# Mum backs dog, chides son for pulling ears before mauling



## Miss B (Jan 30, 2008)

*:shock:*









> Article from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mr_muesli (Jan 30, 2008)

i can understand the mothers point of view, but i mean.......he's her son, and that attack could happen any time again


----------



## Chimera (Jan 30, 2008)

Her point of view is valid but quite simply the dog is not suited to a house with children. Anyone who has grown up with a dog knows the torment they receive from young kids and most family pets will take it in good grace.


----------



## Miss B (Jan 30, 2008)

Mum's an idiot, imo. She blames the kid for the attack? Fair enough if the dog had never showed any signs of aggression before, she had no real way to know it might happen. But obviously the dog is capable of being snappy and perhaps next time it will be worse, the kid could end up dead.

If it were me in that situation, I would organise to have the dog rehomed somewhere where it would not come into contact with small children.


----------



## Kyro (Jan 30, 2008)

I can't help but wonder why such a young child was playing with the dog with out adult supervision. If I were in that position i'd feel like a lousy mother for letting that happen in the first place. Poor kid


----------



## Whisper2 (Jan 30, 2008)

i agree with the mum.
tough lesson for the kid but i am sure the dog has been hit before for doing something wrong. she just put the kid back into line.


----------



## Miss Morph-lette (Jan 30, 2008)

I understand that the Mum wants the kid to realise that you have to behave in a certain way around animals and pestering them is not on, and I'm guessing that the dog behaved in the same way she would to discipline a puppy, but seriously!! The child is 2 years old and even tho he's probably quite cluey and now is aware that he can't repeat his behaviour, he's a small kid who doesn't have the same protection as a puppy (fur, loose skin, etc) and if the dog decides to 'discipline' him again, then maybe next time he won't just have cuts and puncture marks.

Letting the situation get out of hand to the point that the dog snapped at the kid is similar to telling the kid not to stick the fork in the power point. It's easier enough and a lot safer to take the fork away and explain what can happen if he keeps doing what he's doing rather than let him continue doing something which has the potential to be extremely dangerous to 'teach him a lesson'.

I hope it the woman continues to keep the dog, then she is more aware of what's going on between her son and her dog!


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

Kyro said:


> I can't help but wonder why such a young child was playing with the dog with out adult supervision. If I were in that position i'd feel like a lousy mother for letting that happen in the first place. Poor kid


I agree a child that young cannot fully understand consquence the mother on the other hand can. There is a reason human children stay attached to and dependant on their parents or caregivers so long....we simply arn't designed to make smart choices early on.


----------



## Craig2 (Jan 30, 2008)

Glenn Blain said the dog's fate was in the hands of its owner. 
"It happened at the house where the dog lives so no action will be taken," he said. 

So if a burgalar is in my back yard and my dog eats them its ok


----------



## CodeRed (Jan 30, 2008)

Put down the mum instead of the dog, she obviously doesnt care about her child.

Wonder if people would change their attitude if the kid was killed by the dog.


----------



## nickamon (Jan 30, 2008)

And here's why children and animals should always be supervised when they're together. 

Also, kid shouldn't have been allowed to harass the dog, and should be taught to respect animals. No wonder the dog defended itself.


----------



## kwaka_80 (Jan 30, 2008)

yeah but surely it cant really be the dogs fault at all, it is a breed known either for a fighter or a pigdog, no matter how tame an aminal like that is too much provacation and something is going to happen. And with having said that I dont belive it was the boys fault as he is obviously to young to understand what it could potentionaly could do. not to be "mean" or anything but now he knows, and very lucky


----------



## TWENTY B (Jan 30, 2008)

i have an american staffy bitch, and i can guarantee she would never bite a kid like that, no matter how much the little **** pulled her ears.. (sometimes i wish she would eat my cousins kids) 
it's all in thier upbringing, there is something not right in the way the parents have raised that dog..


----------



## Miss B (Jan 30, 2008)

I wonder what will happen if, six months down the track, the little boy pokes the dog in the eye and it mauls him to death. Will the mother say, "Well - he provoked the dog again, so I guess he learnt his lesson". 

The mother has a responsibility to protect her child, and by allowing the dog and the child to continue coming into contact with one another, she is putting her child at risk of being attacked again. One would think that this incident would serve as a warning sign, but I guess some people never learn...

If the dog did end up mauling the child to death, I'd have absolutely no sympathy for the mother whatsoever.


----------



## carinacat (Jan 30, 2008)

its the hardest choice to make and i am going thru sumthing very similar at the moment. my american bulldog recently attacked another persons small maltese. i dont kno what made her do this but i love her dearly and will not have her destroyed. i have a 2 year old and a 6 year old who play and climb all over my dog. she has never shown any aggression before or since but if she ever attacked a child it would be very heartbreaking to have her PTS. sumtimes in cases like these its the parents fault not the dogs or the childs. this woman knew her son was annoying the dog so i blame her fully for not controlling the situation.


----------



## Chris1 (Jan 30, 2008)

they could give the dog to a farm or people without kids, i'm sure its a lovely dog,.....

then again, any dog has the potential to harm a kid, they shouldnt have been left together unsupervised!!


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

_"But one too many tugs of the dog's ears, according to Ms Cottier, was enough to set her off. 
"Noah was lying all over her and he started pulling her ears. I told him not to or she'd get cranky," Ms Cottier said. 

