My neighbours dig bit my sons arm

Cherry Blossom

Martin_94 wrote: »

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.

The dog owner wasn't put in this situation by their dog, they were put in it by the OPs son, what they did was the equivalent of a stranger walking up to you in the street and grabbing you by the throat, I've seen how that turns out and humans are supposed to be the intelligent species!

kylith

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

The dog owner wasn't put in this situation by their dog, they were put in it by the OPs son, what they did was the equivalent of a stranger walking up to you in the street and grabbing you by the throat, I've seen how that turns out and humans are supposed to be the intelligent species!

Exactly! Never mind the 'he only wanted to pet it', as far as the dog is concerned it's the same situation. Why we insist on holding an animal to a higher standard than ourselves I cannot fathom.

tbh

kylith wrote: »

Exactly! Never mind the 'he only wanted to pet it', as far as the dog is concerned it's the same situation. Why we insist on holding an animal to a higher standard than ourselves I cannot fathom.

it's interesting that you make the distinction between what the child intends and what the dog perceives, and then state that we're holding a dog to higher standard than ourselves.

It's interesting because you're agreeing with the previous poster who blames the child. In other words, the dog wasn't to understand what the child intended, so it's not the dogs fault. However, there was an adult with the dog. Surely the same logic applies here. The child isn't to know that a dog is unable to interpret it's actions.

Therefore, isn't the responsibility with the adult to get the dog away from the child before anything bad can happen? I mean, that's using the exact same logic you've used. I agree it's not the dogs fault, but it's not the childs fault either.

hint: HE'S A CHILD.

Ayla

Everyone here is to blame (in no particular order):

(1) The child for being reckless enough to run up to a strange dog & assume it was ok to pet it

(2) The child's parent/guardian who didn't teach the child to stay away from unknown dogs, and who wasn't paying enough attention to their child (because they were "in the sitting room") to know that the child was putting himself in a potentially dangerous position

(3) The dog's owner who failed to stop the child approaching the dog

(4) The dog who acted out for some unknown reason & caused injury to the child

What I can't figure out is why there are three humans at fault, but the ultimate punishment seems to rest on the dog, who - if the OP had their way - would be PTS for its sins.

SpyderCats

Ayla wrote: »

Everyone here is to blame (in no particular order):

(1) The child for being reckless enough to run up to a strange dog & assume it was ok to pet it

(2) The child's parent/guardian who didn't teach the child to stay away from unknown dogs, and who wasn't paying enough attention to their child (because they were "in the sitting room") to know that the child was putting himself in a potentially dangerous position

(3) The dog's owner who failed to stop the child approaching the dog

(4) The dog who acted out for some unknown reason & caused injury to the child

What I can't figure out is why there are three humans at fault, but the ultimate punishment seems to rest on the dog, who - if the OP had their way - would be PTS for its sins.

I'm sorry but I don't remember the OP ever suggesting that the dog should be PTS? Has far as I'm aware the OP acknowledged that they should have warned their child not to approch a dog unfamilar to them. But, blaming an innocent child who is the victim in all this is wrong IMO The dog in question did not just snap at the child, the dog latched onto the child's arm and wouldn't let go :eek: This to me would be unacceptable.

If my dog every reacted to been petted like the dog in question did I would be horrified and would except fully responsibility. I would do anything to ensure that it never happened again.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that its the dogs fault. This is down to bad training or lack of socialization IMO but if I was the owner of that dog I wouldn't be blaming a child I would be blaming myself.

kylith

tbh wrote: »

it's interesting that you make the distinction between what the child intends and what the dog perceives, and then state that we're holding a dog to higher standard than ourselves.

It's interesting because you're agreeing with the previous poster who blames the child. In other words, the dog wasn't to understand what the child intended, so it's not the dogs fault. However, there was an adult with the dog. Surely the same logic applies here. The child isn't to know that a dog is unable to interpret it's actions.

Therefore, isn't the responsibility with the adult to get the dog away from the child before anything bad can happen? I mean, that's using the exact same logic you've used. I agree it's not the dogs fault, but it's not the childs fault either.

hint: HE'S A CHILD.

