My neighbours dig bit my sons arm

cork_buoy

JustAThought wrote: »

It's a hard way to learn a lesson but believe me, dogs are very strong & that had a dog wanted to do damage it would have.

It did do damage, he is not disfigured but he has a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising.

JustAThought

cork_buoy wrote: »

JustAThought wrote: »

It's a hard way to learn a lesson but believe me, dogs are very strong & that had a dog wanted to do damage it would have.

It did do damage, he is not disfigured but he has a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising.

It must have been very upsetting. I hope his bruising goes down & he is feeling better soon.

Cherry Blossom

LucyBliss wrote: »

AJ, that is great advice and it's certainly something that I would bear in mind if another pup enters the house at some point. But I'd just like to say that I never read anyone the riot act.

Sorry LucyBliss, I know it was your post I quoted but the comment was not for you so much as for people in general. An awful lot of people throw a certain 'look' often possibly inadvertently in the direction of people and kids in particular that approach their dogs, there's a lot of road crossing, turning around and walking in the opposite direction, pulling dogs away etc. etc. in situations that certain dogs are not entirely comfortable in, but the problem, whatever that might be, never gets dealt with. I guess what I'm saying is basicly that when people see an issue starting to emerge in their dogs, they should make an effort to nip it in the bud - for the benefit of the dog if no-one else. Yes, it's annoying if people run up and man handle your pets, but it's a lot less stressful if you mitigate for that situation.

amcalester

GarIT wrote: »

If I stood an inch from your face in the most aggressive way I could and called you every name I could think of but then you hit me it would be your fault. Therefore if an animal bites a person unless it was physically attacked first it is the animals fault, if the owner can't control the dog and the dog cant control itself it should be put down.

Actually no it would be your fault. If I was fearful for my safety or felt threatened with physical violence then you could/would be deemed to have assaulted me and I am permitted to take reasonable and proportionate steps to defend myself which may include hitting you.

When out walking my white GSD, i always keep her on a short lease when approaching other people including kids. I know she will jump up and want to be petted by everyone. However she is a big dog and could easily knock over a child.
If anyone approached my dog I would warn them away.
In all honestly, if my dog ever attacked a child whether provoked or not, i would be very concerned. Not least because i have children and would consider the dog no longer trust worthy. My kids and dog play a lot together and my dog puts up with a lot. She has never shown any aggression and with the right training and socialization she never will!
This incident needs to be reported and at the very least the dog should be muzzled while out and an appropriate dog behaviour expert engaged to perhaps do some therapy and make sure this is not an issue for the dog.
Kids and animals want be trusted and therefore you need to take care of both when out.

LucyBliss

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Sorry LucyBliss, I know it was your post I quoted but the comment was not for you so much as for people in general. An awful lot of people throw a certain 'look' often possibly inadvertently in the direction of people and kids in particular that approach their dogs, there's a lot of road crossing, turning around and walking in the opposite direction, pulling dogs away etc. etc. in situations that certain dogs are not entirely comfortable in, but the problem, whatever that might be, never gets dealt with. I guess what I'm saying is basicly that when people see an issue starting to emerge in their dogs, they should make an effort to nip it in the bud - for the benefit of the dog if no-one else. Yes, it's annoying if people run up and man handle your pets, but it's a lot less stressful if you mitigate for that situation.

No probs, adrenalinejunkie. I don't like people manhandling my dogs, but we still walk where there are people because yes, that would set a very bad routine for the dogs if we were avoiding others left, right and centre. To be honest with you, most of the bad/annoying experiences that I've had when out with the dogs have been when we're walking through the college campus. Whether that is because of the general attitudes of some of the populace there, perhaps after a bout of socialising, I don't know. (Please note: this is not a All Students Are Out To Annoy My Dogs And Are Therefore To Blame For Everything Ever comment).
But the fact remains that this particular dog dislikes being petted by strangers but HATES being ignored and if you do so, you are guaranteed to have her wanting you to pet her, even if she's just met you. :rolleyes:

I don't care what anyone says, socialising dogs can be every bit as consuming as socialising young kids! Do it wrong for either and you end up being on tenterhooks every time you take them out in public!!

noodler

OP has been satisfied but I just thought I'd post a few points from my own experience.

Have a dog for two years now, an absolutely beautiful Staff-Boxer (I believe anyway, boxer part seems certain - Vet said Staff was the likely other breed).

Took it in as a stray when some absolute piece of scum abandoned her and her sister when they clearly had no luck selling them.

Before I had the Dog, I would have been very much in the "people control their Dogs at all times" and "all Dogs are dangerous frame of mind.

But even with a Dog the size of mine - she is so bloody nice and friendly - but you still live in fear (even though she has given me no reason for such fear) that she could possibly, under some circumstances actually bite a kid.

