Author Topic: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"  (Read 12517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Need to Change

  • Guest
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2013, 08:25:47 PM »
It does not matter what the kid did or did not do. If that dog had bit her, the dog would have been the big looser.

The Vet Clinic staff should have been empowered to say whatever was needed to be said to get SS mom off the stupid phone and watching her child.

The Dog should have been brought with owner into the back behind the reception desk or into a "safe place" area.

If this is not a one off - the dog should have been sedated before coming in.

 If this is the first time the dog acted like this - the dog and mommy get a pass.

Frankly I think the mother was negligent BUT in my state it does not matter - if that dog had bitten the child ( provoked or not) the dog could have lost his life.  That's a high price to pay.

  I wish there were more options to protect the puppy from entitled people.

Legally -- yes, the dog would be in big trouble.  Although, in some jurisdictions, the behavior of ALL concerned would be taken into account.

But we're talking about etiquette and the right (or possible) thing to do.

We don't know if this is the dog's first snarl at a human, or what condition the dog was in.  We don't know if there was any safe "escape" route for the dog and owner.

We do know that the dog's owner collared, leashed, then held the dog back ... while the Mom talked on the phone and did not keep her daughter under any control whatsoever, and was unaware of the whole episode.  We also know that the incident occurred in an area designed for dogs and owners.

Muzzles can cause undue stress, and sedation can mask conditions.  So, what's a responsible dog owner to do?

gen xer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 541
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2013, 08:40:44 PM »
The owner had her dog under control as she was holding it, the mother did not have her child under control because she was not even paying attention to anything but her phone call thus not worrying that pwecious was aggravating a dog.  Etiquette wise, the dog owner was wonderful because I would have yelled at the kid and/or mother for upsetting my, heretofore behaved dog.  Just because a child walks into a vets office does not mean  CRUD MONKEYS! Muzzle the dogs, there is a child here!!!!!  It is rude (trying to keep the etiquette thing going) to expect that everyone conform to your (general) standards.  Just because you (general) feel all dogs should be muzzled in public to protect the children doesn't mean it is an accepted as a rule for anyone but you.   I agree that a dog that comes in with attitude needs muzzled, and most dog owners do that, or in one case, the dog stayed in the car until a room was ready ( As God as my witness, I thought it was the tasmanian devil coming through) but I don't feel that at the vets free range children need protected from the dogs..it should be the other way around.  Gen xer, you keep saying the child is more important and as a parent, yes, I would not want a roaming dog attacking my child, but again, this is a DOGS place, not a childs and it is important that the child respect the dog.  Would you expect a dog owner to muzzle their dog in their own home if you bring your child over because it is easier to muzzle a dog than watch the child?

I would have yelled at the kid too but not because I would be worried about upsetting that dog - I would be worried about the child.

I expect dog owners to be in control at all times....and while she did restrain it and yes had some form of control my impression is that a dog with that temperament should be muzzled. 

If you read my posts you would know that I agreed the mother was negligent in not ensuring her child was behaving around the animal.  I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

And the vet's office is actually a place where everyone should feel safe - children included.  Control your kids....and control your pets because everyone will lose if a dog attacks.

thedudeabides

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 512
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2013, 08:47:32 PM »
The owner had her dog under control as she was holding it, the mother did not have her child under control because she was not even paying attention to anything but her phone call thus not worrying that pwecious was aggravating a dog.  Etiquette wise, the dog owner was wonderful because I would have yelled at the kid and/or mother for upsetting my, heretofore behaved dog.  Just because a child walks into a vets office does not mean  CRUD MONKEYS! Muzzle the dogs, there is a child here!!!!!  It is rude (trying to keep the etiquette thing going) to expect that everyone conform to your (general) standards.  Just because you (general) feel all dogs should be muzzled in public to protect the children doesn't mean it is an accepted as a rule for anyone but you.   I agree that a dog that comes in with attitude needs muzzled, and most dog owners do that, or in one case, the dog stayed in the car until a room was ready ( As God as my witness, I thought it was the tasmanian devil coming through) but I don't feel that at the vets free range children need protected from the dogs..it should be the other

 around.  Gen xer, you keep saying the child is more important and as a parent, yes, I would not want a roaming dog attacking my child, but again, this is a DOGS place, not a childs and it is important that the child respect the dog.  Would you expect a dog owner to muzzle their dog in their own home if you bring your child over because it is easier to muzzle a dog than watch the child?

