Tricky Scenario At The Park

[Bjelkier]

My dogs are definitely more important to me than a strange human being, and I know with 100% certainty that if my dog was in a burning house and along with a strange child, I would save my dog first beacuse immaterial of whether they have any rights by law, to me my dogs are like adopted children.

And no, my dogs don't get locked away because of guests. If guests can't handle dogs, they are not invited to my house.

To be honest I find this shocking. You would really save your dogs over the life of a child? I love my dogs, they mean everything to me, but I couldn’t place their lives as more important than that of a child.

I have people over to my house that aren’t into dogs like I am, obviously coming to my house they know I will have dogs there but I also expect my dogs to behave around people and I would think nothing of putting them away if I had a guest that was uncomfortable with them or if I had kids there that weren’t used to dogs or weren’t capable of behaving appropriately around them. My dogs don’t care if someone doesn’t like them or isn’t comfortable around them. I had a friend stay with a puppy just last week, my big dog isn’t reliable with puppies so I put him away while puppy was there.

My dogs are a huge part of my life, but they don’t rule my life.

I agree. I feel sorry for people who seem to hate their fellow humans so much (not saying that OG does, but every time this topic comes up the sheer vitriol astounds me).

One of my dogs is fear aggressive, I certainly don't let her attack guests just because they are coming to her home. She gets put away in her crate, which she loves, and they can relax and be safe.

I always ask guests if they are comfortable with my boy, and he'd go outside or in his crate if they weren't. It is my house and the guests are there to visit me. That said, Fergus has great manners and no one has ever asked for him to be put away.

I would hardly count wanting to protect the lives you have taken under your care to be hating fellow humans.

For the record I agree with OG.

My dogs (ie my family) come first.

[emgem]

every time this topic comes up the sheer vitriol astounds me).

I think the problem is you have some frightened people backed into a corner. While it is a good thing that society tries to protect children, the pendulum of responsibility has swung too far in one direction and there is an expectation from parents that their children should be at extremely low risk, even while they fail to supervise them properly in public. The weight of consequences is also mostly on the side of the dog owner and they are hefty even for minor infractions.

It is not that most people don't care about strange children, but they are part of a faceless mass of humanity and not a fully realised creature with their own personality in the same way that your dog is. (Especially when they are theoretical internet children.)

I don't see it happening anytime soon, but some more balance on this issue would be better. If people, weren't afraid that their dog would be put to sleep on the basis of a single bite, particularly if the bite was provoked, then there would be far less fear and anger all round. It would probably translate to calmer dogs too.

Edited February 23, 2012 by emgem

[huski]

I would hardly count wanting to protect the lives you have taken under your care to be hating fellow humans.

For the record I agree with OG.

My dogs (ie my family) come first.

For me, it is more a case of I don't think I could live with myself if I made the choice to allow a child to die so my dog could live.

[huski]

It's a very personal matter. I personally couldn't live with myself if I let my dog die knowing I'd had a chance to save him, even if it meant I wasn't able to save a person.

I don't by any means think that it would be an easy decision, I would be distraught and devastated to lose my dog but at the end of the day I simply don't think my dog's life is worth more than that of a child's.

[Meea]

Easy choice for me. My dog vs your child? Where are you?

[Simply Grand]

huski, fwiw I totally agree with you. My dogs are most definitely my family, I feel a huge responsibility to protect them, but in reality in a fire if it was my dog/s or an unknown child I would prioritise the child too. Obviously I love my dogs (well all my pets) more than some strange child but when it comes down to it, I fully expect to outlive my dogs, however sad that may be, but for a parent to outlive their child when I could have prevented that is not ok with me.

[sandgrubber]

My dogs are definitely more important to me than a strange human being, and I know with 100% certainty that if my dog was in a burning house and along with a strange child, I would save my dog first beacuse immaterial of whether they have any rights by law, to me my dogs are like adopted children.

And no, my dogs don't get locked away because of guests. If guests can't handle dogs, they are not invited to my house.

