on the hall door to retrieve the ball. He got savaged by a dangerous dog.

It is people like the owner of the dog in question who give the responsible owners a bad name.

I dont get what you expect to be done? Ban all dogs in the country in case some kids have their hands bitten?.
The owner of the dog did nothing wrong either, the dog wasn't loose roaming the streets. It was fenced in on private property, and licenced. Fairly responsible if you ask me.

The dog reacted to a strange looking arm coming through the fence...for all the dog knew it could have been some weird snake coming to attack him.

You expect people to only keep dogs that would never bite. Its never going to happen. All animals (as with people) have instincts and breaking points. Thats not something you can breed out of a dog.

I'm sorry, but as someone who was biten myself (twice badly) as a child, i learned my lesson not to go onto private property. My parents didnt seek to have any dogs put down, and i'm glad they didnt. It was my fault, not the dogs.

seamus

Hermit07 wrote: »

It is people like the owner of the dog in question who give the responsible owners a bad name. If this is the attitude of people on this forum that a 7 year old is to blame because a dog who may be a restricted breed was not properly secured, then I shall be taking my posts elsewhere.

But he was properly secured. He was on private property, contained by a fence. Obviously there was some kind of a hole or a gap in the fence, but that happens and the property owner may not have spotted it. I'm presuming they were playing rounders or something because if it was a bigger ball, the child would have been able to squeeze through. So it's a small hole in the fence - the dog was still adequately contained.

I don't think the owner has any liability here. I'm loathe to say the dog needed to be put down "just in case", but in the absence of any further knowledge, it would appear that the dog showed excessive aggression towards an intruder.
It doesn't mean that Akitas are dangerous or aggressive. This could very easily have been (and often is) a Jack Russell who grabbed hold of the child's arm and "savaged" it.

Hermit07

peasant wrote: »

responsible


Without knowing the full facts of the incident I would say that the responsibility here is probably split 50/50. The dog owner could have made sure that the fence was safe (I would ...because people are stupid and accidents happen) and the parents could have made sure that their kid either understands not enter other people's property (especially if there are dogs on it), not even with their arm only or else should have supervised it.



might be an idea if you insist on dicussing dogs on the sensationalist terms below

ahem the fact is that the child was savaged, mauled by a dog that is dangerous regardless of what breed he/she is and lets be honest here, he might not even haven been an akita. It didnt mention that the child was simply bitten. I dont care what breed the dog is. The owner is responsible if the child was so easily able to gain access to where the dog was kept.

Where have I mentioned that any dogs should be banned? I have said that if this happened to my 7 year old child, I would be seriously angry and so would any right minded individual. Some of the posts on here suggest that a 7 year old child is to blame. Most 7 year olds go out to play by themselves, its part of growing up.

morganafay

It's the owner's responsibility to fence the dog in, but not to stop people putting their hands in.

The dog owner should have socialised and trained the dog, but we don't know the whole story and whether the dog was well socialised and trained, or not.

I agree that we can't just have aggressive and dangerous dogs around, but we don't know the full story here.

The child is only seven and shouldn't have been left alone, but I'm not blaming the mother either, it was just an accident really.

peasant

Hermit07 wrote: »

Some of the posts on here suggest that a 7 year old child is to blame.

On closer reading (with fuming mother mode switched off) you will find that I'm not actually blaming the child ....but the parents.

Hermit07

seamus wrote: »

But he was properly secured. He was on private property, contained by a fence. Obviously there was some kind of a hole or a gap in the fence, but that happens and the property owner may not have spotted it. I'm presuming they were playing rounders or something because if it was a bigger ball, the child would have been able to squeeze through. So it's a small hole in the fence - the dog was still adequately contained.

I don't think the owner has any liability here. I'm loathe to say the dog needed to be put down "just in case", but in the absence of any further knowledge, it would appear that the dog showed excessive aggression towards an intruder.
It doesn't mean that Akitas are dangerous or aggressive. This could very easily have been (and often is) a Jack Russell who grabbed hold of the child's arm and "savaged" it.

