# Another Dog Attack



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Very sad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37653137


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Very very sad 

my thoughts and prayers go out to the family involved.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Thoughts and prayers may sound hollow as I don't know them at all. Most of us can appreciate the joy a dog brings. Many of us can appreciate loss having suffered from it. To have that loss suddenly we can appreciate and that is why, thoughts and prayers aren't hollow. They are meant sincerely.

It's easy enough to blame things like BSL but rather than take that approach I'd like us all to remember that education is one of the major keys to prevention of incidents like this. Preaching to the converted but let's make sure we all educate where we can.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

Poor baby and poor little boy how devastating that must be


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So tragic


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I've just read, they are saying  it was a* Staffordshire bull terrier type" dog attacked three people in Harwich Road**.*


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Very sad tragic situation .


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> I've just read, they are saying  it was a* Staffordshire bull terrier type" dog attacked three people in Harwich Road**.*


I heard something on the radio saying a husky type dog had been involved in an attack; the story mentioned above, they(BBC radio 4) are not saying the breed.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

El Cid said:


> I heard something on the radio saying a husky type dog had been involved in an attack; the story mentioned above, they(BBC radio 4) are not saying the breed.


I read in their local paper on another thread.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Daily Fail started off by saying it was American Bulldog, now it's a staffie. Probably neither.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Why doe it even matter what breed?


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

We are in Suffolk at the moment and watched the local news which led with the attack. Very sad that the baby has died.
They interviewed a neighbour who said that a police van was parked in the driveway close to the house when the dog was taken away by the police, in order to not show what kind of dog it was. The man went on to say that he could see the dog and his words were 'sadly, it was a staffordshire'. I had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he felt sad that it was a staffie (in his opinion) because he he was sorry that it was because he likes the dogs, but that's only my impression and I could be totally wrong.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

The child that was killed in August in Halstead was killed by an American Bulldog, are you sure it wasn't that article you saw?
This latest terrible attack is said to be by a SBT "Cross".


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why doe it even matter what breed?


It doesn't. It matters what is reported 



Magnus said:


> The child that was killed in August in Halstead was killed by an American Bulldog, are you sure it wasn't that article you saw?
> This latest terrible attack is said to be by a SBT "Cross".


Yes, as the owner of an American Bulldog I tend to take notice of things like that.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> It doesn't. It matters what is reported
> .


I didn't mean just you (which is why I didn't quote you) - rather the speculation in general


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

I've read this morning that the dog (now euthanised) belonged to a serving WPC.


----------



## LoopyL (Jun 16, 2015)

Poor family


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Such sad news. 
Prayers for the family.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Breed is irrelevant, the outcome is the same for the injured parties and the dog. 

Focus needs to be taken away from "breed" as it just fuels the pro BSL parties.

Once again, the dog has been PTS without the opportunity to investigate the cause by the relevant trained parties

I do not have a problem putting such dogs down as it would be untenable to rehome it but giving those who are really interested in the underlying causes might help to minimise recurrence


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Stan rawlinson , " dog aggression" expert BBC news just now .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews at 14.06 WTF !


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2016)

smokeybear said:


> Breed is irrelevant, the outcome is the same for the injured parties and the dog.
> 
> Focus needs to be taken away from "breed" as it just fuels the pro BSL parties.
> 
> ...


This... 
So incredibly frustrating that the dog has been euthanized without taking the time to fully investigate. Not that I think the dog should be kept alive, but because I think allowing experts to assess the dog could give us very useful insight in to these extreme cases and help prevent future ones.

Speaking of prevention, speculating on the breed won't accomplish anything in the way of preventing a future tragedy, nor will it accomplish anything helpful for the grieving parents or still injured child. It just causes discord and distraction from the actual issue.

Ideally an investigation would look in to the age of the dog, medical records if available, pedigree records if available, any history on the dog as far as behavior, insight in to the dog's environment, that sort of thing. The more we know the more we can prevent future incidents.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2016)

Where do you get your 90% figure from?


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

I do wish the media would keep some perspective. 18 dog related deaths in 5 years is nothing compared to approx 8500 who have died on UK roads in that time but the media love to blow these incidents up in such a way as to suggest the problem is a rampant one.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2016)

Actually if I remember right, KO has me on ignore, so someone else may need to ask him where he gets those figures from


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Actually if I remember right, KO has me on ignore, so someone else may need to ask him where he gets those figures from


Their arse...


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

[

but we don`t know what breed it is yet?
just because someone says it loked like a bull breed,doesnt mean it is.
radio reports said it was a husky type,very different from a bull breed.
deed not breed!!!


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

That poor family 



Gemmaa said:


> Their arse...


Took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

fluffybunny2001 said:


> but we don`t know what breed it is yet?
> just because someone says it loked like a bull breed,doesnt mean it is.
> radio reports said it was a husky type,very different from a bull breed.
> deed not breed!!!


"Dog Warden Dave Thompson, 46, who lives two doors down from where the incident took place, said the dog was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier type." (From EADT news) http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/baby_fig...ured_after_dog_attack_in_colchester_1_4735165


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> If 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed, it seems like a good idea to focus on that breed.
> 
> Very sad news, but it's always the same breeds.


Can you advise where you got 90% from? Given that, in the UK, records on dog attacks aren't kept, I can only assume it's from the press. In which case, this article may help you. It's from the US, where they do keep records of dog attacks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffen-baldwin/the-lies-damn-lies-and-st_b_8112394.html


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> Can you advise where you got 90% from? Given that, in the UK, records on dog attacks aren't kept, I can only assume it's from the press. In which case, this article may help you. It's from the US, where they do keep records of dog attacks
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffen-baldwin/the-lies-damn-lies-and-st_b_8112394.html


Well clearly some sort of record is kept because the BBC reported 18 deaths in 5 years. Whether or not that includes breed type though is unclear.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

komondor_owner said:


> If 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed, it seems like a good idea to focus on that breed.
> 
> Very sad news, but it's always the same breeds.


Can you point me to the stats which list which breeds have been involved in dog bites; what percentage of those were children and what percentage of those died please?

It would be really useful for many of us for several reasons.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> Well clearly some sort of record is kept because the BBC reported 18 deaths in 5 years. Whether or not that includes breed type though is unclear.


I should have clarified, records of breeds


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

komondor_owner said:


> "Dog Warden Dave Thompson, 46, who lives two doors down from where the incident took place, said the dog was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier type." (From EADT news) http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/baby_fig...ured_after_dog_attack_in_colchester_1_4735165


And of course he should know................

A bit like all those people who think my Malinois is a GSD..................................... sigh


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> Well clearly some sort of record is kept because the BBC reported 18 deaths in 5 years. Whether or not that includes breed type though is unclear.


I found this, but even then it's incomplete, and they readily admit that they have to cross check with press reports

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-facts-dog-attacks/17727


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Another SBT like attack (obviously one of the 10%) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ded-beach-dog-fought-child-s-grandmother.html


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Very sad for all involved 



komondor_owner said:


> If 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed, it seems like a good idea to focus on that breed.
> 
> Very sad news, but it's always the same breeds.


What on earth are you on about? What breed is responsible for 90% of attacks?

Apart from the local daily rags (that are notorious for getting the breed wrong) do you have any factual evidence to back this up?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why doe it even matter what breed?


It shouldn't, but we know that is does in the media eye 

As already said, the outcome is the same regardless of breed. Just a shame the breed is always the centre of such tragedies which helps no one or nothing.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Right now all I can think about is how that mother must be feeling ....... loosing a child is the most heartbreaking thing in the world ....she will never, ever forgive herself. 

I'll leave the breed debate and the finger pointing to the less salubrious press. 

J


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There's nothing wrong with reporting the breed along with other information as long as they report accurately. I doubt the children's gender is particularly relevant to any reason for the attack either but it was part of the radio report I heard.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> Well clearly some sort of record is kept because the BBC reported 18 deaths in 5 years. Whether or not that includes breed type though is unclear.


If I understand correctly, there is no mandatory reporting for dog bites in the UK.

For example, in the US, if I'm bitten by a dog, and I seek medical attention for that bite, the medical personnel who tend to me are required by law to report the dog bite. 
This means we do have good records on the number of bites that happen in the US, who they tend to happen to the most (children), what part of the body is bitten (on children it's most often the face, adults it's the hands), and other information like if the dog was owned by the person bitten etc. 
We also have fairly good information regarding "repeat offenders". We do know if a dog has a bite on record - if that bite was bad enough to seek medical attention. If it was just a bandaid, no we wouldn't necessarily know. But we do for sure know when a dog who has bitten once with purpose goes on to bite again.

Now, as for breed, there it gets pretty sketchy... 
Basically whoever is reporting can simply take my word for it, or a witnesses word for it as to breed. So if I get bitten by a golden fluffy dog, go get stitched up and say I was bitten by a golden retriever, that's what gets recorded whether the dog was a golden or some sort of lab mutt with longer hair or neither of those breeds at all.

The other weirdness about reporting the breed is that pit bull mixes get reported along with actual pit bulls. In very basic terms it looks like this:
Lab bite = lab bite
LabXspaniel = mixed breed bite
Husky bite = husky bite
HuskyXlab = mixed breed bite
Pit bull bite = pit bull bite
Pit bullXlab = pit bull bite
Pit bullXhusky = pit bull bite

As you can see the stats quickly skew.

And of course none of this is relevant to this particular case. Other than the part about no mandatory reporting in the UK.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

komondor_owner said:


> If 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed, it seems like a good idea to focus on that breed.
> 
> Very sad news, but it's always the same breeds.


90% of dog attacks on what? children? adults? other dogs? sheep? On the one hand you say 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed then you say its always the same breeds (plural). It is for the police and an inquest to discover the circumstances of this tragic case and what/why happened not for social media and the gutter press.



havoc said:


> There's nothing wrong with reporting the breed along with other information as long as they report accurately. I doubt the children's gender is particularly relevant to any reason for the attack either but it was part of the radio report I heard.


No of course once the facts are actually known and are not speculation there is nothing wrong with stating the breed of dog but it always puzzles me why a thread like this which should be about expressing sympathy for the victims always turns into a breed bashing fest. There are so many variables that we don't and won't know until an inquest is held, hopefully at that point information will be made available that we can all learn from. In the mean time lets not use this as an excuse for staffie bashing.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Statistically there are likely to be more staffy types involved because they're so numerous. It's the conclusions drawn from raw data which can be problematic.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> but it always puzzles me why a thread like this which should be about expressing sympathy for the victims always turns into a breed bashing fest.


I think some members just lurk around waiting for an opportunity to pop in to a thread, cause discord, and then disappear again. It's a type of trolling IMHO. And it worked.....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> If 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed, it seems like a good idea to focus on that breed.
> 
> Very sad news, but it's always the same breeds.


Could you provide a link to where you get this statistic from please.

If it's the Daily Fail - don't bother.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

havoc said:


> Statistically there are likely to be more staffy types involved because they're so numerous. It's the conclusions drawn from raw data which can be problematic.


Ah statistics.

Let us see what these are and how they stack up.

Statistically the most numerous of the breed groups is the gundog group with circa 84k KC registered in 2015
Statistically the sporting breeds outnumber the non sporting breeds.

SBTs are members of neither the gundog group nor is it a sporting breed.

Statistically the breed with the most KC registrations for 2015 was the labrador (again) with circa 32k, followed by the Cocker Spaniel, French Bulldog, ESS, Pug, GSD, Bulldog, Golden Retriever, Border Terrier, Miniature Schnauzer and in 11th place the SBT with 4.5k. It was in 10/11 place for 2014 and 2013 as well.

However of course nobody has a clue of how many of any of these breeds are born every year which are NOT kc registered.

So no help there.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Come on people, you're looking for facts from someone who thinks its ok for a dog to bite a postman because they didn't correctly identify the breed and should have known better :Facepalm


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Nettles said:


> Come on people, you're looking for facts from someone who thinks its ok for a dog to bite a postman because they didn't correctly identify the breed and should have known better :Facepalm


Ah yes but you see, in his World, all dogs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

It's okay for a dog, which is of a Breed approved by him, to bite the Postman because the man, apparently, was stupid enough to think he could hand a parcel to the owner without the dog becoming outraged and vicious, but it's not okay for a Bull Breed to bite.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> 90% of dog attacks on what? children? adults? other dogs? sheep? On the one hand you say 90% of dog attacks are from a particular breed then you say its always the same breeds (plural). It is for the police and an inquest to discover the circumstances of this tragic case and what/why happened not for social media and the gutter press.
> 
> No of course once the facts are actually known and are not speculation there is nothing wrong with stating the breed of dog but it always puzzles me why a thread like this which should be about expressing sympathy for the victims always turns into a breed bashing fest. There are so many variables that we don't and won't know until an inquest is held, hopefully at that point information will be made available that we can all learn from. In the mean time lets not use this as an excuse for staffie bashing.


I couldn't agree more, can we stop the speculation as to breed type and concentrate on expressing sympathy to this tragic family ?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Comes back to post earlier. Focus on breed does nothing to protect the public. Annoying thing is, media loves to focus on breed, nothing about education or how to prevent incidents. That is yet another tragedy of incidents of this. They will be repeated as people do not seem to learn from them as media focus is elsewhere.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> Statistically there are likely to be more staffy types involved because they're so numerous. It's the conclusions drawn from raw data which can be problematic.


Is that speculation or do you have some evidence please?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I cant seem to find any definite stats.
But i found this . 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/dangerous-dogs

I feel for the dogs that lose their life too. What made them do it ? Its more than just breed but I don't think you should not say what breed a dog is . A "staffie type " isn't a breed of dog , they seem to be a mix of various breeds.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

kimthecat said:


> I cant seem to find any definite stats.
> But i found this .
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/dangerous-dogs
> 
> I feel for the dogs that lose their life too. What made them do it ? Its more than just breed but I don't think you should not say what breed a dog is . A "staffie type " isn't a breed of dog , they seem to be a mix of various breeds.


The problem is the press don't seem to report the times when breeds not on their hate list attack, there was a child killed by a JRT and another by a Pomeranian I seem to remember but that hardly gets any coverage. Wouldn't make a particularly good front page headline I suppose.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Such a tragic story.
Does it really matter what breed the dog is, a baby has died and a child is seriously injured.
My thoughts go out to the poor family., and how they must be feeling.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Is that speculation or do you have some evidence please?


Only my own eyes RPH. When I go to a local(ish) town park I'd say around half the dogs (and there are a lot) would be classed as staff types or bull breed types - to my inexpert eye. Also looking at what's walked through my village, not so high a proportion but definitely noticeable. I'd take a guess that the majority are not KC registered.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

I think the issue is that certain breeds can do severe damage with the same level of attack ( as in retaliation ) than others . Apparently dachshunds are considered, statistically , to be the breed most likely to bite, Idon't have any references , sorry. But the point is , a dachshund or similar size dog is not as likely to kill or maim as a large , powerful jawed dog.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Off to do the food shopping , play nicely !


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> The problem is the press don't seem to report the times when breeds not on their hate list attack, there was a child killed by a JRT and another by a Pomeranian I seem to remember but that hardly gets any coverage. Wouldn't make a particularly good front page headline I suppose.


perhaps but the JRT or JRT type killing a week old child was reported in most papers and it was on the news at the time , it was in at least the Mail, Telegraph , Times, Guardian so its not being ignored , it doesn't happen that often with this breed.

The problem is that people have been killed by dogs and the issue needs to be tackled.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Statistically I've found 90% of people who own Komondors have some kind of snowflake complex when it comes to their breed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

When was the last time a dog on dog attack was news, yet it was UK news when a pitbull attacked a beagle in Boston USA, not long ago. It's not simply the frequency of reporting. The difference between "mauled" and "attacked" for example. Media is great for spreading fear, not solutions.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> Only my own eyes RPH. When I go to a local(ish) town park I'd say around half the dogs (and there are a lot) would be classed as staff types or bull breed types - to my inexpert eye. Also looking at what's walked through my village, not so high a proportion but definitely noticeable. I'd take a guess that the majority are not KC registered.


But that depends where you live surely. Where we walk in Dorset and Devon bull breeds are by no means in the majority - BC's/Labs/JRTs and GSD's I would guess but it would only be a guess.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

kimthecat said:


> perhaps but the JRT or JRT type killing a week old child was reported in most papers and it was on the news at the time , it was in at least the Mail, Telegraph , Times, Guardian so its not being ignored , it doesn't happen that often with this breed.
> 
> The problem is that people have been killed by dogs and the issue needs to be tackled.


Quite agree people being killed by dogs does need to be tackled as does people being killed by cars and people being killed by cows and children being killed by their own parents. However when we do tackle those killed by dogs I'm just not convinced the breed of the dog is as relevant as the circumstances.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But that depends where you live surely. Where we walk in Dorset and Devon bull breeds are by no means in the majority - BC's/Labs/JRTs and GSD's I would guess but it would only be a guess.


I can count on one hand the amount of Staffs that live near me.

Where I live seems to be the land of the unusual gundog and hound.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But that depends where you live surely.


Absolutely which is why I pointed out a difference between a town park and a small (very middle class) village. Even in ten miles you can see the difference. If I were to classify by groups then gundogs are still quite popular in outlying villages though hounds are definitely on the rise and taking over the gundog spot. GSDs are over represented because there is a prison in the locality and the dog handlers keep their dogs at home with them - there's something that can really screw with the numbers hey 

Now a few miles down the road and into a small town - staffy 'types' and chihuahuas are what you notice in worthwhile numbers.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

havoc said:


> Only my own eyes RPH. When I go to a local(ish) town park I'd say around half the dogs (and there are a lot) would be classed as staff types or bull breed types - to my inexpert eye. Also looking at what's walked through my village, not so high a proportion but definitely noticeable. I'd take a guess that the majority are not KC registered.


