Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were witnesses - the dad states he saw it, while he was talking to the neighbor (dog owner) so the dog owner saw it also, as well as the sister. I guess.
I would think if she were obviously provoking/abusing the dog, the owner and dad would have stopped her.
Eh. Just staring hard at a dog can provoke it, and that child was probably a stranger to its pack. Also, a child is closer to eye level to a dog. And being shorter than an adult, that child was not viewed as an alpha either.
Children get attacked all of the time by dogs, even by dogs in their household. And humans don't understand that body language is really important to dogs.
The prior animal code I posted was for the wrong county.
Here, below, is the animal code that applies to Georgetown, Texas.
Again, there is no provision excusing a dog who has bitten on his own property.
Section 6b notes that in cases where a dog is on his own property and bites, or is provoked to bite, or bites an unlawful intruder, that victim may be required to pay the rabies impound fees. In this case, the dog is being quarantined at his home.
There is no where that says a dog will be excused from biting a person just because he's in his own home.
The article says this: "When a family's pet is inside its own home and a child is inside the home of where that pet lives and is bit, then the code says you cannot deem the creature a dangerous animal," Commander Deaton said.
Therefore, authorities cannot remove the dog.
It would be a different story if the attack happened on public property. ... Commander Deaton also said they made sure the dog was quarantined at its own home after the attack to make sure it didn't have rabies.
Sections 16 and 17 of the code address dangerous and potentially dangerous animals, not section 6.
Section 16 says what the sheriff said: The following can be deemed animals with dangerous tendencies: 1. Any animal that inflicts severe injury or death to a person, or bites a person on public or private property (not the animal's respective property), without provocation.
Section 17 discusses potentially dangerous animals and has similar language, about incidents happening OFF the owner's property, so this language exists in sections other than the one you were looking in. I wonder if the concern is partly about trespassers being bit by dogs defending the land/owner, as section 17 in particular mentions something about trespassing and how in that scenario there is an exception to the dog being deemed potentially dangerous.
My lawyer mentioned that posting a sign to warn of trained animal was message enough. The verbal notification to any person entering the home was diligence.
I learned...once given warning...it behooves me to be alert . And dogs do alert prior to the quick defense/offense.
If I go to a zoo...and I somber into the lions den....Guess what. ? I disregarded the warning .....
I saw a tv show where a lady had to pay the medical when the nephew did not heed warning that the pet was ill and to not go in the basement. The kid did...and the judge ruled that the pet was a nuisance. Don't go poking the bear in his own den .
What convoluted regs we have! Let's just muzzle and shoot the pet with tranquilizers when humans are around.....sad...
A dog who bites children, or adults for that matter, would be one that needs to be quarantined from anyone other than owner who is willing to take the chance of being bitten or adults who are forewarned that there is a bad dog in vicinity and want to enter, then that is their choice. They might end up suing.
I wouldn't have a dog that has viciously bitten a child. They can't be trusted.
A smaller dog who nips to warn if a child gets too rough, as in how dogs do their sibling puppies, would be understandable, child needs to be stopped from being too rough by parent.
A large dog can do too much damage without warning. I would never leave a child alone unsupervised with large dog.
A dog who bites children, or adults for that matter, would be one that needs to be quarantined from anyone other than owner who is willing to take the chance of being bitten or adults who are forewarned that there is a bad dog in vicinity and want to enter, then that is their choice. They might end up suing.
I wouldn't have a dog that has viciously bitten a child. They can't be trusted.
A smaller dog who nips to warn if a child gets too rough, as in how dogs do their sibling puppies, would be understandable, child needs to be stopped from being too rough by parent.
A large dog can do too much damage without warning. I would never leave a child alone unsupervised with large dog.
So its ok for a small dog to bite but not a big dog?
My lawyer mentioned that posting a sign to warn of trained animal was message enough. The verbal notification to any person entering the home was diligence.
I learned...once given warning...it behooves me to be alert . And dogs do alert prior to the quick defense/offense.
If I go to a zoo...and I somber into the lions den....Guess what. ? I disregarded the warning .....
I saw a tv show where a lady had to pay the medical when the nephew did not heed warning that the pet was ill and to not go in the basement. The kid did...and the judge ruled that the pet was a nuisance. Don't go poking the bear in his own den .
What convoluted regs we have! Let's just muzzle and shoot the pet with tranquilizers when humans are around.....sad...