I find myself crossing roads if kids are ahead, walking to the least populated parts of the park on walks etc and never letting her off the leash unless there is nobody around.

My Dog has been petted by strange kids adults before (some have asked, others haven't, some have simply inferred permission by striking up a conversation with me about the Dog) and has had absolutely no reaction.

It really is an imperfect science.

wesf

GarIT wrote: »

I know animals don't behave or think rationally like people. They still shouldn't get special treatment, they should never get the chance to hurt anyone and if they do something should be done about it. I would never own an animal I think they are disgusting and belong in the wild not in a city.

The animals life is worth nothing, its known to have bitten people so it should be stopped from repeating itself. Also its the owners fault for not controling the dog and the pwner should be fined and banned from having pets.

thats some statement to come out with, who made you god? i have 2 labs here and if they could talk they wouldn't come out with something as stupid as that. i'd class my dogs as higher forms of life than some of the scum walking around the place

JustAThought

Cork-bouy!!!

I was thinking about this last night & there was something I'd forgotten.
If this dog was a restricted breed dog ( Ireland RB list for when you re googling !) and wasn't muzzled you should have comeback on costs you incur ( & I know it's not about costs but money is an aspect you have to take into consideration too ) ; tetnus shot; trip to doctor, prescription, ... Many dogs have insurance which goes with public liability insurance ( alliance pet insurance has 60,000 cover for public liability which us what I have for my dog).
Thou of course there is no obligation to have pet insurance & as you son reached down to pet without asking & it was on a lead you might well have little comeback with an insurance company. But!!! If it was a RB dog unmuzzled the situation is totally changed either way. And if the owners are relatively sound ( not sure who Mrs Thurnball is!!!) you might well be able to do something if their dog has insurance.

Hope your son is feeling calmer & better today. A few pictures of those bruises won't go astray; just in case.

Good luck .

meathstevie

Folks, if the dog just snapped and let go out of fear I can well imagine that some of the blame should rest with the injured party.

In this case it sounds like the dog was pretty well latched on and of no mind to let go without some serious intervention. If a dog is latched on pretty strongly like that I can only imagine that the kid didn't struggle too hard against the holding bite because otherwise the chances are the dog would have tried to reposition it's bite against it's struggling target and the consequences can be quite dire if that happens. I believe the owner has a simple choice to make in this case; either muzzle the dog when out in public or get it destroyed.

DBB

meathstevie wrote: »

In this case it sounds like the dog was pretty well latched on and of no mind to let go without some serious intervention.

Had the dog been well latched on, the child would have been in hospital afterwards.

If a dog is latched on pretty strongly like that I can only imagine that the kid didn't struggle too hard against the holding bite

What are the chances that a kid wouldn't struggle if a dog grabbed their arm, or any other part of them, in their mouth?

because otherwise the chances are the dog would have tried to reposition it's bite against it's struggling target and the consequences can be quite dire if that happens.

Would he? How do you know this?

Let's try to be more realistic here. There's one thing you can be 100% sure of. If a dog wants to hurt somebody, it will. If a dog (of suitable size) wants to kill someone, it will. If a dog wants to issue a mild warning, it will.
If a dog decides to "latch on", it will cause pretty catastrophic damage.
If a dog bruises or causes a small flesh wound when it bites, then that's all he meant to do.

This dog bruised the child and caused a small flesh wound, and therefore issued a warning to the child's unwelcome advances, by seriously inhibiting the power of its bite. A dog is perfectly able to hold on to an arm, leg, or anything else without causing harm, though it can be difficult to prize the arm/leg out of the mouth. In my experience, most of the damage done in these sorts of incidents are actually caused by the human's attempts to pull the dog away from the person being bitten.
I am no apologist when it comes to dogs that bite, but we need to stop this hysteria when dogs bite people in mitigating circumstances without causing harm. Dogs are not robots, and we are extraordinarily unrealistic to think that dogs should be delighted with everything every human does to them every moment of the day. If a dog is put under pressure, and he retaliates by deliberately minimising any harm done, then we simply have to accept that the chances are somebody placed the dog into an impossible situation, and each party needs to learn from it.
What about horses who kick people from time to time? Shoot them?
Or hamsters who bite their child owners when they handle them? Kill them too? Does this ever happen in these instances? I see no difference... yet for some reason there are always people who clamour to kill a dog who bit without causing lasting harm. There are times when a biting dog should be put to sleep. This is certainly not one of them based on what the OP has told us.