Whereas in my village I've seen 1 Staffy. You can't move for Goldies, Labs and Collies though


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Jo-Rosie wrote this. I thought it was quite good

Here comes the rain again:

A baby has been killed; a child has life changing injuries and an adult has been hospitalised after another dogs attack. 

We know that BSL doesn't work. We know that - it's clear based on all the data we have collected over the last 25 years. 

We like to think that these attacks only happen to owners who neglect or abuse their dogs - because there is no such thing as a bad dog right? But actually, us bully owners all understand that it's not just this. The important thing to understand about the law, about these situations, about our own training and our own safe-keeping of our dogs is this: aggression is not a trait that a dangerous dog need possess. That means a dog doesn't have to be aggressive to be dangerous. In fact, scientifically speaking a dog doesn't even need to be aggressive to kill (if the aggression is non-affective and predatory it is not classed as aggression). 

Are bully breeds usually aggressive? No. no they are not. They are usually extremely tactile, confident, playful and loving towards people. Stats from Dognition and many other sources rate them with below average aggression towards people. That is not the problem here. That is not why all the fatal attacks reported seem to associated with some kind of bully breed. 

Some of the reason lies with the environment. We know there are those tells. The blue print for fatal attacks - someone who can control the dog not being present, the victim being someone the dog isn't familiar with, the victim being someone vulnerable etc etc. But why another bully? Why is the media not reporting a Jack Russell or a Spaniel having killed someone? 

We can blame the media and it's not a totally unworthy placement. They force us to look at mixed bred dogs and see the bully in these attacks. Someone said the dog looked like a staffie; someone else a large mixed bred dog. Guarantee if it's a GSD x Mastiff if will be reported as a Bull Mastiff x; guarantee if it's a staffie x with anything it will be reported as a staffie mix. This does paint a picture to Joe public and it does push people to see the bully in anything they consider dangerous. It does make a difference but...

No one can fail to notice that it is the bully's getting in trouble. Again. So if not aggressive - why? As I said above aggressive doesn't always mean dangerous (Paris Hiltons new dog could be the most aggressive dog on the planet but it's unlikely it would ever be in a position where it could kill or hospitalise someone) and visa versa: dangerous doesn't have to aggressive. 

Bully breeds are strong. In all senses. They are strong, physically speaking and strong willed too. They are. Let's be honest. Not just Arch, not just the pits - lots of them. I guess as a behaviourist and someone who works a lot with rescue I probably see more of these resilient and feisty bully's than the calm, chilled ones I do know exist. But additionally I've had the privilege of working with lots of other bully experts who would all agree that these traits are commonplace in the breed. They are wonderful in that way - a joy to train and a total laugh to live with. But as a result of this rambunctiousness and this 'if I want it I will have it' attitude is that they need to be kept under control. 

Not a muzzle and lead control - this is both inhibiting and restrictive. It increases stress, imposes emotional suppression and reduces opportunity for appropriate energy outlets. I mean training and I mean impulse control training. I'm also talking about teaching general manners which will reduce arousal and teach these dogs to stay focused and calm. How about instead of a control order (which so many owners refuse to completely comply with) that instead the government pushes for training. For specific classes that teach and practice impulse control and calmness and impose on the owners what is dangerous and what will get dogs in trouble; what fences are safe and what fences are not. That's legislation that makes sense. That's the sort of legislation that may have protected this family against the flat wall of grief they will now have to learn to live with.

My condolences go out to the family of all involved in this tragedy.

For more information about this kind of thing including breed specific traits and training keep your eye out on the The School of Canine Science page.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

havoc said:


> Only my own eyes RPH. When I go to a local(ish) town park I'd say around half the dogs (and there are a lot) would be classed as staff types or bull breed types - to my inexpert eye. Also looking at what's walked through my village, not so high a proportion but definitely noticeable. I'd take a guess that the majority are not KC registered.


SBTs etc may be more numerous in your part of the world but in other parts of the UK they are almost non existent.

It would be unwise to extrapolate on the basis of one demographic........................................


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> Whereas in my village I've seen 1 Staffy. You can't move for Goldies, Labs and Collies though


Surely Labradors are the most common in the country as a whole?

http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/pet-advice/the-top-ten-most-popular-registered-dog-breeds-in-the-uk.html

Not a breed that gets in the news though.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

SusieRainbow said:


> I couldn't agree more, can we stop the speculation as to breed type and concentrate on expressing sympathy to this tragic family ?


And what's the point of expressing sympathy to the family? It's not like they're about to join a dog forum and read any of it.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Well , that's true.
But there's nothing to be gained from speculating on the culprit dog breed. I would suggest that any helpful comments have now been exhausted.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I agree I was only using my local area as an example. However, they are actually far more numerous in other areas I travel to and always (didn't use the word lightly) over represented in the two large rescue centres I'm familiar with. If they're over represented in rescues then they're likely over represented in the general population. I do have to make the point that I'm referring to 'type', a general look rather than a guaranteed 100% staffy. The earlier post about how a cross breed will inevitably be referred to by the bull breed type is true but not for any negative reason by me - it's often just how they look.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Staffies are not common around my neck of the woods.

I see a lot of Labradors, Doodles and Shi Tzus. Also Cockers, but very few Staffies.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

El Cid said:


> I dont think chipping all dogs has solved the problem just yet; so people need to keep discussing it.


OK.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Quite agree people being killed by dogs does need to be tackled as does people being killed by cars and people being killed by cows and children being killed by their own parents. However when we do tackle those killed by dogs I'm just not convinced the breed of the dog is as relevant as the circumstances.


Its a tragic but rare event and cannot be tacked because frankly the world can never be 100% safe and you will never totally stop these attacks on children short of banning all dogs in homes where children reside. These are tragic unforeseen accidents in some cases and we cannot tackle the unexpected and unforeseen.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Its a tragic but rare event and cannot be tacked because frankly the world can never be 100% safe and you will never totally stop these attacks on children short of banning all dogs in homes where children reside. These are tragic unforeseen accidents in some cases and we cannot tackle the unexpected and unforeseen.


Not seen one case about which I know the details which can be classes as "unforeseen".

It is a word used by many people but the facts are that 99.99% of all accidents are entirely forseeable and thus preventable/avoidable.

The definition of an accident is not "unforeseen".


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> The definition of an accident is not "unforeseen".


Accident:
1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"
synonyms: mishap, misfortune, misadventure, mischance, unfortunate incident, injury, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, contretemps, calamity, blow, trouble, problem, difficulty;
_technical_casualty
"he was involved in an accident at work"


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Accident:
> 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
> "he had an accident at the factory"
> synonyms: mishap, misfortune, misadventure, mischance, unfortunate incident, injury, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, contretemps, calamity, blow, trouble, problem, difficulty;
> ...


You will see that the word "unforseen" is conspicuous by its absence.

The definition of an accident is

An unplanned, undesired event which results in injury to a person or persons.

Are car accidents unforeseen? No the vast majority are due to people failing to drive according to the conditions and/or maintaining their vehicles.

It is entirely foreseeable that if you drive like a ****, you will have an accident the timing of which will be unpredictable.

My job is dealing with accidents and the vast majority are due to people failing to do what they are supposed to do or doing something they are not supposed to do. 

HTH


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> You will see that the word "unforseen" is conspicuous by its absence.
> 
> The definition of an accident is
> 
> ...


Well if you want to argue about which published definition of the word is correct? Unforeseen means not anticipated or predicted, in other words unplanned.

I agree most so called car accidents that do not involve mechanical failure are not accidents. My job includes health and safety risk assessment in industrial environments so I am familiar with the difference between a genuine accident and a foreseeable event.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

It is difficult to believe though that a previously bombproof, affable dog, which had been relaxed and happy around children, would suddenly flip and attack two kiddies so badly.

Some people, I'm sure, for whatever reason, just fail to read the signals a dog can be giving off.

In any case, just never leaving a dog unsupervised with young children would be a good place to begin.

I had seven dogs at one time. Two of them I did not trust with young children. Neither of them ever bit a child, they never got the chance, but just their behaviour and body language when children were present told a story.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Well if you want to argue about which published definition of the word is correct? Unforeseen means not anticipated or predicted, in other words unplanned.
> 
> I agree most so called car accidents that do not involve mechanical failure are not accidents. My job includes health and safety risk assessment in industrial environments so I am familiar with the difference between a genuine accident and a foreseeable event.


So does mine and I train people all over the UK in both RA and Accident INvestigation including road accidents.

As a fellow H & S professional I am surprised at your outlook.

If an accident was unforeseeable then it means your risk assessment process is severely deficient as that is the purposes of RA. To identify the hazards, identify who may be harmed and how, determine the likelihood of the event and its severity and what controls are needed.

Unforseen does not mean unplanned in this context.

Perhaps you could give me an example of an unforeseeable event at your place of work?

If you can, you will have identified a gap in your risk management programme...................


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> Its a tragic but rare event and cannot be tacked because frankly the world can never be 100% safe and you will never totally stop these attacks on children short of banning all dogs in homes where children reside. These are tragic unforeseen accidents in some cases and we cannot tackle the unexpected and unforeseen.


Whilst I agree the world can never be 100% safe I think there are lessons to be learned from all such events whether rare or not so that education and preventative actions can be taken in the future. It may turn out for instance that the dog was new to the family and so should not have been given access to the children or it may turn out the dog was a known RG and the children had been allowed around it whilst it was eating or it may turn out the dog had an illness or injury or it may turn out the children had been playing in an over excited manner which got the dog over excited too. I am not suggesting any one of these is the case before anyone jumps down my throat just that what may have been unexpected and unforeseen to this family may be something that could help other families in the future keep their children and dogs safe.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> If an *accident was unforeseeable* then it means your risk assessment process is severely deficient as that is the purposes of RA. To identify the hazards, identify who may be harmed and how, determine the likelihood of the event and its severity and what controls are needed.
> 
> Unforseen does not mean unplanned in this context.
> 
> ...


The Oxford English dictionary defines unforeseeable as "not able to be anticipated or predicted". It defines an accident as "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause". In your sentence you say an unforeseeable accident means a risk assessment process is severely deficient but it is clearly impossible to risk assess unforeseeable events that happen by chance!

There are no incidents of accidents within my place of work but of course there are failures of components within the industrial electronics with which I work and these too are unpredictable.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> The Oxford English dictionary defines unforeseeable as "not able to be anticipated or predicted". It defines an accident as "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause". In your sentence you say an unforeseeable accident means a risk assessment process is severely deficient but it is clearly impossible to risk assess unforeseeable events that happen by chance!
> 
> There are no incidents of accidents within my place of work but of course there are failures of components within the industrial electronics with which I work and these too are unpredictable.


How fantastic it must be to work in an environment with NO accidents or incidents.

No doubt your place of work has gained several awards for this brilliant achievement.

An accident does not happen by chance nor does it have no cause.

All accidents have causes, both immediate and underlying.

In all my many years of investigating them I have not yet come across an accident, incident or near miss that did not have at least one immediate and underlying cause, usually several.

So, if you slip, trip or fall the cause can be slippery floor, wet floor, incorrect footwear, spillage etc etc etc or a combination, it is not chance.

All of which are entirely foreseeable and preventable (according to the HSE and all other international H & S organisations anyhow)

Conducting a root cause analysis will always reveal this truth.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

El Cid said:


> Surely Labradors are the most common in the country as a whole?
> 
> http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/pet-advice/the-top-ten-most-popular-registered-dog-breeds-in-the-uk.html
> 
> Not a breed that gets in the news though.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> How fantastic it must be to work in an environment with NO accidents or incidents.
> 
> No doubt your place of work has gained several awards for this brilliant achievement.
> 
> ...


Well to be fair I work in an environment where mistakes kill so we are very careful within the electrical industry to prevent accidents, we have to be. Also we have the advantage of being able to very tightly control the environment in which we operate and that makes a big difference. The award is not being dead!

Sure, all accidents have underlying causes but that does not mean all accidents can be predicted or do not involve and element of chance. Getting struck by lightening is a good example. It is not planned and can not be foreseen. In fact you have a 1 in 960,000 chance of getting struck this year according to one source.

Accidents most certainly do happen by chance for some but not for all. If a driver fails to tighten the nuts on his wheel and it comes off his vehicle on the road causing him to crash, that was not the result of chance. If the man behind him on the other hand gets hit and injured by said wheel and is running 5 minutes late meaning he would otherwise have not been there, in his case chance has been a big factor in his accident. In his case chance and unforeseen circumstances were major players in his accident.

To take your example of slippage on a wet floor, it is only foreseeable if you know the floor you are walking on is slippery or wet. Without that foreknowledge it is simply not possible to anticipate the slip or the fall and is therefore an unforeseeable accident. H&S is all about foresight, without that you cannot risk assess without it.


----------



## caju (Jan 3, 2015)

My wife is expecting and these kind of stories really make me anxious. They always say the dog was good with kids and/or not aggressive, so if a dog can be fine one day and then kill a baby the next, what's to say mine couldn't do the same? He's a calm dog and never bites (even when getting attacked by another dog he has never bitten back), but at the same time, he has ZERO experience with babies or young children. He has never been around any. And I know about canine body-language, never leaving them alone in the same room, I'd never let our child pull his tail, sit on him, approach him when sleeping, etc., but I see these stories so regularly that it's starting to worry me. 

But then again, surely lots of babies are born into households with dogs and nothing bad ever happens? I think my protective instinct for my future baby is making me a little crazy. Am I being ridiculous?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

caju said:


> My wife is expecting and these kind of stories really make me anxious. They always say the dog was good with kids and/or not aggressive, so if a dog can be fine one day and then kill a baby the next, what's to say mine couldn't do the same? He's a calm dog and never bites (even when getting attacked by another dog he has never bitten back), but at the same time, he has ZERO experience with babies or young children. He has never been around any. And I know about canine body-language, never leaving them alone in the same room, I'd never let our child pull his tail, sit on him, approach him when sleeping, etc., but I see these stories so regularly that it's starting to worry me.
> 
> But then again, surely lots of babies are born into households with dogs and nothing bad ever happens? I think my protective instinct for my future baby is making me a little crazy. Am I being ridiculous?


But the dog is not fine one day and then attacks out of the blue the next. As has previously been said, it could have been a resource guarder and the children got too close, it could have been ill, or it could have been showing signs of distress for a while, which were either ignored or misunderstood. This is why it is so important that people learn to read their dog's body language, it is such a powerful way for them to communicate.

Unfortunately, as they immediately had the dog put down, there is no way to asses the dog to gain knowledge of what happened.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But that depends where you live surely. Where we walk in Dorset and Devon bull breeds are by no means in the majority - BC's/Labs/JRTs and GSD's I would guess but it would only be a guess.


Indeed.

I am surrounded by "poos" round here!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

MiffyMoo said:


> But the dog is not fine one day and then attacks out of the blue the next. As has previously been said, it could have been a resource guarder and the children got too close, it could have been ill, or it could have been showing signs of distress for a while, which were either ignored or misunderstood. This is why it is so important that people learn to read their dog's body language, it is such a powerful way for them to communicate.
> 
> Unfortunately, as they immediately had the dog put down, there is no way to asses the dog to gain knowledge of what happened.


Indeed.

How often do we see threads on here where people are telling dogs off for growling, shoving their hands in the food bowl, etc.?

Too many people really have no idea how to read a dog's body language nor how to bring up a happy, relaxed and safe dog - nor train their children how to behave around them.

Even on Paul O'Grady's show this week it was deemed amusing when the little ancient, arthritic Yorkie snapped when being picked up. An opportunity missed again to explain why a dog might growl and how to deal with that - from the dog's point of view. (In this case the dog was probably in pain/scared, IMV ).

He was described as "feisty" 

The first adopter didn't work out - I wasn't surprised given the way she responded to his yapping and snapping. 

The couple who finally kept him seemed to understand his needs and issues 

What if he had been a larger breed - how would they have described him then?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Lurcherlad said:


> Indeed.
> 
> How often do we see threads on here where people are telling dogs off for growling, shoving their hands in the food bowl, etc.?
> 
> ...


Poor little guy . I haven't watched it yet, but if Battersea are happily describing him as feisty and that's the end of it, I'm so cross with them. It is their job to get to the bottom of his issues and give his new home the best advice possible


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Well to be fair I work in an environment where mistakes kill so we are very careful within the electrical industry to prevent accidents, we have to be. Also we have the advantage of being able to very tightly control the environment in which we operate and that makes a big difference. The award is not being dead!
> 
> Sure, all accidents have underlying causes but that does not mean all accidents can be predicted or do not involve and element of chance. Getting struck by lightening is a good example. It is not planned and can not be foreseen. In fact you have a 1 in 960,000 chance of getting struck this year according to one source.
> 
> ...


The slippery floor is an EXCELLENT example of an accident being entirely foreseeable.

For a floor to be slippery certain substandard conditions must be in place which are often cause by substandard practices.

There is not merely one party that is a factor in accidents.

For a floor to be slippery it may not have been slip tested to the correct standard, the immediate cause would be the substandard condition of the floor. The underlying cause of the sub standard floor being in situ could be down to one or more underlying causes such as Insufficient purchasing specifications for materials,

So if someone slipped on this floor due to the above it would not be by chance, it would be caused by the failures of a person or persons.

So it is perfectly possible to anticipate the slip or fall and is thus not an unforeseeable accident.