Uh, not a good analogy at all and is not applicable to this scenario. The child didn't intentionally go "poking the bear in his own den".
Uh, not a good analogy at all and is not applicable to this scenario. The child didn't intentionally go "poking the bear in his own den".
Are you really sure about that? What if the child was trying to pet the dog on its head??? Another good rule to live by is to never pet a strange dog on its head, unless its owner says that it's alright to do so. An apprehensive dog will be triggered to defend itself if it sees a hand coming towards its face, towards or above its eyes. I demonstrated this to my husband in fun once. I pretended that he was a dog, and I went to pet him on his head. No one likes to see a strange hand or object coming towards their eyes and their head.
Anyway, it's the child's parents' fault also. Every parent should teach their children how to approach a strange dog or pet. Just like parents needing to teach a child how to safely and properly cross a street. And those life lessons need to be taught and re-enforce many times since children have a short attention span and get distracted. Also, they don't always believe what their parents and adults tell them what might happen if they don't use commonsense.
BTW are you someone who always feels that a victim is blameless? Or that it's mean to assign some of the blame to a victim?
Are you really sure about that? What if the child was trying to pet the dog on its head??? Another good rule to live by is to never pet a strange dog on its head, unless its owner says that it's alright to do so. An apprehensive dog will be triggered to defend itself if it sees a hand coming towards its face, towards or above its eyes. I demonstrated this to my husband in fun once. I pretended that he was a dog, and I went to pet him on his head. No one likes to see a strange hand or object coming towards their eyes and their head.
Anyway, it's the child's parents' fault also. Every parent should teach their children how to approach a strange dog or pet. Just like parents needing to teach a child how to safely and properly cross a street. And those life lessons need to be taught and re-enforce many times since children have a short attention span and get distracted. Also, they don't always believe what their parents and adults tell them what might happen if they don't use commonsense.
BTW are you someone who always feels that a victim is blameless? Or that it's mean to assign some of the blame to a victim?
I think she is someone who realizes its quite normal for parents to take their children with them to visit a neighbor occasionally. As parents, we are responsible to supervise our children. That doesn't mean literally having eye contact with them 24/7. Part of the maturation process is to gradually give your children a little more leeway. I don't think it was forseeable that the dog would bite the child while the child was playing with the neighbor's daughter. Those are the facts that I have.
One question that I wish was asked more often in these biting situations is why it was necessary for someone to own a dog. Particularly, one that bites.
Are you really sure about that? What if the child was trying to pet the dog on its head??? Another good rule to live by is to never pet a strange dog on its head, unless its owner says that it's alright to do so. An apprehensive dog will be triggered to defend itself if it sees a hand coming towards its face, towards or above its eyes. I demonstrated this to my husband in fun once. I pretended that he was a dog, and I went to pet him on his head. No one likes to see a strange hand or object coming towards their eyes and their head.
Anyway, it's the child's parents' fault also. Every parent should teach their children how to approach a strange dog or pet. Just like parents needing to teach a child how to safely and properly cross a street. And those life lessons need to be taught and re-enforce many times since children have a short attention span and get distracted. Also, they don't always believe what their parents and adults tell them what might happen if they don't use commonsense.
BTW are you someone who always feels that a victim is blameless? Or that it's mean to assign some of the blame to a victim?
You don't know what the child did, as this wasn't revealed in the link. You're speculating just like I am. I'm a dog owner, a large dog owner at that, and I'm familiar with how to approach strange dogs.
And no, I am not "someone who always feels that a victim is blameless". "Always" is a pretty powerful word. I go by the situation at hand. But if you want to know, I'm not "blaming" the child in this instance and I feel bad for the child more than anything. It wasn't just a nip.
And I'm not going down that road again about blaming the child's parents as that would be repeating myself. The dog should have been put up. The kid didn't trespass, the kid was allowed to enter the neighbor's property and play with the child. The neighbor, unless he's living under a rock, should know his dog's disposition towards strangers, including children. With children, there is no room for cluelessness. Children can inadvertently do something from the list of doggie no-nos. We as owners need to be proactive, not reactive, for my dog's sake and theirs.
Also some dogs do have shorter fuses than others. No different than humans. They are individuals. Some dogs, it doesn't take much to **** them off or for them to bite.
One question that I wish was asked more often in these biting situations is why it was necessary for someone to own a dog. Particularly, one that bites.
Retrievers are among the most popular breeds and virtually all of them bite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
