Dog attack in Limerick

Hooked

Before this hits boards, and A&PI forum, I'm striking while the iron is hot.

While both families involved are known to me personally, I've no intention of commenting on the attack or the circumstance.

I have however, spent most of my morning in contact with various news stations, media, radio stations, etc.. In an attempt to clarify one point...

The dog involved was an American AKITA. Of that, you have my certainty. And even so, I would not for one second blame the breed of dog for the attack. That would be very short sighted of me.

It seems the gardai, and not the vet or warden classed it as a Husky, Norwegian husky or other made up name, and this is beyond me! This is what has been picked up by almost all the press it seems...

Dog licence? Ikc papers? Google image search? Do your research - and stop tarring the Siberian Husky with this media brush.

It's all over the news today - and I'm not looking forward to walking my two this evening... Considering I'm in an adjacent neighbourhood. I've even had texts asking if it was one of mine!

Maddening

1) owners fault
2) where were the owners?
3) Akitas are meant to be muzzled and on a 6 foot leash in public as they're on restricted breeds list
5) the dogs owners are idiots
6) poor innocent girl got attacked and a poor 12 year old dog got put down due to irresponsible owners

SillyMangoX

I'm just after reading about this, once again terrible reporting and scaremongering from the media. And the article quoted the little girl as saying she went to rub the dog and it growled then she went to rub it again and it attacked. People really do need to give their kids more education on how to act around dogs. When I was young I would get killed if I went up to a dog without it's owner there to ask permission. If I got bitten (and I have been) it was purely my own fault (well except in one circumstance which I won't go into) and nothing would ever happen to the dog because they are animals, they don't want a child hassling them. If you don't heed the warnings you will get bitten. I can't remember where I read it now (if anyone has a link or remembers that would be great) but there was an experiment done with kids showing them pictures of dogs in different states of fear/happiness etc and when shown a picture of a snarling dog the majority thought it was a friendly smile... I think the only way to prevent any unnecessary attacks is to educate both parents and children what to look out for. Though it should be common sense really.

mosi

SillyMangoX wrote: »

And the article quoted the little girl as saying she went to rub the dog and it growled then she went to rub it again and it attacked.

This really got me...the dog gave a warning.
From what has been said in the media, it seems that both the dog and the child were out unsupervised. The little girl had not been educated about approaching dogs, warning signs etc.
Another article http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/brave-abbey-recounts-horror-of-dog-mauling-that-left-her-with-17-stitches-on-face-625084.html
has this quote from the mother:

Mrs Cuddihy added: "The gardaí have been out to see us. The dog has been put down. The dog did it. And, rightly so the dog is 'put down'.
"We have two dogs ourselves. We love dogs, we love animals, we have two (dogs)."
"She (Abbey) loves dogs and she wouldn't go out of her way to get a dog into trouble if he did nothing to her. She wouldn't lie," she added.

From reading this, she sounds like the type of parent that lets her child run up to dogs anyway. I know I'm speculating here and could be way off the mark, but this is just my reading of the incident. There seems to be no willingness to share some of the responsibility. Just a simple case of a "bad dog"...until people get this mentality out of their heads and start looking at the factors behind these incidents, they will keep on happening. Same goes for the owners...when will people learn that allowing dogs to roam (if this was the case, there is no mention of the owner being present) is not acceptable for a multitude of reasons.
Another point that is interesting is that the dog involved was 12 years old. I wonder if it had health issues and may have been in pain.

seamus

Dog should not have been roaming the streets unsupervised. Six-year-old girl is well old enough to understand never to go near strange dogs.

Lots of fault here. Poor dog gave a warning and still ended up destroyed. Poor little girl was only trying to say hi to the dog and will probably be terrified of big dogs for most of her life. Her injuries don't seem too bad thankfully, they'll heal up very well.