H & S is indeed all about foresight, hence the need for risk assessment which involves the selection of a suitable surface in the above example, and then pre planned maintenance, defect reporting procedures, safe systems of work, hazard/near miss reporting etc etc

All of the above are in place because it is entirely forseeable that someone could slip on a slippery floor therefore to minimise the risk the above (and more eg PPE, workplace inspections, behaviour monitoring) are put in place.

Insisting that chance is a main factor in accidents or it being unforeseeable (as opposed to unpredictable which is an entirely different scenario) is merely a self serving bias which and individual adopts to avoid "fault" or "blame".

That is not the purpose of either risk assessments or accident investigations.

The purpose of both is to identify possible causes and using the hierarchy of controls to put in place preventive and corrective actions to minimise occurrence.

Those controls are in order of effectiveness and importance, elimination (you cannot eliminate a floor) substitution (substitute one slippery surface for one that is less slippery), engineering (eg placement of guards/barriersto prevent access); administrative controls (eg scheduling cleaning activities so that the floor dries out before use, signs to warn, safe systems of work and training) and finally personal protective equipment (eg non slip shoes for colleagues etc).

This is merely but one example of how you can predict, avoid and control risks in the workplace and thus accidents.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

caju said:


> They always say the dog was good with kids and/or not aggressive, so if a dog can be fine one day and then kill a baby the next, what's to say mine couldn't do the same?


When there are stories in the newspaper about dogs attacking, I think the owners might well say the dog was always ok with no previous signs that this could happen; because if they tell the truth they will be spending longer in jail.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

El Cid said:


> When there are stories in the newspaper about dogs attacking, I think the owners might well say the dog was always ok with no previous signs that this could happen; because if they tell the truth they will be spending longer in jail.


I don't believe an adult will purposely put a child's life in jeopardy. The majority of time they just don't know that the dog is about to snap


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> When there are stories in the newspaper about dogs attacking, I think the owners might well say the dog was always ok with no previous signs that this could happen; because if they tell the truth they will be spending longer in jail.


Not sure where you get that idea from.......................


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

El Cid said:


> When there are stories in the newspaper about dogs attacking, I think the owners might well say the dog was always ok with no previous signs that this could happen; because if they tell the truth they will be spending longer in jail.


I don't think many people would do this.

There are still a lot of the general public not familiar with canine body language, I think that's probably a more significant factor.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> Not sure where you get that idea from.......................


I wouldn't want to be presumptuous, but I'm guessing that El Cid believes that staff owners are predisposed to fitting into a certain demographic, ergo, predisposed to telling untruths, wearing tracksuits, hanging out in dark underpasses & so on.

I could be way off the mark of course, but it's good to generalise


----------



## LotsaDots (Apr 15, 2016)

My terrier was loose on the beach a few weeks back chasing her ball when a small child ran across her path, she got excited and jumped up knocking the child over. No physical harm was done and the kid was fine. I apologised profusely to the dad as Dottie shouldn't have done this. He however laid in to me telling me my dog was trying to attack his child, at this point she was in my arms wagging her tail at him! I understand he was annoyed I would have been but it was blatantly obvious this was just exuberance and nothing more. I have 4 small nieces and she adores them. 
I don't know if he was ignorant or just a bit of an arse but I know his version of events would have been very different than what actually happened. My point is that events do get taken out of context and blown out of proportion. In this case a child has died so the dog was obviously agressive but no one except the people present knows what actually happened.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/355678/marney-wells.pdf


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

LotsaDots said:


> My terrier was loose on the beach a few weeks back chasing her ball when a small child ran across her path, she got excited and jumped up knocking the child over. No physical harm was done and the kid was fine. I apologised profusely to the dad as Dottie shouldn't have done this. He however laid in to me telling me my dog was trying to attack his child, at this point she was in my arms wagging her tail at him! I understand he was annoyed I would have been but it was blatantly obvious this was just exuberance and nothing more. I have 4 small nieces and she adores them.
> I don't know if he was ignorant or just a bit of an arse but I know his version of events would have been very different than what actually happened. My point is that events do get taken out of context and blown out of proportion. In this case a child has died so the dog was obviously agressive but no one except the people present knows what actually happened.


Dogs are not walking around being aggressive 100% of the time otherwise nobody would own them.

The dog was exhibiting aggressive behaviour at the time of the attack.

We all exhibiti aggressive behaviour.

It is on a continuum.

At one end of the scale you have giving someone the finger; slamming the phone down, swearing under your breath at the other there is taking a weapon and killing one or more persons.

I think it is important not to label dogs or people as it is not helpful..................

So saying a dog is "obviously aggressive" (how do you know have you met it) does not inform us about the dog, the circumstances or the event.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

MiffyMoo said:


> Poor little guy . I haven't watched it yet, but if Battersea are happily describing him as feisty and that's the end of it, I'm so cross with them. It is their job to get to the bottom of his issues and give his new home the best advice possible


Tbf it wasn't the staff who said it


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Regarding dogs with babies around, my dog was rehomed because the couple had a young baby who was just crawling, and they were worried about it grabbing at the dog, 
I can understand why they rehomed her, she is a lovely natured dog, and wags her tail at everyone, people i see on my walks with her love her as do anyone who sees her in my home, BUT i can see why they rehomed her, i have cats, [only 3 now lost 2 in the last few weeks] my dog is fine with them [she was brought up with cats] , but she has definitely a jealous streak, she will growl, but under her breath, if they go near her trats when she having some etc,one of them whacks her everytime he walks past if she runs too close to him, again he will give a quick under breath growl, so i never leave her alone with them, i dont think she would actually harm them,but i dont risk it, 
Apparently the mother was in the bath and the children were left with the dog, so who knows, 
Maybe the oldest child grabbed at the dog to set it off, 
Whatever happened ,i feel so sorry for the family and i hope the little boy recovers,it has been reported that its his eyes that are damaged


----------



## LotsaDots (Apr 15, 2016)

smokeybear said:


> Dogs are not walking around being aggressive 100% of the time otherwise nobody would own them.
> 
> The dog was exhibiting aggressive behaviour at the time of the attack.
> 
> ...


Sorry I should have said 'obviously aggressive at that moment' there is no way a dog can kill a child and seriously injure another in play, well not in my opinion anyway. I agree we don't know the dog, it may have had injuries/underlying psychological issues, we all say you should never leave kids alone with a dog but in day to day busy life and with a trusted family pet I'm sure there are many households that don't religiously stick to this.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Out of interest does anyone know if the dog would have undergone a pm after it was put to sleep to try and at least establish whether there were any health issues?


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2016)

caju said:


> My wife is expecting and these kind of stories really make me anxious. They always say the dog was good with kids and/or not aggressive, so if a dog can be fine one day and then kill a baby the next, what's to say mine couldn't do the same? He's a calm dog and never bites (even when getting attacked by another dog he has never bitten back), but at the same time, he has ZERO experience with babies or young children. He has never been around any. And I know about canine body-language, never leaving them alone in the same room, I'd never let our child pull his tail, sit on him, approach him when sleeping, etc., but I see these stories so regularly that it's starting to worry me.
> 
> But then again, surely lots of babies are born into households with dogs and nothing bad ever happens? I think my protective instinct for my future baby is making me a little crazy. Am I being ridiculous?


Yes, these kinds of stories can make you go crazy but it helps to remember that the huge, vast majority of dogs never lay a tooth on anyone, and the few that do, don't usually do much damage. It is exceedingly rare for a dog to do extreme damage or kill. Your baby is more likely to die of a bee sting. 
Actually, the greatest danger to your child is you. Yup... statistically more babies die at the hands of their parents than any other factor. Sad, very sad, but true....

So back to dogs  BTW, I grew up with a rhodesian ridgeback and though he could be a ferocious deterrent to stray dogs and unwanted visitors, he was the gentlest, most patient, perfect gentleman with me and my sister. And we were very typical children who did annoy the dogs (the one who bit me when I was annoying him was the family terrier, not the rhodie).

My own children have grown up with a menagerie of their own, from foster dogs to family dogs and rescue dogs who came to us with behavioral problems, including aggression to humans. No maulings. 
Yes, if you mix big dogs and kids there are going to be injuries. Our kids learned at a very young age to "duck and cover" when there were happy dogs about to avoid having their faces whacked with happy tails, and they quickly learned to get out of the way or get trampled. But I don't worry about the dog deliberately hurting them. In a home where the dog knows his signals are going to be heard and respected, and the dog has made plenty of positive associations with kids from the get-go, any accidental encounter that might cause a reaction won't because the dog will view the mistake as the anomaly it is.

For me the benefits of my children growing up with dogs and enjoying the relationship they have with ours far, far, outweighs the very minimal risk of living with dogs.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> I don't believe an adult will purposely put a child's life in jeopardy. The majority of time they just don't know that the dog is about to snap


I am sure in hindsight they will look back and see some of the signs missed.

As its been said, accidents dont happen without warning, but parents seldom do a risk assessment.


----------



## caju (Jan 3, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Yes, these kinds of stories can make you go crazy but it helps to remember that the huge, vast majority of dogs never lay a tooth on anyone, and the few that do, don't usually do much damage. It is exceedingly rare for a dog to do extreme damage or kill. Your baby is more likely to die of a bee sting.
> Actually, the greatest danger to your child is you. Yup... statistically more babies die at the hands of their parents than any other factor. Sad, very sad, but true....
> 
> So back to dogs  BTW, I grew up with a rhodesian ridgeback and though he could be a ferocious deterrent to stray dogs and unwanted visitors, he was the gentlest, most patient, perfect gentleman with me and my sister. And we were very typical children who did annoy the dogs (the one who bit me when I was annoying him was the family terrier, not the rhodie).
> ...


Thanks for the reassurance. I think my worry stems from it being so unknown. He isn't used to visitors in the house and has never been close to a baby or a young child. And we're very soon going to have a combination of those two things.


----------



## LotsaDots (Apr 15, 2016)

My mum is fostering a 6 month old collie pup at the moment, he was put up for 'immediate rehoming' because he bit a 3 year old child, not badly but obviously it shook the family up and they didn't feel they could trust him. He is a typical enthusiastic collie, mum has had him a week now and he has met her 3 year old grandchild (under close supervision) and shown no agression or fear whatsoever in fact the child more at risk of being licked to death! Yes he's exuberant and would knock a child over but all of her grandkids have been brought up around dogs as were we and although we have been bowled over plenty of times, scratched with excited claws and whacked with happy tails none of our family have ever been bitten apart from by accident in play. 
Who knows what the circumstances were around this dog biting, but it could have ended up with this pup being labelled as aggressive and almost impossible to rehome.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

havoc said:


> I agree I was only using my local area as an example. However, they are actually far more numerous in other areas I travel to and always (didn't use the word lightly) over represented in the two large rescue centres I'm familiar with. If they're over represented in rescues then they're likely over represented in the general population. I do have to make the point that I'm referring to 'type', a general look rather than a guaranteed 100% staffy. The earlier post about how a cross breed will inevitably be referred to by the bull breed type is true but not for any negative reason by me - it's often just how they look.


I do agree with you. Where I live staffies were very much a minority breed but not there seem to be massive oversized ones all over the place. There was a run of huskies at one time as someone was breeding them and a fair few malamutes for the same reason.



smokeybear said:


> You will see that the word "unforseen" is conspicuous by its absence.
> 
> The definition of an accident is
> 
> ...


Your job seems to be dealing with anything that becomes contentious on here so that you can try and make your opinion fact.



ouesi said:


> For me the benefits of my children growing up with dogs and enjoying the relationship they have with ours far, far, outweighs the very minimal risk of living with dogs.


Absolutely, and personally I can see no point in owning a family dog and having kids and keeping them separated. I was brought up with a dog that was my companion and I made sure my daughter had a dog with her most of the time. The dog even used to go in the bathroom with her when she was small, went outside with her to play unsupervised and sat watching many hours of videos while I was in another room. I also had a collie, a sheltie and a GSD, none of which were left with her and were not good family dogs. The sheltie was old and deaf and never met children, the GSD was an outside dog and the collie was a sheepdog.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

caju said:


> Thanks for the reassurance. I think my worry stems from it being so unknown. He isn't used to visitors in the house and has never been close to a baby or a young child. And we're very soon going to have a combination of those two things.


Just be mindful of the dog and his need for space and a quiet, secure place to go to or be placed when you are busy with other things


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Does anyone/everyone on here follow the "never left alone together" rule? I don't mean go out for the afternoon and leave a dog and young baby alone together in the house for hours.. but for slightly older kids who have been taught to respect dogs and things like nipping to the loo or making a cuppa?

It wasn't given a second thought when I was a child. The dogs were part of the family and I was taught to respect them and respect their warnings. My sisters dog and kids were the same. Keeping everyone separated wasn't ever considered, or feasible! And if there was any concern that the dogs couldn't be trusted and might maul me for the hell of it, we wouldn't have had those dogs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2016)

caju said:


> Thanks for the reassurance. I think my worry stems from it being so unknown. He isn't used to visitors in the house and has never been close to a baby or a young child. And we're very soon going to have a combination of those two things.


I've always said dogs who are good with kids are often born, not made. 
He may surprise you  
And if he is uncomfortable, put sensible management protocols in place and be sure to heed his signals and believe him when he says he's not okay with things.

We have had dogs who loved kids and dogs who just tolerated them. As long as the dog knows how to get up and leave and has a safe place to retreat to, both can be perfectly safe with kids.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> It is difficult to believe though that a previously bombproof, affable dog, which had been relaxed and happy around children, would suddenly flip and attack two kiddies so badly.


Read the link, it does not relate to the story we are discussing, but interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424716/


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2016)

Nettles said:


> Does anyone/everyone on here follow the "never left alone together" rule?


I don't. 
I mean, yeah, when the kids were infants, I didn't put a kid on the floor and then leave the room, but even as infants, one of our dogs absolutely loved the babies, not in an obsessive way, but just always wanted to lay near them. So even as infants, if they were in the crib and that dog was sleeping on the floor by the crib, I wouldn't make him leave the room if I had to go do something.

Like @Blitz my children have grown up spending hours outside with the dogs mostly unsupervised. Inside with a dog in their room while they play, read a book, lazing on the sofa watching movies, I leave the room all the time and leave the dogs and kids piled up on the floor sharing a bowl of popcorn. I can't imagine living in a situation where I'd have to remove the dog every time I have to step out of the room.

If I had a dog who I couldn't trust not to rearrange a child's face in the time it takes me to go to the bathroom and pee, I wouldn't have that dog in a home with kids. I don't mean that callously, but realistically. If the dog is so unhinged that you fear the child with need reconstructive surgery if the dog snaps, that dog does not need to be in a home with children, arguably any home...

My children are now 13 and we often leave one or both kids home by themselves with the dogs there with them. The kids are in charge of feeding the dogs dinner, letting them out, and making sure they don't terrorize the cats. The dogs listen to the kids as well as they do to us.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I do agree with you. Where I live staffies were very much a minority breed but not there seem to be massive oversized ones all over the place. There was a run of huskies at one time as someone was breeding them and a fair few malamutes for the same reason.
> 
> Your job seems to be dealing with anything that becomes contentious on here so that you can try and make your opinion fact.
> 
> Absolutely, and personally I can see no point in owning a family dog and having kids and keeping them separated. I was brought up with a dog that was my companion and I made sure my daughter had a dog with her most of the time. The dog even used to go in the bathroom with her when she was small, went outside with her to play unsupervised and sat watching many hours of videos while I was in another room. I also had a collie, a sheltie and a GSD, none of which were left with her and were not good family dogs. The sheltie was old and deaf and never met children, the GSD was an outside dog and the collie was a sheepdog.


Oh no my dear Blitz, I am very clear to keep facts and opinions entirely separate.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Nettles said:


> Does anyone/everyone on here follow the "never left alone together" rule? I don't mean go out for the afternoon and leave a dog and young baby alone together in the house for hours.. but for slightly older kids who have been taught to respect dogs and things like nipping to the loo or making a cuppa?
> 
> It wasn't given a second thought when I was a child. The dogs were part of the family and I was taught to respect them and respect their warnings. My sisters dog and kids were the same. Keeping everyone separated wasn't ever considered, or feasible! And if there was any concern that the dogs couldn't be trusted and might maul me for the hell of it, we wouldn't have had those dogs.


No and I think most people who a) did not have staff b) did not have kennels or c) did not live in a domestic prison would find it hard to NEVER leave a dog with a child. But you make a risk assessment based on a) the dog, its age, temperament, training etc and b) the child, its age,temperament and training.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Out of interest does anyone know if the dog would have undergone a pm after it was put to sleep to try and at least establish whether there were any health issues?


No, because if they were that interested in the underlying causes (as opposed to immediate ones) they would have kept the dog alive for behaviourists to assess.

It costs money and who would pay for it? And for what purpose?

The underlying causes of the death will be immaterial from a criminal point of viiew under the DDA.

However it will be interesting for those of us who are interested in both behaviour and the law, if the circumstances of the dogs origin come to light.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ouesi said:


> I've always said dogs who are good with kids are often born, not made.
> He may surprise you
> And if he is uncomfortable, put sensible management protocols in place and be sure to heed his signals and believe him when he says he's not okay with things.
> 
> We have had dogs who loved kids and dogs who just tolerated them. As long as the dog knows how to get up and leave and has a safe place to retreat to, both can be perfectly safe with kids.


So true. Dex loves attention, but only for a short period of time, and then will wander off. But if it's a toddler he is happy to be by them all day and let them snuggle as long as they want. He's like that with puppies as well, immensely patient. I always watch him very closely and I have never seen him looking unhappy, but I always make sure the children know exactly what they are or aren't allowed to do. Whereas Lola won't have a bar of either and will disappear herself from wherever children or puppies are


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Accident:
> 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
> "he had an accident at the factory"
> synonyms: mishap, misfortune, misadventure, mischance, unfortunate incident, injury, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, contretemps, calamity, blow, trouble, problem, difficulty;
> ...


