I hadn't read the board in quite a while, until someone alerted me to that awful photo again. Then I was re-alerted that my sig had been compared.

Guess I don't see the similarity at all, other than they each have a dog and a baby. I'm struggling here to try to explain the differences because I don't even see the similarity.

One, we have a baby quite obviously too young to move on its own (also swaddled, so even if he could move...he can't) placed against a dog (a quite content and stable dog w/a lovely and calm expression, though he is admittedly waiting for the child to be removed and a release command to be uttered so he can get up) for a photo.

Two, we have a crawling-age baby UNDER a molosser, displaying clear signs of dominance and possession. I make no apologies- anyone who lets their dog wrap a leg around their infant is a dumb@$$. The rest of the series of these pics was worse. If there is any doubt as to the dog's intentions in this pic, you won't have any when you see the rest.

These morons should be sterilized.
http://www.sonnyradio.com/hugababy.htm

I hope things ended well for that family. I'm amazed the family continued to let this happen after the second photo where the dog could easily squish that baby to death.

Funny, I didn't even relate your photo to the original one either. I guess to the untrained eye, they could be similar. Good idea, Barbara, to post the differences. You never know when someone might stumble across this site and realize their dog is acting like the first one (and then get help)!

Wait,, I've got one. Caleb is only interested in a sleeve so Jenni knows that unless she swaddles James in jute, he's absolutely safe!

Could be that. Or maybe it's just that he's sane. <shrug>

I would've shot that dog smothering my baby- and I don't mean w/a camera.

 Quote: jenni williams

I hadn't read the board in quite a while, until someone alerted me to that awful photo again. Then I was re-alerted that my sig had been compared.

Guess I don't see the similarity at all, other than they each have a dog and a baby. I'm struggling here to try to explain the differences because I don't even see the similarity.

One, we have a baby quite obviously too young to move on its own (also swaddled, so even if he could move...he can't) placed against a dog (a quite content and stable dog w/a lovely and calm expression, though he is admittedly waiting for the child to be removed and a release command to be uttered so he can get up) for a photo.

Two, we have a crawling-age baby UNDER a molosser, displaying clear signs of dominance and possession. I make no apologies- anyone who lets their dog wrap a leg around their infant is a dumb@$$. The rest of the series of these pics was worse. If there is any doubt as to the dog's intentions in this pic, you won't have any when you see the rest.

These morons should be sterilized.
http://www.sonnyradio.com/hugababy.htm

I have no where near the experience you have with dogs, however, even I can easily see the calm, relaxed face of your well trained dog, and, knowing what little I do about you, I know you would NEVER put an infant in harm's way.

What I was asking for is close to what you provided... descriptions of the signals displayed in one photo compared to the other.

In NO way did I mean to make you defensive or expect an apology - none is needed. I'm not arguing the fact that the people who allowed the infant to either crawl under the dog or placed the child there are truly moronic - I was asking for you to explain what was wrong about the first photo and what was appropriate about the second, so that other folks could benefit.

Many of the folks on this site would immediately see the difference. Some folks would have the knee-jerk reaction of "she also has a dog and even a younger baby" and it was to those folks I wanted to hear the "why and why not's..." Not everyone knows your history and experience, and that is what I wanted to point out.

Barbara, I didn't mean apology to YOU- I knew what you meant. I meant I maintain that THEY are idiots.

It's hard for me to break "expression" into singular things I can explain. Honestly, I didn't even pick up on a few of the things Ana said- I don't look at posture like that anymore. I look at an overall impression, and THAT is very hard to explain in tiny pieces.

Edited to add....maybe this will help- one is passive and one is active. I PUT James against Caleb (and yes, he was still a month away from his due date in this pic- about 5 lbs.) I would stake pretty much anything on that dog's OB, esp. w/a baby leaning on him. I asked him to platz and wait, then I took a pic moved the baby.

Those folks allowed the DOG to PUT HIMSELF all over the baby, while they snapped pictures. The dog was rolling on her like they roll on dead animals they find in the yard. Sick.

Jenni, it never crossed my mind that the pictures were similar but it was a good exercise for me to analyze why. Must be watching all those tv shows - house, lie to me etc. The rest of the pics are very bad indeed. Especially with the dog squashing the baby.

I'm going to throw out a few things that hit me when I first saw the "wrong" photo and am perfectly fine with the more experienced folks telling me I missed it completely... (won't be the first time I did so... :crazy

The dog's faced looked "pinched" (and yes, I know it is SUPPOSED to have wrinkles!) There is something else in the expression which is not relaxed in the least.

Jenni's dog's eyes are relaxed, her mouth is open, tongue hanging out, looking like it was completely content although as Jenni said - would have been perfectly content to be 'released' as well. However, I can't find a "tense" muscle in the dog's body.

Compared to the first pic; the dog's ears are erect (for a flop eared dog), the eyes are cocked and cast toward the infant, her chest is tense and obviously - the leg is over the infant. Comments on the page also point out that the dog's head is above the baby. Everything about this dog screams "possessive!!!"

Most of us can detect tension and anxiety in humans easily, but find it all too easy to "sluff off" the same signals in dogs. Some people, like the parents of the infant in the first pic, find it hard to believe that some "sweet fuzz butts" have the potential to be lethal even in a nice, clean, loving home environment. It is those situations which cause the horrendous, periodic news broadcast about the child or adult mauled by a "family pet"...

Caleb is clearly relaxed, uninterested in your little one and giving you his full attention. The baby is also relaxed and happy with the situation.

What I don't understand, is that regardless of the details of canine body language that dog is clearly smooshing the baby.... and it is a very large dog!

Even if there was no aggression on the part of the dog, it could easily suffocate that poor baby.

Yote has attempted the same behavior with the cats a few times and that is bad enough. The next move is generally to put his butt in the air and put the cats head or neck in his mouth. He is playing, but that doesn't make it ok or safe.

I just can not fathom the sort of idiot that would not only allow this, but take pictures and act as if it was precious.

Kids and dogs can be a very good combination, if done properly and with supervision.

As I type my son is behind me sick and asleep on the couch, with two buckets, a 7-up, and a husky curled around him.

He was crying and miserable and all freaked out by the throwing up and running to the toilet to poop at the same time, but soft fur and a warm snuggle calmed him down and helped him go back to sleep

For once Yote is being a calming influence

I can't justify either situation. JMO.