I would have yelled at the kid too but not because I would be worried about upsetting that dog - I would be worried about the child.

I expect dog owners to be in control at all times....and while she did restrain it and yes had some form of control my impression is that a dog with that temperament should be muzzled. 

If you read my posts you would know that I agreed the mother was negligent in not ensuring her child was behaving around the animal.  I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

And the vet's office is actually a place where everyone should feel safe - children included.  Control your kids....and control your pets because everyone will lose if a dog attacks.

You know nothing about this dog's temperament other than that she didn't want to be approached aggressively (to a dog) by a strange child whose mother treated no one with respect. Therefore, you have no business making the pronouncement that the dog should have been muzzled.

Rohanna

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2013, 09:09:01 PM »
I don't think "inching with hand extended" implies an aggressive or unreasonable behaviour on the part of the child, although it should always be done with the supervising parent AND pet owners permission. It is not unreasonable to expect the pet owner to speak up and say "No, don't touch him right now" rather than , and I quote, sitting with "both arms around her dog's ... struggling to contain a snarling, growling, "I'm-going-to-eat-your-FACE!!" dog." Why condemn the Mother so harshly for not being 100% vigilant of her child (as she should be) but not a pet owner for being unable to either control the animal or speak up when she can't.

If  you remove the child from the equation, and think about it objectively, does this sound like a person who should be taking the animal out *anywhere* in public?
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. ~ Jack Layton.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8126
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2013, 09:14:17 PM »
It doesn't sound to me like the dog had a bad temperament at all.

The mother of the child was 100% in the wrong. 

The vet's waiting room is for animals, not children.  If the dog owner had taken her pet into the waiting room of a Pediatrician's office I would agree that the dog should probably be muzzled.  But this was the opposite -- a small human with no parental supervision whatsoever visiting the waiting room of a doggie doctor.

I'm glad the dog's owner was able to keep in under control and that it did not harm the child.  But if that had been my dog, I'd have really gone off on that kid's mother.  I suspect the only reason this pet owner didn't was because she feared it would just further confuse and excite her dog, so she was trying to remain as calm as possible.

Mother of the child was completely wrong.  I'm glad nothing bad happened, but if it had it would have been her fault.  >:(




Aquamarine

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1855
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2013, 09:38:25 PM »
I am sorry if I offended anyone - I truly think muzzling is just the best option in a vet's office where there is such an unpredictable mix of animals and people....

Rosewater I agree that you would be within your rights to tell a child to go away and leave you alone....but a child's safety is infinitely more important than an animals.

This is a blanket statement that is not true of how everyone feels and is quite offensive to me.  I will choose my animal's wellbeing over that of a child in the situation of the OP.  My dog has seen me through the death of both my parents and gives me comfort and joy every day of my life.  I owe my dog protection and safety, I owe a strange approaching child nothing except to keep my animal away from them for my dog's safety.  I don't see why a child's well being should automatically trump that of a beloved animal that depends on me to protect them.  My job would have been to protect my dog from the child and I would have done so by aggressively telling them to go away.  Too many children and parents view the world as their free petting zoo, they need to learn to go away and not approach us without asking first.

Not everyone agrees with the thinking that children trump the wellbeing of everything else and I would appreciate not being told that one is automatically more important than the other, because, at least for me that will not always be the case.
Always be polite, even to nasty people. Not because they are nice, but because you are.

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2013, 09:48:55 PM »
If the dog should have been muzzled, the kid should have been leashed. And apparently Mom needed to have that cellphone forcibly removed from her person so as to actually parent her child.

I actually think that all of these are true, although it was given as an argument. The child SHOULD have been leashed (or had its hand held or been restrained physically in some way) before it was taken into a vet's office with no idea how to behave. The Mom SHOULD have her cellphone taken from her if she's too absorbed in it to protect her child from harm. And the dog SHOULD be muzzled if it wants to eat someone's face for approaching it to pat him, even in the vet's office. Sure, it is a dog's place, but what if it had taken equal exception to a small *dog* wanting to come up and play. Vet's waiting rooms are not predictable, safe places and if a particular dog may go viscious at an unpredictable or unexpected encounter then that particular dog should have extra restraints (not necessarily a muzzle, see below) in place on that occasion. This honestly has nothing to do with the species of the creatures interacting to me.