But Noah persisted. "_

Well it's clearly the Mum's fault! Blaming the dog seems like a cop out because she wasn't responsible enough to supervise her child's play with the dog. 

A 2yo child CANNOT be trusted not to poke a dog's eyes, pull its ears etc nor can a 2yo be trusted not to stick forks in power points, drink bleach or jump off the kitchen table. That's why you ALWAYS have to supervise a small child or ensure they are in a secured area - not least of all around an animal that could quite easily kill a toddler.

What a moron. She is 100% to blame for what happened to her child, and I am waiting to hear the next report of her dog killing her child, or worse, another person's child. People like that should not be allowed to have dogs OR children!


----------



## Sidonia (Jan 30, 2008)

She should have taken him away from the dog when he didn't stop harassing it, stupid woman.

I'd blame the kid and keep the dog too. I wouldn't let the kid near the dog again though. And I'm fairly certain that woman wouldn't either or she's a complete moron. She should learn her lesson just as much as her son has.


----------



## dragon lady (Jan 30, 2008)

Hein sight is great BUT........a dog who now has the taste of human blood must me dealt with
the child hopefully has learn't his lesson... if not next time will be fatal

so you keep the dog...... or the kid?


----------



## CodeRed (Jan 30, 2008)

Anyone who blames the kid simply doesnt understand the limitations of a two year old. They are in no position to determine what is safe and what isnt, what is right and what is wrong etc. This is the parent's responsibility to teach the child and ensure its safety.

Similarly the dog cant be blamed as it was just defending/protecting itself. Luckily it showed restraint and didnt tear the kids face off.


----------



## FAY (Jan 30, 2008)

If I was mum...I would be taking that as a warning! Next time an attack will be much worse!


----------



## lil_ben (Jan 30, 2008)

if that was my dog it would of got a working over.


----------



## dragon lady (Jan 30, 2008)

Ditto CODERED!!!!!


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

Hmmmm, there seems to be some heated agreement on this topic! Very unusual for this site. 

I think we need someone to come on and blame all mastiff owners or something to spark up a bit of debate! :lol:


----------



## nickamon (Jan 30, 2008)

jessb said:


> I think we need someone to come on and blame all mastiff owners or something to spark up a bit of debate! :lol:


 
:lol: 

Do we even have any pro-BSL folks here?


----------



## mr_muesli (Jan 30, 2008)

Bsl???


----------



## nickamon (Jan 30, 2008)

Breed-specific legislation


----------



## Minka (Jan 30, 2008)

With the risk of ppl despising me, i see the mothers perspetive. I have quite a few dogs and no children yet but my dogs are like my children, and i would find it hard to give the dog up in all honesty. As i come from a large family that consists of about 13 young kids and about 24 dogs, i no very well what children can be like.


----------



## Trouble (Jan 30, 2008)

I agree all the way with the mum
It wasn't the dogs fault, they just snap sometimes.... how would you like someone tugging on your ears? I think you would bite back too... but the mother should care a little bit more for the child


----------



## Spikie wanna cricket (Jan 30, 2008)

ok some ppl say that the boy didnt know any better but then if you choose that arguement then either did the dog. 
the behaviour the dog showed was the same behaviour she would show to her own pups if they annoyed her but unfortunatly our skin in tight fitting and we do not have fur to help protect us from such bites.
i believe the mother is doing the right thing and no one should tell her otherwise as we do not know the animal and/or the events that happened on this day in question.


----------



## Spikie wanna cricket (Jan 30, 2008)

the dog would have never intended to tear the kids face off or hurt him for that matter


----------



## nickamon (Jan 30, 2008)

Minka said:


> my dogs are like my children, and i would find it hard to give the dog up in all honesty.


 
That's exactly how I feel about my pets. I'm childfree by choice, so there won't be any child/pet conflicts in my future.


----------



## Miss B (Jan 30, 2008)

It wasn't the kids fault, it wasn't the dogs fault. It was the mothers fault. A two year old child should never be left to play with a dog, it's as simple as that. Those of you who are attached to your dogs and say you see the mother's point of view and could never give your dog up - at the end of the day, that's your call, but in keeping the dog and allowing the child near it this mother is putting her son at risk of being fatally attacked.

We had a Great Dane x Dobermann when I was a small child, and the whole family loved him to death. But he developed an aggressive nature and would growl at my brother and I without even being provoked. My parents weren't willing to take any chances, and they removed the dog from the house immediately. That's the responsible thing to do, at least in my opinion.


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 30, 2008)

Personally I want to bash the crap out of the arrogant mother.
I dislike people like that so much.........to them evolution should just say NO!


----------



## firedragon (Jan 30, 2008)

Kyro said:


> I can't help but wonder why such a young child was playing with the dog with out adult supervision. If I were in that position i'd feel like a lousy mother for letting that happen in the first place. Poor kid


 
I dont side with either child or animal. 
Even with adult supervision things like that can happen quickly, but most animals will not attack without reason or some warning first, like a growl or light nip for a dog, a hiss, waving of the tail, cranky meaw or light nip for a cat, if the family members know the animals body language the risk can be reduced. Parents need to teach their kids the warning signs and what not to do to an animal, dogs ears are sensitive and most dont like them being pulled. Dogs are pack animals and need to be trained and taught their "place" in the pack (family), and kids need to be taught how to treat animals. 
Spikie want a cricket is right it was natural behaviour and if it was a pup the same thing would have happened. 
Some breeds of dogs have better tempraments with kids than others and parents could always research this before buying. 

