to want a dog that bit me put to sleep?

[pickgo]

I was out for a walk with DS, DGS and mother on Sunday. We walked past a woman with 3 children and a dog on the lead. As we passed her on the pavement the dog leapt up at me and bit me on the chest.
Fortunately I had 6 layers of clothing on so it has only left me bruised, the skin is not actually broken.
The dog owner apologised. She admitted she already had a muzzle for the dog but hadn't put it on this time [OBVIOUSLY!!].
I said her apology wasn't good enough. What if I'd had a baby in a sling, or it was one of the children? What if it goes for one of her children? Told her I thought the dog should be put to sleep.
Ironically, I myself had a dog some years ago that randomly bit people. I too always kept it on a lead but one day it leapt into a pram and I was terrified it would bite the baby. That day I took my dog to the vet to ask for advice. The vet's advice was that once a dog has crossed 'the line' of biting people it will always be a possibility it will do it again. So I had the dog put to sleep. A sad, hard decision but I think the right one.
So, AIBU to want this dog put down? Surely I should be able to go out for a walk without being mauled by an animal and left injured?

I dunno about yabu's or yanbu's... but if it were me I would not want it to be PTS. Not because I'm an animal rightist freak but it just seems disproportionate to what happened. I might have given the lady an earful, though.

I had something similar happen to me a few weeks ago and never once did it X my mind that the dog should be PTS.

Dogs are dogs. They are not responsible for their own actions as they don't know right from wrong. Humans are responsible for the care of dogs and keeping them under control. The dog's owner was at fault here. She may very well have learned a very valuble lesson and will keep her dog muzzled in public in the future.

Providing a dog can be managed properly (and there are rescues, such as some of those Val is involved with that will take dogs that bite or have been known to bite) then it should not be put down due to human error. There is no reason for a dog that has bitten to ever bite again and whilst it is a risk to no-one, why have it destroyed?

AIBU by stealth AND police time is wasted looking into a biting incident that was not really a biting incident but a bruising of a tit incident. Dont get me wrong if it was a proper intended bite than I would possibly feel different.

Certaintly seems that you will not be satisfied until this dog is PTS. I hope if it is that gives you some comfort, meanwhile your bruised boob will have long gone.

I'd much rather my local police try and solve all of the murders and muggings and real dog biting incidents out there but whatever......

SouthMum hope you won't be wasting police time when someone fires a gun at you; that'll be a "loud bang incident" if you're uninjured.

I'm with Val too. I think YABU to want the dog to be PTS.

I think people should remember that dogs are animals, and should not be treated with the same honour as humans.

If I bit the op, I wouldn't be put to death.

But this a dog we're talking about, not another human. But yes, that dog may go on and bite 5 other people who may not have layers of clothing on.

YA definitely NBU

'And it is correct that the police cannot act unless the dog has bitten more than once.'

No that is not true.A friend of mine was bitten by an supervised pit bull puppy this week while out running.The police have given him the option to press charges.

I think people are regrding putting the dog down as though its apunishment that is either deserved or isn't.That isn't the case.It's to PREVENT the same thing happening again.So evenif a provoking child is at fault, the question is 'could the incident be repeated '

bet this one was described as lovely family pet...

I must admit Edam the woman's death reported today fills me with dismay. Apparently people had reported their concerns about the dog too prior to this attack.

I wonder if, had the dog not been shot, people on here would advocate that dog should have been rescued and retrained after it had killed someone?

pickgo, if you cannot see the difference between a dog bite and a dog attack then I despair...

oldandgreynow if the dog were a pitbull (and they often aren't) then it would come under the dangerous dogs act, hence the police action in that case. Also, it's perfectly possible to prevent a dog biting again in other ways than putting it to sleep. Why should an animal lose it's life due to human error when there is no need for anyone else to ever get bitten?

The dog owner was at fault here, not the dog. She was aware it could be a problem and didn't take adequate measures to keep it under proper control. She should have been spoken to about that and if she is as sorry as the police say, then perhaps she has learned her lesson. Odd that the police haven't give any information, eg. she will keep it muzzled when out in future.

Ridiculous.
You were not bitten regardless of what you were wearing or how padded you may have been. Maybe you looked like a delicious marshmellow.
You have a bruise. You can get that from any dog jumping up. Why should an animal be put to sleep for a bruise.
The fact the woman had a muzzle means nothing. I have a muzzle for my King Charles as it has a thing about running across the feild where children play. He is very affectionate but I appreciate not all children want licked.
Just tend to your bruise & forget it for goodness sake. If you had been bitten & blood was drawn then you have an argument.
Without that I am afraid this whole argument is ridiculous.

as a dog trainer myself their is no evidence or logical basis to assume that because the dog has bitten a stranger the children in its own home and family are at risk.
that is a common misconception when dogs bite.
people even believe if a dog bites another dog, for example, children may then be at risk.

