Dog attack article in Herald, 10th June.

tallus

peasant wrote: »

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.

Try telling that to a child that has been savaged by a dog.

Attack or defence, is not really going to make a difference to a child who has been savaged.

Seriously dude come on.

Wild_Dogger

By the age of 7 , a child will have been told repeatedly about the dangers of roads and traffic .
It's adviseable to warn them of other potential dangers too.
A 7 year od kid should already know to be weary of unfamiliar dogs . That's all I'm saying

If the child got into a fenced private property , without noticing the presence of a dog , then this is an accident in my opinion.

Tallus : "Try telling that to a child that has been savaged by a dog. "

Too right , or else it'll happen again in the future.

(there's that 'savaged' word again)

Anyway , Just too note that I have been bitten by my own dog in a flash instant .
By a black lab , quiet natured , like a shadow to me , sleeps on same bed etc.
You can never be 100% sure of any dog .
All individual personalities.

evilmonkee

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

By the age of 7 , a child will have been told repeatedly about the dangers of roads and traffic .
It's adviseable to warn them of other potential dangers too.
A 7 year od kid should already know to be weary of unfamiliar dogs . That's all I'm saying

If the child got into a fenced private property , without noticing the presence of a dog , then this is an accident in my opinion.

I completely agree, the dog had a natural reaction to a situation which could have easily been avoided if the child had been thought some basic rules regarding dogs. Its all to easy for people with no knowledge to decide that it was the dogs fault. I feel sorry for the child but if blame has to be put on someone (I would put this down as an accident) its should lie with the parents. And yes I am a parent myself and yes this is how I would feel if it happened to my daughter.

meathstevie

In this case I don't think the issue of a dog attack stands. The child put his arm in the dogs territory. The dog reacted to what it probably perceived to be a threath on it's territory and done what a dog does when it thinks it's in danger : it bit.

Let's exagerate a bit as has been done on the thread before when people were using words like "mauled". If the scene was the zoo and the ball was in the lion enclosure would anyone be surprised if the kid decided not to even try to go in and retrieve the ball ?

Well a dog can be aggressive as well when it thinks it's territory is being invaded by what it perceives as a threath and will react accordingly.

In this case I don't think the dog nor the owner can be held responsible for the injuries to the child as it's only the actions of the child that created the situation in which the incident could occur and unfortunately ignorance is not a valid excuse.

Delicate_Dlite

I'm of the school of thought, it's never the animals/child* fault. It's the responsible adults, in charge of the child and the dog, that are to blame in any every case of dog bites.

It comes down to responsible parenting and responsible dog ownership. If you have a dog/child you are responsible for it's actions. Whether that means keeping your animal secured or knowing where your kids are/teaching them how to act around animals.

Every attack is different, but's it's the adults responsibilty, and rarely is it a case of just one of them being at fault.

*Up to a certain age, but even then it's up to parent to raise their kids with some common sense.

tallus

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Tallus : "Try telling that to a child that has been savaged by a dog. "

Too right , or else it'll happen again in the future.

With comments like that being posted, I'm ending my contribution to this thread before I post something that earns me an infraction.

tallus out.

peasant

tallus wrote: »

Attack or defence, is not really going to make a difference to a child who has been savaged.

Seriously dude come on.

True, the end result for the child is the same, it gets bitten.

But unless we get rid of this sensationalist language, we won't have a hope of addressing the issue sensibly and in a productive manner.
As long as dogs "savage" and "maul" in the public mind and children are always "innocent" we (as a society) will get nowhere near a solution to this problem.

DBCyc

peasant wrote: »

True, the end result for the child is the same, it gets bitten.

But unless we get rid of this sensationalist language, we won't have a hope of addressing the issue sensibly and in a productive manner.
As long as dogs "savage" and "maul" in the public mind and children are always "innocent" we (as a society) will get nowhere near a solution to this problem.

This is very true. It seems like it is a news story that some journalists drool over and pounce at the chance to use ridiculous phrases such as "devil dogs" etc. When anyone is hurt/killed in a traffic collision there is a bit more respect and they are usually classified as "tragic accidents" etc. even when a speeding lunatic knocks someone over. I presume that there is a legal issue here, but still.