I bet the kid learnt his lesson though and wont do it again.


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

Firedragon and others, the kid may have learnt his lesson, but what happens next time the idiot mother takes the dog out to the shops, ties her up outside the supermarket and the dog goes for another kid who 'hasn't' learnt his lesson??? My daughter is nearly 3 and has know for about a year to never approach a strange dog unless I say its OK - but many parents from non-dog backgrounds would never have thought to teach their children basic dog safety.

And I do believe that dogs which are specifically bred for hunting and fighting (pitbulls, tosas etc) _should_ have restrictions placed on their ownership, in the same way venomous snakes are regulated; muzzled when in public places, kept in secure, exit- and entry-proof enclosures so kids can't get in and dogs can't get out. And I believe that ANY dog, regardless of breed, that shows a pattern of violent behaviour towards dogs or people should be destroyed. 

I adore dogs and have had dogs as pets all my life, but realistically, they are NOT people, and if they endanger people's lives, for whatever reason (poor training , neglect and abuse as a pup etc), as sad as it may be, that danger should be eliminated.

Honestly, I don't understand the need for anyone to have one of these restricted dogs except as a status symbol (or for hunting, but that makes them effectively a working dog and they should be treated as such) There are so many breeds of dogs out there, I defy anyone to name one attribute that a pitbull has, that can't be found in another dog breed which won't cause as much damage if it attacks. Loyalty? Get a German Shepherd, border collie, or pretty much any breed of dog! Friendliness? Labrador, Golden retriever. Active and great with kids? Boxer, Jack Russell. Guard dog? Pretty much any big dog with a deep bark!

I don't understand what it is (apart from the ability to inflict horrific amounts of damage with excessively strong jaws) that is unique to a pitbull.

_In the interests of full disclosure, the breeds I have owned include: Dalmation, English Pointer, Cocker Spaniel (mum's not mine!) and Labrador. _


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

Mothers fault.

Dog and Child innocent.

End of story 

Jessb, you realise that over 1/3 of dogs are hunting dogs. Would you like vermin hunters muzzled? Perhaps you should join the RSPCA and start campaigning for BSL. You'd make an excellent spokesperson.

I always promise myself I won't come into dog threads on here. Far too many of you are ignorant when it comes to dogs and don't understand the way a dog thinks and responds.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

the_tsar said:


> Personally I want to bash the crap out of the arrogant mother.
> I dislike people like that so much.........to them evolution should just say NO!



How has the mother been arrogant? She's made her decision, which is hers to make and no one elses, and has justified it to herself.


----------



## caustichumor (Jan 30, 2008)

I don't let my kids play with an animal that has the capacity to kill them.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

Midol said:


> Mothers fault.
> 
> Dog and Child innocent.
> 
> ...



And those that wern't bred for hunting or fighting were usually bred from hunting or fighting dogs.


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

lil_ben said:


> if that was my dog it would of got a working over.



Why?



nickamon said:


> :lol:
> 
> Do we even have any pro-BSL folks here?



Yes, we do.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

jessb said:


> Firedragon and others, the kid may have learnt his lesson, but what happens next time the idiot mother takes the dog out to the shops, ties her up outside the supermarket and the dog goes for another kid who 'hasn't' learnt his lesson??? My daughter is nearly 3 and has know for about a year to never approach a strange dog unless I say its OK - but many parents from non-dog backgrounds would never have thought to teach their children basic dog safety.
> 
> And I do believe that dogs which are specifically bred for hunting and fighting (pitbulls, tosas etc) _should_ have restrictions placed on their ownership, in the same way venomous snakes are regulated; muzzled when in public places, kept in secure, exit- and entry-proof enclosures so kids can't get in and dogs can't get out. And I believe that ANY dog, regardless of breed, that shows a pattern of violent behaviour towards dogs or people should be destroyed.
> 
> ...



Any large dog has the potential to kill any person. Why should a specific breed be banned? The last severe dog attack in the territory was last week and it was a labrador, should all labradors be banned?

I have a german wire haired pointer, she is far more agressive than any of my friends pittys, staffys and bull mastiffs. Breed specific bans are a load of crap and will not stop dog attacks.


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

caustichumor said:


> I don't let my kids play with an animal that has the capacity to kill them.





waruikazi said:


> And those that wern't bred for hunting or fighting were usually bred from hunting or fighting dogs.



Yep, ohhh, don't let anyone know that if we trace dogs back they are all hunters, not a single dog breed doesn't stem from a hunter


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

Jesus Christ Jessb, under your logic there is no reason for anyone to have a dog. What makes you think people buy these dogs as a status symbol, have you ever spoken to a pitty owner? I am getting a Bull Terrrier, not because they were bred for hunting and fighting. I am getting one because i like their appearance and personality.


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

There's a pretty big difference between a Jack Russell that is bred to catch a rat, and a dog that is designed to bring down a wild pig - if only in terms of size and the amount of damage that can be inflicted! But realistically, I wouldn't ever leave my child alone with a Jack Russell either.

And most dogs AREN'T bred from hunting or fighting dogs (unless you want to go right back to wild dogs...) Retrievers, Pointers, Spaniels, Poodles etc are all used _in_ hunting, but not specifically to kill the prey - they obviously have roles in hunting, but that's clearly not what I meant when I referred to hunting dogs. 

