Heroic action saves tot from dog

[Biff]

Graphic image (mauled child), sad story:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4155221a10.html

Ban 'dangerous' breeds of dogs I say.

How to define a dangerous dog....?

[ManDownUnder]

Graphic image (mauled child), sad story:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4155221a10.html

Ban 'dangerous' breeds of dogs I say.

How to define a dangerous dog....?

Get the breeds of dog represented in maulings. Find someone good at stats and ask them to correlate breeds with maulings.

Any breed involved in more than 2 maulings a year (number out of my arse)... ban them. After 2 years put a price on their heads. $1,000 reward for anyone dobbing in a dangerous dog.

[Curious_AJ]

its not the dogs that ar dangerous themselves.. its the owners who don't raise them properly... I hate people who let their dogs get like that, or force them to be like that in any way...

but then, the thing is, was the kid supervised? was it trying to annoy the dog at all?

"Senior Constable Rob Fraser said there had been no previous complaints about the dog"... not often are dogs likely to just fly off the handle unless something particularely annoys them...

its bad what happened.. but you have to look at the bigger picture as well... maybe it was the child's parents fault, as that story didnt seem to state that they were watchign her in any way... a kid doesnt really know what a dog doesn't like...

people should take care of their kids and dogs properly I say...

p.s could be both parties fault as well...

[sugilite]

Get the breeds of dog represented in maulings. Find someone good at stats and ask them to correlate breeds with maulings.

This has already been done, Labradors came out on top by quite some margin.

[Swoop]

Thank goodness the labour party got rid of dog maulings, by getting all dogs microchipped......

[MisterD]

This has already been done, Labradors came out on top by quite some margin.

I'd dispute that....Labs will probably come out top if you define a "dog attack" to include any time a dog bites a child, but almost invariably that will be the dog acting as it would with an over-boisterous puppy and administering a disciplining "nip". I don't think I've ever heard of a Lab responsible for a full-on, won't let go, life-threatening mauling.

[avgas]

How to define a dangerous dog....?
The one with a moron for an owner.
I still don't understand why you don't have to do a course to own a dog.

[MisterD]

Any breed involved in more than 2 maulings a year (number out of my arse)... ban them. After 2 years put a price on their heads. $1,000 reward for anyone dobbing in a dangerous dog.

The trouble is, how do you define a breed? Ban "Pit-bulls" then suddenly you have loads of mongrels with a hefty dose of pit-bull blood...so when do they stop being undefined mongrels and start being a particular breed?

Do we ask them how they define themselves, like Maori?

[Biff]

its not the dogs that ar dangerous themselves.. its the owners who don't raise them properly...

Unfortunately that's not entirely correct, as some dog breeds are simply much more likely to attack people (especially kids) than others. Sure the way that you treat a dog can have a massive impact on its temperament, but the fact is that a staffie is much more likely to attack human than a poodle, for example...

[MisterD]

The one with a moron for an owner.
I still don't understand why you don't have to do a course to own a dog.

You don't have to do a course to have a baby and we're not allowed to put them down when they become dangerous to society....

[Flatcap]

Ban 'dangerous' breeds of dogs I say.

How to define a dangerous dog....?

I have a dog and I agree with banning some of the dangerous breeds.

Not only do they attack people, my arithritic Beagle gets monstered frequently on walks because he has no agression at all (unlike his master who is free with swift kicks in the kidneys).

The problem is defining the aggressive breed, and then defining if a particular mongrel belongs to that breed.

[Swoop]

The Harold:
Updated 12:25PM Tuesday August 07, 2007

Prime Minister Helen Clark says dangerous dogs give her the "creeps" and she is personally in favour of tougher dog laws.

There have been calls for tighter dog control after two-year-old Aotea Coxon was savaged by a dog in a Christchurch park on Sunday, requiring 290 stitches and a plate inserted in a broken jaw.

Miss Clark said she was "repulsed" by the attack.

"It gives you the creeps to think of dangerous dogs strolling around ready to pounce on innocent people. That is why I am more than happy to keep looking at how the law can be improved and how enforcement can be improved," Miss Clark said.

