Yet another dog attack

[borderslass]

poor child

I think it's up to responsible dog owners to campaign and push through legislation and the rest to support dogs against irresponsible dog owners. They are the ones doing your cause and your pets the most harm.
They are the cause of the negative backlash from those of us who dislike feeling unsafe when in contact with a dog we feel is threatening or potentially not under full control and thus a cause for concern.
Turn your anger and ranting to them if you don't want campaigning for more draconic laws to end in a restrictive life for you and your dogs.

What Goblinchild said.

FWIW my sister has always had rescue dogs that have been badly treated by previous owners. The loveliest was a real character. But she couldn't break him of straying as he'd been doing it for years before the RSPCA caught him. He could jump over a six foot wall from a standing start. He was a soppy daft sod who got on very well with cats and small children - our cat used to treat him as a warm rug - so it would have been desperately sad had there been a law that dogs who roam have to be put down. He really did never harm a fly.

Habit of straying came in very useful when my sister was attacked by a man in the street. Hearing her scream, Ginger came racing round the corner and knocked the man flat. Stood over him growling. I do hope that man thought twice before attacking anyone else. That was the only time in 12 years the dog ever showed any aggression at all.

Oh, and he often used to lie down and wait for the dog warden's van when he got tired after a long ramble having escaped from the garden...

Can I ask a question? If a dog is bred for hundreds of years as a fighting dog then does that make it a naturally aggressive and need to be trained otherwise or do they all need to be taught (or abused) to be aggressive?

Great post from SGM.

When I lived in Germany many people had big, fierce-looking dogs.... which were always perfectly under control. Because it was considered a normal part of owning a dog that you took them to dog training classes.

I haven't had any particularly scary experiences recently but just in the last year I have had a wet dog run all over our picnic, a dog nose through my friend's clothes of the beach when he was in the sea, seen a toddler paddling knocked over by an out-of-control dog; in the last few years I've had a dog jump up on my new coat and put muddy pawprints on it, a dog jump up at my baby in a backpack and scratch his leg.... all of these things with hardly an apology from the owners.
I would be mortified if my children behaved like that, why do so many dog-owners these days think it's ok?
The majority of dog-owners we meet are fine and sensible and do have their dogs under control, so what is wrong with the ones who don't? And what on earth can be done about it without penalising everyone or creating a massive expensive bureaucracy?

What I find strange is how strict the rescue centres are when rehoming a dog compared with breeders being able to sell to anyone without any responsibility (and they are the ones making a profit).

I have a rescue beagle and was very lucky to be allowed him given that I had not owned a hound before (only spaniels), I had to prove he wouldn't be left alone often and he had a garden etc. I cannot understand why a rescue centre has to be so careful when a breeder does no checks whatsoever. Certain breeds have specific needs and the breeders should at least attempt to ensure they will be met. I don't just mean those considered "dangerous" but also for the dogs' benefit, border collies for example should not go to people who cannot fit enough walks in to a day. Big powerful dogs should have owners who can cope with them and attend training if necessary. I would prevent anyone with a criminal record for violence owning certain kinds of dog, as much for the dogs' sake as the public.

I think this kind of thing would be a compromise and stop this polarising of dog lovers/haters and be better for the dogs - much in the way I think you should only have a huge car if you sat a "huge car" test.

TBH, I'm starting to get fed up with the hype about so-called dog attacks.

Granted, I can very clearly see this poor child has been bitten, but the question has to be raised, what are the circumstances leading up to the attack?! Akitas do have a reputation whereby you do have to treat them with caution... did she provoke the dog in any way? She's in the dog's territory, did she overstep a boundary?

My Dalmatian came very close to being destroyed, not because he's dangerous, but because of circumstances - working family, dog locked up in a garden for in excess of a year, random child climbs over the garden wall, Dal is happy to see her, but too exuberant, and knocks girl off her feet. Tries to lick/nibble girl's ear (it's his little thing he does, he just mouths it like it's a nipple) Girl's parents understandably are cross, and demand the dog to be either rehomed or destroyed. But firstly and foremostly, what the fuck was she doing climbing in someone else's garden!???

I rescued him, and he's never shown any inclination to attack a child ever. He is walked regularly, and he's so good with children - I have a 7yo DS who sits/rides/lies on him, and my niece clambers all over him. He is so laid back. All he needed was exercise.

Our old, near toothless terrier was accused of attacking someone yesterday... My DH was out with DS and our two dogs yesterday, and while he was kicking a football around with DS in the football area, he had tied the dogs up well away from mainstream foot traffic, so that other people could enjoy the park. A young girl approached DH, and asked whether she could stroke the Dalmatian. Sure says DH, but please be careful with the little one, as he's old. A few strokes later, and she walks away. Then DH carries on playing football. 10-15 mins later he takes the dogs for a walk round the park.

The young girl's mother, with girl in tow, comes steaming up to DH, and starts yelling that the terrier is dangerous, as he's bitten her daughter and now she's going to need a tetanus jab (wtf?!)

DH asked to see the bite, mother refused to show it, and kept her daughter's hand covered up with her own.

Now, how would you react to that situation?!

I know my dogs, and my terrier is the biggest fuss-craving dog ever - he loves to be stroked, and usually within 1 nanosecond of a stroke he flips himself on his back, to have his tummy rubbed. He does have a habit of shoving his nose under any idle hands nearby too, if you're not paying attention to him. Is this what happened? Did he just take her by surprise with a small wet nose?!

