Another child dog-attack victim

[Kanga]

I know the dog was chained and the kid approached it (read the article though- what a darling of a kid!) but the council had warned the owners about the dog's behaviour. Let's hope this dog owner is banned for life from having future dogs. Not likely though is it ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10658889

[Sun777]

Horrendous!! I agree with you Kanga, in fact this causes trouble to people having trained pets. I hope the boy is is treated at complete expense of the dog owner, if the dog is aggressive it needs to be leashed at all times and kept close to the owner.

[JandM]

Bless his heart, and I hope he makes a good recovery.

But... it WAS restrained, and unfortunately the boy went to it, otherwise he wouldn't have been within its reach. It's hard not to blame somebody when a child is suffering, but if the dog had only frightened people by rushing at them before (as it says in the article), and now the owners were keeping it in, it seems what they'd done was reasonable, short of being able to foresee something it hadn't done before.

[Kanga]

It was chained at the time of the attack but I'm guessing not secured enough. Surely a dog that the council have warned the owners about should have been inaccessible to a kid?

I know it's hard but some people are rubbish with dogs. I have some dear friends in NZ who got an SPCA dog and though they are wonderful people they never really put the time into the dog and it lived outside and was generally a pain. Then it rushed at some kids in a snappy way and the family took the decision to have the dog put down. They're not getting another dog because they accept they are crap with dogs.

I think there should be legislation in place to have dogs that are frequently aggressive put down and owners investigated BEFORE the dog bites. You could have a range of penalties from fines to education programmes to life long bans. Also makes me sad that SPCAs are full of unwanted dogs and yet more and more dogs are bred.

[Kanga]

Bless his heart, and I hope he makes a good recovery.

But... it WAS restrained, and unfortunately the boy went to it, otherwise he wouldn't have been within its reach. It's hard not to blame somebody when a child is suffering, but if the dog had only frightened people by rushing at them before (as it says in the article), and now the owners were keeping it in, it seems what they'd done was reasonable, short of being able to foresee something it hadn't done before.

It was restrained but a kid could get to it and also it was "known as aggressive" (unsure whether the article is referring to its breed or that the council has received complaints or noted the dog was aggressive on inspection) and had been rushing at people, which is not the same as bounding up to people with enthusiasm. It's quite intimidating when a dog rushes you and is a good sign that it has dominance issues.

There was a fabulous article in North and South a couple of months back interviewing a dog warden in Auckland- shame there's not a way of linking online to it.

[norma]

IMHO NZ's dog control laws lack teeth (excuse the pun). There was a programme on TV on Monday (Rapid Response) that reported a story of a woman and her dog attacked by two pitbulls in a park. The woman out with the pitbulls couldn't hold them when they decided to attack. She told the police at the scene that they'd shown this type of behaviour before. Despite this information and the fact they they'd just attacked they weren't taken off her or put down because 'she didn't want them to be'.

[Tia Maria]

IMHO NZ's dog control laws lack teeth (excuse the pun). There was a programme on TV on Monday (Rapid Response) that reported a story of a woman and her dog attacked by two pitbulls in a park. The woman out with the pitbulls couldn't hold them when they decided to attack. She told the police at the scene that they'd shown this type of behaviour before. Despite this information and the fact they they'd just attacked they weren't taken off her or put down because 'she didn't want them to be'.

I caught a bit of that I just assumed they'd be taken away from her!

They had physically dragged her down the hill and from what I could see, she wasn't exactly a petite lady either. Then attacked another small dog, which frankly didn't stand a chance and bit the man who had managed to pull them off - and they didn't do anything?!!

Even when the paramedics were there she could barely control them. I don't really understand why people have pitbulls, let alone two - unless it is to intimidate and frighten others.

Cheers

Tia

[Kiwi Mac]

The parents are responsible for this event, not the dog owner!

The dog was clearly restrained and under control confined in a garage.

Parents have a duty to control their children in order to prevent them from coming to harm in potentially dangerous situations. Sadly an aspect of parenting honoured more in the breach than the observance in many cases these days.

[Tia Maria]

The parents are responsible for this event, not the dog owner!

The dog was clearly restrained and under control confined in a garage.

Parents have a duty to control their children in order to prevent them from coming to harm in potentially dangerous situations. Sadly an aspect of parenting honoured more in the breach than the observance in many cases these days.

It's a tricky one, I agree children should be taught to not approach strange dogs, however, in practice a child doesn't always do as it is asked, they just don't have the same understanding of danger and consequences as adults.

I think the question should be whether people should be allowed to keep dangerous animals? And if so what measures should they be required to take to make sure others don't come in contact with them? The reality is, that although this dog was chained, it was still clearly accessible.

It's hard to know whether the owners of the dog had forbidden the child to go outside, or warned him that the dog was aggressive - my guess is they didn't. The parents may have had no reason to believe their child couldn't move freely around the house and garden. A simple 'don't go in the garage, our dog is tied up out there and it bites', with an additional locking doors if younger children were invited, would have been good.

Yes, there is a responsibility on the parents to educate their children about dogs but the main responsibility is on the dog owner to be in 'control' of their dog at all times, and by the control I mean the animal should not be able to bite or injure others. This resposibility increases 10 times if you've been told your dog is aggressive.

I still don't understand why people are allowed to own such aggressive breeds. There are plenty of breeds who aren't known as biters, or when they do bite, don't do as much damage.

Cheers

Tia

[Kiwi Mac]

I think it is more a question of control of the child, not merely bringing it up not approach unknown dogs.

The parents should have had eyes on the child at all times because THEY should have been aware of the dog.