Another dog biting story

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
A lot of those shelter dogs come from homes where they receive zero positive attention. They don't know what's hug is.
And I'm sure several of them come from homes where there are no children present.
And rescues can't ask the dogs to address uncertainties like this. So they go based off of what they experience with the dog.
A harmless hug is not a hug in the eyes of dog that only ever been yelled at and probably physically abused.
A harmless two year old isn't a harmless two year old. It's this awkwardly moving thing that is equal size to the dog and attempting to restrain it's movement in an area where the dog has no escape.
The rescue knows this. They warned the parents for a reason.
Why the parents hold zero accountably is beyond me.
If can I google a walk through on integral calculus and how to change the brakes on my car simultaneously (not performing both simultaneously) then these parents could've done ten minutes of research on what to expect from a shelter pet.
But did they? Probably not. I would say obviously not. Oh and who's to blame for the parents ignorance and the parents disregard for what the rescue told them? The dog.
I too see a kid that was bit in the face. And I too don't want a dog that will attack a someone. But you need to try and see this from a different perspective. That bite was a warning bite. If the dog wanted to seriously hurt the kid, he would've.
Everyone wants a dog until they don't understand why it's doing what's it's doing. And the solution to the persons misconception of the dogs action is to remove the dog. Instead of attempting to see things from the animals point of view.
We're just going to go in circle so this'll be my last post. But you need to throw words like "child" and "hugged" away when talking about the actions of an animal.
 
ehh said:
A lot of those shelter dogs come from homes where they receive zero positive attention. They don't know what's hug is.
And I'm sure several of them come from homes where there are no children present.
And rescues can't ask the dogs to address uncertainties like this. So they go based off of what they experience with the dog.
A harmless hug is not a hug in the eyes of dog that only ever been yelled at and probably physically abused.
A harmless two year old isn't a harmless two year old. It's this awkwardly moving thing that is equal size to the dog and attempting to restrain it's movement in an area where the dog has no escape.
The rescue knows this. They warned the parents for a reason.
Why the parents hold zero accountably is beyond me.
If can I google a walk through on integral calculus and how to change the brakes on my car simultaneously (not performing both simultaneously) then these parents could've done ten minutes of research on what to expect from a shelter pet.
But did they? Probably not. I would say obviously not. Oh and who's to blame for the parents ignorance and the parents disregard for what the rescue told them? The dog.
I too see a kid that was bit in the face. And I too don't want a dog that will attack a someone. But you need to try and see this from a different perspective. That bite was a warning bite. If the dog wanted to seriously hurt the kid, he would've.
Everyone wants a dog until they don't understand why it's doing what's it's doing. And the solution to the persons misconception of the dogs action is to remove the dog. Instead of attempting to see things from the animals point of view.
We're just going to go in circle so this'll be my last post. But you need to throw words like "child" and "hugged" away when talking about the actions of an animal.
Click to expand...

Hello; A harmless two year old isn't a harmless two year old. I have come to realise that you are not kidding even tho this comment is beyond the pale. I have yet to meet a dangerous two year old child.

They warned the parents for a reason. In the link I read the parents claim no warning was made. It is also unclear if any shelter personel were in the pen with the parents, the child and the dogs. By your own comments you claim the shelter people knew about the dog-child risk. Assuming they indeed knew the risk, then they seem to be the only ones on the scene with such an awareness. It would be very good to know if shelter personel were present or not. It will make a big difference if there were no shelter personel in the pen.

That bite was a warning bite. A warning bite of over ten stiches. I do not recall from the link any details of the event. You assume the dog stopped on it's own. The parents were present and may well have taken action to stop the attack. My speculation being no less speculation than your own.

throw words like "child" and "hugged" away when talking about the actions of an animal. Sorry but a two year old is a child and "hugged" was a word used in the link. I have not failed to follow the "from the dog's perspective" point of view you and others have presented. I just do not give it the weight you do. You claim to understand the mind of a dog and this is somehow supposed to make the bite acceptable. You can accept this rationalization, I do not. The dog bit a child and I feel it should be put down. The dog bit a child and you have something that suits as a justification and feel the dog should live. I disagree.
 
skjl47 said:
Hello; You are mistaken. I get the point you are trying to make. I do not find it a suitable reason to keep a bitting dog alive.
Click to expand...
What does killing the dog accomplish? Does the dog know it did something wrong? The dog was merely being a dog. It doesn't have reasoning skills. But people have brains much more advanced than dogs and should use it. The fact someone was bit people feel the need to kill the dog? I just have a problem with that logic. If I were bit by a dog I would not want it put down. Any and all dogs can and will bite you. Your little sweet dog you kiss everyday is capable of biting. So if it does, it is deemed a maniac dog that needs to be put down. If someone dies and/or the dog is known to be extremely aggressive and vicious (without chance of rehabilitation) then in cases like this I would say it is ok. Otherwise it makes no sense. But in this case the judge and the idiot parents need to be whacked over the head a few times (and anyone who has this mentality for that matter).
 
