Dec. 12, 2006 -- A Louisiana couple is facing negligence charges after a puppy chewed off four of a baby girl's toes.

Mary and Christopher Hansche of Bossier city were being held Tuesday on charges of criminal neglect.

They told police they were awakened by their 1-month-old baby's cries on Sunday morning, saw her mangled foot and rushed her to the hospital. But doctors couldn't reattach the toes.


A veterinarian speculates the 6-week-old pit bull puppy might have been trying to nurse.


"She had a severe injury to one foot, with most of the toes missing," Bossier City, La., spokesman Mark Natale told The Shreveport Times.

Natale said the girl had been sleeping in a carrier next to her parents when the couple's puppy bit her.



"They did not see the dog injuring the child," Natale said.

The animal will be quarantined for 10 days and checked for rabies since it is too young to have had rabies shots. It's unclear what will happen to it after that.

The baby is now in foster care until the case against her parents is settled.

If convicted, the parents face a fine of up to $500 and up to six months in prison.


poor baby..

How do you not wake up when you hear a baby screaming right next to you?

IrresistibleB1tch said:

I don't agree that the dog's are innately dangerous. The parent's were neglectful that is indeed a fact.
[Edited 12/12/06 12:55pm]

.


[Edited 12/12/06 12:53pm]

That's why I'm a proponate for Education on Birth Control. Not everybody is responsible enough to be having babies! It is too bad for the baby. It's really sad.

Terilicious said:

yes, i've heard that argument quite a bit. and i agree that a dog's owner has to be responsible for the breed-appropriate training of their animal.

but at the same time, i believe there is no need for any type of dog that has such powerful jaws and is bred not to let go. you don't hear of many cocker spaniels mauling small children.

my heart goes out for this little baby...

IrresistibleB1tch said:

She'd probably rather your toes.




(Yes, I know that was SO wrong)


_____
[Edited 12/12/06 13:00pm]

Haystack said:

Very

Haystack said:

oh man...

How terrible. That poor little girl is going to have to deal with this for the rest of her life.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Cocker Spaniels sure as hell DO maul children. You don't hear about it because the media loves pitbull stories.

And a dog trying to attack somebody will generally go for the throat/head/belly. This was a TINY PUPPY. Puppies chew everything, and I agree with the vet that the dog probably started out trying to nurse. A puppy that young shouldn't even be away from mama. It certainly shouldn't be left alone unsupervised with anything that it's not allowed to chew, including a kid.

Dont blame the breed of the dog.

I wouldnt go to sleep and leave a child alone with any kind of animal.

Also remember the childs bones are not as strong as an adults.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Thank U.

This had nothing 2 do with the breed being a pit bull.

I have a pit bull, Nicco, who is the friendliest dog U will ever meet. People friendly, dog friendly, baby friendly... maybe not cat friendly.

Rottweilers and Pit Bulls have a bad rep, because many of them R abused, and raised 2 b vicious.

Yes, certain breeds may be more prone 2 being skiddish in 1 way or another... e.g Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepards, Dobermans, etc.

But whether they r "dangerous" or not really does depend on how they R raised.

Giovanni777 said:

i hear you both. i know friendly pit bulls and viscious cockers. the question is, if one of these becomes aggressive, which one will do the most damage by sheer jaw power?

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Yes, I know, but this dog was 6 WEEKS OLD. Its breed is completely irrelevant here. Almost any dog could chew off baby toes.

(Ever utter a string of words that you really never thought would go together? )

HereToRockYourWorld said:

all the time!

fair enough in this case

we've gone a few rounds on this topic before, and i just want you to know that i respect your opinion and conviction!

IrresistibleB1tch said:

I know, and I think we pretty much agree.

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

ufoclub said:

That makes perfect sense, but note that those are FATALITIES. It takes a whole lot of strength to kill a person. Especially an adult person. That's a list strong dogs.

Those figures are not an accurate representation of aggression in dogs, and of course, say nothing about the causes (ie. how it was raised).

I'd love to see figures on dog BITES by breed, taking into account breed popularity, which still wouldn't account for cause, but would be a more accurate profile of aggression.

I would guess that Chows and Shar Peis would top that list, with high placement by Huskies, Poodles, and various Spaniels. I would also guess that Pits would be somewhere in the top half, and that Rotts would be in the bottom third (based on what I saw working in vet clinics and animal control).

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Agreed.
CDC most dangerous dog breeds:
Pit bulls
Rottweilers
German Shepherds
Huskies
Alaskan Malamutes
Doberman Pinschers
Chow Chows
Great Danes
St. Bernards



Fatal pit bull attacks are 3 times higher annual than the closest breed (the German Sheppard).


I understand there is always nature over nurture, but would we even consider taking such chances if one day (God forbid) we were able to domesticate large cats?

HereToRockYourWorld said:
That makes perfect sense, but note that those are FATALITIES. It takes a whole lot of strength to kill a person. Especially an adult person. That's a list strong dogs.

Those figures are not an accurate representation of aggression in dogs, and of course, say nothing about the causes (ie. how it was raised).

I'd love to see figures on dog BITES by breed, taking into account breed popularity, which still wouldn't account for cause, but would be a more accurate profile of aggression.

I would guess that Chows and Shar Peis would top that list, with high placement by Huskies, Poodles, and various Spaniels. I would also guess that Pits would be somewhere in the top half, and that Rotts would be in the bottom third (based on what I saw working in vet clinics and animal control).[/quote]

http://www.dogbitelaw.com...lifton.pdf

Imago said:

Sheer pandemonium I remember in my old neighborhood there was this house on the corner with a chow chow. I swear everyone was scared to walk past that house, because he'd always come flying out of the yard chasing after you. I laugh now.....but at the time I was scared as hell.