My son was attacked by Amstaff - Page 2

[SevenVeils]

Originally Posted by MamaKalena

When the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Denver pit bull ban, the high court set aside characteristics that pit bulls displayed when they attack that differ from other breeds. One of them was their bite:

"[pit bulls] inflict more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks."

I am well aware of that particular quote. Just because a judge says something does not mean that it is true. That is an opinion. All dogs tend to hold on and shake. That's how dogs attack. How do you suppose two Shih Tzus (tiny little dogs) inflicted so much damage on a baby in three seconds? By hanging on and shaking, not by a communicative nip or whatever.

A Pit Bull bite is potentially more serious than a bite from another breed. They do have more muscle development in the areas of the jaws and skull. But they do not have locking jaws. And they are not fearsome monsters. They are dogs.

Had this happened to your son but the dog were a beagle or a poodle, would you feel differently just because it was a different type of dog? Or, more to the point, say a Springer Spaniel, a dog large enough to bite hard enough to do the damage that you describe. Or a Golden Retriever.

My son was repeatedly bitten, over the last year, by a Shih Tzu x Rat Terrier. Maybe 20 lbs. But it hurt and was traumatic anyway. Even though it didn't make the newspaper.

[Lisa85]

Originally Posted by MamaKalena

So are you saying that my son provoked the dog simply by riding his bike past this dog? I can understand if my son wandered into the dog's yard. But this was in a public place. We were simply going to pick up some children's books, like we do every week. That dog had no business being at the library unattended, especially tied to a bike rack.

You're right, the dog had no business being tied to the bike rack like that. I think we can all agree on that.

Your son either provoked him or threatened him (unintentionally, I'm sure but threatened none the less). A dog doesn't "get" that the library is public. If the dog is tied there on a regular basis, he's probably used to people avoiding him, especially being the breed that he is. Other people do not go in his space, and if he is there frequently, that in his mind = his territory. The dog could have peed there before you got there and that also = his territory in a dog's mind. Kid riding a bike, likely faster than most people were walking by, then he keeps getting closer, dog realizes he has nowhere to go - he's tied after all, so he protects himself and/or his territory.

Now, had it been a squirrel that ran or even walked past the dog, and the dog nabbed it, would you be surprised? Probably not. Dogs are predators. Things less powerful than them are prey.

Dogs don't bite for the fun of it, there's always a reason.

When the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Denver pit bull ban, the high court set aside characteristics that pit bulls displayed when they attack that differ from other breeds. One of them was their bite:

"[pit bulls] inflict more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks."

According to a well-publicized CDC report, between the years of 1979 to 1998 pit bulls and rottweilers made up 60% of attacks that ended in death.1 DogsBite.org reports that in 2007, this same combination inflicted 71%.

Right, but no where there does it say that they have locking jaws. Dogs (all dogs) and sharks bite much the same way. They bite, then shake and tug. Since you say you know dogs, I'm sure you've seen all types of dogs grab a toy, then shake it and tug on it. Rotties and pit bulls happen to be the most powerful of dogs. They're not any more mean-natured than a toy poodle that attacks. That toy poodle just isn't as strong.

I'm sorry your son was bit and of course it wasn't his fault, but it was not the dogs fault either. I would explain to your son why the dog bit and that of course he didn't deserve it, but there are things he can do to make dogs more at ease. Hopefully that will make him feel more in control of situations where dogs are present. Teach him dogs body language and what to watch for. Give him lots of exposure to dogs, first ones in pictures or stuffed animals, then real ones at a great distance. Once he's comfortable with that, see if a friend with a very tolerant, laid back dog would be willing to have a playdate with your son. Start out just in the same room and don't push him to pet or even acknowledge the dog in anyway. Maybe he'll get close to him, and maybe he won't and that's ok. Just keep working in baby steps.

[Fuamami]

Call a lawyer!

