Urgent help needed please - dog bit toddler.

[WheresMaHairyToe]

Rescued my dog 7 months ago, he was a stray and is between 3 and 5 years old. Lab/ lurcher type mongrel.
He has been wonderful - quick response to training in the home, not quite 100% on toileting but getting there, fantastic with my kids (all over 8.)
Today, we were at the beach for a couple of hours with my 3 plus 5 assorted niece and nephews. Dog completely fine.
Got home, everyone settled, kids playing in garden. Dog took himself to bed in another room. 2 year old niece followed. Nobody witnessed what happened, but niece was bitten on the face. Small cut and bruising - bad enough!
My brother wants the dog out of my house. He isn't insisting on PTS. I rang 4 shelters, all said he was not able to be rehomed, so would be destroyed.
I've put him in kennels to give us all some breathing space, and am waiting on two shelters calling me back. He had never shown a single sign of aggression before this, but apparently did not growl before biting. My brother got to him seconds after the bite, and said he was also aggressive to him.
I got home about 10 mins after bite to a very unhappy dog.
I am heart broken, I don't know what to do. I am considering building him an outdoor run and muzzling him when he's near children, but that seems awful.
Sorry if this is incoherent. I'm in a bit of a state!
Please help with advice if you can! Or if you know of a no- kill shelter anywhere in NI.

I mean your post is rubbish insofar as you're quoting a bunch of stuff that is only marginally relevant to the OP.

Which journal it's from is therefore beside the point, really.

Sorry OP to take over your thread with doggy disagreements!
You sound great and are doing the very best in an understandably worrying situation. Am sure this will all turn out ok. You are taking advice from the right places (not from inconsequential Mumsnet arguments ) and are doing absolutely the right thing for your dog and kids by taking it seriously whilst not overreacting.

"If a dog bites someone for putting their face too close then it certainly is not suitable to live with young children but I still don't get why it automatically has to be PTS.

For example, if it were a pet horse, cat or parrot that bit, scratched or pecked enough to draw blood if someone put their face too close then would you still say it is dangerous and has to be destroyed? Or would you just make sure it was kept apart from small children and tell everyone else "not to put their faces close because you are likely to get bitten, scratched or pecked"?"

And this is where my opinion is just as valid as the next poster. I (clearly) believe any dog biting a childs face, should be PTS. My view is one that childrens right to protection is far far higher than 'poor he must have been stressed dog'. Not only am I utterly entitled to that view, Ive attempted to explain why. Dogs are not machines, that you send to a behaviourist who tweaks a screw and returns a guaranteed docile family friendly animal. No behaviourist will assure any owner a dog is 'cured' where a dog has previously reacted aggresively.

There is a conflation on here, that all dogs react in this manner. No they dont. However, we are not discussing the unknowns, we are discussing the knowns. This dog has bitten. This is my opinion, and Ive provided sources to show where my opinion comes from, that dogs dont do this because theyve had a day being tormented by children, or 'ridden around with a noose around its neck'. Dogs that act in this manner, do so on approach. This IMO, is not only an utterly unacceptable situation to allow to continue, its irresponsible to excuse it.

Comparing horses, cats, parrots is ridiculous.

CarolinesBeanies

The issue is not with the veterinary Journal - its with you taking a tiny bit of information and completely misinterpreting it - I'm betting you haven't read the whole paper?
If you have then PLEASE show me where the authors of the study you cite support your 'interpretation' of:

What this doesnt mean is that, 79% of dogs in the population, will bite if you put your face near theirs. It means that 79% of dogs who acted aggresively in this manner, did so prompted by mere approach. Those dogs, just as the OP has described hers, are and will continue to react aggresively by mere approach. Luckily it is a very very small number in the canine world who respond in this way, but when identified, must absolutely be PTS due to the fact its is guaranteed to re-occur.

This is quite frankly, bollocks. The authors didn't investigate 'mere approach', they investigated humans bending over a dog, putting the face close to the dog’s face, and staring between human and dog, none of these are 'mere approach' behaviours and all are highly threatening behaviours if you know anything about canine communication.

In reality what the authors say is:
These studies, in combination with the data presented here, indicate that risk mitigation in children requires ongoing age-appropriate education and schooled practice, and that parental involvement is key and still largely lacking. Accurate education about risk assessment and appropriate human and dog behaviors is needed as part of any effective anticipatory guidance from both pediatricians and veterinarians, yet such comprehensive education is still lacking

Additionally they point out that:
Victims in our study sustained only soft tissue facial wounds. This type of injury was described in a number of studies. Additionally, in more than half of cases medical treatment was not sought, but this was less likely to be the case in people bitten by large dogs than in those bitten by small dogs.

Which supports the interpretation that dogs use this behaviour to 'escape' when feeling trapped, not with intent to inflict serious injury.

Please if you're going to attempt to use law, science or the membership of veterinary bodies to try and support your points, please do at least familiarise yourself with the basics.

" Imean your post is rubbish insofar as you're quoting a bunch of stuff that is only marginally relevant to the OP. "

Its wholly relevant. It was a facial bite to a child who, at 2, and despite the mass of 'assumptions' on here, merely approached the dog.

Oh and your persistent focus on facial bites is tedious - children don't receive bites here because dogs really want to maim them for life - they receive bites here simply because they are more likely to thrust their faces towards dogs, and their faces are closer to dog height.

You believe that any dog biting a child's face should be PTS - what about dogs that bite children's hands? or limbs? Its an illogical distinction to make as the behaviour from the dog is the same - what is changing is which bit of its body the child is pushing towards the dog.

I'm not a dog owner and I'm quite grumpy about them, eg I fucking hate them being off the lead in the park and shout at owners when the slobbery bastards come up to me.