In this case, the dog's owner made a mistake. Secondary to that, the child's parents made a mistake, and the child himself made an unwitting mistake. The dog bit and bruised the child. Nobody ended up in hospital, or even at the doctor's. So, let's be sensible here (and I think OP sounds like she's being just that)... the parents will be more vigilant, the child has probably learned a lesson, and the owners of the dog need to be more careful when allowing kids/people up to randomly pet their dog. Appropriately conditioning the dog to wear a comfortable muzzle may be an option.

But suggesting the dog is killed? Just a tad hysterical methinks.

mattjack

cork_buoy wrote: »

The dog latched onto his arm and wouldn't let go. It took two grown men to separate the dogs grip from his arm leaving him with a wound.

[QUOTE=DBB;79370440]Had the dog been well latched on, the child would have been in hospital afterwards.


Two grown men to separate the dog from the child would suggest the dog was well latched on.

DBB

mattjack wrote: »

cork_buoy wrote: »

The dog latched onto his arm and wouldn't let go. It took two grown men to separate the dogs grip from his arm leaving him with a wound.

[QUOTE=DBB;79370440]Had the dog been well latched on, the child would have been in hospital afterwards.


Two grown men to separate the dog from the child would suggest the dog was well latched on.

Two grown men probably made the superficial wound worse.
If the dog had been tightly latched on, can you tell me, how did the child escape with a bruise and a mild laceration? Please explain.
Like I posted, a dog can hold on securely to something without causing it any harm. Dogs can carry raw eggs around in their mouths without breaking them. They can also break a bone such is the strength of their bite, should they choose.
So, had this dog been tightly latched on with the teeth dug in, I fail to understand how the child did not require stitches at least, or blood transfusions, or plastic surgery.

mattjack

DBB wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

cork_buoy wrote: »

The dog latched onto his arm and wouldn't let go. It took two grown men to separate the dogs grip from his arm leaving him with a wound.



Two grown men probably made the superficial wound worse.
If the dog had been tightly latched on, can you tell me, how did the child escape with a bruise and a mild laceration? Please explain.
Like I posted, a dog can hold on securely to something without causing it any harm. Dogs can carry raw eggs around in their mouths without breaking them. They can also break a bone such is the strength of their bite, should they choose.
So, had this dog been tightly latched on with the teeth dug in, I fail to understand how the child did not require stitches at least, or blood transfusions, or plastic surgery.

I can't explain, I wasn't there.. I,m going on what the OP said

We,ve gone from blaming the dog,the child,the child's parents,the dog owner and you reckon the second adult who pulled the child from the dog is at fault too.

Dogs have rounded teeth as well as sharp teeth , damage can be caused under the skin by pressure from the jaws.
With a laceration, like you suggest, that suggests the skin is broken upping the ante a little... so the dogs history of immunisation etc becomes of interest,with the skin broken I think a tetanus injection is needed.

DamagedTrax

mattjack wrote: »

DBB wrote: »

mattjack wrote: »

I can't explain, I wasn't there.. I,m going on what the OP said

We,ve gone from blaming the dog,the child,the child's parents,the dog owner and you reckon the second adult who pulled the child from the dog is at fault too.

Dogs have rounded teeth as well as sharp teeth , damage can be caused under the skin by pressure from the jaws.
With a laceration, like you suggest, that suggests the skin is broken upping the ante a little... so the dogs history of immunisation etc becomes of interest,with the skin broken I think a tetanus injection is needed.

the bite force required for a dog to latch and hold to an extent that it takes two men to pull it off would cause puncture wounds at the very least.

in a certain restricted breeds it can cause fairly bad injury due to the scissors formation on the canines, in other breeds the canines would most definitly puncture a childs skin.

im not questioning the OP, just like you i wasnt there. but in the heat of the moment im sure there are details that are missed out on or forgotten.

DBB

mattjack wrote: »

I can't explain, I wasn't there.. I,m going on what the OP said

So am I. She said (Post 52):

It did do damage, he is not disfigured but he has a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising.

I think we can take it that there was no visit to the doctor's or hospital as I'd have thought this would be a central piece of information in the op.
There is a tried and tested scale used to ascertain the force leve of a bite (by Dr. Ian Dunbar), and the rationale behind it from the dog's point of view. It is used in expert witness testimony in court. Bruising from a single bite, with shallow lacerations, is the human equivalent of hitting someone a slap in retaliation. None of us needs to have been there to ascertain, from the OP's above post, what level of force was used in this bite to cause the damage that was caused. The empirical proof is in the damage caused.

We,ve gone from blaming the dog,the child,the child's parents,the dog owner and you reckon the second adult who pulled the child from the dog is at fault too.