My beloved dog HATES the vet, he is terrified of the vet and is extremely stressed when he goes there. He may very well snarl at something that got in his face at the vet even though he is completely tame and equable elsewhere. And so we ensure that our bodies are always placed between him and any other possible outside stimulus that could potentially set him off. This will do for our dog since he is relatively small and we have a lot more strength than him. If he were labrador sized I probably would discuss with the vet the safest and most kind way for him to come to the vet, whether it be walking outside with him and the vet phoning when they are free to avoid being in the waiting room for more than a few seconds, a separate entrance, a special lead, or whatever. There are more ways to cope with an unpredicatable situation than just a muzzle.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

Rohanna

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2013, 10:04:17 PM »
Playgrounds are spaces for children. If you walk your dog beside the playground, is it ok for my child to yell, scream and throw large rocks at your dog because he is frightened of them or doesn't like dogs? Or should I, as the caregiver to a small child who is scared of dogs, have the responsibility to A- know that about my child, and B-take steps to ensure he doesn't hurt them *even when he's in a place that's meant to be his". What if it was a children's hospital? Can my child kick and hit a passing therapy dog with impunity? Can he chuck things at a guide dog in the library? All those are "child" spaces, but I would place bets that dog owners would not allow excuses for poor behaviour towards animals in them, and would expect that the parents remove, control, calm or otherwise "manage" the threat to their animal.

I am also disturbed by the fact that some people can't seem to see that a child is a small *person* in their own right and not just an extension, possession or pet of the parent- this is not like accidentally breaking someone's iPad because they are careless with it. So what if they have the absolute worst parent in the world? They deserve to potentially die then? That doesn't absolve you from your responsibilities as a pet owner to maintain control and take appropriate action in asking for help if you can't.  I simply cannot agree on basic moral principle that pet owners shouldn't have to inconveniance themselves in any way to protect the public (and other animals) from physical harm.
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. ~ Jack Layton.

edgypeanuts

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 152
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #68 on: April 23, 2013, 10:28:04 PM »
I am also disturbed by the fact that some people can't seem to see that a child is a small *person* in their own right
I have not seen a single person here with that view.
None of the people defending the dogs owner have said, "let him bite her she deserves it."  We are just pointing out that it is not fair to cause my dog who I love worry and discomfort by muzzling them all the time because someone cannot respect another being's personal space.

I don't think "inching with hand extended" implies an aggressive or unreasonable behaviour
Not to a child no.  But to a dog it is very aggressive, esp if the dog has never been around toddlers.  From the dog's POV the child is right at eye level, staring them down and moving closer, in dog language that is very aggressive.  Add to that the fact that the dog is picking up on smells of fear and pain from other dogs, and that the dog is cornered.  He cannot back up.  He is leashed and cannot leave the situation.  His only defense IS to act scary and hope the child backs off. 

