Campaign starts to adopt dog that killed Alberta baby

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by moon

But do any of those things bark loud bothering precious DESS or possibly poop on his lawn?

If they don't they no reason to be concerned.

Fixed that up. When I still had the CP Pokerstars games going on, we got to talking about who returning posters are.

Sliver has gotta be DESS.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=70412

[You Need a Thneed]

Certainly the risk is less than the average if you have a small dog. However, the risk is much higher if you have one of the "problem" breeds. Yet higher if you have multiple dogs.

[Olao32]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I actually agree that the risk of death is pretty damn close to zero. But the risk of injury on top of the very slight risk of death makes me leery of having dogs around babies and I question the judgment of people who don't come to the same conclusion.

Its sad you have such a fear of dogs that makes you preemptively think less of others and question their judgment/integrity on the possibility of such an improbable act. All that baby proofing you have done is commendable, I would do the same, unfortunately according to the so called “stats” which people can skew in many different ways as they see fit, there is much more you can do over what you suggest.

Originally Posted by Sliver

"Member of the family"

I don’t know if you were trying to throw a jab out there, but I stand by that statement. I'm not trying to negate the child-parent relationship because I assume it is stronger per say, but they are not a disposable part of life, well I suppose to some people they are…

Originally Posted by Sliver

Correction: you sleep fine at night knowing your kids have a low probability of being maimed.

Chances of your house getting hit by lightning:
1:280,000
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/probability.html

Chances of your child having scald burns from tap water
(unless you shut off your tap water too just in case)
So, at 4 million births per/year, and 25,500 scald burns in the US under 14 years of age, to make it simple say 25,500/(4,000,000 * 14). That’s a 0.04% change of them being scalded.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site903/mainpageS903P0.html

Another interesting fact:
Burns caused by the microwave are usually scald burns (95 percent) caused by spilled hot liquid or foods. Most microwave scald burns occur to the trunk or the face."
Better take that microwave out of the house too, you know because after all a possible related injury is preventable.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site903/mainpageS903P0.html

What I am trying to support here is that perhaps it may make you feel more comfortable, but the chances are so insignificant your preconceived notions may be skewed.

That said, not like I’d take a fighting dog and leave them around my children. But come on people, common sense says your average house hold pet is not going to kill or maim your kid.

[Sliver]

How can you quote all that stuff from www.childrenhospital.org, yet leave this out from the same site, which is actually topical to the discussion?

The most common type of animal bite is a dog bite. More than a million Americans are attacked by dogs each year, and about half of them are children.

I mean seriously, I don't really get your point. We have our hot water tank turned down because we have small kids. I've taught my kids not to fly a kite during a storm, and when they get old enough for it to be relevant I'll teach them more about lightening safety as well (e.g. don't hide under a tree, stay away from open spaces, etc.).

Minimizing dog risk is no different. There is no dog risk where there are no dogs. I get that some people like dogs, but along with that comes increased risk to their family. If they're willing to accept that risk, there's nothing I can do.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I mean seriously, I don't really get your point. We have our hot water tank turned down because we have small kids. I've taught my kids not to fly a kite during a storm, and when they get old enough for it to be relevant I'll teach them more about lightening safety as well (e.g. don't hide under a tree, stay away from open spaces, etc.).

Minimizing dog risk is no different. There is no dog risk where there are no dogs. I get that some people like dogs, but along with that comes increased risk to their family. If they're willing to accept that risk, there's nothing I can do.

When you say minimizing the dog risk and then no dogs is minimizing the risk would the examples above be have no hot water heater and never fly a kite?

By not owning a vicious dog people are minimizing the risk, by watching the dog when it is interacting with the baby you are minimizing the risk etc.

You seem to advocate minimizing risk in some cases and yet eliminate the dog in that case because you don't like them.

