Owner refuses to have dog put down after it attacked little girl

Daqster · 28-12-2013 02:44AM #1

Girl, three, needed EIGHTY stitches after being attacked by husky at grandmother’s house - but owner refuses to have him put down

A three-year-old girl was left needing eighty stitches in her face after she was mauled by a husky dog in her grandmother's home - sparking a bitter family row.

Maddison Green was forced to undergo a two-hour operation after being attacked by the pet as she was being taken bed in Newport, South Wales.
Her grandmother’s partner is refusing to have his husky - called Zeus - put down despite the attack.

If the incident had happened in a public place the dog could have been put down - but the law does not apply on private land. The government has pledged to remove the loophole next year.

Maddison’s father Craig said Zeus jumped forwards and bit into her face last Saturday.

After she was treated at the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport he has called for the dog to be put down - but his own stepfather Dave Sellwood, 41, has said no.

Craig Green, 28, of Porth, Rhondda, said: 'I cannot believe that there is nothing we can do to prevent this dog from attacking again.

'My stepfather is refusing to put the dog down. He regards it like a child. But it could have killed my daughter.

'He has no children of his own, but Maddison has been brought up to call him grandad. I cannot believe he is putting the dog first.'

Dog owners cannot be prosecuted if their pet attacks a person if the attack takes place on private land.

The Dangerous Dogs Act currently only covers 'maulings' in public places.

However, the government has vowed to change the law after 14-year-old Jade Anderson was killed.

No one could be prosecuted for the attack by four bull mastiff-type dogs in Athertron, Greater Manchester, because it happened on private land.

Under the law, introduced in 1991, it is an offence to be the owner of a dog that was dangerously out of control in a public place or a 'non-public place in which it is not permitted to be'.

The reform will change the wording of the law to cover all attacks, regardless of where they take place.

Craig said changing the dangerous dogs law needs to be changed now so the husky can be destroyed.

He added: 'The law should be changed right now. We have to stop this from happening. How can a little girl be injured and no one be held responsible?'

Fitness trainer Mr Sellwood, 41, who lives with his wife Catherine, has told Craig there is 'no point' in putting the dog down now.

Not sure how I feel about this one but I think if I owned a dog and it attacked a three old I would just have to in case it ever happened again and the child wasn't so lucky this time.

Interested in how others would feel.

I the dog was yours and it attacked a child in a similar fashion, but for whatever reason you had the choice of whether to put the dog down or not, what would you choose?

Also, if the girl was your daughter or niece etc, would you call for the dog to be destroyed?

SV · 28-12-2013 02:51AM

Of course I wouldn't want the dog to be put down, but there'd have to be a guarantee there would never be a situation like this again.
Also I'd have to wonder what led the dog to attack in the manner it did, if it was aggressive by nature then yes, it should be put down by all accounts.

However a lot of these stories say the child did nothing but in reality they were pulling at the dog for a long long time yet the parents/guardians are oblivious to it, if that was the case then no the dog should not be put down at all. The parents/guardians should be done for child neglect though.

ColeTrain · 28-12-2013 02:54AM

The dog should be moved to a different parish

cnocbui · 28-12-2013 02:57AM

The dog and the stepfather should both be put down.

carfiosaoorl · 28-12-2013 02:59AM

I am a dog owner and yes I would definitely have the dog put down. Attacking a child is never ok and I wouldn't risk it happening again. I don't buy into the dog must have been riled in to it. Dogs aren't stupid they know that children are more vulnerable than adults and know to play more carefully with them, so if a dog chooses to attack a child then that's end game as far as I'm concerned.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 28-12-2013 03:00AM

Look after your own child and keep your own child away from animals that may be dangerous. The dog was on its own property, and who knows what the child done to the dog (if anything at all). As for putting the dog before the child? Killing the dog isn't going to make the poor kid any better.

Turtwig · 28-12-2013 03:00AM

That poor girl.

Horrifying.

This one is too hard to call. The girl was three for all we know she may have continually poked the dog in the eye. We can't put the parents down and they might be just culpable as the dog. However, if it's an aggressive animal then. . .
Need more information.

