# Baby girl killed in dog attach



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

BBC News - Baby girl killed in dog attack in Daventry

Poor baby not a lot of information as yet


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

Thats is just so tragic. Poor baby.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Very sad all round.... wondered what happened this time *sigh*


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

So sad.

RIP little one


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

Oh poor child  Poor parents  So sad...

Have to say, impressed with the reporting in the link, first saying the breed of dog is not yet known (instead of making unfounded guesses), and then quoting Det Sgt Gary Baker as saying these incidents are extremely rare. I especially like that the Sgt made that point and that it got shared in the reporting.

And then I saw the daily fail article with a file photo of a snarling staffie plastered underneath the headline.... *sigh*


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Oh poor child  Poor parents  So sad...
> 
> Have to say, impressed with the reporting in the link, first saying the breed of dog is not yet known (instead of making unfounded guesses), and then quoting Det Sgt Gary Baker as saying these incidents are extremely rare. I especially like that the Sgt made that point and that it got shared in the reporting.
> 
> And then I saw the daily fail article with a file photo of a snarling staffie plastered underneath the headline.... *sigh*


Typical of the daily fail


----------



## boxermadsam (Nov 30, 2011)

shirleystarr said:


> Typical of the daily fail


Yep, no-one takes it seriously.

My thoughts are with the family


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ouesi said:


> And then I saw the daily fail article with a file photo of a snarling staffie plastered underneath the headline.... *sigh*


it does say that they are following a line of enquiry wether the dog was an illegal pit bull so it could be a bull breed of some sort...very bad press for them though if it is.
Poor little girl. RIP. What a horrible thing to have to live with for the relative.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> *it does say that they are following a line of enquiry wether the dog was an illegal pit bull* so it could be a bull breed of some sort...very bad press for them though if it is.
> Poor little girl. RIP. What a horrible thing to have to live with for the relative.


Oh I missed that - which article says that?

Poor family, I doubt any answer as to the breed of dog will give them much comfort though.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Oh I missed that - which article says that?


The DM one does and a couple of others too. Hopefully not true as bull breeds get a bad enough press as it is.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Muze said:


> Very sad all round.... wondered what happened this time *sigh*


this was just on the radio news

and guess what, child was being "looked after by a relative"

how many times have we heard this during these cases?

_*(no, im not making a point about children being looked after by relatives)_


----------



## wyntersmum (Jul 31, 2011)

Said it once and will always say this
There are no bad dogs just bad owners xx


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

So sad  how many cases is that now where the child has been in the care of relatives? 

The article is balanced but underneath one of the photos says there are calls for stricter controls on the breeds that are in family homes :frown2:


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> _*(no, im not making a point about children being looked after by relatives)_


But it may be relevant if the dog is not used to children and/or the child is not used to dogs and/or the relative is not used to supervising the dog around children.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

diefenbaker said:


> But it may be relevant if the dog is not used to children and/or the child is not used to dogs and/or the relative is not used to supervising the dog around children.


or the parent of child or owner of dog dont know how to assess that or dont think to think about it.....
we are on the same wavelength.
its uncanny how many of these cases have involved relatives and grandparents, isnt it?

_i was just preempting just in case someone imagineered something else in my comment_


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> or the parent of child or owner of dog dont know how to assess that or dont think to think about it.....
> we are on the same wavelength.
> *its uncanny how many of these cases have involved relatives and grandparents, isnt it*?
> 
> _i was just preempting just in case someone imagineered something else in my comment_


Sadly yes it is. They just don't think it will happen to them but you have a kid and a dog, each of whom don't live together and these Owners just don't think what could happen and keep them apart which is what should be done.

We don't know if that applies in this case of course, too early to say at this stage.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Poor thing, RIP little one. Thoughts are with the family


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

wyntersmum said:


> Said it once and will always say this
> There are no bad dogs just bad owners xx


No. Just no. I HATE this phrase so, so much. There are good owners of "bad" dogs and every single day we see bad owners of "good" dogs who don't put a paw wrong in their lives. This phrase must make good folk struggling with dogs with "issues" feel like total, total sh!t.

RIP little person xx


----------



## Buzzard (Aug 10, 2012)

Dogless said:


> No. Just no. I HATE this phrase so, so much. There are good owners of "bad" dogs and every single day we see bad owners of "good" dogs who don't put a paw wrong in their lives. This phrase must make good folk struggling with dogs with "issues" feel like total, total sh!t.
> 
> RIP little person xx


I totally agree with you Dogless.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Buzzard said:


> I totally agree with you Dogless.


I agree with this too.

I had seven PRTs and a Groenendael, raised them all from pups and bred a few of them myself.

They were all handled, socialised, fed and exercised the same way from babies.

One of them became quite the little monster. He was a terrible resource guarder, would growl at anyone who touched him and was other dog aggressive.

He had nothing happen to him, his puppyhood onwards was exactly the same as the others.

I don't have a clue why he became that way. I realised whilst he was still very young that he had issues, my kids were told exactly how to handle him to avoid any nasty incident, but that was just him.


----------



## wileys mum (Oct 27, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> Sadly yes it is. They just don't think it will happen to them but you have a kid and a dog, each of whom don't live together and these Owners just don't think what could happen and keep them apart which is what should be done.
> 
> We don't know if that applies in this case of course, too early to say at this stage.


Quite agree , and its the reason my granchild when its born any day wont be staying here at all , i chose to get a dog later on when my kids were all neally grown up , i never asked for a baby with my staffie that we dont know is used to young kids , just saying its not worth the risk unless you are prepared to watch every move , something sadly im not im abit lapse in that way hence why i never had a dog when my kids were little , ive told my daugther she's welcome here with the baby when were all around but im not segregating wiley to have the child overnight or anything and putting gates in my house to keep him out , my daughter understands as she has a dog herself

Rip to the poor child thats sadly lost its life

I saw a prime example a couple of weeks ago of an accident waiting to happen , a freind of mine has also just become a granmar , her daughter left her with the baby at just 3 days old to stay overnight , my freind has a staffie thats 9 and never been used to young tiny kids , she was curious and kept jumping up at the baby in the pram and when they were changing the baby etc , she was shoved down and told off quite badly imho , this dog has been there life for 5 years now shes been pushed away and told off just for trying to have alook at the baby


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

wyntersmum said:


> Said it once and will always say this
> There are no bad dogs just bad owners xx


So although rogue animals occur in virtually all higher species, you think dogs are somehow immune to mental/temperamental abnormalities, and mood-affecting medical disorders, that they're all sweetness and light until some human messes them up?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Since the new legislation, I made it clear my home was not open to under 18's

I had a friend over in an emergency and she brought her son so Diz stayed in her crate. 

I do think it's sad though, I wouldn't be half as devoted to my pets if it wasn't for being exposed to all kinds of species in childhood.
I've been bitten, kicked, stood on.... I was taught that was the consequence of not behaving properly around animals. 

Obviously a tiny baby can't do much, but the guardian should IMO.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

wileys mum said:


> Quite agree , and its the reason my granchild when its born any day wont be staying here at all , i chose to get a dog later on when my kids were all neally grown up , i never asked for a baby with my staffie that we dont know is used to young kids , just saying its not worth the risk unless you are prepared to watch every move , something sadly im not im abit lapse in that way hence why i never had a dog when my kids were little , ive told my daugther she's welcome here with the baby when were all around but im not segregating wiley to have the child overnight or anything and putting gates in my house to keep him out , my daughter understands as she has a dog herself
> 
> Rip to the poor child thats sadly lost its life
> 
> I saw a prime example a couple of weeks ago of an accident waiting to happen , a freind of mine has also just become a granmar , her daughter left her with the baby at just 3 days old to stay overnight , my freind has a staffie thats 9 and never been used to young tiny kids , she was curious and kept jumping up at the baby in the pram and when they were changing the baby etc , she was shoved down and told off quite badly imho , this dog has been there life for 5 years now shes been pushed away and told off just for trying to have alook at the baby


I think its worth re-iterating how rare these dog on baby attacks are, and with sensible precautions you can make them even rarer.
Yes, dogs are dogs, and they have teeth and they do use them at times, but for me the rewards of raising my children with dogs far outweighed the minor risk.

I see it kind of like furniture. Pretty much everyone I know has some scar on their face from falling on to a piece of furniture as a child (usually the coffee table or kitchen counter). I have a scar on my eyebrow and another on my chin from face-planting as a toddler and young kid on to normal household objects. 
It never occurred to me to remove furniture from my home when the children came along  I did however put bumpers on the coffee table and stair gates on the stairs. (That then I proceeded to trip over and sprain my ankle, but I digress...)
IOW, take precautions, absolutely, but maintain as sense of balance too.

I was raised in a household full of dogs and I could not for a minute imagine myself raising children without an ever present dog companion as I had. I brought preemie twins in to a house with 4 dogs and we never had a single incident. And I didnt supervise every second either 

Dogs and kids are IMHO a fabulous combination, done right.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

How dreadfully sad.

But yet again, someone seems to have allowed a dog (breed doesn't matter) to be too close to, or perhaps even unsupervised near, a small baby. Another horrific and tragic incident which was most likely avoidable. I will be interested to learn what the circumstances were (if we ever do).

My heart goes out to the baby's family who must be distraught and filled with guilt and regret at what has happened. I wonder how family relationships survive these awful incidents - even when it in no-one's fault, it is human nature to find someone to blame.


----------



## wileys mum (Oct 27, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I think its worth re-iterating how rare these dog on baby attacks are, and with sensible precautions you can make them even rarer.
> Yes, dogs are dogs, and they have teeth and they do use them at times, but for me the rewards of raising my children with dogs far outweighed the minor risk.
> 
> I see it kind of like furniture. Pretty much everyone I know has some scar on their face from falling on to a piece of furniture as a child (usually the coffee table or kitchen counter). I have a scar on my eyebrow and another on my chin from face-planting as a toddler and young kid on to normal household objects.
> ...


I do agree with you if your willing to put the effort in , im not hence why i never had any dogs when mine were little , and im affraid i really wasnt expecting to become a granmar 13 month's ago when i got wiley , it just never entered my head as my daughter didnt even like babies LOL and now its happened im really not keen at all at having the responsability of a baby here , wiley has the run of the house which im happy for him to do so , so segregating him for a baby to stay overnight etc just isnt right for him or me , now if i had him before and i got pregnant well that would be different as that would be my choice and i would make changes , i wouldnt get rid of him for the sake of a new baby , but i can't see me getting pregnant so its a non starter there :scared: its kinda one of those things where i got to this age 39 and my children are now all older and i thought now is the time to get a little dog , we always shut our youngest daughters bedroom door at night just to be safe but wiley loves our youngest  , like the poor child thats lost its life its obviously through someone either been careless or thinking it would never happen to them that the dog would never do it etc


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Dogless said:


> No. Just no. I HATE this phrase so, so much. There are good owners of "bad" dogs and every single day we see bad owners of "good" dogs who don't put a paw wrong in their lives. This phrase must make good folk struggling with dogs with "issues" feel like total, total sh!t.
> 
> RIP little person xx


This. A thousand times this! Not to mention, if it's all down to the owner then I must have some serious split personality going on!


----------



## wileys mum (Oct 27, 2013)

now mentions pitbulls in this article and neighbours had complained and nothing was done

Baby killed by dog in Daventry while being looked after by relatives | Daily Mail Online


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

I am in no way trying to minimise the horror of this dreadful attack, but this needs to be put into proportion.

I've just trawled the net - figures are a years or so out of date, but here they are.

Population of UK - 64.1 million

Number of dogs in UK - 10.5 million
Annually (on average) - *210,00 attacks of which 2 are fatal* (It does seem that this year we have had more than our average)

Number of cars in Uk - 31+ million
Annually - *181,000+ of whic**h** 1,713 result in fatalities*

I think it is the sheer horror of an animal attack which makes them so much more dreadful in our minds than a car crash. And also - they are so personal.

However, most people have cars - not everyone has dogs, so people want dogs controlled - not so much cars, because that affects their own personal lives.

The primal terror of dogs is very strong in many people, and this is what causes the cries of rage and hate directed AT THE ANIMAL, which should really be directed at the owner (if at anyone) who has allowed the dog access to a very tiny and vulnerable person.

These tiny and vulnerable people not only emit interesting smells and exciting high-pitched noises (all of which prompt a prey instinct in dogs), but also make unpredictable jerky movements - which both threaten and excite dogs.

What particularly shocks and disgusts me is that we have massive publicity surrounding these horrific attacks - and yet within a short time it appears that some other idiot has allowed the same thing to happen. Perhaps we should not just destroy the dog (which must be done, sadly) but slam a jail sentence on the "carers" who allow this to happen. Yes - they have been "punished enough" by the lost of a precious child - but perhaps the threat of further punishment would help to reduce the number of times these horrors occur.

