do animals prefer you?

I am backing out of this debate which seems to be turning into an arguement of different perspectives. xxx

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236805/Toddler-left-horrific-facial-injuries-attacked-dog-played-roundabout.html

The above wasn't about sharing space, the toddler was in a play park when the dog decided to, for whatever reason, enter the playpark and attack.

You can never know when this will happen.  You cannot assume you are safe from dog attacks when there are dogs everywhere, which are not on leashes and whose minds we cannot read.

Although I didn't watch it, there was a documentary on last night about the rise in dog attacks.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/04/welsh-police-put-down-alaskan-malamute-mauled-baby?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

" The Alaskan malamute club of the United Kingdom describes the dogs as "affectionate, friendly, loyal" on its website. The breed is not listed under the Dangerous Dogs Act."

And if as you say the babies are being brought into the poor dogs' space, then this is argument enough for dogs being banned.  No-one can ever predict whether a dog will react like that to a new human presence in the house (or an existing one).  Each animal will have it's own level of personal space and what it would feel was goading.  If a baby making noises from it's crib is enough to turn the dog savage then this more than adequately highlights what I said further up the thread.

...or whether a dog enters their space whilst they are just existing.

I completely agree with you, tiny babies cannot and do not have any choice as to whose space they are placed in.

Tiny babies are not invading peoples' space and cannot be expected to pick up on subtle cues.  Dogs have attacked by encroaching into the space of their victims.

This is exactly what I meant in my post. Dogs, people, any animal, has it's own personal space and limitations - when this personal space is invaded, or we reach our limits - we defend ourselves in any which way that we can. But we all show signs of being under pressure, subtle as they may be. 

I have had countless "meltdowns" which have offended an "innocent" person and I am none too proud of them.

However, whilst I don't know what the answer is, I would consider it quite unfair if I was "put down" because of them!

Recently I had to ask for medical help for someone - I was asked if I considered the person's reactions/behaviour were "normal" - I replied that under the present circumstances the person was reacting/behaving as expected... 

IntenseWorld said:

[quote]No dog - or human - turns without warning. Or provocation.[/quote]

I would strongly disagree with this.  What about the unwell animal that has a fever or infection or an injury, and someone innocent goes near it and in defending itself (as it would perceive) it attacks before it gets attacked?

Or what about a mentally ill person who attacks someone randomly without provokation?

Or the shy, timid, put-upon person who is regularly goaded and made a target of by their work-mates, who remains submissive or passive without show of their unhappiness and who suddenly and without warning, snaps?

Or the person who has a psychotic break?

Or the high-functioning autistic, who bottles everything in and one thing too far makes them have a massive meltdown which ended up hurting someone else?  Everyday things can be piling on the stress for someone on the spectrum, that doesn't mean someone deliberately provoked them.

I could go on.  There are cases of dog attacks where people have said the dog acted 'out of character', and people have been quick to conclude witout knowing the facts, that either a child was annoying the dog or the owner wasn't a responsible owner (quite possibly true in some cases) and it was none of those things.  And in one of those articles it was a toddler on a roundabout who had nothing to do with the dog, when it jumped into the play park and went for the toddler.

...and I've just seen this: http://www.parentdish.co.uk/video/mother-arrested-after-dog-kills-daughter-518119539/

11 month old baby mauled to death by a dog...

I also think there should be more dog free zones, walking areas and parks, because I might want to go for a nice country stroll without coming into contact with  excited dogs off the leash.

The thing is, dogs are in public spaces and therefore occupy the same space as people going about their business, who might not want someone's  salivating beast drooling all over them. If I don't like rabbits or hampsters, I am under no obligation to visit someone who has these pets. But I cannot choose to avoid dogs because they are everywhere.

Now, I am not a virulent dog hater, and I do like some dogs and form attachments to them; but there are too many dogs that behave in a threatening way, too many owners who refuse to stop their dog from sniffing my legs or invading my space; 'oh, he's friendly, he won't bite', they say, which is beside the point. A good owner, and there are too few of them around in my experience, will not let their dog so much as touch me. I don't want strange people touching me, I don't want strange dogs touching me!

susie163 said:

No dog - or human - turns without warning. Or provocation.

I would strongly disagree with this.  What about the unwell animal that has a fever or infection or an injury, and someone innocent goes near it and in defending itself (as it would perceive) it attacks before it gets attacked?

Or what about a mentally ill person who attacks someone randomly without provokation?

Or the shy, timid, put-upon person who is regularly goaded and made a target of by their work-mates, who remains submissive or passive without show of their unhappiness and who suddenly and without warning, snaps?

Or the person who has a psychotic break?

Or the high-functioning autistic, who bottles everything in and one thing too far makes them have a massive meltdown which ended up hurting someone else?  Everyday things can be piling on the stress for someone on the spectrum, that doesn't mean someone deliberately provoked them.

I could go on.  There are cases of dog attacks where people have said the dog acted 'out of character', and people have been quick to conclude witout knowing the facts, that either a child was annoying the dog or the owner wasn't a responsible owner (quite possibly true in some cases) and it was none of those things.  And in one of those articles it was a toddler on a roundabout who had nothing to do with the dog, when it jumped into the play park and went for the toddler.

Dogs descended from wolves, humans descended from apes..... this is immaterial - place any species in an intolerable situation and it will react using instinct. Whether this reaction is acceptable to "social rules" is subjective. No dog - or human - turns without warning. Or provocation. 

Putting a ban on or eliminating those who cannot instinctively comply with "social rules" seems a little harsh to me. Especially on this site...