The parents appear to have learned nothing and have blamed the incident on the dog. So they're doomed to repeat this mistake. The Gardai and Social Services should be grilling the parents as much as the dog owners to get it into their heads that it's not OK for a six year old, or a dog, to be running around unsupervised.

zef

Deleted User wrote: »

1) owners fault
2) where were the owners?
3) Akitas are meant to be muzzled and on a 6 foot leash in public as they're on restricted breeds list
5) the dogs owners are idiots
6) poor innocent girl got attacked and a poor 12 year old dog got put down due to irresponsible owners

Agree with you here.
I live in a small cul de sac, with plenty of small kids living oo the road. However there are 2 families who keep RA breed dogs, and they are NEVER muzzled and 99% of the time off the lead. I've had them scare the shyte out of me bringing out the bins in the corridor between houses. One of them is 5 ft tall sitting down. My 18. yo son even let out a yelp one night bringing out the bins when he met this fella in the lane.
Not to mention the CONSTANT barking.
Both sets of owners have been intimidating to me in the past when i've said re: my cats and their dogs being loose , so I don't really feel up to saying "would you muzzle your dog, please".

quad_red

SillyMangoX wrote: »

I think the only way to prevent any unnecessary attacks is to educate both parents and children what to look out for. Though it should be common sense really.

Your attitude blows me away.

The dog ripped this girl's head open (graphic pic here - http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Herald14.jpg ) in a public park.

A public park. Her parents shouldn't be expected to have to give the child a full run down on animal behaviour, as beneficial as that would be. And they shouldn't have to stand right beside her to ensure she doesn't approach dangerous animals in a public park.

I think the main way to prevent attacks (not sure what the difference between necessary and unnecessary attacks) is people control the animals they own.

borderlinemeath

The owners are at fault for letting the dog out to roam unsupervised. Apart from any BSL that was broken.

The childs parents accept no responsibility, even though the child admitted rubbing the dog and rubbing it again after it growled? Beggars belief.

Also who lets a six year old child out playing on her own at 6.30pm in the evening? It's not bright out at that time, the sun is going down and it's not exactly safe to let kids of that age play outside without parental supervision.

I saw the first report that called it a 'norwegian husky', really sloppy reporting, not that the breed really matters now but journalists are paid to get facts right and it can lead to hysteria if the details are wrong.

Was only talking about the lack of parental responsibility these days on the off topic thread yesterday.

seamus

quad_red wrote: »

I think the main way to prevent attacks (not sure what the difference between necessary and unnecessary attacks) is people control the animals they own.

Actually since the vast majority of attacks take place on private land, the most effective way to prevent attacks is to teach children how to act around animals in general, not just dogs.

I went to Fota last year and was stunned by the kids running up and shouting at wild animals or trying to climb into enclosures. With their parents looking on, doing nothing.

You have to teach children not to fnck with animals, of any kind. If you do, you will get injured, and it will be completely your own fault. And unless the animal is one you know, keep your distance.

It's not difficult. We teach kids not to run across the road, we can teach the to keep away from strange animals.

borderlinemeath

quad_red wrote: »

Your attitude blows me away.

The dog ripped this girl's head open (graphic pic here - http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Herald14.jpg ) in a public park.

She approached the dog, she continued to rub the dog after it growled at her.

A public park. Her parents shouldn't be expected to have to give the child a full run down on animal behaviour, as beneficial as that would be. And they shouldn't have to stand right beside her to ensure she doesn't approach dangerous animals in a public park.

They should at least be there, she was brought home by somebody else. And yes, the child should have been taught not to approach strange dogs, like not to talk to strangers.

I think the main way to prevent attacks (not sure what the difference between necessary and unnecessary attacks) is people control the animals they own.

I don't think anybody here has denied that the owners were at fault here. The dog shouldn't have been out unsupervised, RB or not. But this was no untriggered attack, the child triggered the attack, and the lack of parental responsibility taken and blame shifting isn't doing anybody any good, it only reflects badly on their parenting skills.

mosi

quad_red wrote: »

Your attitude blows me away.

The dog ripped this girl's head open (graphic pic here - http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Herald14.jpg ) in a public park.

A public park. Her parents shouldn't be expected to have to give the child a full run down on animal behaviour, as beneficial as that would be. And they shouldn't have to stand right beside her to ensure she doesn't approach dangerous animals in a public park.

I think the main way to prevent attacks (not sure what the difference between necessary and unnecessary attacks) is people control the animals they own.