We will never stop it altogether, (some incidents cannot be predicted) but perhaps these occurrences involving very tiny infants will become a dreadful memory rather than a too-frequent (even once is too frequent) happening.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

lostbear said:


> but this needs to be put into proportion.


I know what you are saying but to be honest, you can't put a death (most especially a childs death) 'into proportion'. Even one death is one too many.



> However, most people have cars - not everyone has dogs, so people want dogs controlled - not so much cars, because that affects their own personal lives.


But cars *are *controlled. Yes, there will always be accidents but we do everything we can to *minimalise* that possibility by making drivers adhere to an array of laws. We have speed limits, rules of the road (Highway Code), MOT's to prove vehicle isn't an accident waiting to happen and laws to ensure we aren't in charge of a car when drunk. And most of all we have a driving test.

Actually I think a Ownership Test (like a driving licence) for dog owners would probably be a very good idea (if totally unworkable I know).

I do agree that there will always be those that flout the law (or won't take advice) as there is in driving and of course 'accidents will happen' but anything that can be done to improve safety should be done.

It's always so sad.

J


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I know what you are saying but to be honest, you can't put a death (most especially a childs death) 'into proportion'. Even one death is one too many.
> 
> No, of course you can't. And there is no doubt that this is a particularly horrific and brutal way for a baby to die - which is exactly why I can't understand why people are so cavalier about leaving a baby alone with any dog, of any breed. But every time this happens it is the dogs (and usually particular breeds) which are demonised - there is little anger directed at the owners.
> 
> ...


It is - it's beyond sad - and it's irreparable. You can get another car, but you can't ever replace a child - you can have ten more children, but the one you lost is unique; nor can you mend the family relationships that must be shattered when something like this happens, or relieve the guilt and despair that the parents and carers must experience.

Dreadful.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I know what you are saying but to be honest, you can't put a death (most especially a childs death) 'into proportion'. Even one death is one too many.


True, but lostbears point is still valid.

If were going to talk about keeping kids safe, it is important to have some unbiased perspective on the danger dogs actually pose versus the danger we *think* they pose when were all jacked up on emotions after a situation like this.

The reality is, dogs dont pose a huge danger to kids.

One of the biggest dangers to kids is sadly being killed by one of their own parents, usually the male parent. In this country, over 1,500 children a year die from abuse. Two thirds of abuse fatalities in children under a year of age are due to AHT (abusive head trauma). 
A significant number of those children who died, died after social services had paid the family a visit (IOW someone had already complained that they though the children were in danger). A significant number of those children had been removed from the home and then reunited with the family at some point.

Im not trying to turn this in to a PSA about child abuse (though clearly thats a topic close to my heart). What I am trying to say is that if were going to put efforts towards keeping kids safe, to me it makes more sense to start with the issues that pose the greatest danger to children. Things like shaken baby syndrome, like car and bicycle fatalities (buckle up your kids, keep them in the back seat, put helmets on them when they ride their bikes...).

This is not at all to minimize what happened to this 6 month old child or the anguish her family must be going through. Its horrible and my heart goes out to them. But I just dont see the point in turning this in to another something must be done about all these dangerous dogs knee-jerk reaction either.

When I look at my own kids, the odds of them being bitten by one of our dogs are pretty insignificant. I would never say my dogs wont bite, but I know them pretty well, and it would take something pretty out of the ordinary for either dog to deliberately hurt one of the kids (or any child for that matter).
However, the odds of my kids gaining immeasurable benefits from living with dogs, lessons in being responsibly for another being, patience, empathy, compassion, unconditional love... Those odds are really high. And from where Im standing, we sure could use more patient, compassionate, responsible people in the world.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

lostbear said:


> However, most people have cars -


I never did learn to drive properly coz I was terrified of how dangerous cars were!

There does seem to be common denominators in alot of these cases though. Relatives looking after kids for example. And now it seems like the dogs had a reputation in the area for being aggressive or poorly trained.
A car can be dangerous in the hands of someone who doesnt know what they are doing like a dog can be dangerous in the hands of someone who does bother to train it or understand it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> I never did learn to drive properly coz I was terrified of how dangerous cars were!
> 
> There does seem to be common denominators in alot of these cases though. Relatives looking after kids for example. And now it seems like the dogs had a reputation in the area for being aggressive or poorly trained.
> A car can be dangerous in the hands of someone who doesnt know what they are doing like a dog can be dangerous in the hands of someone who does bother to train it or understand it.


Actually, most dogs are very poorly understood, very poorly trained - if at all, and yet they dont pose that much of a danger to kids. Because dogs are sentient, cars are not. 
Dogs have evolved alongside man for millennia and have a very ingrained aversion to hurting humans. No other animal will put up with so much from humans without defending or retaliating (except maybe horses).

If you want to get your blood pressure up, do a youtube search for dog and baby and watch just a few of the videos that pop up. If nothing else though, it just goes to show how ridiculously tolerant dogs are.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

ouesi said:


> But I just dont see the point in turning this in to another something must be done about all these dangerous dogs knee-jerk reaction either.


I totally agree .... and i don't disagree with Lostbears (or your) point that in the big picture, dogs pose quite a small threat to children.

My line of thought (and why I paralleled it to car ownership) is that discussions (or legislations) should not be about 'breed' ownership (who cares what car you drive) but *dog *ownership (it's the fact that you do drive that legislates that you need a licence). And a driving licence is as much about road knowledge (educating drivers) as it is about ability.

Ouesi, you posted a link to the article in regard to the suggestion that it isn't _what_ you teach but_ how_ you teach (which i totally agree with) well, I would like all prospective owners to be party to such information and to understand basic dog ownership. Never going to happen? Maybe. But then my grandmother drove cars from the age of 14 without ever taking a test because back in her day you didn't need one. Nowadays we find that hard to believe.

J


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I totally agree .... and i don't disagree with Lostbears (or your) point that in the big picture, dogs pose quite a small threat to children.
> 
> My line of thought (and why I paralleled it to car ownership) is that discussions (or legislations) should not be about 'breed' ownership (who cares what car you drive) but *dog *ownership (it's the fact that you do drive that legislates that you need a licence). And a driving licence is as much about road knowledge (educating drivers) as it is about ability.
> 
> ...


Yes, I totally agree with the last paragraph. 
There are many programs in place geared towards education.
Here in the US, the AKC does a pretty good job trying to educate owners not only on general dog safety and training as well. In fact the VP of the AKC recently came out with a statement against the use of shock collars (as you can imagine it has caused major discussion ). 
There are many, many other programs and individual trainers who do a lot to educate their communities. 
We havent recently, but my trainer friend and I have done several presentations throughout the community on dog/kid safety. I also bring my own dog to schools and do presentations on dog/kid safety. And of course online I try to share what I can when I can, but owners dedicated enough to join a forum for advice are generally not the ones you worry about.

But yes, education education education. Not necessarily legislation. And certainly not legislation that is costly and difficult to enforce when those resources could go elsewhere where they would make a bigger impact. IOW, lets not spend a ridiculous amount of money on enforcing new dog laws when operations like social services are so understaffed and underfunded that theyre leaving babies in homes where theyre going to get killed.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Actually, most dogs are very poorly understood, very poorly trained - if at all, and yet they dont pose that much of a danger to kids. Because dogs are sentient, cars are not.
> Dogs have evolved alongside man for millennia and have a very ingrained aversion to hurting humans. No other animal will put up with so much from humans without defending or retaliating (except maybe horses).
> 
> If you want to get your blood pressure up, do a youtube search for dog and baby and watch just a few of the videos that pop up. If nothing else though, it just goes to show how ridiculously tolerant dogs are.


I agree with you, except... I do think there's a valid point in what catz4m8z said.

I think people expect far too many dogs to be tolerant and then are surprised when sometimes they're not.

I had dogs when my children were small and it's a very different ball game than owning a dog like Brock for instance.

With my last dog, I got him after my son was born, before my daughter was born and they grew up with him and he was surrounded by visiting children, I only ever needed minimal supervision, he was used to and liked children, they either knew how to act or were told how to and they were all fine.

Brock is a usually a lovely soppy lump with people in my house - but he's not used to young children and has been reactive in certain situations towards people. I wouldn't have a young child in the house with access to Brock. I either don't let them in or he is kept in a run in the garden. I wouldn't assume that just because he's normally fine inside that that would extend to small children, not when he could seriously hurt them without even actually meaning to.

There does seem to be an issue with dogs that aren't used to children, do have a behavioural issue according to other people and then aren't managed effectively. It is quite common for those to be the circumstances reported anyway...


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

tabulahrasa said:


> I agree with you, except... I do think there's a valid point in what catz4m8z said.
> 
> I think people expect far too many dogs to be tolerant and then are surprised when sometimes they're not.
> 
> ...


Oh definitely. There is always room for improvement in training and understanding our dogs. Absolutely. And the more we know, the more we can take sensible precautions and train and manage effectively.
Im all about education  :thumbsup:


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

wileys mum said:


> now mentions pitbulls in this article and neighbours had complained and nothing was done
> 
> Baby killed by dog in Daventry while being looked after by relatives | Daily Mail Online


People, especially the media, will label any dog a pit bull. ANY dog can cause this kind of tragedy.

That picture of a dog showing teeth is completely inappropriate to the story, but typical of media in search of sensationalism.

And that headline...Family.....'Devastated' (the quotes around devastated are theirs) what kind of journalism is this?

In the article linked above, many people say complaints have been made about the dogs in the home, then further down the Councillors claim that no complaints were ever made.

How strange.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lorilu said:


> People, especially the media, will label any dog a pit bull. ANY dog can cause this kind of tragedy.
> 
> That picture of a dog showing teeth is completely inappropriate to the story, but typical of media in search of sensationalism.
> 
> ...


The article was a piece of badly-written piece of sensationalist trash (hard to believe of the Daily Wail, I know).


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It could be a chihuahua or an old english sheepdog and the daily fail would still claim it was a pitbull . Such a horrible "newspaper"


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> But cars *are *controlled. Yes, there will always be accidents but we do everything we can to *minimalise* that possibility by making drivers adhere to an array of laws. We have speed limits, rules of the road (Highway Code), MOT's to prove vehicle isn't an accident waiting to happen and laws to ensure we aren't in charge of a car when drunk. And most of all we have a driving test.
> 
> *Actually we do not make drivers adhere to an array of laws. It is the drivers that choose to adhere to them or not.
> 
> ...


Once again one of the main bits of evidence that could help us learn and prevent recurrence has been destroyed ie the dog.

The breed is irrelevant, the behaviour is.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Once again one of the main bits of evidence that could help us learn and prevent recurrence has been destroyed ie the dog.
> 
> The breed is irrelevant, the behaviour is.


Out of curiosity, what would you propose needs to be done (if anything)?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Out of curiosity, what would you propose needs to be done (if anything)?


Nothing, you cannot legislate against idiots unfortunately.

Hundreds and hundreds of children die or are seriously injured by all sorts of neglect and lack of forethought of their guardians

They drown in buckets, baths, ponds and swimming pools
they are strangled by blind cords
They are run over on driveways
Scalded by boiling water, cups of tea
they fall out of unprotected windows, balconies

The list goes on ad infinitum and of course, as already mentioned are deliberately killed by their guardians and or abused in a number of fashions

We do not ask for people to pass a test to have and care for a child, why should we for them to own a dog?


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Nothing, you cannot legislate against idiots unfortunately.
> 
> Hundreds and hundreds of children die or are seriously injured by all sorts of neglect and lack of forethought of their guardians
> 
> ...


We have a saying in the US, cant fix stupid. Seems apt here.

But Im a stubborn eternal optimist so Im going to keep educating and intervening when and where it makes sense to do so. 
Hey... beats beating my head on a brick wall right?


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Laws exist to PUNISH not to PREVENT.


But by existing to punish they also deter. The strong enforcement of the UK drink drive laws massively reduced alcohol related accidents when they were first introduced. And alongside legislation came education as were were educated on units of alcohol.

So I'm afraid the 'everybody speeds so legislation is useless' doesn't wash with me.



smokeybear said:


> Nothing, you cannot legislate against idiots unfortunately.


Doing nothing is never an option for me. I don't care that some may behave in a certain way because they may or may not be 'idiots'. For me it is often as much about ignorance as anything. And you *can* educate against ignorance.

J


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> But by existing to punish they also deter. The strong enforcement of the UK drink drive laws massively reduced alcohol related accidents when they were first introduced. And alongside legislation came education as were were educated on units of alcohol.
> 
> So I'm afraid the 'everybody speeds so legislation is useless' doesn't wash with me.
> 
> ...


