MY baby bitten on the head by friends dog.

wolfpawnat

DBB wrote: »

Great! I'm delighted to hear this. I'm guessing it's a recent enough departure because certainly up to a few short years ago, they were a bit ambivalent about it. Very encouraging to know that the new generation of vets are getting this info! Thanks!

Odd since she has supposedly been there years and has advocated this belief for at least 4 (the OH has had her since 2nd year). Maybe she finally copped on. I always found that hiss noise suspicious personally. When they were told that by her, it really seemed to add up in my head. No these days they are told that yes, you have to show you are in charge, but not an alpha wolf way if you get my meaning.

DBB

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Odd since she has supposedly been there years and has advocated this belief for at least 4 (the OH has had her since 2nd year). Maybe she finally copped on.

I had heard on the grapevine that this is the case... At least, it's a work in progress with her! She has never upgraded or refreshed her behaviour training, which she did before the bulk of the research on the topic of pack theory was published in the past ten+ years. It's kinda odd that she never affiliated with the main professional behavioural association, which has lots of vets in it... But they require CPD to maintain membership, which would have kept her more up to date.
Anyway, sounds like they're getting there!

The Sweeper

handlemaster wrote: »

There s a big difference a dog giving a nip on the leg or arm and the head. The head the dog knows instinctively is very vulnerable

Not with a small child. With a small child the head and face are the closest part to the dog. If a dog that went for a standing adult ran up the adult to snap for their face, that would seem an extremely aggressive attack. With kids, it's really just the dog going for the nearest part.

mathepac

Duckjob wrote: »

I've been in the park and seen a little *** running after my little doggie trying to hit her with a branch of a tree while his mother sat nearly watching him. (I was shouting at him to leave her alone, but it was having no effect).

She was running away and avoiding him but finally he ended up on top of her and trod on her feet. She squealed and ran way.

What annoys me is that a less placid dog could have justifiably taken a lump out of his leg, and if so the mother probably would have screamed for the dog to be put down / that she was going to sue etc.

It's not fair to put all responsibility on dogs not to bite/snap and none on children not to provoke them and on parents to educate their children to treat animals properly.

I doesn't take much to deduce that your dog was off-leash in a public place and not under your control with at least one child in the vicinity.

What not call your dog back to you rather than shouting at someone else's child? The dog's behaviour is your responsibility, not the child's.

The responsibility for the dog's behaviour rests with the owner at all times. If you believe there is any possibilty that your dog might injure a child, then it is your responsibility to have sufficient control in order to remove your dog from the situation.

This part of your post is abhorrent, ugly in the extreme, "a less placid dog could have justifiably taken a lump out of his leg". IMHO this type of thinking should disqualify you as a pet-owner. There can be no justification for behviour such as you describe, ever. I'll say it again - there are no bad dogs, just bad, irresponsible owners who will shirk their responsibilities at the first possibility and try to shift blame.

I'm glad there was no bad outcome here with an injured child, a traumatised parent and a dead dog all caused by yet more stupid behaviour by an irresponsible owner.

It worries me that several posters here share your views sufficiently to thank your post. Bizarre is the extreme, our world now has to align itself with the needs of pets and their extremely bad owners, with children taking a back seat to them

TooManyDogs

mathepac wrote: »

I doesn't take much to deduce that your dog was off-leash in a public place and not under your control with at least one child in the vicinity.

What not call your dog back to you rather than shouting at someone else's child? The dog's behaviour is your responsibility, not the child's.

Are you for real?? Since when was a dog not allowed off lead? The law states that a dog should be under effective control, that doesn't mean lead, and unless the area the dog owner was in stated that dogs were to be kept on lead then he's perfectly justified allowing their dog off lead.

The days of mutual respect seem to be dying, now a days there is a huge emphasis put on what the dog 'should' tolerate from the child, and not that the child should be also taught not to hit/annoy/terrorise the dog. When I was young if I complained that the dog growled or snapped me or my mother heard the dog whimper or yelp you can believe me that I got a right telling off. And this wasn't because my mother was a tree hugging hippy, she simply believed that dogs are entitled to respect and entitled not to be any childs plaything, companion yes, but not toy substitute.