Nobody here is disputing the fact that the dog should not have been out unsupervised.
However, the child should not have been unsupervised either and she should have been taught not to approach strange dogs. She should also have been taught what a growl means.
It is inevitable that children will meet dogs, so appropriate behaviour around them needs to be taught. In some cases, like this, a child will meet a dog that is roaming due to an irresponsible owner. In other cases, a child will charge at a dog that is on lead with it's owner.
Children are taught about how to behave in different situations...eg don't step in front of a car, don't talk to strangers etc. I don't see why it should be any different when it comes to dogs.
The little girl here is extremely lucky. Yes, she got a deep bite but it could have been a lot worse. It looks like a single bite rather than a sustained attack. Had the dog really wanted to attack in a sustained manner, the outcome could have been very different, particularly given the size difference.

quad_red

seamus wrote: »

Actually since the vast majority of attacks take place on private land, the most effective way to prevent attacks is to teach children how to act around animals in general, not just dogs.

I went to Fota last year and was stunned by the kids running up and shouting at wild animals or trying to climb into enclosures. With their parents looking on, doing nothing.

You have to teach children not to fnck with animals, of any kind. If you do, you will get injured, and it will be completely your own fault. And unless the animal is one you know, keep your distance.

It's not difficult. We teach kids not to run across the road, we can teach the to keep away from strange animals.

That's right, up to a point. But saying 'it will be completely your own fault' completely absolves animal owners. You're accusing some people of washing their hands of responsibility and then the next sentence doing it yourself!

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The owners are at fault for letting the dog out to roam unsupervised. Apart from any BSL that was broken.

The childs parents accept no responsibility, even though the child admitted rubbing the dog and rubbing it again after it growled? Beggars belief.

Yes. The child admitted rubbing a dog. Stupidly, even after it growled. But it didn't back away. And the dog didn't nip her. It ripped her head open.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Also who lets a six year old child out playing on her own at 6.30pm in the evening? It's not bright out at that time, the sun is going down and it's not exactly safe to let kids of that age play outside without parental supervision.

What, in gods name, does the time of day have to do with an uncontrolled aggressive animal being in a public park near where children are playing?

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Was only talking about the lack of parental responsibility these days on the off topic thread yesterday.

Were ye? Cos it sounds like you're weighing into this conversation with allot of preconceived notions.

I was brought up with dogs, all my life. And in a private home setting, I could see the tragedy in a silly child antagonizing a dog and their being an incident.

But something like this taking place in a public place, there is no defence. None.

username123

mosi wrote: »

However, the child should not have been unsupervised either and she should have been taught not to approach strange dogs.

Regardless of whether the child was supervised or unsupervised she should not have been attacked by an uncontrolled dog.

Carol_1985

I think the buck stops with the owner of the dog. If the dog had not been left wander alone this would never have happened.
It's such a shame that this is how a 12 year old dog ended his days. Being put to sleep due to biting a child when it could have been easily prevented by his owners.
I would also echo other posters when they say about teaching children not to approach strange dogs and certainly not when they've growled at you. Again though if the dog had a responsible owner he would not have been in a position where he felt he had to bite!

VonVix

Reading that article really winds me up.

It's really why I want to get into educating people with regards what owning a dog entails and the proper behaviour children should be taught. The more you're around dog owners the more you realise how little people understand their dogs.

seamus

quad_red wrote: »

That's right, up to a point. But saying 'it will be completely your own fault' completely absolves animal owners. You're accusing some people of washing their hands of responsibility and then the next sentence doing it yourself!

Not really. It's a rule that applies in any situation; if you don't leave the animal alone and you get hurt, it's your fault. If you get hurt despite leaving the animal alone, then clearly it's not your fault.
If you go into someone's house, antagonise their cat and get scratched or bitten, it's entirely your own fault, it's not the cat's fault nor the owner's fault. And children should learn that this is the case for all animals.

Dogs are only a special case because we expect an unattainable standard of behaviour of them, but even so if a child approaches and antagonises a dog, it's entirely the child's fault (and by proxy the parents'). The dog roaming is a secondary cause, but the primary cause (i.e. the action which caused the reaction) is the child's failure to leave the animal alone.

Roaming is a secondary cause because it did not cause the incident. It would still have occurred on private land or with the dog on a lead. Roaming simply made it easier for the child to make their mistake.

borderlinemeath

quad_red wrote: »

Yes. The child admitted rubbing a dog. Stupidly, even after it growled. But it didn't back away. And the dog didn't nip her. It ripped her head open.

And she didn't back away either when it growled. She stupidly did it again, because she hadn't the sense or hadn't been taught not to.

What, in gods name, does the time of day have to do with an uncontrolled aggressive animal being in a public park near where children are playing?

