Campaign starts to adopt dog that killed Alberta baby

[puckluck]

So agencies are going to deal with an adopted dog 5 years down the road where there is the chance a kid could come into the home? BS.

Nope humans don't always do the right thing or what they are told but I guess that's the advantages of being human over a dog.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by puckluck

And if a person drops a baby, and that baby dies, you can be sure that person will never pick up a baby again or they can learn to be more careful. Are you going to train and teach the dog to not play with infants?

Why not instead of teaching this dog that grabing infants by the neck is bad by not putting it in a situation where there are infants around?

It sounds like you believe that this dog will be brought out to some farm land, break it's way out, find the city, jump into an infants room and kill the thing. This dog was put in a bad situation, did what it's instincts tell it to do when someone is in distress and the worst result came out of it. S**t happens and it is clear this was an accident.

I feel for the family who lost their child, and now their family pet, but it doesn't mean this dog deserves to die because of that mistake. If this dog had run into a playground full of kids and ripped their faces off than I would be on your side where it should be put down because it shows aggression, this dog showed compassion, it just happened to be a bad end result.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Wow this post is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

The dog killed a baby. That's a fact and no matter what the intent of the dog was it still caused harm to an infant. Are you going to volunteer your time to check up on this dog in the future and make sure he's not around new-borns?

And if a person drops a baby, and that baby dies, you can be sure that person will never pick up a baby again or they can learn to be more careful. Are you going to train and teach the dog to not play with infants?

You're acting like it's going to kill every baby it see.

Accidents happen. Sometimes people die by accidental occurrences. That's the way of life. Just because the dog did one act that went wrong doesn't mean it'll do it again. Even so if you don't put the dog near infants, chance are it's human kill total will only stay at one since it never had any history (that we're aware off) of being harmful to people older than the fragile baby stage.

[jhunt223]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Perhaps you were just going for laughs in which case ignore the rest of this post.

Anyone who thinks this dog needs to die as a lesson to other dogs is actually at an intellectual level that is below most dogs.

This dog needs to die. The fact it doesn't know what it did is important. That means that it is not less likely to do this again in the future because it doesn't know that it has done something wrong in the first place. It can't be told to not do that again.

Any wild animal that attacks a human is put down. Bear, mountain lion, dog, gerbil etc. These animals cannot have their behavior modified through rehabilitation like a human. They can't be told that killing is wrong. For that very reason the dog must be put down.

Keep the dog away from new born babies and there's no problem. Wild animals are put down because they pose a real threat to human life after they've attacked humans. They tend to seek out and do harm to other humans after the first attack. This dog simply needs to be placed in the arms of a capable owner who isn't stupid enough to let it get anywhere near a 2 day old baby and its no longer anywhere near being a threat. If this was a case where the dog had mauled the baby and ripped it to shreds I would, obviously, be all for putting it down, but it isn't. Lets operate under the assumption that the dog was trying to protect or comfort the kid which from everything I've read about it seems to be the case. If he's a year or two older (however long it takes for a baby to mature from a little ball of pissing and crapping helplessness.. thankfully, I have no idea) than this and the parents walk in on it they probably think its adorable, give him a snausage and love him even more for it. Even though the dog doesn't understand what it did, there was nothing aggressive about it.. nothing to show that it's a danger to humans if handled properly. If the dog does get put down I hope some of the people who think its alright to have these big breeds around children learn something from it, but they probably won't. They'll probably carry on, ignorant as they ever were.

[Sliver]

The problem is there is no place that is a guaranteed no-baby zone. Dogs live for like 15 years. Most families go throw periods of regeneration and it's quite conceivable that the baby-free house the dog is placed in today could have babies visiting in 10 years as the family grows. We can't take any chances with this dog.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Wow this post is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

The dog killed a baby. That's a fact and no matter what the intent of the dog was it still caused harm to an infant. Are you going to volunteer your time to check up on this dog in the future and make sure he's not around new-borns?