And as regards to the situation the above poster found themselves in with a child chasing their dog with a stick despite owner warning child off the actions, my mother had a similar situation happen with her small dog, boy chasing her dog swiping a stick at her, my mother warned him off, he just glared at my mother and then smacked the dog on the head with the stick. Now two things happened, number 1 my mother snatched the stick out of the boy's hand and smacked him on the legs with it so he could see what it felt like, and number 2 it started a life long fear aggression towards small children to such a point that the dog had to be locked away whenever a small child came to visit. Now I'm not saying my mother's reaction was necessarily the correct one, but sometimes I do think 30 years ago was a simpler time to be a dog; children and dogs were taught to respect EACH OTHER, dogs were naturally socialised from being out on the road, had the legs walked off them accompanying the buggy down to the shops because there were fewer cars and they weren't baby substitutes the same way they are now. Yes it also held it's other problems but still.

To the original poster.
I'm very sorry your little girl got a fright and is bruised, I have a 3 year old and it breaks my heart to see her in pain or frightened. I have to echo what the others said that the dog would have instantly broken skin if they had wanted to and no speed from yourself or the owner could have stopped it so it genuinely was a warning, not intended to damage her, dogs have as much control over their mouths as we do over our hands, and as you know yourself we rarely occidentally use the wrong pressure with our hands doing anything. Please try to take some comfort in that. I'm also delighted your little girl is talking about it, it constantly gives you the chance to re-enforce that it was a silly dog or whatever and remove any future fear reaction to dogs, like DBB there must be nothing worse that a fear of such a common animal.
I think you're being very wise and very well rounded with your reaction and not wanting to force the issue about having the dog put down, as others have said it would be a shame if the dog had to pay with it's life as a knee jerk reaction. But also think of the lessons you've taught your little girl - measured thinking, looking at a scary situation from all angles before coming to a conclusion, and most of all compassion and forgiveness. Now I'm not saying forgiveness means put baby and dog in the same situation again but to take the lessons learned and move on.

Dogs and toddlers are difficult, even overly extended eye contact from a toddler could be enough to push a fearful dog over the edge, it can be so so so small that it would be very easy to miss, dogs speak in micro signals before it ever gets to the growling or biting stage, it can even be as simple as a stillness to signify the level of unhappiness of a dog, so please don't blame yourself or the dog's owner overly, learn and you'll be so much wiser forever more. My 3 year old was reared with 6 dogs in the house and will still plague the heart out of them despite constant warnings and explanations that at this stage I'm sometimes temped to bite her myself!!!!!

Duckjob

mathepac wrote: »

I doesn't take much to deduce that your dog was off-leash in a public place and not under your control with at least one child in the vicinity.

What not call your dog back to you rather than shouting at someone else's child? The dog's behaviour is your responsibility, not the child's.

The responsibility for the dog's behaviour rests with the owner at all times. If you believe there is any possibilty that your dog might injure a child, then it is your responsibility to have sufficient control in order to remove your dog from the situation.

This part of your post is abhorrent, ugly in the extreme, "a less placid dog could have justifiably taken a lump out of his leg". IMHO this type of thinking should disqualify you as a pet-owner. There can be no justification for behviour such as you describe, ever. I'll say it again - there are no bad dogs, just bad, irresponsible owners who will shirk their responsibilities at the first possibility and try to shift blame.

I'm glad there was no bad outcome here with an injured child, a traumatised parent and a dead dog all caused by yet more stupid behaviour by an irresponsible owner.

It worries me that several posters here share your views sufficiently to thank your post. Bizarre is the extreme, our world now has to align itself with the needs of pets and their extremely bad owners, with children taking a back seat to them

Ah come on now, you've just got to be a-trollin.

Duckjob

Ok, ok, I'll bite (no pun intended)

mathepac wrote: »

I doesn't take much to deduce that your dog was off-leash in a public place and not under your control with at least one child in the vicinity.

1) Yes my dog was not on a leash. She was quietly sniffing the ground, minding her own business. She doesn't tend to pay any attention to children, or people in general in the vicinity.

2) The dog was under control, the child however was not.

What not call your dog back to you rather than shouting at someone else's child? The dog's behaviour is your responsibility, not the child's.

The dog was quietly by my side, and she was not even aware of this child until he came running to where we were, trying to hit her with a branch.

The responsibility for the dog's behaviour rests with the owner at all times. If you believe there is any possibilty that your dog might injure a child, then it is your responsibility to have sufficient control in order to remove your dog from the situation.

So, 100% responsbility on dog and owner, 0% on parent. The parent watching her child abusing an animal you have no problem with? Fan--tasic.

This part of your post is abhorrent, ugly in the extreme, "a less placid dog could have justifiably taken a lump out of his leg". IMHO this type of thinking should disqualify you as a pet-owner.