A six year old child allowed to play outside alone as it's getting dark? In a public park/green? I'm sorry but that again, reflects badly on the parenting skills IMO. She shouldn't have been there in the first place. From memory when I was a child, I had to be in well before it started to get dark, and this was when I was maybe 10+. I certainly wasn't allowed out unsupervised at six!!

Were ye? Cos it sounds like you're weighing into this conversation with allot of preconceived notions.

Facts gleaned from experience of dogs. And children. And irresponsible parents.

I was brought up with dogs, all my life. And in a private home setting, I could see the tragedy in a silly child antagonizing a dog and their being an incident.

But something like this taking place in a public place, there is no defence. None.

And that's where the blame on the owners come in. But the child antagonised the dog in the first instance, causing the incident.

Zapperzy

Fault on both sides imo. Dog shouldn't have been left to roam unsupervised and a 6 year old child should not have been left to play outside unsupervised. Seriously who leaves such a young child outside unsupervised, anything could have happened her (abducted, raped, knocked down by a car), flipping idiot parents! :mad: Would love to know was either the dog or the child regularly left to the own devices or was it an unfortunate case of the dog escaped from a house/garden.

Regardless it's sad for the child.

iguana

My 16mo had interacted with this dog on numerous occasions up until a couple of weeks ago when we last saw it. I've never had any wariness of this dog other than the natural wariness I have whenever he is with a dog - mainly due to my son's own unpredictability. While it's possible that the dog has recently started to suffer from a mental illness that changed it's temperament or maybe it was in pain for some reason and less tolerant, my experience with that dog is that it was a slow, gentle, lazy type of dog. While obviously the dog shouldn't have been out alone, and the main blame for the attack lies with it's owners, the child's parents are also to blame. The dog gave a warning, was ignored, he acted to defend himself from unwanted physical attention and then walked away. If a dog that big and strong had genuinely attacked, the damage would have been so much worse. I feel so, so bloody sorry for it. He was failed by his owners for letting him out alone so he could find himself in such a situation and failed by the child's parents for not teaching her how to recognise and to heed a dog's warning.

The fact is, this is an area where it's still common for dogs to be out alone. If you are going to allow your children out to play unsupervised (which I believe is a necessary part of childhood) and you live in an area where it's common for dogs to be out alone, you must teach them how to interact properly with dogs.

iguana

Zapperzy wrote: »

6 year old child should not have been left to play outside unsupervised. Seriously who leaves such a young child outside unsupervised, anything could have happened her (abducted, raped, knocked down by a car), flipping idiot parents! :mad:

Now that's just as much scaremongering nonsense as what's being reported about the dog attack. Unsupervised play is an essential part of childhood and without it children can't develop important skills that they need in adult life. Abductions and stranger rapes of children are so incredibly rare that you might as well worry about crow attacks in the back garden.:rolleyes: Car accidents are a bigger concern but this happened in an area where children play out with not that much through traffic so driver know to expect children to be around. The problem is that the child wasn't adequately taught how to interact with dogs before being allowed out unsupervised not that she was allowed out at all.

borderlinemeath

iguana wrote: »

Now that's just as much scaremongering nonsense as what's being reported about the dog attack. Unsupervised play is an essential part of childhood and without it children can't develop important skills that they need in adult life. Abductions and stranger rapes of children are so incredibly rare that you might as well worry about crow attacks in the back garden.:rolleyes: Car accidents are a bigger concern but this happened in an area where children play out with not that much through traffic so driver know to expect children to be around. The problem is that the child wasn't adequately taught how to interact with dogs before being allowed out unsupervised not that she was allowed out at all.

This happened at 630pm, when it's getting dark. It would be about as dark as it is outside right now, as there's a few minutes extra daylight every day. I don't disagree that children need to play, but not as young as that, and not at this time of night, on a schoolnight, with her mother completely out of sight. That to me is just reckless.

iguana

borderlinemeath wrote: »

This happened at 630pm, when it's getting dark. It would be about as dark as it is outside right now, as there's a few minutes extra daylight every day. I don't disagree that children need to play, but not as young as that, and not at this time of night, on a schoolnight, with her mother completely out of sight. That to me is just reckless.

It was perfectly bright here half an hour ago and it's about a safe a neighbourhood as you can get. There is absolutely no issue with children being out to play there at that age at that time, as long as they are properly prepared for the responsibility that entails. Such as having good road sense and knowing how to interact with dogs.