if i were determining if the dog should be PTS or not i would not factor in emotionally inspired concepts outside of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.
it seems the police have stuck to this approach.

also i would not characterise the described bite incident as 'mauling'.

yanbu- 2 years ago almost my nanna had a dog- a sheep dog and he had always been a lovely dog .then my grandad passed away and a few weeks later when my mum and her friend were visiting my nanna the dog big my mums friend on the finger-broke the skin but nothing much and although my nanna was mortified my mums friend said not to get it put down it was just a nip = 2 days later my auntie visited with her grandaughter and the dog went for her-

my nanna then decided to get the dog put down so on the friday she rang my mum to go and be with her while the vet took the dog cos she was upset - my mum went down and as soon as she walked through the door the dog attacked her- ripped her arm to shreads she had to go for emergency treatment in theatre and she now has to have councilling

The doctor said once a dog has tasted skin they are more than likely going to do it again. I think the police are very silly to say "oh just a first time" and god i hope it doesnt happen again. Hope your ok .

Sorry i meant to say skin and blood which in my mums case it had with her friends finger.

Dipndazzle, that "has tasted blood" comment is not based on fact at all and I thank god that the man is not my family GP.

Pickgo - "I must admit Edam the woman's death reported today fills me with dismay. Apparently people had reported their concerns about the dog too prior to this attack." They reported concerns about A DIFFERENT, smaller dog jumping up at the fence, which is neither a risk nor a criminal offence. No action was taken because no crime was committed so it is a mistake on your part to draw the comparison to your situation and this incident. Besides, we will never know what happened - for all you or I know, the dog may have been reacting to abuse or injury - we just don't know, so there is no sense or reason in speculating.

"I wonder if, had the dog not been shot, people on here would advocate that dog should have been rescued and retrained after it had killed someone?". Yes

Hi Val

I agree that comparing the incident of the women being killed to the bite incident in the first post is unrealistic.

However, as a regular on a dog forum whereby all the reports have been collated, it has indeed been reported by the neighbours that the dog that kiled the lodger is the same that had been tied up outside posing a threat to the neighbours.
The complaint wasnt merely about a dog jumping up at a fence, but a dog jumping up at a fence to display aggression toward the neighbours, to the point the neighbour was concerned to let his own children in their own garden.
Considering the reports state the dog was bought up by the owner for guarding purposes as he was a drugs dealer, the act of tethering the dog outside is consistent with this outcome of aggression toward the neighbours over the fence and toward the lodgers.
One story states that the dog was causing a concern toward the neighbours outside and another female lodger was too scared to go out there and remove the dog.

I think on balance, when you weigh up all the acocunts and the outcome, i think it fair and reasonable to conclude the probability of the neighbours telling it how it was is most likely the case.

It is also alwasy not correct to assume that just because no action was taken by the police previously that no crime was committed.
In my experience in rescue and dangerous dogs incidents, it often comes down to police resources.
I do know that DLO's complain about this.
And the police are now investigating their ow earlier responses to these complainsts

Their is no logical or circumstantial reason to feel the dog involved in the OP's incident automatically requires euthanasia.

However, i feel it is beyond question that a dog that has killed someone should remain alive (in most, but not all, cases.)
As a rescue worker myself, their are worse things for some dogs than death.
We dont home dogs to individuals, we home them into society, and that should alwasy be an overriding criteria when we make rehoming judgements.
It would be difficult to place such a dangerous dog, leaving the option of a kennelled life, which is no life.
Most rescues wouldnt have tkaen him anyway.
So for the dog that killed the poor lady, it being shot was a kind, but awful, act of animal welfare.

YANBU. Maybe the police prefer to wait until the Summer when people will be wearing one thin layer of clothing and not 6. Then the dog really will hurt someone and they can take action then. Ridiculous.

LeroyGethroGibbs - your poor son, it's very sad that he now has to live with the scars of this incident for the rest of his life. I hope they fade with time.
Clutha - at last a more reasoned and reasonable response from a rescue person!
Valhall - I really can't believe you would want to take the dog that killed the woman and attempt to retrain it - even 4 policemen could not get the dog off the woman and it took 4 shots before it let go of her. Can you imagine the terror and pain of that poor woman's death? What a sad, sad and awful way to die.
And you would want the dog to survive?
Such absolute principles as this are simply unfit to deal with all the complexities we all face in life. I think there must be some exceptions - and this is such a one.
In my own case I admit there is far more doubt, but I am concerned that the dog that bit me doesn't do it again to someone far more vulnerable. And it will do it again with its present owner.
There really should be much stronger regulation of who can own a dog, don't you agree?

Clutha - apologies, I wasn't aware of the dog tethered etc reports and accept that this is different altogether. IMHO not the fault of the dog per se but yet a-effing-gain the fault of extremely bad ownership.