Hey wait a second, there are far more children being hurt by maniacs on our roads than by dogs. We should do something about this...no more of this wasting time on driver education, road safety etc. What we need to do is ban some of these dangerous vehicles from our roads like SUVs, trucks etc. Rabble rabble rabble....

adser53

I'm sorry to see this thread has descended into sensationalism and sillyness (in parts )

Going pack to the original subject, a child was bitten and it's awful. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. The problem we dog owners have here is that the media sensationalised a tragic accident. In this case the dog was secured in it's garden and that's fact. A child, who was unsupervised, put their hand in through the fence and got bitten, again fact. Apart from these two key points, we don't know anything else about this incident.

IMO the dog should not have been PTS because, Restricted breed or not, he was, as far as is practical, secure in his garden. No wrong doing there at all. Even if the dog was problematic, vicious or anything similar, he was still secured.
We don't know if the child knew the dog was there or not. If he/she did know the dog was there, it was an awfully harsh lesson to learn that his/her parents should have taught them (i.e don't go near a strange dog). If he/she didn't know the dog was there, it's a tragic, innocent accident. Again, I don't think anyone can argue with that.

As for the comparisons between horses, dogs and cats...the only way you can compare the two would be if a horse was in someones garden, child goes in to retrieve a ball from behind the horse and gets badly kicked. Two random incidents involving a child who wasn't taught essential things about animals. If this was the case, the horse wouldn't be PTS because it was spooked and just reacted "Like a horse". It doesn't matter whats more common, dog bites, cat scratches or horse kicks, they're almost always defensive reactions from animals and simply putting an animal to sleep isn't the answer and is generally a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted (or kicked )

I could understand if the dog was roaming and attacked but it was in it's own garden. A bit of compassion here people for the child and the dog, both of them are victims. Imagine if it was your dog, regardless of breed, that nipped a child who put their hand through your fence and then it's parents demanded you put your dog to sleep? Surely each case deserves different consideration and not a blanket PTS strategy for all dog bites?

the_syco

Was there a ball even in the garden?

adser53

Spa Reporter for the Herald wrote:

"The ball went through the gap in the fence and when he reached his arm in, the dog pounced on him."

Good old evening herald :rolleyes:

jen_23

Hermit07 wrote: »

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.

The dog was properly secured. He was fenced in on his owners property. The dog couldn't get out and go roaming. He was secured on his owners property.

Hermit07 wrote: »

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?

Guilty - very guilty. For not having taught my child firsty basic manners! And secondly for not teaching the possible dangers of going near dogs he/she doesn't know.
When I was a child I was always told to be careful of dogs I didn't know and to ask before going near them as some dogs are cross and believe me if I ever saw one fenced in - I wouldn't have been poking my hand through a fence to get my ball - i'd had been taught to have respect for peoples property and ring the doorbell!!

Hermit07 wrote: »

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.

I'm pretty sure my view on this won't change ultimately if this happened to me i'm the number 1 person at fault for not having taught my child the potential dangers of dogs they don't know!!

Hermit07 wrote: »

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.

It's not the 7 year olds fault - he is really an innocent child. It's the parents for not teaching him better. This was simply something that could have been avoided had he been educated on the potential dangers.

Hermit07 wrote: »

The dog was not properly contained if the child was able to put its arm though the fence.

Containing a dog properly is ensuring he can't get out. The dog couldn't get out hence he was contained properly.
It's not the dog owners fault that someone else decided to poke their arm through the fence!


I honestly think this was an accident that could have been prevented had the child been educated or supervised better. I don't think the dog was at fault here. I have seen dogs growl and show aggression when other dogs come near their crates or their space. But once let out they will run happily along side the dog it was just growling at having fun.
It's a territorial thing - dogs will protect what is theirs. As somone else suggested the dog couldn't tell between the boy and a burglar posing a threat. How was he to know? He was minding his own business inside his enclosure.