My initial reaction to the above posts was anger - lots of it!

I am autistic and maybe we all mellow with age but when I took time to think about it -

Everybody has their own views.

Autism has given me the insight to realise and accept this - despite what the text books say! x

Yes, children should be taught not to approach strange dogs, which comes under responsible parenting. But if a dog turns, the ultimate responsibility should still lie with the owner, as opposed to the parent.

Why was the licensing system got rid of?

I would say the fault lies more with the dog owner than the parents and innocent, inquisitive children. As IntenseWorld has previously posted, dogs are domesticated wolves, and some dogs will display wolf like behaviour when approached by a stranger. Not all dogs will behave like this, but a responsible owner should be mindful of other people in public places and assume ultimate reponsibility.  If a child approached an aggressive, drunken lout and was hit, the drunken lout would end up with a court order. It should not be any different if an aggressive dog attacks a child, in proxy of an owner who should be in control of their pet.

I know what you mean, parents do often let their children be uncontrolled.  But you have to bear in mind that there have been a significant amount of attacks that were absolutely unprovoked, the dog just turned.

One of the stories I linked to above, was a newborn baby which had it's skull crushed and was killed, by a little terrier.  You can't educate a baby about dogs, and no matter how much information is out there for dog owners, many won't bother with it and you still cannot prevent unexpected attacks happening (unless the dog is locked up the whole time and then what sort of life is that for it).

I certainly agree that certain dog breeds currently owned should be banned: staffies, bull-dogs, dobermans, rottweilers, mastiffs etc; but stopping short of banning all breeds. Yes, retrievers can rarely become aggressive (often due to poor socialising or abuse early in the dog's life), but the vast majority of dog attacks come from the bull-dog/staffie or guard dog family. Any dog can become aggressive, but some breeds are far more likely to be aggressive. Certainly I agree that dog ownership should be more tightly regulated, and dogs should not be sold to any old person.

On a more positive note, I had a dog during childhood (a welsh spaniel cross collie) who never hurt a soul in her 16 years of existence. But we had her from puppyhood, she was well disciplined, trained and socialised from a young age.  So I can see the benefits of dog ownership as well - Jessie was my only real friend, and proviided me with hours of consolation when the going got tough. Sadly, other dogs (usually staffies) often attacked Jessie, and she could not fight back. As a result I am deeply afraid of staffie type dogs and terriers in general, although I am usually ok with border terriers - they tend to be less snappy than other terrier breeds.

...nonetheless they still have the same capabilities and instincts as wolves and domesticated or not are still capable of maiming and killing and there is no way to predict if or when.

Not only is behaviour uncertain, even in the face of a previously tame and family-friendly pet "it's so out of character, s/he's never done anything like that before" but dogs cannot tell you if they are ill, too hot or anything else that can cause them to behave even more unpredictably.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/animal-domestication3.htm

"Scientists can only guess how dogs and humans first became friendly. A popular theory suggests that humans began taking in wolf pups and eventually were able to tame them. Another theory proposes that the tamest wolves were not afraid to rummage through human trash sites to find food. Because they fed this way, these tamer wolves were more likely to survive and evolved into dogs through natural selection [source: NOVA].

Because wolves operate in packs, humans easily took the place of the "highest ranking wolf." So the animals quickly learned obedience. As tamer wolves were more likely to stick around humans, evolution naturally (or humans intentionally) bred tamer and tamer wolves, until eventually, we got the dog. "

Animals lower in the pack can and do challenge the higher ranking animal, that's how they get overthrown and new Alpha males (or whatever) take over.  Within the pack there is also a "pecking order" and submissive animals can bully others even lower down the pecking order.  So even if a dog recognises it's human owner as the leader, any vulnerable child or baby can be considered fair game for no other reason than they felt like it.  Animals have personalities too...as any dog owner will tell you.

KathyM said:

Sorry I clicked post before saying it's not them sensing fear with him as he was never afraid of them.  It is something else.  I worked in dog behaviour and training for a while and have read a lot about it.  I would be the one that would usually argue the child has done something to bring on the dog's aggression but I have not to this day worked out what that was.  I put the mauling down to a high prey drive in the foster dog as Dan didn't do anything that might have got that reaction.  It has always puzzled me.

All dogs are descended from wolves, and are therefore all potentially unpredictable (as with any wild animal).  I personally don't think any dog should be around children, as children are not only vulnerable due to size but also are more likely to move rapidly or do something which the dog will interpret as aggression or something else that triggers wild behaviour.  The amount of dog attacks in the UK is horrendous.  I know I have an extreme opinion, but I think no dogs should be allowed to be kept as pets.  I even read that a toddler was in a play park with a family friend and a dog outside of the play park just randomly jumped into the park over the railings and attacked the toddler.  We never even know what's in another human's mind letalone a dog's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236805/Toddler-left-horrific-facial-injuries-attacked-dog-played-roundabout.html

People who have dogs always defend their being kept and blame bad owners (which I know are out there) but you can never know what a dog will do and it's just not worth the risk.  Make them illegal to own.

And they said "this was a tragic accident" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236193/Jack-Russell-cross-bites-week-old-child-jealousy-attack.html

That's like saying an adult leaving a boiling kettle on the edge of a worktop with a toddler running around unsupervised was a tragic accident.  Some accidents are easily preventable and should never have happened, the risk should not be put there for vulnerable children in the first place.  I'm not passing judgement on you BTW, just saying what I personally feel about dogs.