It's not always possible for a dog owner to anticipate what a child is going to do. I've had kids come up behind me and try to grab my dogs, and it's only because the dog leapt forward from shock that I was able to stop the kid from being bitten - this was with the dog to heel, standing at a pedestrian crossing. How is a dog owner supposed to guard against that happening? We don't have eyes in the back of our heads. I'm sure others have had the 'child appearing out of nowhere and running toward you screaming "DOGGIES!!!"' also, I got cornered by one of those a while back and was terrified because I couldn't get past him, I couldn't let the dogs go, I couldn't get close enough to the kid to grab him without him being close enough to touch the dogs. I had to screech at him until his mother ran over, and then I got dirty looks for shouting at her child.

Depending on how old the child is (I'd say any child over 4 is old enough to understand) then they can definitely shoulder some of the blame. The dog owners should have been more vigilent, the parents should have told their child never to touch strange dogs, and the child should have known better.

BunShopVoyeur

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Martin_94 wrote: »

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.

The dog owner wasn't put in this situation by their dog, they were put in it by the OPs son, what they did was the equivalent of a stranger walking up to you in the street and grabbing you by the throat, I've seen how that turns out and humans are supposed to be the intelligent species!

Lunacy

Ayla

SpyderCats wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't remember the OP ever suggesting that the dog should be PTS?

Apologies, you're correct. I was wrong in my earlier statement. The OP apparently has not pushed to have the dog PTS, but other posters have.

IMO, the child is not the only victim of this incident - I would say the dog is as well, because now it's being considered vicious & dangerous. As the OP did say, this is the one & only time the dog ever acted out (according to the dog's owners) but it will never be trusted again, through something which potentially wasn't all of his own fault. Anyone who thinks that won't affect the dog's quality of life going forward is kidding themselves.

Cows Go µ

Ayla wrote: »

Everyone here is to blame (in no particular order):

(1) The child for being reckless enough to run up to a strange dog & assume it was ok to pet it

(2) The child's parent/guardian who didn't teach the child to stay away from unknown dogs, and who wasn't paying enough attention to their child (because they were "in the sitting room") to know that the child was putting himself in a potentially dangerous position

(3) The dog's owner who failed to stop the child approaching the dog

(4) The dog who acted out for some unknown reason & caused injury to the child

What I can't figure out is why there are three humans at fault, but the ultimate punishment seems to rest on the dog, who - if the OP had their way - would be PTS for its sins.

I agree with 1, 2 and 3 but its not the dogs fault. The reason is fairly obvious, he was scared of the child and reacted out of fear. The fact that he was scared was the owners fault, the dog should have been socialised enough to be used to children or the owner should have warned the child to stay away. Unless of course the child was overly boisterous (shouting/running up to the dog/being overly rough etc) its very hard to train a dog to be used to that, especially if its a stranger and a rare occasion. Not saying the child was, but if he was boisterous then it can be really hard for the owner to intervene. To me its the owner and the parent (and child depending on age, I can't remember if the OP said the age) at fault.

Also, on the viciousness scale, its very hard to tell. All dog bites (during and after) look awful, especially on a child. I got bit by my dog and it was only a nip but it looked really bad, all my house mates were horrified and thought the dog should be put down even though it was completely my fault. To someone who isn't used to seeing them, of course its going to look bad. Though, I'd say if the dog was looking to do serious damage, the kid would have stitches at the very least and I don't think he did, judging from previous posts. You would need pictures to judge but I don't think they should really go on the internet so we'll never know really.

SpyderCats

Ayla wrote: »

Apologies, you're correct. I was wrong in my earlier statement. The OP apparently has not pushed to have the dog PTS, but other posters have.

IMO, the child is not the only victim of this incident - I would say the dog is as well, because now it's being considered vicious & dangerous. As the OP did say, this is the one & only time the dog ever acted out (according to the dog's owners) but it will never be trusted again, through something which potentially wasn't all of his own fault. Anyone who thinks that won't affect the dog's quality of life going forward is kidding themselves.

Hi Ayla I agree that the dog is also the victim in all this and I agree that the dog will probably be considered vicious and dangerous Until the problem is corrected. Had the owner excepted responsibility, apologised to the OP and assured the OP that they would do everything they could to ensure that this situation never happened again, I doubt the OP would have felt the need to come on here looking for advice.