I haven't blamed anyone, but I have said that those involved need to learn from it.
It was an accident: the dog has no previous history, the parents hadn't explained to the child about approaching dogs, the people who tried to help may have done more damage in trying to help. But I don't, and didn't, "blame" any of them.. such is the nature of most accidents that it takes a series of small mistakes to come together to cause them. If anyone had deliberately set out to cause this accident, then yes, there would be a case to blame people, but in this case, there wasn't one person to "blame" as such.
It was, as happens in life, just one of those things. Nobody was excessively harmed, the owners of the dog need to take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, and eveyone needs to move on from it, just as the OP indicated she's doing. But to kill the dog in this particular case is not justifiable. And believe me, as I said above, I am no apologist for dogs that bite and cause harm.
Now, if the incident was to happen again, as a result of one/all parties involved not taking the steps they now need to take having learned from this accident, THEN there'd be justification for blaming those who hadn't bothered.

Dogs have rounded teeth as well as sharp teeth , damage can be caused under the skin by pressure from the jaws.

That's right. It's called a bruise.
I'm not sure about the rounded teeth though.. can you point me towards which teeth they are in canine dentition? All of the teeth in the dog's mouth are sharp-edged, none of them have the rounded edges like human molars, to the best of my knowledge.

With a laceration, like you suggest, that suggests the skin is broken upping the ante a little... so the dogs history of immunisation etc becomes of interest,with the skin broken I think a tetanus injection is needed

The dog's vaccination history is of absolutely zero concern to anyone in this case. The conditions dogs are vaccinated against are not communicable to humans via a dog bite.
You may be right about the tetanus shot for the child, though to the best of my knowledge the risk is even smaller for very shallow wounds that don't bleed. We don't know if this child bled, but I'm sure had the bite been bad enough for the child to be brought to the doctor, the doctor would have advised accordingly.
Indeed, it's no harm for everyone to be immunised against tetany should they step on a nail, get bitten by a dog, cut themselves on a barbed wire fence etc etc etc.

mattjack

DBB wrote: »

So am I. She said (Post 52):



I think we can take it that there was no visit to the doctor's or hospital as I'd have thought this would be a central piece of information in the op.

Ok[/B]

There is a tried and tested scale used to ascertain the force leve of a bite (by Dr. Ian Dunbar), and the rationale behind it from the dog's point of view. It is used in expert witness testimony in court. Bruising from a single bite, with shallow lacerations, is the human equivalent of hitting someone a slap in retaliation. None of us needs to have been there to ascertain, from the OP's above post, what level of force was used in this bite to cause the damage that was caused. The empirical proof is in the damage caused.

Yes he has lots of publications,DVDs, seminars etc, I'm certain I've one in the house.A very well known individual in the US.

I haven't blamed anyone, but I have said that those involved need to learn from it.

When I used the term 'blame', it was A general term pointing out the amount of people/dog being involved .
That comment was about the amount of individuals involved from dog owners,parents,child,dog and individual passing.
My way of typing clearly could lead it to be taken out of context.

It was an accident:

Of course it was accident

the dog has no previous history, the parents hadn't explained to the child about approaching dogs, the people who tried to help may have done more damage in trying to help. But I don't, and didn't, "blame" any of them.. such is the nature of most accidents that it takes a series of small mistakes to come together to cause them. If anyone had deliberately set out to cause this accident, then yes, there would be a case to blame people, but in this case, there wasn't one person to "blame" as such.

I never said you/yourself blamed anyone at all.

I've been bitten a few times over the years , one was my own fault ,one of my own terriers bit me .His first time ever bite anyone.Nobody is ever going to admit their dog has a history of biting.

It was, as happens in life, just one of those things. Nobody was excessively harmed, the owners of the dog need to take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, and eveyone needs to move on from it, just as the OP indicated she's doing. But to kill the dog in this particular case is not justifiable. And believe me, as I said above, I am no apologist for dogs that bite and cause harm.

I don't believe the dog should be put down either and never said so.

Now, if the incident was to happen again, as a result of one/all parties involved not taking the steps they now need to take having learned from this accident, THEN there'd be justification for blaming those who hadn't bothered.



That's right. It's called a bruise.
I'm not sure about the rounded teeth though.. can you point me towards which teeth they are in canine dentition? All of the teeth in the dog's mouth are sharp-edged, none of them have the rounded edges like human molars, to the best of my knowledge.

http://www.medicinenet.com/dog_bite_treatment/article.htm

Dogs have rounded teeth, and it is the pressure exerted by their jaws that can cause significant damage to the tissues under the skin, including bones, muscles, tendons, blood vessels, and nerves.

The dog's vaccination history is of absolutely zero concern to anyone in this case. The conditions dogs are vaccinated against are not communicable to humans via a dog bite.

Ok, fair enough.

You may be right about the tetanus shot for the child, though to the best of my knowledge the risk is even smaller for very shallow wounds that don't bleed. We don't know if this child bled, but I'm sure had the bite been bad enough for the child to be brought to the doctor, the doctor would have advised accordingly.

