Dog attack article in Herald, 10th June.

peasant

pH wrote: »

the notion that anyone feels it's appropriate to own a dog that would do more than bark when confronted by an intruder - such a dog, no matter how well secured is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

The notion that anyone could think that they could buy/choose/raise a dog
that definitely wouldn't bite when confronted by an intruder is an even bigger desaster, because it breeds complacency and that's exactly when these accidents happen.

adser53

cjf wrote: »

If someone put their hand under my garden door or climbed over the wall to retrieve a ball my dog would most likely attack. He is a dog!!

How are they to supposed to know the difference between someone coming over the wall to get a ball or someone coming over the wall to harm his family. A dog is not a mind reader he is a dog. A hand through a fence is a hand through a fence they can’t reason it’s a childs! People have a problem respecting boundaries, I would never ever climb over a neighbours wall or put my hand through their fence!

I have never trained him to bite or guard in fact the opposite he goes out and about with me all over and is a great example of his breed but hop over my wall or stick you hand under the door and I couldnt guarantee he wouldn’t bite.

Could any dog owner????

If your dog would "most likely attack" then you need to train him better because saying "he's a dog!" isn't a valid excuse. I'm the first person to say that any breed can attack at any time and I firmly believe that. But I also think that, as a dog owner, you have a responsibilty to train and socialise your dog as much as possible to reduce the risk of them biting as much as humanly possible. I have complete faith in my dogs and I trust them as much as any sane person would but I still wouldn't leave a child with them, let them roam or have my property unsecured.

I can echo your last paragraph though, as can any dog owner because in those scenarios with an intruder, any dog has the potential to bite.

pH wrote: »

The desire to own aggressive macho dogs appalls me, fine have a dog that can bark and warn humans of an intruder's presence, but except in *very* few circumstances (very well trained police dogs for example) no one should own a dog that attacks/bites a child (or any human for that matter) - it just isn't necessary, and to be fair to the dog, it's not a lawyer and cannot be expected to determine which humans are "legitimate" targets.

This isn't an attack on dangerous breeds, it's an attack on the notion that anyone feels it's appropriate to own a dog that would do more than bark when confronted by an intruder - such a dog, no matter how well secured is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

As both Peasant and myself said, any dog can bite and to think otherwise is foolhardy as it breeds complacancy.

Again, there aren't dangerous breeds :mad: there's scumbags that get a dog and mistreat it to make it aggressive. These people aren't fit to own a goldfish and they shouldnt have a dog in the first place. I don't have two akitas to feel macho, I have two akitas because I love the breed and I have spent countless hours training them to be well balanced and social dogs.

cjf

He has never biten anyone so I couldnt say that he 100% would but likewise I couldnt say 100% he would not. They are animals and people who think that you can 100% train a dog not to ever bite are to quote above 'an accident waiting to happen'. I have socialised him and he is a great dog if guests come into my house he is friendly and loves kids will let them pull his ears and climb all over him! He is in no way vicious and should you meet him on the street and say hi he will drool and slobber all over you but he is by nature a guarding breed and will always view trespassers as just that a tresspasser. I am not condoning the attack on the child in any way but really is the animal at fault? The dog was locked securley on his owners property. It was a tragic accident.

I keep my dogs locked in my house when I am not at home and when I am home I always keep an eye out when they are out in the garden just to be sure as kids often kick the ball against the garden wall. I cant train years of breeding out of him and he will always feel the need to guard and protect his family. My responsibilty to him is to keep him safe and not let that instinct take over. As said I have never trained him to guard and if he is out barking or watching at the window I do take him and once he knows I know whats going on he stops. He is loving and loyal and I sleep very soundly with him at the end of my bed!!

And to the comment about people getting certain dogs because they want to be macho that does of course happen and its disgusting to see the pounds full of ill treated neglected and abused staffies, rotties and other 'restricteds'. I got my guy because he was thrown away I didnt care what he was, what he looked like I just cared about him! Love at first sight and im now a proud dobie owner who wouldn have it any other way! They are not for everyone and while there is massive responsibility with owning any animal I will always have that extra bit of responsibilty to keep him safe.