Miss Clark said she had "stronger views" on dog laws than most people, but every time there was a call for a tougher regime there was "pushback" from responsible dog owners and breeders.

The Government was currently waiting for a report that it had commissioned three months ago.

Her comments came after the father of Carolina Anderson, whose injuries from a dog attack three years ago shocked the nation, said some dogs in New Zealand are "loaded guns waiting to go off".

John Anderson said if vicious dogs bred to fight could not be banned at least they should wear muzzles.

"Those sorts of dogs are loaded guns waiting to go off."

The horrific dog attack on his daughter Carolina in an Auckland park in 2003 led to changes in dog control laws.

But he said today not enough had been done.

"We don't have the controls that we need. The first step would be muzzles on these sorts of dogs," he said.

He said the dogs were not needed and were unpredictable and highly dangerous.

United Future leader Peter Dunne backed the call for a ban.

He said there have been eight serious attacks reported by the media in the last year - all of them involving pitbull terriers, bull mastiffs or staffordshire bull terriers.

"It is totally unacceptable that the Government is just standing by and watching as another child has her life turned upside down in such vicious circumstances," he said last night.

"The community is simply not a place for large, aggressive, territorial attack dogs."

Mr Dunne, whose party has a support agreement with the Government, said attacks would continue until dangerous dogs were banned.

Two-year-old Aotea was playing at a park in Christchurch yesterday morning when a staffordshire-cross began to maul her.

The little girl suffered severe facial injuries but is in a stable condition in hospital.

Police are considering charging the owners of the dog. It was destroyed with their permission yesterday afternoon.



Nice when politicians are bringing their biases to the issue, instead of being the representative of their electorate and its views/wishes/direction...

[MisterD]

(unlike his master who is free with swift kicks in the kidneys).


If not entirely swift with free kicks to said errant dogs....

[cynna]

the dog in question didnt exactly look like a pure bred staffy.... do u ban all the other breeds that it was mixed with as well?

[Flatcap]

If not entirely swift with free kicks to said errant dogs....

My foot speed is aided by my Blackthorn Fighting Stick

[terbang]

Good skills by those that aided poor wee tot. Wading in there and having a go at an attacking staffie would take some balls and I am sure a young lass will belive so for the rest of her life.
Yup I too wondered about her supervision but one would expect a public place would be free of dogs that maul too.
Hit the dog owners hard when their dogs are left unsupervised and are roaming, doesn't matter what kind as even labbys can nip. It is clearly the owners responsibility to ensure their mut doesn't hurt anyone else.

[WRT]

I still don't understand why you don't have to do a course to own a dog.

You dont in order to have children, and there is arguably more responsibility required there.

(Not saying you dont have a good point, btw . . . )

[Filterer]

Where were the parents...... anyone who has a 2y.o knows you can't leave them to their own device.

By the sounds of it the guy that saved the kid carried her to an ambulance, I know if I was her parent, i'd be the one carrying her - so one can only assume the parents still wern't there when the ambulance arrived.

[terbang]

You dont in order to have children, and there is arguably more responsibility required there.



Weelll yeaaah, but how many 2 year olds have you seen ripping the faces of pitbulls that are left unattended?

[rwh]

Where were the parents...... anyone who has a 2y.o knows you can't leave them to their own device.

By the sounds of it the guy that saved the kid carried her to an ambulance, I know if I was her parent, i'd be the one carrying her - so one can only assume the parents still wern't there when the ambulance arrived.

He was holding her face together - I don't think I'd be asking him to let go. Not if I was thinking clearly, anyway - no doubt I wouldn't be under those circumstances.

Richard

[WRT]

Weelll yeaaah, but how many 2 year olds have you seen ripping the faces of pitbulls that are left unattended?

Not many, but there have been plenty of 2 year olds that have grown up to do gruesome/violent acts of their own, wouldn't you agree? I think a lot of it comes down to the same thing - poor "parenting". Unless you are suggesting that if we are going to put down all dog breeds that are highly represented in attack stats, then we should also put down the human "breeds" with similar predispositions?