*inviteseller

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
  • I am Queen Mommy
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #69 on: April 23, 2013, 10:35:50 PM »
A child that is face level with a strange dog, whether inching along or running at, can be seen as a threat to the dog (hence the reason we tell kids NOT to put their faces down to a strange animal).  The child had absolutely no business being off her leash in the waiting room of a vet, or anywhere else for that matter.  The dog was sitting with it's owner peacefully until the child decided she was at a petting zoo.  Her mother was extremely rude to both the dog owner and the OP because she could not get off her phone to keep her child from bothering the dog (and again it really isn't important if the kid ran or inched, the dog didn't like it) or to treat OP with courtesy instead of her servant.  OP, at the practice, did you guys mark the fronts or anywhere on a chart for difficult animals?  If so, all tho it wasn't in your OP, was the dog previously labeled as such?  I temped at a vets as a receptionist years ago and I know we did label the problem animals for their and our own safety.  But to say that some strange child's safety is more important than my pet who is upset and feeling threatened and that the dog and the owner are the ones who should be more careful...nope, can't get on board with that.
Rohanna...why can't the parent inconvenience herself and parent her child so she doesn't scare the dog?  You are quick to blame the dog who, again was sitting quietly with the owner until the child decided to bother it.  If mommy had done her job and held the childs hand, want to bet the dog would have cared less?  I am actually offended on behalf of all dog owners who do keep their dogs under control but are treated with contempt and scorn because it is all about the children and their feelings and what they want.  No, you don't want your child to be bit or scratched by a strange animal, teach them not to disturb them.  Animals and humans have existed peacefully since the beginning of time.  Yes there are some bad owners out there who let their animals roam and destroy property and unfortunately train them to be evil. The same can be said about some parents.   It is NOT the dog, but the owners, but there are bad parents who think it is ok for their kids to treat dog parks, pet stores and vet offices as petting zoos and this is not the case.   You want me to muzzle my dog in public so your kid is safe when they decide to be stupid by approaching a strange animal?  Well I want your (general) kids leashed so my dog can be in public in peace. 

CharlieBraun

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 657
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #70 on: April 23, 2013, 10:41:26 PM »

I would have yelled at the kid too but not because I would be worried about upsetting that dog - I would be worried about the child.

I expect dog owners to be in control at all times....and while she did restrain it and yes had some form of control my impression is that a dog with that temperament should be muzzled. 

If you read my posts you would know that I agreed the mother was negligent in not ensuring her child was behaving around the animal.  I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

And the vet's office is actually a place where everyone should feel safe - children included.  Control your kids....and control your pets because everyone will lose if a dog attacks.

I believe, regarding the first bolding, that you are making an unwarranted assumption about the dog's temperament.  Even the most even tempered dog will react strongly to a child lunging at it and said child refusing to "back off".  The only thing that says about the dog's temperament is that it is 100% within the norm of canine behavior.

As to the second bolding - I find myself very tired of everything being about "the children."  It's a vet's office - one of the few places in which animals of the four legged variety find a safe haven.  If anything, that child and its irresponsible parent are the intruders here - not the dog.  In a vet's office, and in dog park, children are the lower mammals.  It's not all, always, about the human offspring, and it's a disservice at the least and rudeness to be certain to rearrange that order of precedence merely because "the children" are around. 

I fear for the generation of SSs being raised by parents who are all about "the children" to the exclusion of common sense.
"We ate the pies."

Rohanna

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #71 on: April 23, 2013, 10:51:56 PM »
No but it's definately seems to be implied to me with all the focus on it being the parent's fault, or that the parent should be watching better- and yes, while that is 100% true, the fact of the matter is that the end result will still be injury to the child.

More than one adult can be at fault in a situation, but the adult who is responsible for the more dangerous creature or object is the one that, in general, needs to take greater precautions.

I should be able to drive my car at a normal speed on the road, but I am still not supposed to hit pedestrians if at ALL possible, even if they jay-walk. I am responsible for making sure my brakes are in good working order, that I am driving the speed limit (or slower, depending on conditions) and that I am on the lookout for pedestrians- even the ones that aren't where they should be. As the driver of a heavy vehicle that is my job. I can't just shrug and say "well, they shouldn't have been walking there, so I didn't bother beeping my horn to warn them or slowing down".

As a pet owner, your job is to keep the public reasonably safe from your pet, even the stupid or young members of the public.

I just don't understand why children must be 100% perfect from birth and parents never make a mistake, but a dangerous animal and a semi-reactive owner gets a pass for "just being an animal". I hear the excuse, what if this was the first time the dog acted up. Well, where is the "what if this was the first time the Mother was distracted, and the first time her child tried to wander around because normally she sticks right beside mum" excuse. You said in the OP she was around 4- for many kids that is the first time they are not in a stroller- maybe the mother wasn't used to her not being strapped down. Maybe that was her aunt, not her mother- her childless aunt who isn't totally used to small children and took the kid in an emergency for mum and brought the kid on an errand. Why do animals and pet owners get what ifs and excuses and not parents and kids?

 Why is it impossible to use words the way they were intended- a "Lady, get the kid away from Kujo" shouldn't be impossible to manage....