Pyramid_Party said:
What does killing the dog accomplish? Does the dog know it did something wrong? The dog was merely being a dog. It doesn't have reasoning skills. But people have brains much more advanced than dogs and should use it. The fact someone was bit people feel the need to kill the dog? I just have a problem with that logic. If I were bit by a dog I would not want it put down. Any and all dogs can and will bite you. Your little sweet dog you kiss everyday is capable of biting. So if it does, it is deemed a maniac dog that needs to be put down. If someone dies and/or the dog is known to be extremely aggressive and vicious (without chance of rehabilitation) then in cases like this I would say it is ok. Otherwise it makes no sense. But in this case the judge and the idiot parents need to be whacked over the head a few times (and anyone who has this mentality for that matter).
Click to expand...

Hello; Let me first say that I do follow your points. I do understand the argument you make, I have a different point of view.

"What does killing the dog accomplish?" First and most important is that the particular dog will not ever be able to bite another person again. It is a proven biter. The large majority of dogs never give a serious bite to people. Many never bite at all past the puppy stage. Some dogs do bite and bite more than one time. I have known of such dogs.

"Does the dog know it did something wrong? The dog was merely being a dog. It doesn't have reasoning skills." This point has been made with different wording already in this thread. To me this line of thought is all the more weight against letting the dog live. The implication being the dog does not understand what it did and cannot be reasoned with. This implication leads to the likelyhood that the dog will bite a child again under similar circumstances. Other animals fall into this category and are kept in zoos or cages. Most dogs do not bite or we would only have them in cages. This dog is the proven exception.

"Any and all dogs can and will bite you". While I follow this statement and find truth in it, I take exception to the will bite part. I raised a Siberian Husky from a pup and kept him for over eight years before he was killed by a car. I posted his picture in the "show your dogs thread" a while back. Outside of the usual puppy bites he never bite me or another person. I worked with him a lot. He was the quickest dog I have ever owned and death to many small animals that wandered onto my property. If there turns out to be an afterlife and the choice is offered, I will pick being reunited with that dog as my first choice. I was careful and lucky that he never bit another person, but understood it was possible.


"If someone dies and/or the dog is known to be extremely aggressive and vicious (without chance of rehabilitation) then in cases like this I would say it is ok. Otherwise it makes no sense". So we do share the same notion that some dogs need to be put down, it seems that you for some reason feel this dog does not fit into the category. My understanding being this was dog was already in a shelter and not a family pet. I do not know the history of the dog and why it was in the shelter. Maybe the shelter people did not know. The dogs made what, by my definition, is a vicious attack on a small child. Had it not been adopted, was it to be put down anyway? I do not know. There is so much not generally known, but the attack on the child is known.

"But in this case the judge and the idiot parents need to be whacked over the head a few times (and anyone who has this mentality for that matter" I get this point for sure. This is, to me, an irrational statement likely fueled by emotion. I do advise you not to follow thru with hitting a judge on the head. I also will not take being hit on the head well myself. I fear you may have projected emotions for some dogs onto all dogs. I do not like the idea of putting dogs down from an emotional point of view. I do feel it is the proper and often the best thing to do when a dog bite a person such as this child.
 
If someone had to pay extra for an insurance policy, we can all hope that the owner is a serious dog owner and can train the dog properly. This would be a win for all sides. The dog stays alive and won't be a danger to anyone else either.
 
no insurance policy in the world replace a kids face. arms or life. if the new owner has no kids and keeps the dog controlled for life then that is fine. I do not agree with ideal of putting down a dog that bites as a bad thing. Its a dog.
 
With a responsible owner this dog is no threat to anyone, in the wrong owners hands; this dog is ticking time bomb almost guaranteed to bite again. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom