Preparing to be around a Dingo/pitbull - Page 5

[laila2]

Originally Posted by Sheal

Uh...hardly the case that the dog thinks it's above the child (at least not in every case, we have no indicators of this behavior from the dog). In fact, this is a situation where the dog perceives the child as being pushy by not backing out of the dog's space.

I have a husky\wolf hybrid. He's never been nasty with my kids, my kids are rough with him, not even a warning from him towards them. That dingo stole my baby is a generalization and stereotype. It's not the breed, all dogs have this behavior and instinct.

I agree with all of Catubodua's recommendations. It's about how we act around the dog (including our children) and not the other way around. Why would any one isolate the dog within it's own territory? This is punishing the dog for a perceived possible outcome that probably wouldn't happen. What exactly led up to the warning toward the child? We weren't given that information in full details. A lap dog can be as vicious an attacker as a hybrid or larger breed of dog. It's not the breed at all. The two individuals that would suffer most are the victim and the dog - all for what comes naturally to a dog as instinct. I don't think it's very fair to label the dog a problem dog for what comes naturally.

http://flyingdogpress.com/sayhi.html

It's a good read and well worth it to understanding why what happened at thansgiving did happen and why it may happen.

I agree that it is not fair to label the dog for acting naturally.

What led up to the snap, that did not touch, is my son following it aroung and trying to pet it near the tail. It was Thanksgiving in a crowded room. We left shortly after.

We are not staying at DB's house. I think a muzzle is a good idea, and trying to convince him to keep the dog in the bedroom while we are there.

I will also send this thread to him to give him insight to more moms, letting him know I am not alone.

I would like to say more, but am so busy.

Thanks for all the input.

[Catubodua]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

Well, lets say I tell my child to never talk to strangers, and I never never leave my child alone, but a stranger breaks into my home (or breaks into my sisters home while we are visiting) and abducts my child, is that my responsibity? A living thing with free will (the dog) is different than an inanimate object.

The difference is choice – you aren’t choosing to let the stranger break into your home or your sister’s home. The OP is making a choice.

The points I was trying to make with the examples of the hot stove, running into traffic, etc, is they are all dangerous situations – and I would bet a lot of money that all of you are hyper vigilant about keeping your children out of those situations with no exceptions. So why aren’t you willing to apply the same thought process to this dangerous situation? I understand that the oven can’t move toward a child and a dog can but in the OP the dog wasn’t moving toward the child, it was trying to avoid him.

Originally Posted by thismama

It's coz you are not listening to people who are posting information that is outside your experience, IMO. You simply cannot be on guard the whole time, its impossible. And no, 2.5 year olds cannot be trusted to obey rules consistently. I would not go visit my brother if his front door opened directly onto a busy street and he refused to keep it closed. Same thing with a dingo cross that has already snapped at the child. That's dangerous.

Originally Posted by StephandOwen

Ummm... how many 2.5 year olds have you been around? Because I have a 5 year old who still can't follow simple directions a lot of times. He certaintly couldn't at 2.5. (He does have autism though so not a typical child). HOWEVER, I also work at a daycare. I've been doing childcare for 6+ years. No 2.5 year old that I've known has been able to follow a simple rule with 100% accuracy.

Both of you are making huge assumptions about me, my family life and my experiences with children simply because I haven’t had a child of my own. If the sole judge of whether someone can respond to these sorts of threads is that they personally have to have given birth, then feel free to ignore me.



For the OP – I hope you and your brother can come to an arrangement that works well for all and I hope showing him this thread helps clarify things for him.

[mytwogirls]

I think what Catubodua is trying to say is the facts are this:
1. The dog snapped at the child
2. The brother is UNWILLING to restrain the dog
So if she IS going to visit the brother her ONLY choice in the matter is to WATCH THE CHILD LIKE A HAWK. Putting the dog away is NOT an option in this scenario (because the brother already stated it is not an option.) Some have SUGGESTED he do that (which I am all for) BUT he DOES NOT do that, the only option she has should she choose to go visit, is to WATCH the child because she KNOWS the dog has snapped once, so it is partly her responsibility as a mother to watch her child at all times.

Yes, I do hope the owner meets her in the middle and will restrain the dog away from the child, but he has already said no, these are the facts and that is her choice. That is what Catubodua is trying to say, I believe.

[flowers]

Originally Posted by mytwogirls

I think what Catubodua is trying to say is the facts are this:
1. The dog snapped at the child
2. The brother is UNWILLING to restrain the dog
So if she IS going to visit the brother her ONLY choice in the matter is to WATCH THE CHILD LIKE A HAWK. Putting the dog away is NOT an option in this scenario (because the brother already stated it is not an option.) Some have SUGGESTED he do that (which I am all for) BUT he DOES NOT do that, the only option she has should she choose to go visit, is to WATCH the child because she KNOWS the dog has snapped once, so it is partly her responsibility as a mother to watch her child at all times.

Yes, I do hope the owner meets her in the middle and will restrain the dog away from the child, but he has already said no, these are the facts and that is her choice. That is what Catubodua is trying to say, I believe.

