Home/Work

I'm a huge, huge dog lover too, and I absolutely agree with you, I've been through a very similar set of circumstances as your story, and we reacted in the same way. It was horrible, but we came to the same conclusion. If we allow it to happen again, and the dog permanently injures or kills someone, it would be our fault. I can live with the scar on my own face, but I'm not willing to let it happen to someone else. Especially a child is even more vulnerable.  

Katie,

As tough off any decision is - we too had to decide that our saint bernard, truly our first baby, was no longer safe with our family.  After several near miss bites, years of training, health issues and finally a bite that actually connected with my cousins arm and luckily only ripped apart his shirt.

The reality is some dogs just are not meant to be with humans, and with so many dogs that need good homes - a dog that is dangerous cannot be sent to the shelter or given to a rescue agency.  That is just passing the buck.

I have done many adult things now in my life but deciding 5 years ago to take this pet to the vet, sit with her while they put him to sleep and gently pet him as he passed was the hardest moment in my life- and yet I have never felt more sure.

1 strike - that is enough.

I sort of, almost agree with you (because I love to be succinct).

May I also say, though, that I think that humans who are cruel to animals should also be put to sleep?

yup baby snatching doggie needs to go!

Agree. And yes Lucy, people who are cruel to animals should be severley punished also.

I'm right there with you.  Especially a part-wolf baby snatching dog!  That's horrible.

Katie, this case and the questions you raise touch on a couple of topics.  One, and this is one that would get me in trouble were I to raise it around certain friends, is the concept of considering pets as "fur babies" or "fur children".  This usually seems to occur in childless households when the pets are treated and accepted as the children they never had. Their status and even self-awareness is elevated to near-human or human levels and they are considered to have the same rights.  That thought fuels a good deal of the doggie defense in this case, in my opinion.  To suggest that a dog or cat, while a beloved pet is still much lover on the status chain than anything human in the house is heresy itself, they are revered that much. I think pets fill spaces in our lives, some more than others, and some way too much. That balance can be unproductive and sometimes harmful.

But here's the other point, and one where I am puzzled with your reasoning.  While I agree totally that any animal that has attacked a child in the house should be gotten rid of (and if it has definite aggressive qualities, might be better to be euthanized), I don't see the logic by feeling the less-aggressive ones can't be functional pets in childless households?  Your reasoning suggests that any pet that's bitten a child is forever a risk to any child that might possibly come near, and how could anyone keep their conscience clear if, for some wild reason, that happened again to another family?  I say to believe that is to believe that any dog could potentially be a biter no matter what their history.  And no dog should ever be kept as a pet, no matter if they've bitten or threatened before.  From the smallest Peke to the biggest Great Dane, every dog is an animal with sharp teeth and buried instincts, and every dog has the potential to protect or attack if threatened sufficiently.  Just because a dog actually did so once, to me, only gives it a slightly increased risk of doing it again.  To condemn those dogs and not ALL dogs isn't logical.

Again, I'm talking about the normally docile dogs that surprise us by threatening or attacking a child.  The part-wolf thing probably shouldn't be allowed to continue. Your German Shepherd, probably the same.  But Pete the Poodle or Bessie the Beagle who succumbed to an unfortunate instinctive move, while removing them from the house, shouldn't necessarily be condemned out of hand just because on the remote chance they might find another kid straying into their new yard at a childless house.  To do so would be to condemn every dog, no matter where they are.

Well said.

Why would anyone disagree.

There should be no mercy for any dog that mauls a child.

Ha! No, Katie, not a veggie. In all seriousness, I do agree with you. I might even personally strangle any animal who ever went after my babies. I do think it's sad when animals are put to death for acting on instinct, but human child trumps all. I wish that people would really stop to consider the breed of dog they bring into any home where children live, play, etc. I love Rhodesian Ridgebacks, but I'd never turn my back on one with my baby in the house. That's why I have a dumb, slobbery, lovable mutt who has never so much as shown a tooth to my children.

I DO believe in very strict punishment (no, not the death penalty) for people who are willfully and maliciously cruel to animals. Today's cat torturer is tomorrow's Jeffrey Dahmer.

The hard part are the borderline animals.  Our oldest is now 2 so she's better with toddlers, but before we had kids she was nervous around them.  They move too fast and are too unpredictable, I figure.

So my neice followed Daisy around the house one day, and I didn't realize what was happening until Daisy leaned against me ("base" in dog speak, it seems) and the neice poked her.  Daisy let out a warning bark in neice's direction, which accomplished her goal in scaring neice away.  (Neice also reported to my step-sister that Daisy tried to bite her, which wasn't really true but I understand that interpretation.)

So at that point we know we have a dog who doesn't like kids.  Do we put her down just in case rather than wait for the worst thing?  I know you can't answer that.  I guess I'm just saying it's not always so clear-cut.

