I HAVE been listening recently to the stories that have finally begun to receive some publicity about recent dog attacks in New Zealand.
The most recent is a toddler home with his parents - he wandered outside, down to the back of the section and crawled under a hole in the fence between properties. In the neighbour's section he was attacked and badly bitten by the neighbour's Staffordshire terrier-Labrador cross. On the face if it an open and shut case and no doubt the dog has already been destroyed.
But there are serious questions here - the child must have either known about the hole in the fence (been through there before) or had a long time outside by itself to discover it and decide to crawl underneath. The parents, or at least one of them, must have been inside the house - watching TV perhaps ... or having a beer or six? This was a child who had limited sight so one would expect extra care needed to be taken.
And was the dog owner not required to have the dog fenced in properly - if a child can get in, then a dog can get out! Were these dogs "shared" by close neighbours? The dog owner was irresponsible in not getting the fence fixed ... but this was a boundary between houses and any expenses for repair rest firmly with both parties equally. Perhaps one (or both) could not afford it at the time? Or perhaps the houses were rented and repair of the fence rested with the owner or owners? Why was this work not done?
And where was the council dog control inspector who is supposed to inspect properties for suitability for containment of a dog before issuing a licence? Well, no fault lies with them as it appears there were four or five dogs on the property, none registered, and one actually owned by the toddler's family (though this has been disputed by them).
Another recent story was that a rottweiler attacked a visiting child and the child's father grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the rottweiler to death. But as the story sifts through from various sources it appears the parents and the owner of the rottweiler were standing outside chatting. The dog was waiting with its owners and the neighbour's child was repeatedly attempting to 'ride' it. The dog was growling and moving away but this did not deter the child who tried just one time too many. The amazing fact here is that the parents and owners were standing nearby, but just too intense in their chatting or too totally stupid to take any notice, to tell the child not to do that, or to remove the dog from the child's attention. What do these people need - a siren?
A third case is one where a boy with a bicycle was bitten by a dog at a friend's home. The dog was seized and destroyed. But it now transpires that the dog was tied up at the time and could not move away. The boy had, according to sources, ridden his bicycle both over and into the dog several times before it finally retaliated. Where was the dog's owner or the boy's caregiver? Such mindless acts by children lead me to assume they have been brought up by imbeciles. Every one of these three cases was 100 percent preventable.
All this points to an emerging pattern of behaviour. We demand huge sacrifices from our dogs - we expect them to show such huge self-control that they would sit and tolerate being bashed and ridden over by a bicycle, sat on by a heavy child, or perhaps have their pups hurt by a toddler, all without showing any reaction.
Does anyone think these demands are fair or legitimate? Put a human in the dog's place in each instance and would we expect no reaction? The truth is we would be angry and retaliate, the same way these dogs did. The difference is that we can communicate our warnings and threats in words ... dogs can not! They can growl, but what else can they do if nobody takes any notice?
What all this really means is that dog owners and parents are not thinking - the brain cells definitely need a bit of a jolt to restart them! They are not protecting their dogs from children or their children from dogs. They are elevating all dogs to a position where they are expected to be absolute saints and remain calm in all situations - but they don't expect such controlled behaviour even from themselves!
For those whose brain cells have died I will review the situation: a dog is an animal with very basic thought and emotion, great loyalty, and the reasoning powers of a very young child. It can not be expected to tolerate pain, injury or threat without retaliation. EVERY dog is capable of retaliating when pushed to its limit. It is not a toy! It is a living and feeling carnivore that nature provided with teeth designed to tear and cut living prey.
Again for those whose brain cells have died: a child is an animal capable of both logic beyond its years and abject stupidity. It therefore requires supervision in the presence of dogs until it is mature enough to respect what the dog can do when aroused.
The dog as a species decided that it would be the companion of humans many hundreds of years ago. Humans it seems have now begun to take dogs for granted and often treat them as unpaid babysitters - a job for which they are totally unprepared, untrained and unsuitable! Hopefully if the message gets to the next generation there will be some care and logic applied to canine-human relationships at some future stage. Right now, I am convinced that a large proportion of both parents and dog owners are a food basket short of a picnic. Please parents and dog owners ALWAYS supervise children near dogs - protect your dogs as well as your children. All dogs are capable of retaliation and all children are capable of hassling a dog to breaking point. - Elezabeth
