Mum's dog bit my LO

Paradigm

All seems pretty simple to me, 3 options....

A) Granny gets rid of the dog.

OP makes sure that the dog is secure before the child enters the house.

C) If none of the above then the OP doesn't allow/take the child to visit.

That's it, sorted!

peachyprice

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

For now, why can't the OP go to the house, leaving the child in the car.
If the dog is out, put away the dog.
Get child from car and go in.

Why the hell didn't she just do that in the first place, as she knew the dog didn't like children?

If she'd taken responsibility herself the entire episode need never have happened, to leave a dog that has been proven to not like children running around for half an hour is plain irresponsible.

But it's easier to blame the sick mother than blame herself.

Indie_Kid

Person_one wrote: »

The adults in your family failed in their duties both to you and to the dog. I grew up with dogs all around and it was nothing but wholly positive for me, which is the case for loads of children and families.

Same with me. The only biting I've experienced is play biting, which isn't that hard and doesn't leave a mark.

We let the dogs stay in the front room whilst my 2 year old cousin was here, who lives with a dog. She had no problems at all. Yes, one of the dogs did go a bit crazy. But all the dog was doing was deciding that everyone needed a wash...

yorkshire_terrier_owner

Kim_kim wrote: »

I don't know how the numbers stack up but if euthanising every dog that bites meant that half the mild mannered dogs currently sitting in cages dogs homes would get a family home, could that be such a bad idea?


Btw - I would never compare a dog to a child, I think your intelligence is more questionable.

If we could sort out the owners, the problems with dogs would be sorted too. Rather than euthanising dogs, the rubbish breeders ( I am a breeder and am astounded by the widespread unscrupulousness that goes on) and rubbish owners need sorting so that we sort the cause of the problem rather than the symptoms.

Nicki

catkins wrote: »

Silly statement to make. The vast majority of dogs NEVER bite anyone but not because they have been trained not to.

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Same with me. The only biting I've experienced is play biting, which isn't that hard and doesn't leave a mark.

We let the dogs stay in the front room whilst my 2 year old cousin was here, who lives with a dog. She had no problems at all. Yes, one of the dogs did go a bit crazy. But all the dog was doing was deciding that everyone needed a wash...

Friendly dogs aren't the issue though. No one is talking about destroying family pets who don't randomly attack children or even adults. I completely agree that having such pets is a very positive experience for children.

The situation in the OP though is with a dog who is known to be cross, who has bitten children in the family three times to the OP's certain knowledge, maybe more often before the mother took him on. A completely different kettle of fish, and it is dogs with these kinds of issues which I and some others are saying need to either be socialised by appropriate training or put to sleep if that is not possible.

Nicki

Timely article in today's mail online for those who scoff at the idea that dogs ever "terrorise" innocent people and think to say this can happen is being a drama queen

Man gets arm ‘ripped off’ by his two American bulldogs http://dailym.ai/1ud1JD1

yorkshire_terrier_owner

I think the point though is that the OP's situation could have been managed better. Even friendly family dogs need to be managed and handled correctly, and a dog with any sort of issue, whatever that may be, needs more careful management.

We see friendly family dogs come in to the rescue centre all the time who have 'turned' - and often the owners have become complacent in their handling of the dog.

An attack such as the one reported in the daily mail with such ferocity, I would seriously doubt that these dogs are the way they are without some serious abuse. Given the breed and having read the article, it is quite possible that they were trained for illegal dog fighting.

krlyr

Nicki wrote: »

Friendly dogs aren't the issue though. No one is talking about destroying family pets who don't randomly attack children or even adults. I completely agree that having such pets is a very positive experience for children.

The situation in the OP though is with a dog who is known to be cross, who has bitten children in the family three times to the OP's certain knowledge, maybe more often before the mother took him on. A completely different kettle of fish, and it is dogs with these kinds of issues which I and some others are saying need to either be socialised by appropriate training or put to sleep if that is not possible.

The point is that dogs rarely, if ever, "randomly" attack people. You say so yourself in your second paragraph that the dog has bite history - the attacks are not random, they are specific to young children in the dog's home environment, and there may well be other common factors that we don't know about.
The individual children in question may not have done anything themselves to trigger the dog biting, their presence may have been enough if the dog has issues with children, but that doesn't mean there was no cause behind his behaviour.

Nicki wrote: »

Timely article in today's mail online for those who scoff at the idea that dogs ever "terrorise" innocent people and think to say this can happen is being a drama queen

Man gets arm ‘ripped off’ by his two American bulldogs http://dailym.ai/1ud1JD1

An article that shows no reason behind a dog attack, does not mean there was no reason to that dog attack. We don't know the back story here at all - for all we know (not saying it's the case, just saying it's a possibility) the man could have beaten these dogs, he could have gotten inbetween them fighting each other, one or both dogs could have had medical issues, any number of reasons could explain the dogs' behaviour.

Nicki

If the person being bitten has done nothing to trigger the behaviour it doesn't matter in the slightest if there was another cause. The dog is still dangerous and should be destroyed! Can you genuinely not see that any other position is prioritising the dogs interests over the human's?

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

If the person being bitten has done nothing to trigger the behaviour it doesn't matter in the slightest if there was another cause. The dog is still dangerous and should be destroyed! Can you genuinely not see that any other position is prioritising the dogs interests over the human's?

I don't really understand your reasoning here, are you saying that any dog that bites for a potentially unknown reason should be automatically destroyed? That the dog should only be allowed a second chance if the human it bit deliberately provoked it?

Surely a far more sensible approach is to look at each case and each dog individually and work out what was behind the behaviour and have a plan in place to prevent it happening again if at all possible. If that's not possible, then yes, euthanasia should be considered.