Do I put him down because he could bite someone who climbed into may garden??

antomagoo

pH wrote: »

Well it shouldn't, no one should own or keep a dog that's capable of a sustained savage attack on a child. Your excuse that it's understandable in this instance is awful, and leads to inevitable attacks on guests or children who are in the house and accidentally get left alone in the dog's territory.

The desire to own aggressive macho dogs appalls me, fine have a dog that can bark and warn humans of an intruder's presence, but except in *very* few circumstances (very well trained police dogs for example) no one should own a dog that attacks/bites a child (or any human for that matter) - it just isn't necessary, and to be fair to the dog, it's not a lawyer and cannot be expected to determine which humans are "legitimate" targets.

This isn't an attack on dangerous breeds, it's an attack on the notion that anyone feels it's appropriate to own a dog that would do more than bark when confronted by an intruder - such a dog, no matter how well secured is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

I would just like to say "any" dog "could" attack and bite a human. Not every dog will. I'm being careful in using the word dog here and not Rottie, Staffie, Lab, Pom etc. So given that would it be fair to say that all dogs irrespective of breed should be banned i.e lets have a dogless world just in case 1 in whatever number of dogs will bite someone?

A dog is first and foremost an animal. Animals have instincts, animals can & will act on instinct. A well trained obedient dog will behave as per its training but in circumstances in which a dog has had no training i.e how to behave twoards an intruder who knows how an indvidual dog will act. How are you supposed to train a dog for a situation like that, call around to the Joy and ask can you take a convicted burglar on day release to train your dog?

Every dog will act differentaly to what it perceves as a threat. I've known dogs that bark like crazy when a stranger enters the house, I've known dogs that run and hide when a stranger enters the house.

We own a rottie and I could prob put money on it that she would roll over and want her belly rubbed from anyone entering the house, can I be 100% sure? No absolutely not thats why when we have guests in our house there is never any time when she is left alone with them unless me or my wife are there. And thats not because we dont trust her, its because we have a good command over her where others wouldnt, so if she decides to be a nuiscane to guests i.e licking them we can call her off and she'll obey, also some people dont like dogs regardless of how well they know the dog.

Yes some dogs are better at guarding than others, yes some dogs prob would attack a stranger but most if not all dogs I would imagine would guard their home/family against strangers in some way or another, be it barking, be it sitting in front of their owner until they suss the situation out, whatever.

I'm getting really browned off with the argument of "no one should own a dog thats capable of biting". Every dog is capable of biting, every cat is capable of scraping/biting, every human is capable of assault/murder. Not every dog/cat will bite, not every human will commit murder and NO I dont think thats a simplistic argument

Now I really do feel for that poor kid, but I think its crazy looking to blame someone (dog, owner, child or parent) without knowing the exact details & circumstances in which the incident occured. As a kid we were allowed to play around the estate, where we were chased on several occassions by dogs and bitten once or twice by JRT's owned by relations. We were children we thought all dogs were there to be played with & pulled out of. But if our folks caught us we were scolded for annoying the dogs. Looking back with hidsight is great and luckily no serious injuries resulted from what essentially was horseplay with dogs who we didnt have any control over. Now I know the argument will be why were the dogs left alone with children, I dont know thats just the way it was but not the way it should have been or should be.

Just needed to rant there as I really am getting sick of this argument that I really cant see it being resolved until either we or dogs become extinct

sambuka41

Ozziej wrote: »

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself.

Thats a horrific lesson you are teaching your child there, "if you dont get your own way you should resort to violent illegal acts"

So being a "concerned" parent entitles you to break the law and evade responsibility??:mad:

The parents was in the wrong by not having her child properly supervised, and that as a parent is her responsibility.

pH

antomagoo wrote: »

I'm getting really browned off with the argument of "no one should own a dog thats capable of biting". Every dog is capable of biting, every cat is capable of scraping/biting, every human is capable of assault/murder. Not every dog/cat will bite, not every human will commit murder and NO I dont think thats a simplistic argument

No this is absolutely misrepresenting what I said, I was responding to a post, which basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that they would expect a dog to attack a stranger on their property, and they saw no problem with that.

If you keep a dog that you believe wouldn't attack someone then fine, I have no problem with that.

The problem with the post I was responding to is that that person is basically saying the dog "can" attack people sometimes, and they're relying on the dog's judgement as to which ones can be mauled - this is clearly a ludicrous and very dangerous situation.