I won't get into the breed issue, but it is very dangerous to tie any dog in a public place, as I learned the hard way.

I also disagree that it was a "hunting" bite, but most likely a defensive bite. Not because your son was attacking the dog, but because the dog was most likely extremely nervous because he was TIED in a place where there were strangers and vehicles of various sorts passing by. This is nerve-wracking for a dog, to know he has no defense, no shelter, and no way to escape. Very, very dangerous thing to do because it leaves the dog only one option, which is to attack.

And if you truly want the owner to bear more responsibility, you should sue him.

[runes]

OP, I am so sorry that this happened to your son. As a fellow mama to a 3 year old (a DD in our case), your story is so frightening, and it is a reminder of why I feel so uncomfortable taking our daughter to our neighborhood park, which is about 2 minutes away by foot, and instead choose to drive her to parks that are farther away, but safer. Our park (which has a playground area for kids to play, as well as a large field area for sports), has been completely co-opted as an unofficial dog run by our neighborhood dog owners. There are off-leash dogs there at all hours of the day. It is not an off-leash park. I don't even take my own dog there anymore (after an incident with another dog in which my dog lost the sight in one eye), and will only take our daughter there in the very off chance that no dogs are there. And if a dog and their owner comes, we leave immediately. My neighbors think I'm off my rocker for not utilizing our local resources, but imo it's only a matter of time before a person or another dog gets hurt there. The police come by every once in a while and issue tickets, but that certainly doesn't deter people from continuing to use this park in this manner. And yes, there is a designated off-leash dog park as well as a seasonal off-leash dog beach within a 10 minute drive of our house, so people are just being inconsiderate and lazy.

Anyways...

The dog in the OP was tied to a BIKE RACK. Thus, there is the implicit understanding that there would be people RIDING BIKES in the general vicinity, since there is also a BIKE TRAIL right there.

The dog owner's decision to tie his dog to a BIKE RACK and leave the dog unsupervised is absolutely indefensible. I cannot believe that there are people here that are defending the owner's actions in any way, and also justifying the dog's behavior as "normal" in light of the fact that he was tied to something that was for the use of bicycles and the fact that children and adults would be zooming around quickly in the vicinity. This dog NEVER should have been where he was, and I think this owner got off easy. Is he paying for your son's medical expenses?

[Lisa85]

I cannot believe that there are people here that are defending the owner's actions in any way, and also justifying the dog's behavior as "normal" in light of the fact that he was tied to something that was for the use of bicycles and the fact that children and adults would be zooming around quickly in the vicinity.

Who defended the owner? Cause I've read and now re read every post and at the least people didn't acknowledge that part and at best said the owner was in the wrong for doing so. Nowhere did I see "the owner had every right to tie his dog up there."

The dogs actions were normal for any canine in his place. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's certainly normal for a dog in his position.

Originally Posted by OakBerry

Not their fault, by any means, the dog should not have been tied up there.

Originally Posted by Ola_

I'm not sure if it will make you feel better, but I agree that it's prey drive. And I definitely put the fault on the owner here - I can't imagine leaving my dog alone in a place I cannot supervise and protect them.

Originally Posted by mesa

Responsible pet owners simply don't leave their pets unattended where anybody and his brother could abuse, poison, steal, or torture them.

Originally Posted by SevenVeils

I agree that the dog should not have been left tied in a public access area like that

Originally Posted by Lisa85

You're right, the dog had no business being tied to the bike rack like that. I think we can all agree on that.

[runes]

I was reacting to posters putting the onus back on the OP's son, for example saying it would have been "easy" to give the dog a wider berth, and giving advice on the correct way of approaching dogs and to "never" approach a tied up dog. Without having been there, how could that judgment be made? It sounds like the boy (who is THREE years old!!!) did not see the dog. Perhaps the dog was behind another object and hidden from view. Perhaps the boy was appropriately paying attention to the trail and was not aware of the dog's presence. It is clear from the OP's description that the dog suddenly lunged out and bit her son, and that her son was not deliberately approaching the dog.