And there are plenty of dogs that are used for loads of other things; cattle dogs, shepherds, lapdogs... The list goes on and on!


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

How is there a difference? They are both bred to kill. A small Aussie Terrier can easily kill a 2 year old. 

Do you even understand how retrievers, pointers and such are trained? They are trained using prey drive. Prey drive is the drive used to train hunting dogs. It's the drive that causes a dog to chase something.

Since you advocate people needing a reason to own dogs... Did you have a carriage when you owned a dally? Did you hunt ducks with your lab? 

BTW, A guard dog requires more than a deep bark. You are confusing guard dog with watch dog. and while we're on this subject no reputable trainer would train a pitbull, staffie or amstaff in guarding (not the majority anyway). They don't have the drive required. The list of breeds suitable for guarding and protection is actually very short.

EDIT: Cockers are retrievers (gundogs). Does your mother need a gundog? If not, why does she have one?


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> Jesus Christ Jessb, under your logic there is no reason for anyone to have a dog. What makes you think people buy these dogs as a status symbol, have you ever spoken to a pitty owner? I am getting a Bull Terrrier, not because they were bred for hunting and fighting. I am getting one because i like their appearance and personality.


 
Not at all - in fact I believe every family should have a dog! They are great companions, teach children empathy and responsibility, encourage exercise and outdoor play - and are just plain loely to have around! I'm not sure where your assumption came from actually, waruikazi!

I know from visiting dog parks for over 20 years that every time I see an aggressive, big, mastiff-type dog it is invariably wearing a massive studded collar and is owned by an equally aggressive beefy bloke.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

jessb said:


> There's a pretty big difference between a Jack Russell that is bred to catch a rat, and a dog that is designed to bring down a wild pig - if only in terms of size and the amount of damage that can be inflicted! But realistically, I wouldn't ever leave my child alone with a Jack Russell either.
> 
> And most dogs AREN'T bred from hunting or fighting dogs (unless you want to go right back to wild dogs...) Retrievers, Pointers, Spaniels, Poodles etc are all used _in_ hunting, but not specifically to kill the prey - they obviously have roles in hunting, but that's clearly not what I meant when I referred to hunting dogs.
> 
> And there are plenty of dogs that are used for loads of other things; cattle dogs, shepherds, lapdogs... The list goes on and on!



So these dogs pose no attack threat to anyone?


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

jessb said:


> Not at all - in fact I believe every family should have a dog! They are great companions, teach children empathy and responsibility, encourage exercise and outdoor play - and are just plain loely to have around! I'm not sure where your assumption came from actually, waruikazi!
> 
> I know from visiting dog parks for over 20 years that every time I see an aggressive, big, mastiff-type dog it is invariably wearing a massive studded collar and is owned by an equally aggressive beefy bloke.



So you decide from the collar on a dog and the appearance of the owner that they are agressive and dangerous animals owned and bred soley to scare people? Are all people that own a poodle that is shaved and done up gay?


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

And opposing your post JessB almost every vicious dog I meet in a dog park is a small white fluffy dog running around snapping at large dogs with the owner ignoring its poor behavior and thinking it's "cute" that their little white fluffy dog is biting the big mean dog.

Then the big dog snaps at it. Suddenly the big mean dog is vicious and the one who was behaving poorly.

People need to learn the rules in off leash dog parks. Your dogs are not allowed to approach another dog. Your dog MUST be under your control at all times. When you call it back it MUST come back.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

Midol said:


> People need to learn the rules in off leash dog parks. Your dogs are not allowed to approach another dog. Your dog MUST be under your control at all times. When you call it back it MUST come back.



But we all know staffys, bully's, mastiffs and pittys are completely untrainable and never ever listen to their owner when commanded.


----------



## tfor2 (Jan 30, 2008)

Thats disgraceful..... I say put the mother down and rehouse the dog with a more suited family.....


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

Midol said:


> How is there a difference? They are both bred to kill. A small Aussie Terrier can easily kill a 2 year old.
> 
> Do you even understand how retrievers, pointers and such are trained? They are trained using prey drive. Prey drive is the drive used to train hunting dogs. It's the drive that causes a dog to chase something.
> 
> ...


 

This is the kind of debate that has been missing in this thread! lol

I can guarantee an Aussie Terrier will take a lot longer to kill a 2yo than a pitbull will - I mean really! 

I think you misunderstood my point about the origins of different breeds - I wasn't suggesting that dogs should ONLY be used for their original tasks (and Labs were actually originally fishing dogs and were only later trained to be gun dogs) I was suggesting that dogs with certain temperaments are better than others for keeping as pets, and their instinctive traits DO affect their behaviour . 

And I DO think that people need a reason to own a dog - of course they do! Otherwise why would they get one????? It just depends what those reasons are...

Retrievers aren't trained to "chase" prey - if that was the case, then they would do what a terrier does and shake it to piecs before bringing it back! They are trained to "retrieve" a duck without damaging it. Surely there is a significant difference between that and being trained to go out and bring down a vicious feral pig!

"So these dogs pose no attack threat to anyone?" waruikazi 
What a silly statement, of course not! Any dog can be dangerous (see my original statement) - it's just that some have more propensity than others, therefore should be subject to stricter conditions - in the same way a venomous snake is required to be kept under stricter conditions, by an owner who has proven that they are capable of mitigating the possibility of negative consequences. 