Animals and humans have co-existed for years. However, we used to treat them as purely property, routinely putting down the aggressive ones, so I'm not sure you want to bring up that argument.

I also don't see why the child's actions are being misquoted. "Inching" is not the same as "lunging" in any dictionary I own.
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. ~ Jack Layton.

Firecat

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2550
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #72 on: April 23, 2013, 11:03:37 PM »
No but it's definately seems to be implied to me with all the focus on it being the parent's fault, or that the parent should be watching better- and yes, while that is 100% true, the fact of the matter is that the end result will still be injury to the child.

More than one adult can be at fault in a situation, but the adult who is responsible for the more dangerous creature or object is the one that, in general, needs to take greater precautions.

I should be able to drive my car at a normal speed on the road, but I am still not supposed to hit pedestrians if at ALL possible, even if they jay-walk. I am responsible for making sure my brakes are in good working order, that I am driving the speed limit (or slower, depending on conditions) and that I am on the lookout for pedestrians- even the ones that aren't where they should be. As the driver of a heavy vehicle that is my job. I can't just shrug and say "well, they shouldn't have been walking there, so I didn't bother beeping my horn to warn them or slowing down".

As a pet owner, your job is to keep the public reasonably safe from your pet, even the stupid or young members of the public.

I just don't understand why children must be 100% perfect from birth and parents never make a mistake, but a dangerous animal and a semi-reactive owner gets a pass for "just being an animal". I hear the excuse, what if this was the first time the dog acted up. Well, where is the "what if this was the first time the Mother was distracted, and the first time her child tried to wander around because normally she sticks right beside mum" excuse. You said in the OP she was around 4- for many kids that is the first time they are not in a stroller- maybe the mother wasn't used to her not being strapped down. Maybe that was her aunt, not her mother- her childless aunt who isn't totally used to small children and took the kid in an emergency for mum and brought the kid on an errand. Why do animals and pet owners get what ifs and excuses and not parents and kids?

 Why is it impossible to use words the way they were intended- a "Lady, get the kid away from Kujo" shouldn't be impossible to manage....

Animals and humans have co-existed for years. However, we used to treat them as purely property, routinely putting down the aggressive ones, so I'm not sure you want to bring up that argument.

I also don't see why the child's actions are being misquoted. "Inching" is not the same as "lunging" in any dictionary I own.

And as a parent, the mother's job is to keep her child safe and under control. She failed at her job in this instance; the pet owner did not, as the pet owner did, in fact, keep the dog from actually harming the child. And even if it was the child's aunt or grandmother or whatever, she was still in charge of the child at that point in time, and chose to ignore what the child was doing in favor of her cell phone call. So, pretty much entirely her fault, if you ask me.

If muzzling the dog wasn't an option - which it may not have been for the very good reasons cited by previous posters - what, exactly, do you think the pet owner should have done differently? She successfully kept the dog from actually injuring the child...whereas the mother's actions...or lack thereof...could best be described as "epic fail" from start to finish.

Take2

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #73 on: April 23, 2013, 11:04:54 PM »
Wow, health concerns aside, the idea that ALL dogs should be muzzled at the vet's is a pretty broad statement. My standard poodle's most aggressive action ever is to roll over on his back in case someone wants to rub his belly. We very carefully socialized him to children and dogs and cats from puppyhood, also trained him to accept others touching his toys and food. He actually likes the vet's office because he gets to go in the car and get petted and get treats, all of my dogs have always loved the vet. Sure, I keep him leashed and watch him carefully just to be safe. Why on earth should he be muzzled?


gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8126
Re: "Excuse me, your child is about to be eaten by a Labrador!"
« Reply #74 on: April 23, 2013, 11:08:31 PM »

...   Animals and humans have co-existed for years. However, we used to treat them as purely property, routinely putting down the aggressive ones, so I'm not sure you want to bring up that argument.   ...

Not a safe direction to take this conversation.  Someone is sure to remind you that there have been times throughout history when human beings have been treated as 'property' too.  Both adults and children.

That isn't the point here.  Both the dog's owner and the child's supervisor should have been doing their parts respectively to keep their own charges safe.  The dog's owner was.  The child's "owner" was not.