Do I put him down because he could bite someone who climbed into may garden??

Not necessarily. If I owned such a dog, I'd make sure I understood how he would react to a stranger on his territory, and if he reacts badly and attacks then he would need training.

My point is once again, that if you have a dog they *you* believe will attack in any (unprovoked) circumstance then you are now relying on this dog only to choose "appropriate" targets, this is a highly dangerous situation, especially if the dog is large and strong and capable of doing serious damage to a child or adult.

As for those who are posting that this was the kid's (or parents) fault in some way, EVEN IF IT WAS, the punishment for trespass in Ireland is not permanent disfigurement, and even hinting that the child (or parents) somehow got what they deserved is absolutely disgusting.

sambuka41

pH wrote: »

As for those who are posting that this was the kid's (or parents) fault in some way, EVEN IF IT WAS, the punishment for trespass in Ireland is not permanent disfigurement

Nor should the punishment for someone else's trespass be the death of your dog. As i see it there were two victims here, the child and the dog. The parent was responsible for the accident by not having her child properly supervised.

antomagoo

No this is absolutely misrepresenting what I said, I was responding to a post, which basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that they would expect a dog to attack a stranger on their property, and they saw no problem with that.

Sorry pH no misreprestantion meant but thats not how your post came across

But I would reiterate that you have no way of knowing how a dog will react to a situation it has never been confronted with before i.e. an intruder entering your house. Training a dog involves alot of repetition before the dog actually gets how its supposed to behave and training a dog how to behave around intruders is in my opinion competley impractical. A dog may see any foreign object (ball) or person (adult or child) as intruder.

I totally agree that its wrong to point blame at the child or parent but I also think its wrong to blame dog or owner without knowing all the facts, as I've said before.

Whether you agree or disagree with people who expect their dogs to attack intruders is another thing. Personnally I would not like to think my dog would attack an intruder but I would want her to be wary of intruders and to bark to let us know there's something wrong after all an intruder is what it is, an intruder

An intruder is a person or animal who undesirably enters someone else's putative territory

Some people live in isolation and could be prone to attempted burgalries and may very well want their dog to be a deterrent and who can blame them?

Now people who have and want aggressive dogs are a different story. They are a complete menace, but few and far between, but 1 is 1 too many IMO.

And as far as the punishment for trespass in Ireland goes well in all fairness permanent disfigurement is prob too good for some of the scum bags that break & enter. In all fairness they get away very lightly, no rights at all for the home owner, but thats a topic for a different forum.

BTW your dead right the child didnt deserve to be maimed, she was only getting a ball back and not robbing the place but like I said above how was anyone to know how the dog would react, an intuder is an intruder no matter what size or shape

cjf

I dont expect him to attack anyone or anything!! My point was that I cannot know this for sure and it would be irresponsible for me to presume he wouldnt. I cant ask a selection of strangers to come to my house and take turns jumping over the wall to see what happens!! And if I am being honest I dont think I would train my dog to accept strangers jumping over the wall any way!

If someone stands behind a horse and the horse kicks them people say you shouldnt stand behind a horse or you will get kicked! Horses kick, dogs bite, cats scratch they are animals and when provoked or fearful they act on instinct.

As said before attacks by dogs running free are 100% owners fault but if dog bites someone who trespasses on private property then I just cannot see how either the dog or owner are at fault. If someone commands the dog to attack thats a different story altogeter I am referring to a pet dog acting on instinct. To highlight my earlier post I have raised him as a friendly dog and done everything I can to expose him to all sorts of people and kids but fact is I would rather air on the side of caution and be aware of the fact that if he bit he would do damage. I supervise my dogs when they are in my own back garden!!

peasant

cjf wrote: »

If someone stands behind a horse and the horse kicks them people say you shouldnt stand behind a horse or you will get kicked! Horses kick, dogs bite, cats scratch they are animals and when provoked or fearful they act on instinct.

Strange, isn't it ...nobody would seriously suggest putting down a horse for kicking or a cat for scratching, it's only the dogs that face an immediate death sentence when they use their defences.

cjf

Exactly! If I trespassed into a farmers field and his bull charged me the bull wouldnt be put to sleep I would be told not to trespass! If I stuck my fingers through his fence and his goat bit me I would be told I shouldnt have stuck my fingers through the fence! They are animals!