I don't anyone is saying that a family should bring in a former Michael Vick dog and then leave it with you baby with a steak around the babies neck. People are saying like what you did with the hot water heater and the kite examples that with taking the proper steps the risk is so minimal that eliminating the dog isn't worth it and that worrying about it is pointless as well because the risk is so small.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by pylon

Personally if I have kids, I will still have a dog. But I won't have a penis extension dog or a big breed. Wiener dogs are just fine by me, and I have owned a couple of them over the years. However, there is always a risk and it is not uncommon to happen for kids to be attacked. My sister was bit in the face badly by our neighbors Corgi. I was tackled by a German Sheppard in a campground, and thank god my dad was there and kicked it's eye right out of it's head before it could hurt me.

There is certainly a risk of attack Moon, more so than you think.

While I certainly understand what you are saying, it seems to me a 2 day old baby could just as easily be killed by a dachshund as it could by a larger dog. Wiener dogs, by the way, are one of the most likely breeds to bite as well.

The thing that bottles my mind in this whole thing is that a pet of any kind had access to a freakin 2 day old baby. To me that's insane.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Zevo

The thing that bottles my mind in this whole thing is that a pet of any kind had access to a freakin 2 day old baby. To me that's insane.

How is it insane?

It wasn't like the dog had the baby all to itself and nobody was there.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by pylon

Personally if I have kids, I will still have a dog. But I won't have a penis extension dog or a big breed. Wiener dogs are just fine by me, and I have owned a couple of them over the years. However, there is always a risk and it is not uncommon to happen for kids to be attacked. My sister was bit in the face badly by our neighbors Corgi. I was tackled by a German Sheppard in a campground, and thank god my dad was there and kicked it's eye right out of it's head before it could hurt me.

There is certainly a risk of attack Moon, more so than you think.

Jesus Christ!! Kicked the dogs eye out? Are you sure the GSD was being aggressive and was attacking you? Lots of dog jump up on people and they are just trying to play. If you are small enough kid there is certainly the possibility that you may get knocked over and possibly licked to death.

Man... kicked its eye out! I can't get over what you just said. Warn me if you ever come near me and I have my Golden Retriever. I wouldn't want to have his head kicked in because he was being way too friendly.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by moon

How is it insane?

It wasn't like the dog had the baby all to itself and nobody was there.

I'm not saying a pet shouldn't be in the house, but there is no way a pet of any kind, much less a large dog, should be anywhere near a 2 day old baby. 2 months, sure let the dog have a sniff, but at 2 days the skull hasn't even hardened yet.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How can you quote all that stuff from www.childrenhospital.org, yet leave this out from the same site, which is actually topical to the discussion?

I mean seriously, I don't really get your point. We have our hot water tank turned down because we have small kids. I've taught my kids not to fly a kite during a storm, and when they get old enough for it to be relevant I'll teach them more about lightening safety as well (e.g. don't hide under a tree, stay away from open spaces, etc.).

Minimizing dog risk is no different. There is no dog risk where there are no dogs. I get that some people like dogs, but along with that comes increased risk to their family. If they're willing to accept that risk, there's nothing I can do.

This is looking at only one side. Big dogs can also protect the family from a home intruder better than even an alarm system can. How you can quantify the risk of being attacked by your own dog vs. being protected by your dog would be pretty difficult to do.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by moon

When you say minimizing the dog risk and then no dogs is minimizing the risk would the examples above be have no hot water heater and never fly a kite?

By not owning a vicious dog people are minimizing the risk, by watching the dog when it is interacting with the baby you are minimizing the risk etc.

You seem to advocate minimizing risk in some cases and yet eliminate the dog in that case because you don't like them.

I don't anyone is saying that a family should bring in a former Michael Vick dog and then leave it with you baby with a steak around the babies neck. People are saying like what you did with the hot water heater and the kite examples that with taking the proper steps the risk is so minimal that eliminating the dog isn't worth it and that worrying about it is pointless as well because the risk is so small.

No, turning your hot water tank down to non-scalding temperatures eliminates the risk. Not flying a kite in a storm eliminates the risk. I'm interested in eliminating risks wherever I can for my kids to maximize their probability of growing up un-maimed.

IDK, maybe there's a surgery you can get on a dog to disable their 320 pounds of bite pressure and round their teeth, in which case you'd probably eliminate any risk they'd pose.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

This is looking at only one side. Big dogs can also protect the family from a home intruder better than even an alarm system can. How you can quantify the risk of being attacked by your own dog vs. being protected by your dog would be pretty difficult to do.

