Should the law get rid of dangerous dogs?

Remove all ads!

"The dog cannot be on the same level as the children or it will see them as competition and be more aggressive. This is pretty basic stuff."

There are two things wrong with this statement, which will also prove my case.

a) Making rules that both the dogs and children share don't change pack order in any way. It simply lowers the risk of death by pack enforcement.

b) A young child cannot be seen by the dog as above them in the pack, because the pack young are always in the lowest position possible (beneath omega) and can not get out of it until they grow up. They're canine pack term is called juveniles, pretty basic stuff.

During their teen years is when you would need to worry about the odd case of pack violence due to hierarchy confusion, but if your dog is that untrained or your kid is that bad with dog communication you shouldn't have a big dog in the first place. All pack structures can be enforced without violence, you and your family members do it every day if you own a dog. If you have a kid who gets jumped on a lot or mounted by a dog, when's the last time that turned into a violent maul? Not often, and only when you don't respond correctly.

 

The dog is at the bottom, always and it should be made to understand that as soon as the child is born. At most it can challenge the cat or bully the new dog.

Tri, I am sure your dog has all the playfulness of a puppy because that is basically what he is. I wouldn't want a dog that lets other dogs try to bite it and whatnot. I want a dog that either smacks the little terrier to the ground or what is more likely show obeisance to it. Not just standing there. I am sorry, but for me removing the balls is removing the soul. Could be a cultural thing though, it is just not done around here very often. May I ask you a personal question whether his tail is cut or not?

 

But a dog really wouldn't understand that it would be below a newborn, it's unnatural to it, unless it doesn't realize it's a child which can sometimes be even more dangerous. You can make sure it never goes near it, which is what you should do if you have a large dog, but making it submissive to a baby is out of the question. And again, only the person being questioned about their status can give the dog the proper signals about it's place in the pack, if you have a child too young to respond to commands about how to treat the dog it shouldn't be around it or only under heavy supervision.

 

From my admittedly limited experience regarding dogs and small children, I tend to notice that most dogs are extremely protective of them. I recall instances of larger dogs defending children of the family even in playful situations. For example, when I was a teenager, I had a niece who was a small child. Her family had two dogs. When I was over their house the one day, the neighbor from across the street came over, and playfully picked up my niece but made a growling sound as he did it, and the dog went for the guy. (He put her down, and the dog immediately backed off). Also, my wife recalls a story where her dog when she was little did the same thing in a very similar situation.

There are certainly instances of dogs being aggressive towards the children of the house, but it seems to me that the most common attribute is to be protective of them.

 

Children 5-9 are more likely to be bitten than any other age group and more like to severely injured than any other age group (except the very young -- for small children a dog bite has the same relative force as a bear attacking an adult). The 5-9 age bracket accounts for nearly half of all dog bites. According to the American Pediatric Society:

"Throughout evolution, dogs have lived in packs with a specific order of dominance. In view of this rigorous hierarchal system in a pack, dogs may regard newborns as well as toddlers as subordinate. Thus, they may feel the need to defend their own position in the pack against this intruder, especially if a new child enters the family while the dog is already an integrated member."

Kinda blows holes in your theory, doesn't it? As a pet owner a person needs to ensure the dog does not feel the children are subordinate.

 

I'm aware of that age range for bites, but there's no evidence that this is because of pack confusion, and like I have mentioned, you can't make a dog who recognizes a child as a child become subordinate to it. They have a specific place in the pack that can't be changed until they grow.

 

Yes as the alpha couple's cubs which are way above the bullied whipping boy which is the rightful place of the family dog.

 

joacqin, that may be how you treat pets but my pets are not "bullied whipping boy"s.

dog, you don't seem to understand there are ways to ensure your dog looks up to the children and does not see them as competition. I do not allow my kids to "pretend" they are the dog at the table, at her food, or beg next to her. My children feed my dog, they give her treats when appropriate and snacks when they're eating. She doesn't get to move the kids out of the way when going through a door, she has to wait for them. The kids help with the walks and putting the leash on her. All of these things show they are not part of "her pack" but are instead providers for her.

Some breeds will not accept this. Those breeds are not appropriate for houses which have small children. Dogs like labs and Australian Shepherds are recommended for small children because they accept these boundries much quicker than dogs like German Shepherds (and the two breeds enjoy the attention children give which can be excessive to other breeds). Many dogs, such as Dobermans, are "one person" dogs and do not accept multiple masters. Many herding dogs actually control children (and elderly) as they would livestock.

Another very important aspect is the dog must be introduced to the child appropriately. The dog must get used to the way a child approaches it -- even a two year old is at eye level with the dog and no longer a "juvenile" in the dog's mind. Dogs don't get in each other's faces except to fight and dogs don't show teeth except to prepare to fight. Children (and adults) do both of these things and dog must be slowly shown the children are not a threat.

The key is to understand the breed of dog you have and make appropriate choices. That includes not choosing inappropriate breeds for families. I don't know who you got your information from about children and dogs but perhaps you look at the AKC and American Pediatric Society.

 

That was my rough way of illustrating that the dog is the lowest member of the pack, in the wild it would be as I described in a pack of humans it is a pretty sweet spot as long as you know your place.

 

For what it's worth, here's the aggregate of what I've learned from experienced dog owners. (They've trained them and/or dealt with them 'professionally.')