Controversial, but I guess it could work . . .

Regardless of whether it is raising a puppy or a baby, if the parent isn't up to the job, then you are likely to have trouble when maturity is reached. Surely there should be something in place to teach owners/parents before they are allowed to be in charge? Hell, maybe you shouldnt be allowed to become a parent until you have proven you can successfully raise (and look after) a puppy?

[terbang]

Not many, but there have been plenty of 2 year olds that have grown up to do gruesome/violent acts of their own, wouldn't you agree? I think a lot of it comes down to the same thing - poor "parenting". Unless you are suggesting that if we are going to put down all dog breeds that are highly represented in attack stats, then we should also put down the human "breeds" with similar predispositions?

Controversial, but I guess it could work . . .

Regardless of whether it is raising a puppy or a baby, if the parent isn't up to the job, then you are likely to have trouble when maturity is reached. Surely there should be something in place to teach owners/parents before they are allowed to be in charge? Hell, maybe you shouldnt be allowed to become a parent until you have proven you can successfully raise (and look after) a puppy?


Respectfully but I don't see your point in relation to this incident. Should we as a society react to this kind of mauling by mandating better parental supervision so that our kids won't get mauled by marauding, though not wild, dogs? Dogs that are clearly not properly supervised by their owners? Maybe a message to parents that not all dog owners, as in this case, can keep their dogs under supervision and that kids shouldn't pester strange dogs. But we definatly need a hard crackdown on dog owners who cannot or do not supervise their dogs. Especially if they are of a breed that is known to have attacked before.

[WRT]

I dont see the problem as being one of the dog being "born bad", admittedly some dogs are higher represented in mauling statistics, but it is not purely a matter of breeding. These are often the dogs that appeal to people who like to raise a "fierce" dog, and as such, are often encouraged to be aggressive by their owners.

If instead these dogs are nurtured by owners who know what they are doing and are trying to raise a pet rather than a guard dog, then they are just as capable of being a controlled, restrained companion as any other breed.

My comments however, were drawing a parallel between dogs and their owners, and kids and their parents. If either one is raised incorrectly, then they become a menace to society. Perhaps society needs to look at educating owners and parents more? Or licencing them? With a car/bike you have to do a course and prove you are capable of handling a vehicle, should it be the same for dogs and children?

(My appologies if my comments appeared to be condemming the parents of the child that was mauled, as this was not my intent. My heart goes out to them as this must be one of their worst nightmares, and not something any parent should have to go through.)

[JimO]

I'd dispute that....Labs will probably come out top if you define a "dog attack" to include any time a dog bites a child, but almost invariably that will be the dog acting as it would with an over-boisterous puppy and administering a disciplining "nip". I don't think I've ever heard of a Lab responsible for a full-on, won't let go, life-threatening mauling.

i know of one

[Dave Lobster]

Prime Minister Helen Clark says dangerous dogs give her the "creeps"

Well, Mr Clark, you give me the creeps. :sick:

[candor]

I have a dog and I agree with banning some of the dangerous breeds.

Not only do they attack people, my arithritic Beagle gets monstered frequently on walks because he has no agression at all (unlike his master who is free with swift kicks in the kidneys).

The problem is defining the aggressive breed, and then defining if a particular mongrel belongs to that breed.

Am on my third DOMESTIC dog. From my grandparents to me we have 100 dog years of non vicious dog ownership under our belts.

In fact mine is more like a lamb - a real chocolate box cutie - Grmn Pointer.

But before I spent ages selecting him a quite thuggish relly of mine who values toughness and can be violent himself offered me one of the dogs he keeps (staffy pit), assuring me he is not a mean dog as "it's how they're raised".

So glad my prejudices made me say no. That dog has now killed a few neighbours cats and had a few attacks on other dogs in their local park.

He is not very bright like the big german hound dogs that I prefer, so is not careful not to bite you (hard)when playing like all dogs I've had are, and he seems to make up for being a foot tall with this natural excess of aggression without much provocation it seems.