I think everyone, anti- or pro-BSL should avoid absolutes; "all pitbulls are dangerous" vs "no pitbulls are dangerous". I concede that dangerous dogs occur in any breed, and my original stament addressed this, but I also acknowledge that some breeds are more prone to attacking than others, and I don't see the harm in trying to reduce the risk that poses to the public.


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

And Midol and waruikazi, please stop putting words into my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. As smart and all-knowing as you may be, please don't claim to know me or my motivations.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

Jessb... it was a question not a statement 

My point is that any breed of dog is dangerous and BSL will not solve dog attacks. Current dog laws IMO are sufficient, the problem is they are not being enforced because BSL supporters instantly label any dog that has attacked anyone as a 'pit fighting' type of dog. Then all attention is turned to specific breed bashing instead of the focus being on correct housing/fencing, treatment, breeding and training of all dog breeds.


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

You missed the point about prey drive. They don't view the duck as prey. They are trained USING prey drive. That doesn't mean they treat the item as prey. It's also referred to as training in "drive".

If you're interested in reading about it then here is a thread on the dog forum I am a member on:
http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=43795&hl=prey

I personally view the guy who started that thread as the *best* dog trainer in Australia. Ask any of the top trainers if they've heard of Steve from K9 Force and you can gaurantee the answer will be yes.

And no doubt that a pitbull or any large dog will cause more damage, faster than a smaller dog. But this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be bred or owned.

A well trained pig dog is more trustworthy than your average pet imo. I'd trust a trained guard dog before I'd trust someones family pet.


----------



## Renagade (Jan 30, 2008)

i think the scars of having such a junk parent are far worse than the ones the dog gave him.


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

Regardless of breed a dog is a dog is a dog. The simple fact here is that dogs are pack animals and learn their place in the pack by fighting with other members, only the pack leader or more dominant pack members have the authority to stop fights in less dominant members. by allowing the dog to attack the child the mother has given the dog a place in pack more dominant than her child and thus given the dog rights over the child to attack the child any time the dog might feel like it. No dog should be allowed to consider him or her self more dominant than any human pack member.


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

That's easily fixed.

And what makes you think a dog higher up in the pack will attack less dominant members of the pack whenever they feel like it?

The alpha dog keeps the rest of the pack in line.


----------



## kakariki (Jan 30, 2008)

Pack heirachy ....alpha male, alpha female, offspring of alpha pair automatically over subordinates. The dog would have been yelled at at the very least & it would know the child is "higher". Only if the dog was patted and made a fuss of would it think it had come up in the pack order. Look at the size of the dog compared to the child! I think the kid got off lightly. Parents need to control the children and the dogs! No dog, I don't care how good or what breed, is 100% trustworthy around kids. Dogs need to be protected from the kids & vice versa.


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

What makes you think a more dominant member of the pack won't attack a less dominant member if the alpha is sitting on her butt saying "See son, hick, I told you he'd bite you if you pulled his ears, hick."
And for your information if a dog goes up in the pack it will bite and nip at the less dominant members so the less dominant members don't ever feel in a position to challange their authority.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

And why would you think the dog wouldn't have copped a flogging from mum after it bit the boy?


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

If the mother put the dog in it's place after the incident that is all well and good but it never should have been able to feel in a position to be comfortable to attack the child in the first place it is about responsible pet ownership and training, after the dog chews on your kids face it's too late.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

If you step on a dogs foot, tail or whatever accidentally the reaction of the dog is usually to yelp and snap at whatever is causing the pain. I would hazard a guess that this is what happened in this case. Same as if you feel something sting your skin, your reaction would normally be to slap or hit out at the area that the pain is coming from.


----------



## kakariki (Jan 30, 2008)

I think to say it "attacked' is a little strong. The dog did what dogs do. It can't slap, it can't shout at the child. It can only yelp & bite. If the dog had "attacked " it would have done more damage and to have a go at the mum is a bit unfair IMO. A dog can jump & bite so quickly you can't even comprehend it. How do I know? Cos my son was bitten in a totally unprovoked incident when he was 18mths old. He had hold of my hand at the time & had called out hello to the dog. The dog [ a bluey ] launched itself a good 7 feet to bite my boy in the face. He had a gash on his top lip and left cheek, severe bruising on his chest from the dogs feet & banged his head on the wall behind us. He is 11 years old now & still wears those scars! The dog was not put down but it was not allowed near kids again [& I didn't visit the owners house again!]


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

I would say the word attack is fine, mauled might be a bit extreme but when you consider that yelling at someone is a verbal attack then attack is the correct word.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 30, 2008)

I think 'bit' would be more accurate.


----------



## RobJo (Jan 30, 2008)

sorry if the dog was mine i would have shot it before the parametics got there .
i have a pitbull and each of my boys give her hell when they were little i had to stop them a lot
but she never looked like hurting them and she loves them so much 
that no one can hurt them while she is near . she is verry old now my boys respect that 
and respect all dogs but she has never hurt them.