Absolutely it could have been a jack russell, labrador etc and the dog might not have even been an akita. I dont have a problem with whatever breed of dog it may be but I have a massive problem with the RB brigrade only concerned about the effect it has on the RB's reputation. For god sake a little child was attacked. The dog in question was not securely under control if it managed to do this. I have kept restricted breeds before and I can assure you there was no gaps, holes in my fence where little hands could reach in.

andreac

Hermit07 wrote: »

Absolutely it could have been a jack russell, labrador etc and the dog might not have even been an akita. I dont have a problem with whatever breed of dog it may be but I have a massive problem with the RB brigrade only concerned about the effect it has on the RB's reputation. For god sake a little child was attacked. The dog in question was not securely under control if it managed to do this. I have kept restricted breeds before and I can assure you there was no gaps, holes in my fence where little hands could reach in.

Yes it was, the dog was properly contained, it was on its own private property, the child was an intruder onto private property. You shouldnt have to tie up your dog all day incase someone decides to trespass on your property.
Dont get me wrong, its awful that a child was attacked, but im sorry, you cannot blame the dog here, he was on his own land/property, and as someone else pointed out, the dog didnt know it was a childs arm, it was only protecting his own space/owner.

crotalus667

Hermit07 wrote: »

Regardless of lazy editors etc there was a 7 year old child severely mauled here:mad:

No one said other wise , people where merely expressing their opinion

Hermit07 wrote: »

The child should not have been able to put his hands though the fence. :

7 yo chrilden can have very skinny arms that can fit threw very small holes do you expect every one with a dog to build solid 6/8 foot walls around their house ???

Hermit07 wrote: »

They should be kept in a secure area, even more so if it is a restricted breed.:

Why ??? Restricted breeds are less likely to bite than other breeds and the amount of damage they can inflict is by no means unique , the restricted breeds list is as dangerous for children as the stranger danger campaign was

Hermit07 wrote: »

The human error was not down to an innocent little 7 year old trying to retrieve his ball.

No one said it was , the mother however has a lot to answer for

Hermit07 wrote: »

I take it a lot of replies on here are from people who dont have much experience of 7 year old children

I have extinsive experience

Hermit07 wrote: »

I know lots of kids of that age who would do the same.

I know alot of chrilden that have been thought better

Hermit07 wrote: »

Those who dont have children and think its ok, .

Where did any one say a seven you getting bitten was ok ?? just because people dont agree with you on who is to blame doeds not mean it is ok to create straw men

Hermit07 wrote: »

He got savaged .

I have serious doubts as to the level of the injuries , a full blown attack by any dog of a similar (or indeed smaler) size focused on the arm of a seven yo would of destroyed the arm to the point where the arm or at least some of the movement would be lost

Hermit07

andreac wrote: »

Yes it was, the dog was properly contained, it was on its own private property, the child was an intruder onto private property. You shouldnt have to tie up your dog all day incase someone decides to trespass on your property.
Dont get me wrong, its awful that a child was attacked, but im sorry, you cannot blame the dog here, he was on his own land/property, and as someone else pointed out, the dog didnt know it was a childs arm, it was only protecting his own space/owner.

The dog was not properly contained if the child was able to put its arm though the fence. Where did I mention tying up a dog all day? I take it you have no children? Its a little child we are talking about not a burgler tresspassing. I would also question the dog in questions temperment. And as I mentioned I have vast experience of dogs, restricted breeds included. I also have experience of being a mother of a 7 year old.

andreac

crotalus667 wrote: »

I have serious doubts as to the level of the injuries , a full blown attack by any dog of a similar (or indeed smaler) size focused on the arm of a seven yo would of destroyed the arm to the point where the arm or at least some of the movement would be lost

I would be thinking the same, theres one thing getting bitten, another thing being savaged, 2 very different scenarios.
I remember the case of a boy that was bitten by a rottweiler and they said he was savaged, when it couldnt be further from the truth, he had been bitten alright, not savaged, so until the injuries are known for definate i wouldnt be saying savaged, mauled etc as we know how the media love to exaggerate things.

peasant

Hermit07 wrote: »

I take it you have no children?

