You completely missed the point. Yes, your niece is a bad dog owner. She has no business having a dog she can't control around children, who according to you are being attacked by this dog. She wants to keep him. So? She shouldn't keep him. And when something happens, you will come on here and say that it's the dog's fault. Now you're saying the dog never injured anyone, which is not the case if the dog is actually attacking. You're contradicting yourself.
The dog is not the right fit. The dog belongs with someone who knows how to handle the dog and not let the dog attack children. If she can not control the dog, and the dog attacks children, and she has done nothing about it, she's irresponsible. The dog needs to be rehomed with someone else. It isn't the dog's fault that's he around children and according to you, he doesn't want to be around children. My husband and I had to rehome an Alaskan Malamute who we had since our college days because the dog was stressed by our children, and once went after my oldest son when he was a toddler and toddler near the dog. That's what responsible dog owners do, for the sake of themselves, others, and the dog.
Not all dogs adore children, and this one clearly doesn't. The dog needs to be rehomed, and if she choses not to do it and get a dog that is more suited to her physical abilities and her lifestyle, then yes, she is a bad dog owner.
Look, Mrs Borrachos... damn where do I begin.
I say "attacked" and you say I am contradicting myself when I say no one has been injured. Very well, perhaps I should have more accurately said "the dog has lunged towards children in an aggressive manner that appeared to be an
attempt to attack, but was prevented from completing same by being on a leash with a control collar."
In that sense, I suppose my youngest niece has indeed kept him under control.... as far as what he's DONE, but not his behavior.
The dog has not been around children much until very recently. My youngest niece, the dog's owner, has none.
Because the dog behaves towards HER in an adorable, friendly, fur-baby like manner, SHE tends to think of him as harmless... an illusion many dog owners harbor of their canine. When I was doing utility work many times a homeowner would say to me "the dog will not bite." I'd look at them in mock-horror and say "You pulled all his TEETH??" Shocked, they'd deny this vehemently, to which I'd reply "If he has teeth, he may bite." That is true of any dog under the right circumstances.... but some dogs are more prone to it than others.
She doesn't want to believe her fur-baby is potentially dangerous because she is emotionally attached and he doesn't act dangerous TO HER. This type of mentality is common among most dog owners to some degree. She's also just gone through an ugly divorce and is a bit emotionally fragile, and is clinging to her attachment to the dog. Yeah I think I should go right out and kick that out from under her, don't you? (irony)
But NOW she's moved back into the area where the rest of the family lives (four households in walking distance and a fifth 5 minutes away), and my other two nieces both have children ranging from toddlers and up. This is where we've started running into problems. My youngest niece is trying to fix it by gradually socializing the dog to deal with children. She thinks it is going to work.
I don't. The dog is too twitchy and paranoid. I don't know if that is because of his circumstances before he was "rescued" or something her ex did to him, but he is prone to overreact to any sudden stimuli, and being a pitt that can be a serious matter.
Not my dog, not my call. I can render my opinion, but that's all.
You can call her a "bad dog owner" if you wish. In my experience she is
very average in her self-inflicted illusion that HER fur-baby is no real threat to anyone.