SV · 28-12-2013 03:00AM

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

I am a dog owner and yes I would definitely have the dog put down. Attacking a child is never ok and I wouldn't risk it happening again. I don't buy into the dog must have been riled in to it. Dogs aren't stupid they know that children are more vulnerable than adults and know to play more carefully with them, so if a dog chooses to attack a child then that's end game as far as I'm concerned.

A dog views a threat as a threat and if you think it cares about the difference between an adult and a child then you're sorely mistaken.
Dogs do not attack for no reason when they've never done so before.

Turtwig · 28-12-2013 03:04AM

SV wrote: »

A dog views a threat as a threat and if you think it cares about the difference between an adult and a child then you're sorely mistaken.
Dogs do not attack for no reason when they've never done so before.

In general they don't. Neither do humans. Anything can go off wire. Just as a human can stab a person for no reason so too can a dog bite someone. No reason or justification necessary.

28-12-2013 03:12AM

Awful for the girl and family.

Don't know what the girl did or didn't do or what actually happened, though. Or how close proximity she was left to the dog unattended.
Kids need as much training around dogs as dogs need training

Mr Green added: 'When we got the call about what had happened it was horrible. Cerys is devastated - it seems utterly unfair that no one is responsible for this in the eyes of the law.'

It's awful enough already without looking for legal stuff, but I suppose that's natural

carfiosaoorl · 28-12-2013 03:13AM

SV wrote: »

A dog views a threat as a threat and if you think it cares about the difference between an adult and a child then you're sorely mistaken.
Dogs do not attack for no reason when they've never done so before.

I don't think I'm mistaken at all. I am far from a professional and am basing my opinion on family dogs. I have 3 dogs, my sister has 2 and my parents have one. I have a child with special needs and all 6 dogs will jump all over every child in the family but will never so much as bump off her. It might be that they sense that they shouldn't or it might be that they sense that we are more protective of her but either way they sense something. They know that it is not ok. In actually fact my sisters samoyed goes out of his way to protect her. So they definitely see a difference.

murphthesmurf · 28-12-2013 03:14AM

SV wrote: »

A dog views a threat as a threat and if you think it cares about the difference between an adult and a child then you're sorely mistaken.
Dogs do not attack for no reason when they've never done so before.

But the dog is obviously reading things as a threat that are not. Any other child it comes into contact with could also be viewed as a threat when they are not. This could be true of all dogs though. This dogs owner had no children of his own, so the dog has probably had minimal contact with children. Eighty stitches is not a warning 'nip'. A dog will often bite at other dogs to assert itself, but 80 stitches sounds excessive.
The dog should either be taken away from the owner and placed in an environment with an experienced owner away from children or destroyed. Most importantly, the owner should be prosecuted. The owner is responsible for the dogs actions. The dog after all is just an animal, the owner must teach it rules.

SV · 28-12-2013 03:17AM

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

I don't think I'm mistaken at all. I am far from a professional and am basing my opinion on family dogs. I have 3 dogs, my sister has 2 and my parents have one. I have a child with special needs and all 6 dogs will jump all over every child in the family but will never so much as bump off her. It might be that they sense that they shouldn't or it might be that they sense that we are more protective of her but either way they sense something. They know that it is not ok. In actually fact my sisters samoyed goes out of his way to protect her. So they definitely see a difference.

and I can also guarantee you that if any of your children started getting too rough with the dog that they would eventually be attacked. Granted it would take far longer because there is a bond there but it would happen.
and yes dogs can sense emotions and the likes but they aren't going to care if they view it as a threat.

From the looks of the attack on this child it seemed to be a single bite, which would be the dog snapping. A husky like this could kill an adult with ease if it wanted to, it wasn't trying to kill the child, which is what it seems to be made out to be.

carfiosaoorl · 28-12-2013 03:18AM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

But the dog is obviously reading things as a threat that are not. Any other child it comes into contact with could also be viewed as a threat when they are not. This could be true of all dogs though. This dogs owner had no children of his own, so the dog has probably had minimal contact with children. Eighty stitches is not a warning 'nip'. A dog will often bite at other dogs to assert itself, but 80 stitches sounds excessive.
The dog should either be taken away from the owner and placed in an environment with an experienced owner away from children or destroyed. Most importantly, the owner should be prosecuted. The owner is responsible for the dogs actions. The dog after all is just an animal, the owner must teach it rules.