If having children is what causes one to avoid responsibility, shift blame and let common sense go out the window than I proudly admit to having none.

andreac

Hermit07 wrote: »

The dog was not properly contained if the child was able to put its arm though the fence. Where did I mention tying up a dog all day? I take it you have no children? Its a little child we are talking about not a burgler tresspassing. I would also question the dog in questions temperment. And as I mentioned I have vast experience of dogs, restricted breeds included. I also have experience of being a mother of a 7 year old.

I dont understand how you dont think a dog on its own property isnt contained?? It didnt poke its head out the fence and attack the child, the child went in on the dogs property.

Oh, and a dog cannot distinguish between a burglar and a child btw.

I didnt say you said the dog was tied up, but how much more do you want the dog contained?? So thats why i said, do you expect the dog to be tied up so it cant walk near the fence.

If someone put their hand leg etc over my fence and my rottie attacked it, it wouldnt be my dogs fault, but would you expect the fence to be built so high that no one could get over it? Seriously, where do you draw the line?
The dog was not at fault here, end of.

crotalus667

Snip--Crotalus667 consider this a warning.The comment is way out of line.

Hermit07

crotalus667 wrote: »

That is absolutely lovely talk. I wont even respond to that.

A child was injured, it shouldnt have happened. The child should not have been able to get any part of their body into the dogs enclosure. End of.

There seems to be a clan brigage on this board as other people have mentioned recently and its not a nice place to post. If this were posted on the parenting forum, there would be uproar.

andreac

No one is disputing the fact that its a terrible thing that the child got bitten, of course its not nice.
But what we do have a problem with is that the dog is being totally blamed here.
If this were a burglar who was on this owners property, the dog would probably be a hero for protecting its owner etc, but as it was a child its a whole diff story. As i said, a dog cannot distinguish between a burglar and child so it was only doing what he thought he should do, protect its owner.

People need to be responsible for their actions and stop trying to put the blame on others.

sambuka41

Hermit07 wrote: »

A child was injured, it shouldnt have happened. The child should not have been able to get any part of their body into the dogs enclosure. End of.

There seems to be a clan brigage on this board as other people have mentioned recently and its not a nice place to post. If this were posted on the parenting forum, there would be uproar.

I dont post here often so my comment isnt part of a clan brigage,but do you really think its the dog owners responsibility to ensure that someone elses child cant do something silly? The dog should not have bitten but its an animal protecting its territory.

This is a very sad accident and the dog has lost its life as a result. But its wrong to put the blame on the owner,a woman left her 7 year old son alone, thats not responsible parenting, anything could have happened to him and unfortunately it did,what if he was kidnapped or attacked by a pedophile?

I agree with the comments about manners,as a child i would always go to the door and ask for the ball,esp if there was a dog inside. Lost many a ball to a grumpy neighbour too!!

crotalus667

Hermit07 wrote: »

That is absolutely lovely talk. Managed to get knocked up?. I wont even respond to that..

You just did :rolleyes: If you keep bring up the fact you have a child in a ridiculous manner as if it is some sort of silver bullet that stops any argument don’t be surprised when you get called on it

Hermit07 wrote: »

A child was injured, it shouldnt have happened...

Again no one said other wise:rolleyes:

Hermit07 wrote: »

The child should not have been able to get any part of their body into the dogs enclosure. End of...

The child should of been thought better end of end of (ooo look i said it twice that must mean i am twice as right as you)

Hermit07 wrote: »

There seems to be a clan brigage on this board as other people have mentioned recently and its not a nice place to post

stop trying to play the victim just because you argument was so weak

Hermit07 wrote: »

If this were posted on the parenting forum, there would be uproar.

Whats your point ??