But just like the kids and dogs thing, there has to be balance tempered with unbiased assessment of the actual problem.

Are we acting to solve the issue or are we acting as an emotional knee jerk reaction to just *do* something? Isnt this what got us in to the BSL mess to begin with? The desire to do something/anything as long as we just DO something?

Is dog safety a big enough issue to merit more laws that will be difficult and very costly to enforce?


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Is dog safety a big enough issue to merit more laws that will be difficult and very costly to enforce?


Probably not (and there will always be a queue for money and in the UK the NHS will always rightfully be at the top) and no government would ever contemplate sensible (as opposed to knee jerk) dog legislation unless there were votes involved 

However, that doesn't stop me looking to what might help. And as I said, my grandmother though driving tests would never take off 

J


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> But by existing to punish they also deter. The strong enforcement of the UK drink drive laws massively reduced alcohol related accidents when they were first introduced. And alongside legislation came education as were were educated on units of alcohol.
> 
> So I'm afraid the 'everybody speeds so legislation is useless' doesn't wash with me.
> 
> ...


I think what you can do is take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

Millions of people know smoking kills, it does not stop them.

Millions of people are obese due to poor dietary and exercise habits, education has not changed their habits.

The way to change people's minds is not through legislation IMHO

And we have seen what the results of poorly thought and policed legislation re DDA has led to.

Thus I am not convinced.

Doing nothing actually is not necessarily a bad thing in many cases.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> I think what you can do is take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
> 
> Millions of people know smoking kills, it does not stop them.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I think it is safe to say that the UK has one of the most insubstantial legislation pertaining to dogs compared to most of Central Europe. Doesn't matter whether this concerns the sale or purchase of dogs and where owner /breeder stand if things don't go according to plan and the pup dies.....or to when someone gets bitten or lives in fear of being mobbed by other peoples dogs on walks.

I would argue that inertia and absent or unclear laws are NOT necessarily a good thing nor in anyones interest. We have to do better than endlessly find reasons why something that should be done, can't be done. How come all those other countries found a way to do it?

If ANYTHING will lead to a kneejerk, slapdash, ill thought out legislation, its doing nothing. All it will ultimately take is ONE case acting like the proverbial straw which then finally breaks the camel's...or in our case, dogs....back.

IMO


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

So no child is ever injured or killed in Central Europe then? Due to their draconian laws?

Got stats for this?


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm, I think it is safe to say that the UK has one of the most insubstantial legislation pertaining to dogs compared to most of Central Europe. Doesn't matter whether this concerns the sale or purchase of dogs and where owner /breeder stand if things don't go according to plan and the pup dies.....or to when someone gets bitten or lives in fear of being mobbed by other peoples dogs on walks.
> 
> I would argue that inertia and absent or unclear laws are NOT necessarily a good thing nor in anyones interest. We have to do better than endlessly find reasons why something that should be done, can't be done. *How come all those other countries found a way to do it?*
> 
> ...


Wait, what other countries have found a way to do what?

In every American city and state where they have enacted and enforced BSL, not a single one has shown a reduction in the number of dog bites and fatalities. Not one. And arguably in some cities, dog related injuries have gotten worse.

ETA:
http://nationalcanineresearchcounci...rutal, Costly, and Ineffective _ Aug 2013.pdf


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm, I think it is safe to say that the UK has one of the most insubstantial legislation pertaining to dogs compared to most of Central Europe. Doesn't matter whether this concerns the sale or purchase of dogs and where owner /breeder stand if things don't go according to plan and the pup dies.....or to when someone gets bitten or lives in fear of being mobbed by other peoples dogs on walks.
> 
> I would argue that inertia and absent or unclear laws are NOT necessarily a good thing nor in anyones interest. We have to do better than endlessly find reasons why something that should be done, can't be done. How come all those other countries found a way to do it?
> 
> ...


Laws are necessary, but when we see a law, ANY law being implemented, just to demonstrate that 'something' is being done, common sense can go out of the window, such as in the law that is Breed Specific Legislation.

When any dog can be seized, because someone deems it to be 'of the Pitbull Type' and can subsequently be put to sleep, even if it happens to be somebody's old, gentle Family pet, something's very wrong.

Make laws, by all means, but not legislation that, frankly, is ridiculous, put in place become someone in a 'high place' thinks it will appease the public.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> So no child is ever injured or killed in Central Europe then? Due to their draconian laws?
> 
> Got stats for this?


Please feel free to consult the comparable bite and fatality statistics from Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. Wiki is your friend.

The point isn't that there are or have to be draconian laws.

The point was that sensible, clear legislation which is enforced is better than none...or a wishy-washy one. Of course, tragedies happen in other places. It is how often they happen. And in countries with clear legislation they happen LESS often.

Unless you also believe there isn't a correlation between gun shot mortality and relevant gun laws? Lets compare our gun shot deaths to the USA and see whether legislation has an impact on those figures. Lets see - why yes it does.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Please feel free to consult the comparable bite and fatality statistics from Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. Wiki is your friend.
> 
> The point isn't that there are or have to be draconian laws.
> 
> ...


Wiki is certainly not my friend I put more faith in the stats produced and discussed at the recent Bite Seminar with Jim Crosby attended by those who deal with the sharp pointy end of these events. 

We have clear laws here, certain breeds are prohibited and the consequences for owners whose dogs injure others are spelled out in the new legislation

And I am afraid that the number of deaths by dogs per million population in the UK is EXTREMELY low as they are in most countries (bar those where rabies is endemic)

Until and unless you can produce stats to evidence the alleged chasm between injuries in the UK and the rest of Central Europe your argument holds no weight.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Please feel free to consult the comparable bite and fatality statistics from Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. Wiki is your friend.
> 
> The point isn't that there are or have to be draconian laws.
> 
> ...


This is the important point - sensible, clear, enforced: this would be to the benefit of the "bad" breeds, as well as the public - I would imagine that this legislation includes strictly enforced restrictions on breeding as well - fewer animals to fall into the hands of dog-fighters etc. And maybe people would value their dogs more if they had to fulfil criteria to get them. Thank you.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

there is no way that more dog laws will be enforced. If the ones we already had were properly enforced (not just periodically grabbing harmless pet dogs) then there would be far less of a dog problem.

Just as an example - horses have to be microchipped and passported. The passports have to be in the current keeper's name. New ownership has to be registered within 30 days. 
How is that the majority of horses have huge gaps in their ownership. How is it that there are loads of stray horses wandering round in some areas and no way of finding their owners.
And how is it that the responsible owners have to spend out to keep their horse legal.

Then again cattle have to have passports and be tagged and that is enforced, there are not many ways of avoiding it and if you get caught there can be a huge financial penalty.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Please feel free to consult the comparable bite and fatality statistics from Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. Wiki is your friend.
> 
> The point isn't that there are or have to be draconian laws.
> 
> ...


Except that nothing about BSL is sensible, or clear, or effectively enforced. 
And dogs are not guns 

And though the US has the highest per-capita gun ownership, I think you will find that we do not have the highest rates of gun related deaths - not by a long shot.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Except that nothing about BSL is sensible, or clear, or effectively enforced.
> And dogs are not guns
> *
> And though the US has the highest per-capita gun ownership, I think you will find that we do not have the highest rates of gun related deaths - not by a long shot.*


Beg to differ, Ouesi:

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country - The Washington Post

You can't count undeveloped countries because many of them are war/drug zones. Comparing like with like, America comes out on top - not an accolade I'd want.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

And I have to go back to the little baby this whole thread is about.

What kind of laws exactly would have PREVENTED her dying. Not just punish after the fact, but actually prevented her death?


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Beg to differ, Ouesi:
> 
> Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country - The Washington Post
> 
> You can't count undeveloped countries because *many of them are war/drug zones.* Comparing like with like, America comes out on top - not an accolade I'd want.


Clearly youve never been to parts of inner cities like Detroit....

But I still dont see why any country shouldnt count. Thats like saying well, you cant count feral dogs in dog bite stats. Why not?

Not to digress though... this is about dogs, not guns


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

ouesi said:


> And I have to go back to the little baby this whole thread is about.
> 
> What kind of laws exactly would have PREVENTED her dying. Not just punish after the fact, but actually prevented her death?


Precisely.

How many of those who profess to know the stats re dog bites per capita on this thread have actually attended The Bite Seminar with Chirag, Victoria, Sarah, Jim and Trevor?

Or the Two day seminars with Jim Crosby?

Or have read the relevant material on dog bites by Karen Delise, et al.

Or have written a thesis themselves on it?

I am sure they would all be interested in the concrete proposals by those who profess to have an idea of how these would be designed and delivered and of course, funded.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Precisely.
> 
> How many of those who profess to know the stats re dog bites per capita on this thread have actually attended The Bite Seminar with Chirag, Victoria, Sarah, Jim and Trevor?
> 
> ...


I have not, and I would be interested in what these experts propose.
Im going to gander a guess that more BSL, and/or stricter BSL is not one of the proposals?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I dunno, I think some kind of compulsory education would make a difference, the levels of ignorance among so dog owners is shocking. 

But, ultimately, for as long as humans and animals share the planet, the will kill one another sometimes IMO.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Is it working in France, where owners of certain breeds are required to register them with the local Town Council, and in some cases, have to attend classes on responsible dog ownership?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There's compulsory microchipping and licencing for all breeds here and it is rarely enforced, the uptake is only something like 40%. Of course we also have no such thing as an exemption register any pitbull types are euthanised. 

Education is the only way forward. Teach people how to interact safely with dogs, especially teach children. And, as I believe some US cities are doing, show the young thugs with their status dogs that they can do amazing things with them. There are programmes encouraging them into things like weightpull and agility.

Eta I know that not all bull breeds are owned by young thugs wanting a penis extension. But by showing them as the wonderful, athletic dogs that they are and indeed giving those owners something to focus on it could help change the public image of them


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> And I have to go back to the little baby this whole thread is about.
> *
> What kind of laws exactly would have PREVENTED her dying*. Not just punish after the fact, but actually prevented her death?


I don't think anyone can answer that question yet as we don't really know the full circumstances.

Surely its possible to have better legislation without it being breed specific.

Also I might be wrong but most of the high profile cases we've had in the UK recently have not been as a result of status dogs on the streets owned by youngsters, most of them have been family pets not managed correctly in a given set of circumstances.

SB I take it you have been on the seminars you refer to. Would you mind sharing some of the information from them?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Please feel free to consult the comparable bite and fatality statistics from Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. Wiki is your friend.
> 
> The point isn't that there are or have to be draconian laws.
> 
> ...


Sensible, yes. There is no sense in BSL.

And Wiki ..... our "Best Friend"?

The day I rely on Wiki to tell me what to believe will be a sad one.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> *I don't think anyone can answer that question* yet as we don't really know the full circumstances.
> 
> Surely its possible to have better legislation without it being breed specific.
> 
> ...


Thats basically my point.

As I understand it, what creates a dog who will end up killing is a complex combination of factors including genetics, environment, triggers, thresholds, emotional states, etc., that predicting what kind of dog will not only attack, but attack and maim and kill is just far to complex for us to do - yet. 
Just as we know that there are certain brain traits that psychopaths share, but then there are normal people who have psychopathic brains who do not on to act on those tendencies.

So to me that means lets continue to study, and further our knowledge. Not more legislation that may or may not make a difference.

Believe me, if something like mandatory licensing would have saved this childs life, I would be all for it, but I cant for the life of me think how this dog being licensed would have spared this child. Or any other of the usual proposed legislation.


----------



## smithsonhelen183 (Jun 10, 2014)

really sad news - upsets me everytime one of these stories appears inthe papers..


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Having lived in two countries where dogs are supposed to be licensed I fail to see what a licensing law would do. I have complied with the law in both countries yet a lot of the people I know don't bother. These aren't your criminals, drug dealers, gang members etc. They're not people with dogs as a status symbol, not people who want an aggressive dog in order to make themselves look hard. These are just your average pet owners. Families with small children. People who may not understand their dogs and canine behaviour in general but who love their dogs. Not once in 5 years have I been asked for proof that my dog is registered. The laws already in place aren't enforced, why would a new law be? And how would being licensed or registered or microchipped or whatever work to stop a dog attacking anyway?

Personally I think education is the real answer. But when? Where? By who? I think someone like Cesar Milan going into schools and "educating" children would be a disaster. And education in schools may help in the long run but it's the adults who are responsible for the dogs who need the education right now, they can hardly be forced into it.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Unless you also believe there isn't a correlation between gun shot mortality and relevant gun laws? Lets compare our gun shot deaths to the USA and see whether legislation has an impact on those figures. Lets see - why yes it does.


and then compare the gun shot mortality rates in the UK since tightening of gun laws in UK - did they go up or down?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> Precisely.
> 
> How many of those who profess to know the stats re dog bites per capita on this thread have actually attended The Bite Seminar with Chirag, Victoria, Sarah, Jim and Trevor?
> 
> ...


