My neighbours dig bit my sons arm

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.

Graces7

Whispered wrote: »

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?

By no means. It just looked so odd to me, and then I read this thread.

Just wondered what others thought and was not being in way confrontational or suggestive of the use of muzzles.

It is so hard to keep full control of a dog in a public place and this is maybe one way to think about. I know someone else with a Labrador which wears a lightweight form of harness when out as she is a hoover and picks up any junk lying around. Which also makes sense to me.

It was not a full muzzle. Cannot remember what it is called, but it certainly worked.

Maybe that is why the greyhound walker had his all muzzled.

Graces7

antocann wrote: »

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?

A child's arm is very thin. The injuries were serious enough and the skin was broken. Not like biting a large arm.

Bonus_Pack

1. Report it to the Gardai and the dog warden.
2. Teach your son not to approach strange dogs without the permission of both the person in charge of the dog and the person in charge of him (lesson probably already learned now though in fairness)

Too right.
I would not listen to any of her excuses and moans. Her dog, under Mr. Trunchbull's supervision bit your son. Medical check, Police/warden, dog detroyed, solicitors & claim, in that order. End of story.
The dog should not have been in public without a muzzle if it had the potential to bit a child.
If it were my son, I would have absolutely no mercy on her and , neighbour or not, I would persue her and her husband to the full extent possible under the law.

For that matter, any dog that could potentially bite should not be allowed in public.

tbh

Bonus_Pack wrote: »

For that matter, any dog that could potentially bite should not be allowed in public.

you've just described every dog.

DamagedTrax

Bonus_Pack wrote: »

any dog that could potentially bite should not be allowed in public.

so every dog then?

EDIT: great minds tbh

antocann

Graces7 wrote: »

A child's arm is very thin. The injuries were serious enough and the skin was broken. Not like biting a large arm.

as you said , very thin , i rest my case

Graces7

Bonus_Pack wrote: »

Too right.
I would not listen to any of her excuses and moans. Her dog, under Mr. Trunchbull's supervision bit your son. Medical check, Police/warden, dog detroyed, solicitors & claim, in that order. End of story.
The dog should not have been in public without a muzzle if it had the potential to bit a child.
If it were my son, I would have absolutely no mercy on her and , neighbour or not, I would persue her and her husband to the full extent possible under the law.

For that matter, any dog that could potentially bite should not be allowed in public.

Any dog if provoked enough has the potential to bite. IF PROVOKED ENOUGH.

Any dog can snap once. Our collie did and she has never ever done it again.

Thankful for the OPs wiser attitude, and his mercy.

NB our dogs never leave our home and are never walked in public. We are blessed with filelds to run them in.

Graces7

antocann wrote: »

as you said , very thin , i rest my case

Not what I meant as you well know.

cork_buoy

antocann wrote: »

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 ,

Not the case. My son was hurt...

antocann wrote: »

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 ,

This has already been discussed earlier in the thread.

antocann wrote: »

where you there when the dog bit your son?

In my sitting room. Why?

cork_buoy

DBB wrote: »

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.

Many elements of you're response were based on assumption. The original post asked for advice about the situation. You veered OT...

DBB wrote: »

I do not dispute for a moment that the dog was latched on.

I disagree.

DBB wrote: »

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.

I haven't played the damage down.

DBB wrote: »

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.

In the great scheme of things he didn't loose a limb. Sure, it's not very high in the great scheme of things but it's a lot for a small child. I haven't dramatised the injuries.

DBB wrote: »

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.

The objective was to seek advice for what I should do. I am not looking to dramatise the situation. The damage was considerable in my opinion and in that of the doctor.

DBB wrote: »

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?

There was quite a bit of damage to the adults... cuts.

DBB wrote: »

You said nothing in your OP about your child going to a doctor.

I hadn't updated this thread until I felt it was necessary to reply a few posts. It was not necessary to provide a day-2-day account.

DBB wrote: »

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.

I don't agree.

DBB wrote: »

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.

Perhaps to the untrained eye it was not violent. It was described by witnesses to me as violent.