[armychicmkm]

I have a zero tolerance policy for a dog who bites. I don't give a rat's a$$ what breed it is.

Yes, the attack was probably "provoked" in the dog's eyes. Chances are this isn't a vicious dog. I prefer to not take the chance. Many of the PPs here will disagree with that and have their own personal experiences to backup their opinions.

I think a good option would be a civil suit. You want to stop this from happening to someone else. Having court-ordered training and requiring the dog to be muzzled in public are good ways for you to help ensure that.

*fingers crossed* that the dog never bites again and that your son's fears ease.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

Is he paying for your son's medical expenses?

As somebody who's been bitten by a dog, I had this concern, as well. The dog owner didn't get nearly enough of a penalty for what happened, and this is the least that he could do, at least in principle.

[Lisa85]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

I was reacting to posters putting the onus back on the OP's son, for example saying it would have been "easy" to give the dog a wider berth, and giving advice on the correct way of approaching dogs and to "never" approach a tied up dog. Without having been there, how could that judgment be made? It sounds like the boy (who is THREE years old!!!) did not see the dog. Perhaps the dog was behind another object and hidden from view. Perhaps the boy was appropriately paying attention to the trail and was not aware of the dog's presence. It is clear from the OP's description that the dog suddenly lunged out and bit her son, and that her son was not deliberately approaching the dog.

Perhaps he was hidden from view. Perhaps he wasn't. Of course he's only three and doesn't know those things. My dd is 3 as well and I can see her doing the exact same thing the OP's ds did but we still talk all the time about what to do and not do around animals. I'm not saying it was at all his fault. But there are things you can do to prevent it from happening again.

When you hear a news story on a bear attacking a person, what do they ALWAYS say? Don't get in the way of mother bear and her cubs. Don't startle her. If you see one, turn your back and don't run. Yada yada yada. So why, when there's a dog bite, would you not say here's x, y, and z things you could do next time to hopefully not provoke the dog. No he shouldn't have bit, no he shouldn't have been tied up unattended like that, and yes the owner should pay for all medical bills, the fine, and behavior training for the dog. But to condem other posters for trying to help somebody avoid a dog bite in the future is rather naive. There will always be stupid dog owners and there will always be unattended dogs that are provoked, so you best know how to act around them.

[tallulahma]

if my child attacked your son & caused this much damage, would you want her euthanized?

no. you would maybe sue me for medical bills or something, but not go after my innocent child that was clearly not being looked after appropriately.

im not the biggest fan of dogs, in fact my default reaction is to dislike them all.... but i still cannot fathom KILLING a living thing because it did what it is known to do out of instinct.

[gealach]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

I was reacting to posters putting the onus back on the OP's son, for example saying it would have been "easy" to give the dog a wider berth, and giving advice on the correct way of approaching dogs and to "never" approach a tied up dog.

Actually, I'm the one who said that you should never approach a tied up dog. And, if you'll go back and read, I said don't approach IF you can help it. I also said that her son was probably too young to learn that particular bit of dog info and that it was just a note for the future. I also said that the entire fault was on the owner. I believe almost every poster has said that, of course, the owner was very much in the wrong and many of us have said that the fine was too small. I just assumed that the dog owner was paying any medical bills. (I hope this is the case, OP!)

I liken some of the advice being given to tips on defensive driving. Those tips are not "putting the onus" on a driver if an accident occurs. They are giving the driver tools to use to increase their chances of staying safe on the road. Those tips no way place blame on the driver. But, I do realize everything is more emotionally charged when a precious child is in the mix.

[2xy]

Nobody was defending the owner. They were defending the dog.

Nobody was blaming the child. They were saying that the dog probably felt justified in defending what it considered to be its own space.