I cant imagine that many people would want to go to such seminars - but it does not stop people from having opinions or knowledge on the subject.

The laws we have now, if enforced, would go a long way to solving a lot of problems. After all, if it is true (and we have no idea if it is ) that the dog that killed the baby had been reported for its behaviour and the law had been enforced then presumably the dreadful accident could have been avoided.
If dog breeding licenses were enforced then a lot of these dodgy dogs would not be available to go to dodgy owners.
It is now not legal to allow your dog to threaten or attack other animals so if that was enforced the awful dog on dog attacks that so often are reported on here would not happen as those persistent offenders would be muzzled and on the lead.

So instead of shouting for more legislation how about shouting to get the existing legislation enforced.
Not much chance though when even animal welfare regulations are not enforced and people are left with incredibly abused animals even after many many complaints.

And no, I have not been on a seminar, I do not need to to give my opinion. oh, and neither have I done a scientific study.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I cant imagine that many people would want to go to such seminars - but it does not stop people from having opinions or knowledge on the subject.
> 
> The laws we have now, if enforced, would go a long way to solving a lot of problems. After all, if it is true (and we have no idea if it is ) that the dog that killed the baby had been reported for its behaviour and the law had been enforced then presumably the dreadful accident could have been avoided.
> If dog breeding licenses were enforced then a lot of these dodgy dogs would not be available to go to dodgy owners.
> ...


I am shocked and appaled in equal measure.

How dare you use common sense and your OWN considered opinion instead of paraphrasing the opinions of "expert" others? AND not citing scientific studies!!!!

If that isn't a choice example of the world clearly going to hell in a handcart, what is? Thinking for oneself....you should be ashamed. That's what we have showboating experts for. And seminars telling you what to think.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I am shocked and appaled in equal measure.
> 
> How dare you use common sense and your OWN considered opinion instead of paraphrasing the opinions of "expert" others? AND not citing scientific studies!!!!
> 
> If that isn't a choice example of the world clearly going to hell in a handcart, what is? Thinking for oneself....you should be ashamed. That's what we have showboating experts for. And seminars telling you what to think.


Showboating experts?

I would still ask you, since you seem to be saying that other countries have accomplished something in this area - what exactly have those countries done, and what exactly kind of laws have they passed that actually prevent deaths, not just punish after the fact.

I personally am not an expert on dog laws in other countries, so I am asking you who seem to know these things, what exactly are you proposing the UK do differently?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Sarah1983 said:


> Having lived in two countries where dogs are supposed to be licensed I fail to see what a licensing law would do. I have complied with the law in both countries yet a lot of the people I know don't bother.


Licenses are required for some wild animals, and there are tight conditions on some. Dog licenses just need to be taken seriously. Something needs to be done.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

El Cid said:


> Licenses are required for some wild animals, and there are tight conditions on some. Dog licenses just need to be taken seriously. Something needs to be done.


And people can still acquire venomous snakes, big cats and any other animal on dwa should they really want to. There are also animals on dwa just by virtue of genus who aren't dangerous to humans such as most of the buthids, and others like blue ringed octopi and komodos that really should be. It even had raccoons and pygmy marmosets on it initially. Dog licencing didn't work when it was in the UK and it doesn't work here. A mandatory training class would help but look at the people still breeding and buying pitbulls knowing the cost to the dog if they're caught


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

El Cid said:


> Licenses are required for some wild animals, and there are tight conditions on some. Dog licenses just need to be taken seriously. Something needs to be done.


How would this dog being licensed have prevented this child from dying?

Im not trying to be annoying (that part comes naturally ), but seriously, how does licensing keep folks from putting a 6 month old baby and a dog in a situation where the baby is going to get injured or killed?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Licenses are required for some wild animals, and there are tight conditions on some. Dog licenses just need to be taken seriously. Something needs to be done.


And yet plenty of people still get those wild animals illegally and without licenses.

And I still do not see how a dog having a license will prevent it from attacking and killing a child if put in the right circumstances for it to happen. People will continue to put their dogs and children in situations they shouldn't regardless of whether or not they have a license.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I am shocked and appaled in equal measure.
> 
> How dare you use common sense and your OWN considered opinion instead of paraphrasing the opinions of "expert" others? AND not citing scientific studies!!!!
> 
> If that isn't a choice example of the world clearly going to hell in a handcart, what is? Thinking for oneself....you should be ashamed. That's what we have showboating experts for. And seminars telling you what to think.


One of the main reasons our dog laws are so ineffectual is simply because they are based on personal opinions and have absolutely no scientific expertise behind them, whatsoever. Read the Hansard documents for the DDA or watch the EFRA interviews for the recent amendments, their debates are a complete amateur joke. They have never bothered to use the wide range of experts in canine behaviour, or indeed thought to consult with someone like Bill Bruce who seems to have fashioned the only effective dog legislation in the world. Instead they rather pander to the baying public and the opioinon's of armchair experts.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> How would this dog being licensed have prevented this child from dying?
> 
> Im not trying to be annoying (that part comes naturally ), but seriously, how does licensing keep folks from putting a 6 month old baby and a dog in a situation where the baby is going to get injured or killed?


What if breeding and keeping certain breeds of dogs would require a special licence? As done in ...let me pick ONE of the many European countries where this is the NORM...let's go for Germany.

What if obtaining this licence wasn't merely a case of handing over money, but tied to the owner /breeder fulfilling certain criteria and linked to some other contingencies ( e.g. compulsory schooling for breeder, owner, pups parents have to pass several temperament tests to be cleared for breeding, and, and). Don't say "pah, utopia! Can't be done"......it IS being done. Just not here.

I don't know what breed killed that baby girl, but I am prepared to bet it wasn't a Golden Retriever, Great Dane, Labrador, Poodle, or any other of the hundreds of dog breeds who DON'T have a statistically documented history of inflicting deadly bite wounds and mauling kids and people to death.

It is NOT discrimination to insist that owners and dogs of breeds WITH this clearly documented record fulfil certain criteria. If they are as commited to their breeds as they say they are, they would WELCOME it.

Babies, kids and people being killed by savage dogs is NOT "an unfortunate accident". It is murder - manslaughter at best - by proxy AND almost completely preventable via sensible and enforced legislation. If owners of those dogs went straight to jail for their dogs action a LOT more people would think a LOT more carefully what dogs they keep and how.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> What if breeding and keeping certain breeds of dogs would require a special licence? As done in ...let me pick ONE of the many European countries where this is the NORM...let's go for Germany.
> 
> What if obtaining this licence wasn't merely a case of handing over money, but tied to the owner /breeder fulfilling certain criteria and linked to some other contingencies ( e.g. compulsory schooling for breeder, owner, pups parents have to pass several temperament tests to be cleared for breeding, and, and). Don't say "pah, utopia! Can't be done"......it IS being done. Just not here.
> 
> ...


Are you really saying that Golden retrievers, Great danes, Labs and poodles have not killed or seriously maimed anyone? Really?

Dog killed 2-month-old baby, ripped child?s legs off while father slept in other room: police - NY Daily News

Restricting certain breeds WILL NOT/DOES NOT work..ALL breeds of dogs are capable of seriously maiming or killing..

These threads always end up breed bashing :nonod:


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I must agree that some breeds cannotkillchildren - too small...too eve friendly..have you ever heard about human killed by chi or pug, or French bully?
some are capable of punishing snap like punishing a puppy,but not full on attack like on a prey...


m my kids are dog savvy..I hhave basic knowledge ..
my brother has a dog.., dog who loves my kids,plays with them and loves us too..

one day I noticed his eyes follow my youngets with certain attention..
next day -the same...

my ds was talking ,making some gestures with his hands...
he was not shouting..not even looking at the dog, but dog got near..so did I..

and then the dog jumped!
I got my arms round him and got him down telling him off ...and send him away..
he would have grabbed my son's arm ..at the least...



the breed: amstaff...


he is well socialised ,neutered, friendly etc...but ...absolutely should not be near children..in one moment he did not like something - and he was off...


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> I must agree that some breeds cannotkillchildren - too small...too eve friendly..have you ever heard about human killed by chi or pug, or French bully?


A baby was killed by a Pomeranian. A toddler had his genitals chewed off by a Dachshund. ANY breed, no matter how small, is capable of seriously harming or killing a human. Particularly a baby or young child.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> I must agree that some breeds cannotkillchildren - too small...too eve friendly..have you ever heard about human killed by chi or pug, or French bully?
> some are capable of punishing snap like punishing a puppy,but not full on attack like on a prey...


ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved

Any breed can kill.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Aww damn, I wish I'd chosen a breed that can't kill or hurt anything.
Do those breeds not have teeth?


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> What if breeding and keeping certain breeds of dogs would require a special licence? As done in ...let me pick ONE of the many European countries where this is the NORM...let's go for Germany.
> 
> I don't know what breed killed that baby girl, but I am prepared to bet it wasn't a Golden Retriever, Great Dane, Labrador, Poodle, or any other of the hundreds of dog breeds who DON'T have a statistically documented history of inflicting deadly bite wounds and mauling kids and people to death.
> 
> ...


Um... okay...
First off, there are many documented cases of golden retrievers, labradors and great danes inflicting deadly bite wounds. Many cases, some that I am personally familiar with.

When a dog causes catastrophic damage, it is never down to just one factor. There are always multiple factors and not one of those factors will in isolation create a dangerous dog. Nor in combination either. 
We know of many contributing factors that increase the odds of a dog becoming dangerous (of which breed is not one of them), but what we don't yet know is how some dogs can have all these pieces present and end up fine, while others have only one or two pieces (or none) and kill a child. 
This is why the whole issue needs to continue to be studied.

Targeting specific breeds has been repeatedly show to not work. At all.

I need to emphasize this point because this is where we really need to distinguish between actual statistics and the knowledge of the "experts" and public opinion. Yes, that matters. There is a reason most women seek the advice of a gynecologist and not a sample of random people who happen to have opinions on vaginas. Same idea. 
Those who DO know what they're talking about will tell you that in the long and well documented history of BSL, it has been repeatedly shown to not work.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> What if obtaining this licence wasn't merely a case of handing over money, but tied to the owner /breeder fulfilling certain criteria and linked to some other contingencies ( e.g. compulsory schooling for breeder, owner, pups parents have to pass several temperament tests to be cleared for breeding, and, and). Don't say "pah, utopia! Can't be done"......it IS being done. Just not here.


Do we know how effective it is? I don't, I'm asking. 
What kind of dog fatality statistics are there on Germany?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> .
> 
> I don't know what breed killed that baby girl, but I am prepared to bet it wasn't a Golden Retriever, Great Dane, Labrador, Poodle, or any other of the hundreds of dog breeds who DON'T have a statistically documented history of inflicting deadly bite wounds and mauling kids and people to death.


Again, you need to be very careful where you get your stats from and in what context.

Golden Retrievers have indeed been involved in fatal dog attacks in the US for example.

Labradors also feature at the top of many of the stats seen by members of the APBC (according to their stats) re dog to human aggression and bites.

When you dig a bit deeper than the highly suspect and superfical "stats" reported by the "Wiki is your friend" and the likes, you may unearth some facts that directly contradict your personal beliefs (as opposed to evidence based information)


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> What if breeding and keeping certain breeds of dogs would require a special licence? As done in ...let me pick ONE of the many European countries where this is the NORM...let's go for Germany.
> 
> What if obtaining this licence wasn't merely a case of handing over money, but tied to the owner /breeder fulfilling certain criteria and linked to some other contingencies ( e.g. compulsory schooling for breeder, owner, pups parents have to pass several temperament tests to be cleared for breeding, and, and). Don't say "pah, utopia! Can't be done"......it IS being done. Just not here.
> 
> ...


Even if people had to have a license to keep a certain breed of dog, that would by no means guarantee that any person wouldn't do something silly, such as leaving a dog alone with a young child.

It just doesn't make sense. Are whatever Governing body, responsible for granting such licences going to say to someone "Oh, you don't get a licence because we think that you may be an idiot or you may or may not, at some future time, do something silly"?

Having a licenced dog will still not stop some people from doing careless or downright dangerous things. If the sensational newspaper reports when a child is killed aren't enough to make all dog owners wise up, a licence won't.

A few years ago, there was a newborn baby, living very close to me, killed by a Westie.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

El Cid said:


> Licenses are required for some wild animals, and there are tight conditions on some. Dog licenses just need to be taken seriously. Something needs to be done.


Driving licences do not prevent people driving under the influence of drugs or drink.