Believe me I don't want to see my dog biting anybody. My point is she would have been justified as she was provoked. In the same way, if I ran up to you in the park and started punching you in the head, you would be justified in punching me back. Really, this is not rocket science.

There can be no justification for behviour such as you describe, ever.

The dog's bahaviour was exemplary, unlike the childs and his parents. (as I said she didnt bite him, she squealed and ran away because he trod on her paw and injured her)
Incidentally, had she been on a lead, she would have been MORE restricted, and less able to get away from him.

I'll say it again - there are no bad dogs, just bad, irresponsible owners who will shirk their responsibilities at the first possibility and try to shift blame.

I don't need to shift any blame, I wasn't at fault, neither was the dog. The parent was 100% at fault for not controlling her aggressive and hyper child.

I'm glad there was no bad outcome here with an injured child, a traumatised parent and a dead dog all caused by yet more stupid behaviour by an irresponsible owner.

And again, no mention of stupid behaviour of irresponsible parents.

It worries me that several posters here share your views sufficiently to thank your post. Bizarre is the extreme, our world now has to align itself with the needs of pets and their extremely bad owners, with children taking a back seat to them

What I find bizarre is a view where in a situation where a child attacks and hurts a quiet, defenseless dog, while the parent sits idly by watching, and it's
deemed to the owners fault? Go away FFS.

I'm also a parent of a young child and I would be first to condemn somebody who has an aggressive or out-of-control dog around children. But this was the complete opposite of that situation. Your post is so ludicrous I just have to cling to the hope that you're just out trolling of an evening.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

OP, I really hope your wee one is okay and is not frightened of dogs as a result. Try not to worry: baby is okay, that's the important thing right now. Moving forward, it is important that your friend informs herself thoroughly about the incident, and where to go from here: knowledge is power!
However, it is not, repeat not down to anyone here to tell you or your friend whether to put this dog to sleep. It is highly unethical to do so via this medium.

The dog bit a child. There is simply no negotiation on this kind of issue, he must be put down, end of. The dog is dangerous.

boomerang

I brought my collie Amber on a homecheck once, to visit a family with a small child that wanted to adopt a young dog. Now, if ever there was a saint of a dog, it was Amber. A faultless dog - I'll never have her like again. I wanted to see how the parents and the child acted around her. So there I am chatting to the mother at the dining room table. She has her toddler crowding Amber. Despite my gentle remonstrations, she doesn't control the child. The toddler pokes Amber in the eye. I'm watching it but the mother is so busy talking she doesn't cop it at all.

Not all dogs are saints like Amber, nor should they be expected to be. A different dog would have snapped. That said, a warning snap should not be confused with an aggressive attack.

Vinz Mesrine

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The dog bit a child. There is simply no negotiation on this kind of issue, he must be put down, end of. The dog is dangerous.

You're wrong, very wrong. End of.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

Why would you involve the Gardai? No law was broken. This is a civil issue.
If the op were to sue, they would need to demonstrate loss, injury or damage caused by negligence. Whilst this incident was very unpleasant, I think the op would have quite the job to demonstrate any of this.
The hysteria here is... Jaw dropping. Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes, they push each other over, they fall over footpaths, so do you advocate the parents sue the owner of the wall? The kid who pushed? The council? Of course not.
This was an accident. The damage done was, thankfully, small. If the dog had previous form, then the owner would be negligent. But a first-off incident which resulted in a bruise? I don't fancy their chances.

Strange that the DSPCA advice for when a child is bitten by a dog is to inform the Gardaí then.

oppenheimer1

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

You're wrong, very wrong. End of.

Well thats me told so. :rolleyes: When the Gardaí are informed as per DSPCA advice, the dog will be put down as it is dangerous. To be honest I'd rather see a dead dog than an injured child.

People need to stop making excuses for a dangerous animal - the OP said it an unprovoked attack.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Strange that the DSPCA advice for when a child is bitten by a dog is to inform the Gardaí then.

Advice from an organisation that holds no legal warrant? Advice does not equal legal requirement.
There is no legal requirement for a dog bite to be reported to the guards unless it occurs due to a law being broken. No laws broken here. Move on.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The dog bit a child. There is simply no negotiation on this kind of issue, he must be put down, end of. The dog is dangerous.

Have you any qualifications or professional affiliations in dog behaviour?
Unless you do, I think I'll stick with the internationally recognised protocols used by qualified experts to assess whether a dog is dangerous. Thanks.