What I'm trying to say is, its really up to the owner of the dog as to what quality of life the dog gets. Now that the owner realises that there is a behavior problem, as a responsible dog owner they should work to correct the problem rather then deny the problem exists.

Soups123

I have a dog I love dogs but I'm realistic. The CHILD should have been taught how to approach a dog, but it's a CHILD they don't always act on what they are thought. The responsibility is with the owner they should be in complete control of the dog at all times, if I am approached by children I take control of the situation I always assume they don't understand and ensure I have my dog under control.

OP I think ur approach and how you handled this spot on

Cherry Blossom

tbh wrote: »

It's interesting because you're agreeing with the previous poster who blames the child. In other words, the dog wasn't to understand what the child intended, so it's not the dogs fault. However, there was an adult with the dog. Surely the same logic applies here. The child isn't to know that a dog is unable to interpret it's actions.

Sorry, but my 3 year old nephew knows not to approach strange animals, and always asks first even at home with my pets and his own. You can't apportion blame to a dog because it's a dog - dogs are property, not legal entities in their own right.

tbh wrote: »

Therefore, isn't the responsibility with the adult to get the dog away from the child before anything bad can happen? I mean, that's using the exact same logic you've used. I agree it's not the dogs fault, but it's not the childs fault either.

hint: HE'S A CHILD.

The OP has neglected to inform us of the age of the child, but I get the impression that he is old enough to be out in public without supervision from his parents. One would assume he has been taught proper etiquette for crossing the road for example, when a child is old enough to be given responsibility for their own safety (ie they are no longer supervised) then the parent has let them assume responsibility for their own actions. I don't 'blame' the child other in the way that you have put it, if you read my other posts in the thread you will see that. All I said was that the dog was put in the situation by the child.

tbh

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Sorry, but my 3 year old nephew knows not to approach strange animals, and always asks first even at home with my pets and his own.

Ok - if your 3-year-old nephew saw a really cool looking dog, and in his excitement forgot the "rule", ran up to the dog and got bitten, would you be thinking "well he knew the rules and he broke them, so it's his own fault".?
No, of course you wouldn't, because he's a three year old child. I do broadly agree with the point you're making, but I would just point out that in my view, neither the dog nor the child have any culpability here. The owner should have brought the dog to heel when s/he saw the child approaching, as much for the dogs protection as the childs.

However, that's all perfect world stuff - these things happen and I admire the way the OP is dealing with it, especially intervening to make sure the dog is not pts over this. However I do think the owner should be spoken to. Yes it's not exactly fair, but at the end of the day, the rights of the public always exceed the "rights" of the dog to be walked or unleashed or whatever - that's just the way it is.

I don't 'blame' the child other in the way that you have put it, if you read my other posts in the thread you will see that. All I said was that the dog was put in the situation by the child.

no - that's fair enough, I accept that - the context was somewhat skewed when the post was quoted, and then the quote was quoted - that's my bad.

Soups123

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

tbh wrote: »

It's interesting because you're agreeing with the previous poster who blames the child. In other words, the dog wasn't to understand what the child intended, so it's not the dogs fault. However, there was an adult with the dog. Surely the same logic applies here. The child isn't to know that a dog is unable to interpret it's actions.

Sorry, but my 3 year old nephew knows not to approach strange animals, and always asks first even at home with my pets and his own. You can't apportion blame to a dog because it's a dog - dogs are property, not legal entities in their own right.

tbh wrote: »

Therefore, isn't the responsibility with the adult to get the dog away from the child before anything bad can happen? I mean, that's using the exact same logic you've used. I agree it's not the dogs fault, but it's not the childs fault either.

hint: HE'S A CHILD.

The OP has neglected to inform us of the age of the child, but I get the impression that he is old enough to be out in public without supervision from his parents. One would assume he has been taught proper etiquette for crossing the road for example, when a child is old enough to be given responsibility for their own safety (ie they are no longer supervised) then the parent has let them assume responsibility for their own actions. I don't 'blame' the child other in the way that you have put it, if you read my other posts in the thread you will see that. All I said was that the dog was put in the situation by the child.