Tetanus can manifest after any puncture,laceration or scrape to the skin..the shallowness or bleeding doesn't matter .

Indeed, it's no harm for everyone to be immunised against tetany should they step on a nail, get bitten by a dog, cut themselves on a barbed wire fence etc etc etc.

That's good advice.I think most are aware of that.Regular boosters are offered in hospital too.

Whispered

OP - I hope your son is feeling better. Is he now terrified of dogs? If he is can I suggest you try to address this as soon as possible, I've seen kids afraid of dogs and it really does effect their whole life.

cork_buoy

DBB wrote: »

Had the dog been well latched on, the child would have been in hospital afterwards.

The dog was well latched on. Witnesses acknowledge this.

DBB wrote: »

Let's try to be more realistic here. There's one thing you can be 100% sure of. If a dog wants to hurt somebody, it will.

It did.

DBB wrote: »

If a dog (of suitable size) wants to kill someone, it will. If a dog wants to issue a mild warning, it will.
If a dog decides to "latch on", it will cause pretty catastrophic damage.
If a dog bruises or causes a small flesh wound when it bites, then that's all he meant to do.

What a load of bs. The intervention of 2 grown adults saved the child from certain serious injury.

DBB wrote: »

This dog bruised the child and caused a small flesh wound, and therefore issued a warning to the child's unwelcome advances, by seriously inhibiting the power of its bite.

Small? You haven't even seen it! The wound consists of puncture marks, small tears, bruising and swelling. My son was seen by a medical professional whose opinion differs to yours.

The dog bite was not a warning... it was part of an attack. It was violent.

DBB wrote: »

A dog is perfectly able to hold on to an arm, leg, or anything else without causing harm

Sure, but not this dog in this situation.

DBB wrote: »

In my experience, most of the damage done in these sorts of incidents are actually caused by the human's attempts to pull the dog away from the person being bitten.

What experience? Are you a medical professional? How many incidents of dog bites have you 'experience' with? Your conclusions above do not suggest you are an expert in this area.

DBB wrote: »

I am no apologist when it comes to dogs that bite, but we need to stop this hysteria

And we stop this 'hysteria' by posting inaccurate, baseless deductions on internet forums?

DBB wrote: »

Dogs are not robots

Robots execute instructions written by humans... dogs are living carnivorous animals and some of them bite just like this one did.

DBB wrote: »

The dog bit and bruised the child. Nobody ended up in hospital, or even at the doctor's.

You need to reread the thread. The injuries sustained are a little more serious than bruising. The child has seen a doctor after complaining of pain in his arm.

DBB wrote: »

So, let's be sensible here (and I think OP sounds like she's being just that)... the parents will be more vigilant, the child has probably learned a lesson, and the owners of the dog need to be more careful when allowing kids/people up to randomly pet their dog. Appropriately conditioning the dog to wear a comfortable muzzle may be an option.

But suggesting the dog is killed? Just a tad hysterical methinks.

How about let's be factual here. This incident warrants putting the dog down such was the ferocity of the attack, the authorities words, not mine. The attack is one which you did not witness but yet you believe that you are qualified to determine an appropriate course of action. Garbage.

cork_buoy

Whispered wrote: »

OP - I hope your son is feeling better. Is he now terrified of dogs? If he is can I suggest you try to address this as soon as possible, I've seen kids afraid of dogs and it really does effect their whole life.

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, he is feeling much better. We haven't yet assessed how he is around dogs. We will in due course.

mattjack

cork_buoy wrote: »

The dog was well latched on. Witnesses acknowledge this.




It did.



What a load of bs. The intervention of 2 grown adults saved the child from certain serious injury.



Small? You haven't even seen it! The wound consists of puncture marks, small tears, bruising and swelling. My son was seen by a medical professional whose opinion differs to yours.

The dog bite was not a warning... it was part of an attack. It was violent.



Sure, but not this dog in this situation.



What experience? Are you a medical professional? How many incidents of dog bites have you 'experience' with? Your conclusions above do not suggest you are an expert in this area.



And we stop this 'hysteria' by posting inaccurate, baseless deductions on internet forums?




Robots execute instructions written by humans... dogs are living carnivorous animals and some of them bite just like this one did.



You need to reread the thread. The injuries sustained are a little more serious than bruising. The child has seen a doctor after complaining of pain in his arm.



How about let's be factual here. This incident warrants putting the dog down such was the ferocity of the attack, the authorities words, not mine. The attack is one which you did not witness but yet you believe that you are qualified to determine an appropriate course of action. Garbage.

Thought you might be back.Hope your son is doing better.

cork_buoy

mattjack wrote: »

Thought you might be back.Hope your son is doing better.