Drivers are supposed to stop their cars for pedestrians in crosswalks. Does that mean pedestrians have no responsibility to look both ways before crossing the street? No matter what the law says, the fact remains that you can only control your own behavior.

The best thing to do is to avoid strange dogs, whether they're loose or tied. All dogs have instincts to bite. Some are just more aggressive and some are stronger.

[macheetah]

If one truly believes that the dog was "just being a dog" then by that rationale people should not own dogs as pets/or have them in public any more than you would a tiger or a bear.

I don't believe for one minute a dog biting a child passing by is "prey drive." It is bad nerves, a badly bred, nasty and yes, dangerous dog. Regardless of breed. I'm not going to weigh on on what the OP's options are legally because I have no idea, but I do find it scary that some are saying this is normal dog behavior.

I participate in the sport of Schutzhund and no dog gets to even try for a bitework ("protection") title until it first passes the BH, which is a temperament test. Among other things, it tests the dog for calmness and lack of aggression upon bikes riding by, other people milling about it and other distractions. It is pass or fail and no dog passes who shows any sign of aggression or fear.

And I have seen, and own, the type of dog who is bursting out his seams with off-the-chart prey drive - it is highly prized in the working dog - and not a single one would ever do what the OP described. Even defensive drive, sometimes brought out in bitework, would not cause a dog to randomly attack a passing child.


OP, I'm sorry about your son - my only advice there would be to find a way to slowly introduce him to nice, safe dogs and teach him that not all dogs are scary.

[peainthepod]

As a dog owner, I would never leave my dog tied in a public place for this very reason. Not because I think he would attack a child, since he's extremely well socialized, but because dogs should never be unsupervised around the general public. Ever.

And if I HAD been so foolish as to leave him in a public area frequented by children and passing bicyclists, and he lost his mind and forgot his training and bit a child, I would not only offer a heartfelt apology and pay all associated medical expenses, including therapy for the child to overcome a possible dog phobia, but would seriously consider euthanizing my dog. My dog is like one of my children, but if I couldn't trust the dog not to attack others, I would put it down without hesitation. That is simply responsible dog ownership.

I'm so sorry your little boy had to endure such a painful and terrifying attack, OP, and I think you should definitely sue the dog owner and, if possible, see about pursuing a judgment, whether monetary or punitive. I don't think you're overreacting at all and frankly, I'm pretty shocked by some of the responses in this thread.

[oneKnight]

Originally Posted by macheetah

...I participate in the sport of Schutzhund and no dog gets to even try for a bitework ("protection") title until it first passes the BH, which is a temperament test. Among other things, it tests the dog for calmness and lack of aggression upon bikes riding by, other people milling about it and other distractions. It is pass or fail and no dog passes who shows any sign of aggression or fear.

And I have seen, and own, the type of dog who is bursting out his seams with off-the-chart prey drive - it is highly prized in the working dog - and not a single one would ever do what the OP described. Even defensive drive, sometimes brought out in bitework, would not cause a dog to randomly attack a passing child...

Just curious, but in the "tests" isn't the dog's pack leader there with him?
Dogs left to themselves make much different choices than dogs who are under the control of their leader.

[nannymom]

Originally Posted by tallulahma

if my child attacked your son & caused this much damage, would you want her euthanized?

no. you would maybe sue me for medical bills or something, but not go after my innocent child that was clearly not being looked after appropriately.

im not the biggest fan of dogs, in fact my default reaction is to dislike them all.... but i still cannot fathom KILLING a living thing because it did what it is known to do out of instinct.

Well I wouldn't want your child put to sleep but then again I don't feed my kids from a bowl on the floor, or give them a pillow to sleep on, or have them pee in the yard. I don't think you can equate dogs and kids because animals aren't people.


I find it crazy anyone would imply that the ops child is in anyway at fault. Dogs we keep as pets are supposed to be domesticated and able to control themselves and if they can't they don't belong in public. It is unreasonable to expect that no one will ever walk by your dog.