Do you represent the victims of dog bites, or indeed the owners of dogs that have bitten, in court?
Unless you do, I think I'll stick with the internationally recognised protocols used by qualified expert witnesses to assess whether a dog is dangerous. Thanks.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

Advice from an organisation that holds no legal warrant? Advice does not equal legal requirement.
There is no legal requirement for a dog bite to be reported to the guards unless it occurs due to a law being broken. No laws broken here. Move on.

Actually a dog bite is a breach of The Control of Dogs Acts 1986 and 1992. The DSPCA advice is also best practice. Advice like yours is why forums are a bad place to get it.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

When the Gardaí are informed as per DSPCA advice,

The Gardai do not need to take the advice of the DSPCA on dog bites, primarily because the DSPCA has no expertise, nor no jurisdiction, on the matter.

the dog will be put down as it is dangerous.

Not until due process is done. A dog cannot be put to sleep without the express permission of the owner, or by order of a judge.
A dog can only be adjudged as "dangerous" by a judge.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

Have you any qualifications or professional affiliations in dog behaviour?
Unless you do, I think I'll stick with the internationally recognised protocols used by qualified experts to assess whether a dog is dangerous. Thanks.

Do you represent the victims of dog bites, or indeed the owners of dogs that have bitten, in court?
Unless you do, I think I'll stick with the internationally recognised protocols used by qualified expert witnesses to assess whether a dog is dangerous. Thanks.

Do you represent "behaviourists" who try to make a business out of correcting delinquent and dangerous dogs?

Have you assessed this dog based on the evidence put before you, that a child was the victim of an unprovoked attack? I think its best to err on the side of caution, who knows it could attack again and was it not for the quick actions of the adults in the room the consequences would have been much more serious.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

The Gardai do not need to take the advice of the DSPCA on dog bites, primarily because the DSPCA has no expertise, nor no jurisdiction, on the matter.



Not until due process is done. A dog cannot be put to sleep without the express permission of the owner, or by order of a judge.
A dog can only be adjudged as "dangerous" by a judge.

As I said the DSPCA advice is best practice.
How do you think it gets that far? By the victim making a complaint to the Gardaí and the case being brought before the court.

Axwell

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Advice like yours is why forums are a bad place to get it.

Pot, kettle,black..

oppenheimer1

Axwell wrote: »

Pot, kettle,black..

My advice is based on best practice and erring on the side of caution.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Actually a dog bite is a breach of The Control of Dogs Acts 1986 and 1992. The DSPCA advice is also best practice. Advice like yours is why forums are a bad place to get it.

Actually, a dog bite is not in breach of the quoted legislation. The legislation does not make the reporting of dog bites compulsory. What it does do, is provide recourse for an injured party to seek damages via the Civil Liability legislation, if they so wish.
It also provides recourse for the injured party to have the dog put through due process, if they so wish.
But they are not compelled to do so.

For your information, although due process can result in a dog being legally labelled a "dangerous dog", there is still no legal requirement for the dog to be put to sleep. Many a "dangerous dog" has been spared when judges gave the owners a conditional reprieve.
There are only two parties who can order the destruction of a dog that has bitten: the owner, and a judge. The latter supercedes the former. The Gardai do not have the powers to make the call. Nor the dog warden. And most certainly not the DSPCA.

DSPCA advice considered best practice? Why would a non-statutory, voluntary organisation whose area of expertise is animal welfare, in Dublin, be considered experts in animal behaviour? Why would they indeed? They're not! There is no requirement that anyone need use any information published by any SPCA in dog bite cases, the usual advice re best practice is to consult a suitably qualified, accredited dog behaviour expert. I have never seen an SPCA listed, anywhere, when it comes to best practice advise in anything other than animal welfare. The clue is in their name.
Indeed, in the dog bite cases that I've been involved with, and in all the case studies I've investigated in the process, I have not yet seen the DSPCA involved in behavioural testimony on dogs who bit. Not once. When an owner, or an injured party require an expert witness on dog behaviour, they consult a dog behaviourist. That is what the courts require, in my experience at least.

So, can you answer my questions? Do you have some sort of qualification, or professional accreditation, which renders you an expert witness in dog bite cases? I take it you don't due to your misunderstanding of the dog control laws. Unless or until you have, take your own advice about giving out misleading information.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do you represent "behaviourists" who try to make a business out of correcting delinquent and dangerous dogs?