They do not prevent people using hand held mobile phones whilst driving

They do not prevent people whose eyesight is below par from driving

etc ec ec

And people have been killed and seriously injured in RTAs cause by all of the above.

Firearms licences do not prevent people shooting other people as we have seen time and again over the last few decades.

Marriage licences do not prevent bigamy, domestic abusea, adultery etc

I still fail to understand how the existence of a document would have prevented this or any other tragedy.

And it appears I am not alone.............


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> A baby was killed by a Pomeranian. A toddler had his genitals chewed off by a Dachshund. ANY breed, no matter how small, is capable of seriously harming or killing a human. Particularly a baby or young child.


Not entirely my point.

A superfriendly Retriever or Poodle can bump into a kid, kid falls akwardly and sustains a fatal head injury. Now THAT , whilst equally tragic, IS simply an "unfortunate accident".

But a million miles from being viciously mauled to death. The ONLY such incidents involving a breed like, say, a Labrador are those where the animal was so abused (in the case of the Labbie it had been starved for a week or more) that the dog was so hungry it went for the only food source it had seen in a long time...the child.

As an aside, since you live in Germany but said nobody bothers with verifying a dogs ID. Try getting a breed from the restricted/banned list and watch how fast blue flashing lights appear in front of your house.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Not entirely my point.
> 
> A superfriendly Retriever or Poodle can bump into a kid, kid falls akwardly and sustains a fatal head injury. Now THAT , whilst equally tragic, IS simply an "unfortunate accident".
> 
> ...


This statement in bold is categorically incorrect, inaccurate and untrue.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Any breed can attack and do real damage, take dachshunds for example small dogs yes but they bred them to go after badgers. You really think that one couldn't do damage?

How do you decide the criteria? The breed's purpose? If you go by guard dogs then you have to take german shepherds and rotties off that list, both were initially herders. You have to add most of the toy group to were initially bred to kill list. How do you justify to someone that even though chinese cresteds haven't been used as shipboard ratters for a few centuries they're still classed with working jack russells? 

By size? Then you include newfies and irish wolfhounds in with dogs like flock guardians and properly bred staffies and pitbulls are much smaller than people tend to think.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Not entirely my point.
> 
> A superfriendly Retriever or Poodle can bump into a kid, kid falls akwardly and sustains a fatal head injury. Now THAT , whilst equally tragic, IS simply an "unfortunate accident".
> 
> ...


Did you know that statistically (might be out of date) the most attacks in the home are by labradors or retrievers. The reason being that they are the most common family dog so there are bound to more attacks by them.
I read something a while back where a child was having plastic surgery in a ward full of dog bite children - and nearly all were lab attacks. Apparently the mother was surprised the press did not get on to her daughter's attack until she realised who common they were.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Not entirely my point.
> 
> A superfriendly Retriever or Poodle can bump into a kid, kid falls akwardly and sustains a fatal head injury. Now THAT , whilst equally tragic, IS simply an "unfortunate accident".
> 
> ...


There's plenty of people here with dogs on the restricted list who don't have the required license and who haven't done the aptitude test where it's required. Half of them have no idea they're even meant to have either! The only people I know who've been asked about it are those who've been reported. And even then they don't always bother, as in the case of the woman behind me with the aggressive bull breed. I know for a fact she's been reported several times. And the law is different depending on which part of Germany you're in so simply lumping Germany together as a whole may not be particularly helpful anyway.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> *There's plenty of people here with dogs on the restricted list who don't have the required license and who haven't done the aptitude test where it's required. Half of them have no idea they're even meant to have either! * The only people I know who've been asked about it are those who've been reported. And even then they don't always bother, as in the case of the woman behind me with the aggressive bull breed. I know for a fact she's been reported several times. And the law is different depending on which part of Germany you're in so simply lumping Germany together as a whole may not be particularly helpful anyway.


This when I was in Germany. I think leniency was given to the forces community really as long as things were kept "in house" as it were. A friend of mine who lived out of camp had two SBTs that she had gone through all the correct channels to own but she was a rarity.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Not entirely my point.
> 
> A superfriendly Retriever or Poodle can bump into a kid, kid falls akwardly and sustains a fatal head injury. Now THAT , whilst equally tragic, IS simply an "unfortunate accident".
> 
> ...


Categorically, unequivocally untrue, inaccurate, and irresponsible for you to even post such.

This is the sort of "opinion" that gets innocent children killed and innocent dogs seized and PTS.
If you go around telling people that the only way their lab will maul their child is if they starve and beat it, you end up with people doing the exact sort of behaviors that lead children to be harmed by dogs.

PLEASE educate yourself on actual facts before you go spreading more misinformation.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Did you know that statistically (might be out of date) the most attacks in the home are by labradors or retrievers. The reason being that they are the most common family dog so there are bound to more attacks by them.
> I read something a while back where a child was having plastic surgery in a ward full of dog bite children - and nearly all were lab attacks. Apparently the mother was surprised the press did not get on to her daughter's attack until she realised who common they were.


Around here labs are responsible for a lot of bites, some pretty horrific.
Goldens are another breed known for some pretty OTT resource guarding that also leads to some pretty nasty bites.

That's not to say that labs and goldens are dangerous dogs BTW, just that we need to be cognizant of DOG behavior.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Are you really saying that Golden retrievers, Great danes, Labs and poodles have not killed or seriously maimed anyone? Really?
> 
> Dog killed 2-month-old baby, ripped child?s legs off while father slept in other room: police - NY Daily News
> 
> ...


I promise it isn't breed bashing. It is not.

I abhor the stupid, insensitive, unkind blanket ban they applied to certain breeds. And what went on after they introduced the DDA is reprehensible.

But here's the thing - if you DO own one of those breeds and you KNOW your dog's temperament is absolutely fine, you wouldn't have an objection to have it assessed, would you? Why would you, it works in your dog's favour and interest.

I can't just claim that my car, a potential deadly weapon if the breaks fail, is safe. I have to bring it to a yearly MOT where people verify that it is. If it ain't I'm not allowed to drive it. Why should something like this NOT apply to certain breeds of dogs?

In regards to your link you gave.....hmmmm. Seems an odd story.
"A supposedly "gentle" pooch named Lucky is suspected of killing a 2-month-old baby and tearing the child's body apart in South Carolina". Can I draw your attention to the word "suspected" and the very, very, VERY odd situation that a 2 month old baby is ALONE in a garden swing whilst the ONLY supervising parent is in the house sleeping. Doesn't add up. But I bet Lucky paid for it with his/her life.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Dogless said:


> This when I was in Germany. I think leniency was given to the forces community really as long as things were kept "in house" as it were. A friend of mine who lived out of camp had two SBTs that she had gone through all the correct channels to own but she was a rarity.


It could well be that things are a bit more lenient, especially when it comes to those living on camp. But when out in public just walking your dog I don't see that they can know at a glance whether you're English, German, forces or whatever. I don't know anyone who's been stopped while out or had the authorities turn up at their door purely because of the breed of dog they own. I do know someone who's had the authorities around because of a complaint about her dog though, fortunately for her she had gone through all the correct channels.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I promise it isn't breed bashing. It is not.
> 
> I abhor the stupid, insensitive, unkind blanket ban they applied to certain breeds. And what went on after they introduced the DDA is reprehensible.
> 
> ...


Then all breeds and crosses should be assessed not just whatever ones fit the criteria. If Lucky had been a pitbull not a golden/lab would you be saying the same? Goldens are sweet, gentle dogs if well bred and raised of course but they're becoming rather infamous for resource guarding and are big dogs that seem to have little concept of brakes. Labs are boisterous and powerful and have too good a rep as family dogs so people buy them thinking they won't need any work


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I promise it isn't breed bashing. It is not.
> 
> I abhor the stupid, insensitive, unkind blanket ban they applied to certain breeds. And what went on after they introduced the DDA is reprehensible.
> 
> ...


The link StormyThai is to a story that happened near us.
The father was "sleeping", yes, he was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
The child was not in a swing outside, it was a motorized baby swing that you put in your living room.
And by the time the story hit national news, that photo in the link was not being used and instead news articles were using a "stock photo" of a sneezing pitbull alongside the report on that incident.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I promise it isn't breed bashing. It is not.
> 
> I abhor the stupid, insensitive, unkind blanket ban they applied to certain breeds. And what went on after they introduced the DDA is reprehensible.
> 
> ...


If you actually study the causal factors behind the cast majority of bites, an unattended child left alone with a dog is the most common, irrespective of breed. There is nothing odd with that story at all, other than the dog initially being reported as a pitbull.

How exactly would having my dog assessed and pass a test save that child's life, with what look's like a retriever, which wouldn't need to take a test by your logic?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

El Cid said:


> Licenses are required for some wild animals, and there are tight conditions on some. Dog licenses just need to be taken seriously. Something needs to be done.


Dog licenses will not make the slightest difference, except to the bank balance of those who consider themselves law abiding.

There SHOULD be no pit bulls/pit bull crosses in the UK had the laws been enforced. When it was introduced in 1991 it made it illegal to breed, sell, buy or rehome pit bulls etc. There was a register that was put in place for existing pit bulls/crosses that had to be neutered etc. If this had been implemented it would mean no pit bulls/crosses would be alive now, 23 years later. Of course, there are still plenty in the UK which makes a mockery of the law - why would dog licenses by any more effective?

I tend to agree with those that said you can't legislate for stupid. Unfortunately, this could easily lead to more breeds being banned, dogs kept on lead/muzzled in public, restriction of areas where dogs are allowed etc.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> It could well be that things are a bit more lenient, especially when it comes to those living on camp. But when out in public just walking your dog I don't see that they can know at a glance whether you're English, German, forces or whatever. I don't know anyone who's been stopped while out or had the authorities turn up at their door purely because of the breed of dog they own. I do know someone who's had the authorities around because of a complaint about her dog though, fortunately for her she had gone through all the correct channels.


Yes; I meant more camp and the surrounds. I didn't own a dog living there so never really saw what went on out and about.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I promise it isn't breed bashing. It is not.
> 
> I abhor the stupid, insensitive, unkind blanket ban they applied to certain breeds. And what went on after they introduced the DDA is reprehensible.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of people that do not get MOT's for their car..there are still plenty of vehicles on todays roads that should not be there.

What about the other link?



> A relative left the baby unattended for a moment, and when he returned, he found the infant's head in the dog's mouth Saturday night, county sheriff's Deputy Cruz Solis said. The girl died of head trauma at an area hospital, Solis said.


No suspected anything..a pom killed a baby..no mention of the dog being an abuse case, no mention of the dog being abused.

How about this link to a horrific bite by a lab Boy, 3, left with horrific facial injuries as Labrador savages him at Poole Harbour | Daily Mail Online

BSL does not work and will never work..all it does is lull people into a false sense of security that their fluffy poodle or friendly lab can not possibly be dangerous because they are not listed.

Serious dog bites still happen in Germany even with their tough restrictions.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> There are plenty of people that do not get MOT's for their car..there are still plenty of vehicles on todays roads that should not be there.
> 
> What about the other link?
> 
> ...


Classic example, I've read this one before. The mother said in the article after she allowed the boy to approach the dog unsupervised: "It wasn't a pitbull or a Staffordshire bull terrier that you would think would be dangerous..." Maybe the boy would have been ok if it was an SBT.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> *There are plenty of people that do not get MOT's for their car..there are still plenty of vehicles on todays roads that should not be there.*
> What about the other link?
> 
> No suspected anything..a pom killed a baby..no mention of the dog being an abuse case, no mention of the dog being abused.
> ...


It's thought 1 in 3 cars do not have a current MOT/Tax and/or motor insurance. And far more people are killed by cars every day than have been killed by dogs.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So what is the answer then? Just keep shrugging these cases off as just one of those things that happens? Say we are looking into it and studying dogs some more and will come up with an answer some time in xx number of years?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> *A baby was killed by a Pomeranian. * A toddler had his genitals chewed off by a Dachshund. ANY breed, no matter how small, is capable of seriously harming or killing a human. Particularly a baby or young child.


I remember reading this report - didn't an idiot uncle leave both a vulnerable, very tiny baby and an excitable small dog on a bed when he went to get a clean nappy or something?

So the odds are there was a little naked, unprotected, stinky, squawking creature waving its arms and legs next to a sharp-toothed over-reactive carnivore with a high prey drive - all of this is an obvious recipe for disaster to anyone with even half a brain.

I agree that fewer small dogs seem to kill/severely injure but that is just because they are smaller with comparatively weak jaws and are easier to get off a victim, and a small dog can't can't easily get into a pram/onto a table etc.