That's the same exact argument gun nuts use in spite of the fact that fewer guns directly correlate to fewer gun deaths.

Not to mention you're using the argument that dogs are great at being violent towards people in an argument where people are trying to show dogs aren't violent towards people.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

No, turning your hot water tank down to non-scalding temperatures eliminates the risk. Not flying a kite in a storm eliminates the risk. I'm interested in eliminating risks wherever I can for my kids to maximize their probability of growing up un-maimed.

IDK, maybe there's a surgery you can get on a dog to disable their 320 pounds of bite pressure and round their teeth, in which case you'd probably eliminate any risk they'd pose.

Storm comes on before they get their kite away and the risk is there, don't recognize a storm and lightning hits the risk is there, temperature gauge breaks and risk is there, water heater breaks and the risk is there.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's the same exact argument gun nuts use in spite of the fact that fewer guns directly correlate to fewer gun deaths.

Not to mention you're using the argument that dogs are great at being violent towards people in an argument where people are trying to show dogs aren't violent towards people.

Well of course if there were no Dogs around no one would ever be hurt by a dog. That isn't the point, the point is that it would need to be weighed against how many people are protected by their dogs. I am saying I don't know the answer because I have not seen any stats on that. I assume that your position is just a guess at what you think is the correct answer? I also won't be bothered to look up the stats on that because I both don't have a dog nor children.

[Regulator75]

DESS, err Sliver hates dogs so much, these are the things he avoids.
- Doggystyle (feel sorry for him and his wife)
- Offleash park areas (fear of being mounted and eaten by a poodle)
- Dog the Bounty Hunter (I agree, that show is crap)
- Hotdogs (though everyone should avoid these, so maybe he's onto something...)

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Jesus Christ!! Kicked the dogs eye out? Are you sure the GSD was being aggressive and was attacking you? Lots of dog jump up on people and they are just trying to play. If you are small enough kid there is certainly the possibility that you may get knocked over and possibly licked to death.

Man... kicked its eye out! I can't get over what you just said. Warn me if you ever come near me and I have my Golden Retriever. I wouldn't want to have his head kicked in because he was being way too friendly.

I was 8 years old so it is vague, but apparently the dog charged at me full steam, hair up on its back, and fully tackled me. It was ripping at my coat with its teeth. It was a problem dog apparently and was put down. My old man is a tough, tough sob.

Don't appreciate the jab at the end. If a dog was attacking a child of mine, or a girlfriend... whatever, I wouldn't stop for a second. It is pretty easy to tell the difference between a playing dog, and a mauling dog.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't anyone is saying that a family should bring in a former Michael Vick dog and then leave it with you baby with a steak around the babies neck.

This is gold.

[J pold]

Wow reading some of the replies in this thread have left me truly speechless.

I’m already someone who does not understand people and their irrationally when it comes to dogs. Yesterday I read the “I Lost My Best Friend” thread and was shocked at how broke up the OP was losing over his dog. I mean it’s a freaking dog, not a human being. Now not unsurprisingly I’ve never owned a dog which I don’t doubt is at the root of my genuine bafflement of the general human dog relationship, but this thread has taken it to another level.

ANYONE suggesting that this dog should be anywhere but in the ground really needs to look at their priorities. This thing KILLED a human infant, the roots behind its actions do not matter at all. If suppose a very mentally deranged person who was incapable of understanding their actions killed a child would it be morally right to put them back in an environment where they are in a position to commit the same action again? Compound this with the long list of other much more deserving dogs who are in shelters right now and this whole debate becomes an total farce.

The fact this thing is still alive sickens me. The fact that people actually want it to be is mind numbing.

[MotoRacer]

two-day-old baby boy.

Surely the parents are wishing they would have been more careful.

[moon]

Originally Posted by J pold

If suppose a very mentally deranged person who was incapable of understanding their actions killed a child would it be morally right to put them back in an environment where they are in a position to commit the same action again?

It isn't worth it to get into the other crap you posted but how is the dog getting put back into a position to commit the same action again? Do you think the dog is going to get put into a house with an infant? or any kids at all?