Respect the fence/wall its there for a reason!!

Teach our kids to respect all animals and how to act right around them! I am lucky my guy is as socialised as he is for the amout of kids who will just run over and stick out their hand to pet him is shocking! My kids ask before they touch any animal! Its good manners and its safe.

tallus

peasant wrote: »

Strange, isn't it ...nobody would seriously suggest putting down a horse for kicking or a cat for scratching, it's only the dogs that face an immediate death sentence when they use their defences.

In fairness peasant, we don't have horses in many of the housing estates (I know there are a few exceptions ) but it's hardly a fair comparison. Also, how many people have been mangled by cats.
IMO not really a fair comparison.

morganafay

tallus wrote: »

In fairness peasant, we don't have horses in many of the housing estates (I know there are a few exceptions ) but it's hardly a fair comparison. Also, how many people have been mangled by cats.
IMO not really a fair comparison.

I agree with that because dogs are dangerous animals, and can attack people, but cats will generally run away and won't attack somebody unless they're trapped. I dunno about horses but I imagine they wouldn't be as likely to attack unprovoked as a dog.

Dogs can be dangerous, so people just have to always remember that and respect them. If someone had a pet tiger they wouldn't let it roam the streets or put their hand through the fence to it.

peasant

tallus wrote: »

IMO not really a fair comparison.

It wasn't a comparison but a mere statement of fact. A horse kicks someone, it lives; a cat scratches someone, it lives; a dog bites someone, it most likely dies.

morganafay wrote: »

attack unprovoked

Not even the meanest junkyard dog attacks unprovoked ...there always (except in the case of rabies maybe) is a trigger that starts the attack.

True, there are a few dogs that have been misused by their owners to such a degree that the trigger level is indeed very low.
But the vast majority of dogs do not attack at all, at a maximum they defend (themselves, their owner, their property) and even that is a rare occurence.

As you say, we have to respect dogs. But "respect" them doesn't just mean to keep out of their way and not provoke them but to learn about them and understand them.

If dogs were as generally "dangerous" as they are made out to be these days in hyped up media reports, they would hardly have managed to survive and evolve at our side for the last 100,000 years, they would all have been culled a long time ago.

Graces7

peasant wrote: »

It wasn't a comparison but a mere statement of fact. A horse kicks someone, it lives; a cat scratches someone, it lives; a dog bites someone, it most likely dies.


Not even the meanest junkyard dog attacks unprovoked ...there always (except in the case of rabies maybe) is a trigger that starts the attack.

True, there are a few dogs that have been misused by their owners to such a degree that the trigger level is indeed very low.
But the vast majority of dogs do not attack at all, at a maximum they defend (themselves, their owner, their property) and even that is a rare occurence.

As you say, we have to respect dogs. But "respect" them doesn't just mean to keep out of their way and not provoke them but to learn about them and understand them.

If dogs were as generally "dangerous" as they are made out to be these days in hyped up media reports, they would hardly have managed to survive and evolve at our side for the last 100,000 years, they would all have been culled a long time ago.

Will be interested to see responses to this.

Zapperzy

tallus wrote: »

In fairness peasant, we don't have horses in many of the housing estates (I know there are a few exceptions ) but it's hardly a fair comparison. Also, how many people have been mangled by cats.
IMO not really a fair comparison.

Iv had a fair few nasty scratches off cats. A few which have left scars, so I could well imagine what they could do to a young child or baby. Im not sure if this is true or not so please don't quote me, but haven't cats killed more babies than dogs? Could be something I dreamt but Im sure I read it somewhere, anyone able to say if this is true or not?

morganafay wrote: »

I agree with that because dogs are dangerous animals, and can attack people, but cats will generally run away and won't attack somebody unless they're trapped. I dunno about horses but I imagine they wouldn't be as likely to attack unprovoked as a dog.

Dogs can be dangerous, so people just have to always remember that and respect them. If someone had a pet tiger they wouldn't let it roam the streets or put their hand through the fence to it.