Lol! I don't represent "behaviourists", no. I represent myself. I don't try to make a business out of any such thing, I do make a business out of it! I accept bookings from owners who come to me, of their own free will (at least, I don't recall anyone being coerced into contacting me, though maybe there is someone there with them, silently holding a gun to their head), and I give them qualified and accredited advice, backed up by the professional organisations I belong to, and like any advice-giving professional should be, I'm covered by professional indemnity insurance: hard for any self-titled behaviourists to get in Ireland it is too. Insurance companies will only cover you if they know you're good for it.
I have represented quite a few cases under the Control of Dogs Acts and regs, which is why I'm pretty familiar with the laws, which made up a large chunk of the studying I had to do to get the qualifications I have.
And if that's not enough for the bees in your bonnet, I charge considerably less for my professional service than many of the unqualified quacks out there! Hell! I even do seriously reduced fees, or even freebies, for owners who can't afford to pay an expert witness where their dog is being prosecuted! :-D

Have you assessed this dog based on the evidence put before you, that a child was the victim of an unprovoked attack? I think its best to err on the side of caution,

Did you read my first post here, where I went to some lengths to tell the op not to take remote advice from a discussion forum, and advised her to seek the services of a qualified behaviourist who could assess the dog properly, on the ground? No? Too blinded by your own outrage to be able to focus properly, perhaps.
You're the one who's calling for this dog to die based on a few lines on a discussion forum! As someone already said... Pot. Kettle. Black. :-D

Again, would you ever tell me, what are your own qualifications or expertise that you're able to wax so lyrical on this matter?

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

Actually, a dog bite is not in breach of the quoted legislation. The legislation does not make the reporting of dog bites compulsory. What it does do, is provide recourse for an injured party to seek damages via the Civil Liability legislation, if they so wish.
It also provides recourse for the injured party to have the dog put through due process, if they so wish.
But they are not compelled to do so.

For your information, although due process can result in a dog being legally labelled a "dangerous dog", there is still no legal requirement for the dog to be put to sleep. Many a "dangerous dog" has been spared when judges gave the owners a conditional reprieve.
There are only two parties who can order the destruction of a dog that has bitten: the owner, and a judge. The latter supercedes the former. The Gardai do not have the powers to make the call. Nor the dog warden. And most certainly not the DSPCA.

DSPCA advice considered best practice? Why would a non-statutory, voluntary organisation whose area of expertise is animal welfare, in Dublin, be considered experts in animal behaviour? Why would they indeed? They're not! There is no requirement that anyone need use any information published by any SPCA in dog bite cases, the usual advice re best practice is to consult a suitably qualified, accredited dog behaviour expert. I have never seen an SPCA listed, anywhere, when it comes to best practiceadvise in anything other than animal welfare. The clue is in their name.
Indeed, in the dog bite cases that I've been involved with, and in all the case studies I've investigated in the process, I have not yet seen the DSPCA involved in behavioural testimony on dogs who bit. Not once. When an owner, or an injured party require an expert witness on dog behaviour, they consult a dog behaviourist. That is what the courts require, in my experience at least.

So, can you answer my questions? Do you have some sort of qualification, or professional accreditation, which renders you an expert witness in dog bite cases? I take it you don't due to your misunderstanding of the dog control laws. Unless or until you have, take your own advice about giving out misleading information.

I never said the Gardaí had the power to make the call, however they can bring the case before a judge who will have the dog destroyed. Dogs are rarely if ever on the winning side in court in these cases.

A dog bite, while in itself is not in the act, it is dangerous behaviour and the court can be petitioned to rule that the dog is dangerous and be destroyed. Dogs never win in court, especially when they attack toddlers. If a complaint were made, the advice at the start of the process would be to put the dog down as it saves a lot of money and hassle in the long run.

The DSPCA's mission is animal welfare, but in pursuit of this mission they aim to educate (which is what this advice falls under). Their guidelines are best practice, although I do admit that unless the complainant wants the dog destroyed and the owner is resisting, there wouldn't seem to be much point in going to the Gardaí.

No I'm not a dog consultant or vet or Euthasol salesman or any other type of expert that would use a forum to drum up business for my industry, but I do put the welfare and well being of children and people far above animals (I know that a point of view that many on this forum find hard to comprehend). Simply put, when a dog bites a childs head, he gotta go.

Axwell

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

My advice is based on best practice and erring on the side of caution.

Which makes it no more professional than any other piece of advice given on the forum, you arent an expert therefore its your opinion and nothing more. End of, as you put it yourself.

mathepac

Duckjob wrote: »

... The dog was quietly by my side, and she was not even aware of this child until he came running to where we were, trying to hit her with a branch. ...