----------



## kakariki (Jan 30, 2008)

RobJo, you are a responsible person. "I had to stop them a lot"! Exactly. You protected the dog BEFORE she felt she had had enough. And the fact she is a patient dog, which not all are. [ BTW she is a gorgeous colour!] Channi, A verbal attack is not short & sharp. [ eg HEY YOU!} A verbal attack is a continued tirade of abuse accompanied by volume!! [ :evil: HEY YOU YOU STUPID #*>!. :evil: STOP THAT OR I'M GOING TO KNOCK YOUR #@%*>?! BLOCK OFF :evil: ETC ETC ETC} But now I'm just splitting hairs


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

An attack causes damage whether psychological or pysical, that bite caused damage therefore is an attack


----------



## firedragon (Jan 30, 2008)

jessb said:


> Firedragon and others, the kid may have learnt his lesson, but what happens next time the idiot mother takes the dog out to the shops, ties her up outside the supermarket and the dog goes for another kid who 'hasn't' learnt his lesson??? My daughter is nearly 3 and has know for about a year to never approach a strange dog unless I say its OK - but many parents from non-dog backgrounds would never have thought to teach their children basic dog safety.
> 
> And I do believe that dogs which are specifically bred for hunting and fighting (pitbulls, tosas etc) _should_ have restrictions placed on their ownership, in the same way venomous snakes are regulated; muzzled when in public places, kept in secure, exit- and entry-proof enclosures so kids can't get in and dogs can't get out. And I believe that ANY dog, regardless of breed, that shows a pattern of violent behaviour towards dogs or people should be destroyed.
> 
> ...


 
So does that mean we can destroy a person that sensesly bashes, torchers, harms or kills an animal, why are we any better than another living thing just because we're human.


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

You'd shoot your dog because you're a ****ty parent? I guess thats your idea of good ownership and responsible parenting... Certainly isn't mine, or the majority of good dog owners. If a dog truely does perform an unprovoked attack then euthanasia is an option... but not for this.

I don't think attack is the right word, the dog was defending itself. It was a defense, not an attack.



> 1.	to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
> 2.	to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
> 3.	to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
> 4.	to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
> ...



An attack is when you START or BEGIN it. You are the FIRST thing in it. The kid pulled the dogs ears, the KID attacked. The dog DEFENDED.


----------



## firedragon (Jan 30, 2008)

I agree midol it was a defence mot an attack


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

mahahaha attack or defence i don't really care. The mother does not deserve to own that dog as she cannot control it. I am not saying that the dog should be put down it should be relocated. Get a grip people the dog "assaulted" the child in self defence, however, i would say that the dog used excessive force. It is the mothers choice to keep the dog or not but I just hope she has learnt her lesson from this ugly incident.


----------



## firedragon (Jan 30, 2008)

Yes, maybe next time she will actually seperate the two when the kid is harrassing the dog instead of just sitting there and saying dont do that, the dog doesnt like it..


----------



## Ricko (Jan 30, 2008)

Owning any type of dog regardless of breed is a big responsibility especially when you have kids. Kids can NEVER be left alone with a dog regardless of any situation and regardless of breed whether it be a pit bull, am staff, chihuahua or maltese x. 

I own 2 am staff's and know the things that come with owning such a dog like getting dirty looks from people when i walk them, to getting remarks down the street when i go to the shops with my family. My favorite lines i get are "I would not own a dog like that with children" or the uneducated people who think they are pit bull's when they are actually fully sanctioned and papered am staff's, another good one "is do you fight him?" another uneducated thing about amstaff's they were bred to be a family dog not a fighting dog. 

Anyone who has had anything to do with any pit bull that has a decent owner will say that they are some of the most loyal and family friendly dogs ever.

JessB if you have seen the actual reports about dog bites/attacks you will find the labrador and german shepherd on top of the list where as say a pit bull is not on top like most would have you believe. More than half the bites that occur are from MUTS that people try to make a dollar out of like crossing staffy's with whatever breed of dog there mate has or crossing labradors with german shepherds or any cross breed.

And where you say pit bulls have a horrific amount of jaw pressure you may want to know that the Rottweiler has the strongest jaw pressure then the german shepherd and the pit bull comes in at number 4 or 5 so that may be of interest to you as well.

I am not having a go at anyone in regards to what there believes are on certain breeds but it is no doubt 100% of the time the owner in the fault in regards to what happens with a dog. don't train them and they will jump, don't maintain pack order and they can try to be the dominant one in the relationship no matter what breed.

Sorry for the long post but with BSL being introduced and them trying to ban such breeds as staffy's, rotty's, german shepherds and a few other breeds it hits at my heart as i share such a bond along with my wife and kids with our beautiful dogs titan and betty we do not want to lose them to this legislation.

Cheers Ricky
here is a pic of my 3 little men Titan Hayden and Nickolas




titan and Hayden




and my beautiful little girl Black Betty in a show


----------



## Gecko_ProCs (Jan 30, 2008)

I wouldnt get rid of the dog either
i bet the kids learnt his lesson, my border collie snapped at my little brother because he was pulling its ears and just generally annoying the dog, the dog can only take so much, i bet if anyone pulled its ears it would snap, sure the baby didnt knwo better but i bet he knows now


----------



## Midol (Jan 30, 2008)

channi said:


> mahahaha attack or defence i don't really care. The mother does not deserve to own that dog as she cannot control it. I am not saying that the dog should be put down it should be relocated. Get a grip people the dog "assaulted" the child in self defence, however, i would say that the dog used excessive force. It is the mothers choice to keep the dog or not but I just hope she has learnt her lesson from this ugly incident.



Not sure if you've ever seen a dog but dogs don't have hands.

Dogs show when they aren't happy or angry with body language and then a nip. Which is exactly what this dog did.

In terms of dog behaviour it was hardly excessive.

I love it when those who know nothing about dogs attempt to discuss their behavior.