You've decided to take on smokeybacon on a H&S issue ? Are you out of your corn-fed mind ?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Not sure where you get that idea from.......................


In the link from the US, over a quarter of the dogs that were studied, there was evidence of them being used as fighting dogs, and some were watch dogs, most did not typify a family dog.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> In the link from the US, over a quarter of the dogs that were studied, there was evidence of them being used as fighting dogs, and some were watch dogs, most did not typify a family dog.


What on earth has that got to do with your original post?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> What on earth has that got to do with your original post?


Most of the stories that we read in the papers, the dog that has killed someone is portrayed as a nice cute family pet; that is often not the case.
I do not know have personal experience of a dog the killed or bitten someone, resulting in the dog being euthanized, but the link shows that they are not generally the typical family pet.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Nettles said:


> Does anyone/everyone on here follow the "never left alone together" rule? I don't mean go out for the afternoon and leave a dog and young baby alone together in the house for hours.. but for slightly older kids who have been taught to respect dogs and things like nipping to the loo or making a cuppa?
> 
> It wasn't given a second thought when I was a child. The dogs were part of the family and I was taught to respect them and respect their warnings. My sisters dog and kids were the same. Keeping everyone separated wasn't ever considered, or feasible! And if there was any concern that the dogs couldn't be trusted and might maul me for the hell of it, we wouldn't have had those dogs.


My grandparents had dogs their entire adult lives, and the one I remember most whilst growing up was their rescue Collie x Princess. She arrived with resource guarding issues and soon adopted the space underneath the dining room table as 'her' place. My nan & mum both warned me at a young age to never approach her whilst she was in her 'den', and I never had any problems comprehending that. With love and patience she turned into one of the sweetest dogs, and she is one of my fondest childhood memories. My nan used to let us go out walking together ( I was only 9/10 years old at the time ) we'd share icecreams ( yep really lol ), she was there pottering underneath the tree I would climb, she would enjoy playing with myself and a friend over the green in front of my grandparent's house. She was just one of those dogs you remember as being a good kid dog despite her unknown past. I was rarely, if ever, supervised in her company.


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

My parents didn't really have a clue about dogs. My dad has some kind of natural affinity with babies, children and dogs (much to his chagrin!) They all just love him. When we looked after a friends German Shepherd while they were away, 8 year old me walked her by myself! Totally without incident. She was a very gentle, lovely dog, until recently I thought that was what all German Shepherds were like.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

caju said:


> My wife is expecting and these kind of stories really make me anxious. They always say the dog was good with kids and/or not aggressive, so if a dog can be fine one day and then kill a baby the next, what's to say mine couldn't do the same? He's a calm dog and never bites (even when getting attacked by another dog he has never bitten back), but at the same time, he has ZERO experience with babies or young children. He has never been around any. And I know about canine body-language, never leaving them alone in the same room, I'd never let our child pull his tail, sit on him, approach him when sleeping, etc., but I see these stories so regularly that it's starting to worry me.
> 
> But then again, surely lots of babies are born into households with dogs and nothing bad ever happens? I think my protective instinct for my future baby is making me a little crazy. Am I being ridiculous?


I would place bets that the dog is NOT fine one day and then suddenly turns for no reason and kills a child. I would think that the signals that the dog is uncomfortable are being missed, disregarded and quite likely punished (dog growls at child, dog is in trouble is normal).

My own dog genuinely likes children and given the chance will happily play with them over the adults. I am so careful with him and Jack (15 months now) because although I trust him as much as you can trust any dog there have certainly been situations where he's been uncomfortable and I've stepped in. And quite frankly I don't trust Jack not to pull ears, poke fingers into eyes or ears or other orifices or any of the other things tiny humans do just to see what happens. He is being taught how to treat Spen (and us!) but at the end of the day he's more unpredictable than the dog is and more inclined to do things just to see what reaction it gets. Quite honestly though, I have no real concerns that Jack's going to be maimed or killed by Spen. I love watching the two of them play together, it's appropriate play imo and both of them enjoy it. We've not had a grumble or air snap never mind a bite, not even when Jack's fallen on him which I'm sure isn't pleasant for Spen. Obviously they're not left alone together but neither are they kept separated for the most part, only when I can't keep an eye on them.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Nettles said:


> Does anyone/everyone on here follow the "never left alone together" rule? I don't mean go out for the afternoon and leave a dog and young baby alone together in the house for hours.. but for slightly older kids who have been taught to respect dogs and things like nipping to the loo or making a cuppa?
> 
> It wasn't given a second thought when I was a child. The dogs were part of the family and I was taught to respect them and respect their warnings. My sisters dog and kids were the same. Keeping everyone separated wasn't ever considered, or feasible! And if there was any concern that the dogs couldn't be trusted and might maul me for the hell of it, we wouldn't have had those dogs.


Right now? You bet. Jack's at an age where he's quite likely to stick a finger up Spens bum because he's just noticed it or something and wants to see what will happen. So if I can't have eyes on the pair of them they're separated. Jack's being taught how to treat Spen and is generally very good with him but he's only 15 months old and I certainly don't feel I can trust him not to behave like one. It just doesn't feel like it's a risk worth taking for the sake of closing a door.

When he was tiny and not mobile, not so much. I'd nip to the loo with Spen on his bed and Jack in his swing in the same room or go make a cup of tea or whatever. I imagine it will be the same when he's old enough that I can feel he won't do something stupid. We weren't separated from the dogs as kids, it's not very practical to live like that and like you, I doubt we'd have had the dogs if they'd been much chance of them simply turning and mauling us.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

My niece is getting a staffie in January next year, I love my border collie, and not keen on staffies, although I am sure they make good pets for 90+% of people.
I believe the parents are UK best of breed.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> My niece is getting a staffie in January next year, I love my border collie, and not keen on staffies, although I am sure they make good pets for 90+% of people.
> I believe the parents are UK best of breed.


I'm afraid there is no such title as UK Best of Breed.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> I'm afraid there is no such title as UK Best of Breed.


She posted this link too.






Not sure why it says staffy/pitbull, unless its a cross breed.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Nettles said:


> Does anyone/everyone on here follow the "never left alone together" rule? I don't mean go out for the afternoon and leave a dog and young baby alone together in the house for hours.. but for slightly older kids who have been taught to respect dogs and things like nipping to the loo or making a cuppa?
> 
> It wasn't given a second thought when I was a child. The dogs were part of the family and I was taught to respect them and respect their warnings. My sisters dog and kids were the same. Keeping everyone separated wasn't ever considered, or feasible! And if there was any concern that the dogs couldn't be trusted and might maul me for the hell of it, we wouldn't have had those dogs.


When my son was a baby/toddler I didn't leave him alone with my dogs. As he has grown older and the dogs, and more especially the child, have been taught respect for one another, yes I do leave them in the same room while I am in another. One of my GSDs is often to be found sleeping just inside the door of my 8 year old son's bedroom while he is in bed.


----------



## Shikoku (Dec 16, 2013)

Having a quick look on Google I think there are dog bite and strike stats in the UK, from those who have sought medical attention. Bites and strikes seem to be combined in the reports and they also contain information about other mammal bites and stings.

http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB04967/prov-mont-hes-admi-outp-ae-apr-11-toi-rep.pdf

http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB06970/prov-mont-hes-admi-outp-ae-apr-12-toi-rep.pdf

http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catal...utp-ae-April 2013 to January 2014-toi-rep.pdf

http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catal...tp-ae-April 2014 to February 2015-toi-rep.pdf


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2016)

Has it been said why a police woman's dog was near the children in the first place? Was she a visiting friend or a family member?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

It would "appear" from what I've heard on the news that the young family ha


NexivRed said:


> Has it been said why a police woman's dog was near the children in the first place? Was she a visiting friend or a family member?


From what I've heard on the news and I have no way of knowing whether it is true is that the policewoman was the child's mother's sister (so their Auntie) and the Mum and two boys had moved in with her fairly recently so the dog was in its own home and they were fairly new to it.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It would "appear" from what I've heard on the news that the young family ha
> 
> From what I've heard on the news and I have no way of knowing whether it is true is that the policewoman was the child's mother's sister (so their Auntie) and the Mum and two boys had moved in with her fairly recently so the dog was in its own home and they were fairly new to it.


I've heard the same, also the kids mother was in the bath & the dog was alone with the 2 children...don't know how true that is though?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> From what I've heard on the news and I have no way of knowing whether it is true is that the policewoman was the child's mother's sister (so their Auntie) and the Mum and two boys had moved in with her fairly recently so the dog was in its own home and they were fairly new to it.


Found this BBC link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37666769


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Shikoku said:


> Having a quick look on Google I think there are dog bite and strike stats in the UK, from those who have sought medical attention. Bites and strikes seem to be combined in the reports and they also contain information about other mammal bites and stings.
> 
> http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB04967/prov-mont-hes-admi-outp-ae-apr-11-toi-rep.pdf
> 
> ...


Have been to a few national conferences on the subject of dog bites I can tell you that there are no firm reliable figures on numbers, breeds, ages etc etc


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Most of the stories that we read in the papers, the dog that has killed someone is portrayed as a nice cute family pet; that is often not the case.
> I do not know have personal experience of a dog the killed or bitten someone, resulting in the dog being euthanized, but the link shows that they are not generally the typical family pet.


What is a typical family pet?

The demographic between the northern and the southern states is vastly different when you look at the type of dogs which are most common in both areas.

Secondly you cannot necessarily extrapolate any data of worth from US stats and apply them to the UK as lifestyles are VASTLY different.

Thirdly, the dog that was the cause of this fatality in Colchester belonged to the boys' aunt who is a WPC with the Essex Police.

No doubt she runs a dog fighting business on the side..................


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

NexivRed said:


> Has it been said why a police woman's dog was near the children in the first place? Was she a visiting friend or a family member?


Heard on the news the dog belonged to the children's aunt. How terrible.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Thirdly, the dog that was the cause of this fatality in Colchester belonged to the boys' aunt who is a WPC with the Essex Police.
> 
> No doubt she runs a dog fighting business on the side..................


It is quite common for a dog that has gone out of control, to be in the care of someone that is not the owner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-34209590


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Now this IS a statement I would agree with.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Thirdly, the dog that was the cause of this fatality in Colchester belonged to the boys' aunt who is a WPC with the Essex Police.
> 
> No doubt she runs a dog fighting business on the side..................


Just proves you can't completely trust any dog around babies and young children,



El Cid said:


> She posted this link too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't run this video, but it worries me when people risk children like that picture.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Out of interest does anyone know if the dog would have undergone a pm after it was put to sleep to try and at least establish whether there were any health issues?


The force said the dog, believed to be a Staffordshire bull terrier-type, had been put down with the consent of its owner and a post-mortem examination was due to take place on the animal on Friday.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> The force said the dog, believed to be a Staffordshire bull terrier-type, had been put down with the consent of its owner and a post-mortem examination was due to take place on the animal on Friday.


Are you sure the post mortem refers to the dog not the child..........................


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Are you sure the post mortem refers to the dog not the child..........................


Its a quote from the Independent


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> Right now? You bet. Jack's at an age where he's quite likely to stick a finger up Spens bum because he's just noticed it or something and wants to see what will happen. So if I can't have eyes on the pair of them they're separated. Jack's being taught how to treat Spen and is generally very good with him but he's only 15 months old and I certainly don't feel I can trust him not to behave like one. It just doesn't feel like it's a risk worth taking for the sake of closing a door.
> 
> When he was tiny and not mobile, not so much. I'd nip to the loo with Spen on his bed and Jack in his swing in the same room or go make a cup of tea or whatever. I imagine it will be the same when he's old enough that I can feel he won't do something stupid. We weren't separated from the dogs as kids, it's not very practical to live like that and like you, I doubt we'd have had the dogs if they'd been much chance of them simply turning and mauling us.


No, I agree at Jacks age when everything needs to be explored, it's not sensible. Although I imagine Spen would be more likely to move himself away from a situation he didn't like, rather than resorting to using teeth, it just wouldn't be fair to put him in that position in the first place.
It just seems to be a common sweeping statement now that "dogs and kids should never be left alone together unsupervised. No variables, no ifs or buts..


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Dogloverlou said:


> My grandparents had dogs their entire adult lives, and the one I remember most whilst growing up was their rescue Collie x Princess. She arrived with resource guarding issues and soon adopted the space underneath the dining room table as 'her' place. My nan & mum both warned me at a young age to never approach her whilst she was in her 'den', and I never had any problems comprehending that. With love and patience she turned into one of the sweetest dogs, and she is one of my fondest childhood memories. My nan used to let us go out walking together ( I was only 9/10 years old at the time ) we'd share icecreams ( yep really lol ), she was there pottering underneath the tree I would climb, she would enjoy playing with myself and a friend over the green in front of my grandparent's house. She was just one of those dogs you remember as being a good kid dog despite her unknown past. I was rarely, if ever, supervised in her company.


See, that to me is a family dog. Some of my happiest childhood memories involve our dogs. I would have been around 9/10 too when I was allowed to walk my older sisters Doberman by myself (ok it was just round the cul-de-sac my sister lived in at the time) but I loved it. I spent hours "training" her and she played along and humoured me, bless her  She'd sneak upstairs during the night and sleep on my bed when I stayed with my sister and I'd have to get up really early and take her back down again before anyone else woke up  I can't imagine being kept away from any of our family dogs unless someone was there to supervise


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Are you sure the post mortem refers to the dog not the child..........................


I read somewhere that an autopsy was to be performed on the dog, can't remember which newspaper that was in though. Remember it because it really stood out as seeming unusual, normally it just states the dog has been put to sleep.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

It is often not the search for something like a tumour but ruling out physical abuse of the dog so they will look at bruising, healed fractures etc


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps they are looking after their own, if the dogs owner is a WPC?


Oh dear, so now not only is the WPC running a dog fighting ring but she is also surrounded by corrupt police, the CPS, vets et al.........................

I think you have been watching too many films...........


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps they are looking after their own, if the dogs owner is a WPC?


Or perhaps the WPC has asked for it to be done and is even paying for it. I know if one of my dogs killed a child and I had to have it PTS I would ask for a PM and offer to pay for it so that I would know if there was an underlying cause or something as an owner I'd missed that might go some way to explaining it particularly if it was genuinely out of character. I think you will find under the DDA its not only the owner of the dog who is liable to prosecution but also the person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident.

I think that is a rather insensitive comment actually - how devastated do you think the owner of that dog must be to have lost her nephew, have another nephew seriously injured and to have lost her dog. The trauma and distress that the whole family including grandparents and friends must be going through is unimaginable.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Thirdly, the dog that was the cause of this fatality in Colchester belonged to the boys' aunt who is a WPC with the Essex Police.
> 
> No doubt she runs a dog fighting business on the side..................


Its high time the blind eye that I am convinced the authorities turn to the despicable practice of dog fighting ceased. There is no doubt that some dogs are being bred to fight and a few unwanted traits get out into the wider community via dogs that have a hidden parental past..


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Or perhaps the WPC has asked for it to be done and is even paying for it. I know if one of my dogs killed a child and I had to have it PTS I would ask for a PM and offer to pay for it so that I would know if there was an underlying cause or something as an owner I'd missed that might go some way to explaining it particularly if it was genuinely out of character. I think you will find under the DDA its not only the owner of the dog who is liable to prosecution but also the person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident.


I've posted this before so apologies if you've already seen it.
There was a report of a dog who attacked a child 'totally unprovoked' , owner insisted on a pm and the dog was found to have a large wax crayon jammed in it's ear canal. Poor dog must have been in agony.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

SusieRainbow said:


> I've posted this before so apologies if you've already seen it.
> There was a report of a dog who attacked a child 'totally unprovoked' , owner insisted on a pm and the dog was found to have a large wax crayon jammed in it's ear canal. Poor dog must have been in agony.


Yes I remember the case well. I was somewhat annoyed that the poor animal paid the ultimate price for defending itself and that a child was badly injured because he or she was in a situation that should never have occurred. Small children around dogs unsupervised is asking for trouble.


----------



## woofitt (Oct 24, 2011)

El Cid said:


> My niece is getting a staffie in January next year, I love my border collie, and not keen on staffies, although I am sure they make good pets for 90+% of people.
> I believe the parents are UK best of breed.


My son and d-in-law have a little staffie girl. She's brilliant with their young children and my other grandchildren.
My boy is a border collie. He's kept well away from them.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think that is a rather insensitive comment actually - how devastated do you think the owner of that dog must be to have lost her nephew, have another nephew seriously injured and to have lost her dog.


We do still have the right to free speech in this country; I would assume that the dog owner is not on this forum.
Should every forum throughout the country be silenced, just in case the owner of this dog is a member?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> We do still have the right to free speech in this country; I would assume the the dog owner is not on this forum.
> Should every forum throughout the country be silenced, just in case the owner of this dog is a member?


We do have the right to free speech.

That doesn't mean, however, that what you say should go unchallenged.

If you're prepared to speak freely, expect others to object sometimes.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> We do still have the right to free speech in this country; I would assume that the dog owner is not on this forum.
> Should every forum throughout the country be silenced, just in case the owner of this dog is a member?


Of course you have the right of free speech although I find it helps to engage brain first. I have no doubt forums throughout the country are discussing this case but can only hope they are doing it with decent consideration about the tragic loss of life and huge trauma involved for this whole family and not making scurrilous accusations about the owner of the dog when we don't even know the whole circumstances.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2016)

I'm late to the party, but wanted to address this since I might know a thing or two about stats in the US.



