This pisses me off!
- Thread starter Fran27
- Start date
So the mother, to protect her child, wants the dog killed - when in theory the dog bit to protect her puppies (I'm not sure I buy that, but it seems the article thinks that was the issue). The irony is so thick you can barely walk though it.
The legal system wouldn't have much trouble finding it. Pools and the like are considered "attractive nuisances" - it is basically the job of the owner to ensure that random children aren't drawn to the object and injured. I have heard of people with horses having concerns about the same thing. A kid gets into your pasture with an aggressive horse - it could be your fault as a horse is an attractive nuisance (which is pretty much the best definition of a horse I've ever heard).
Having said that - I actually agree with you. The dog was restrained on its own property. It was, in my mind "under control". There was zero risk of that dog biting until the child crossed onto private property and put himself in that circle where the dog could reach.
The legal system wouldn't have much trouble finding it. Pools and the like are considered "attractive nuisances" - it is basically the job of the owner to ensure that random children aren't drawn to the object and injured. I have heard of people with horses having concerns about the same thing. A kid gets into your pasture with an aggressive horse - it could be your fault as a horse is an attractive nuisance (which is pretty much the best definition of a horse I've ever heard).
Having said that - I actually agree with you. The dog was restrained on its own property. It was, in my mind "under control". There was zero risk of that dog biting until the child crossed onto private property and put himself in that circle where the dog could reach.
The dog ended up being returned to the owner after the fenced the yard and built an enclosure. They have to pay dangerous dog insurance and stuff too.
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/10...nity-back-with-its-owners-not-being-put-down/
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/10...nity-back-with-its-owners-not-being-put-down/
To be clear, if we're assigning blame (because who doesn't love to judge strangers on the internet? 
) I think that goes almost exclusively on the parents. Yes, little kids wander away and do stupid things, but that doesn't absolve parents from their responsibility any more than anyone would absolve me of the responsibility of containing my dog if he (and we all know who I'm talking about, here) did something like knock a panel of the fence out and run amok wreaking havoc on the neighborhood. "Oh well, sometimes dogs break through fences and escape," yea I'd like to see how that would fly.
Actually, I wouldn't.
Having said that, if my dog was PTS (which I understand wasn't ultimately the case in this instance) because some kid wandered into my yard and got bitten in the face, it would hardly matter to me or my dog whose fault it was. My dog would be dead and I would be heartbroken. And if picking up someone else's slack is how to keep that from happening, then that's life.
) I think that goes almost exclusively on the parents. Yes, little kids wander away and do stupid things, but that doesn't absolve parents from their responsibility any more than anyone would absolve me of the responsibility of containing my dog if he (and we all know who I'm talking about, here) did something like knock a panel of the fence out and run amok wreaking havoc on the neighborhood. "Oh well, sometimes dogs break through fences and escape," yea I'd like to see how that would fly. Actually, I wouldn't.
Having said that, if my dog was PTS (which I understand wasn't ultimately the case in this instance) because some kid wandered into my yard and got bitten in the face, it would hardly matter to me or my dog whose fault it was. My dog would be dead and I would be heartbroken. And if picking up someone else's slack is how to keep that from happening, then that's life.
Glad the dog was returned.
If one of your charges manages to injury itself while trespassing then it's your fault.
Being liable for trespassers is one of the most unjust parts of the legal system IMO.
You can imagine I have an extremely low opinion of the mother.
I guess the dog owner isn't the paradigm of responsibility but they definitely cared or they wouldn't have so diligently worked to meet the conditions to have their dog returned. Too bad they can't sue the mother for causing them all that grief.
If one of your charges manages to injury itself while trespassing then it's your fault.
Being liable for trespassers is one of the most unjust parts of the legal system IMO.
You can imagine I have an extremely low opinion of the mother.
I guess the dog owner isn't the paradigm of responsibility but they definitely cared or they wouldn't have so diligently worked to meet the conditions to have their dog returned. Too bad they can't sue the mother for causing them all that grief.
So... just a warning right now but I am putting on my devil's advocate hat.
What makes this case very different from Mickey the pit bull's case? My first thought was that this sounded AWFULLY similar to what happened with Mickey- young child approaching tethered dog and getting bitten in the face.
But yet there is a much different reaction on here to this case vs the Mickey one? Why is that?
What makes this case very different from Mickey the pit bull's case? My first thought was that this sounded AWFULLY similar to what happened with Mickey- young child approaching tethered dog and getting bitten in the face.
But yet there is a much different reaction on here to this case vs the Mickey one? Why is that?
Yesss. Barn owner got into trouble and had to cover medical bills over someone feeding her horses at the fence line, and got bit. And the property was set back from the road, someone came through the woods or neighboring properties to get to the horses. She had to put up signs about not feeding the horses.
Not to mention this dog showed a whole lot of bite inhibition and only left a small puncture... whereas Mickey fractured a kid's skull/jaw and an eye needed be enucleated, if I recall correctly.