----------



## channi (Jan 30, 2008)

I actually know alot about dogs and i don't appreciate being talked down to by a know all. If the dog had bitten another dog there would be no issue. Get off your high horse and realize we the situation we are talking about goes beyond dog behaviour. If you knew any thing about children you would know that two years old is too young to be expected to know appropriate dog manners. If the mother cannot control her dog then she shouldn't have it. And i am sorry if i place more value on human life than k9 life. If a person did that to the child they would or should go to jail, I don't think the dog should go to jail or be put down it just should not be with children. Oh and here's a tip, just because you think you are smart it doesn't mean everyone else is stupid.


----------



## kakariki (Jan 30, 2008)

:x Why do threads like this always end up with people slagging off at each other just because they do not agree? It isn't necessary! We all have a right to express our opinion WITHOUT put downs or belittling comments being made! IMO adults should be able to debate an issue without getting nasty. Honestly people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lighten up.


PS. It is all about behaviour. The dogs, the child & the mother. There were no winners. Boy was wrong in hurting dog, dog was wrong for retaliating , mum was wrong for not teaching boy. Maybe even some of us are wrong for assuming we know what happened. Don't assume, it makes an *** of u & me


----------



## firedragon (Jan 30, 2008)

Two is not too young for a child to learn. I work with kids and they are alot smarter than we give them credit for. My eldest daughter grew up with a few different breeds of dogs (german shepard, rottie & border collie x kelpie) since the day she was born, and by the age of two knew that if the dog growled leave it cause it has had enough, could tell them to sit, stay and shake hands. None of them ever bit and were some of the best gentle dogs around kids i have ever seen.


----------



## Miss B (Jan 30, 2008)

I think it's really silly to say that the little boy should have known better to pull the dogs ears, or that he has now 'learnt his lesson' and won't do it again. That's not how children work, certainly not at 2 years old. The boy's mother should have removed him from the vicinity of the dog if she felt the dog was getting irritated (which she must have known, because she warned her son to stop what he was doing). 

All other issues aside (including BSL... that's not what this thread is about), the fact is that the mother should have done a better job of supervising her child's contact with the dog and she is solely to blame for the fact that he got hurt. To allow the child continued access to the dog is, in my opinion, extremely irresponsible. If the dog ends up attacking the child again she will have no-one to blame but herself.

I guess different people have different ideas about how to raise their children. If I had young children and my dog so much as bared it's teeth at them, it would be removed from the household without hesitation. Either that or locked in a dog run.


----------



## jessb (Jan 30, 2008)

channi said:


> I actually know alot about dogs and i don't appreciate being talked down to by a know all. If the dog had bitten another dog there would be no issue. Get off your high horse and realize we the situation we are talking about goes beyond dog behaviour. If you knew any thing about children you would know that two years old is too young to be expected to know appropriate dog manners. If the mother cannot control her dog then she shouldn't have it. And i am sorry if i place more value on human life than k9 life. If a person did that to the child they would or should go to jail, I don't think the dog should go to jail or be put down it just should not be with children. Oh and here's a tip, just because you think you are smart it doesn't mean everyone else is stupid.


 
But Midol DOES know everything about dogs - didn't you read the dog thread not long ago! 
lol good call Channi... :lol:


----------



## cris (Jan 31, 2008)

I agree with Miss B, stoping the kid from torturing the dog would have been the best thing to do. 

If a person is being attacked they can legally defend themselves with force, why should a dog that does this be killed?(retorical question).


----------



## MoreliaMatt (Jan 31, 2008)

Good on her, i would have done the same, its NOT the dogs fault!


----------



## amy5189 (Jan 2, 2009)

as said, any dog can attack. little dog, big dog, friendly dog. any dog. i was attacked by my extremely friendly and beautiful mastiff x She was sleeping and I leant over to get something and she jumped up and bit my face. I know that I probably shouldn't have startled her like that, but in the end, my mum made me give up the dog to the RSPCA. It was extremely sad for me, but better in the end. 
I think the mum should have done the same. Next time her son might not be so lucky.


----------



## funcouple (Jan 2, 2009)

CodeRed said:


> Put down the mum instead of the dog, she obviously doesnt care about her child.
> 
> Wonder if people would change their attitude if the kid was killed by the dog.


 
agreed CodeRed

bet the mother would of killed it had it been a snake


----------



## Wild_Storm (Jan 2, 2009)

It is very sad, but my ex-husband had a Wolfhound female, who had been a wonderful dog- MANY children had played with her, some bounced on her pulled her ears, etc. One day a child (about 8 yrs old) was left alone by his 'mother' after I told her the dog had pupped that day. This child had done all those things to her went into the place she'd had pups that day and he picked up the pup and drove it's paw into a piece of wire. The dog attacked him and bit his face. 

The parents agreed the dog was not in the wrong and didn't ask it be put down. Then the mother came to the house again and about a week later and didn't supervise her child yet again... This time my ex-husband's dog grabbed the child as when he went near her pups and yet again bit him. Both times were quite savage.

This time they blamed the dog, and as soon as the oportunity arose the husband used a shotgun and shot the god so she died a slow and cruel death. In once sense I was probably relieved as after the first event she never tolerated children again, and had snapped at my friend's little girl who had done nothing wrong. I was also worried as I was pregnant with my first child.

The point to my story is, once the dog has decided it is higher up the chain than the child (which it would have gathered from the mother's voice), it WILL attack the child again. Unfortunately the dog needs to be either re-homed with the understanding it can't have children around, or destroyed.