I've just double checked and it was actually very bright here at 6.30pm last Wednesday. I was out on my bike with my son and while I'd taken my sunglasses off toward the end of the ride, I'd had no need to even think about putting my lights on.

handlemaster

SillyMangoX wrote: »

I'm just after reading about this, once again terrible reporting and scaremongering from the media. And the article quoted the little girl as saying she went to rub the dog and it growled then she went to rub it again and it attacked. People really do need to give their kids more education on how to act around dogs. When I was young I would get killed if I went up to a dog without it's owner there to ask permission. If I got bitten (and I have been) it was purely my own fault (well except in one circumstance which I won't go into) and nothing would ever happen to the dog because they are animals, they don't want a child hassling them. If you don't heed the warnings you will get bitten. I can't remember where I read it now (if anyone has a link or remembers that would be great) but there was an experiment done with kids showing them pictures of dogs in different states of fear/happiness etc and when shown a picture of a snarling dog the majority thought it was a friendly smile... I think the only way to prevent any unnecessary attacks is to educate both parents and children what to look out for. Though it should be common sense really.

These kind of posts are just bonkers blame the kids !!

Mo60

iguana wrote: »

It was perfectly bright here half an hour ago and it's about a safe a neighbourhood as you can get. There is absolutely no issue with children being out to play there at that age at that time, as long as they are properly prepared for the responsibility that entails. Such as having good road sense and knowing how to interact with dogs.

How can a child of six be expected to know how to react in any dangerous situation? To allow a child of that age out unsupervised at anytime in any place is utter madness. When I was young, many years ago, I was never allowed out on my own, even though there was far less traffic and the neighbourhood was seen as safe.

tony1980

Owners like this really boil my blood, the child would never have been in that situation if the owners were responsible dog owners!! I see this all the time where I live, people get dogs, whatever the breed and when the novelty wears off, they stop walking them or playing with them and just leave them out the front all day and forget about them. I have a few neighbours who do the same and I live very close to where this incident occured but I don't know the dog or the owners. I feel so sorry for the poor dog, it is completely the owners fault, the dog should never have been out on its own!

SillyMangoX

handlemaster wrote: »

These kind of posts are just bonkers blame the kids !!

I'm not saying that some blame doesn't lie with the dogs owners. If they had been responsible then this situation would never have occurred. But to me it's the same as someone getting into your personal space, being told to back off and not doing so. A persons natural reaction would be to push that other person away. Dogs are different; they don't push they snap. And considering the breed and the damage done I would strongly assume that this was just a snap because if he had wanted to do damage due to aggression etc the poor child wouldn't be around to share what happened. It's a failure on multiple sides, the dogs owners for not keeping him under control, the parents for not teaching their child when not to approach a dog. In no way do I blame the poor child for what happened, she will probably end up with a fear of dogs after this

gctest50

Slightly different angle on what can happen :

"Christine Caron, 49, had both her legs and an arm amputated after her mixed breed Shih Tzu called Buster gave her a small bite on May 22."

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/07/23/mum-has-three-limbs-amputated-after-small-bite-from-family-dog/

what now ? all the shih tzus too ?

Rightwing

Out of line comment.

DBB

Rightwing wrote: »

These dogs are a disgrace. Any big dog not on a lead, should be shown a bullet.

Rightwing, this comment is out-of-line for this forum.
Please do not post in such an inflammatory way again, and familiarise yourself with the forum charter prior to posting again.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
THanks,
DBB

I dont know what it is about dog wardens and the media, they dont seem to have a clue when it comes to dog breeds.

Secondly the dog is always destroyed straight away without an investigation into why it happened. Back to square one.

Pumpkinseeds

A very sad situation that could easily have been avoided if neither the child nor the dog had been roaming unsupervised.

ShaShaBear

I hate to think what would have happened if she had approached a stranger in a car with candy with the same enthusiasm as she approached a clearly, even by her explaining, distressed and uncomfortable dog.

footstool

The moment I read this, I knew straight away that the child must of done something to get the dog to attack her, and sure enough I was right! The child continued to rub the dog after he growled (a sure warning that the dog was not happy with this contact). And the mother declaring she did nothing wrong?! Erm, yes she did!!! She didnt heed to the dog's warning and as a result got a nasty bite (clawed) by the animal.
PEOPLE TEACH YOUR CHILDREN THE SAFETY AND DANGERS OF STRANGE DOGS!!
I go around to schools to teach young children how to know when a dog wants to be friends or not. All animals ALWAYS give warning before they attack because the last thing they want to do is waste energy on attacking. FIGHT OR FLIGHT PEOPLE!!!
Hopefully this artical when open the eye of parents, teachers and children of any age to be more aware of the warning dogs give!
Doesnt matter if she loves animals and has no intention in hurting it, animals dont understand that! This accident could of very easily been avoided!

sillysmiles

footstool wrote: »

Hopefully this artical when open the eye of parents, teachers and children of any age to be more aware of the warning dogs give!