To be honest I find this shocking. You would really save your dogs over the life of a child? I love my dogs, they mean everything to me, but I couldn't place their lives as more important than that of a child.

...

My dogs are a huge part of my life, but they don't rule my life.

This is not a burning house situation. The issue is meeting in a public place . . . dog on line and supposedly under control. The kid is seldom on a leash. Mums range from 'in control' to 'out of it'. This doesn't have to be an either-or. Just be prepared to reign your dogs in if potential conflict arises. Surely, you can pull the leash in, grab the collar and leave the dog with no option to attack. If the kid insists on closing in and you have your had on the collar . . . or the dog in a muzzle . . . you have a valid case that you did your part to avoid a nasty problem.

Also understand, if you value your dog over someone else's kid, in the extreme case you could be guilty of some form of manslaughter or assualt . . . not nice charges to face. The law is stacked in favour of kids.

Edited February 23, 2012 by sandgrubber

[Agility Dogs]

The law is stacked in favour of kids.

As it should be. Small wonder people get called 'crazy dog people.'

[Dame Aussie]

My dogs are definitely more important to me than a strange human being, and I know with 100% certainty that if my dog was in a burning house and along with a strange child, I would save my dog first beacuse immaterial of whether they have any rights by law, to me my dogs are like adopted children.

And no, my dogs don't get locked away because of guests. If guests can't handle dogs, they are not invited to my house.

To be honest I find this shocking. You would really save your dogs over the life of a child? I love my dogs, they mean everything to me, but I couldn’t place their lives as more important than that of a child.

I have people over to my house that aren’t into dogs like I am, obviously coming to my house they know I will have dogs there but I also expect my dogs to behave around people and I would think nothing of putting them away if I had a guest that was uncomfortable with them or if I had kids there that weren’t used to dogs or weren’t capable of behaving appropriately around them. My dogs don’t care if someone doesn’t like them or isn’t comfortable around them. I had a friend stay with a puppy just last week, my big dog isn’t reliable with puppies so I put him away while puppy was there.

My dogs are a huge part of my life, but they don’t rule my life.

I agree. I feel sorry for people who seem to hate their fellow humans so much (not saying that OG does, but every time this topic comes up the sheer vitriol astounds me).

One of my dogs is fear aggressive, I certainly don't let her attack guests just because they are coming to her home. She gets put away in her crate, which she loves, and they can relax and be safe.

I always ask guests if they are comfortable with my boy, and he'd go outside or in his crate if they weren't. It is my house and the guests are there to visit me. That said, Fergus has great manners and no one has ever asked for him to be put away.

I would hardly count wanting to protect the lives you have taken under your care to be hating fellow humans.

For the record I agree with OG.

My dogs (ie my family) come first.

Same here. If that makes me a "crazy dog lady" then so be it.

[SpotTheDog]

There's one thing that makes this argument so vitriolic these days.

Litigiousness.

When I was a kid, if I harassed a dog and it bit me, my parents would say 'you should've left it alone' and the dog owner would drop over a box of chocs to cheer me up while I was at home crying and sulking.

(I'm talking a snap here, not a sustained attack.)

These days, if a kid harassed my dog and he snapped at them, I'd expect the ranger on my doorstep telling me he was taking my dog to euthanise it, and I wouldn't send the kid as much as a get-well-card for fear of it counting as admission of liability.

[Whippetsmum]

Surely in a civilised society, we should expect an adult to care as much for the child in their care as we do about our dogs. We keep them out of harms way, try to stop them from being a niuisance, aggressive etc.

It should be simple- Dogs kept within 6 feet of it's handler, and under reasonable control therefore it should be at least the same for a parent and their child. I wouldn't let my dog within 6 foot of another dog unless I knew them well, why allow a child to approach a strange dog? To be honest, it's not just the dog that people should worry about**see footnote. It should be the same for any adult supervising a child, don't let the child within range of something that you don't know is safe, e.g. a dog on a lead, a stranger. Don't let a child wander unless they have good "recall" (happens at different ages for the child and is highly dependent on "training").

