[Toutouxc]

I couldn’t believe the “let’s kill the dog for scratching the kid’s face” part. People will punch you in the face if you startle them enough, why should the dog be any different? And they won’t ever consider putting him up for adoption or something, it’s straight to the vet and euthanise him? What the actual fuck is wrong with the people.

edit: This is very relevant to me because the very same thing happened to me as a kid. One of our family dogs bit me in the face because I was tugging on her tail (like in a painful way). It was completely my fault, no one blamed anyone else than me and no, we didn’t kill the dog. We kept her and I have many happy memories of her.

[slap_shot]

Pitbull ownership is a contentious subject and just overall a very shitty situation. I've seen a pitbull kill another dog and two other pitbulls attack children. That lead me to look at data, and while there is conflicting data, I walked away with the impression that pitbulls are disproportionately more dangerous and should not be kept as pets.

I agree that they should explored other options to see if the dog could have been given to another owner in an environment better suited for a pitbull. I don't know that one exists, but if you choose to own a pitbull, you hold that responsibility when you decide to disown it.

[leptons]

I'll add that pit bulls are banned in many countries because they are dangerous. Sure they are perfectly fine most of the time, but when they decide to attack there is little anyone can do to stop them, and it often results in death of other animals or humans. And sometimes they just attack for the fun of it, there are many documented cases of that.

[fein]

The dog didn't scratch her, it bit her in the face. And she didn't even grab the dogs tail, she just startled it.

[Toutouxc]

Yes, dogs can startle too. As far as we know, there is nothing wrong with the dog.

[lazide]

As far as they saw (and based on their decisions), there was.

Not our circus, not our problem.

[Toutouxc]

Yeah, but this is not someone burning their garden furniture because their kid fell from it. They’re deciding to kill a living thing because it got startled once.

[lazide]

They decided to kill (euthanize) an animal with a history of dangerous behavior towards defenseless humans. Humans they had a duty to protect.

I’ve been around dogs for 4 decades, I’ve never seen one bite a child’s face.

Even ones that really, really would have deserved it.

Could it happen? Sure.

However, I have seen dogs that were deranged and dangerous to themselves and others bite people before, and owners try to defend them as being okay though. Multiple times.

One the police had to put down after its 4th attack on an innocent bystander, while the owner cried and blamed the police.

[pdonis]

> a history of dangerous behavior towards defenseless humans

One incident, in which the human was arguably at least partly at fault (and in which the adult humans who run the house are at fault--see below), is not "a history".

The article says they have had the dog for six years. And now they want to euthanize him over one incident, in which the kid turned out to be OK? That's not something I would even think of. They should be thinking about how to help the dog coexist with their kid--and asking themselves why they weren't thinking about that before they brought the kid into their household that already had the dog. At the very most, if they are simply incapable of managing both the dog and the kid, they should be looking for another owner to take the dog. Killing the dog should not be on the table at all.

(Frankly, I would question the competence of a vet that would agree to euthanize a pet for this, instead of advising the people to find another owner if they can't work it out themselves. Every vet we have had has told us explicitly that they never recommend euthanasia except as an absolute last resort for a pet that is terminally ill and suffering. We would stop taking our dogs to any vet that said otherwise.)

[sneed_chucker]

Pit bulls should be summarily euthanized and it should not be legal to keep them as pets.

Look up the numbers on how many maulings of children are disproportionately done by this breed.

[leptons]

The girl is lucky to be alive, because pit bulls are a dangerous breed that often refuses to stop attacking - they are specifically known for that behavior, as they were bred to be fighting dogs. Putting down a pit bull after it bites a child is absolutely reasonable.

[pdonis]

> pit bulls are a dangerous breed that often refuses to stop attacking

Generalizations like this are not reliable. Dogs reflect the treatment they get from their owners.

But in any case, we don't need to generalize about this pit bull, because the article tells us that they have had him for six years and he has had no problems. This looks to me like a simple case of owners bringing a kid into a household that already has a dog, and not putting enough thought into how to manage that situation, which is going to be stressful for any dog, regardless of breed. That is on the owners, not the dog.

[leptons]

>Dogs reflect the treatment they get from their owners.

Dogs are bread to have specific traits - every dog breed. Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death. How you can completely ignore that to create the narrative you wish were true is another story.

You're reasoning about why the dog bit the kid, without recognizing the lethality of pit bulls when they attack. That kid is very lucky, because that dog could have tore her head off her neck. You can keep ignoring the evidence and reality if you want, but statistics do not lie - pit bulls make up 6% of all dogs and they are responsible for 67% of all fatal dog attacks. It's not how they're raised, it's literally in their genetics to fight until death. Dangerous breeds are called "dangerous breeds" for a reason - because they're dangerous. Don't take it from me, many countries have banned pit bulls because they are dangerous.

[pdonis]

> Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death.

I think you need to learn more about pit bulls. Even Wikipedia [1] recognizes that the reality is more complicated than your simplistic narrative.

As for the kid, I have already pointed out in multiple posts elsewhere in this thread that if these people are worried about their kid, they should find the dog another home. If there isn't a friend or neighbor who will take him, they can take him to a shelter. It's their fault that they brought a kid into their home where the dog had already lived for three years (which, as I have also pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is stressful for any dog, no matter what breed) and didn't manage the situation properly. Instead of making the dog pay for their mistake, they should let him have another chance in another home.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

[leptons]

>> Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death.

>I think you need to learn more about pit bulls.

What part of "Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death." don't you understand?

>As for the kid, I have already pointed out in multiple posts elsewhere in this thread that if these people are worried about their kid, they should find the dog another home.

"We're trying to rehome this sweet widdle pibble that bit our kid in the face after living with her for 3 years" - sure, that's going to go well.

>It's their fault that they brought a kid into their home where the dog had already lived for three years (which, as I have also pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is stressful for any dog, no matter what breed) and didn't manage the situation properly.

You're making up in your head that the parents "didn't manage the situation properly" - there was nothing to suggest that in the story. And again, and again, and again: That kid is lucky to be alive because it was a pitbull. If it were a small breed that wasn't bred to fight until death, the girl wouldn't have been in nearly as much danger. I commend the parents for waking up and realizing the real danger this dog breed is well known for, and doing the right thing.

But you're right that the parents should have gotten rid of that murder-dog before the kid was born, but really they should have picked another breed to begin with. r/banpitbulls

[pdonis]

> What part of "Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death." don't you understand?

I understood what you said perfectly well. I just don't believe it's correct, and I gave a reference to support my belief. What part of "I disagree with you and here's a reference explaining why" don't you understand?

> You're making up in your head that the parents "didn't manage the situation properly" - there was nothing to suggest that in the story.

Of course there's not going to be anything in the story to suggest that, because the parents don't know that they made a mistake. But I'm not "making up in my head" the obvious fact that if you bring a baby into a house that has a dog, that will be stressful for the dog, no matter what breed it is, and the adult humans in the house have the responsibility to manage that.

> I commend the parents for waking up and realizing the real danger this dog breed is well known for, and doing the right thing.

Realizing that the dog can't coexist in their house with their kid is fine. But I do not agree that killing the dog because of the parents' failure to realize that earlier is the right thing. They should take the dog to a shelter if they can't find a friend or neighbor who will take him.

[MattPalmer1086]

What would your solution be?

[pdonis]

I've already given it in several places elsewhere in this thread, including my response to leptons just upthread from your post.