Akayla Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 If a child goes out of their way to hurt said dog that is different but if a child that weighs very little especially in regards to such a large breed accidently falls or trips then yes I have to say Id draw a hard line. If my 2 year old fell on my GSD and she bit her hard enough that she would need surgery/stitches yes Id muzzle her around people under 18. I already have a yard especially for her and take other precautions. I take being an owner of a dog like this in public very seriously. I think they are wonderful family pets but if I want my breed to not get banned then I am extra careful. Having a 2 year old around means that I know Lakota wouldnt react to her simply tripping on her - its has happened before even with supervision, but even before then I have alot of children she was socialised with and was confident (not that Id put her in that position intentionally) she would simply get away from the child. But I would never leave her out of my control with kids around. Either I have her with me or she is in the run. I myself have had a heavy penalty just for my dog getting out so I know how upsetting it can be but at the end of the day you have to do what is best for everyone including the dog - by not putting them in a position where this could happen a second time and the dog destroyed. Make no mistake if this dog is let out AFTER its proven the dog did bite and something just as innocent happened it would be destroyed. As an owner I wouldnt want that to happen. Also keep in mind that this didnt happen in a home or a park it was in a bussiness where the public enters. The owners showed a lack of judgement here and I would not be inclined to assume they wont make another lapse again. If there was a DD they could keep the dog, show responsiblity and follow rules so as this wont happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 If a child goes out of their way to hurt said dog that is different but if a child that weighs very little especially in regards to such a large breed accidently falls or trips then yes I have to say Id draw a hard line. Siberians aren't a large breed by any stretch of the imagination. How is it different if a child went out of their way to hurt a dog, and a child fell on top of the dog and hurt it unintentionally? In both instances the dog is reacting because it's hurt. How can you hold the dog accountable for one but not the other? It wouldn't be hard for a dog reacting in pain to seriously hurt a child, their face is level to the dog's and their skin is soft, a toddler doesn't have the same speed to react as an adult does, either. If my 2 year old fell on my GSD and she bit her hard enough that she would need surgery/stitches yes Id muzzle her around people under 18. I already have a yard especially for her and take other precautions. I take being an owner of a dog like this in public very seriously. I think they are wonderful family pets but if I want my breed to not get banned then I am extra careful. Having a 2 year old around means that I know Lakota wouldnt react to her simply tripping on her - its has happened before even with supervision, but even before then I have alot of children she was socialised with and was confident (not that Id put her in that position intentionally) she would simply get away from the child. But I would never leave her out of my control with kids around. Either I have her with me or she is in the run. But what if the dog is injured? Or sore? or the child falls on it in such a way that it really is hurt - you can't hold the dog accountable for reacting unintentionally because they are in pain. It is not the same as a dog attacking a child because it's aggressive. I myself have had a heavy penalty just for my dog getting out so I know how upsetting it can be but at the end of the day you have to do what is best for everyone including the dog - by not putting them in a position where this could happen a second time and the dog destroyed.Make no mistake if this dog is let out AFTER its proven the dog did bite and something just as innocent happened it would be destroyed. As an owner I wouldnt want that to happen. Also keep in mind that this didnt happen in a home or a park it was in a bussiness where the public enters. The owners showed a lack of judgement here and I would not be inclined to assume they wont make another lapse again. If there was a DD they could keep the dog, show responsiblity and follow rules so as this wont happen again. Irregardless of the owner's situation, I don't think it's right that a dog that bit a person or child out of pain should be forced to have a DD order on it. My dogs don't have an ounce of human aggression in their bones but I've been bitten when they've been in pain (not seriously). It's not a reflection on their temperament or their training nor their ability to safely be around people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterpaws Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 These threads always make me think of a poor cattle dog that was put down at our local pound... I've told it before but.... Said lovely boy was surrendered by his owners because he had bitten a child in the home. Completely out of character for him. He was PTS but as they turned him to move him the pound manger found a pencil embedded in his ear..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Dog should not have been there. End of story. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akayla Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 At the end of the day its just my opinion but yes I see a BIG difference between a 10-15kg child falling on a dog that size and a child thats say forced a pencil into a dogs ear. Perhaps say if the dog suffered quite a bit of pain - which a physical would show. All the same again if MY dog chomped down hard enough (and I am aware just how much incrediable control a dog has over its bite) to leave that damage over a bump from a child I would muzzle it in public end of story. Heck if a child did do something aweful to my dog (Id be fuming) Id still think to muzzle it in public because its even MORE likely to react negatively to children. Ive seen kids fall on dogs, Ive seen kids fall into dogs, ive seen kids try hug dogs, Ive seen kids accidently bump them when swinging a bag over their shoulder ect. All of these things are part of the dogs existing in society unless you are happy to protect the dog from these situations. These owners did not. Believe it or not I think past actions say alot about how someone will treat that animal in future. I think it should be something considered when it came to a decision. This is just my opinion, Im not making the decision. I dont know all the facts of what happened and I wasnt there to witness it. Im just going off of descriptions of others. I understand where you are coming from but from what I understand of this case I just dont agree. I think as an owner you would WANT your dog to be safe and muzzle it and keep it properly secured. That way you dont put the dog in another situation like this where it may lose its life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I was badly bitten by an Irish Setter (required several stitches) . .. in the face . . . when I was four. No doubt I did something that offended a high strung animal, like pulling hair or whatever. I was accompanying my father, a doctor, on a housecall. Adults were present in the room, but paying no attention. No one did