The dog was put in the situation by its owner, they should have controlled the situation, you think it's okay for a trained dog to not do as its told because of the situation it was put in yet you think the CHILD should always act as they are taught? U mustn't have children.

The owner should be taught what control of there dog is, it's not simply about being on a lead.

The dog should be trained, another Situation like this and an unreasonable parent unlike the OP will see it put down.

The parent should continue to teach the child, although I expect they've learned the hard way

daltonmd

This is a tough one as no-one wants to see children hurt, but as a dog lover I see that parents are the biggest offenders when it comes to dogs.

I live on an estate and my house is an odd build, the gate for the back garden is to the side and there is a footpath leading past it.

I have a dog and I can't leave him in the garden unattended as the kids come to the gate, tear down the chicken wire I installed to keep their hands out and pet the dog.

Now he has never snapped, but one day he will. He is a dog.

Yesterday was a lovely day and I was in the garden with the dog, within minutes I heard kids at the gate, again. I walked around to find the parents with the children watching and encouraging the kids to "pet the nice dog".

They stood while their small children, 2 and 4 years old pulled the chicken wire down and inserted their hands in.

Now kids make mistakes - but you see where it comes from, I have asked them time and time again not to do this. And re-iterated it to the parents, pointing out that the wire is constantly damaged by the kids.

They weren't best please, saying "ah they;re only kids" to which I said, "care to put that in writing?".

I can't leave the dog out and it's one of the reasons I'm moving. If my dog ran and attacked another human being the I would have to have him put down, I (sadly) accept that.

What I don't accept is putting a dog down for behaving like a dog - and that is reacting to a body running up to him and he reacting to it or an object or hand poking in and out of the gate teasing the dog until he snaps.

planetX

Soups123 wrote: »

The dog was put in the situation by its owner, they should have controlled the situation, you think it's okay for a trained dog to not do as its told because of the situation it was put in yet you think the CHILD should always act as they are taught? U mustn't have children.

The owner should be taught what control of there dog is, it's not simply about being on a lead.
The dog should be trained, another Situation like this and an unreasonable parent unlike the OP will see it put down.

The parent should continue to teach the child, although I expect they've learned the hard way

You can't control fear in a dog, you have to desensitive and the only way to do that is to get out and about with your dog. Maybe the owner didn't realise the extent of his dogs problem, hopefully he's looking for help with it now...
It would be interesting to know the age of the child, and also whether the dog owner made any attempt to stop him approaching.
I've had to physically block kids from my dog, they were running up carrying those nets on long sticks. Parents were watching, so they're obviously not going to be able to teach their kids anything. Should be basic education, same as road safety, cycling helmets etc.

Graces7

daltonmd wrote: »

This is a tough one as no-one wants to see children hurt, but as a dog lover I see that parents are the biggest offenders when it comes to dogs.

I live on an estate and my house is an odd build, the gate for the back garden is to the side and there is a footpath leading past it.

I have a dog and I can't leave him in the garden unattended as the kids come to the gate, tear down the chicken wire I installed to keep their hands out and pet the dog.

Now he has never snapped, but one day he will. He is a dog.

Yesterday was a lovely day and I was in the garden with the dog, within minutes I heard kids at the gate, again. I walked around to find the parents with the children watching and encouraging the kids to "pet the nice dog".

They stood while their small children, 2 and 4 years old pulled the chicken wire down and inserted their hands in.

Now kids make mistakes - but you see where it comes from, I have asked them time and time again not to do this. And re-iterated it to the parents, pointing out that the wire is constantly damaged by the kids.

They weren't best please, saying "ah they;re only kids" to which I said, "care to put that in writing?".

I can't leave the dog out and it's one of the reasons I'm moving. If my dog ran and attacked another human being the I would have to have him put down, I (sadly) accept that.

What I don't accept is putting a dog down for behaving like a dog - and that is reacting to a body running up to him and he reacting to it or an object or hand poking in and out of the gate teasing the dog until he snaps.

You need a strong barrier behind the gate, and a sign.. Chicken wire is useless. A gate etc you can move with you..Wise man!

tbh

daltonmd wrote: »

to which I said, "care to put that in writing?".
.

