My neighbours dig bit my sons arm

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.