Yep dangerous breeds give me the creeps, they are not real dogs and give the rest a bad name. Ethnic cleanse please with neutering and no more births of short stocky dogs should fix this picture.

If they're not bad why feature them on a gang patch - surely not for cutenesss or Garfield could as easily be there!

One other dog that worries me is those rolie dogs ?sharpeis are they. One that was just standing there on the footpath chomped on my dogs neck as we walked by taking a hunk of fur and a little flesh off. Sick psycho. It was cold, casual and calculated with no warning growl.

Now if I see creepy dogs in parks I call mine back on the lead (being part greyhound he can and has outrun creepy dogs to jump into my arms) and I often see owners of small dogs pick them up with they see a pit or staffy.

Once fought a baby pit bull off him that launched at him like a missile (with a few kicks) as we passed by! No way little creep.

Good dog owners and dogs and other people should not have to live on tenterhooks because some like noxious pets to match their own type.

[rwh]

dangerous breeds ... are not real dogs

Seems a bizzarre statement to make in an otherwise perfectly reasonable post ... what's 'not real' about them?

Richard

[geoffm]

I know! We could put a microchip in the dog and that will...er..stop umm. the problem. Or maybe not, but it woudl sound really good and Something Must Be Done - For the Children
Geoff

[Dave Lobster]

I know! We could put a microchip in the dog and that will...er..stop umm. the problem. Or maybe not, but it woudl sound really good and Something Must Be Done - For the Children
Geoff

It raises revenue for the government though. Which is what it's all about. Same as the licencing. WTF has that done? Apart from raise revenue..

[candor]

Whats not real? What I meant is that they are not representative of the generally "good value" most dogs offer. To their owners and society. To me they have a function of teaching children to be better people by enabling learning of empathy thru a good natured critter.

Dogs bred and trained for aggression are like anathema to all that has been achieved in thousands of years of domesticating imo. Real dogs to me are not feral - they're not aggro like some wild dog breeds as they've generally been bred for good compatibility and caring with humans.

To me an "attack dog" as Dunn puts it is no relation to domesticated canine species. My view of a real dog is one that would not have it in them to do that.

To bite maybe (no one ever died of a warning or defensive bite or snap), but to conduct a frenzied savage killer attack - nah, that's not natural for the majority of household k9s!

[Curious_AJ]

Unfortunately that's not entirely correct, as some dog breeds are simply much more likely to attack people (especially kids) than others. Sure the way that you treat a dog can have a massive impact on its temperament, but the fact is that a staffie is much more likely to attack human than a poodle, for example...

yes, but they still wouldnt fly off the handle at nothing... they wouldnt just go "omg, there's a tiny kid walking by over there... ATTACK!!!"

I'm pretty sure the kid had to have been doing something to annoy the dog..

[terbang]

I'm pretty sure the kid had to have been doing something to annoy the dog..

Yup like perhaps running away from it in fear. Dogs will often attack when the victim turns their back and runs. But it could have been for any other reason and yes perhaps she did provoke it. She was a wee dot and wouldn't know much better. I don't give a damn what sort of dog because Ive seen even an Irish setter that gleefully shredded cats. Its the nature of the beast.
But what is obvious here. A smalll child and a dog met, only one of them had the ability to tear the other apart, exercised that and nearly succeeded if it hadn't been for a rescue. Who should have been on the tighter leash? Little girl or dog? I'd like to think that our children would be safer in public places, wouldn't you? This is not the third world where we have to fend ourselves from marauding dogs. Oh hang on, its the dogs who are in trouble there, they eat them..!

[Biff]

yes, but they still wouldnt fly off the handle at nothing... they wouldnt just go "omg, there's a tiny kid walking by over there... ATTACK!!!"


Yes 'some' do.

As an example - video of a dog attacking a child. Discretion advised:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RF4vErQq_Gk

[Curious_AJ]

Yes 'some' do.