What you should have said is "that dog bites". No more kids hands coming through the chicken wire.

daltonmd

Graces7 wrote: »

You need a strong barrier behind the gate, and a sign.. Chicken wire is useless. A gate etc you can move with you..Wise man!

Chicken wire is useless when kids pull it down! It is quite strong and the gate has a barrier up to chest level, the wire is behind it. The kids pull out of it and stick their hands in.

Some of the replies on this thread are unbelievable.

It is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that their dog doesn't bite children and is not put in a situation where it can happen.

We are never going to live in a world where children do not pet dogs. If a dog reacts to some incompetent petting with a bite, that dog has to wear a muzzle when in public. Full stop. At the bare minimum.

I'm a dog owner but I'd be sympathetic to the view that any dog that has bitten a human - to an extent that requires medical treatment - should probably be put down. But I'd accept there are always shades of grey.

But there's no shades of grey in terms of what you can expect here. The owner needs to take their responsibilities seriously and get their dog under control. Which does not mean just being on a lead.

runawaybishop

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

what they did was the equivalent of a stranger walking up to you in the street and grabbing you by the throat

That is a terrible comparison.

Soups123

planetX wrote: »

You can't control fear in a dog, you have to desensitive and the only way to do that is to get out and about with your dog. Maybe the owner didn't realise the extent of his dogs problem, hopefully he's looking for help with it now...
It would be interesting to know the age of the child, and also whether the dog owner made any attempt to stop him approaching.
I've had to physically block kids from my dog, they were running up carrying those nets on long sticks. Parents were watching, so they're obviously not going to be able to teach their kids anything. Should be basic education, same as road safety, cycling helmets etc.

Thats not my point, its that control isnt only about having a lead. I know my dog and I know often what makes him nervous I work on that but I control situations where that occurs.
The second bolded part is pretty much what I was getting at, you didnt assume the child was taught you took control! Not all mothers/fathers have had dogs or experience with them and therefore may not naturally know the discussion and learnings that are needed with the child.

A dog has natural instincts and owners who decide to take a dog on need to always remember that, CONTROL THE SITUATION all the time!

ppink

Soups123 wrote: »

Thats not my point, its that control isnt only about having a lead. I know my dog and I know often what makes him nervous I work on that but I control situations where that occurs.
The second bolded part is pretty much what I was getting at, you didnt assume the child was taught you took control! Not all mothers/fathers have had dogs or experience with them and therefore may not naturally know the discussion and learnings that are needed with the child.

A dog has natural instincts and owners who decide to take a dog on need to always remember that, CONTROL THE SITUATION all the time!

can you ever control a thinking living being all the time?

ppink

ppink wrote: »

can you ever control a thinking living being all the time?

No. that's why you put a muzzle on a dog that has either a history of biting or (if it decided to bite/attack) could do serious damage - ie it's on the controlled dogs list.

tbh

ppink wrote: »

can you ever control a thinking living being all the time?

are you talking about a dog, or a child?

Ayla

But the OP said clearly that the dog had never done this before. We don't know the breed of the dog.

So since any dog/animal has the potential to cause injury, should every animal always have a muzzle? I'd love to see the equivalent on a lot of humans :rolleyes:

.erre.3e3r

cork_buoy wrote: »

My son was playing in the green area of our estate. A neighbours dog was being walked on a lead. My son loves animals, he approached the dog to pet the dog. 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. He was very shaken up but luckily the wound isn't too bad. How should I deal with this? His owners wife is a right mrs trunchbull and says its our sons own fault. I don't get why but she accepts no responsibility.

There was a very similar thread to this a few months / weeks back


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78681302

ppink

Deleted User wrote: »

No. that's why you put a muzzle on a dog that has either a history of biting or (if it decided to bite/attack) could do serious damage - ie it's on the controlled dogs list.

maybe it had no history of biting.

ppink

tbh wrote: »

are you talking about a dog, or a child?

well that is a point, I was talking dog initially as you do have an ability to communicate with a child a little better perhaps?

.erre.3e3r

ppink wrote: »

maybe it had no history of biting.

All controlled dogs are on the list for a reason. It's absolutely farsicle to agree with charging young men more for insurance, based on the fact that they are more dangerous behind the wheel, yet dismiss the claim that a pitbull is lethal. The mind boggles sometimes.