Disclaimer: I'm not a parent. It seems to me that it is in a dog's nature to bite. Dogs are trained not to bite. But a dog who does bite is not necessarily vicious or deranged, but only a dog. A poorly trained dog. It's not the dog's fault that he did bite, and drag and maul. I feel terrible for the child and it's family, but honestly, who thought bringing a baby home to a house with a half-wolf in it was a good idea? If you want to kill the dog for being a dog, why not arrest the parents for negligence while you're at it? My solution would be to remove the dog from the home, give him to a rescue or a household of adults that understand his past, and put the issue to rest.

Sidebar: It's not just dogs that kill babies. Cats can sit on a baby's face and suffocate it, but you don't see anyone trying to kill the cat for sitting down.

I agree, Barry. Any dog can be a biter if not properly trained, socialized and supervised, and putting down every dog who bites someone (and may never do so again - look at some of the rehabilitated dogs from Michael Vick's fighting ring) seems to be punishing them for the owner's lack of proper care. Outright vicious animals are one thing - it's best for them to put them out of their own unhappiness, and obviously it's best for the people around them - but I hesitate to lay down rules that are one size fits all.

Being a responsible pet owner also entails making sure you don't put an animal in a position that they feel threatened enough to bite. Animals have natural instincts leading them to react in certain situations. I'm not sure how I feel about you putting a dog to sleep for snapping at a child that was not being respectful of its space. A dog should NEVER be tampered with while eating or drinking.  It is almost certain a dog will react to those natural instincts in such a situation. Perhaps the dog gave other warning signals warranting the belief it would truly bite a child, but putting an animal down strictly for snapping when its "life source" (food and water) are being tampered with seems to be irresponsible pet ownership.

I do think the animal that sought out the baby should be put to sleep.  It appears from the article that it "hunted" the child.  Natural instincts of protection are expected from animals, natural instincts to hunt humans are not.

I completely agree, and worry about how one of mine will react once I have my baby.. She's skittish and kinda cranky. But the baby will always win. And we too have had to put down a dog due to violence. It was a terrible thing to do. In this case, it started attacking other pets and bit my mother while we were trying to seperate them. The vet said that there was nothing we could do and that it would be dangerous to place them in another home. I agree with your opinion whole heartedly, and hope that you never have that problem personally again.

I totally understand where you're coming from Katie, but it seems to me that the difference in the statistical probability of a normally docile dog that has bitten a child being a danger to an extended community while living in a childless home, and a normally docile dog that has not bitten a child being a danger to an extended community while living in a childless home is negligible.

If there any statistics to refute this I'd be glad to accede, but knowing the nature of animals it seems the chances are still about even for either type of dog.

I guess I'm saying is a normally docile breed of dog that hasn't bitten anyone yet is one that just hadn't had the right circumstances or opportunity.  And to condemn one that has done so is to condemn them all.

I too have had instances where a dog, mine or another person's, has acted on instinct and in all cases it was the uninformed human that was at fault. It is inhuman to punish someone for other person’s crimes, and it is inhuman to punish a dog for something that is the fault of the human. It is true that most humans are uneducated in the dog law, especially young people. If we are to coexist with animals, we should educate ourselves, and our children.

Fascinating post - I agree 100% with the original poster.  re: a lot of the comments, there is absolutely a difference between a vicious bite and a bark to tell a kid to back off or just the natural tendency of a dog to bite with no evidence for  particular dog.  There's also a difference between a dogs natural inclination to put things in their mouth - including hands - and a bite.  

What we're struggling with is our chihuahua - we adopted him from a shelter, and it took several years, but a particular issue emerged over time.  We've had him six years, and he's nipped at the ankles of 5 people over that time, with it significantly escalating as he gets older.  He's never broken skin, and it is always with adults, and 90% of the time men.  But we're expecting our first son, and aside the from the immense hassle of locking him up whenever we have guests (because it's not worth the risk - we will actually pay to put him in a kennel when we have guests in town for the baby shower) my husband worries he might bite someone holding the baby, thus endangering the baby indirectly.  He has tendency to get protective over us and the other dogs (we have three total) and is very fond of children, so we assume the issue will come up with the kid.  We got very close to putting him down about six months ago, but the vet would not do it because he doesn't break skin.  But this is not playful nipping, he is trying to injure (again, I can tell the difference), and it's only because he's small enough, and we're now aware enough of the issue, to kick him away when he goes for someone (yes, I do kick him - not hard enough to hurt, but I shove him with my foot reasonably hard.  It's not hurting him, but it (sort of) communicates "stop it").  It's impossible to train out of him because there is no rhyme or reason to who he goes for.  We could walk around for days, or have a dozen guests come over, and it would the 13th or the 40th guest that sets him off.  We've considered rehoming him, but we feel another abandonment would mess him up more, plus we do feel some responsibility for the fact that we know about this, know it's escalating, and it's completely unpredictable.  Any advice...we're at a total loss...