BUT

This really sounds like its not your dogs fault and was down to poor supervision. My DP was stupidly relaxed with our DD and dogs because he grew up with the kind that kids could terrorise and they would just take it. When we went to a festival last month and DP was walking round with DD she got snapped at twice and it was completely his fault because when dog owners said 'they're good with kids' he thought that meant it was fine to let DD get up in there faces and chase them round. Tit.

Please if you're going to attempt to use law, science or the membership of veterinary bodies to try and support your points, please do at least familiarise yourself with the basics.

Exactly.

despite the mass of 'assumptions' on here, merely approached the dog

Please show me where the OP said that - my understanding was that no one saw the dog child interaction as there was no supervision prior to the bite. Therefore no one knows what the child did or did not do in terms of interacting with the dog, only that the child was allowed to follow a dog that was trying to retreat.

Of course you wouldn't be making an 'assumption' to fit your narrative would you?

Look, Caroline, you lose all credibility when you come in here quoting legislation (which you have completely misinterpreted) and scientific papers (which you have also misinterpreted) in support of your opinion.

So you can think whatever you want, but don't try to lend your opinions gravitas by quoting sources that you either haven't read properly or don't understand. Because you're not fooling anybody.

"The authors didn't investigate 'mere approach', they investigated humans bending over a dog, putting the face close to the dog’s face, and staring between human and dog, none of these are 'mere approach' behaviours and all are highly threatening behaviours if you know anything about canine communication."

No they didnt, they studied facial bites. The results showed it was approach, and was not what your now attempting to spin as the basis of study. It absolutely wasnt. It was the result.
They, were as surprised as anyone, that no presumed stressful human behaviours towards the dogs, prompted a bite.

Yes he can and yes the law says he can. Why is this so hard for mn to understand. A child has been bitten, on the face, the favoured area for aggresive dogs, under circumstances not witnessed.

Expect that's utter bollocks. The truth is a child has sustained a small and unverified facial injury whilst left unsupervised in the vicinity of a dog it had pursued in the first place.

"The authors didn't investigate 'mere approach', they investigated humans bending over a dog, putting the face close to the dog’s face, and staring between human and dog, none of these are 'mere approach' behaviours and all are highly threatening behaviours if you know anything about canine communication."

No they didnt, they studied facial bites. The results showed it was approach, and was not what your now attempting to spin as the basis of study. It absolutely wasnt. It was the result.
They, were as surprised as anyone, that no presumed stressful human behaviours towards the dogs, prompted a bite

Then you definitely haven't read the paper as what I wrote is taken directly from the methodology section - so yes that is in fact exactly what the Authors themselves say that they studied - if you know anything about science you'll know that the abstract is just a simple summary - and not all of the info so you need to interpret it with caution until you read the actual paper. You are quite simply wrong, in your understanding of this one paper.

"You believe that any dog biting a child's face should be PTS - what about dogs that bite children's hands? or limbs? Its an illogical distinction to make as the behaviour from the dog is the same - what is changing is which bit of its body the child is pushing towards the dog."

Because a dog biting hands/arms MAY be biting for less sinister reasons, and Id agree with assessing both the situation and the reponse. Theres a reason facial bites are so severe, not just because of the impact on the victim, but it is the main route for fatalities. This is an intentional action in aggresive dogs.

Except the 2 year old doesn't have a severe facial bite. So by your own reasoning, it's not the intentional action of an aggressive dog. Glad you've realised your mistake!

"Of course you wouldn't be making an 'assumption' to fit your narrative would you?"

Nope. Unlike most posters, Ive provided source.

Comparing horses, cats, parrots is ridiculous.
Right - so it is just dogs then.

Because a dog biting hands/arms MAY be biting for less sinister reasons, and Id agree with assessing both the situation and the reponse. Theres a reason facial bites are so severe, not just because of the impact on the victim, but it is the main route for fatalities. This is an intentional action in aggresive dogs.

Again please show me some evidence that backs up the masses of unfounded assumptions here - you really think dogs sit and plan their sinister attacks towards locations that generate the most negative responses from humans? And you believe that this is an intentional act in aggressive dogs even after the quote above taken from the literature that shows that the vast majority of facial bites are superficial or require no medical treatment - in which case, I guess that we can conclude that dogs simply aren't very good in their sinister intents

"Of course you wouldn't be making an 'assumption' to fit your narrative would you?"

Nope. Unlike most posters, Ive provided source.

Where? Where is your source that show's the OP's niece 'merely approached' the dog? Despite no one actually seeing the interaction

"but don't try to lend your opinions gravitas by quoting sources that you either haven't read properly or don't understand"

Luckily for me, the laws on my side. This is absolutely classed as a dangerous dog, 'out of control'. The pro-biters, are the ones on weak footing.

surely your brother should take responsibility for not supervising his child. the dog's character counts for something and it would appear to me it was provoked.

"but don't try to lend your opinions gravitas by quoting sources that you either haven't read properly or don't understand"

Luckily for me, the laws on my side. This is absolutely classed as a dangerous dog, 'out of control'. The pro-biters, are the ones on weak footing.

So your advice is that OP should prosecute her DB for not acting responsibly? Yeah that would be a a positive outcome, thanks for your constructive contribution.

Caroline it really, really isn't. You can't even prove the dog bit the child at all. Because you weren't there, and nor was any responsible adult who should have been supervising.

All the facts tell us is that an unsupervised child sustained a small cut and bruise whilst unsupervised in the same room as a dog. The law is definitely not going to extrapolate 'dangerous dog out of control' from that.

Can you put the dog shut in another room when your brother visits? That's what I'd do