Right. I believe what the other posters are trying to say is that, in their opinion, that even with watching the child (and dog) like a hawk it is not safe enough unless he is willing to compromise.

[mytwogirls]

Originally Posted by flowers

Right. I believe what the other posters are trying to say is that, in their opinion, that even with watching the child (and dog) like a hawk it is not safe enough unless he is willing to compromise.

Yep, but what Catubodua is saying IF the mom DOES choose go anyway, that is her ONLY option because the owner will not put the dog away. (Catubodua I hope I am getting this right.....)

[flowers]

Originally Posted by mytwogirls

Yep, but what Catubodua is saying IF the mom DOES choose go anyway, that is her ONLY option because the owner will not put the dog away. (Catubodua I hope I am getting this right.....)

ita- that would be the only option.

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by mytwogirls

I think what Catubodua is trying to say is the facts are this:
1. The dog snapped at the child
2. The brother is UNWILLING to restrain the dog
So if she IS going to visit the brother her ONLY choice in the matter is to WATCH THE CHILD LIKE A HAWK. Putting the dog away is NOT an option in this scenario (because the brother already stated it is not an option.) Some have SUGGESTED he do that (which I am all for) BUT he DOES NOT do that, the only option she has should she choose to go visit, is to WATCH the child because she KNOWS the dog has snapped once, so it is partly her responsibility as a mother to watch her child at all times.

Yes, I do hope the owner meets her in the middle and will restrain the dog away from the child, but he has already said no, these are the facts and that is her choice. That is what Catubodua is trying to say, I believe.

the problem is that catuba is implying that mothers should be able to firce 2yo to follow rules without fail. she does not see how unrealistic that is. and if something were to happen between the dog and the child, catuba would place most, if not all, the blame on the child and its mother, whereas, I and other posters, believe the dog owner would be just as much, if not more, at fault.

[thismama]

Yep. It's the ideas that 2.5 year olds can consistently follow rules, and that it is a doable thing to spend 24/7 monitoring the child and dog together.

[GirlBoyGirlBoy]

I think I just wouldn't go....It is tiring enough following the toddlers around to keep them safe, but to worry about the whereabouts of the dog as well and not be able to participate in a conversation or socialize at all would take all the fun out of a visit. Been there, done that. 18 months to 3 is kind of sucky anyway as far as restaurants and visits if you ask me!

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

the problem is that catuba is implying that mothers should be able to firce 2yo to follow rules without fail. she does not see how unrealistic that is. and if something were to happen between the dog and the child, catuba would place most, if not all, the blame on the child and its mother, whereas, I and other posters, believe the dog owner would be just as much, if not more, at fault.

was naking before - sorry abouthorendous typing. If the dog owner can't control his dog - he shouldn't allow it to be around humans - even if that means not having house guests. he should not be able to say, sure come over, but enter at your own risk. and i really do believe that if the dog attacked the child, the owner (of the dog) would be the one legally responsible for any medical costs, etc.

[Maggirayne]

Originally Posted by AkRotts

In August we went and stayed with my mil for 2 weeks. She has an older Jack Russel Terrier, who does NOT like kids. I never had to ask her to put him up. I ALWAYS knew where he was and was ALWAYS right there to intervene when the babies tried to interact with him. It wasn't easy keeping three VERY active dog loving toddlers away from a dog who didn't like them, but we did it. I have to admit, it was exhausting, but we made it work. What really helped was the fact that my fil took the dog everywhere with him. When the babies would start to focus on the dog too much, my fil would put him outside for a while, which gave him a little break and gave us time to get the babies focused on something else.

I just wanted to point out that your FIL was considerate of you and the dog. He was acting as a responsible dog owner and host should.

Originally Posted by mytwogirls

Yes but she does not own the dog, so therefore I don't think the responsibility should rest 100 percent on her. That is not fair at all. I guess it just boils down to what your opinion is of the situation I guess. I think personally the dog should be put away for both the safety of the dog and child. But, that is just me, and I know how 2.5 year old children can be, I live with one 24/7, and it is just not possible for some children to control their impulses.

The dog owner is responsible for the dog. Period. If he refuses to put the dog in a safe room for the dog's sake, then he's not being kind to his dog.

Originally Posted by LizaBear

The dog owner in the OP is being careless. Why would he allow his dog to be put into the way of harm (and a rambunctious 2.5-yr old is quite able to inflict harm on a dog), and not be willing to protect this treasured pet ?

Why invite a family with a young child over if he isn't willing to protect his pet?

It baffles me - both as a parent (my kids are 2, 4, and 6 yrs old), and as a dog owner.

ITA!!!

Thank you for this thread. We are going to visit my brother for Christmas, and I need find out what's happening with his two dogs, a puppy who was abused possibly and a dog who used to belong to an older lady. The puppy (at 9-12 mos) barked at me when I quit petting/playing with him and picked up my then 2 mo daughter. She's 19 mos now.

[lovingmommyhood]

Originally Posted by thismama

Yep. It's the ideas that 2.5 year olds can consistently follow rules, and that it is a doable thing to spend 24/7 monitoring the child and dog together.