AND there is no doubt that the newspapers don't want "shih tzu bites baby" - they want "pit bull savages . . ." - there is an automatic assumption that particular breeds are a menace, others aren't. This is patently untrue but it makes a good news story.

A large part of the problem is that too many people buy large and/or fearsome looking dogs for the wrong reasons; they don't train them properly; they frequently abuse/starve them (whether by accident or design); and they encourage them to act aggressively because they think it looks impressive. They are also often people who keep multiple dogs which are all encouraged to behave aggressively and wildly and which are rarely exercised.

All of these factors combine to produce a hyper-reactive and unsocialised animal which is unpredictable and dangerous. It would happen if the dog was a tiny yorkshire terrier, and it happens if the dog is an ambull. But a yorkie can easily be picked up and put out of the room if it gets unruly - an ambull can't.

The worst thing that can happen to any breed is to become popular - the wrong people get them, and they are bred without consideration to health and temperament, and suddenly they are everywhere, badly bred, poorly trained and inappropriately housed and fed. There are bound to be incidents related to the breed just because there are so many of them. And when there are a lot of incidents related to a particular breed, the press will jump on this evidence of a "devil dog". When this is established, it is hard for the breed to throw off the reputation. The language used about them is emotive and prejudiced. The dogs are expected to use human reasoning to determine how to act and when they don't they are punished for it.

The real losers are the children killed and/or disfigured, and the dogs which are euthanised. Horrifically, it will always happen. As ouesi said, no-one can legislate against stupidity.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> I must agree that some breeds cannotkillchildren - too small...too eve friendly..*have you ever heard about human killed by chi or pug, or French bully?*
> some are capable of punishing snap like punishing a puppy,but not full on attack like on a prey...
> 
> m my kids are dog savvy..I hhave basic knowledge ..
> ...


I think it's partly size, partly fewer of them about, and partly the people who buy them are buying a dog to treat as a "baby" and often only have one dog - multiple dogs are harder to control because once that excitement is in the air, dogs go crackers.

But I certainly think that there are individual dogs who are alert (for want of a better word) to people who don't actually live in their house - and who knows what would set them off? Arm gestures may well seem threatening in a dog's mind, and children often gesticulate wildly. As a sensible mother you didn't leave your child at risk when there was even a shadow of a doubt - I wish more people were the same.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I promise it isn't breed bashing. It is not.
> 
> I abhor the stupid, insensitive, unkind blanket ban they applied to certain breeds. And what went on after they introduced the DDA is reprehensible.
> 
> ...


Re. your last paragraph.

Do you really believe that a 2 month old baby left alone with the dog is a very, very VERY odd situation?

In the majority of reported cases of attacks on children by a dog, the two were left alone.

Having some official 'assess' a dog and then pronounce upon it's character is just a farce, in my opinion. Most dogs would probably pass an assessment with flying colours, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing harm at any given point in the future. We all know that dogs are unpredictable and can show aggression, even when it's completely out of character for them, due to pain, hormones, fear, anxiety, etc.

The fact is that if the owners were never to allow their dog to be in a position to attack a child, all would be well, but that isn't going to happen. Sadly, there will always be those who will put their children in danger, through ignorance, laziness, stupidity or even just a careless moment.

If licences are the way forward, surely it's the people who need licencing, not the dogs?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Did you know that statistically (might be out of date) the most attacks in the home are by labradors or retrievers. The reason being that they are the most common family dog so there are bound to more attacks by them.
> *I read something a while back where a child was having plastic surgery in a ward full of dog bite children - and nearly all were lab attacks. Apparently the mother was surprised the press did not get on to her daughter's attack until she realised who common they were*.


I bet if they had all been bully attacks, or rottie attacks, or malamute attacks, there press would have been there in droves.

Give a dog a bad name . . .

. . . or a good one.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sweety said:


> Re. your last paragraph.
> 
> *Do you really believe that a 2 month old baby left alone with the dog is a very, very VERY odd situation?*
> 
> ...


I think a baby left alone with a dog while the caregiver "sleeps" in another room is odd - and criminally negligent.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Categorically, unequivocally untrue, inaccurate, and irresponsible for you to even post such.
> 
> This is the sort of "opinion" that gets innocent children killed and innocent dogs seized and PTS.
> If you go around telling people that the only way their lab will maul their child is if they starve and beat it, you end up with people doing the exact sort of behaviors that lead children to be harmed by dogs.
> ...


Go on...show me the hordes of kids mauled to DEATH.....we are NOT talking about single dog bites, and you damn well know it...by the family's Lab or Retriever. I never said it NEVER happens - we all know there are rogue dogs in every breed. Nonetheless, The odds that THIS baby was mauled to death by a Labrador instead of a member of a Pitbull family are about 1: 10000000.

The following is a statistic of fatalities involving dogs for YOUR country - you are diligent record keepers - keep scrolling. Now please tell me WHICH breeds were most OFTEN involved in fatalities. ALL legislation is governed by risk assessment and how to best address and minimize risk.

Fatal dog attacks in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And please STOP lecturing me as if you had some kind of special authority and wisdom that everyone should pay attention to. I don't care if you do or don't concur, it still makes the risk of being fatally injured by some breeds infinitely higher than by others. Go educate yourself.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

How did you calculate these odds?

Wikipaedia?

ROFLMAO


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> How did you calculate these odds?
> 
> Wikipaedia?
> 
> ROFLMAO


Are you taking any pride for being persistantly arrogant? Honey, you aren't half as cool or enlightened or bright as you think you are.

If you were what's with the never ending showboating?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> *Go on...show me the hordes of kids mauled to DEATH*


But that's it..hordes of kids are not killed by any breed..

Please stop using Wiki to try to prove your point...wiki is no more factual proof than common hearsay.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

It always saddens me that these threads end up a slanging match where the only concern seems to be protecting x y z breed(s). A child is dead


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

DoodlesRule said:


> It always saddens me that these threads end up a slanging match where the only concern seems to be protecting x y z breed(s). A child is dead


And none of us can do anything about that. People can still have empathy for the child and their family AND talk about the circumstances :thumbsup:


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Go on...show me the hordes of kids mauled to DEATH.....we are NOT talking about single dog bites, and you damn well know it...by the family's Lab or Retriever. I never said it NEVER happens - we all know there are rogue dogs in every breed. Nonetheless, The odds that THIS baby was mauled to death by a Labrador instead of a member of a Pitbull family are about 1: 10000000.
> 
> The following is a statistic of fatalities involving dogs for YOUR country - you are diligent record keepers - keep scrolling. Now please tell me WHICH breeds were most OFTEN involved in fatalities. ALL legislation is governed by risk assessment and how to best address and minimize risk.
> 
> ...


What is "a member of the Pitbull Family"?

Pitbulls are Pitbulls.

Are you talking about any Bull Breed?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> And none of us can do anything about that. People can still have empathy for the child and their family AND talk about the circumstances :thumbsup:


No, I disagree. I know I have replied on this thread but tbh it is really not very nice. Start another thread rather than having one personal to this tragedy.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

what a joyful, appropriate thread, not

too much testosterone


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Go on...show me the hordes of kids mauled to DEATH.....we are NOT talking about single dog bites, and you damn well know it...by the family's Lab or Retriever. I never said it NEVER happens - we all know there are rogue dogs in every breed. Nonetheless, The odds that THIS baby was mauled to death by a Labrador instead of a member of a Pitbull family are about 1: 10000000.
> 
> The following is a statistic of fatalities involving dogs for YOUR country - you are diligent record keepers - keep scrolling. Now please tell me WHICH breeds were most OFTEN involved in fatalities. ALL legislation is governed by risk assessment and how to best address and minimize risk.
> 
> ...


Lets assume these records are accurate (I know some of them aren't, especially the Clifton one's and those correlated from media reports). One thing you haven't noticed is that the different breeds featured as the most prolific in fatalities are lumped together at various time points in history. Pitbulls do not make significant recurrent numbers until this century, despite being a popular breed for centuries in America. before that we have a block of Rottweilers , preceded by GSD and going back we have St.Bernards and Great Danes (a breed you earlier pointed out as not a dangerous one). Retrievers appear to be make appearances throughout. What this indicates is that breeds that feature heavily are overly popular, most often with the wrong owners and those most featured in the media. The Pitbull Placebo makes a very good case of this going back to the 1850s.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Just gonna leave this here for those that believe one (or a group) type of dog is more likely to attack 



> Interestingly, the breeds of the dogs involved in fatal attacks could only be identified in 18% of the cases. Often times, the media's report of the dog's breed conflicted with animal control reports. Within that 18%, twenty different breeds were identified, which correlates with previous studies that have found that no single breed of dog is more likely to attack than another.


https://positively.com/articles/fatal-dog-bites-share-common-factors/

And



> There is no evidence that breed-specific lawswhich are costly and difficult to enforcemake communities safer for people or companion animals. For example, Prince Georges County, MD, spends more than $250,000 annually to enforce its ban on Pit Bulls. In 2003, a study conducted by the county on the bans effectiveness noted that public safety is not improved as a result of [the ban], and that there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws).
> 
> Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.


Breed Specific Legislation | ASPCA


----------



## hells85 (Feb 10, 2014)

Snoringbear said:


> Lets assume these records are accurate (I know some of them aren't, especially the Clifton one's and those correlated from media reports). One thing you haven't noticed is that the different breeds featured as the most prolific in fatalities are lumped together at various time points in history. Pitbulls do not make significant recurrent numbers until this century, despite being a popular breed for centuries in America. before that we have a block of Rottweilers , preceded by GSD and going back we have St.Bernards and Great Danes (a breed you earlier pointed out as not a dangerous one). Retrievers appear to be make appearances throughout. What this indicates is that breeds that feature heavily are overly popular, most often with the wrong owners and those most featured in the media. The Pitbull Placebo makes a very good case of this going back to the 1850s.


Was just about to say something similar but you beat me to it! Eventually a different breed will take over from the SBT and Pitt bull as the popular choice and the stats will change once more. The way things are going it could well be the northern breeds next. Ban one breed and the idiots just move onto another. The best way to tackle things IMO is to scrap BSL and treat all breeds the same, more punishment for the owners including becoming banned from owning animals for life if they are found to deliberately cause a dog to become aggressive, possibly prison sentances ala murder/manslaughter charges as done in the USA and actual enforcement of the law when dealing with any aggressive/out of control dog.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> How did you calculate these odds?
> 
> Wikipaedia?
> 
> ROFLMAO


Please don't laugh your @rs£ off - whatever will you talk through?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Lets assume these records are accurate (I know some of them aren't, especially the Clifton one's and those correlated from media reports). One thing you haven't noticed is that the different breeds featured as the most prolific in fatalities are lumped together at various time points in history. Pitbulls do not make significant recurrent numbers until this century, despite being a popular breed for centuries in America. before that we have a block of Rottweilers , preceded by GSD and going back we have St.Bernards and Great Danes (a breed you earlier pointed out as not a dangerous one). Retrievers appear to be make appearances throughout.* What this indicates is that breeds that feature heavily are overly popular, most often with the wrong owners and those most featured in the media.* The Pitbull Placebo makes a very good case of this going back to the 1850s.


Which is what I said in an earlier post - numerous badly bred and reared dogs, and a press that just wants to demonise.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Just gonna leave this here for those that believe one (or a group) type of dog is more likely to attack


Nobody said that. It strictly pertained to the number of FATALITIES. Which are significantly higher for certain breeds. It is what it is.

I get why you feel defensive. I'd be EXACTLY the same if I owned a certain breed of dog and felt subjected to endless, unjustified prejudice.

What I don't get why or how people don't see application and enforcement of sensible legislation as a positive thing.

Aside from protecting people, it ultimately protects the dogs! AND their owner. That's what enforcement of prudent legislation does. It is a win-win for everybody. EVERYBODY.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Nobody said that. It strictly pertained to the number of FATALITIES. Which are significantly higher for certain breeds. It is what it is.
> 
> I get why you feel defensive. I'd be EXACTLY the same if I owned a certain breed of dog and felt subjected to endless, unjustified prejudice.
> 
> ...


I never claimed anyone had to be fair.

I am not being defensive at all, you have yet to prove to me anywhere that targeting certain breeds will achieve anything..

I do not take wiki as facts..and the links I have supplied show that targeting breeds does not work. THAT is why I don't see any legislation (enforced or not) working to stop fatal dog attacks.

Education about ALL dogs and how to mix them safely with families may help (although there will still be people willing to push the risks), but legislating people never has, and never will work.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

One of the dangers of the media targeting particular breeds is that it implies that other breeds are safe - after all, if bull breeds, rottweilers and malamutes are responsible for ALL attacks (which is what most reports seem to imply), then why not leave your three year old to poke a spaniel in the eye with a stick? After all -spaniels don't bite.