TBH I doubt it people will learn anything from it other than to be judgmental and see big dogs as "dangerous". I think the people who understand that dogs give warning signs already know this.
I tried to have this conversation with someone earlier and there was no listening to anything that suggested that the actions of the child may have instigated the act.


Personally I think the crux of the matter is that
the dog shouldn't have been out alone
the dog shouldn't have bitten
But also I think that a child that young shouldn't have been out alone.
And that once the dog growled the child shouldn't have tried to go near it again.
I think this is the part people have the biggest issue because regardless of whether there is a logic in it, to agree places blame on the child and people feel uncomfortable blaming a small child for an incident that has already scarred them.

borderlinemeath

sillysmiles wrote: »

TBH I doubt it people will learn anything from it other than to be judgmental and see big dogs as "dangerous". I think the people who understand that dogs give warning signs already know this.
I tried to have this conversation with someone earlier and there was no listening to anything that suggested that the actions of the child may have instigated the act.


Personally I think the crux of the matter is that
the dog shouldn't have been out alone
the dog shouldn't have bitten
But also I think that a child that young shouldn't have been out alone.
And that once the dog growled the child shouldn't have tried to go near it again.
I think this is the part people have the biggest issue because regardless of whether there is a logic in it, to agree places blame on the child and people feel uncomfortable blaming a small child for an incident that has already scarred them.

The bit in bold is what really annoys me. It's that "children can do no wrong" mentality. It's a shift in parenting values from when I was a kid that has me completely frustrated, and makes me sound like such a crotchety old fuddy duddy! (and I'm really not!)

I remember getting given out hell to for antagonising the various family dogs we had as a kid, I remember my neighbour giving out to me because I dangled over her wall and was trying to play with her dog, a small white thing, that was so much prettier than our mongrel at home, and she was right to. Nowadays the parents would march around to said neighbour and read them the riot act for daring to speak to their little darling in such a manner. Threatening the law and all sorts, while the 'innocent' child is fussed over and told they're not to blame for anything. :mad:

ShaShaBear

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The bit in bold is what really annoys me. It's that "children can do no wrong" mentality. It's a shift in parenting values from when I was a kid that has me completely frustrated, and makes me sound like such a crotchety old fuddy duddy! (and I'm really not!)

I remember getting given out hell to for antagonising the various family dogs we had as a kid, I remember my neighbour giving out to me because I dangled over her wall and was trying to play with her dog, a small white thing, that was so much prettier than our mongrel at home, and she was right to. Nowadays the parents would march around to said neighbour and read them the riot act for daring to speak to their little darling in such a manner. Threatening the law and all sorts, while the 'innocent' child is fussed over and told they're not to blame for anything. :mad:

I was the same, got a serious telling off and a grounding for trying to mediate a fight between a collie and my neighbour's lab when I was 6. I got a latch on the arm (was wearing one of those really puffy padded coats that were all the rage in the early 90s) and was extremely badly bruised and bleeding slightly, but only for the coat I reckon I would have needed surgery at the least. MY neighbour was totally distraught about what had happened and my mum and dad made it 100% perfectly clear that it was my own fault I had been bitten and that doggies have much bigger teeth than we have and don't speak the same language, so we shouldn't annoy them when they are angry. I learned a lot that day (although to my utter distress the lab was put to sleep despite my pleas and apologies) and have never developed a fear of dogs of any size as a result.

sillysmiles

borderline - it annoys me to, especially for minor bites/incidents (no skin breaks no blood etc). I see with my own niece/nephew that if they complain for being bitten the first question is what did you do to annoy the dog - don't do that.

However, I think in cases like this one, no one is going to (openly) blame the child because the damage is significant. The problem with that is that this means that there isn't questioned asked ( in the general media) about the role of the child and her parents in particular in this incident.