anything radical, other than patch up my face. So far as I know, the dog continued life as usual. It did me no long term damage. Dogs that act in a predatory manner toward children are very dangerous and, fortunately, very rare. Those who protect themselves against a child's unwanted attention . . . simply badly handled. If no big fuss is made, the child will handle without physical or mental scars. Hopefully, the adults will come through it a bit wiser. In my book, this is a SH*T Happens case. I love seeing dogs in shops . .. yes, accidents will happen. But I don't think it's reason to ban dogs in shops, or declare the dog in question DANGEROUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Sand grubber is right. Most children arnt automatically emotionally scarred just because they get bitten by a dog. What causes the majority of the problems are parents and others around the child that carry on like maniacs. Especially at that age the child wouldnt have a clue. In this case the child was bitten, the child is fine, no big deal. What would be ideal here is if all involved put there hand up and took responsibility, and maybe learned something But instead, one guy blames the other guy, some blame the dog, some project thier fears onto the child, others call for dangerous dogs, no dogs in shops, and so on and so forth Edited December 8, 2009 by Lo Pan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akayla Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think if you loved your dog you wouldnt risk it happening twice. Regardless of whether the child is emotionally hurt or not the dog reacted, is likely to do it again in simillar scenario's and will be PTSd then. Question is would you risk your dog and another child? Also as said the dog should not have been there unattended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RL1 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Dog should not have been there. End of story.Souff Not your decision to make. End of story. RottyLover01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Dog should not have been there. End of story.Souff Not your decision to make. End of story. RottyLover01 Is my opinion. I am entitled to make it, and I am keeping it. End of story. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Thats a sad situation then but I still think the dog should have a DD against them especially if the dog had wondered over to the child. If the kid fell onto the dog, he could have reacted out of pain/surprise. Why should he have a DD order on him if that was the situation? A DD order in Victoria would mean that the dog would be muzzled in public and this would prevent a reoccurance. The dog would not suffer if declared dangerous. The restrictions are about fencing, muzzling in public and designation. The dog can still live a good life if the owners want it to. Given that the dog has seriously bitten a child, muzzling in public is a safety precaution. You never know when you might come across a small child in public, they are everywhere. Irregardless of the owner's situation, I don't think it's right that a dog that bit a person or child out of pain should be forced to have a DD order on it. My dogs don't have an ounce of human aggression in their bones but I've been bitten when they've been in pain (not seriously). It's not a reflection on their temperament or their training nor their ability to safely be around people. I think the owners were ignorant in thinking their dog didn't need close supervision when in the same area as strange small children. All dogs should be supervised in that situation no matter how perfect their history. In this case I think the DD order is a fitting consequence for owners that have failed in their responsibility to keep their dog from harming somebody. I don't think that the bite was serious enough for them to lose their dog, but they need to keep things safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablo Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Thats a sad situation then but I still think the dog should have a DD against them especially if the dog had wondered over to the child. If the kid fell onto the dog, he could have reacted out of pain/surprise. Why should he have a DD order on him if that was the situation? Under SA legislation, it would be clear cut case of provocation. It makes no difference if the child fell onto the dog or intentionally pulled it's tail, the dog was mistreated and reacted. The dog has the right to sit in peace without being hurt or startled by misadventure. Because the victim was a defenceless child, doesn't make the dog anymore at fault in the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Thats a sad situation then but I still think the dog should have a DD against them especially if the dog had wondered over to the child. If the kid fell onto the dog, he could have reacted out of pain/surprise. Why should he have a DD order on him if that was the situation? Under SA legislation, it would be clear cut case of provocation. It makes no difference if the child fell onto the dog or intentionally pulled it's tail, the dog was mistreated and reacted. The dog has the right to sit in peace without being hurt or startled by misadventure. Because the victim was a defenceless child, doesn't make the dog anymore at fault in the circumstances. Could you post that section of the legislation please Diablo? Or post a link to it? I am interested. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Diablo, in here pls. I am interested in seeing that legislation that you have quoted from. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casowner Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I am from SA and I haven't heard that either, please post a link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirty Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 If I stood on my dog's tail or fell on them, they wouldn't maul me. I believe it IS a judge of character how a dog reacts when startled/hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 If I stood on my dog's tail or fell on them, they wouldn't maul me. I believe it IS a judge of character how a dog reacts when startled/hurt. And if a very small toddler not known to your dog stood on their tail or fell on your dog ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akayla Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 As I have said before it happened to my girl and no she didnt react other than to get up and step back from the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Different dogs will react differently. I will leave this one squarely in the "unpredictability" tray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akayla Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 This is true Souff. But the dog was in a public place, the dog was not one of those dogs and last but not least the dog wasnt under control. I can understand people taking their pets to work but I think when we walk out that front door with a four legged friends we have to take care. Im sure these people love their dog and if the child fell on the dog I hope it isnt destroyed but the dog has reacted. If you can say my dog has bitten a child (who was very small and only fell onto the dog) do you not think its a good idea to take precautions and muzzle it when you are out in an enviroment where unpredictable things can happen? Ill say it again is it worth the risk to your dogs life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now