My (then 3 month old) Red Smithfield Pup was being tormented by my 1.5 yr old son (at the time), she bit him, ON HIS HAND (I guess it was closer?). My partner and I STRONGLY disciplined the pup, and we also made DARN sure to watch them from then on and taught our son to be gentle... They are now best friends and even when he now lays on her and uses her as a pillow she does nothing. However should she or our other dog EVER bit any child, it WILL be killed immediately. 

EDUCATION, DISCIPLINE, AND COMMONSENSE.


----------



## gravitation (Jan 2, 2009)

Your dog needs to be educated as a puppy, NO biting under ANY circumstances.

Your child needs to be taught NO annoying the dog, or yanking it's tail blah blah

and as a mother she should be supervising any dog with a child under seven years of age.

Mothers fault, not educating the dog as a pup/child and letting the situation get as far as it did.


----------



## gravitation (Jan 2, 2009)

Miss B said:


> I think it's really silly to say that the little boy should have known better to pull the dogs ears, or that he has now 'learnt his lesson' and won't do it again. That's not how children work, certainly not at 2 years old. The boy's mother should have removed him from the vicinity of the dog if she felt the dog was getting irritated (which she must have known, because she warned her son to stop what he was doing).
> 
> All other issues aside (including BSL... that's not what this thread is about), the fact is that the mother should have done a better job of supervising her child's contact with the dog and she is solely to blame for the fact that he got hurt. To allow the child continued access to the dog is, in my opinion, extremely irresponsible. If the dog ends up attacking the child again she will have no-one to blame but herself.
> 
> I guess different people have different ideas about how to raise their children. If I had young children and my dog so much as bared it's teeth at them, it would be removed from the household without hesitation. Either that or locked in a dog run.



Train children just as you do dogs. Good behaviour = reward, bad behaviour = punishment.
If you instill in the childs head to be gentle (ALL while being supervised) it will work.

Always having cases of babies sticking there fingers into the dogs dinner when nobody was supervising.

Happens too often.


----------



## DanTheMan (Jan 2, 2009)

Myself and my sister had a similar experience, we had a dog that 1st attacked me, pierced a hole in my cheek, and various wounds all over my face, including 1 that JUST missed my eye, but we kept the dog, big mistake, it often attacked my friends/neighbors etc. but didn't hurt them, just tried to, then my sister, after she got into her bed, which the dog wanted, and thought she was better than my sister, or higher in the ranking in the pack, and also mauled her face, but she got it worse than me, her mouth was ripped open up her cheek. The dog was uncontrollable but it was OUR fault as we hadn't trained her properly and she thought she was higher up in the pack. It was a very hard getting her put down.
Its the owners fault, no matter how much some one pulled my dogs ears, they would not bite, they would simply walk away.


----------



## Kyro (Jan 2, 2009)

This thread is ancient people


----------



## KaaTom (Jan 2, 2009)

The mother is a complete moron... the child is two for crying out loud, of course he isnt going to listen and is going to push his boundaries. The mother knew that the dog may get "cranky" yet she let him continue knowing he my get bitten... and now she is blaming the child. Pfft she needs her head read. I can understand if the child was over 5-6yo but a child under that just doesnt fully understand. Obviously she loves her "dog" more than her son, if it were me the dog would immediately be put down or rehomed. My kids are more important than a damn dog.


----------



## KaaTom (Jan 2, 2009)

Kyro said:


> This thread is ancient people


 
does that make it less important...?


----------



## lemonz (Jan 3, 2009)

mums a bitch, the kids two years old. TWO he'ss just be starting to speak understanable sentences, whether is was provocative or not. its not the kids fault.


----------



## lemonz (Jan 3, 2009)

nah it doesnt make it less impoprtant,


----------



## Kyro (Jan 3, 2009)

KaaTom said:


> does that make it less important...?



Chill out, just poining out that the thread hasn't had a comment in 12 months:lol: but suddenly it's so important


----------



## Wild_Storm (Jan 3, 2009)

Just a thought.... What did Children Services do?? They normally get involved when a child has been bitten by a dog.... She may have been forced to decide between the child and the dog very soon after... Hmmm... I wonder which she would have kept???

And yes, this whole thing is a bit pointless CONSIDERING it is almost a YEAR old.


----------



## KaaTom (Jan 3, 2009)

Regardless of wether or not it is 12mths old, its people like this mother that are just so damn irresponsible that wind me up. The fact that she blamed her son for being bitten is purely discuscting. So many parents these days just dont 'think' enough or even at all as to why these thing happen to their kids. Sorry but 12mths later or not this parent is pathetic and needs to set her priorities straight. (this sort of thing hits close to home, hence my frustration)


----------



## snakes4me2 (Jan 3, 2009)

Kyro said:


> I can't help but wonder why such a young child was playing with the dog with out adult supervision. If I were in that position i'd feel like a lousy mother for letting that happen in the first place. Poor kid



I agree, As far as im concerned your familys life should be first before any animal


----------



## honga05 (Jan 3, 2009)

nickamon said:


> And here's why children and animals should always be supervised when they're together.
> 
> Also, kid shouldn't have been allowed to harass the dog, and should be taught to respect animals. No wonder the dog defended itself.[/quote
> 
> most of you people must not have kids to understand love if that was my dog and little boy the dog would already be catching me mud crabs.


----------