DBB wrote: »

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.

OK.

DBB wrote: »

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.

After discussions with the owners effective measures were put in place I was satisfied. Do you believe that all dogs of this nature be put to sleep?

DBB

cork_buoy wrote: »

Many elements of you're response were based on assumption. The original post asked for advice about the situation. You veered OT...

Any "assumptions" I made were based purely on what you deigned to tell us. Did the thread go OT? Surely commenting on what should happen to the dog now, as many did before I posted, is very much ON topic, no? Even if it did, you can hardly accuse me of veering this thread OT, as I was initially responding to someone else who had joined a long line of posters that had posted about how they'd deal with the dog. If you'd a problem with your thread going OT, you know what to do.
Many people posted negatively here about your negligence, your son's behaviour being to blame etc etc, and not a word out of you other than meek acceptance, and then you have a go at me for commenting on the observable and demonstrable facts of the case as you presented them, and I also made it clear that I didn't think anyone was to "blame" as such! Very strange behaviour!

From the information you gave, what I said was spot on... I made no assumptions, because I used a direct transcript of what you'd said to make my comments. Saying "luckily the wound is not too bad" (in your op), and later referring to the damage as being "a bit of flesh damage, swelling and bruising", means that any advice given, by anyone not just me, was based on those facts, that you gave. It turns out now that the dog is apparently ferocious and violent... I think you'll find that if this is the case and you had initially revealed this fact, if it is indeed true, that many posters would have taken a different tack with their advice.

I don't care if you disagree with me, particularly as I've had to form the conclusion that your posts are now to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to psychically know what actually happened when you post "facts" that you now claim are far worse than you first suggested.

After discussions with the owners effective measures were put in place I was satisfied. Do you believe that all dogs of this nature be put to sleep?

All you need to do is take a quick look through other similar threads I've posted on to find your answer to this.
You'll find that
(a) if there are mitigating circumstances, and the evidence empirically shows that the level of damage done is within levels deemed (by best practice) to be salvagable by behavioural therapy and management, then no, euthanasia is not something I'd have at the top of the list, and
(b) if the evidence points to the damage done being beyond levels deemed (by best practice) salvagable, and a number of other factors which I won't go into here, then you'll see that I recommend that the dog is seen by a vet for appropriate medical tests. It is then down to the owner and vet to make the decision between them whether to pursue medical and/or behavioural rehabilitation, or not.

I cannot tell someone to put their dog to sleep, but I can advise them on the likelihood of acceptable rehabilitation for that particular dog in their particular circumstances based on a full behavioural work-up: it is ultimately their decision to make based on that, and veterinary advice.

Based on the drip-feeding of information from you, the flip-flopping between it being "a bit" of damage one day, and a violent, ferocious attack the next, and the fact that no dog should be put to sleep based on information given on an internet forum, not on your nelly am I going to post via this medium what I "believe" should happen to dogs "of this nature". I certainly can't go with your take on what his nature is, such is the changeability of your posts on the matter at this stage.
If a person came to me and told me their dog had bitten their child, but the resultant wound wasn't "too bad" with "a bit" of bruising etc, and that the dog had never bitten anyone before, I'd be thinking that this dog is not beyond redemption. If I was then told several days later by the owner that they thought their dog was "ferocious" and "violent", I'd be thinking that they're taking the piss out of me.

biancab

artyeva wrote: »

i've been quietly reading a few of these threads on here the past few days and the above attitude/opinion never ceases to amaze me. if you're the type of person who cannot differentiate between animal and human behaviour and understand their differences then i hope you don't ever own one.

Here here!:D

Cruel Sun

iguana wrote: »

Sorry OP, but the main fault here lies with your son and ultimately you for not teaching him to not approach dogs without getting the owner's permission first. The main thing you need to do here is to use this as an opportunity to teach your son to never, ever, ever approach any dog without first asking the owner if it's ok and then to only approach as the owner specifies.

I can't believe what I am hearing. The main fault lies with the son you say? The dog bit his arm and it took 2 men to separate them. Can you imagine how horrific that must have been. The dog is obviously not safe.