That's a very different situation to that described in your original post so make your mind up - what actually happened?

I stand over my comments which were based on the content of your original post.

Duckjob wrote: »

... So, 100% responsbility on dog and owner, 0% on parent. The parent watching her child abusing an animal you have no problem with? Fan--tasic.. .

I totally disagree. The child was playing with the dog in his view as the notion of abusing an animal is not something a child could comprehend.

If you were genuinely concerned for the safety of your dog and the safety of the child you could have put the leash on your dog and walked away. Shouting at the child with the dog in close proximity to you was likely to upset both the dog and the child, potentially making an unpleasant situation more volatile. A responsible owner / parent would know this and avoid the potential escalation.

Duckjob wrote: »

... My point is she would have been justified as she was provoked. ...

There is never ever any justification for a dog to injure or traumatise a child. It’s the dog owner’s responsibility to prevent this by having their pet under effective control at all times, which means being able and willing to remove the dog from any situation where the child might be at risk.

Duckjob wrote: »

... In the same way, if I ran up to you in the park and started punching you in the head, you would be justified in punching me back. ..

A really stupid attempt at an analogy and unless you are particularly child-like in both your behaviour and outlook, given a choice of adults in a park to punch in the head, I should be last on your list.

Duckjob wrote: »

... Really, this is not rocket science. ..

I know it’s not rocket science but the basic principles seem sufficiently complex to have escaped you completely.

Duckjob wrote: »

... The dog's bahaviour was exemplary, ...

I never suggested otherwise, anywhere; read my post.

Duckjob wrote: »

... (as I said she didnt bite him, she squealed and ran away because he trod on her paw and injured her) ...

Once again, this is new / different information from that you supplied originally. I’m beginning to wonder is this a story you make up as you go along.

Duckjob wrote: »

... Incidentally, had she been on a lead, she would have been MORE restricted, and less able to get away from him. ...

As I said already you are solely responsible for you dog’s behaviour. You are also solely responsible for your dog’s safety and comfort. You failed in that respect by not removing your dog in a timely manner from a situation that was both painful, i.e. being trodden on, and probably stressful, i.e being threatened by an unfamiliar child with a stick. Having her on-leash would have facilitated you both in controlling and moving her away.

Duckjob wrote: »

... I don't need to shift any blame, I wasn't at fault, ...

Yes you were ay fault as I’ve pointed out several times already.

Duckjob wrote: »

... And again, no mention of stupid behaviour of irresponsible parents....

You have no control over this and no responsibility. You are responsible for your behaviour and the safety, well-being, behaviour and control of your dog.

Duckjob wrote: »

... What I find bizarre is a view where in a situation where a child attacks and hurts a quiet, defenseless dog, while the parent sits idly by watching, and it's deemed to the owners fault? Go away FFS...

I have yet to meet a defenceless dog and I was brought up to believe that children are innocent and blameless - irritating, infuriating, remorseless and uncontrollable by times but not responsible for their own actions and incapable of knowing right from wrong. (unless of course the child in your story now suddenly morphs into 6’7” body-builder on steroids)
I must decline your invitation to go away, thanks all the same.

Duckjob wrote: »

... Your post is so ludicrous I just have to cling to the hope that you're just out trolling of an evening.

If you believe I’m trolling report me to the mods, else cease and desist with the trolling accusations.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I never said the Gardaí had the power to make the call,

In that case, you need to phrase what you say more carefully:

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

When the Gardaí are informed as per DSPCA advice, the dog will be put down as it is dangerous.

however they can bring the case before a judge who will have the dog destroyed. Dogs are rarely if ever on the winning side in court in these cases.

How do you conclude this?
I find it amazing that you have come to this conclusion, because as I've already noted, I have represented a number of dogs now, and a number of my peers have represented dogs, and almost all of the dogs lived to tell the tale, because the judge has the power to rule that even a "Dangerous Dog" can live as long as the owner adheres to certain conditions, conditions which are designed to reduce as far as possible, the likelihood that the dog will bite again.

A dog bite, while in itself is not in the act, it is dangerous behaviour and the court can be petitioned to rule that the dog is dangerous and be destroyed.

As I said above, being legally adjudged as a Dengerous Dog does not necessarily mean that the dog is destroyed.
Still, it is good to be able to show that when you said this a few posts above:

Actually a dog bite is a breach of The Control of Dogs Acts 1986 and 1992.

that you were mistaken, as you have now admitted.

