Butch wrote:

 Quote:

Would this law apply to us??

I am the animal control supervisor for a small city in Orange County, CA. My municipal code is based on the state law, giving guidelines for declaring a dog Potentially Dangerous, or Vicious. In our state, only Declared Vicious dogs can be destroyed after the first bite, and that bite has to be "severe" such as broken bones, sutures, tissue missing, plastic surgery. Each bite situation is reviewed and considered on it's own circumstances. Not all dogs biting kids will be candidates for this code. Each situation is different and needs to be taken into consideration. It really doesn't matter why the dogs bite, the intent of the code is to keep it from happening again. It is reactive, not proactive. Susan

Susan, the law as you posted would be a fair/just law. Laws that are not a blanket type are what we all need to strive for.

Thanks good info,

This situation is about parenting as much as it is about dog ownership. Sadly, the child and the dog will pay the price for the parents' negligence. As a mother, I cannot see keeping this dog in the home knowing that it cannot tell the difference between a human infant and a little furry critter. As for the JRT, I think that judging from what has been posted, counterconditioning is possible, but most people do not have what it takes to be successful in doing so. It's not a matter of intelligence, but rather, the amount of time and energy required is above and beyond what most folks who have jobs and/or families actually have to give.

That being said, I have a question for Todd. This is a true story. I know some people who adopted a dog from the pound. They chose the dog because she was so friendly and outgoing. In the time that they had her, she had never shown any aggression toward any human being, whether household members or strangers. One day, the dog was sound asleep, and the six year old daughter, in the way that children sometimes do, acted impulsively and jumped on the sleeping dog. She didn't actually land ON the dog, but right in front of her, in her face. The startled dog nipped the child on the cheek. There were no puncture wounds, but there was a red mark. The girl was told in no uncertain terms how stupid that was, and to never ever startle a sleeping dog.

Should that dog have been put down?

Originally posted by Todd E. Gaster:


How someone could keep a dog that they know bites or has bitten is beyond me. I don't know Todd..why don't you ask Bernhard why he kept Itor?

Butch, Todd we all know your opinions and where you stand. Your opinions are yours to have but quit taunting people into arguments that will run in circles...This thread has been beaten to death several different times..someone needs to close it.

I'm with Karmen on this.
Secondly Todd, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the first thread. You're the want that wanted to squirt me remember? lol
I don't think this issue relates to the other thread. Maybe I'm wrong?

Another thing too, do you think a kid could not provoke one of your dogs to bite them? I'm sure you got dogs that would bite someone anytime anywhere. All you can do is train, and use safety, good judgement, etc.

Each situation to me is a different issue and decision.

in all of the discussion ,back and forth, about putting the daschunde down or not, nothing was mentioned about reprimanding the parents. can they be held legally negligent, maybe even prosecuted? just curious. john.

Originally posted by Karmen Byrd:
Originally posted by Todd E. Gaster:


How someone could keep a dog that they know bites or has bitten is beyond me. I don't know Todd..why don't you ask Bernhard why he kept Itor?
I gotta say Todd, Karmen has a point.

And on that note, thread closed.

Todd - you are 100% wrong on this thread. There are very good police dogs that should not be around children. I have owned dogs that I would not have around chidren. The point is dogs that are not safe around children should not be around chidren. This is an owner issue not a dog issue.

Now the thread is closed again