The owner shouldnt be prosecuted he couldn't possibly have forseen what the dog did. Fair enough if it was after attacking before but def not the first time.

Karl Stein · 28-12-2013 03:18AM

Dogs want to kill children. They can't help it.

murphthesmurf · 28-12-2013 03:20AM

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

The owner shouldnt be prosecuted he couldn't possibly have forseen what the dog did. Fair enough if it was after attacking before but def not the first time.

Fair enough I suppose, but as you say, if their is a history with the dog then there is no excuse and he must be prosecuted.

28-12-2013 03:21AM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Dogs want to kill children. They can't help it.

Its the owners that want to kill the children, don't blame the dogs.

If I was that kids parent, I'd do everything legally available to me to have that animal destroyed. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did nothing and it killed or maimed another kid.

If I was that granny, I'd kick the partner to the kerb rather than have the animal that hurt my little granddaughter around. The kid would always be more important than the animal.

And I am a total dog lover.

carfiosaoorl · 28-12-2013 03:22AM

SV wrote: »

and I can also guarantee you that if any of your children started getting too rough with the dog that they would eventually be attacked. Granted it would take far longer because there is a bond there but it would happen.
and yes dogs can sense emotions and the likes but they aren't going to care if they view it as a threat.

From the looks of the attack on this child it seemed to be a single bite, which would be the dog snapping. A husky like this could kill an adult with ease if it wanted to, it wasn't trying to kill the child, which is what it seems to be made out to be.

There is no evidence that the child was rough with dog but I agree with you to a certain extent. I wouldn't allow any of my kids to play roughly with my dogs any more than I would leave them play roughly with each other but 80 stitches to me doesn't sound like a single bite. He mauled her, you can't reason that away.

shruikan2553 · 28-12-2013 03:23AM

Seeing as the story skips to her being bitten it's difficult to judge. Still dont see how "destroying" an animal is the best option outside of the most severe attacks. In this case it looks like one bite, the child could have been headbutting the dog and then the dog snapped for all we know.

SV · 28-12-2013 03:26AM

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

There is no evidence that the child was rough with dog but I agree with you to a certain extent. I wouldn't allow any of my kids to play roughly with my dogs any more than I would leave them play roughly with each other but 80 stitches to me doesn't sound like a single bite. He mauled her, you can't reason that away.

I know there was no evidence the child was rough and if she wasn't and this is just a very strange random attack then I agree with the dog being put down, however I just find cases like that very hard to believe.

Did you look at the picture? 80 stitches sounds very very bad but it's quite clearly a single bite.

lillycool · 28-12-2013 03:28AM

There seems to be a strangely high number of incidences where this happens at a grandparents home? There were a few last year also. Wonder if the dogs are not used to kids and see them as a threat to the grandparents or something.

hatrickpatrick · 28-12-2013 03:29AM

Depends entirely on the circumstances, whether it was an unprovoked attack or the dog had been being needled into it, who's responsibility it had been to keep an eye on the girl, etc. I mean if the parents were there, for example, and they let her annoy the dog into attacking, I'm not sure how the homeowner is responsible.

EDIT: the capitalisation of the word "eighty" told me before I even looked at the link that it was a Daily Fail article - they are known to twist stories to suit a particular agenda and for being horribly biased. I'd like to read about this incident in a decent publication before making a judgement

Daqster · 28-12-2013 03:30AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Seeing as the story skips to her being bitten it's difficult to judge.

The reason for that (checked the story on the BBC and a few other sites also) seems to be because the owner is remaining tight-lipped about what actually happened.

On the night of the attack last Saturday Maddison was staying with her grandmother.

Mr Green and his partner, Cerys Shirley, 24, had left her with their son David, four, and his brother’s children to stay the night.

Mr Green added: 'When we got the call about what had happened it was horrible.

Mr Sellwood said: 'Craig wasn’t even here when it happened, whatever he says is just hearsay. Apart from that, I’ve got nothing else to say.'

Karl Stein · 28-12-2013 03:31AM

Candie wrote: »

And I am a total dog lover.