1. Dogs do sometimes kill small children (particularly infants).
2. A lone dog in a human family must understand that it's the absolute lowest ranking member of the 'pack.'
3. If the dog doesn't understand that or challenges that, it must be made abundantly clear to it. (I'm not sure exactly how, but I'm quite sure violence is not out of the question. You can't reason with a dog.*)
4. If the dog resists this standing, it must be removed from the environment, because it becomes a signifcant potential threat. e.g., no dog who thinks it can compete for standing, after instruction to the contrary, can be tolerated.
5. A dog must never be trusted implicitly with small children. There can be no exceptions to this rule, no matter how 'nice' you believe your dog to be, because it is an animal and animals cannot be trusted implicitly, period.
6. Any dog with the potential to harm any human must never be trusted implicitly with that human. e.g., both your poodle and your pitbull can kill a baby, so neither can be trusted with it. Your poodle can't kill your 16 year old, so no worries there, but the pitbull can, so it can't be trusted implicitly with your 16 year old. (This means the 16 year old doesn't go to sleep alone in the pitbull's presence, etc.) It's sort of a quasi force-continuum type thing.

Despite the scary sounding nature of all the above, dogs can make fine companions, and when managed effectively they should present little danger to yourself, your family, or the public.

*To elaborate on this a bit further, consider a hypothetical: I'm not a dog owner, but I hang around them occasionally. (In fact, right now there's a nice black lab nosing around me in a friendly fashion - good dog. ) If, however, in my presence I observed this dog threaten or challenge a child, or pretty much anyone else who wasn't an enemy, and certainly myself, it would in very short order get the worst of a middlingly serious scuffle between me and it.

If this sounds abusive, I believe it's quite the contrary. I'm providing immediate negative reinforcement, and I actually have hope for the dog and wish to 'rehabilitate' it. If I didn't, it would either simply be removed from the environment (welcome to the pound) or killed, if it was presenting a significant immediate danger.

If that sounds harsh, I'm sorry, but I just won't coddle a dog. (I won't put its welfare or frame of mind or happiness above mine or anyone else's. If the dog has to get the short end of the stick because of that, too bad. It's a dog.) Coddling an animal can be a dangerous game.

This is largely why I'm not a dog owner. I see the potential for conflict that shouldn't have to result in disadvantages to the dog just because I felt like it would be neat to have one waiting at home every day to play with.

 

Yes, that's how I think kids should interact with the dog to insure it understands its place compared to the child.

Not true. When dogs play, they claw and bite (playfully, not to hurt) their faces all the time. Same thing with teeth. I found this on wikipedia :

My dog does this. Whenever I get home or get up in the morning, he growls and shows his teeth. All the while, his tail is wagging like crazy and when he reaches me, he tries to lick me like their's no tomorrow. People often call that "smiling", because in many respect, it's close to the human reaction.

Yes, aggression and teeth baring *can* be a sign of a forthcoming attack. However, there are other signs that need to be combined : lips covering the teeth, position of ears, the pitch of the growl, the body posture, the tail, the eyes, etc.

 

I am no expert, but what Gaear says is eminently reasonable. One thing I notice about many Western pet owners is that they insist on anthropomorphizing the pets. Comments like "Pets are people too" or "he's a member of the family" or whatever are cute and make for great literature, but they fail to address one very important fact: THESE ARE ANIMALS, NOT PEOPLE! They see the world differently than we do, and they do not have cognitive abilities or moral concerns like we do. We do them a disservice and delude ourselves when we think otherwise.

As for banning breeds, I reiterate that such is far too drastic an action. Regulate them, require social training fir owners, and require owners to perform their due diligence in restraining the animal for the safety of the public. That's what needs to be done.

And as for feral or stray, unmarked dogs (or any animal, for that matter) they should be put down if they come near urban areas and start threatening housepets or people.

 

Well, I would not include "he's a member of the family". Your dog *is* a member of your family, or "pack", if you will. Only he's at the bottom.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest and general sentiment of your post...

My favorites are "Would you treat your child like you treat your dog?" and "It's inhumane to treat a dog this way". Yeah it's inhumane...'cause you know... THEY ARE NOT HUMAN! "Cruel treatment" should always be used instead of "inhumane treatment". Then, we understand each other...

 

Semantics -- play is really unimportant in this discussion. A dog does not go up to unknown dog and bare its teeth. A child will. Also, whether a dog is attacking or just play fighting is really immaterial when it involves the face of a two year old.

A "smile" on a dog is a very rare exception to the rule. We've all seen it but I know of no resposible adult who would assume a strange dog is just "smiling" at them.

I like the one you put up: "Would you treat your child like you treat your dog?"

My answer is no. I don't give my kids hard food that could break their teeth. My kids sleep in a bed and not on a pillow. I do not leave my kids alone for hours at a time. And I don't allow my kids to stick their heads out the window of my truck (or the bed of my truck) with their lips and tongues flapping in the breeze.

 

To me, inhumane does not mean treating an organism as if it is not human. It means that the "human" who is doing the treating is acting in a manner that does not reflect well on him/her. In other words, "a decent human being would not treat any living creature in such a horrid fashion."

 

Decent point about the two year old thing, however even my 9 year old little brother is still treated as an infant by my sisters pitbull, so I guess it depends on the dog. But I mentioned in my last post before last that I was speaking about children too young to follow your commands. Your points are mostly right here though. I actually get most of my info from studies on wolf behaviour, a subject and an animal i'm deeply interested in. Other stuff I got from research on the fly, so I don't pretend to be an expert in this field.