Dog Drags Newborn From Family Home

Dog Drags Newborn From Family Home

news.aol.com

Four-day-old Alexander James Smith was rushed to the emergency room at University of Kentucky Hospital in Lexington, where he was listed in critical condition Tuesday with two collapsed lungs, a skull fracture, broken ribs and various cuts and bruises.

(visit the link for the full news article)

A family dog playfully carries a four day old infant from his crib to a heavily wooded are of backyard.
The baby is in critical condition but expected to live. The dog is being held by animal control and is
expected to be destroyed.

How can the state even consider destroying an animal that was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing, bonding and protecting the new family member. We raised our children in a home with several large dogs. The dogs protected our home and our children and were beloved members of our family. The children were taught to respect the dogs. It was common sense not to leave a new baby alone with a large animal for a few months , no matter how gentle that animal may be for exactly the reason we see above.

I don't agree with putting this poor animal to sleep, maybe the owners lol...but not the animal.
What say you?

news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is really sad. I hope the baby survives. I couldnt even imagine losing my daughter. Oh man I dont even wanna think about that.

Why do you think the owners should be put to sleep? What the hell. These people may lose their child. Thats really sad.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

I believe its up to the owners but If the dog did no physical harm to my child then I'd have to keep him seperate or give him away but not put him to sleep. Of course if he hurt them on purpose in any way then we would have an old yeller on our hands.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by TheWake]

reply to post by Sundancer

How can the state even consider destroying an animal that was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing, bonding and protecting the new family member

and

where he was listed in critical condition Tuesday with two collapsed lungs, a skull fracture, broken ribs and various cuts and bruises.

and

but a day earlier they braced the family for the worst and had to use resuscitation paddles to get a heartbeat.

collapsed lungs? fractured skull? had to shock a 4 day old to get a heart beat?

thats NOTHING like `bonding and protecting` a new family member - the breed sis known for stealing items and burying them - and quite rightfully this wild animal needs to be destroyed.

The parents forgot to do their job.
They left it up to an animal to be smart enough to not harm an infant.

As much as people love their pets, they cannot be completely trusted to understand what they are dealing with when it comes to a four day old infant.

The parents should have known better.

reply to post by Sundancer



Its entirely up to the owner. If they feel they want it put down for fear of future incidents then so be it. I love dogs, but in the end its just a dog.

reply to post by badgerprints



That's pretty much the same thing I was trying to say. It's very sad it happened but it wasn't the dogs fault. The parents have two other litter mates of this dog as well as other children and they just forgot to keep an eye on the dogs knowing the dogs wold never attack the children. They forgot to consider play time.

All I know I care about a human more than any animal.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

What's the point in killing the dog though? Seriously think about it? the dog didn't outright attack the child. I would never put a dog's life over a human's but at this point really what is the point in killing the dog? Give it to a good home with responsible owners. This dog is a very instinctive breed......it's part Wolf for god's sake. Anyone that leaves any type of Husky/Malamute around young kids alone is an idiot anyways. This is a tragedy but it's pointless to kill a dog that was being a dog. Would it really make the family feel better to have their dog killed? It''s comparable to a terrible accident. What if the dog had nustled up to the baby on the floor and accidentally smothered it. Would you all still be clamoring to have the dog killed?

Yeah I agree guys. The dog shouldnt die. But itll be parents decision. A dog is just an animal that goes by instinct it didnt know it was doing wrong. It probably thought it was playing.

Peace

How can the state simply kill the dog like that without authorization ??? It's a terrible accident, ... If a kid falls down the stairs do they have the stairs removed ?? no they simply but barriers up so it doesn't happen again.

all in all, its the parents pet, not the states, they should have no right.

reply to post by Sundancer



As much as I enjoy a good dog. Uh, a dog carries off my child? That's one dead dog immediately. No need for quarantine. It's dead. I woud kick to death my best friend, dog, for 13 years or whatever, if it harmed my child.

reply to post by Sundancer


You know at first glance, I thought this story was about a dog caring for it's human "pack" and pulling one of the young from a burning home... But then I see the lovely story of a dog nearly killing the poor baby

Put the dog down.

If the child dies then the dog will end up in a shelter where most likely it will live in a cage until they decide to put him down. Nobody will want a dog that killed an infant. I doubt the owners would want him back.

If the child does survive then see my first reason.


Put him down instead of having him live the rest of his limited days in a small concrete cage.

Read this on my local news (it happened in my locale) and the baby is expected to be ok.

For anyone worried about the dog, the owners willingly surrendered the dog to the shelter. Not to be PTS, but because they didn't want the "risk" of the dog in their home. The dog is with animal control. It will only be PTS if it can't find a home. Knowing the craze for wolflike dogs in Kentucky (I work at a petstore...trust me I know they're sought-after), the dog will have a home quickly.

As for the actual situation...the dog was doing what its instincts told it to do. The article from my local news source (14wfie.com) stated that the dog could have chomped and killed the baby no problem. I have no doubts the dog meant no harm...I'm more willing to think the injuries occured from the jump from the crib after the dog got the baby, not the dog trying to kill it.

It's hard to think what I would have done in the situation. I'm but 21 and have no kids yet, so my pets are family...but if I had a child, I don't know. I'd probably keep the dog and actually pay attention and be a damn parent. It's hard to say since it didn't happen to me.

reply to post by Harlequin


If that dog is a wild animal, why did they have it at home in the first place? And why alone with the baby? If this wild animal should be killed for being a wild animal, what should happen to the parents for being foolish?

We people always end on top, no matter what. We are that used to being king of the hill.

Dangerous animals should not be kept as pets. Friendly animals should not be left alone with very small children.

What is the penalty for human stupidity?

I have a ten year old dog who has been socialised and is good with people. This being said when frineds come with children they are not often allowed to pat the dog and if they are, myself or my partner stand right next to the dog.
If I had a child of my own there would be no way he would have any sort of unsupervised access to the child especially at four days old!
I really feel for the parents no parent should have to experience this, but I also feel they wear the responsiblity.
If it were me would I put the dog down? I wouldn't need to, my pet would not have the opportunity to harm my child. (no matter how much I trust and love him, I still wouldn't trust him.)

There are so many nice, domesticated breeds of dogs, that are much less likely to harm an infant like this, it really has to make you wonder, why people want to keep a less domesticated animal with some wolf (a wild animal) in it. Why not get a nice domesticated dog?

The difference between wild animals and domesticated animals, is that the wild animals can be more unpredictable.

I'm glad to hear the animal may not be put to sleep, however if it goes on to get a new home, where the next family has a baby and that baby happens to die (apparently this one barely survived), I'll wish the dog had been put to sleep so that next baby didn't have to die.

Maybe there should be a law against having dangerous animals around infants? Dogs that are part wild animal(wolf), and breeds that are bred to be aggressive attack dogs like pit bulls and rottweilers, I would consider too dangerous to have around infants.

I'm not in favor of having too many laws, but if people are too stupid to select dog breeds that are appropriate for their situation, apparently it's an unfortunate necessity.

Many communities already have bans on pit bulls and Rottweilers:

www.legalmatch.com...

The Montana Senate is endorsing a plan to ban wolf hybrids in the state:
www.missoulian.com...

Maybe Montana is onto something, should it be a nationwide ban?

In some states it's the law that if an animal attacks a person for undetermined reason the animal is destroyed and the owner has NO say in the matter. It's not the dogs fault for sure but animals have a way of changing their behavior with no apparent reason or showing any signs of aggression!

Zindo