El Cid said:


> Read the link, it does not relate to the story we are discussing, but interesting.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424716/


From the link:
Investigation disclosed that the dogs involved in the 16 severe attacks were reproductively intact males. The median age of the dogs was 3 years. A majority of the attacks were by American Staffordshire terriers, St. Bernards, and cocker spaniels. Ten of the dogs had been aggressive toward people or other dogs before the incident that was investigated. Ten of the 16 victims of severe attacks were 10 years of age or younger; the median age of all 16 victims was 8 years. Twelve of the victims either were members of the family that owned the attacking dog or had had contact with the dog before the attack. Eleven of the victims were bitten on the head, neck, or shoulders. In 88 percent of the cases, the attacks took place in the owner's yard or home, or in the adjoining yard. In 10 of the 16 incidents, members of the victims' families witnessed the attacks.

First off, note that the study encompasses a very small population - 5 counties in a state that has 46 counties. South Carolina is a very rural state, in 1980 it would have been even more so, as well as a fairly poor state. All of that will be reflected in animal husbandry practices as well. So please understand we're looking at a very different picture than what you might see in most of the UK. 
For example, that all of the dogs were intact, is guaranteed not due to the owners being educated about the health pros and cons of neutering, but because either they could not afford to have the dog neutered, or because the dog was being used for breeding purposes to make some extra money on the side. 
(Though we do know that statistically intact dogs are more likely to be involved in extreme incidents than neutered dogs.)

That said, notice that many of the factors suggested by the data support exactly what dog experts have been saying for years, and pointing to as a failing of BSL.

10 our of 16 of the dogs had previous aggressive incidents with people or other dogs. This is one of the biggest factors. It very clearly shows that dogs in fact do NOT bite out of the blue, but rather serious incidents are a culmination of a progression of behavior. 
IOW, what we know through studying these types of cases is that without serious behavioral intervention, dogs who have bitten humans will go on to bite again, and will do more damage with less provocation. We know this. We have been saying this for literally decades now. Addressing the *deed" (recorded incidents of aggression) instead of the breed is what saves lives.

We also know that when children are involved, it will almost always be with a dog they either live with, or already know. So again, it's not a question of some random dog coming out of nowhere and mauling your child. Kids who are bitten are almost always bitten by a family dog or a dog owned by a family member. 
Also notice that in 10 of the 16 incidents, there was someone present to witness the attack. That means NOT a case of the child and dog left alone unsupervised, but an attack that happened while the child and dog were supervised. So perhaps the message should not be "don't leave kids and dogs alone together" but "learn dog body language and hear the dog when he says he's not comfortable with something".


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Also notice that in 10 of the 16 incidents, there was someone present to witness the attack. That means NOT a case of the child and dog left alone unsupervised, but an attack that happened while the child and dog were supervised. So perhaps the message should not be "don't leave kids and dogs alone together" but "learn dog body language and hear the dog when he says he's not comfortable with something".


Along with "don't let your child be a tw*t to the dog". Let's face it, we've all seen numerous videos of kids riding around on dogs, hitting them, pulling their ears, tails etc. Would think this is a pretty large factor in how kids get bitten too.



Nettles said:


> No, I agree at Jacks age when everything needs to be explored, it's not sensible. Although I imagine Spen would be more likely to move himself away from a situation he didn't like, rather than resorting to using teeth, it just wouldn't be fair to put him in that position in the first place.
> It just seems to be a common sweeping statement now that "dogs and kids should never be left alone together unsupervised. No variables, no ifs or buts..


Yes, I think Spen would be the sort to move away if that was an option rather than using teeth. But I agree, not fair to put him in that position in the first place. Jack's fallen on him twice so far and all he's done is yelp then lick him, much the same as he does to us if we stand on his paw accidentally.

To be honest, I think if something WAS to happen then even supervised I wouldn't be fast enough to prevent a bite even if I were right there. So yeah, I really think it's a case of learning body language and stepping in when the dog is uncomfortable so that it never gets to the point where they may feel the need to bite.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> From the link:
> Investigation disclosed that the dogs involved in the 16 severe attacks were reproductively intact males. The median age of the dogs was 3 years. A majority of the attacks were by American Staffordshire terriers, St. Bernards, and cocker spaniels. Ten of the dogs had been aggressive toward people or other dogs before the incident that was investigated..


It would be interesting if there were studies into the background of the owners, in this case the dog was owned by a female serving police officer and her husband, the dog is said to have lived with the owners around 3 years.

"The dog was taken out of the property at 4.30pm. It was on a pole lead. It wasn't a normal Staffie. It was a lot more chunky - probably a Staffordshire cross or some kind of bulldog breed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nother-child-seriously-injured-in-dog-attack/


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> It would be interesting if there were studies into the background of the owners, in this case the dog was owned by a female serving police officer and her husband, the dog is said to have lived with the owners around 3 years.
> 
> "The dog was taken out of the property at 4.30pm. *It was on a pole lead. It wasn't a normal Staffie. It was a lot more chunky - probably a Staffordshire cross or some kind of bulldog breed*."
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nother-child-seriously-injured-in-dog-attack/


What on earth has that got to do with anything?


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> It would be interesting if there were studies into the background of the owners,


I'd be very curious to know what sort of information on the owner you think might be relevant?
For example, you seem quite fixated on this owner being a police officer. Do you think looking at what the owner does for a living will give us insight in to dog bite incidents? And if so, how?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

To be honest, I'd be more interested in the background of the dog itself rather than the owner as we know a great deal of a dog's temperament is genetic.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> That means NOT a case of the child and dog left alone unsupervised, but an attack that happened while the child and dog were supervised. *So perhaps the message should not be "don't leave kids and dogs alone together" but "learn dog body language and hear the dog when he says he's not comfortable with something".*


Absolutely! Dogs give off plenty of signals to tell us how they are feeling, we ignore them at our peril.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nettles said:


> No, I agree at Jacks age when everything needs to be explored, it's not sensible. Although I imagine Spen would be more likely to move himself away from a situation he didn't like, rather than resorting to using teeth, it just wouldn't be fair to put him in that position in the first place.
> It just seems to be a common sweeping statement now that "dogs and kids should never be left alone together unsupervised. No variables, no ifs or buts..


I would imagine it is only on forums that this is said. I would think most people mix their dogs and kids the same as they always have done. If not then maybe it is the cause of the rise in incidents. Maybe dogs and children are not used to being together and owners do not need to assess what the dog is like. I am pretty sure it is the former though.



woofitt said:


> My son and d-in-law have a little staffie girl. She's brilliant with their young children and my other grandchildren.
> My boy is a border collie. He's kept well away from them.


I used to have a staffie staying with me on a fairly regular basis when my daughter was small. His farts were vicious, the rest of him was fine. It never crossed my mind to separate them. The only dog I had to watch with children (though ok with my daughter) was my working sheepdog.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Blitz said:


> His farts were vicious, the rest of him was fine. I


About sums up life with a Staff :Hilarious


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps the owner of the dog was too busy in her work to train the dog, perhaps it was a poor household, was the dog bought as a companion or a guard dog, was the dog normally caged when the owners were out, more dogs that kill are male - are the owners mostly male or female.
> I dont have any information whether these are factors or not, the study that I linked to concentrated on the dog.


How is any of this relevant?


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps the owner of the dog was too busy in her work to train the dog, perhaps it was a poor household, was the dog bought as a companion or a guard dog, was the dog normally caged when the owners were out, more dogs that kill are male - are the owners mostly male or female.
> I dont have any information whether these are factors or not, the study that I linked to concentrated on the dog.


I was asking what information you might find relevant, and how, not if you had the information. 
If you had said if the owner is a puppy farmer or professional dog fighter, we might be on to something, but too busy to train the dog? What? That could happen in quite literally ANY job or even hobby. I could be too busy knitting to pay attention to my dogs...

Now, husbandry, how the dog is kept is for sure a factor. We do know that chained dogs are more likely to be involved in incidents than dogs who live inside with the family as part of the family unit. Caging outside can cause barrier frustration and can lead to attacks as well.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Sweety said:


> How is any of this relevant?


I think its inevitable that people try and make sense of these incidents and look for answers as a means of trying to learn from the experience to avoid repeating it. The poster is speculating and whilst we may not agree with the posters opinions its not something that a great many people have been doing on and off the forums over the last few days.


----------



## Jannor (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm sure I saw something in Daily Mail early this morning that said the boys and the mother had only moved in with their aunt and her dog about a week ago. Just looked for it to post the link though and it seems to have gone now.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Sweety said:


> How is any of this relevant?


Well I would imagine there will be some magic wand we can wave to make everyone work less hours and dedicate all the extra time to training their dogs, stop poor households owning dogs and cage dogs whenever children are around.

@El Cid every dog is different and being a responsible owner isn't just about training its also about knowing your dog and understanding what it is and is not comfortable with. For instance in my household my rottie is perfectly happy being cuddled and hugged but she is very jumpy about having her back legs handled due to previous surgery and sore joints, she will snarl and growl at my other dogs if they accidentally knock her legs so whilst I might let a child stroke her while being supervised there is no way I would leave her with a child who might accidentally or otherwise jump on or fall on her back legs. My GSP is nervous of sudden movements and noises and strangers so again I would not leave a child with him, he is the most likely of my 3 to bite whereas Arthur my english pointer is bomb proof and steady so I would have no concerns about a child playing around him. My job, whether I am rich or poor and whether I am male or female have no relevance.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I would imagine it is only on forums that this is said. I would think most people mix their dogs and kids the same as they always have done. If not then maybe it is the cause of the rise in incidents. Maybe dogs and children are not used to being together and owners do not need to assess what the dog is like. I am pretty sure it is the former though.


Definitely not just forums. The dogs trust https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/help-advice/factsheets-downloads/factsheetnewbabynov13.pdf
and many other dog charities and rescues advise the same thing. Even our vets has a large warning poster about never leaving children and dogs together unsupervised.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> I think its inevitable that people try and make sense of these incidents and look for answers as a means of trying to learn from the experience to avoid repeating it. The poster is speculating and whilst we may not agree with the posters opinions its not something that a great many people have been doing on and off the forums over the last few days.


Definitely! 
But if we're going to try and make sense, let's make sense and not go rabbiting down the wrong hole so to speak  That's exactly what BSL has done, and has done a great job of distracting us from real ways we can reduce incidents.

As the link @El Cid posted shows, we have known since the 80's that dogs who have bitten are the most likely ones to bite again and do so with more damage and less provocation. This is the essence of the "deed not breed" mantra. Address the dogs who have bitten. Address the dogs who have incidents of dangerous behavior on record.

What the owner does for a living is not at all relevant, however, how the owner keeps the dog very much is relevant. Dogs who are kept chained out back with minimal human interaction are always going to be more dangerous than dogs who live with humans as part of the family. We know this, and because of this many cities and municipalities have enacted no-chaining laws. Much more effective than BSL.

So yes, let's do look at ways of preventing future incidents, and I think there is a lot to be done there, but let's do it effectively and intelligently.


----------



## Katalyst (Aug 11, 2015)

I highly expect that in the majority of these terrible cases, the dog made its feelings clear long before it bit but sometimes I wonder if there really was no warning to be had. E.g if I were to collapse and land on Logan, would he bite me? It'd be an understandable reaction to having someone land on him after all. 
What if the dog is seriously ill or has an injury that no one has spotted (I'm thinking spine/neck here) and someone firmly touches a hugely painful bit?
Yes obviously a dog should understand bite inhibition and it should know to pull it's punches but would that go out of the window in these instances?

I'm just playing a spot of devil's advocate really. I've seen with my own eyes some pretty spectacularly stupid interactions between peopled kids and their dogs and the dog is just expected to deal with it (and banned from growling because you know, growling is BAD DOG time!)

I guess I just wonder if (because of the idiots) we tar all of these cases with the same brush. Whether we're right on wrong in actuality is moot as we don't know most of the details.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

Katalyst said:


> I highly expect that in the majority of these terrible cases, the dog made its feelings clear long before it bit but sometimes I wonder if there really was no warning to be had. E.g if I were to collapse and land on Logan, would he bite me? It'd be an understandable reaction to having someone land on him after all.
> What if the dog is seriously ill or has an injury that no one has spotted (I'm thinking spine/neck here) and someone firmly touches a hugely painful bit?
> Yes obviously a dog should understand bite inhibition and it should know to pull it's punches but would that go out of the window in these instances?


It might help to think in human terms. 
Would you expect a human in pain to lash out? Sure. Would you expect a human in pain to lash out to the point of maiming or killing the person they're lashing out at? No. And if they did, you would say there is something seriously wrong with that person. 
So yes, there are dogs who have some something very wrong with them physically or genetically or both, and they could respond to an accident with maiming or killing. But the point is, these dogs are 1) very, very rare, 2) complete anomalies, and 3) you would have noticed at some point something off about their behavior. Which is why it would be nice if we would take the time to study these dogs (behavior assessments, post mortem, etc.)

The vast majority of normal dogs will react to an unforeseen accident with some semblance of restraint. They will not kill you if you fall on them. 
We had a very old, very grumpy muttdog when my kids were toddlers who we purposefully kept away from the kids because he just had zero tolerance for them. He wasn't very mobile so it wasn't hard to keep them separated. But, as things happen, one day one of the kids fell down the stairs and landed on top of the old grump dog sleeping on the landing. The dog got up, roared in the child's face and teeth clacked several times. The dog was clearly livid and not happy with the kid, but not one tooth had made contact with skin. Normal dog reaction. 
Another time I got up in the night to pee, tripped over the great dane who must have been hot and decided to lay in the middle of the floor where I was not expecting her to be, I fell, landed on top of her with my face centimeters from her muzzle. She just looked at me quizzically. No aggression at all. Again, normal reaction. 
Neither dog had ever bitten a human, nor given me reason to think they would bite, and they didn't.


----------



## Katalyst (Aug 11, 2015)

ouesi said:


> It might help to think in human terms.
> Would you expect a human in pain to lash out? Sure. Would you expect a human in pain to lash out to the point of maiming or killing the person they're lashing out at? No. And if they did, you would say there is something seriously wrong with that person.
> So yes, there are dogs who have some something very wrong with them physically or genetically or both, and they could respond to an accident with maiming or killing. But the point is, these dogs are 1) very, very rare, 2) complete anomalies, and 3) you would have noticed at some point something off about their behavior. Which is why it would be nice if we would take the time to study these dogs (behavior assessments, post mortem, etc.)
> 
> ...


Absolutely all of this. 
I suppose the only time an otherwise stable dog might kill or seriously maim is if we're talking an extreme but otherwise fairly understate reaction aimed at a small child. it wouldn't take much of a bite to the face for example to maim a little kid.

But no, I'm in full agreement that no stable dog should ever inflict that much damage.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Katalyst said:


> Absolutely all of this.
> I suppose the only time an otherwise stable dog might kill or seriously maim is if we're talking an extreme but otherwise fairly understate reaction aimed at a small child. it wouldn't take much of a bite to the face for example to maim a little kid.
> 
> But no, I'm in full agreement that no stable dog should ever inflict that much damage.


I am not so sure its that simple. We have all seen that incident where Millan gets bitten by the Labrador with food resource guarding issues and nobody really blames the dog for the behaviour, they always, and rightfully so, point out that he should have seen it coming. If that dog had bitten a child's face or neck with the same degree of force in similar circumstances to the one Millan created the outcome would probably have been at least life changing if not fatal.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> Sadly t
> 
> I am not so sure its that simple. We have all seen that incident where Millan gets bitten by the Labrador with food resource guarding issues and nobody really blames the dog for the behaviour, they always, and rightfully so, point out that he should have seen it coming. If that dog had bitten a child's face or neck with the same degree of force in similar circumstances to the one Millan created the outcome would probably have been at least life changing if not fatal.


No, that's not quite accurate. 
First off, if you watch the video, Holly doesn't initially bite CM. He "corrects" her, and she air snaps several times. Those aren't "missed" bites. She's deliberately not biting him but giving him as serious a warning as she can without resorting to a bite. She then stops air snapping and growls and bares her teeth again warning him without resorting to teeth on skin. 
Throughout all of these warnings, he still pushes in to her space. I've known a lot of kids without any sense of self preservation, but even a young toddler recognizes an air snap for what it is. And good gawd I hope an adult would think to remove a toddler if a dog was air snapping at the child!

When Holly finally does bite, notice it's a lot of chomps, but it's still inhibited. Again, it's a warning. She's not out to hurt him, she just wants him to stop. If she was trying to hurt him, a dog of Holly's size could easily have broken several bones in his hand and could have caused serious lacerations, but all that happened was one puncture wound. I'm sure it hurt, but as most raw feeders know, she could easily have made mincemeat of his hand but she didn't. She just poked a hole in his hand.

Personally I think Holly showed perfectly normal restraint. Unfortunately, despite the fact that she showed such great restraint, CM managed to break that barrier normal dogs have to using teeth on skin. Holly is now more likely to bite again, and she will likely use more force next time, and do so with less provocation. Unless of course she ends up in the hands of someone who does know what they're doing. Which unfortunately didn't happen either.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> We do know that chained dogs are more likely to be involved in incidents than dogs who live inside with the family as part of the family unit. Caging outside can cause barrier frustration and can lead to attacks as well.


I know some rehoming centres require a fenced garden/yard, a pet dog kept wholey indoors and walked on a regular basis would not be allowed.
Rehoming centres have many rules for prospective dog adopters, but when buying a puppy their are none.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> I know some rehoming centres require a fenced garden/yard, a pet dog kept wholey indoors and walked on a regular basis would not be allowed.
> Rehoming centres have many rules for prospective dog adopters, but when buying a puppy their are none.


