Originally posted by Bluemoon
I never said the dog was vicious. But it clearly is in a dominate role with the child and has repeated a very effective behaviour.. and will likely repeat it again.

The law protects the child from dog bites.

I would also add that you are giving advice to a child who is asking questions concerning a sibling younger brother...these are not adults we are talking to, these are children.

I personally would not like to be the person who allowed a child to remain in a situation that had already proven to be dangerous.

Nor be a person who is suggesting to a sibling (child) of another child that she have her brother now try to gain dominace over a dog who has clearly demonstrated it is very capable of hurting the child.

Dont you think advice of this sort should not be given to minors without their parents being invloved?

I find it unthinkable that someone who has not even met the dog or the children involed or the parents, would ever think to give any advice, except for the need to protect the child and get professional help.

The parents of this child need to take action to protect the child, the law demands it. What happens with the dog in the end is secondary to this.

They need professional help, not chat room advice.
Deb
You've most certainly got a point there, Deb. I feel like I said the wrong thing. Maybe I should delete my post before she reads it (or rereads it).

I was thinking she was a teen. So many of our teens on this forum are unusually mature. Or at least they seem so from their posts. Kind of hard to tell when we're not in person.

Than ks for the reminder.