As an example - video of a dog attacking a child. Discretion advised:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RF4vErQq_Gk

i cant help but be skeptical about the evidence.. but you see, those people probably bred it or raised it for fighting.. i may be being a little predjudice here, but they looked like the sort that would do that.. and it looked like that kinda place... and then, its also the owners fault for not keeping it on a god damned leash... most of these dog attacks can be put down to human error in many different ways...

not to cause an arguement or anything, coz its still bad that it happened.. but people are dumb... end of story lol..

[T.W.R]

most of these dog attacks can be put down to human error in many different ways...



The incident is a unfortunate & sickening event.

Though as Humans we're to blame completely for anything any dogs do now, in the future, and in the past :yes:
we manipulated dogs right from the beginning, moulding different breeds to what we needed.
So called fighting dogs were bred for entertainment, how F#*^*@ sick is that, what gives US the right to manipulate another animal into laying down it's life just for the sake of our amusement. It's only the dimwitted assholes that carry that shit on nowadays and look at the way we view them.
Don't blame the dog blame the owners, It isn't nice when nature strikes back but 9 times out of 10 we taunt it into doing so.

[Curious_AJ]

The incident is a unfortunate & sickening event.

Though as Humans we're to blame completely for anything any dogs do now, in the future, and in the past :yes:
we manipulated dogs right from the beginning, moulding different breeds to what we needed.
So called fighting dogs were bred for entertainment, how F#*^*@ sick is that, what gives US the right to manipulate another animal into laying down it's life just for the sake of our amusement. It's only the dimwitted assholes that carry that shit on nowadays and look at the way we view them.
Don't blame the dog blame the owners, It isn't nice when nature strikes back but 9 times out of 10 we taunt it into doing so.

words right out of my mouth..

[Dave Lobster]

What would the public's response be if this unaccompanied two year old had been in the same park with no dog attack? What if it had been running along, as two year olds do, and fell, hitting its head on a kerbstone, and dying from its injuries?

I'm not saying the dog owners are blameless in this. But, AGAIN, the press is only giving us half the story. What if this park is an off leash area, and the dog was just running around. What if it went to sniff the (UNACCOMPANIED) child, and the child poked it in the eye? The press wont tell us this, will they?

[terbang]

What would the public's response be if this unaccompanied two year old had been in the same park with no dog attack? What if it had been running along, as two year olds do, and fell, hitting its head on a kerbstone, and dying from its injuries?

I'm not saying the dog owners are blameless in this. But, AGAIN, the press is only giving us half the story. What if this park is an off leash area, and the dog was just running around. What if it went to sniff the (UNACCOMPANIED) child, and the child poked it in the eye? The press wont tell us this, will they?

Two year olds and pitbulls aren't renowned for their intelligence and grasp on reality and some sort of supervision is required. The two year old girl isn't that dangerous to those around her, only herself, hence the need for supervision. However we know all too well that the dog (Pit bull or Lab) has the proven potential to be very dangerous to all around it, if it's buttons are pushed appropriatly. Just like a gun that is left lieing around, an unsupervised dog can kill (human or livestock). So cmon, anyone with half a brain can see in this incident that the owner of the dog that was unsupervised, has considerably more responsibility in this incident than the (also stupid) parents of the child. As I have said before, I would like to think that our childeren (who really don't know much about dogs) are safe from dog attacks in public places. Isn't that why we pay rates and taxes?

[janno]

I've owned dogs for the last twenty five years and learned a hell of a lot, especially from a very curmudgeonly blue heeler that I had for 14 years. I had to watch him like a hawk - partly because my training skills were not up to scratch, and partly because of the massive protective and ankle bitey instincts that breed has.

I disagree with the "training, not breeding" theory. I think it's a grey, not black and white, area.

There are too many people who say their dog is domesticated but in reality the dog thinks it is the pack leader, and tries to manage things accordingly. These types of people I'm thinking of consciously or subconsciously justify their dog's lack of training by making excuses or laughing it off, and are genuinely horrified if something goes wrong.

How many people can call their dogs to them 100% of the time no matter what the provocation/distraction is?