I'm confused by your post. 
Are you saying a rehoming center wouldn't allow a dog to be kept indoors and walked regularly? I'm not sure what you mean there?

As for buying a puppy not having any rules, that's not true. Responsible breeders have fairly strict requirements for potential owners.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> As for buying a puppy not having any rules, that's not true. Responsible breeders have fairly strict requirements for potential owners.


Are you meaning in the USA, because I am not aware of any strict rules.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

El Cid said:


> Are you meaning in the USA, because I am not aware of any strict rules.


You've been looking at the wrong breeders then.

Good breeders are about the right homes not the person with the right amount of cash.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Are you meaning in the USA, because I am not aware of any strict rules.


No, I'm talking about responsible breeders anywhere. And rescues. 
There are plenty of rescues out there who will give a dog to anyone. And breeders. Doesn't mean there aren't responsible, ethical breeders and rescues who restrict who gets their dogs.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> No, that's not quite accurate.
> First off, if you watch the video, Holly doesn't initially bite CM. He "corrects" her, and she air snaps several times. Those aren't "missed" bites. She's deliberately not biting him but giving him as serious a warning as she can without resorting to a bite. She then stops air snapping and growls and bares her teeth again warning him without resorting to teeth on skin.
> Throughout all of these warnings, he still pushes in to her space. I've known a lot of kids without any sense of self preservation, but even a young toddler recognizes an air snap for what it is. And good gawd I hope an adult would think to remove a toddler if a dog was air snapping at the child!
> 
> ...


I am not sure what you mean by "not quite accurate"

I didn't say the dog didn't give any warnings or show restrain, I just mentioned the fact that the dog bit him, also stated that Millan (an abusive pratt) should have seen it coming and said that if a child provoked the dog in the same circumstances and got bitten with the same amount of force how bad that would be from the perspective of children being more easily wounded than adults. I wasn't commenting on the whys and wherefores of the incident itself.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> Are you meaning in the USA, because I am not aware of any strict rules.


Responsible Breeders care very much about where their pups go and with whom.

That was one of the reasons I stopped breeding - I worried too much about something going wrong for one of my pups, once they left my home.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Responsible Breeders care very much about where their pups go and with whom.
> That was one of the reasons I stopped breeding - I worried too much about something going wrong for one of my pups, once they left my home.


I am sure some are responsible, but what does that mean?

Perhaps you were a responsible breeder, but you gave it up because there was no way for you to enforce this responsibility on the pups owners?
You could not force them to attend training ............


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps the owner of the dog was too busy in her work to train the dog, perhaps it was a poor household, was the dog bought as a companion or a guard dog, was the dog normally caged when the owners were out, more dogs that kill are male - are the owners mostly male or female.
> I dont have any information whether these are factors or not, the study that I linked to concentrated on the dog.


Correlation is not causation.

Some of the queries in this particular scenario which would perhaps be more appropriate would be eg

What if any exposure the dog had to babies and small children?
How long they had owned the dog for?
HAd they had it from a puppy?
Was it a rescue dog and if so what background did it have?
What was the temperament of the sire and dam like
Where were the children and the dog at the time of the incident?
What were the children and dog doing at the time of the incident?
Where was the mother at the time of the incident?

Most importantly, what had happened to the children, dog in the hours/days leading up to the incident.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> I am sure some are responsible, but what does that mean?
> 
> Perhaps you were a responsible breeder, but you gave it up because there was no way for you to enforce this responsibility on the pups owners?
> You could not force them to attend training ............


Eh?

Attending training classes wouldn't have been a priority for me.

My main concerns were that my pups went to permanent, loving homes, ideally with knowledgeable people but, failing that, with sensible ones.

I asked people to guarantee the pup would come back to me should anything go wrong, so honesty was a priority too, as I wanted to believe that would happen. (I took two back in fifteen years, both males and both a year old at the time).

Training classes I didn't care about.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> I am not so sure its that simple. We have all seen that incident where Millan gets bitten by the Labrador with food resource guarding issues and nobody really blames the dog for the behaviour, they always, and rightfully so, point out that he should have seen it coming. If that dog had bitten a child's face or neck with the same degree of force in similar circumstances to the one Millan created the outcome would probably have been at least life changing if not fatal.





cbcdesign said:


> I am not sure what you mean by "not quite correct"
> 
> I didn't say the dog didn't give any warnings or show restrain, I just mentioned the fact that the dog bit him, also stated that Millan should have seen it coming and said that if a child provoked the dog in the same circumstances and got bitten with the same amount of force how bad that would be from the perspective of children being more easily wounded than adults. I wasn't commenting on the whys and wherefores of the incident itself.


But that's the thing, a child would not have provoked Holly the way CM did.

For one, a child would not have continued to provoke Holly past the air snap. 
Do you really think a child would continue to provoke a dog after the dog had air snapped at the child? I have a lot of experience with children, and I don't know any child - even very young children, who are not going to recognize an air snap for the serious warning it is. Most kids react to an air snap by crying and running to the nearest trusted adult. They don't continue to provoke the dog.
Even if the extremely unlikely event that the child had pushed past the air snap, and was unsupervised at the time, even then, a nearby adult would have heard the commotion of the air snap and intervened.

And like I said, Holly did not bite with that much force. She poked a hole in his hand. Yeah, that would have been worse on a child's face, what with the more delicate skin. But you also have to remember that normal dogs (which Holly very much appears to be) also give "puppy license" to human children and would probably not use as much force with a kid as they would with an adult.

Basically it's all total speculation on something that wouldn't realistically happen to begin with.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> But that's the thing, a child would not have provoked Holly the way CM did.
> 
> For one, a child would not have continued to provoke Holly past the air snap.
> Do you really think a child would continue to provoke a dog after the dog had air snapped at the child? I have a lot of experience with children, and I don't know any child - even very young children, who are not going to recognize an air snap for the serious warning it is. Most kids react to an air snap by crying and running to the nearest trusted adult. They don't continue to provoke the dog.
> ...


Yeah point taken, regarding the provocation in Holly's case, it was a bad example upon reflection. But the point I seem to be unsuccessfully trying to make is that there are just occasionally circumstances when kids get bitten with devastating consequences and I am not always sure the intention on the dogs part was to deliberately kill or inflict lots of damage as such, it just lost control. The UK case of the dog getting a crayon lodged into its ear is a case in point. Sometimes pain makes animals and indeed people lash out defensively with devastating results.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Does any dog consciously have an intent to deliberately kill or inflict lots of damage to children or humans in general?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Does any dog consciously have an intent to deliberately kill or inflict lots of damage to children or humans in general?


I don't know, its difficult to say when studies are not conducted on dogs that attack in these sorts of incidents and they are put down almost immediately.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> The UK case of the dog getting a crayon lodged into its ear is a case in point. Sometimes pain makes animals and indeed people lash out defensively with devastating results.


Does anyone have a link to that particular case?
I think the crayon in the dog's ear thing is an internet myth. I've never run across a credible source for this story other than shared memes on FB or like on this thread hearsay about the incident. 
The first time I heard it, the story went that the dog was taken to the vet to be euthanized for biting a child (not killing a child) and the vet first did a physical examination and discovered the crayon (the dog was not euthanized).

I think there are a lot of horror stories out there that can make you crazy if you don't look at them with a critical, educated eye.

Bottom line, your average family pet who hasn't shown any indication of being a danger to children probably isn't. 
Of course it behooves us all to be cognizant of dog body language, to teach our children to be kind and respectful to animals, to teach our dogs to be tolerant of children, but I really don't think our kids are in imminent danger from the family dog who is going to lose it one day and accidentally kill a child. That's just not how these things really happen.


----------



## Shikoku (Dec 16, 2013)

El Cid said:


> *I am sure some are responsible, but what does that mean?*
> 
> Perhaps you were a responsible breeder, but you gave it up because there was no way for you to enforce this responsibility on the pups owners?
> You could not force them to attend training ............


They don't just stick any two dogs together of the opposite gender to produce pups with the main motivation being money...
They don't breed from or use studs who aren't physically or mentally mature.
They don't have litters back to back constantly.
They don't breed loads of different breeds or mixes.
They don't muzzle or have to physically restrain their dogs in order to mate them and I don't mean keeping them still while tied to prevent injury. I mean essentially force mating which could mean poor temperament and, or poor confirmation.

For me personally a responsible breeder is often heavily involved with their breed, including rescue work. They often have a network of people available to them made up of other experienced breeders and owners.
Their dogs are from reputable lines so the breeder knows about the typical temperament and health that has the potential to be passed onto the pups.
They know their dog's positive points and faults, when searching for a mate they look for a dog who will complement their dog and the dog's lines well, to improve the positive points and try to reduce the faults.
Their dogs are health tested for all known genetic issues within the breed that can be tested for. Their dogs have eye scans and, or heart scans as well as hip and elbow scoring or other health tests depending on what is relevant to the particular breed.
Their dogs are often showed and, or worked and have proved themselves as successful show and, or work dogs. A dog with a poor temperament generally isn't going to do too well with show or work.

Responsible breeders will heavily question potential owners and will be fussy about what type of homes and owners their puppies go to, just because you have the cash doesn't mean they will let you have one of their puppies. They usually have a waiting list of potential owners before the mating even takes place. They will be available to offer advice and support for their pup's owners, they want to know how their dogs mature and they are often more than happy to let you speak to other people who own dog's they have produced. Responsible breeders are willing to take dogs they have produced back or at least support the owners in finding a suitable home for the dog if required.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Does anyone have a link to that particular case?
> I think the crayon in the dog's ear thing is an internet myth. I've never run across a credible source for this story other than shared memes on FB or like on this thread hearsay about the incident.
> The first time I heard it, the story went that the dog was taken to the vet to be euthanized for biting a child (not killing a child) and the vet first did a physical examination and discovered the crayon (the dog was not euthanized).
> 
> ...


Have looked but cannot find a link. It was many years ago now and any articles have long since disappeared.

Have a look at this ouesi: http://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/i-saw-a-dog-bite-a-child-and-it-was-a-totally-preventable-accident

It backs up what you are saying about body language and recognising the signs but is none the less another tragic incident involving what was according to the author a perfectly normal dog that just felt cornered and reacted defensively with devastating results.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> Have looked but cannot find a link. It was many years ago now and any articles have long since disappeared.
> 
> Have a look at this ouesi: http://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/i-saw-a-dog-bite-a-child-and-it-was-a-totally-preventable-accident
> 
> It backs up what you are saying about body language and recognising the signs but is none the less another tragic incident.


What are you wanting me to look at? What are you asking?

That story backs up pretty much everything I've been saying. 
Dogs who are chained (tied up) with no room to escape are always more dangerous than those who have a way of extricating themselves.
Children are bitten by dogs they know - they knew the dog.
It didn't happen out of the blue, the dog warned the kid, even the most inept among us recognize a tucked tail for fear. If anyone had been paying attention they would have noticed a dog acting fearful. So it wasn't a vicious attack out of nowhere.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> What are you wanting me to look at? What are you asking?
> 
> That story backs up pretty much everything I've been saying.
> Dogs who are chained (tied up) with no room to escape are always more dangerous than those who have a way of extricating themselves.
> ...


Yes it does support your point about recognising signs and I said so in my post.

What I am saying is that a normal dog can be provoked quite easily into biting a child with devastating results and it is simplistic to say that no ordinary dog would ever inflict that sort of damage on a child. As I said in an earlier post I don't think its as simple as saying an ordinary dog doesn't bite children and in doing so inflict lots of damage.

Note this paragraph in the article: _The dog was tied up and had nowhere to go or any adults to save her. The strange toddler came up and hugged her, and in her fearful state, she bit the boy. _She was not an aggressive dog _and gave plenty of warning signs, all of which were not seen by the mother or by the owner because they were not paying attention to the boy or the dog. _


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Shikoku said:


> They don't just stick any two dogs together of the opposite gender to produce pups with the main motivation being money...
> They don't breed from or use studs who aren't physically or mentally mature.
> They don't have litters back to back constantly.
> They don't breed loads of different breeds or mixes.
> ...


I think this is an excellent post.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> What I am saying is that a normal dog can be provoked quite easily into biting a child with devastating results and it is simplistic to say that no ordinary dog would ever inflict that sort of damage on a child. As I said in an earlier post I don't think its as simple as saying an ordinary dog doesn't bite children and in doing so inflict lots of damage.


I'm not arguing that ordinary dogs won't bite children?
People of my generation, I think we were all bitten by a dog as children. I was bitten as a child, my sister was bitten as a child, my friends were all bitten as a children. I've never said that dogs can't be provoked in to biting. 
What I am saying is that it is rare for a dog to do serious damage and even rare still to maim or kill. Dogs don't go around killing people. No one would have them as pets if they did 



cbcdesign said:


> Note this paragraph in the article: _The dog was tied up and had nowhere to go or any adults to save her. The strange toddler came up and hugged her, and in her fearful state, she bit the boy. _She was not an aggressive dog _and gave plenty of warning signs, all of which were not seen by the mother or by the owner because they were not paying attention to the boy or the dog._


To be obnoxiously pedantic, dogs are not aggressive. Behavior is aggressive. I think what the author means is, the dog had not previously shown aggressive behavior. But all dogs have the potential to be aggressive, just as all humans do. The degree to which aggression is expressed is a function of genetics, environment, the trigger, how the dog feels at that moment, etc. etc. Which are exactly the factors we are discussing


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Sweety said:


> I think this is an excellent post.


Me too! Before he would agree to selling me Gwylim, my Mini Schnauzer, I had a real grilling from his breeder which included meeting Georgina several times beforehand to make sure she'd be a suitable companion. Questions about feeding him, the vet and trainer I intended to use and how he would travel safely in my car. I also had two home visits to inspect the house and garden before he finally agreed.

That was nearly 3 years ago and he and his wife are now amongst my most valued friends that I can always go to if I have a problem with either of my dogs.

Needless to say I'd recommend him to anyone thinking of buying a Schnauzer.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Royal Mail revealed there were 2,600 dog attacks against their staff last year.

The family favourite labrador is responsible for the highest number of canine attack personal injury claims, according to research by pet insurers Animal Friends.
Some 32,507 Labrador puppies were registered with the Kennel Club in 2015, making it the most popular dog in the UK. 
The Kennel Club websites refers to them as a "placid and loyal dog", but you would expect the most popular dog to be involved in the most incidents, its a shame the newspaper did not publish the numbers.

Men are more likely to be bitten than women, but that could be because men are more likely to be postmen.

Liverpool police revealed last year that Jack Russell terriers were responsible for the most dog bites in the city.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ely-to-attack-bite-you-revealed-a7166296.html


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Shikoku said:


> For me personally a responsible breeder is often heavily involved with their breed, including rescue work. They often have a network of people available to them made up of other experienced breeders and owners.


It sounds like you were a good breeder, but in todays money orientated world, money is the driving factor in most things. Government needs to set rules for responsible breeding and ownership.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> It sounds like you were a good breeder, but in todays money orientated world, money is the driving factor in most things. Government needs to set rules for responsible breeding and ownership.


There have always been responsible and irresponsible breeders.

How can the Government 'set rules' for responsible breeding?

Are they going to tell Breeders which stud dog to use, when to worm the pups, what to wean them on and how to vet potential new owners?

When I was breeding, I was also showing and judging the Breed and I was Rescue Co-Ordinator. Without meaning to sound arrogant, I fancy I knew more about the Breed and which stud dog was the best for my bitch than the Government did.

I fancy the Government have better things to do.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> There have always been responsible and irresponsible breeders.
> 
> How can the Government 'set rules' for responsible breeding?


The Government now require dogs to be chipped, that is a start, so they know where the dog owners live.

A start would be to make puppy training compulsory.


----------



## Shikoku (Dec 16, 2013)

El Cid said:


> It sounds like you were a good breeder, but in todays money orientated world, money is the driving factor in most things. Government needs to set rules for responsible breeding and ownership.


I'm not a breeder... it is just what I have learnt from this forum and what I would expect from a breeder if I were to get a puppy.

I don't think the government needs to set laws for responsible breeding and ownership, there is already a council license required for people who breed more than 5 litters per year and puppy farmers seem to brag about being council licensed as being a good thing!  
People need to educate themselves in order to stop fuelling and supporting unethical breeders, BYBs and puppy farms regardless if they think they are 'saving' the pup, it was 'only one litter' or 'I only want a pet so a pedigree dog isn't important'. Education takes time and isn't a quick fix.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> The Government now require dogs to be chipped, that is a start, so they know where the dog owners live.
> 
> A start would be to make puppy training compulsory.


They tried that in Switzerland, and it has now petered out.

So if they make training compulsory who is going to list the reputable clubs/trainers?
Who decides who is competent?
What about if you live in a very rural location and you do not drive and there is only one bus service a day (or less)
there are a lot of dogs which are not micrchipped, despite the law...............................


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I am sure some are responsible, but what does that mean?
> 
> Perhaps you were a responsible breeder, but you gave it up because there was no way for you to enforce this responsibility on the pups owners?
> You could not force them to attend training ............


I've had a few dogs from breeders over the years, my rotties were from what I would class as a responsible breeder, she was recommended to me by the breed club and a couple of other breeders and a trainer and boy did she give me a grilling about why I wanted a rottie (this was around the time rotties were getting a lot of bad press before the media moved on to bull breeds), what I was going to do with the dog, how long it would be left alone and what experience we had of big strong breeds. We also had horses at the time and I had to promise not to run the dog with the horses (not that I would have anyway). I also had to sign a contract agreeing for the dog to go back to her if I couldn't keep it at any stage in its life and she put endorsements on his KC registration so I couldn't have used him as a stud dog without having various health tests done first. With the dogs I've had from rescue I've also had to fill in application forms stating my experience with dogs, what previous dogs I've owned and what happened to them, confirming the amount of time the dogs would be left, have my garden and home checked, sign a contract agreeing to neuter/spay at 6 months and agreeing to return the dogs to them if I can't keep them. There are excellent breeders and excellent rescues out there but sadly there are also plenty who don't give a damn where their dogs end up.