No animal attacks unprovoked, there is always a reason for attacking, they do not go out one day and decide oh Il kill a few kids today. A kick off a horse can do more damage than a dog bite, horses can kill or very seriously injure someone. Thankfully Iv never been kicked but I have had my feet stood on by clumsy horses, and Iv been nipped by a few cheeky horses.
Any animal can be dangerous, thats why there are signs up in riding schools reminding people that horses are animals and can be unpredictable so your riding at your own risk.

tallus

Zapperzy wrote: »

Im not sure if this is true or not so please don't quote me, but haven't cats killed more babies than dogs? Could be something I dreamt but Im sure I read it somewhere.

I think I heard a story once about a cat falling asleep on top of a baby and smothering it. I'd rate that as that as a rare occurence tho.
I certainly wouldn't rate "cat" attacks up with dog attacks. You might have some cat scars but lets be honest, how likely are you to suffer the same damage that a dog can inflict, especially a large dog, and notwithstanding the difference in damage, I don't think there's as high an incidence of cat attacks as there are dog attacks, but I'm open to correction there.

tallus

peasant wrote: »

It wasn't a comparison but a mere statement of fact. A horse kicks someone, it lives; a cat scratches someone, it lives; a dog bites someone, it most likely dies.

Good point, I was looking at your post from a different context.
The problem arises most of the time from bad pet ownership/husbandry but I don't see a way to legislate for the quality of dog ownership, therefore the poor dog is the one who has to suffer.

Still, you have to agree that we don't see the same kind of volume of horse attacks, and when was the last time someone was savaged by a cat. I'm sure if we had the same volume of attacks from horses and cats then we'd see more of them being put to sleep.

I'm not making the case for animals to be put to sleep, as I don't agree it.
It's a lazy way of handling what should be an ownership problem and not a dog problem.

lrushe

tallus wrote: »

Still, you have to agree that we don't see the same kind of volume of horse attacks, and when was the last time someone was savaged by a cat. I'm sure if we had the same volume of attacks from horses and cats then we'd see more of them being put to sleep.

Why does it have to be about volume? Surely one occurence is enough. I know one girl who lost four fingers on one hand from a horse bolting while she had the reins wrapped around her hand, no matter how well the horse had been schooled at the end of the day it was in it's every instinct to bolt when startled. To this day the girl accepts that it was her fault for having the reins wrapped around her fingers, it's one of the first things you're taught when learning to ride a horse. I know of another person who spent months getting an infected cyst for a cat bite repeatedly drained, and was left with a serious enough scar. Point being both animals lived afterwards, there was never any suggestion of them being destroyed. If a dog were involved in either event there would be a media outcry and hysterical people demanding it be put down.

peasant

tallus wrote: »

The problem arises most of the time from bad pet ownership/husbandry

Very true, but there is another aspect.

We have drifted apart from our dogs. They are no longer a natural part of our daily lives. Instead they live in handbags or in solitary confinement for most of the day. They have become fashion accessories, sports tools or they are simply unemployed and bored. We buy dogs like we buy the latest gadgets and sometimes we throw them away like that too. Worst case scenario, we buy them as penis extensions (even those that don't have penises to start with ) or as weapons.

Basically what it boils down to is that they don't really fit into our current way of life anymore and understanding and tolerance for them (especially from non dog owners) has greatly diminished ...sometimes to the point of non-acceptance.

That's where this terrible vocabulary like "mauled, savaged, attacked, mangled" etc gains ground. Dogs don't "bite" anymore in the press ...even though in most cases that's just what they did

tallus

lrushe wrote: »

Why does it have to be about volume?

Simply put, if attacks/maulings were once off or rare occurences, the so called hysterical people would have no reason to call for animals to be put down.
Edit
and either would the authorities
/edit

lrushe

tallus wrote: »

Simply put, if attacks/maulings were once off or rare occurences, the so called hysterical people would have no reason to call for animals to be put down.
Edit
and either would the authorities
/edit

If you were the parent of the first ever dog attack on a child in Ireland you wouldn't be calling for the dog to be destroyed???
If you factor in the amount of people / dog contact that goes on everyday in this country dog bites are rare occurences, even more rare are true maulings. Authorites cave under the pressure of Joe Public revved by the media's report of such incidents.

tallus

lrushe wrote: »

If you were the parent of the first ever dog attack on a child in Ireland you wouldn't be calling for the dog to be destroyed???
If you factor in the amount of people / dog contact that goes on everyday in this country dog bites are rare occurences, even more rare are true maulings. Authorites cave under the pressure of Joe Public revved by the media's report of such incidents.