Dogs never win in court, especially when they attack toddlers.

Untrue. Either I'm lying, or you're just wrong.

If a complaint were made, the advice at the start of the process would be to put the dog down as it saves a lot of money and hassle in the long run.

Whose advise? Where? Please link me to it.
As I said above, I have represented a fair few owners now, as have my peers. There are a lot of owners out there who are perfectly willing to pay what they have to pay to keep their dog under the conditions imposed by the judge.
I'm afraid it's not good enough to give advice from the "Bible of Dog Behaviour" by Oppenheimer1, you've got to be able to back this stuff up. Otherwise somebody might conclude that you are talking out of your behind.

The DSPCA's mission is animal welfare, but in pursuit of this mission they aim to educate (which is what this advice falls under). Their guidelines are best practice,

Best practice in what? They're a welfare organisation, not a behavioural assessments organisation. No SPCA is listed as being the organisation for experts to turn to for best practice in behavioural matters.
However, I do note that they say on their website:

It’s not okay for you or your children to be bitten by someone else’s dog, nor is it okay for your dog to bite you, your children or anyone else. If you notice your dog is becoming aggressive towards people, do something about it before a bite occurs. Consult your vet or a good animal behaviourist for expert advice.

Hmmm, maybe you're right after all that the DSPCA give good Best Practice advice

although I do admit that unless the complainant wants the dog destroyed and the owner is resisting, there wouldn't seem to be much point in going to the Gardaí.

There is no point in going to the Gardai unless the bite happens as a result of a law being broken or criminal act, because otherwise there is no legal requirement to go to the Gardai. To advise otherwise is just wrong.
Just remember the criticism you doled out earlier from up there on your high horse, where you said that the Gardai must be informed and that a dog bite is in breach of the Control of Dogs Act and regs!

No I'm not a dog consultant or vet or Euthasol salesman or any other type of expert that would use a forum to drum up business for my industry,

Why would I want to drum up business for my industry? Surely I'd be drumming up business for myself... something I've never done here on this anonymous forum.
I can see you have a huge bee in your bonnet about dog behaviourists, for whatever reason, but it does make for a rather unbalanced read.
The reason I would advise someone whose dog had bitten a person to seek the advice of a qualified professional is the same reason I'd advise someone who had injured themselves to go to a doctor, or for the owner of an injured pet to go to a vet.... I think it's "good practice", is it not, to advise a person to seek the help of a person who is suitably qualified, accredited, and insured to give that help, no?

but I do put the welfare and well being of children and people far above animals (I know that a point of view that many on this forum find hard to comprehend). Simply put, when a dog bites a childs head, he gotta go.

Ahhh, this old nugget. It almost feels like an old friend in this forum when someone comes in, stomps about, and then look for a way to dig themselves out.
You know what? I prioritise the welfare and well being of children and adults above animals too, and I'll bet a lot of others here do too. I would consider it deeply unprofessional if I didn't. However, this does not mean that the dog has to die when he bites a child, or anyone else. Let's try to get a weeny bit of proportion here.
Those of us who are qualified to carry out behavioural assessments on dogs have a set of criteria and protocols that we use, accepted by courts all over the world, which allow us to quantify the damage the dog did, and what this means for the future prognosis for the dog and its safety. These allow the judge to make a measured assessment of how safe it is to keep the dog alive. This is not pink, fluffy pleading to keep little Cuddles alive... this is proper, psychological profiling which allows the judge to carry out a risk assessment.
If a behavioural expert feels that the dog did damage which indicates that the dog will cause serious injury in future, they will not advise the judge to save the dog. It would be professional suicide to do so. However, if the behaviourist concludes that the dog is not likely to be a danger to anyone as long as certain terms and conditions are met, the judge will very often go along with them. Not always, but they will, and they have, as I have outlined above.
So, if it's alright with you, I'll go with what the experts say, and what the judge decides, because at least what the experts say can be backed up by some degree of fact, not unfounded, unscientific, emotive rubbish.

Rick Rod

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

You're wrong, very wrong. End of.

No he is right. End of. The matter should be discussed with the Gardai for their view on a baby attacking dog

mathepac

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Are you for real?? ...

Ah, the Justin Bieber Fan Club checks in.

TooManyDogs wrote: »

... Since when was a dog not allowed off lead? The law states that a dog should be under effective control, that doesn't mean lead, and unless the area the dog owner was in stated that dogs were to be kept on lead then he's perfectly justified allowing their dog off lead. ...