El Cid said:


> The Government now require dogs to be chipped, that is a start, so they know where the dog owners live.
> 
> A start would be to make puppy training compulsory.


Why would making puppy training compulsory prevent serious dog bites? I was forced to take Indie to puppy training - the rescue required it as part of the contract and I had to get a signed attendance form to send to them to prove we went. I learnt nothing, it was a waste of time, it stressed her, it made her more frightened of other dogs when she was already nervous of them. How would the fact that I took her for 6 weeks regardless of these things and spent most of the time in a corner with her away from the noise prevent her from becoming a dog that bites children? I didn't need to sit through 6 weeks of an instructor who quite frankly gave out some dangerous advice such as telling another class member to get her very young child to take the dogs food bowl away while it was eating on a regular basis and also lent another class member a spray collar for a barking puppy.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> A start would be to make puppy training compulsory.


How does puppy training tie in to any of the data that has been shared on this thread?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> The Government now require dogs to be chipped, that is a start, so they know where the dog owners live.
> 
> A start would be to make puppy training compulsory.


How? How are they going to police it?

Will an Officer from your local Constabulary turn up at your house once a week, to make sure you're at a training class with your pup?

It's all very well coming up with high falutin ideas, but you need to consider the practicalities first.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> In some areas of Switzerland - "A policy must be purchased from a private insurance provider to cover the dog under civil-liability insurance."


What does that have to do with a fatal attack on a child?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> In some areas of Switzerland - "A policy must be purchased from a private insurance provider to cover the dog under civil-liability insurance."


Now you have gone on to something else, but never mind, how will that stop dogs biting people?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> How does puppy training tie in to any of the data that has been shared on this thread?


Perhaps I should have put owner training


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps I should have put owner training


Ok so who is going to carry out that training?
Who chooses the trainers?
Who assesses and validates their training?
What about if the owner lives miles away from the nearest club and does not drive and there is little or no public transport?

Answers on a postcard please


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm not arguing that ordinary dogs won't bite children?
> People of my generation, I think we were all bitten by a dog as children. I was bitten as a child, my sister was bitten as a child, my friends were all bitten as a children. I've never said that dogs can't be provoked in to biting.
> What I am saying is that it is rare for a dog to do serious damage and even rare still to maim or kill. Dogs don't go around killing people. No one would have them as pets if they did
> 
> To be obnoxiously pedantic, dogs are not aggressive. Behavior is aggressive. I think what the author means is, the dog had not previously shown aggressive behavior. But all dogs have the potential to be aggressive, just as all humans do. The degree to which aggression is expressed is a function of genetics, environment, the trigger, how the dog feels at that moment, etc. etc. Which are exactly the factors we are discussing


Indeed it is.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Perhaps I should have put owner training


Okay, what kind of owner training do you suggest?
And how would you implement it?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Now you have gone on to something else, but never mind, how will that stop dogs biting people?


Either we put more effort into enforcing the dog laws we already have, or we need some new laws.

"On the day of the attack, Greve returned to their house from the pub, and from the back door he could see his grandmother being savaged by the seven stone (44kg) dog, Solo, through the glass.
Greve had been banned from owning or having control of any dog three years ago following an incident with a previous pet called Zac, which attacked another animal"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-34209590


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Either we put more effort into enforcing the dog laws we already have, or we need some new laws.
> 
> "On the day of the attack, Greve returned to their house from the pub, and from the back door he could see his grandmother being savaged by the seven stone (44kg) dog, Solo, through the glass.
> Greve had been banned from owning or having control of any dog three years ago following an incident with a previous pet called Zac, which attacked another animal"
> ...


Existing dog laws such as BSL are clearly not working. What new laws do you think should be brought in to prevent dogs biting?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Either we put more effort into enforcing the dog laws we already have, or we need some new laws.
> 
> "On the day of the attack, Greve returned to their house from the pub, and from the back door he could see his grandmother being savaged by the seven stone (44kg) dog, Solo, through the glass.
> Greve had been banned from owning or having control of any dog three years ago following an incident with a previous pet called Zac, which attacked another animal"
> ...


I am not sure what world you live in, but in the one I exist

More parents kill their children every year than are killed by dogs
More people are killed in RTAs every year than are killed by dogs
A woman a week dies in domestic violence incidents
Women and men are raped
People are killed
People drive with no licence
People drive with no insurance
People drive with no MOTs
People use hand held mobiles whilst driving

Which area would you like more effort put in?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Either we put more effort into enforcing the dog laws we already have, or we need some new laws.


Does it sound remotely likely to you that a WPC wasn't fully aware of the current legislation and that new laws would have made the slightest difference to this tragic case? I think not!


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Okay, what kind of owner training do you suggest?
> And how would you implement it?


The training could be led/guided by such as the RSPCA or the Dogs Trust.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Sweety said:


> How? How are they going to police it?
> 
> Will an Officer from your local Constabulary turn up at your house once a week, to make sure you're at a training class with your pup?
> 
> It's all very well coming up with high falutin ideas, but you need to consider the practicalities first.


In the same breath, how do they police microchipping? I've not had anyone ask to check whether my dogs are chipped as of yet, even the vets.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> Does it sound remotely likely to you that a WPC wasn't fully aware of the current legislation and that new laws would have made the slightest difference to this tragic case? I think not!


We dont know any details yet, unless you know more?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> The training could be led/guided by such as the RSPCA or the Dogs Trust.


The RSPCA?

Oh now you're just talking for the sake of it.

Are you suggesting the Dogs Trust hold weekly training classes? Don't you think they have enough to do?

The nearest Dogs Trust to me is around 80 miles away.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> In the same breath, how do they police microchipping? I've not had anyone ask to check whether my dogs are chipped as of yet, even the vets.


The law is quite new a the moment, if a dog comes to the attention of the police or council, then that will set the law in motion.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sweety said:


> The RSPCA?
> 
> Oh now you're just talking for the sake of it.
> 
> ...


Ee by gum, I would willingly wait in the pouring rain, after a full day at work in order to make a 1.5 hour bus journey to a dog training club for 1 hour and then wait in the rain again to repeat the experience going home.

Of course if I lived in an area where I had to use trams, I would be stuffed, dogs are not allowed on them

Does not everyone have a spare 4 hours of an evening to fill?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sweety said:


> The RSPCA?
> 
> Oh now you're just talking for the sake of it.


So we should just accept these deaths, and do nothing?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> The law is quite new a the moment, if a dog comes to the attention of the police or council, then that will set the law in motion.


Six months down the line I have yet to come across either a policeman or dog warden brandishing a scanner on my daily walks............


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> So we should just accept these deaths, and do nothing?


The alternatives to your suggestion are not acceptance and/or doing nothing.

You have not yet made one suggestion which is practical or suggested how your suggestion would cure dog bites.............


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Does not everyone have a spare 4 hours of an evening to fill?


I am sure most dog owners spend more than 4 hours every week just walking their dog.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> I am sure most dog owners spend more than 4 hours every week just walking their dog.


A WEEK not on one DAY!


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> The alternatives to your suggestion are not acceptance and/or doing nothing.


Do you believe recent changes to dog law will be enough to improve matters?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> A WEEK not on one DAY!


Stop being daft.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> We dont know any details yet, unless you know more?


Wait. 
Are you suggesting that we need laws as a deterrent?
Do you think anyone really *wants* their dog to maul a child? Or doesn't care if their dog mauls a child? Really?

No one wants their dog to hurt a child. 
Education can help, absolutely. And frankly, I think education IS helping. And we should continue efforts in education. But I just don't think vicious dogs are the huge problem you seem to think they are.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> We dont know any details yet, unless you know more?


We do know that a WPC owned the dog, that has been widely reported. We do know that the family are in a living hell at the moment having lost one child and another is in Hospital with life changing injuries and we absolutely know that the idea that legislation is the answer to everything is flawed.

What is needed is for families to learn to recognise the signs that their dogs are unhappy or uncomfortable in any given situation, particularly around children. This thread is full of posts that reflect this view. Legislation can only do so much and it wont ever stop these rare attacks because it isn't a deliberate infringement of law that causes them.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Education can help, absolutely. And frankly, I think education IS helping. And we should continue efforts in education. But I just don't think vicious dogs are the huge problem you seem to think they are.


I think the new laws will help, but I would be concern about the lack of dog wardens, and cuts to council funding.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> I think the new laws will help, but I would be concern about the lack of dog wardens, and cuts to council funding.


How will dog wardens scanning microchips impact on people being bitten or worse by dogs.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I think the new laws will help, but I would be concern about the lack of dog wardens, and cuts to council funding.


These attacks are happening in family homes. Council funding and Dog wardens are totally irrelevant in such cases.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> Legislation can only do so much and it wont ever stop these rare attacks because it isn't a deliberate infringement of law that causes them.


People have gone to jail because they did not follow the dog laws and someone was killed.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Stop being daft.


There is a vast difference between 4 hours spread over a week and 4 hours in one day................. not sure what is daft about this observation?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> The alternatives to your suggestion are not acceptance and/or doing nothing.
> 
> You have not yet made one suggestion which is practical or suggested how your suggestion would cure dog bites.............


So what do you suggest ?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> How will dog wardens scanning microchips impact on people being bitten or worse by dogs.


Dogs that have killed have often bitten before, so once a dog comes to the attention of the authorities steps need to be followed to make the dog safe.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> People have gone to jail because they did not follow the dog laws and someone was killed.


So what? It didn't stop the attacks and they are still occurring. Legislation has changed nothing. These fatal attacks were rare before the laws were toughened up and they still are. Legislation is a kneejerk reaction by politicians who needed to appear to be doing something to address a problem which still exists.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> Stop being daft.


The irony is strong in this one....


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> There is a vast difference between 4 hours spread over a week and 4 hours in one day................. not sure what is daft about this observation?


Who raised the 4 hours per day nonsense?


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> So what do you suggest ?


I made a suggestion a long time ago, or in another thread about mandatory recording of dog bites that require medical attention. From there there is room to legislate for repeat offenders. 
This ties in to the data that shows that dogs who have already bitten are the most likely to do much more serious damage if they bite again.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> People have gone to jail because they did not follow the dog laws and someone was killed.


But that is AFTER the event, what we are discussing is BEFORE, prevention!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Dogs that have killed have often bitten before, so once a dog comes to the attention of the authorities steps need to be followed to make the dog safe.


Whether or not a dog is chipped is immaterial.

A chip does not prevent a dog biting someone (unless of course you know different)


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Who raised the 4 hours per day nonsense?


You did by saying you think puppy training and then owner training was compulsory.

I gave an example of how this idea was nonsense as many people live extremely remote from ANY dog training let alone GOOD dog training


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

@El Cid are you worried about something from a personal standpoint? Are you worried your dog might bite and want to know how to prevent it? Or are you worried about yourself or your family members getting bitten and want to know how to prevent it? 
Or is it that you think you have figured out how to make dogs safe and want to share that information?

I'm not sure what you're getting with your posts...


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> I gave an example of how this idea was nonsense as many people live extremely remote from ANY dog training let alone GOOD dog training


People spend £££ on their dogs, they manage to get to a vets when needed, more education for owners and dogs is easy, if there is the motivation.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> People spend £££ on their dogs, they manage to get to a vets when needed, more education for owners and dogs is easy, if there is the motivation.


Ah but there is the rub, how do you motivate people to do this, assuming of course they have the disposable income and time to accomplish it?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

I think the media could play a much bigger role in helping to educate people in recognising the signs discussed in this thread. They love to publish articles and transmit reports on the news about these attacks but what would be really valuable would be including within these articles and reports information on recognising the visual clues given off by dogs that people often miss. We used to teach people how to cross the road but don't show people how to understand dog body language and in the UK there are an estimated 8.5 million of them sharing our lives. Less legislation and more education. The same basic lessons could be taught in schools too.

Just an idea.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Ee by gum, I would willingly wait in the pouring rain, after a full day at work in order to make a 1.5 hour bus journey to a dog training club for 1 hour and then wait in the rain again to repeat the experience going home.
> 
> Of course if I lived in an area where I had to use trams, I would be stuffed, dogs are not allowed on them
> 
> Does not everyone have a spare 4 hours of an evening to fill?


Oh, of course.

I feel ashamed now at my laziness and general lack of interest in my dogs.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Oh, of course.
> 
> I feel ashamed now at my laziness and general lack of interest in my dogs.


and so you should be, why do you not have the motivation to do this?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Microchipping has been compulsory since 2012 here in NI. Dog licensing has been compulsory for as long as I've ever known (I'm 35) Neither have helped reduce dog bites as far as I'm aware and neither are enforced.

We also have very, very few trainers in NI that subscribe to reward based training. Most cause more problems than you started off with. We also see many dogs that have attended the same training classes as us on walks and the owners are still letting their dogs run riot and approach strangers.. so they have learnt nothing! Attending training classes does not automatically make responsible owners.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> @El Cid are you worried about something from a personal standpoint? I'm not sure what you're getting with your posts...


There was an act of parliament, because there was a problem with dangerous dogs. As far as I am aware, that act of parliament did not work.
We now have compulsory chipping, and other dog control laws, which may help, or may not. I do not have any concerns with my own dog, but when people are kill, I dont do the sympathy bit, I prefer to make things better.
Without discussion, nothing will change. I am new to dogs, but it does not bar me from the discussion.

Official figures for England show 7,227 admissions for dog attacks in past year, compared with 4,110 a decade ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...uries-caused-by-dogs-up-76-over-past-10-years


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> and so you should be, why do you not have the motivation to do this?


Well, it's obvious. It's all because of Policewomen and microchipping.

Definitely not because I'm drinking red wine and ogling Poldark.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

When I was a kid, no one wore seat belts, hell, cars didn’t even have any seat belts in the back seat. 
First responders started taking data on seat belts and how they can save lives. 
When I started driving, most people still didn’t wear seat belts though they knew of the dangers of not doing so. 
These days, it’s the exact opposite, the people who don’t wear seat belts are the huge minority. And those who comply best tend to be younger generations. 

Education works, it just doesn’t happen overnight. It takes generations sometimes to undo habits.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Without discussion, nothing will change. I am new to dogs, but it does not bar me from the discussion.
> 
> Official figures for England show 7,227 admissions for dog attacks in past year, compared with 4,110 a decade ago.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...uries-caused-by-dogs-up-76-over-past-10-years


No it doesn't but you can take it from me that there are millions of hours of experience collectively between the regulars on this forum and many of us have decades of experience with dogs, some in a professional capacity. Your solutions are based on enforcement but we know that doesn't work.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> There was an act of parliament, because there was a problem with dangerous dogs. As far as I am aware, that act of parliament did not work.
> We now have compulsory chipping, and other dog control laws, which may help, or may not. I do not have any concerns with my own dog, but when people are kill, I dont do the sympathy bit, I prefer to make things better.
> Without discussion, nothing will change. I am new to dogs, but it does not bar me from the discussion.
> 
> ...


Be very careful, these stats include being struck by a dog as well as bites.............................................


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> There was an act of parliament, *because there was a problem with dangerous dogs*. As far as I am aware, that act of parliament did not work.
> We now have compulsory chipping, and other dog control laws, which may help, or may not. I do not have any concerns with my own dog, but when people are kill, I dont do the sympathy bit, I prefer to make things better.
> Without discussion, nothing will change. I am new to dogs, but it does not bar me from the discussion.
> 
> ...


Was there a problem with dangerous dogs? I'm not being facetious, I'm actually being quite serious. More people are killed by cows and bees than by dogs. Do you think there is a problem with dangerous cows and bees? So first we would have to start by defining what we mean by "problem" and if there even is one.

As for your stats, I think those numbers would make more sense as percentages. 
How many more people are there in the UK than a decade ago?
How many more dogs are there in the UK than a decade ago?
If you look at a percent of dogs vs. percent of bites have dog bites actually risen?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

NHS Hospital Admission statistics show there were 7,227 hospital admissions for dog bites last year - a 6% increase year on year and a 76% increase over the last 10 years despite the dangerous dogs act and amended legislation.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

cbcdesign said:


> NHS Hospital Admission statistics show there were 7,227 hospital admissions for dog bites last year - a 6% increase year on year and a 76% increase over the last 10 years despite the dangerous dogs act and amended legislation.


That's an increase in admissions, yes. How much has the population increased in the last 10 years? How much has dog ownership increased over the last 10 years?
Though definitely telling that despite the DDA and breed bans, attacks appear to be on the rise....


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Unfortunately, apart from the fact that these stats include being knocked over by an over enthusiastic dog (not one exhibiting aggressive behaviour) they also, according to those who delivered sessions on Bite Seminars, include bites by all other animals etc.

this is because the tick sheet in A & E does not cover being bitten by a horse, ferret, cat, etc


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> That's an increase in admissions, yes. How much has the population increased in the last 10 years? How much has dog ownership increased over the last 10 years?
> Though definitely telling that despite the DDA and breed bans, attacks appear to be on the rise....


Absolutely. Population increase in both people and dogs will play a big part but yes, despite legislation the statistics are climbing which rather goes to show how ineffectual it is in solving the problem of dog bites. But then we already knew that.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

ouesi said:


> As for your stats, I think those numbers would make more sense as percentages.
> How many more people are there in the UK than a decade ago?
> How many more dogs are there in the UK than a decade ago?
> If you look at a percent of dogs vs. percent of bites have dog bites actually risen?


