|Barked: Fri Jul 24, '09 4:16pm PST |
|ok, the name of this post is HORRIBLY WRONG WRONG WRONG!! this is why the NAIDs are getting such bad names. the dog did NOT attack the baby! if you read the entire article, not just the little tidbit that makes it sound like a brutal attack, you would see it TOTALLY different! (oh and she grasped him by the chest, UNDER the neck, where a MOTHER DOG WOULD CARRY A PUPPY!!)
now let me go on to say this: the dog will NOT be put down. here is what the owner of Dakota and the father of the baby said (yes even HE knows it wasnt an intentional attack!):
"I am Dakota's owner and the father of the baby. Dakota is not going to be put down, the efforts I did today with the media has drawn so much positive attention, that not only will I be able to find a good home for her, hopefully it will be close so we can visit what is a 4 year old member of our family. I have made contact with animal control and they are working with me to find Dakota another good home. She is safe. "
now, it doesnt matter what breed of dog you have, you should ALWAYS ALWAYS keep an eye on the baby and dog when they are together, especially when the dog had not grown up with infants, like Dakota.
secondly, if you know anything about big dogs, you would know the ONLY reason that it says that about NAIDs is because they are a large breed dog, and with any big dog, there could be accidents with small children. its not that they will just suddenly attack them, its because they may play rough or accidentally sit on them!
so, if you read the rest of the article and others like it, you would see that the dog was not being vicious by any means (no NAID would "attack" or intentionally hurt a child -- might i add that my 1 year old neice is just FACINATED by my NAIDs mouth and Tala just sits there while she grabs at his tongue and teeth, screeching and laughing the whole time! so vicious right??). the baby most likely started to cry or wine and Dakota, being a female dog with MATERNAL instincs, most likly felt the need to comfort the baby herself (cause apparently the parents could spend $1500 each for their TWO NAIDs, but not $15 for a baby monitor or $50 for a portable basinett!). so thats what she did. she carried the baby like a puppy (again, basic dog info: puppies are carried by the "scruff" on the back of the neck, or on the front just below the neck -- its not her fault the baby doesnt have the extra skin a puppy has for carrying) and took it somewhere quiet... the back yard woods. the injuries that the baby sustained were most likly just from being carried or dragged through the woods, it was NOT from a vicious attack.
believe me, if a 100 or so pound dog really wanted to hurt him, the 6.5lb baby would not have made it out of the house alive! it was actually being gentle (remember he was only 4 days old. hes small, the bones are fragile, the skull still has the "soft spot" etc...) not vicious.
statements from people who are uneducated on the breed of discussion or basic dog instincts/how they act just create bad rumors, there is no need to bash a loving, loyal breed of which you have no knowledge. what would the news or title headings be if it were a Golden Retreiver or a Labrador?
i created a page just for Dakota on my dogs' website that includes all the articles (the ENTIRE articles, not just little bits and peices made to make the dog look horrible) and my response to the articles:
|my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|