He would not bite unless severly provoked, as in, finger poked in the eye repeatedly, stepped on, tail pulled or similar. Add to that, if he did mouth her at all, he has next to no teeth! He couldn't draw blood if he tried! (not that I'm condoning him mouthing, but that if he was provoked enough to snap, he couldn't do any damage)

If the daughter was bitten, why didn't she cry out? Why didn't she say anything to DH? Why wait 10 min plus to start accusing someone's pet? Why didn't she show the 'bite' to DH?

People are becoming so paranoid, it makes it increasingly difficult for responsible dog walkers and owners such as ourselves.

I get so fed up with parents that launch into major hysterics just because they see me/DH coming with two dogs, and, heaven forbid, we have to stop in the middle of the path to scoop poop (would you rather I left it?!)! They stand and flap and fuss, (and thereby teach their kids to do the same) until poop is scooped, and we carry on our walk. Then, at the nearest opportunity, they're sidling past us, giving us as wide a berth as possible.

is quite literally the look both me and my dogs give them!

Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel very strongly about.

"I get so fed up with parents that launch into major hysterics just because they see me/DH coming with two dogs, and, heaven forbid, we have to stop in the middle of the path to scoop poop (would you rather I left it?!)! They stand and flap and fuss, (and thereby teach their kids to do the same) until poop is scooped, and we carry on our walk. Then, at the nearest opportunity, they're sidling past us, giving us as wide a berth as possible.

Completely relate - it doesn't happen often because I walk in the New Forest during the school / working day, but sometimes in the holidays when the townie grockles are having their annual visit to the 'countryside' I encounter this type. I do a good line in disparaging looks however

"He would not bite unless severly provoked" how do you know that?

Because he has done it once, when DS was 2, and was chasing him round the house whacking him over the head with a cushion. He went to his bed, and DS followed him into his bed and tried to balance the cushion on his head. At that point, Dennis had had enough (understandably). He nipped, did not draw blood, DS jumped, and has never pushed him that far again.

And before you flame me for letting it get that far, I can't remember why I didn't stop DS from chasing him. Likelihood is I did warn him, but DS carried on anyway.

That was nearly 5 years ago, and DS and Dennis are so close - they sleep together, Dennis goes under his duvet and regularly gets squashed by DS tossing about. You hear little grunts and oofs from him in the night, but DS isn't bitten, or scratched to pieces. Dennis knows what is deliberate, and what is accidental.

BTW, if you look at my profile, you can see a picture of DS and Dennis in bed together. It's the 13th photo down.

'so called dog attacks' - they ARE dog attacks, what are you talking about?

and how nice of you to suggest that the latest child victim probably brought it upon herself.

I don't think 150 stitches to the face was paranoia...

Actually Beer, Parkj83 is suggesting exactly that.

But the point is, you don't know the mitigating circumstances! Why did it attack?

That's what I'm asking.

Granted, there are unprovoked attacks on people, not just children, and I would not hesitate to advocate destroying the dog if it was proven that the dog attacked out of the blue moon. But more often than not, the 'attacks on children' you see plastered all over the news are where a much-loved family pet is involved, has been teased beyond the dog's tolerance level, and has responded. And, more often than not, the victim is someone who is not from the dog's family.

I simply ask, did she do something to provoke?

And I say so called, only because of what my dog has been accused of.

Until you know the full circumstances, you cannot really judge.

Ok, so you may never know the full circumstances in any given situation, and yes, I know it's better to err on the side of caution, but there is a massive difference between status dogs trained encouraged to be aggressive, and home pets who are provoked.

If the end result is the same where someone is mauled, I do fully support the destruction of said dog, but if, like in both my terrier and my Dal's cases, no blood was drawn, then you are destroying an innocent animal who has merely reacted to provocation, and acted in the way it best has decided to protect itself.

It's a question of asking, why? And do you really need to drag it through the media?! A responsible dog owner knows what actions to take to prevent/deal with a given situation, and reacts accordingly.

BTP, think parkj83 must have meant something else then? "but the question has to be raised, what are the circumstances leading up to the attack?! Akitas do have a reputation whereby you do have to treat them with caution... did she provoke the dog in any way? She's in the dog's territory, did she overstep a boundary?
"

Thanks Beer for implying I'm not a responsible dog owner.

Very much appreciated

park has anyone said your dog should be destroyed after biting the girl in the park? I don't understand how you can compare the two situations

park has anyone said your dog should be destroyed after biting the girl in the park? I don't understand how you can compare the two situations?

CaptainKirksNipples asked...
"If a dog is bred for hundreds of years as a fighting dog then does that make it a naturally aggressive and need to be trained otherwise or do they all need to be taught (or abused) to be aggressive?"

I'd like to understand more about that too. Certain breeds are said to have certain behavioural traits/certain games they like/how much they exercise according to what breed they are. People who know more about dogs say things like "setters are like this.....", "beagles are like that....".

Cheers for that paisley, was just about to ask again!

"Akitas do have a reputation whereby you do have to treat them with caution..."
how is an unsuspecting child or any person who is just not interested in dogs to know?
it*s the owners/handlers resposibility to minimise dangers to anyone!