Thanks Out of curiosity, when you replied you included quotes from my post but removed the context ie. DBB's comments. Why?

mattjack

cork_buoy wrote: »

Thanks Out of curiosity, when you replied you included quotes from my post but removed the context ie. DBB's comments. Why?

On the previous post ?
it just happened that way.

cork_buoy

DBB wrote: »

The dog's vaccination history is of absolutely zero concern to anyone in this case. The conditions dogs are vaccinated against are not communicable to humans via a dog bite.

You should read your own link! http://www.medicinenet.com/dog_bite_treatment/article.htm

Rabies (ok, we haven't had a case in Ireland for decades) is still a concern.

mattjack

cork_buoy wrote: »

You should read your own link! http://www.medicinenet.com/dog_bite_treatment/article.htm

Rabies (ok, we haven't had a case in Ireland for decades) is still a concern.

Oh I did.Mention rabies to some dog owners and the pitchforks would be out.

cork_buoy

mattjack wrote: »

Oh I did.Mention rabies to some dog owners and the pitchforks would be out.

I say let them bring out the pitchforks. It is still considered a risk. We all thought TB was a thing of the past. There can be no room for complacency.

col.in.Cr

Some Dog owners/walkers need to cop the fck on,a lot I see are not on leads at all and if they are you still have to move your child out of the way for them and not the other way around.I own and walk my dog also but some of these owners have no cop on at all.

strandroad

col.in.Cr wrote: »

Some Dog owners/walkers need to cop the fck on,a lot I see are not on leads at all and if they are you still have to move your child out of the way for them and not the other way around.I own and walk my dog also but some of these owners have no cop on at all.

Have you read the thread at all? The dog was on the lead, the child approached and interacted without permission.

mattjack

mhge wrote: »

Have you read the thread at all? The dog was on the lead, the child approached and interacted without permission.

The operative word in his post was SOME, have you read his post ?

cork_buoy

col.in.Cr wrote: »

Some Dog owners/walkers need to cop the fck on,a lot I see are not on leads at all and if they are you still have to move your child out of the way for them and not the other way around.I own and walk my dog also but some of these owners have no cop on at all.

The dog owner will assume responsibility for the dogs actions. It is in their own interest. I've owned dogs for years.

cork_buoy

mhge wrote: »

the child approached and interacted without permission.

The dog bit the child. The owner simply did not do enough to prevent the incident from occurring. Though the child is not entirely blameless the owner failed to intervene. This is the view of the authorities who have interviewed witnesses and parties involved.

strandroad

mattjack wrote: »

The operative word in his post was SOME, have you read his post ?

Of course, and it still has no connection. I could type out dozens unrelated statements about some dog owners, dogs or children.... The fact that the OP thanked this random post only shows how they still see no fault of theirs.

mattjack

cork_buoy wrote: »

The dog bit the child. The owner simply did not do enough to prevent the incident from occurring. Though the child is not entirely blameless the owner failed to intervene. This is the view of the authorities who have interviewed witnesses and parties involved.

mhge wrote: »

Of course, and it still has no connection. I could type out dozens unrelated statements about some dog owners, dogs or children.... The fact that the OP thanked this random post only shows how they still see no fault of theirs.[/QUOTE]

Kind of throws your point a bit.

cork_buoy

mhge wrote: »

Of course, and it still has no connection. I could type out dozens unrelated statements about some dog owners, dogs or children.... The fact that the OP thanked this random post only shows how they still see no fault of theirs.

The fact that I thanked the contributor means what now? I've already accepted limited responsibility. See this post.

strandroad

mattjack wrote: »

Kind of throws your point a bit.

Erm how? It just shows their attitude... to have the dog put down, to have a go at owners mentioned, but to accept no responsibility for how they brought the child up, even if he suffered because of that. The thing is that as long as this doesn't change the child is not safe because there will be other dogs walked around... it would be horrible if the child only learnt to stay away from unfamiliar dogs as a result of an assault and not of responsible upbringing.
ETA: OK just seen the post where their responsibility is mentioned. Still don't see how they advocate to destroy the dog if the situation was partly of their creation?

cork_buoy

mhge wrote: »

Erm how? It just shows their attitude... to have the dog put down, to have a go at owners mentioned, but to accept no responsibility for how they brought the child up, even if he suffered because of that. The thing is that as long as this doesn't change the child is not safe because there will be other dogs walked around... it would be horrible if the child only learnt to stay away from unfamiliar dogs as a result of an assault and not of responsible upbringing.

It is the view of the authorities to have the dog put down. I haven't had the dog put down. You're misinterpreting my posts. Read this post for example.

strandroad

cork_buoy wrote: »

It is the view of the authorities to have the dog put down. I haven't had the dog put down. You're misinterpreting my posts. Read this post for example.