The part-wolf who mauled a baby needs to be put down.  Period.  And, while I might not have handled the German Shepherd in the way you chose to, Katie, I respect your right to do what you felt was in the best interests of the children in your family.

But, as for what I would do:  It would depend on the type of dog and the type of attack.  A serious injury or the risk of it as the result of unprovoked instinct and the dog should be euthanized.  When the incident is *provoked* (as it inadvertently *was* provoked in your niece's case, Katie) and then I might consider trying to find another home for the dog, in which there are no young children and the owners are fully-informed of the dog's history.

I guess the distinction I see between the two incidents you describe, Katie, is that the first was a half-wild animal who acted on untamed instinct and without provocation; in the second case we are dealing with an elderly dog, known to be gentle and mannerly, who was defending her water supply from an intruder (however innocent the intruder and unintended the provocation).  That is why I think the two cases should be assessed differently.

Just my opinion though.  As I said, I respect the fact that an owner must make a responsible decision that protects his family and satisfies his conscience, and he could legitimately assess the situation differently than I would.  

I think the parents were idiots to leave the newborn with the dog alone. I agree that the dog should be put down.

I don't disagree with you, but to follow up on Lucy's comment and your reply, I do believe that animal abusers should be eligible for the most severe punishment.  I'm anti-death penalty in general, but firmly believe that there should be strict, lengthy and tough penalties for animal abuse.  

@Maggie: I agree with you sentiments, also cannot condemn Kag's, as she is acting under instinct as well.

I do think you might reconsider how you used "inhuman" in your thesis. Unfortunately, our history suggests the converse is true. Murder and selfishness are uniquely human. No?

Blanket judgement is not used for humans and should not be used for canines.  I think anybody can easily look at this case and see it is the extreme and clearly something needs to be done.  But to hand out the same "sentence" to any dog that has a natural reaction to bite...  I believe that is why judges have a spectrum of sentences at their disposal to rehabilitate criminals...punishment= to the crime.

I totally agree about the dogs. I think those two formula adds on the side of your blog need to be put down as well.

I agree with Barry and Mia.  Believe me, if any animal hurt my baby, that animal would never get a chance to get near him again.  However, if my little guy were harassing a dog, could I really blame her for snapping at him?  I might not keep her in my home, but I agree that an otherwise sweet tempered dog deserves a chance to thrive in a child-free household.

When I was about 7, I was attacked by a great dane.  The dog had just had puppies, and not knowing any better, I had headed straight for the puppies without getting to know the mom first and showing her I could be trusted.  I was only saved from serious injury by the dog's owner literally picking me up and holding me over his head until he could calm the dog.  Even still, I was bitten on the hand, the back of the head, the foot, and the butt.  It hurt a lot and was very scary, but even as it was happening, I couldn't really blame the dog.  She was defending her babies from an unknown threat, which is a totally natural reaction.  Was this a dog that should have been around small children?  No, definitely not.  But I'd hate to think she was put down because of the incident (though I honestly have no idea what happened to her).

The mistake people make when keeping dogs as pets is treating them like they are humans. People should not be allowed to keep dogs that are part wolf, as they are wild, and will always revert to their instinctual wolf nature. Then everyone acts surprised and apalled when they attack a human, and the poor animal is put down. It's  not fair to the animal, who is not acting on meanness or premeditated harm, but purely instinct. I get angry at the moronic people who own these wild dogs when they have small children sharing a house or yard.

BTW, what does being a vegetarian have to do with Lucy's opinion?

My mum's dog (and we live with her) has TWICE bitten my toddler.  The first time we went in to emergency at the hospital to check if he needed stiches (the dog narrowly missed his eye and did take a good chunk out of my boy).  The second time was not so bad but both times were a surprise the dog incident where my DS walked up to her when she wasn't expecting it and she reacted.  My mum wouldn't put her down but she doesn't get to be in the same room with my boy unless he's held, not outside on the ground with her outside too, gates locked, etc.  I honestly would prefer that she was put down or rehomed but I don't get to choose.

The tone of your post, and your general attitude when confronted with commenters who disagree with you is really antagonistic and bitter.  I also can't help being disturbed by  how quickly you had your previous dog put to sleep for snapping at your niece. Why not put the dog in a shelter until another home could be found for the dog?

So sad.

what is so weird to me about this story is that it even happened in the first place. How did a baby get to be so far away from anybody on his first day home? I know everybody is different, but I can't let a newborn out of my sight until they are at least a few months old. Its sad that he was all alone, humans are so weird!