In my opinion, basic 100% recall is a must, and if you can't train your dog to do so, then get a professional to help you. IE spend a coupla hundred bucks and get bark busters or such like to help - often the obedience schools are only good with "easy" breeds such as borders and shepherds.

Who knows what the little girl did to the dog - she may have patted it and poked it, or she may have ran away which,yes, will get some dog's "interest" right up in to attack mode.

Poor doggo, as well as poor kiddy. Both had neglectful caregivers, IMHO.

[Curious_AJ]

I've owned dogs for the last twenty five years and learned a hell of a lot, especially from a very curmudgeonly blue heeler that I had for 14 years. I had to watch him like a hawk - partly because my training skills were not up to scratch, and partly because of the massive protective and ankle bitey instincts that breed has.

I disagree with the "training, not breeding" theory. I think it's a grey, not black and white, area.

There are too many people who say their dog is domesticated but in reality the dog thinks it is the pack leader, and tries to manage things accordingly. These types of people I'm thinking of consciously or subconsciously justify their dog's lack of training by making excuses or laughing it off, and are genuinely horrified if something goes wrong.

How many people can call their dogs to them 100% of the time no matter what the provocation/distraction is?

In my opinion, basic 100% recall is a must, and if you can't train your dog to do so, then get a professional to help you. IE spend a coupla hundred bucks and get bark busters or such like to help - often the obedience schools are only good with "easy" breeds such as borders and shepherds.

Who knows what the little girl did to the dog - she may have patted it and poked it, or she may have ran away which,yes, will get some dog's "interest" right up in to attack mode.

Poor doggo, as well as poor kiddy. Both had neglectful caregivers, IMHO.

this is true, good points stated here.

I still have to ask, however, WHO THE HELL WOULD NOT SUPERVISE THEIR 2 YEAR OLD IN A PARK????!!! there are many other things that could happen in parks, like abductions, falling over and cracking the skull (as said earlier) etc etc... i mean.. what the?? it's common sense to keep your kid on a leash as WELL as a dog... (by kid on a leash, i mean supervise them PROPERLY!)

[MisterD]

this is true, good points stated here.

I still have to ask, however, WHO THE HELL WOULD NOT SUPERVISE THEIR 2 YEAR OLD IN A PARK????!!!

Ok, I've heard the full story on this now. There were three kids under the supervision of their Grandmother (mum was in hospital). Gran had her attention focussed on one of them, putting a coat on or somesuch and the other two (the victim and a 9 year old) ran off. The kind of thing that happens to every parent, however good and attentive they are...

[Curious_AJ]

aah, okay... I've heard otherwise.. I heard it was a 4 year old and the 2 year old pretty much alone...

[terbang]

this is true, good points stated here.

I still have to ask, however, WHO THE HELL WOULD NOT SUPERVISE THEIR 2 YEAR OLD IN A PARK????!!!

Some one not doing their parenting job properly, leave yer kids unattended and they will be exposed to all sorts of danger, yup we all know that. However we pay taxes to have rules enforced (like dog control rules) which provide buffers in place in case we do slip up. But in this case of a dog attack, people seem to be blaming the guardians of the child, possibly as a smoke screen to divert the blame or impact of a vicious dog mauling. Yup I like dogs too, have one and take my responsibilities seriously and am under no illusion as to what those labrador teeth could do. Simple really, a big and unfortunate lesson for the victims guardians I suspect and (hopefully) a slamming of the owners of the dog. Thats why we have animal control laws, to relieve us of the paranoia created by the sabre tooth tiger.
As an extreme to the arguement here, if some lions escaped from the zoo and ate a bunch of people. Who would you be putting under the bright lights of scrutiny, the victims for not watching out for hungry lions 'aw gee I should have kept an eye out for animal attacks in a public place' or the zoo keeper 'shucks, I forgot to lock the gate on the lion cage' for not keeping an eye on his lions? When you are in possesion of anything that can kill or seriously harm people, then you have a duty of care to ensure that that beast/machine does not harm anyone else. Dog lover or not, it makes sense that if your dog nips someone (or your lions eat an entire villiage), you get in the shite. If you don't want that responsibility..There is allways a rabbit. Regular ones, not the killer kind.