OK I misread your post above then, apologies - you rely their opinion as if you agree with it.

cork_buoy

mhge wrote: »

OK I misread your post above then, apologies - you rely their opinion as if you agree with it.

Many dog owners that I have spoken with in private have suggested that the dog be put down because it is dangerous. Like many of the readers and contributors on this forum they are only opinions. The dog is alive today because we choose not to have it put down. It would break the owners heart and we do not want to do that.

col.in.Cr

I dont want my dog interfered with either but thats why I keep him well back from any kids we meet on a path,I move right over and allow them to pass unlike some I see,I was walking in a busy city street recently and there was a dog allowed walk well out in front of the owner with the lead fully out.

BunShopVoyeur

2qk4u wrote: »

The dog and owner are not to blame

Oh ffs, this place really does host some mentals.

cork_buoy

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Oh ffs, this place really does host some mentals.

Some posts you just have to ignore.... don't feed the trolls

star-pants

Guys can we keep on topic please, lets not get into pedantics or name calling, thank you.

tbh

cork_buoy wrote: »

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Oh ffs, this place really does host some mentals.

Some posts you just have to ignore.... don't feed the trolls

Hope your little fella is doing well. Have you decided how and if you're going to follow this up? How is the owner behaving?

DBB

Cork buoy, I'm not sure why you became so venomous towards my posts. Whilst my deepest sympathies are with your child, and hopes that he will not have a lasting fear of dogs, I think you're being just a touch unreasonable in your response to me. After all, as I pointed out, we could only go by what you had told us. ALL advice given on ALL forums is based on what the OP tells us. You did not mention a hell of a lot of stuff for days, until today, when you decided to vent your spleen at me and use an entirely different language to describe what happened. Because you have rather pulled me apart, I must clarify a lot of what you said, some of which is off the mark to say the least.

cork_buoy wrote: »

The dog was well latched on. Witnesses acknowledge this.

I do not dispute for a moment that the dog was latched on. As I explained, dogs can latch on very effectively to objects, but latching on does not necessarily mean the dog is causing harm. I can wrestle with any of my dogs to take a stick off them, it takes all my strength sometimes, yet the stick comes out without so much as a splinter missing.
The fact that, as you described it, the child had "a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising", led me, and I'd suggest many reading this thread, that although your son had some damage done, it was not life-threatening nor had injuries serious enough to warrant stitching or surgery. In other words, whether you like it or nor, the force applied when "latching on" was minimal enough not to cause catastrophic injuries: no bystanders could have stopped this had the dog wanted to cause catastrophic damage, and they'd have been damaged themselves whilst trying to save the child. Whatever you believe, the proof of the level of force the dog used is right there, on your child's arm. If it's worse than as you first described, you cannot blame me for not knowing that.
It's certainly not my fault if you played down the level of damage done to your child, only deciding now to tell us. Like I say, we could only go on what you originally told us.

It did.

He did damage, but as you described it, it was "a bit of flesh damage, swelling, and bruising", which in the big scheme of things, is not very high up on the scale of damage. Sorry if this enrages your indignance any more.
You may not like what I say here, but I am, contrary to what you seem to think, basing my words on evidence garnered by the medical community in conjunction with vets and highly qualified dog behavioural specialists. As I said in my post, the medical profession and dog behaviour experts have a clear, legally recognised, scale of damage for dog bites. Whether you like it or not, bruising with lacerations up to half the depth of the dog's canine teeth are considered to be the equivalent, in human terms, of a thump. It is a scale of 1 to 6, and the level of damage you described to us indicates it was a Level 3 bite. Look up the scale if you like.
Again, going by what you told us in your posts up to today, there was nothing to indicate that your child had wounds deep enough to suggest the damage was greater than Level 3. There still isn't, actually.

What a load of bs. The intervention of 2 grown adults saved the child from certain serious injury.

I think you have rather missed the point here. When a dog bites, the majority of damage is done in the first split second. No human in the world is fast enough to react quickly enough before the damage is done. Unless you're now going to tell me that the two grown adults were prizing his jaws open within one second of the dog latching on? And how much damage was done to the adults who presumably prized the dog's jaws open?

Small? You haven't even seen it! The wound consists of puncture marks, small tears, bruising and swelling. My son was seen by a medical professional whose opinion differs to yours.

You said nothing in your OP about your child going to a doctor. As I said in an above post, one would have assumed that you might have mentioned this rather critical fact in your initial description of what happened and the level of damage that was done to your child :rolleyes:
And I will once again draw your attention to the fact that your initial information stated that your child had "a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising". Only now you seem to be indicating that it wasn't "a bit" of damage after all? I'm not psychic. As I said, we/I can only go by what you initially told us. I won't accept you making out that I was playing down your child's injuries: you did that all by yourself.