[Lisa85]

Originally Posted by macheetah

If one truly believes that the dog was "just being a dog" then by that rationale people should not own dogs as pets/or have them in public any more than you would a tiger or a bear.

Tigers and bears go in public places. Only trained ones of course, and generally to schools and other public education events and never ever left unattended or even so much as a handler's back turned. Animals are animals and behave instinctualy no matter how they are trained and/or bred. It's why the house cat leaps for the play mouse every single time even though it doesn't need to hunt for food. Humans have overcome that, dogs, bears and tigers have not. The issue is not the dog, it's the owner.

[tallulahma]

Originally Posted by nannymom

Well I wouldn't want your child put to sleep but then again I don't feed my kids from a bowl on the floor, or give them a pillow to sleep on, or have them pee in the yard. I don't think you can equate dogs and kids because animals aren't people.


I find it crazy anyone would imply that the ops child is in anyway at fault. Dogs we keep as pets are supposed to be domesticated and able to control themselves and if they can't they don't belong in public. It is unreasonable to expect that no one will ever walk by your dog.

i wasnt saying that the child was at fault- the owner was.

dogs are not people, they are animals. still alive, with emotions and an inability to defend and explain themselves- similar to children in the way that they depend on their owners/parents to protect them and teach them.

not ok to kill something for having a bad owner.

[star thistle]

Originally Posted by tallulahma

if my child attacked your son & caused this much damage, would you want her euthanized?

Its apples to oranges.

I am betting most people would be happy to send a dog who has bitten a child or other dog to "jail". Which is where a person might be sentenced to go if they were to viciously attack another person, or animal for that matter.

But dog jail is just unrealistic. Not to mention, many owners might ultimately choose euthanasia to loss of and confinement of their pet for months or years.

This analogy is getting silly. Dogs are dogs. Children are children.

[macheetah]

Just curious, but in the "tests" isn't the dog's pack leader there with him?
Dogs left to themselves make much different choices than dogs who are under the control of their leader.

There is a portion where the dog is tied (to a fence, tree) and a person rides a bicycle, ideally with bells ringing, and any other noise possible, as close as possible by him/her. During this, the handler is not near the dog, but watches from a distance.

Using people milling around, not only in the BH but in other parts of the obedience portion of the sport, the dog may be on but often off-lead and near the handler, yes.

I agree that dogs can make independent choices we may not like (mine counter-surfs when I leave the room) and it is not prudent to leave any dog tied up unattended, for all the reasons PP have mentioned.

However, guide dogs sometimes make independent decisions, (like refusing to step into moving traffic when the owner may be unaware) but you never hear of them randomly biting passerby. Search and rescue dogs are sent independently to find people. Ever hear of a SAR dog, or for that matter, a police patrol dog, biting a child who may well run from it or be afraid of dogs? The dogs used in these types of services are often chosen for their high prey drive. That is a valuable tool to use incentives to train to track, hunt out drugs, be rewarded for making correct decisions.

I agree on the value of teaching children, as much as possible, about careful behavior around dogs and keeping them from approaching strange dogs. What I don't agree is that the OP's child caused the attack, just based on riding by on a bike, because the dog was just a dog and doing what a normal dog would (much less based on prey drive, as I tried to explain in my original post.)

That kind of logic thrown around is what makes it hard for responsible dog owners like myself to rent, get property insurance, have other moms feel comfortable letting their children play with mine, you name it.

I also have zero tolerance for an unprovoked child-biting dog - it is not normal - and like a PP mentioned, if all forbid my dog actually did something like that I would euthanize him in a second, knowing he was NOT being a "normal dog" but had a screw loose and was not right nor safe.

I also highly disagree with the notion that any dog who bites in this particular manner should be rehomed or put in rescue. That is irresponsible on the part of anyone involved, just passing on a problem, and possibly an impending tragedy into unknowing or unprepared hands.