I don't agree however that a dog which can't be rehomed into society should be killed. I don't know what rescues you work with or whether you work with or for just one, but I know some which can offer a dog far more than just a kennel and a few dogs which wouldn't be homed into society but who live happy lives on secure farms (although housed indoors of course) and soforth, where they have both a home and a large area to play in PLUS a human who they have bonded with, who they trust and vice versa and who they are safe with. My policy is "No kill, no excuses, no limits, no fear".

Pickgo, I've worked with dogs which would, if and when they "went" would take 4 men to deal with it, and then some, and I've seen them turned round. With respect, you can ask as often as you like, offer whatever arguments you like and speak with a tone of incredulity as much as you like, but my morals aren't changing. I said no kill, I meant no kill. :)

Agree re ownership, buggered if I can see a way forward atm though.

I have known dogs who jump up and could easily pierce clothing with their teeth, puppies in fact, despite being the size of an adult dog, and they are by no stretch of the imagination dangerous.

VallhalaLalalalalalalalaaaaaa Mon 27-Dec-10 12:03:51

Clutha - apologies, I wasn't aware of the dog tethered etc reports and accept that this is different altogether. IMHO not the fault of the dog per se but yet a-effing-gain the fault of extremely bad ownership.

AGREED. IDIOT CEIMINAL OWNER, WHICH IS WHY THE LAWS SHOULD BE CHANGED TO FOCUS ON THE OTHER END OF THE LEAD AND DOGS USED AND RAISED IN THAT SENSE SHOULD BE VIEWED IN POSSESSION OF A DANGEORUS WEAPON AND THE OWNERS SHOULD BE TREATED THRU THE LAW AS IF THEY OWNED GUNS AND KNIVES.

I don't agree however that a dog which can't be rehomed into society should be killed. I don't know what rescues you work with or whether you work with or for just one,

A FEW OVER THE YEARS.

but I know some which can offer a dog far more than just a kennel and a few dogs which wouldn't be homed into society but who live happy lives on secure farms (although housed indoors of course) and soforth, where they have both a home and a large area to play in PLUS a human who they have bonded with, who they trust and vice versa and who they are safe with. My policy is "No kill, no excuses, no limits, no fear".

OF COURSE, THESE OPTIONS ARE AROUND. I'VE EVEN HAD SUCH EXPERIENCE. HOWEVER, THEY ARE VERY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN AND MOST LIKELY IT COULD TAKE MONTHS OR YEARS FOR SUCH PLACES TO COME UP, INVARIABLY SUCH DOGS BECOME LONG TERMERS, DETERIOTE IN KENNELS, DEVELOPE FURTHER EMOTIONAL AND STRESS RELATED DISORDERS, AND BECOME MORE AND MORE BEYOND HELP.
IT BECOMES MENTAL CRUELTY, I HAVE SEEN IT TOO MANY TIMES.
ITS BECAUSE I WORKED IN NO KILL SHELTERS AND SEEN THIS HAPPEN TOO OFTEN THAT I FEEL IT IS A KINDER AND MORE HUMANE TO PUT SUCH DOGS, LIKE THE ONE THAT KILLED THE LADY, TO SLEEP.
AND ALL THE TIME KENNELS KEEP SUCH DOGS FOR SO LONG MEANS THAT SPACE CANNOT BE USED REPEATEDLY BY MANY OTHER MORE REHOMEABLE DOGS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT SHOW AGGRESSION AND BEHAVOUR PROBLEMS, WHICH ARE MORE TREATABLE.
SUCH AS THE ONE IN THIS THREAD, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE.
THAT'S WHY THEIR IS NOT REALLY SUCH A PLACE AS A NON KILL RESCUE IN THIS COUNTRY, AS NO KILL RESCUES OFTEN HAVE TO OPERATE A SELECTION INTAKE POLICY, DUE TO LACK OF AVIALABLE KENNEL SPACE, DUE TO LONG TERMERS. MEANING THAT SOME OWNERS WILL PUT THE DOGS TO SLEEP THEMSELVES, AS THEY CANT GET INTO A RESCUE.

We all have to do that, sadly Clutha, whether no-kill or otherwise. It's the same old story, isn't it? Not enough rescue places, no funding for rescue, badly thought-out, rushed through legislation, incompetent owners, cruelty, an ignorant public and a misleading, ignorant press.

It's not necessarily so that a long termer will deteriorate in kennels IME, it depends on the establishment and how he is treated. As you know, rescue sometimes provides sanctuary for dogs which cannot for whatever reason find homes. I don't see a well cared for formerly aggressive dog as any different to a dog who is in rescue and not being rehomed because he has, say, epilepsy. If I were to follow your logic then I would be accepting of seeing those with such conditions PTS too (which of course, I'm not).

I could go on more but I'm going off on a tangent here and detracting from the OP, sorry Pickgo. :)

I am sick to death of people treating animal rights activists as freaks. What is freakish about protecting the most vulnerable in society? Is it freakish to abhor child abuse? I'd rather be a freak than a knuckle dragger who isn't developed enough in evolutionary terms to protect species other than their own
Will read the whole thing now