I think I said earlier in one of my posts that I'm not in favour of animals being punished because of lazy or inept owners. (Not in the same words tho)

I have never had the misfortune to be in that position.

Your comments regarding if I had a child bitten by a dog were hypothetical, and therefore hard to use as a case and point on the treatment of said animal after such an event has occured. It's hard to give an answer to such a question, but I will say this.
I'm against a healthy animal being put to sleep just because the owner is inept or doesn't take the time to train their pet. If the political will to punish the owner instead of the dog was in place in this country I think we would hear even less stories about dog attacks.

lrushe

tallus wrote: »

I'm against a healthy animal being put to sleep just because the owner is inept or doesn't take the time to train their pet. If the political will to punish the owner instead of the dog was in place in this country I think we would hear even less stories about dog attacks.

This I think we can both agree on!

tallus

lrushe wrote: »

This I think we can both agree on!

Good!

morganafay

peasant wrote: »

It wasn't a comparison but a mere statement of fact. A horse kicks someone, it lives; a cat scratches someone, it lives; a dog bites someone, it most likely dies.


Not even the meanest junkyard dog attacks unprovoked ...there always (except in the case of rabies maybe) is a trigger that starts the attack.

Sorry, I meant more like dogs might run at you and attack, but a cat would usually only attack if cornered or you caught it. I know most dogs that are scared would attack if cornered too, but some might come up to you and attack.

evilmonkee

I grew up with dogs, and have always had dogs. My parents took in problem dogs all my childhood, these were misunderstood animals who killed chickens, jumped on people, dug holes, ignored commands etc. all of these dogs when the root of the problem was figured out and properly corrected were loving, loyal and great companions and friends. The animal cant be blamed for its reactions it is the owners fault. I feel greatly for the dogs (and responsible owners of them) which have been placed on the restricted dogs list, a a great lover of the (English) staffordshire bull terrier I find the knee jerk reaction disgusting. Small breeds are constantly causing trouble due to small dog syndrome... again the owners fault. We need to rethink the way we live and regulate animal ownership.

Wild_Dogger

I think the problem lies with the level of ignorance in our society .

Dogs share the same emotions as us , they feel happiness -sadness - excitement - depression - fear and despair .
Each one with a different personality .

However , they cannot be programmes to govern their emotions like humans .

Calling for all dogs of a certain breed to be banned is pure ignorance .

For a dog to distinguish the difference between a threat and a kid retrieving a ball is impossible.

This dog sees a stranger invading its territory , identifies the stranger as a threat and acts out its natural programming which is to defend by agression .

Parents , educate your children !
especially when they are at an age where they can be easily dominated with a child's small physical size.

tallus

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

I think the problem lies with the level of ignorance in our society .

Dogs share the same emotions as us , they feel happiness -sadness - excitement - depression - fear and despair .
Each one with a different personality .

However , they cannot be programmes to govern their emotions like humans .

Calling for all dogs of a certain breed to be banned is pure ignorance .

For a dog to distinguish the difference between a threat and a kid retrieving a ball is impossible.

This dog sees a stranger invading its territory , identifies the stranger as a threat and acts out its natural programming which is to defend by agression .

Parents , educate your children !
especially when they are at an age where they can be easily dominated with a child's small physical size.

So you're saying that a dog can't be trained not to attack someone because it's natural for a dog to identify a stranger as a threat and defend by agression.
That sounds like the kind of reasoning used by the individuals who want to put the dog to sleep.
Secondly with regards to parents educating their children, what if a child doesn't know there's a dog behind the fence and sticks a hand in to retrieve the ball.
Are you contending that the child is in the wrong and deserves to get bitten ?
Because that's what I see when I read your post.

peasant

tallus wrote: »

So you're saying that a dog can't be trained not to attack someone

There's that "a" word again

Your normal household dog does not attack, ever.
It defends. Either itself, or its owner/family or its property.

Semantics ...but very important semantics in this discussion.