I wish that instead of just blindly reporting that "the family pet" (which had never shown any signs of aggression before) had attacked a child/grannie/postman etc - we could see the condition of the dog and perhaps the conditions it was kept in, and it could be examined to see if it was ill. Some of the horrific attacks we have read of this last year have been shown to have been committed by badly abused, underfed dogs - and who knows what has prompted their attacks?

Sadly we will never stop the idiot media from demonising dogs.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Nobody said that. It strictly pertained to the number of FATALITIES. Which are significantly higher for certain breeds. It is what it is.
> 
> I get why you feel defensive. I'd be EXACTLY the same if I owned a certain breed of dog and felt subjected to endless, unjustified prejudice.
> 
> ...


Draconian legislation isn't effective, though. If you want to see effective dog legislation at work, have a look at the Calgary Model and the success that has had. No BSL and no singling out breeds.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Nobody said that. It strictly pertained to the number of FATALITIES. Which are significantly higher for certain breeds. It is what it is.
> 
> I get why you feel defensive. I'd be EXACTLY the same if I owned a certain breed of dog and felt subjected to endless, unjustified prejudice.
> 
> ...


Okay, so my bull breed would have to undergo some kind of test to prove he isn't going to go on a killing spree - because being a bull breed it's obviously inevitable, yet my neighbours horrifically aggressive Cocker Spaniel wouldn't, because he's a spaniel?
Which means their last Cocker Spaniel would also have been automatically deemed fine, despite the fact he tried to bite their daughters throat?

I'm not sure who wins...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Gemmaa said:


> Okay, so my bull breed would have to undergo some kind of test to prove he isn't going to go on a killing spree - because being a bull breed it's obviously inevitable, yet my neighbours horrifically aggressive Cocker Spaniel wouldn't, because he's a spaniel?
> Which means their last Cocker Spaniel would also have been automatically deemed fine, despite the fact he tried to bite their daughters throat?
> 
> I'm not sure who wins...


No one does because just licencing some breeds and requiring education for those owners won't help the attacks caused by all the others. Do english bulldogs even feature in the bite stats as highly as say staffies?

Of course in that we have to include english bull terriers, who even when they were fighting dogs the owners prided themselves in them being family dogs as well. And boston terriers bred solely for fighting and ferocious in the pit. Now have the title american gentleman for a good reason.

It's like a certain person is saying I'm not racist BUT I want all black men in my neighbourhood to have criminal record checks. Well if they're not all criminal thugs then they won't object will they?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> It's like a certain person is saying I'm not racist BUT I want all black men in my neighbourhood to have criminal record checks. Well if they're not all criminal thugs then they won't object will they?


Actually, there is merit to what you say.

It's not at all what I meant, or how I intended it, but I see where you are coming from.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Actually, there is merit to what you say.
> 
> It's not at all what I meant, or how I intended it, but I see where you are coming from.


That's how people with THOSE breeds should be licensed, if they know their dogs will pass why would they mind does come across. And by lumping dogs together you get ridiculous things, pekingeses were used as personal guard dogs they could be classed in with dobermanns and mastiffs. Half the toy group in with the terriers and hounds as bred to kill. Size restrictions that include staffies are going to cover most breeds.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

ouesi said:


> We have a saying in the US, cant fix stupid. Seems apt here.
> 
> But Im a stubborn eternal optimist so Im going to keep educating and intervening when and where it makes sense to do so.
> Hey... beats beating my head on a brick wall right?


An old saying is "you can't put it where it won't go". Good luck.

This is absolutely dreadful news.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> *That's how people with THOSE breeds should be licensed, if they know their dogs will pass why would they mind does come across.* And by lumping dogs together you get ridiculous things, pekingeses were used as personal guard dogs they could be classed in with dobermanns and mastiffs. Half the toy group in with the terriers and hounds as bred to kill. Size restrictions that include staffies are going to cover most breeds.


I see what you mean.

Nothing was further from my mind or my intent. I genuinly regret if that was how people interpreted it.

I thought, and still do, that such legislation works FOR the dogs. That it protects them from falling into incompetent, irresponsible hands.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Paws for Reflection Before Jerking the KneeÂ |Â Beverley Cuddy


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

These tragic events are actually very rare but here we go again with one or two here wanting yet more legislation to try and prevent what could only have been prevented by people THINKING!

What is needed is not licensing, more laws or ownership tests but information. I have said it before and I will keep saying it! Public Information Ads on TV were a great idea. Put them on during or after Cory or Eastenders or Strictly so as many people as possible see them. 

People just need reminding about dangers they may have overlooked. And this includes relatives with Dogs looking after their Grandchildren or Babysitting for a friend.

The UK Government is really good at introducing knee jerk Legislation to try and solve a problem but really bad at just helping people avoid making tragic mistakes in the first place. Less law and more help would go a long way in my opinion.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I see what you mean.
> 
> Nothing was further from my mind or my intent. I genuinly regret if that was how people interpreted it.
> 
> I thought, and still do, that such legislation works FOR the dogs. That it protects them from falling into incompetent, irresponsible hands.


What's there to interpret? It seems black and white to me.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Out of interest does anyone have the actual figures for the number of deaths of children over the last 10 or 20 years from dog attacks and the relevant breeds involved?

I hate to say it but I think its burying our heads in the sand if we think any goverment will let more deaths go by without bringing in more legislation.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm sure we all want to see legislation preventing idiots from owning dogs.

If John Doe owns an entire dog and Jane Doe has a bitch in season and, between them, they decide it would be wonderful to 'let nature take it's course', (as we see all to often on here), and the result is six pups, which they then give to friends or sell in the pub to anybody who wants them, how is anyone going to prevent that?

How would anyone police such things?

You can put laws in place, but there will always be those, in any walk of life, who don't abide by the laws, don't care about them, otherwise, there would be no child abuse, no old ladies mugged in the street, no burglary, etc., etc.

I don't know the answer to this problem, but suggesting all Bull Breeds should be assessed is frankly ridiculous, in my opinion.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

hells85 said:


> Eventually a different breed will take over from the SBT and Pitt bull as the popular choice and the stats will change once more.


Stats are stats. They make no account for other factors which may be skewing the numbers, 10% of fatal driving accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Therefore 90% of fatal driving accidents are caused by sober drivers. Therefore we are all better off driving drunk. Just because you may be more likely to be killed by breed X doesn't necessarily make breed X any more dangerous than breed Y.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sweety said:


> I'm sure we all want to see legislation preventing idiots from owning dogs.
> 
> If John Doe owns an entire dog and Jane Doe has a bitch in season and, between them, they decide it would be wonderful to 'let nature take it's course', (as we see all to often on here), and the result is six pups, which they then give to friends or sell in the pub to anybody who wants them, how is anyone going to prevent that?
> 
> ...


I have 4 dogs, 2 are bull breeds....bullmastiff and EBT. saluki x and a mini dakkie...ask me which is the least trustworthy around kids even though he does really like them? and its the dakkie.

Dakkie weighs less than 12 pounds on a good day....come and have a look at my hoover where he bites it every time it gets switched on. For the size of him, he doesn't half pack a punch.

Had 3 dakkies over the years, last one died last summer aged 13....and she would kill anything she could get hold of and nothing was too big for her to have a go at....but she was in a league of her own where kids were concerned and loved all of them to bits.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Go on...show me the hordes of kids mauled to DEATH.....we are NOT talking about single dog bites, and you damn well know it...by the family's Lab or Retriever. I never said it NEVER happens - we all know there are rogue dogs in every breed. Nonetheless, The odds that THIS baby was mauled to death by a Labrador instead of a member of a Pitbull family are about 1: 10000000.
> 
> The following is a statistic of fatalities involving dogs for YOUR country - you are diligent record keepers - keep scrolling. Now please tell me WHICH breeds were most OFTEN involved in fatalities. ALL legislation is governed by risk assessment and how to best address and minimize risk.
> 
> ...


If you have an issue with my posting style, please report me to the mods or take it up in PM, but let's not let this thread derail in to personal squabbling.

I completely agree with the others that it is very distasteful how these threads end descending in to arguments about dog breeds. Let's return focus on to the very sobering and tragic topic of this thread - a child died.

To that end, let's also not make comments that are going to potentially lead to irresponsible human behavior. For example, comments like that the only reason a lab would kill is if the lab were abused as said in the piece I was responding to:


Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> The ONLY such incidents involving a breed like, say, a Labrador are those where the animal was so abused (in the case of the Labbie it had been starved for a week or more) that the dog was so hungry it went for the only food source it had seen in a long time...the child.


For one, as already stated, this is simply not the case. But more importantly, when we go so far as to label a breed "safe", we cause folks to take unnecessary risks with that dog thinking the dog will be okay because it is a "safe" breed.

There is no "safe" breed any more than there is a "dangerous" breed. I'm not saying this in defense of any breed, I'm saying this in protection of children.

People will and DO let their children harass the dog thinking it's okay because the dog is ___ breed. All I'm saying is, let's not add to this dangerous myth.

I also think it's important that we understand how statistics are collected. If you look carefully at the linked CDC information, you will see that for breed ID, witness accounts, and media reporting were used, and only a small percent was based on expert identification. 
IOW, all it takes is for a random person on scene to say "I saw the dog and it was a pitbull" for "pitbull" to get entered in to the database - even if the dog in question was a fluffy, long haired muttley mix breed.

So again let's return focus on the relevant topic - child safety with dogs. Again, looking at the CDC's recommendations for dog safety - also in the link above, not once in the entire document were there any breed-specific suggestions. The people who collect and analyze all the data on dog bites do not one time mention that breed may be a factor. I think this is significant.

If our goal is to keep children safe, breed specific legislation will not accomplish that.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Aside from protecting people, it ultimately protects the dogs! AND their owner. That's what enforcement of prudent legislation does. It is a win-win for everybody. EVERYBODY.


Let's quickly look at the media in terms of looking for bias towards types of dogs.. in this case in the US but I doubt the UK media is different:

The media takes its lumps over reporting about pit bulls - Fetch



> August 18, 2007 - A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man, sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article in the local paper.
> August 19, 2007 - A 16-month-old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed-breed dog.This attack was reported on twice by the local paper.
> August 20, 2007 - A six-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving a severe bite to the head by a medium-sized, mixed-breed dog. This incident was reported in one article in the local paper.
> August 21, 2007 - A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home by two pit bulls and was hospitalized with severe, but not fatal, injuries. This attack was reported in over 230 articles in national and international newspapers, as well as major television news networks including CNN, MSNBC and Fox.


The whole Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) thing is a publicity stunt. You are being sold a pack of lies to make you feel better, not actually having something in place which protects the public. I appreciate BSL sounds logical but it doesn't work in reality. Can you find any study which shows BSL actually works?

Although old Breed specific legislation failing globally - Charlotte Animal Rescue | Examiner.com

How about: Stop Canine Profiling - Calgary - Keys To Success

Edmonton city council does away with breed-specific bylaw | Home | Toronto Sun

Removing BSL and using the associated costs towards education would protect people and dogs far more effectively. Not as easy for the politicians to sell that though.

Such a sad event for the family and I wish incidents like these didn't exist.

What Causes Fatal Dog Attacks & How Can We Prevent Death by Dogs? is another article which is also interesting on this topic.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

If you can get hold of a copy, either online on onhand, then "The Pit Bull Placebo" book is enlightening.

Who would have thought that 100 years ago, Newfoundlands killed quite a lot of people? [Because they were kept as guard dogs then, and are not the breed we know now].

Just shows you how the relevance of breed can become skewed... breeds change.... people change... and so do what people expect, or are led to expect, or what the media tells them to expect, from certain dog breeds.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Out of interest does anyone have the actual figures for the number of deaths of children over the last 10 or 20 years from dog attacks and the relevant breeds involved?
> 
> I hate to say it but I think its burying our heads in the sand if we think any goverment will let more deaths go by without bringing in more legislation.


I have tried to find UK figures but haven't.
The CDC in the US keeps pretty accurate records, and by law all dog bites that require medical treatment have to be reported (rabies). So our stats as to the number of dog bites are pretty accurate.

However, statistics don't tell the whole story. For example (**alert** this on is gruesome) a teenage girl gave birth to an infant, freaked out, tossed the infant in to a yard with two mixed breed dogs, the dogs killed the newborn. This was listed as a canine homicide statistically. (*end of alert*)

There are also freak incidents like really unlucky bites on people who are already compromised, an elderly woman was nipped by an Akita, tried to get away, tripped and hit her head on a rock and died. This was listed as death resulting from dog bite. 
All of these types of cases get included in to the overall statistics.

