In the case of Mickey the pit bull…

The other day I got a PM on Facebook from my friend Chris White (founder: Bikers Against BSL) He asked me to weigh in on the case of a pit bull named Mickey who was facing euthanasia for having bitten a child who wandered onto his owners property.

Before even investigating the case I suspected I would probably find negligence on the part of the owner had contributed to the bite. Now I know that sounds like I am biased before I start, so let me explain. It is an unfortunate fact that in 90% of the bite cases I am asked to review owner irresponsibility plays a large part in why the dog bit. Usually (as was the case with Mickey) the dog is left unsupervised in a situation where it should not have been. (In this case Mickey was enjoying a good chew on a bone in his owners yard.)

In Mickey’s case it is not only his owner who bears responsibility, but also the guardian of the child Mickey bit. One has to ask oneself why a four year old was wandering into other peoples yards. Where were his caregivers? What idiot allows a four year old to roam the neighborhood alone?

Calm yourselves pit bull haters! I hear you screaming “How dare you blame anyone other than the PIT BULL!”

To you I say, “I DO dare to blame both the dog owner AND the guardians of the child, because THAT IS WHO IS RESPONSIBLE!”

It’s a FACT: 92% of dog owners NEVER take their dogs for basic obedience training.

It’s a FACT: Most dog owners do no breed research before obtaining a puppy of their “chosen” breed.

It’s a FACT: There is no such thing as a SAFE breed of dog. All dogs possess the ability to bite.

It’s a FACT: Most dog bites involving children occur due to negligence on the part of the dog owner and the guardian of the child.

Go ahead argue with me if you wish. But facts are facts, and fact is that Mickey’s breed had absolutely nothing to do with his current troubles. Mickey is in trouble because he is a DOG and he reacted like one.

If you ask me (and this time someone did) there should be an investigation here, an investigation as to why a four year old was left unsupervised long enough to wander onto someone elses property and get that close to a dog with a bone.

Still don’t understand what I am saying here? Read this:

“why are you allowing your child to invade my dog’s space?”

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “In the case of Mickey the pit bull…

  1. “… however a dog with food or toy aggression should be supervised while in areas accessible to the public …”

    In this case that might be true, IF the dog is known to be aggressive with food or toys. I don’t know how far the kid had to go to reach where the dog was – 5 feet or 200 feet – distance makes a difference. I don’t know if the yard was fenced. I don’t know if the kid unlatched a gate, or climbed over a locked one. Too many unknowns to really assign blame to the owner, but certainly enough to assign blame to who ever was supposed to be watching the kid and keeping them safe.

  2. I do totally agree that the babysitter in this case was not doing her/his job, at all ! If she/he had been, then surely/hopefully she wouldn’t have allowed the child to wander anywhere at all and be in danger of any kind. I do have a problem that a dog can’t be on their own property, in their own yard, without backlash. No one should be allowed to invade anothers space. Since I haven’t seen any in depth facts as to if Mickey has any history of any type of aggression, that would warrant maybe their/his yard be fenced in, etc……. I believe that he and his owners were in the right in this case. It was their property, and he was where he belonged.He didn’t attack the child when the child entered his yard/space, It was only when the child tried to take his bone, that he bit and didn’t attack the child. Maybe he may have a food aggression, if anything. If it was me, and assuming that there is no history of biting or aggression in his past, I would have allowed the same thing, assuming that he was safe, and in his own yard, enjoying a nice juicy bone, as he probably had done dozens of times. There was nothing to believe that that day would have been any different.

    • You are correct. Allowing a dog to chew a bone on their owners property should not be an issue, however a dog with food or toy aggression should be supervised while in areas accessible to the public. You could argue that the child was trespassing but realistically that is not a reasonable consideration. Both the guardian of the child and the dog owner are responsible here. The dog owner for setting up the dog in a situation that could lead to the dog biting, and the guardian for allowing a four year old to walk into a situation in which they were bitten.

Comments are closed.