Equally, don't let a kid out of arms reach in a car park, when approaching a road etc unless the child has "good recall"...I wouldn't let my "property" i.e. dog wander in a carpark. There's definatley an inverse relationship between personal responsibility and litigation, the less repsonsibility you take, the more likely you are to sue someone.

For the record, yes, I'd keep my dogs tight leashed if some idiot let their child wander up, and yes I'd not ask but tell the parent directly to get their kid under control.

** It's not good when adults allow their childen to approach strangers with or without dogs, if you can't easily get to your child to pull them away from a dog, what hope would you have if the person the child approached grabbed the child and made a run for it?

[sandgrubber]

Surely in a civilised society, we should expect an adult to care as much for the child in their care as we do about our dogs. We keep them out of harms way, try to stop them from being a niuisance, aggressive etc.

Not sure about the civilised bit.

When girls are getting $5000 for having a kid, you can't expect high standards for parenting.

Imagine what a zoo it would be if there was a 'puppy bonus' :laugh:

[Greytmate]

It's not illegal to bring a child up feral. Its not illegal to teach it to annoy other people or animals for whatever reason. It is not illegal to go through life demanding that everyone else looks out for you and you are entitled to touch whatever you like in a public area.

So that is why I would quickly leave if ever I was in the OP's situation. Not everyone you meet will be civilised.

[persephone]

what sort of person thinks it is okay for a child to shove a complete stranger? I am appalled that the adult didn't intervene.

IF the child has autism or a brain injury , and is a teenage size , and has not much inhibition - the the adult /carer may well have some hesitation in confrontation , esp in public.

A possibility is that the child reacts badly to being thwarted ..and perhaps the adult/carer is hesitant to be too assertive. ?

Dealing with a child/teen. like this can test the resolve of the most loving of adults .. being the focus of a fairly violent show of frustration/anger loses its novelty value very quickly

No , generally it is not OK for a child to shove an adult .. however some kids/people dance to the beat of a different drum ..and society's rules have no meaning to them.

raz, I agree

How about bloody parents keep their uncontrollable children on lead.

Unfortunately it is seen as being a Very Bad Thing to do .... civil liberties/freedom, and all that jazz ... ;)

[Whippetsmum]

IF the child has autism or a brain injury , and is a teenage size , and has not much inhibition - the the adult /carer may well have some hesitation in confrontation , esp in public.

A possibility is that the child reacts badly to being thwarted ..and perhaps the adult/carer is hesitant to be too assertive. ?

Behaviour management 101....don't let things escalate....i.e. be present in body and mind with the person you are supervising, there was a point in time when the carer wouldn't have had to be "too assertive" and they could have redirected the child.

If it were a dog that had run up to the OP, everyone would be united, the person handling the dog should have kept their attention on the dog, and called it back, run after it and prevented a possible confrontation. No one would be saying, the dog might react badly to being thwarted, and no one would be saying the handler might be having a hard time, we would all be in agreement, don't put your dog in a situation you can't handle, for the safety and well being of all involved. If that dog had been injured, everyone would be saying that the handler let their dog down.

Why set up lesser expectations for the adult in charge of the child? Don't kids with needs hava right to feel safe? Didn't that child deserve the adults attention and protection? Does anyone think the child would enjoy the sensation of being in a rage, out of control and confused? What a sorry world we live in when.

[Crisovar]

IF the child has autism or a brain injury , and is a teenage size , and has not much inhibition - the the adult /carer may well have some hesitation in confrontation , esp in public.

A possibility is that the child reacts badly to being thwarted ..and perhaps the adult/carer is hesitant to be too assertive. ?

Behaviour management 101....don't let things escalate....i.e. be present in body and mind with the person you are supervising, there was a point in time when the carer wouldn't have had to be "too assertive" and they could have redirected the child.