The dog bite was not a warning... it was part of an attack. It was violent.

I have little doubt it looked bad. But your child didn't get stitches, or require surgery (or if he did, you didn't say), so it really does sound that it wasn't as "violent" as you're only now making it out to be.

What experience? Are you a medical professional? How many incidents of dog bites have you 'experience' with? Your conclusions above do not suggest you are an expert in this area.

I'm not a medical professional, no. I am more highly qualified than your average GP though. My profession, and professional and academic qualifications put me in the position of acting as expert witness in dog aggression cases. To act as expert witness, one can't just come up with unfounded, baseless statements: I'd very quickly lose my business if I did that. It is ALL based on evidence-based research, peer-reviewed research, and professional opinion. In other words, I am considered an expert with plenty of experience of incidents of dog bites.

And we stop this 'hysteria' by posting inaccurate, baseless deductions on internet forums?

See above for your comment about my comments being either inaccurate or baseless.
Again, everyone here went with what you originally told us. If you left out vital detail, or played down the level of injury in your original posts, you can hardly come on here and cast aspersions on people who give you opinions in response to that information.

You need to reread the thread. The injuries sustained are a little more serious than bruising. The child has seen a doctor after complaining of pain in his arm.

I read the thread many times as a matter of fact. And each time, I read the bit where you said that the child had "a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising"!

How about let's be factual here. This incident warrants putting the dog down such was the ferocity of the attack, the authorities words, not mine.

So, even though you, or better the "authorities" now describe the "attack" as "ferocious" and "violent", you're not insisting this ferocious, violent dog is put to sleep? Really? And you bring MY opinion into question? If the dog is that dangerous, surely it's only right that steps are taken to ensure that no child is ever injured by this dog again? Indeed, that the authorities were involved at all is also news that you hadn't included up to this point to allow people to get some context.

The attack is one which you did not witness but yet you believe that you are qualified to determine an appropriate course of action

I went with what you posted. I think I might have mentioned that. If this dog is as ferocious and violent as you now say it is, then I'd question that you deem it an "appropriate course of action" to not upset the dog's owner by not taking steps to ensure the dog bites nobody else! Your indignance seems rather misplaced in light of this.

Garbage.

:rolleyes:

Graces7

Someone mentioned muzzles..

I saw this week a man walking five greyhounds, all muzzled. They were fine and happy.

Old saying; the gun is always loaded, the horse always kicks; the dog always bites.

And yes, always ask permission to touch. And always let the dog sniff your hand first.

Whispered

Graces7 wrote: »

Someone mentioned muzzles..

I saw this week a man walking five greyhounds, all muzzled. They were fine and happy.

Old saying; the gun is always loaded, the horse always kicks; the dog always bites.

And yes, always ask permission to touch. And always let the dog sniff your hand first.

I'm unsure what your point is, do you mean you think all dogs should be muzzled when in public in case at some point it bites?

Bruthal

wesf wrote: »

thats some statement to come out with, who made you god? i have 2 labs here and if they could talk they wouldn't come out with something as stupid as that. i'd class my dogs as higher forms of life than some of the scum walking around the place

So would I, and I dont even know your dogs.

Bruthal

cork_buoy wrote: »

Thanks Out of curiosity, when you replied you included quotes from my post but removed the context ie. DBB's comments. Why?

If you quote one posters post, the items he himself quoted dont automatically appear in you`re quote.

So DBB`s comments would not be there automatically when you`re own post was quoted by mattjack.

antocann

op . what dog what is , if 2 men had to pull it off more than likely they done more damage than the dog ,

also if that dog or any dog latched on and wanted to hurt your son,he would be in a hospital bed about now ,

owner and child are at fault , but seriously your son needs to leanr that he cant just go and pet other peoples dogs with out permision ,

where you there when the dog bit your son?

Graces7

cork_buoy wrote: »

Many dog owners that I have spoken with in private have suggested that the dog be put down because it is dangerous. Like many of the readers and contributors on this forum they are only opinions. The dog is alive today because we choose not to have it put down. It would break the owners heart and we do not want to do that.

For this compassion and sense, thank you.
And for this dog's life.

Our collie nipped someone on the heels once and everyone was then scared of her, and some here opined she should be put down. She was untrained and simply doing what instinct told her. Herding the woman. She drew blood.

We have never seen any aggression. Even when the old man next door beat her with his stick, she made no attempt to attack him but ran for me; I had just gone in to call the Gardai to him.

He then told everyone that the dog had attacked him. The Gardai thankfully said he would have to prove it. But yes it could have ended very badly indeed.