As ISDW said earlier it was a sad day for the boy to be hurt and a dog to be PTS. Though hopefully people will learn from this and teach their children about dog safety and to not go near dogs they don't know.

morganafay

Zapperzy wrote: »

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?

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.

Nearly all cats would never attack a child or baby. They can give you bad bites and scratches, but most wouldn't approach someone and bite them . . . hardly any would. Even cranky cats who might scratch and bite you aren't biting as hard as they are capable of. I've been bitten by my one cranky cat (when I have to inject her or something) and it didn't break the skin, but I've gotten proper bites from terrified/injured stray cats and it's a lot different. I've only heard of one cat ever that would walk up and scratch someone. And a cat is just not as able to kill someone as a dog would be. If a cat is scared they usually run away.

There's an old wives tale that cats will suck the life out of babies, or try to smother them, but they are just sleeping on the baby for warmth. Maybe some have accidentally smothered a baby, but I doubt it's common, and I think it's more likely the baby died and they blamed the cat for being there.

Dogs can attack unprovoked. My dogs have been attacked by other dogs, and they did nothing to deserve it. I guess the dog was protecting its territory, but I still call it unprovoked. You always hear of dogs attacking kids too, when the kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

morganafay

peasant wrote: »

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.

What about if a dog attacks a child in its own family? I know the dog maybe doesn't know the child is higher in the pack than it or something, but I'd still think it's an attack rather than defense.

Or if a dog attacks another dog that is being friendly. It might be defending its territory, but the friendly dog isn't really a threat.

I just use the word attack when the dog started it and wasn't really provoked.

morganafay

lrushe wrote: »

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.

Well the horse hurt her by accident, so it's not really right to destroy it.

And I'm guessing there was some reason the cat bit her, like it was feral or injured or she was restraining it and it was scared. Because a cat wouldn't just bite you hard like that for no reason.

Zapperzy

morganafay wrote: »

Nearly all cats would never attack a child or baby. They can give you bad bites and scratches, but most wouldn't approach someone and bite them . . . hardly any would. Even cranky cats who might scratch and bite you aren't biting as hard as they are capable of. I've been bitten by my one cranky cat (when I have to inject her or something) and it didn't break the skin, but I've gotten proper bites from terrified/injured stray cats and it's a lot different. I've only heard of one cat ever that would walk up and scratch someone. And a cat is just not as able to kill someone as a dog would be. If a cat is scared they usually run away.

Yes that is true, a cat wouldn't be physically able to kill somebody but would be physically able to inflict a lot of pain and injury. And yes they do usually run away unless they feel cornered or are protecting something.

morganafay wrote: »

There's an old wives tale that cats will suck the life out of babies, or try to smother them, but they are just sleeping on the baby for warmth. Maybe some have accidentally smothered a baby, but I doubt it's common, and I think it's more likely the baby died and they blamed the cat for being there.

Dogs can attack unprovoked. My dogs have been attacked by other dogs, and they did nothing to deserve it. I guess the dog was protecting its territory, but I still call it unprovoked. You always hear of dogs attacking kids too, when the kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

There you go, you said it yourself, the dog was defending it's territory therefore was provoked, there was a reason behind its attack. My definition of provoked is there is a reason behind something, the dictionary's definition is ''If something causes an unpleasant reaction, it causes it''. Your dog's caused an unpleasant reaction of the other dog attacking because they were trespassing (from the dog's point of view anyways) on his territory.
What do you class as nothing wrong? They might not have been doing something on purpose to trigger an attack, but they could've been doing something unknown to themselves like running around screaming and waving their arms about.

morganafay wrote: »

What about if a dog attacks a child in its own family? I know the dog maybe doesn't know the child is higher in the pack than it or something, but I'd still think it's an attack rather than defense.

Or if a dog attacks another dog that is being friendly. It might be defending its territory, but the friendly dog isn't really a threat.

I just use the word attack when the dog started it and wasn't really provoked.

I explained it above, the trespassing dog can be seen as a threat to the other dog, the tresspassing dog doesn't necessarily have to be not friendly to be viewed as a threat.