And if a person drops a baby, and that baby dies, you can be sure that person will never pick up a baby again or they can learn to be more careful. Are you going to train and teach the dog to not play with infants?

Just to change the scenario... say you have a newborn infant and a cat.
Said cat gets into baby's crib and decides to curl up next to the infant and go to sleep. Cat inadvertantly smothers baby because it is laying to close to baby's head thus cutting off air to the child.

Do you kill the cat?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Just to change the scenario... say you have a newborn infant and a cat.
Said cat gets into baby's crib and decides to curl up next to the infant and go to sleep. Cat inadvertantly smothers baby because it is laying to close to baby's head thus cutting off air to the child.

Do you kill the cat?

What does this scenario have to do with the dog BITING an infant.

The more appropriate scenario would be: Cat bites and scratches new born to death. Yes you kill the cat.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by puckluck

What does this scenario have to do with the dog BITING an infant.

The more appropriate scenario would be: Cat bites and scratches new born to death. Yes you kill the cat.

I think the issue here is that you're looking at this as the dog attacking the baby rather than trying to comfort the baby based on the instinctual aspect of his actions.

[jhunt223]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The problem is there is no place that is a guaranteed no-baby zone. Dogs live for like 15 years. Most families go throw periods of regeneration and it's quite conceivable that the baby-free house the dog is placed in today could have babies visiting in 10 years as the family grows. We can't take any chances with this dog.

It doesn't need to be a baby free zone. The dog just needs to be kept separate from new born babies in whatever environment its placed. It's a god damn sled husky. Keep it outside. Jesus.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Just to change the scenario... say you have a newborn infant and a cat.
Said cat gets into baby's crib and decides to curl up next to the infant and go to sleep. Cat inadvertantly smothers baby because it is laying to close to baby's head thus cutting off air to the child.

Do you kill the cat?

Good question. I don't think the cat deserves to die in that circumstance because it was more of a passive action on its part than the active action the dog did.

That would be 100% on the parents in that circumstance.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

It doesn't need to be a baby free zone. The dog just needs to be kept separate from new born babies in whatever environment its placed. It's a god damn sled husky. Keep it outside. Jesus.

Yeah well you can't necessarily keep a baby away from this dog for the next 15 years. Babies are everywhere. Most people have one or more, eventually. One slip up could cost another baby's life? What a dumb risk to take.

[moon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

So agencies are going to deal with an adopted dog 5 years down the road where there is the chance a kid could come into the home? BS.

Nope humans don't always do the right thing or what they are told but I guess that's the advantages of being human over a dog.

Why would they need to deal with it 5 years down the road?

Put it in a house with owners that have dealt with dogs in the past, understand the dog that they are getting and don't have kids.

Do you think the owners will forget what happened? Or that if a kid came around they wouldn't remove the dog if for nothing else the peace of mind for the parent?

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah well you can't necessarily keep a baby away from this dog for the next 15 years. Babies are everywhere. Most people have one or more, eventually. One slip up could cost another baby's life? What a dumb risk to take.

You can easily keep a dog away for a baby even for 15 years. (Although I think the dog is not a pup so likely not close to that long).

It isn't like there are babies popping out of hiding places surprising people on their acreages and forcing people to take care of them for years on end.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by puckluck

What does this scenario have to do with the dog BITING an infant.

The more appropriate scenario would be: Cat bites and scratches new born to death. Yes you kill the cat.

If the cat intentionally bites and scratches infant... yes kill the cat or dog or whatever... however...

The dog did not "BITE" the infant. Dogs don't have hands so their mouth becomes their hands.

My dog "bites" me all the time.... as in he "mouths" my hand or my arm. Not once has he broken skin, and if he did it would be totally unintentional (ie. me jerking my hand out of his mouth)
Unfortunately, in this case, when the dog "mouthed" child, it was fatal. Totally unintentional on the dogs part.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Good question. I don't think the cat deserves to die in that circumstance because it was more of a passive action on its part than the active action the dog did.