I come on here and I see many people that can't see the difference between a dog and a human.

A lot of ye really need to get your priorities right.

Cherry Blossom

Martin_94 wrote: »

I come on here and I see many people that can't see the difference between a dog and a human.

A lot of ye really need to get your priorities right.

Most people here are well aware of the difference between a dog and human, those that are not aware of the differences seem to be running up to dogs a lot and getting themselves bitten lately.

You came on here looking for advice on a hamster that was holding your family hostage by the way, so it's fairly reasonable to expect not to be taken seriously after that tbh.

tk123

How old is the child and what kind of dog was it?! This is relevant imo to imagine the damage that would have been caused/impact on the child?

Also OP what do you want to happen here as I can't figure that out from the replies - do you want the dog pts/muzzled in future/compensation etc?!

Cruel Sun

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Most people here are well aware of the difference between a dog and human, those that are not aware of the differences seem to be running up to dogs a lot and getting themselves bitten lately.

That heartless comment in my opinion is enough not to be taken seriously anymore.

Humans are more important dogs, I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Cherry Blossom

Martin_94 wrote: »

That heartless comment in my opinion is enough not to be taken seriously anymore.

Humans are more important dogs, I'm sorry if that upsets you.

It doesn't upset me in the slightest, it doesn't even apply to me all because I take full responsibility for my dogs, I also take full responsibility for any kids in my care. Any incident whatsoever that might happen between my dogs and other peoples kids, 'my' kids and other peoples dogs, or 'my' kids and my dogs I personally will accept as 100% my fault and no-one else's. If everybody did the same we wouldn't even have a thread now would we?

Cruel Sun

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

It doesn't upset me in the slightest, it doesn't even apply to me all because I take full responsibility for my dogs, I also take full responsibility for any kids in my care. Any incident whatsoever that might happen between my dogs and other peoples kids, 'my' kids and other peoples dogs, or 'my' kids and my dogs I personally will accept as 100% my fault and no-one else's. If everybody did the same we wouldn't even have a thread now would we?

But it's not the OP's fault or his son's fault. It's the dog owners fault, and as unpopular as it may sound in my opinion that dog should be put down.

Cherry Blossom

Martin_94 wrote: »

But it's not the OP's fault or his son's fault. It's the dog owners fault, and as unpopular as it may sound in my opinion that dog should be put down.

This is not an option for the OP as they have no say in what happens to someone else's dog regardless of what the situation is, that is for the dog's owner and the authorities to decide on.

It's the OP's son's fault that he decided to go bothering other peoples dogs while on a lead without their permission. It's the OPs fault that they never bothered to teach their son manners, common courtesy and to leave strange animals be. No, they are not alone, the whole country is full of 'dog-botherers' hence why the owner of the dog also should have taken steps to prevent this from happening. What should the owner have done? physically move someone else's child out of that dogs space with whatever amount of force that required? - that's assault on a minor, so you can't win now can you?

Cruel Sun

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

This is not an option for the OP as they have no say in what happens to someone else's dog regardless of what the situation is, that is for the dog's owner and the authorities to decide on.

It's the OP's son's fault that he decided to go bothering other peoples dogs while on a lead without their permission. It's the OPs fault that they never bothered to teach their son manners, common courtesy and to leave strange animals be. No, they are not alone, the whole country is full of 'dog-botherers' hence why the owner of the dog also should have taken steps to prevent this from happening. What should the owner have done? physically move someone else's child out of that dogs space with whatever amount of force that required? - that's assault on a minor, so you can't win now can you?

I never said it was an option for the OP, and I sympathize with dog owners who are put in these situations by there dogs actions. It must be heartbreaking for them, but in my opinion humans are more important than dogs and dogs that attack like this are a danger to the public.

It's not the OP's fault or the child's fault regardless if he approached the dog or not. The entire situation is unfortunate however.

I'm entitled to my opinion and you yours, but I don't think this discussion is going anywhere so I'm going to end it now and read a book. Have a good night.