I hope people can make reasonable sense of that, Im not great at expressing what Im thinking in my head onto words on the screen.

morganafay

Zapperzy wrote: »

Yes that is true, a cat wouldn't be physically able to kill somebody but would be physically able to inflict a lot of pain and injury. And yes they do usually run away unless they feel cornered or are protecting something.
There you go, you said it yourself, the dog was defending it's territory therefore was provoked, there was a reason behind its attack. My definition of provoked is there is a reason behind something, the dictionary's definition is ''If something causes an unpleasant reaction, it causes it''. Your dog's caused an unpleasant reaction of the other dog attacking because they were trespassing (from the dog's point of view anyways) on his territory.
What do you class as nothing wrong? They might not have been doing something on purpose to trigger an attack, but they could've been doing something unknown to themselves like running around screaming and waving their arms about.
/QUOTE]

Yeah, so for that reasons, cats aren't really much of a danger to people. But obviously if for some reason they attack someone, that can be dangerous (like feral cats being caught by people, etc.). But usually cats aren't a danger

Yeah, you're right about the dogs having a reason I guess. But that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Dogs are unpredictable sometimes (especially to kids or people who can't read their emotions). And if people leave them alone with kids or leave them go out on the street where they might attack someone, then that's dangerous, because there might be something that'll trigger them to attack.

I know my dogs were "trespassing" (as in walking on the road) but they were acting friendly to the dogs and much smaller than the dogs, so I don't think they should have been seen as a threat. If they were being aggressive, then fair enough. Also my dogs didn't fight back at all, and one dog attacked them behind their back as they were walking away. I completely blame the owners for things like that, the dog should be better socialised (and not left out on the road). I just think if a dog acts friendly to another dog, then the other dog shouldn't be aggressive, or if it's scared it could run away easily.

I don't think that a dog should be so aggressive that it might attack a kid who does something to upset the dog, or attack somebody/dog walking past the house. With proper socialisation, then I think most dogs shouldn't do that. I know my dogs would go up to greet any dog wagging their tails, and the same with any kid or stranger. They'd bark at a stranger in the garden, but wouldn't bite. And they've never been socialised anymore than normal.

peasant

morganafay wrote: »

Dogs can attack unprovoked. My dogs have been attacked by other dogs, and they did nothing to deserve it. I guess the dog was protecting its territory, but I still call it unprovoked. You always hear of dogs attacking kids too, when the kid wasn't doing anything wrong.

morganafay wrote: »

I'd still think it's an attack rather than defense.

Or if a dog attacks another dog that is being friendly. It might be defending its territory, but the friendly dog isn't really a threat.

I just use the word attack when the dog started it and wasn't really provoked.

morganafay wrote: »

I don't think they should have been seen as a threat. ...
I just think if a dog acts friendly to another dog, then the other dog shouldn't be aggressive,
I don't think that a dog should be so aggressive that it might attack a kid ..
I think most dogs shouldn't do that.

You think this or that, you call it this or that ...you , you, you

Well ...you can think what you like and you can call it what you like, the dogs won't take a blind bit of notice. They do not think ...they act on instinct and training.
You can't impose your moral values on them ...they are animals, they do what they do.

You can however try and understand them ...you really ought to try, seenashow you have a few

morganafay wrote: »

I know my dogs would go up to greet any dog wagging their tails, and the same with any kid or stranger. They'd bark at a stranger in the garden, but wouldn't bite.

Until the day comes where you find out differently.

lrushe

morganafay wrote: »

Well the horse hurt her by accident, so it's not really right to destroy it.

And I'm guessing there was some reason the cat bit her, like it was feral or injured or she was restraining it and it was scared. Because a cat wouldn't just bite you hard like that for no reason.

