ForumGarden

Mickey, a 5-year-old pit-bull mix, faces a potential death sentence at the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control unit, with a court expected to decide this month whether to euthanize the animal for the Feb. 20 attack.

Why the debate?

There shouldn't be any question about it, what a crazy world we live in.

In the UK it would probably already be dead. Any dog is capable of killing a small child people forget they are predators- remember there was that case where a jack russell killed a baby? The breed responsible for the most bites in the UK is the Labrador yet no one calls for them to be banned.

It seems ridiculous to make it a boy vs. dog argument.

The boy was severely injured, and must be cared for. What happens to the dog is irrelevant to what happened to the boy, at this point.

Obviously, the dog has some behavioral issues, and cannot be trusted around children. IT seems to me that the most humane thing to do, at this point would be to euthanize the dog. It's not about punishing the dog. It's about safety. Maybe, Mickey could be rehabilitated, if given the opportunity, but who is qualified to do that?



I think an investigation should be carried out to clarify the situation here. According to the article, the dog may have belonged to the baby-sitter's son. This was a situation that should never have been allowed. Putting a bunch of strange children in a yard with a dog that may have already shown overly aggressive behavior was asking for trouble.

My daughter, who runs a day-care center, suggests that the baby-sitter be charged with child endangerment.

As much as I am a dog lover and believe there Is no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners, I believe the dog should have been Immediately euthanised humanely.

Euthanised ?

I would have shot the fe*&er !!!!!

Bruv;1450466 wrote: Euthanised ?

I would have shot the fe*&er !!!!!


I am sure that, were it my child or a relative, or even just in the moment, that would have been my response, but now, long after the fact, a more civilized approach might be called for.

Dogs usually don't attack for no reason. What triggered the attack ought to be considered. I would just a soon shoot the people who allowed such a situation in the first place.

At this stage nothing matters other than a child has been harmed, arguing the toss over the rights or wrongs is irrelevent.

Rehabilitation is too late to consider, inquests can happen with or without the dog presence.

oscar;1450462 wrote: As much as I am a dog lover and believe there Is no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners, I believe the dog should have been Immediately euthanised humanely.


Well said.

I'm sorry I'm too tired to read the full article.. but when a dog bites and severely injures a human, okay I get it, the dog will be put down..

In my home town a vet refused to put down a dog after it had bitten a child (just one bite btw.). The vet had found that the dog had 21 staples in it's ear.

The child had sat there and put 21 staples in the dogs ear, the dog did nothing untill that 21st staple.

So fair trial on both dog and human is needed before anyone is put down. Again if the dog did it without any reason, then yes it has had a bad owner, and too bad but then the dog will have to be put down in 99.9% of the cases.

Trouble is most bad owners refuse to accept they are at fault.

gmc;1450547 wrote: Trouble is most bad owners refuse to accept they are at fault. Tell me about It !!!

The problem here Is that most dogs who are not naturally aggressive, only attack out of fear. This tells me that If this dog had no history of aggressiveness prior, then something happened to put that dog In such fear, that he attacked and the circumstances of why he attacked need looking Into also.

However, once a dog has experienced such fear, they tend to become fearful from there on and there Is every risk the dog could have a flashback If he was Indeed abused In that house, and attack again.