Utter nonsense of course.

With version 2 of the story now posted, it is unclear what exactly happened as the story seems to be evolving, growing legs, but in any case a responsible dog-owner would keep their dog under effective control with unfamiliar children running around in the vicinity, both for the children's sake and the dog's.

In version 1 of this thrilling and evolving story an innocent little child was terrorising a defenceless dog with a branch from a tree, chasing her around the park. In version 2, the re-write has this little child accidentally standing on the dog's paw as the dog cowers beside its owner.

Dogs being on or off leashes is a bit like speed-lmits. You can travel at speeds up to he posted speed limit if conditions allow and it is safe to do so. An owner can allow a dog off-leash in an area where this is allowed and if it is appropriate in the circumstances. In other words a dog-owner is expected to exercise judgement and common sense.

With uncontrolled, vicious, feral children in the locality, on the war-path armed with huge branches ripped from trees, it sounds to me like the dog-owner, out of concern for the safety and physical well-being of their poor defenceless little pet, should have picked her up and high-tailed it to a local refuge.

So IMHO the pet-owner failed in their duty of care to poor little Shep, preferring to shout at children and perhaps glower at the child's uncaring parent, thinking dark, vengeful thoughs.

TooManyDogs wrote: »

... The days of mutual respect seem to be dying ...

No doubt about it, clearly they are dead and gone. Here is recent evidence, the impolite greeting in the opening sentence of your post. - "Are you for real??"

cathy01

Just an update.my poor angel was up during the night screaming.her dad went in ( :-) ) she was ok. My friend rang me and she didn't sleep a wink.she went to a vet and got the name and number if an animal behaviour person? My friend spoke to her and it seems she may have given the dog too much free rain in the house .the dog sleeps in the kitchen and eats from the table as in if the kids drop the food.my daughter was on the floor. I think maybe the dog though he was the boss thats My non dog behaviour version of what was said.
I think the plan is to retrain the family on how to train the dog . But they will keep an eye on his behaviour and he's been kept in his run for the next few days until the whole plan is put in place.no kids allowed just to be safe.
My friends words where she is grieving ,as if her dog has already died because the dog she has now is so different to the dog she thought she had.
Ill let you know how things go.
Just a tiny little story.
We got our dog from a rescue centre.we fostered him first to make sure he fit in with us .we loved him from when we first seen him.
Years ago my daughter was about 8 she was playing with him ,she had him wearing a hat been pushed around in her dolls pram.our poor dog just sat there resolved to the fact that he is part of the family and we all play together.
He is an old dog now and as much as he wants to run around with my baby he just runs away and she tries to chase him.
He has his own space , and we leave him alone when he's not in the form.he sleeps in at night and doesn't like a dog bed just his Matt .
I wish that my friend can have as many happy years if love and fun with her dog as we have had with ours .
The motto a dog is for life is something that sticks in my head as our dog brought life and joy and fun and fleas and he is loved.
I'm glad I took all the advice and time to read them and not let them mammy in me say its time for the dog to go.
Sensible thing is as above train the family , teach the dog and observe very carefully. That's for them for me,I will just never take a chance with any dog ever.by the way it wasn't a pit bull or Staffie or Rottweiler .
Thanks all.

sandin

Rick Rod wrote: »

If this is how that dog "defends" itself against a 2 year old then it's dangerous. A danger to babies. I put babies ahead of animals. So does the law. Maybe you don't. That baby-attacking dog needs to be put down before it attacks again.

I saw a toddler hit another toddler - maybe he should be put down too if your logic is to be believed.


As others have said - the dog probably was not used to children. A baby does not react in the same way as an adult and possibly when neither adult was looking the baby did somethignt hat the dog did not understand and was not happy with.

A dog another animal will not differentiate between a baby and an adult in the way we do.

So for the OP - if there's a dog or cat or any other animal, be 100% attentive if your child is near the animal and never leave a child alone with an animal that the child is a stranger to.

For your friend - no need to put the dog down - just be aware that dogs are creatures of habit and will want known scents. A new scent may simply put the dog on guard and a slight irritation can cause the dog to warn off the irritation.

Also for the OP - to stop the nightmares it could be an idea to re-introduce the child to the dog and get them both to respect and know each other. Our little dog has been used by others in similar situations due to her being a very docile and friendly "princess" and a girl who previously had a bad experience with another dog counts our "princess" as her best friend and no longer has fear of dogs.