I'm an admirer of cats. I understand that you're a protective Grandmother but Cats, unlike dogs, don't have the compulsion to kill children. See, dogs just view children as things to be killed - they can't help it though so I don't blame them really.. well, actually I do.

Dogs want to kill children.

Mal-Adjusted · 28-12-2013 03:37AM

The selected quotes make the atitude in the article all "let's get 'im". Also, this bit sticks out.

The reform will change the wording of the law to cover all attacks, regardless of where they take place.

Does that mean if someone is trespassing or robbing... and get attacked by a dog, then the owner would have a case to answer for?

murphthesmurf · 28-12-2013 03:38AM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm an admirer of cats. I understand that you're a protective Grandmother but Cats, unlike dogs, don't have the compulsion to kill children. See, dogs just view children as things to be killed - they can't help it though so I don't blame them really.. well, actually I do.

Dogs want to kill children.

Are you just here for a laugh ??
Dogs don't want to kill children anymore than cats, surely this is a joke that's gone over my head at this ungodly hour. Either that or your the 2am troll.
A dog would naturally hunt for prey to feed, as would a cat. A cat would not attempt to kill a child aas even a small child is far too strong, therefor a cat hunts mice and birds. Except for the big cats. A lion/leopard/tiger/cougar etc would happily kill your child to feed itself though.

Daqster · 28-12-2013 03:38AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The capitalisation of the word "eighty" told me before I even looked at the link that it was a Daily Fail article - they are known to twist stories to suit a particular agenda and for being horribly biased. I'd like to read about this incident in a decent publication before making a judgement

Well, here's the local news article from Walesonline and it is almost identicle to the "Daily Fail":

A three-year-old girl has had 80 stitches in her face after she was mauled by a husky dog at her grandmother's home.

PizzamanIRL · 28-12-2013 03:42AM

Good owner right there.

murphthesmurf · 28-12-2013 03:45AM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

The selected quotes make the atitude in the article all "let's get 'im". Also, this bit sticks out.
Does that mean if someone is trespassing or robbing... and get attacked by a dog, then the owner would have a case to answer for?

In theory yes. But the wording may rule this out. If it's worded as 'a person who is lawfully on the premises' for example would mean intruders would not be protected.
A police officer in the UK once advised a relative of mine to change the sign on his gate that said 'Beware of the dog'. Such a sign acts as a warning, and can be seen as suggesting that the dog is dangerous. If you are keeping a dog that you know to be dangerous then you could be in trouble should it attack anyone. He advised him to get one of the signs that has a picture of the dog with the words 'I live here'. This kind of sign merely advises people that there is a dog on the premises.

carfiosaoorl · 28-12-2013 03:46AM

SV wrote: »

I know there was no evidence the child was rough and if she wasn't and this is just a very strange random attack then I agree with the dog being put down, however I just find cases like that very hard to believe.

Did you look at the picture? 80 stitches sounds very very bad but it's quite clearly a single bite.

I agree it looks like a single bite but a definite bite not just a warning snap. I know a child that was attacked by a japanese spitz at a birthday party. The kids weren't doing anything to the dog but maybe he was upset over the noise that all of the kids were making but he jumped at the child and completely tore his lip off. The child had to have reconstructive surgery. As far as I'm concerned that dog the same as the one in the article should be put down. Unless the dog is constantly painfully being bullied by some one then there is no excuse for that type of behaviour. I know my dogs are very docile and I think we would have to majorly abuse them before they would snap but to be honest I think they would lie down and die first.

Karl Stein · 28-12-2013 03:50AM

murphthesmurf wrote: »

Dogs don't want to kill children anymore than cats

In fairness when was the last time a pet cat was in the news for mauling or killing a kid? Never? Dogs, on the other hand, are never out of the news for that type of thing.

A dog would naturally hunt for prey to feed, as would a cat.

Dogs are greedy killers and would just munch all their prey. Cats bring food back to their home to contribute to the table.

A cat would not attempt to kill a child aas even a small child is far too strong

No it's because the cat, unlike killer dogs, know that they should protect kids.

Look at this proof of the above.

Owner refuses to have dog put down after it attacked little girl

Comments