If it were a dog that had run up to the OP, everyone would be united, the person handling the dog should have kept their attention on the dog, and called it back, run after it and prevented a possible confrontation. No one would be saying, the dog might react badly to being thwarted, and no one would be saying the handler might be having a hard time, we would all be in agreement, don't put your dog in a situation you can't handle, for the safety and well being of all involved. If that dog had been injured, everyone would be saying that the handler let their dog down.

Why set up lesser expectations for the adult in charge of the child? Don't kids with needs hava right to feel safe? Didn't that child deserve the adults attention and protection? Does anyone think the child would enjoy the sensation of being in a rage, out of control and confused? What a sorry world we live in when.

It is hard to comprehend isn't it

We live in a society where we expect so very much from those who own dogs or heaven forbid choose to breed them, yet our very future, our children, can be born into situations where little thought goes into conceiving them and there are always excuses for how there are raised or the people they grow into. :laugh: or it is hard to know.

What would be the reaction to suggesting that if you cannot keep your child by your side and under control that you either don't take that child out alone or you leave it at home, I can imagine.

Yes they are children and surely as such as they deserve better.

[persephone]

Don't kids with needs hava right to feel safe? Didn't that child deserve the adults attention and protection? Does anyone think the child would enjoy the sensation of being in a rage, out of control and confused? What a sorry world we live in when.

It is a sorry world.

A great many parents/carers just don't get the support they need to cope with their rapidly growing kids and everyone suffers.

I have a friend who cares for a girl .. this kid has not many inhibitions, no speech, and the build of a wombat. There has been much intervention/treatment , and still , unless actually kept held or confined , this kid will run, and get into all sorts of trouble ..which was cute when she was a toddler, but now she is around 7/8 .. she is hard to handle sometimes.

I'm sure the kid doesn't enjoy her tantrums , her getting angry and hitting everyone , etc ... but she is used to it ..it has happened since birth .What will happen when she is teenaged, I dread to think

be present in body and mind with the person you are supervising, there was a point in time when the carer wouldn't have had to be "too assertive" and they could have redirected the child.

agree wholeheartedly with the italics.!

As for the second point of yours-, IMO ,redirection isn't always accepted or reacted to, unfortunately .

[sallyandtex]

Whoa! What a can of worms!

To address the problem, perhaps a suggestion to the OP on reading about Mental Health First Aid, or something similar on how to best handle the situation.,ie knowledge might be your best advice here, rather than everyones opinions. Might help with any future instances where people might react in an unexpected way.

[Guest Willow]

My dogs are definitely more important to me than a strange human being, and I know with 100% certainty that if my dog was in a burning house and along with a strange child, I would save my dog first beacuse immaterial of whether they have any rights by law, to me my dogs are like adopted children.

And no, my dogs don't get locked away because of guests. If guests can't handle dogs, they are not invited to my house.

To be honest I find this shocking. You would really save your dogs over the life of a child? I love my dogs, they mean everything to me, but I couldn’t place their lives as more important than that of a child.

I have people over to my house that aren’t into dogs like I am, obviously coming to my house they know I will have dogs there but I also expect my dogs to behave around people and I would think nothing of putting them away if I had a guest that was uncomfortable with them or if I had kids there that weren’t used to dogs or weren’t capable of behaving appropriately around them. My dogs don’t care if someone doesn’t like them or isn’t comfortable around them. I had a friend stay with a puppy just last week, my big dog isn’t reliable with puppies so I put him away while puppy was there.

My dogs are a huge part of my life, but they don’t rule my life.

I find the post shocking too. I love my dogs, but if I had to choose between rescuing them or a human, I would choose the human. I fond it incomprehesible to say they would leave a baby to burn to death in order to save a dog.

[Guest Willow]

I had to come back again and reply again.....I am so utterly appalled, disgusted and shocked that someone could leave a child to die....as the mother of an almost 2 year old, and a 4 month old, the thought that someone could watch my children dying, go "nah, **** 'em, get the dog instead" makes me want to vomit. I love my animals, but they do not rank above the life of a child. ANY child, be they mine or a strangers.

Someone who could do that does not deserve to call themselves human.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Willow