That would be 100% on the parents in that circumstance.

Really?? Cats are fataing evil. How do you know it was an accident and not cold blooded murder. I wouldn't trust a cat as far as I can punt it.

[Rerun]

This thread reminds me of the Michael Jackson "Greatest performing artist ever or Scum sucking child molester" thread.

Everyone has their side... and not many are changing their point of view... no matter what the argument.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Rerun

This thread reminds me of the Michael Jackson "Greatest performing artist ever or Scum sucking child molester" thread.

Everyone has their side... and not many are changing their point of view... no matter what the argument.

Agreed - although no one is saying this is the greatest dog ever.

It'd be more like us saying

Micheal Jackson did molest kids, but he was creepy and it was in his nature to molest children, especailly if a naked child was left alone on his dinner plate asking to be cuddled and in the future maybe people shouldn't serve naked children to Micheal Jackson on a platter. (all based on the assumtion molesting isn't a bad thing).

and

Kill Michael Jackson.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

Keep the dog away from new born babies and there's no problem. Wild animals are put down because they pose a real threat to human life after they've attacked humans. They tend to seek out and do harm to other humans after the first attack. This dog simply needs to be placed in the arms of a capable owner who isn't stupid enough to let it get anywhere near a 2 day old baby and its no longer anywhere near being a threat.

Your first couple sentences is what I'm referring to. When wild animals attack, it is my understanding they are killed because they then have a taste for blood (or something like that).

It is also my understanding this baby wasn't mauled.

So I guess I'm willing to concede that perhaps the two situations aren't anologous. But then again I'm not an animal expert nor do I have all the details of the infant's death.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Your first couple sentences is what I'm referring to. When wild animals attack, it is my understanding they are killed because they then have a taste for blood (or something like that).

It is also my understanding this baby wasn't mauled.

So I guess I'm willing to concede that perhaps the two situations aren't anologous. But then again I'm not an animal expert nor do I have all the details of the infant's death.

Keeping a dog away from infants for 15 years is easy.

Its called a leash for one thing and secondly why would you let them near an infant without control or pre-conditioning in the first place?

I had my two previous Golden's for 12 years and I think one of them was allowed to sniff a month old child, hand-held by the parent, once.

I don't think people are really getting one essential element here: You could take any medium or large sized domestic dog of any age, put them in the same situation where a new two-day old infant is on the floor and the dog isn't under control, even with an adult human in the room, and the death of that child could happen all over again.

This isn't a result specific to this particular dog. It was the result of some very bad choices by the humans involved.

Some tips for integrating a new child and a dog together . . . . you'll see a lot of things applicable to this situation that the parents never thought of: http://www.minti.com/parenting-advic...ant-Get-Along/#

I am interestd in the recommendations of authorities monitoring the dog for the last week or two. I would think they are going to come back to the owners and simply give them a choice rather than order the dog's destruction.

Cowperson

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I think the issue here is that you're looking at this as the dog attacking the baby rather than trying to comfort the baby based on the instinctual aspect of his actions.

I really wish people would stop bringing up this scenario, as it is completely speculative, and nobody knows for sure that is what happened. I have also thought the owners could have invented that scenario, to avoid charges. If the dog snapped at the child, they are categorized like pitbull owners. If it was being a loving protecting mother, now it is a sad devasting accident.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by pylon

I really wish people would stop bringing up this scenario, as it is completely speculative, and nobody knows for sure that is what happened. I have also thought the owners could have invented that scenario, to avoid charges. If the dog snapped at the child, they are categorized like pitbull owners. If it was being a loving protecting mother, now it is a sad devasting accident.

Well if the dog life is on the line, we gotta look at the reasons for death to see if it's just right? If we don't know that the 'bite' on the baby was meant to be an attack on it, then how is it justified to kill it?