I dont trust newspapers/media either, but it was a quick google.

There were 6,302 hospital admissions in 2012/13, which is slightly down on the previous financial year but represents an increase of 37 per cent since 2007/08.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-facts-dog-attacks/17727


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

My figures came from the Battersea Dogs home who also stated that 70%ish of the bull breed dogs they currently have to put to sleep by law would have made ideal family pets. As you can imagine they are very much anti BSL.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), *74 people* have been killed by cows in the past 15 years. Dogs, meanwhile, have killed *17 people* in the last eight years, according to NHS figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.

If my family was one of those 17, I would be doing more than writing on forums.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), *74 people* have been killed by cows in the past 15 years. Dogs, meanwhile, have killed *17 people* in the last eight years, according to NHS figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
> 
> If my family was one of those 17, I would be doing more than writing on forums.


But you would not be doing anything about the cows who have killed more people pro rata than dogs?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), *74 people* have been killed by cows in the past 15 years. Dogs, meanwhile, have killed *17 people* in the last eight years, according to NHS figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
> 
> If my family was one of those 17, I would be doing more than writing on forums.


Well then 39 have been killed by cows, over twice as many! Is the answer legislation for dangerous cows?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> Well then 39 have been killed by cows, over twice as many! Is the answer legislation for dangerous cows?


Apparently, you're 22 times more likely to be attacked by a cow than a shark. You learn something new every day!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Pappychi said:


> Apparently, you're 22 times more likely to be attacked by a cow than a shark. You learn something new every day!


I think that is because more people are exposed to cows than sharks...................................  In one form or another.....................


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

smokeybear said:


> I think that is because more people are exposed to cows than sharks...................................  In one form or another.....................


We'd all be in serious trouble if a Cow-Shark hybrid was created. Maybe SyFy could pick it up for their next movie? Sharktopus Vs Sharkow.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

But, I wonder if "land sharks" are included in the stats.............?


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Unfortunately, apart from the fact that these stats include being knocked over by an over enthusiastic dog (not one exhibiting aggressive behaviour) they also, according to those who delivered sessions on Bite Seminars, include bites by all other animals etc.
> 
> this is because the tick sheet in A & E does not cover being bitten by a horse, ferret, cat, etc


Well there goes my joke down the toilet. I was going to say the only statistic you can trust is "100% of dog bites were inflicted by dogs". Seems you can't even trust that. Framed by a ferret. Little weasels.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Maybe the ferret identifies as a dog.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2016)

El Cid said:


> According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), *74 people* have been killed by cows in the past 15 years. Dogs, meanwhile, have killed *17 people* in the last eight years, according to NHS figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
> 
> If my family was one of those 17, I would be doing more than writing on forums.


Do you know what percent 17 people out of a population of 64 million is?
0.00003 (I rounded up).


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

picaresque said:


> Maybe the ferret identifies as a dog.


I've known some men over the years who were very ferret like.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

smokeybear said:


> A WEEK not on one DAY!


I take my dogs to training twice a week, usually on Friday and Sunday.

To get there I have to drive for one and a half hours through heavy traffic and the centre of a busy city. And if you count the time it takes to load the car with the dogs and their baggage, plus opening/closing driveway gates you can add another half hour. We then do an hour's training and after a short chat with our trainer, we drive one and a half hours home again.

Once a month I also do a big shop at the hypermarket we have to pass on our way home which adds another two hours to our trip. On those days it's quite normal for me to leave home at 8.30 am and arrive home at 3 pm By the time I've unloaded the groceries and put them away I'm generally too tired to take the dogs for a walk.

Fortunately I'm retired so theoretically have all the time in the world, but nevertheless it's time consuming and energy sapping, especially if as at one time I had pull in taking Georgina to the vets once a week as well, which involved doing more or less the same round trip on a different day during the week.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Jannor said:


> I'm sure I saw something in Daily Mail early this morning that said the boys and the mother had only moved in with their aunt and her dog about a week ago. Just looked for it to post the link though and it seems to have gone now.


It's quite possible that although the dog had never given cause for concern in the past, something happened while it was left alone with the children that set it off.

Jack has never shown any inclination to bite, however, I would never leave him unsupervised in the same room as my young nephew - because I wouldn't trust my nephew to leave him alone - even if told to.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Pappychi said:


> Apparently, you're 22 times more likely to be *attacked* by a cow than a shark. You learn something new every day!


More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


OK, that must be a joke, right?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


Ummm...what now?
So cows charging and running down people (not farm workers I might add) is not foreseeable and/or preventable?

I know that you agree with blaming breeds (your posts ooze that judgmental attitude) but ANY animal is capable of killing a human...we are quite squishy after all - adding more legislation WILL NOT WORK...microchipping will have ZERO effect of fatal dog bites...compulsory training of dog and/or owner will have ZERO effect on fatal dog bites.

The ONLY thing that will work is education across the board about dog behaviour - blaming individual breeds or putting your judgeypants on to speculate about the owners does nothing more than convince people that it will never happen to them!

Just -sigh-


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


I wonder why someone who is able to bring up lots of links is apparently unable (or unwilling) to post links to fatalities involving cattle?

As you can see by the HSE these are twice as likely than fatalities caused by dogs..............................


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2016)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


Good grief. Some of your posts are just downright bizarre. Are you being serious here?
Cows aren't killing people by falling on them. No, I don't have stats, you're just going to have to trust me on this one. Well, me and everyone else who has one iota of experience with farm animals.

This is where I said earlier, yes let's discuss this, but let's do so intelligently.

Let's be real here, neither cows nor dogs are a great danger to humans. That cows are statistically more of a danger to humans and there has been no legislation trying to control them shows that the legislation regarding dogs is indeed knee-jerk legislation that wasn't thought through very well. 
Just because there is legislation to control something, doesn't mean that something was out of control to begin with.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Good grief. Some of your posts are just downright bizarre. Are you being serious here?
> Cows aren't killing people by falling on them. No, I don't have stats, you're just going to have to trust me on this one. Well, me and everyone else who has one iota of experience with farm animals.
> 
> This is where I said earlier, yes let's discuss this, but let's do so intelligently.
> ...


Here you go. No stats, as such, but it does state the 70% involved a bull or new calf, which makes perfect sense.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...deadly-large-animals-in-britain-a6727266.html


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


*face palm*


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Good grief. Some of your posts are just downright bizarre. Are you being serious here?
> Cows aren't killing people by falling on them. No, I don't have stats, you're just going to have to trust me on this one. Well, me and everyone else who has one iota of experience with farm animals.
> 
> This is where I said earlier, yes let's discuss this, but let's do so intelligently.
> ...


To be fair there are laws which govern what sort of cattle can be placed in field through which a public footpath runs.

Bulls of recognised dairy breeds (eg Ayrshire, Friesian, Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry) are in all circumstances banned from being at large in fields crossed by public rights of way

Beef bulls are banned from fields or enclosures with footpaths unless accompanied by cows or heifers

Interestingly enough there are some projects run by Stephen Jenkinson in the UK to provide other means of alerts to walkers to that they do not have to permanently avoid certain rights of way with sheep or cattle in and is working quite well


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2016)

MiffyMoo said:


> Here you go. No stats, as such, but it does state the 70% involved a bull or new calf, which makes perfect sense.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...deadly-large-animals-in-britain-a6727266.html


Thank you, but yeah, I didn't need any confirmation that cows are not killing people by falling on them :Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Thank you, but yeah, I didn't need any confirmation that cows are not killing people by falling on them :Hilarious:Hilarious


I figured. Have been waiting for someone to post something like your post so I could leap in with the link. I possibly should have just posted in response to Cid's


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

This thread is getting more and more bizarre !


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> To be fair there are laws which govern what sort of cattle can be placed in field through which a public footpath runs.
> 
> Bulls of recognised dairy breeds (eg Ayrshire, Friesian, Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry) are in all circumstances banned from being at large in fields crossed by public rights of way
> 
> ...


Do you have any information or links to the projects as I'd love to have a warning system for when cows are in fields we use the public footpaths through.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

haven't read all the posts here so this might already have been posted.

While looking at the news this further information has been posted online at the BBC news website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37677803


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

jamat said:


> haven't read all the posts here so this might already have been posted.
> 
> While looking at the news this further information has been posted online at the BBC news website
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37677803


I seems that the police are saying the WPC will face no charges, yet in other attacks they have been charged with allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37129134


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

El Cid said:


> I seems that the police are saying the WPC will face no charges, yet in other attacks they have been charged with allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37129134


Possibly because of this



> Mr Hirst said the family pet - believed to be a Staffordshire bull terrier-type - "didn't have any history" of aggression and "wasn't at all vicious".


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> I seems that the police are saying the WPC will face no charges, yet in other attacks they have been charged with allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37129134


Yes it is amazing isnt it?

In the UK we have a justice system and for a case to go to court each incident has to pass a) the evidentiary test and b) the public interest test.

I would suggest that this case passes both................


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

One law of some, but not the police it would seems.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> One law of some, but not the police it would seems.


Absolute rubbish. Please have a look at this from YouGov, where they specifically state that owners who have no prior knowledge of aggressive behaviour are not liable for court action. I know this is about dogs biting postmen etc., but it still stands. And unless you were there or have gathered all the evidence yourself, so know something that nobody else knows, maybe you shouldn't be accusing the police of a cover up

http://www.govyou.co.uk/beware-of-the-dog-sign-laws/


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> One law of some, but not the police it would seems.


I think the police will be in possession of the full facts of the case whereas we are not. They have already said the dog was not known to be aggressive so lets just assume you own a dog that has never been aggressive towards children and you have no cause for concern. Lets also assume you have gone to work and your sister and her children are in the property and this terrible situation arises. How is the owner of the dog to blame? what would be served by prosecuting the owner of the dog particularly if they were not present and their dog has already been destroyed? The DDA also allows for prosecution of the adult in charge of the dog at the time of the incident which in this case would be the boy's mother so what would be achieved by prosecuting her? hasn't she already suffered enough?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I seems that the police are saying the WPC will face no charges, yet in other attacks they have been charged with allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37129134


And nor should she. Unless the lady was wilfully negligent and had prior knowledge that the dog was dangerous and there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that was the case, its simply not in anybody's interest to prosecute.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


Thank you so much for this wild piece of speculation. It assists me to come to terms with an incident from last week.

I was walking along the tow path with the dogs, when I didn't see, until the last minute, a duck in the long grass. I damned nearly tripped over it, which would have sent me into the canal, head first, and there was a barge passing at the time!! 

Does anyone have links to incidents involving assassination attempts by random ducks and fatal attacks on humans by canal barges?

What if that duck had fallen on me? I could have been squashed.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Thank you so much for this wild piece of speculation. It assists me to come to terms with an incident from last week.
> 
> I was walking along the tow path with the dogs, when I didn't see, until the last minute, a duck in the long grass. I damned nearly tripped over it, which would have sent me into the canal, head first, and there was a barge passing at the time!!
> 
> ...


Apparently they are vicious and not to be trusted!

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=13442


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> One law of some, but not the police it would seems.


How on earth would this particular case be any different whether the owner was a WPC or not? She could have been a window cleaner for all the difference it makes!


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Thank you so much for this wild piece of speculation. It assists me to come to terms with an incident from last week.
> 
> I was walking along the tow path with the dogs, when I didn't see, until the last minute, a duck in the long grass. I damned nearly tripped over it, which would have sent me into the canal, head first, and there was a barge passing at the time!!
> 
> ...


And you know what they say, once a canal barge gets a taste for blood..  The duck probably had locking jaws as well!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh I just love how some people like to ignore the facts just so they can play Miss/Mr Judgeypants and bash certain breeds of dogs! The irony is that those people are in no place to judge others about dog training or ownership :Yawn

Feck it...lets just ban all dogs 
I seriously wonder how some people get through the day...I really do!


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Oh I just love how some people like to ignore the facts just so they can play Miss/Mr Judgeypants and bash certain breeds of dogs! The irony is that those people are in no place to judge others about dog training or ownership :Yawn
> 
> Feck it...lets just ban all dogs
> I seriously wonder how some people get through the day...I really do!


And ducks, cows, barges etc. All dangerous!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Thank you so much for this wild piece of speculation. It assists me to come to terms with an incident from last week.
> 
> I was walking along the tow path with the dogs, when I didn't see, until the last minute, a duck in the long grass. I damned nearly tripped over it, which would have sent me into the canal, head first, and there was a barge passing at the time!!
> 
> ...


Have you not met the ninja ducks?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> One law of some, but not the police it would seems.


How so?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> That is why its always very difficult. I hope all adults involved will be heart broken, but the law must be applied fairly.
> Whether its a child or a dog that goes missing or is killed, its a tough call.


?

Why do you HOPE all adults will be heartbroken?

What a horrible thing to say?

I do not think anyone is disagreeing that the law should be applied fairly or suggesting it is not (apart from a very small minority)

What is a tough call?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> And ducks, cows, barges etc. All dangerous!


I choked on a piece of cheese scone this morning, can we ban those too please. Or at least at add them to some sort of dangerous food register


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> And ducks, cows, barges etc. All dangerous!


Don't forget coconuts...oh, and family members


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Nettles said:


> I choked on a piece of cheese scone this morning, can we ban those too please. Or at least at add them to some sort of dangerous food register


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

El Cid said:


> That is why its always very difficult. I hope all adults involved will be heart broken, but the law must be applied fairly.
> Whether its a child or a dog that goes missing or is killed, its a tough call.


What a horrible,judgemental comment ! I feel sure they will be heartbroken and will carry an unbearable burden of guilt for the rest of their days !


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Make life a crime then we solve all the problems in the world...wander what type of dogs these 4 would own lol


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

El Cid said:


> More likely the cows fell and squashed a farm worker, its a matter of whether thee deaths are foreseeable and preventable.


Pardon? 

You are aware cows often graze in fields, they don't fall from the sky like rain?

Death by falling cows. Whatever next


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

El Cid said:


> That is why its always very difficult. I hope all adults involved will be heart broken, but the law must be applied fairly.
> Whether its a child or a dog that goes missing or is killed, its a tough call.


I do think that comment was a little uncalled for...a baby has died and another small child seriously hurt.... I think the family are beside themselves with grief at this time


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Pappychi said:


> Pardon?
> 
> You are aware cows often graze in fields, they don't fall from the sky like rain?
> 
> Death by falling cows. Whatever next


I beg to differ










At least we don't have to worry about this


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

smokeybear said:


>


I have no words to describe what I've just watched :Hilarious


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2016)

El Cid said:


> That is why its always very difficult. *I hope all adults involved will be heart broken,* but the law must be applied fairly.
> Whether its a child or a dog that goes missing or is killed, its a tough call.


I'm going to choose to see the bolded as another of your bizarre statements, I certainly hope it is not meant literally or as callously as it sounds 

It sounds as if you're suggesting this was a deliberate act on the part of some adult involved. I can assure you, even if someone were sick enough to encourage the dog to attack a child, dogs don't function that way.

Actually, just responding to your post makes me a little sick to my stomach. Maybe you should just edit what you wrote if that's not what you meant....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Have you not met the ninja ducks?


Oh wow! Just wow!

I'll swear that was the very duck that attempted a murderous attack on me last week. If not him, it's certainly a relative. The likeness is chilling.

Either way, he was definitely 'of type'. Under the DDA, (Dangerous Ducks Act), certain characteristics deem him to be 'of type', orange feet, orange beak, suspicious arrangement of feathers.

All ducks should be banned.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Pappychi said:


> Pardon?
> 
> You are aware cows often graze in fields, they don't fall from the sky like rain?
> 
> Death by falling cows. Whatever next


Ducks fall from the sky.

Just saying.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> One law of some, but not the police it would seems.





El Cid said:


> That is why its always very difficult. I hope all adults involved will be heart broken, but the law must be applied fairly.
> Whether its a child or a dog that goes missing or is killed, its a tough call.


From

Dangerous Dog Offences Definitive Guideline
Revised - Effective from 1 July 2016

Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place) where death is caused Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (section 3 (1))

*CULPABILITY* demonstrated by one or more of the following:

A - High culpability 
Dog used as a weapon or to intimidate people
Dog known to be prohibited
Dog trained to be aggressive 
Offender disqualified from owning a dog, or failed to respond to official warnings, or to comply with orders concerning the dog

B - Medium culpability 
All other cases where characteristics for categories A or C are not present, and in particular:
Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the dog's behaviour
Failure to act on prior knowledge of the dog's aggressive behaviour 
Lack of safety or control measures taken in situations where an incident could reasonably have been foreseen
Failure to intervene in the incident (where it would have been reasonable to do so)
Ill treatment or failure to ensure welfare needs of the dog (where connected to the offence and where not charged separately)

C - Lesser culpability 
Attempts made to regain control of the dog and/or intervene
Provocation of the dog without fault of the offender 
Evidence of safety or control measures having been taken 
Incident could not have reasonably been foreseen by the offender 
Momentary lapse of control/attention.

*Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation: *

No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions 
No previous complaints against, or incidents involving the dog 
Evidence of responsible ownership 
Remorse 
Good character and/or exemplary conduct 
Serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment 
Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender 
Mental disorder or learning disability
Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives 
Determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address offending behaviour


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Ducks fall from the sky.
> 
> Just saying.


Imagine crossing ducks with the cow/shark hybrid.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Pappychi said:


> Imagine crossing ducks with the cow/shark hybrid.











I present a Duckdile










And a cow-guin

:Bag


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Closing so thread can be directed back from the twilight zone.


----------