[Dave Lobster]

Was the dog unsupervised then? I've not seen anything in the press about it.
Is the park an off leash park?
Was the dog the required distance away from any play area?
Did the child do anything to provoke the dog?

[T.W.R]

Ok, I've heard the full story on this now. There were three kids under the supervision of their Grandmother (mum was in hospital). Gran had her attention focussed on one of them, putting a coat on or somesuch and the other two (the victim and a 9 year old) ran off. The kind of thing that happens to every parent, however good and attentive they are...

You obviously missed the interview with the grandmother then :yes:

The kids had taken off to the park by themselves, they were supposed to go with their grandmother but split before she got home, the kids mother was getting a picnic lunch ready for them to take to the park :yes:
The Grandmother & Mother were talking to each other working out were the kids were when the eldest kid & a member of the public arrived at the house to say the girl had been attacked. The grandmother got to the park just as they were loading the kid into the ambulance :yes:

that's pretty much the grandmother's own words.

[Dave Lobster]

that's pretty much the grandmother's own words.

Could you understand the grunts from the man standing next to her in the interview?

[T.W.R]

Could you understand the grunts from the man standing next to her in the interview?

That was the nephew :killingme though to set the tone anyone take any notice of the clothes he had on :blip: wonder who he was affiliated too :oi-grr:

[Curious_AJ]

apparently the dog got out of the owner's yard somehow... but then.. the owner had a 2 year old themselves... and the dog was fine with that kid... i swear the kid had to have been doing something to provoke the dog...

[chanceyy]

hmm this appears to be an interesting case ..

I thought children under 14 were not allowed to be left alone & should be supervised - as I do not have kids I can not verify this wee detail but you can bet your ass If I did have child there is no way at 2 yrs of age they would be allowed off my property to enter any park .. hell there are enough phedophiles out there .. even if they are with slightly older children & in my opinion 9 yrs of age can not always deal with situations as they arise.

the dog: well it appears it had scaled a gate of considerable height .. why? here is a family dog well treated well loved never escaping befrore suddenly scaling a fence .. that makes me highly suspicious .. wot caused it to flee?? then if this was the case being in a hightened state it would be more prone to attacking.. in this case I feel for everyone the child bitten the dog owners who thought their dog was safely ensconded in their own property..

guess we will never know. but like all animals regardless of size or breed they all have the ability to attack or hurt for a number of reasons.

all its made me consider is my 6 foot fence enough to keep my dog contained .. prior to this I would have said yes .. now I say probably not ...

[Curious_AJ]

if the dog really wants to escape.. it will

[MisterD]

You obviously missed the interview with the grandmother then :yes:

Second hand info via Michael Laws.....:second:

[Curious_AJ]

secondhand info.. that doesnt sound too accurate... lol

[terbang]

apparently the dog got out of the owner's yard somehow... but then.. the owner had a 2 year old themselves... and the dog was fine with that kid... i swear the kid had to have been doing something to provoke the dog...
I'd guarantee it that the kid did something to provoke the attack, small or large it doesn't matter. But that is not the issue. The unsupervised dog did attack is. Though I suspect some here who are pointing fingers at the childs parents are dog owners who are only trying to justify their own mutts behaviour and not yet prepared to take or realize responsibility for its actions.

[Curious_AJ]

Im pointing fingers at all involved.. especially the parents and owners. the kid and the dog didn't know better.. but their caregivers did...

[James Deuce]

Im pointing fingers at all involved.. especially the parents and owners. the kid and the dog didn't know better.. but their caregivers did...

The kid's Grandmother had 3 kids to look after. You have no idea what that's like, so it would probably be in your best interest to retract that finger. Looking after siblings and the odd baby sitting job does NOT qualify you to make any comment whatsoever.

The Grandmother will be feeling appallingly bad about the whole thing, worse than you in your protected little shell of a world could ever imagine.

This just confirms my point: Dogs should not be allowed in an urban environment. If it weighs more than 10 kg it isn't a pet.