A bite is not a bite is not a bite. Some bites indicate a vicious dog and euthanasia is the best course. This wasn't one of those bites.
A bite is not a bite is not a bite. Some bites indicate a vicious dog and euthanasia is the best course. This wasn't one of those bites.
I'm not 100% familiar with the case, but just from a quick looksie my first impression was the amount of damage done. A dog that mauls a person is COMPLETELY different than a dog that bites. Completely. A dog knows how much damage it is doing.
Secondly, in the Mickey incident, the trigger was known. The child picked up a bone that was in the dog's vicinity and it *attacked*. It didn't just snap a warning, it went after the boy with intent to do bodily harm.
Which is entirely different than a dog biting a child in the face who likely was crowding her personal space and she couldn't get away.
My .02, anyway.
Secondly, in the Mickey incident, the trigger was known. The child picked up a bone that was in the dog's vicinity and it *attacked*. It didn't just snap a warning, it went after the boy with intent to do bodily harm.
Which is entirely different than a dog biting a child in the face who likely was crowding her personal space and she couldn't get away.
My .02, anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,550
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
To me, the biggest difference between Stormy and Mickey is that Mickey's owner agreed to give him up. If he had fenced the yard and done the same thimg Stormy's owner did to take precautions, he should have gotten Mickey back as well.
But it would have been irresponsible for anyone to rehome Mickey due to the severith of the attack and his ownet didn't want him back, so the only choice was to pts.
But it would have been irresponsible for anyone to rehome Mickey due to the severith of the attack and his ownet didn't want him back, so the only choice was to pts.
I have a great memory I was one of the first people to post on that thread :rofl1:
My opinion is still the same, people need to demand better from their dogs and if they accept less, they need to manage more.
The differences to me are the level of damage that occurred. One clearly looks like a "back off" snap and done. No adults around, nobody to see, but nobody to intervene or anything either. A dog with real ill intent probably could have easily maimed or killed that 4 year old.
In the Mickey story, adults were present and they were needed to remove the dog from the child and his injuries looked to be a lot more severe. If the adults weren't there, not so sure the kid would be lucky enough to just have to live with a disfigured face.
To me it was more than just a "back off" and even those with children that are of that age strike a real chord with me. I don't care what size they are, where their faces are, at what level, nothing, a good dog can recognize that a 4 year old and under isn't a threat. I know people and experts have been making excuses for why little kids get bit by dogs, and it mostly comes down to poor supervision of dogs with poor temperament.
I think Mickey could have been "saved" with just proper management. Don't give him bones unless he's locked away and nobody can get to him and keep him away from kids. but I'm certainly not going to come to his defense to save him either. He already showed he was capable of a lot of damage and was a danger.
If he was good in every other way, I'd say both dogs could be kept safe and others kept safe with simple management steps, but the intensity of the bites is a big reason why I think people have a difference of opinion between the two incidents. at least for me it is, and the fact that adults were present and needed to save one boy, and not around for the other and the dog didn't maintain an attack once its message was received.
I was one of the first people to post on that thread :rofl1:My opinion is still the same, people need to demand better from their dogs and if they accept less, they need to manage more.
The differences to me are the level of damage that occurred. One clearly looks like a "back off" snap and done. No adults around, nobody to see, but nobody to intervene or anything either. A dog with real ill intent probably could have easily maimed or killed that 4 year old.
In the Mickey story, adults were present and they were needed to remove the dog from the child and his injuries looked to be a lot more severe. If the adults weren't there, not so sure the kid would be lucky enough to just have to live with a disfigured face.
To me it was more than just a "back off" and even those with children that are of that age strike a real chord with me. I don't care what size they are, where their faces are, at what level, nothing, a good dog can recognize that a 4 year old and under isn't a threat. I know people and experts have been making excuses for why little kids get bit by dogs, and it mostly comes down to poor supervision of dogs with poor temperament.
I think Mickey could have been "saved" with just proper management. Don't give him bones unless he's locked away and nobody can get to him and keep him away from kids. but I'm certainly not going to come to his defense to save him either. He already showed he was capable of a lot of damage and was a danger.
If he was good in every other way, I'd say both dogs could be kept safe and others kept safe with simple management steps, but the intensity of the bites is a big reason why I think people have a difference of opinion between the two incidents. at least for me it is, and the fact that adults were present and needed to save one boy, and not around for the other and the dog didn't maintain an attack once its message was received.
As both a dog owner and a mom I feel this situation just sucks. In a perfect world parents don't lose sight of their kids and dogs aren't left outside unsupervised. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and stuff like this happens.
I don't know how I feel about what should happen. I understand both sides of this and I think it just was unfortunate that it had to happen. There doesn't seem like there is a right or wrong way to deal with it.
I don't know how I feel about what should happen. I understand both sides of this and I think it just was unfortunate that it had to happen. There doesn't seem like there is a right or wrong way to deal with it.