The horse bolted because it was startled and bolting was what it's instincts told it to do. The dog in question in this thread was startled by an arm poking through a fence and did what it's instincts told it to do and was pts for it. It didn't have the ablity to rationalise that there might be a 7 years old boy at the end of it, you're asking far too much of a dog expecting that.
You have a v.fluffy idea of cats and horses because either you have them as pets or have never been on the wrong end of one, I've met some bad tempered examples of both and I would choose any dog on the dangerous dogs list over one of them

morganafay

peasant wrote: »

You think this or that, you call it this or that ...you , you, you

Well ...you can think what you like and you can call it what you like, the dogs won't take a blind bit of notice. They do not think ...they act on instinct and training.
You can't impose your moral values on them ...they are animals, they do what they do.

You can however try and understand them ...you really ought to try, seenashow you have a few




Until the day comes where you find out differently.

I don't mean the dogs should follow my morals, just that the owners should be responsible for them, and not let them go around the place fighting with other dogs or biting people. Either the owners should train them well, and/or keep them under control. That's all I'm saying and nobody can argue with that.

If it's a genuine accident (like the boy putting his hand through the fence) then that's different.

Dogs should be kept under control, but I'm not saying they all to be pts.

And my dogs are not going to just bite people, I know that well. It'd have to be a very extreme situation for them to bite, like someone attacking them or something. It's just not what they're like. They wouldn't attack another dog they see on the street, even if it was their territory. Not all dogs will bite . . .

morganafay

lrushe wrote: »

The horse bolted because it was startled and bolting was what it's instincts told it to do. The dog in question in this thread was startled by an arm poking through a fence and did what it's instincts told it to do and was pts for it. It didn't have the ablity to rationalise that there might be a 7 years old boy at the end of it, you're asking far too much of a dog expecting that.
You have a v.fluffy idea of cats and horses because either you have them as pets or have never been on the wrong end of one, I've met some bad tempered examples of both and I would choose any dog on the dangerous dogs list over one of them

I wasn't talking about the dog in this case. I know that was an accident probably, the dog was acting on instinct. I was talking about dogs just running over and biting, when nobody has gone near them (for whatever reason).

And I ended up in hospital for a week because of a cat and had to have my hand cut open and scrubbed with a wire brush and bleach, so I don't have a fluffy idea of cats! (It was my own fault though, the cat didn't attack me!)

I just know they are not the type or animal to run up and attack someone, they'd more than likely run away, hence the name scaredy-cat.

peasant

morganafay wrote: »

Not all dogs will bite . . .

Every dog will bite eventually.

But you're right in saying that with the right supervision and training most dogs won't get to that point ...doesn't mean that they aren't capable of it though.


Some people (and most reporters seemingly) seem to be of the opinion that dogs never bite and those that do are automatically dangerous, savage monsters ...and that's just cr*p.


What really gets me about this though (and this thread right back to the beginning) is that because of the universally proclaimed FACT (:rolleyes:) that "good dogs don't bite" any and all biting incidents automatically become the dogs' fault, the dog is declared an abnormal monster and any and all human error that led up to it is therefore deniable.

The dog dies and the error lives on.

And we're supposed to be the superior species ....

morganafay

peasant wrote: »

Every dog will bite eventually.

But you're right in saying that with the right supervision and training most dogs won't get to that point ...doesn't mean that they aren't capable of it though.


Some people (and most reporters seemingly) seem to be of the opinion that dogs never bite and those that do are automatically dangerous, savage monsters ...and that's just cr*p.


What really gets me about this though (and this thread right back to the beginning) is that because of the universally proclaimed FACT (:rolleyes:) that "good dogs don't bite" any and all biting incidents automatically become the dogs' fault, the dog is declared an abnormal monster and any and all human error that led up to it is therefore deniable.

The dog dies and the error lives on.

And we're supposed to be the superior species ....

I think I get what you mean now, that just because a dog bites it doesn't mean it should be put down. Which I think I agree with, because even most aggressive dogs can be worked with to help them.

I definitely agree that it's not the dog's fault, but the owner's (or another person's) fault usually.

I don't mean a dog shouldn't bite, but more that an owner shouldn't let their dog bite, if they can help it. It's not acceptable for dogs to be biting people. It always seems to be a person's fault that someone gets bitten.


And my dogs could bite yeah, but they're very unlikely to, because they're raised well and kept under control too.