So yes, when looking at statistics you have to be very careful. With dog bite fatalities being such a low number, it really does make sense to thoroughly examine each incident individually and make correlations from there and then from those correlations make recommendations for legislation.

For example, in many cities here in the US, they are now enacting anti-chaining laws. This is the sort of legislation that does make sense. We know from studying individual dog attack cases that chained (tethered) dogs are far more likely to have access to wandering toddlers, and that these dogs are also far more likely to become territorial, frustrated, and thus likely to bite without inhibition. So a law like this makes perfect sense. And hey, ho... it's not breed specific


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I have tried to find UK figures but haven't.
> The CDC in the US keeps pretty accurate records, and by law all dog bites that require medical treatment have to be reported (rabies). So our stats as to the number of dog bites are pretty accurate.
> 
> However, statistics don't tell the whole story. For example (**alert** this on is gruesome) a teenage girl gave birth to an infant, freaked out, tossed the infant in to a yard with two mixed breed dogs, the dogs killed the newborn. This was listed as a canine homicide statistically. (*end of alert*)
> ...


Thanks. I couldn't find UK figures either, just newspaper articles rather than anything official. I thought this article which I see has been linked to by Goblin above gave a pretty good summary of our recent cases with the breeds and circumstances although there have been a couple of further cases since this was written

What Causes Fatal Dog Attacks & How Can We Prevent Death by Dogs?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

What Causes Fatal Dog Attacks & How Can We Prevent Death by Dogs?

A: We need to ban grandmothers


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Two words!

HUMAN ERROR


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

cbcdesign said:


> I have said it before and I will keep saying it! Public Information Ads on TV were a great idea.


Well nobody likes a Rear-End Shunt.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Draconian legislation isn't effective, though. If you want to see effective dog legislation at work, have a look at the *Calgary Model and the success that has had. No BSL and no singling out breeds.*


I haven't heard of this - thanks, I'll try to get a look at it.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Gemmaa said:


> Okay, so my bull breed would have to undergo some kind of test to prove he isn't going to go on a killing spree - because being a bull breed it's obviously inevitable, yet my neighbours horrifically aggressive Cocker Spaniel wouldn't, because he's a spaniel?
> Which means their last Cocker Spaniel would also have been automatically deemed fine, despite the fact he tried to bite their daughters throat?
> 
> I'm not sure who wins...


I think they should be looking at who's holding the lead if two dogs have ended up aggressive.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

DT said:


> Two words!
> 
> HUMAN ERROR


Human idiocy, more like!


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thanks. I couldn't find UK figures either, just newspaper articles rather than anything official. I thought this article which I see has been linked to by Goblin above gave a pretty good summary of our recent cases with the breeds and circumstances although there have been a couple of further cases since this was written
> 
> What Causes Fatal Dog Attacks & How Can We Prevent Death by Dogs?


Yes, another good article, and again with the emphasis on examining each individual case and furthering our knowledge from there. Prevention based on what we do actually know, not false correlations.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

lostbear said:


> I think they should be looking at who's holding the lead if two dogs have ended up aggressive.


Or, look at the people holding the lead BEFORE the dogs get aggressive.....

It just isn't going to work, is it?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MerlinsMum said:


> Who would have thought that 100 years ago, Newfoundlands killed quite a lot of people? [Because they were kept as guard dogs then, and are not the breed we know now].


If you want to look back in history how about bloodhounds.. The Bloodhound Club with incidents like Three children eaten by bloodhounds in pursuit of *******
My understanding, although can't find it in a quick look was that there was a form of BSL against bloodhounds in the States. Do people now think of bloodhounds as dangerous dogs?



ouesi said:


> However, statistics don't tell the whole story. For example (**alert** this on is gruesome) a teenage girl gave birth to an infant, freaked out, tossed the infant in to a yard with two mixed breed dogs, the dogs killed the newborn. This was listed as a canine homicide statistically. (*end of alert*)


Another tragic incident listed somewhere is a child killed by a beagle which pulled on a lead which was around the child's neck.



> Aside from protecting people, it ultimately protects the dogs!


Tell that to the owners of the dogs listed In Memory | dedication to those we won't ever forget.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

As I managed to find it again, another interesting link is American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior Position statement on Breed-specific Legislation

I would be interested if those who support BSL could find any "dog knowledgeable" group which supports BSL. I know Beyond the Myth: A Film About Pit Bulls and Breed Discrimination (2010) (can't provide a link to the film itself) shows how even those responsible for enforcing BSL do not support it as a means to make the public safer.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I do not think it is just dog on human attacks that are the problem. It is the huge number of antisocial dogs from ones that bark all day to ones that attack other dogs or jump up on people. If I lived in a town and was not a dog owner I think I would want dogs banned 

But what about all the drink related deaths, including violence to children. All the car accidents including those caused by irresponsible and unsafe drivers.

There are plenty of driving related laws but it does not stop constant deaths and bad injuries.

Did the stupid knee jerk gun laws cut down on gun crime. All it did was make it difficult for those that had guns as a legitimate hobby and if more draconian dog laws come in as a knee jerk reaction to attacks it will not cut down on attacks but just make it hard for the responsible dog owner.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

Blitz said:


> I do not think it is just dog on human attacks that are the problem. It is the huge number of antisocial dogs from ones that bark all day to ones that attack other dogs or jump up on people. If I lived in a town and was not a dog owner I think I would want dogs banned
> 
> But what about all the drink related deaths, including violence to children. All the car accidents including those caused by irresponsible and unsafe drivers.
> 
> ...


Exactly. When we enact stupid laws that don't make any actual difference but instead punish the law-abiding, we not only lose credibility, but also lose the support of responsible dog owners.

Thats why I keep going back to lets really study these incidents and consider solutions from there. 
The anti-chaining laws being enacted in cities and towns here are a direct result of experts examining and studying dog attacks both on humans and other animals and officials listening to those recommendations. 
The laws are fairly new, so I dont know if there are any stats on how well they are working, but Ill definitely be watching.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Please don't laugh your @rs£ off - whatever will you talk through?


Don't worry, I will share yours.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm, I think it is safe to say that the UK has one of the most insubstantial legislation pertaining to dogs compared to most of Central Europe.


Living in Germany I don't see it that way. It's more a case that the idea taking more responsibility for their dogs is ingrained into them. You have to ask, why is it rescues in the UK are full yet the lone rescue (no kill) covering a city the size of Derby has a total of 8 dogs in it? It's not about regulations and nanny state laws, it's about people taking responsibility. It's not about trying to provide a scapegoat either.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Living in Germany I don't see it that way. It's more a case that the idea taking more responsibility for their dogs is ingrained into them. You have to ask, why is it rescues in the UK are full yet the lone rescue (no kill) covering a city the size of Derby has a total of 8 dogs in it? It's not about regulations and nanny state laws, it's about people taking responsibility. It's not about trying to provide a scapegoat either.


But how do you get people to take responsibility?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But how do you get people to take responsibility?


One way is forcing them to look at themselves, not a scapegoat as the reason things happen.

Although way out of the scope of this topic, it's not just about dogs is it where this occurs. Are we teaching people to be responsible for themselves and their pets or are we teaching people as a society to look at placing blame on others wherever possible?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Yes I get that and sorry I'm not trying to be awkward - I just don't know how society goes about getting people who do not take responsibility for themselves/their children/their pets to start doing so.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But how do you get people to take responsibility?


If you left your child unattended in the road and it was hit by a vehicle and killed, presumably you would be prosecuted as your negletful actions caused the death of the child. Personally I cannot see the difference, if you negligently leave your child in a position to be attacked by a dog then you should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

I don't know how anyone can claim lack of knowledge, its just common sense


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Unfortunately common sense is not that common, it is that fact that keeps me in a job.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes I get that and sorry I'm not trying to be awkward - I just don't know how society goes about getting people who do not take responsibility for themselves/their children/their pets to start doing so.


I think thats exactly the frustration and where those of us saying whoa... lets not rush to make more laws are coming from.

Were coming off another summer of way too many babies dying in hot cars because idiot parents cant figure out not to leave their babies alone in a closed up vehicle in the middle of summer in full sun while they run in to the store for a pack of cigarettes.

I mean, what hope is there if you cant get people to understand or even care about something like their baby dying in a hot car?

And then people say there should be a law against leaving kids in cars. Really? That needs to be spelled out for people? To me thats like those warning messages on irons do not iron clothes while wearing them. Seriously? People cant figure that one out on their own?

Like I said earlier on... CFS - cant fix stupid.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

DoodlesRule said:


> If you left your child unattended in the road and it was hit by a vehicle and killed, presumably you would be prosecuted as your negletful actions caused the death of the child. Personally I cannot see the difference, if you negligently leave your child in a position to be attacked by a dog then you should be prosecuted for manslaughter.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can claim lack of knowledge, its just common sense


Surely they can already be prosecuted under the DDA for that with up to 14 years in prison. So either the threat of that doesn't work or the general dog owning public are not aware of it or they just don't think it will ever happen to them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> they just don't think it will ever happen to them.


You've just said it yourself unfortunately.

Education in terms of basic dog body language to all kids would be one place to start though. Basics, how to approach a dog and owner, asking if it's okay to touch a dog for example. I think people would be surprised by how much additional information is absorbed over time. Rome wasn't built in a day, start small with the basics and with children.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> If you want to look back in history how about bloodhounds.. The Bloodhound Club with incidents like Three children eaten by bloodhounds in pursuit of *******
> My understanding, although can't find it in a quick look was that there was a form of BSL against bloodhounds in the States. Do people now think of bloodhounds as dangerous dogs?
> 
> Another tragic incident listed somewhere is a child killed by a beagle which pulled on a lead which was around the child's neck.
> ...




These accounts are heartbreaking - and very worrying to anyone who has a staffie or staffie x, never mind a pit bull. Poor, poor dogs - and the behaviour of many police and their attitude to the dogs they have seized is deplorable.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

Goblin said:


> You've just said it yourself unfortunately.
> 
> Education in terms of basic dog body language to all kids would be one place to start though. Basics, how to approach a dog and owner, asking if it's okay to touch a dog for example. I think people would be surprised by how much additional information is absorbed over time. Rome wasn't built in a day, start small and with the basics and with children.


Education on body language is a really good one to push on the education front. 
Ive done many talks and presentations on dog/kid safety that include visuals of what dogs are trying to tell us. IME kids get dog body language way better than we give them credit for, the problem is, the parents saying nah, hes fine and the children un-learn what their original instincts were telling them.

If we can access as many kids as possible and have those dog savvy kids continue to spread their knowledge, I think that can only be a good thing.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Don't worry, I will share yours.


I only use mine for nature's dedicated purpose - and there's no way I'm letting you anywhere near it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

lostbear said:


> I only use mine for nature's dedicated purpose - and there's no way I'm letting you anywhere near it.


Okay, you and SB need to quit with the love-fest because youre both creating mental images that I just dont have enough brain bleach for...


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

There probably is enough legislation in place now, with the added DDA rules, etc. but they will only have an impact if people actually start to be punished for these things.

If the owner of a dog that kills actually has the book thrown at them with the full force of the law and that means they go to prison, then maybe others will realise that they HAVE to take responsibility too or the same could happen to them.

For some people it's not about doing what's right, because it is right it's more that if they don't do it they will be severely affected.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Yesterday I was reading about a case in the USA where the dog owner has been convicted of murder, because the dogs killed a jogging passerby. The owner knew the dogs were..."aggressive" ....apparently, and should have had more control over them.

Dog owner convicted of murder in fatal mauling

Whether the dogs were actually "pit bulls" or not is anyone's guess, in my opinion. In the media, if a dog attacks, it is a "pit bull". The prejudice is insane.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

lorilu said:


> Yesterday I was reading about a case in the USA where the dog owner has been convicted of murder, because the dogs killed a jogging passerby. The owner knew the dogs were..."aggressive" ....apparently, and should have had more control over them.
> 
> Dog owner convicted of murder in fatal mauling
> 
> Whether the dogs were actually "pit bulls" or not is anyone's guess, in my opinion. In the media, if a dog attacks, it is a "pit bull". The prejudice is insane.


Weren't the people involved in the Diane Whipple case convicted of 2nd degree murder?

We've had several cases of owners being charged and convicted with murder. One (I'll have to look it up) where a man held his girlfriend/wife while commanding his dog to attack her. She died and he was charged with murder. I believe he got 15 years? I have to go find that one.

The one that was mentioned here about the baby in the swing with the dad sleeping off whatever drugs/alcohol he was on? Dad is serving time IIRC.


----------



## maybe13 (Sep 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Education on body language is a really good one to push on the education front.
> Ive done many talks and presentations on dog/kid safety that include visuals of what dogs are trying to tell us. IME kids get dog body language way better than we give them credit for, the problem is, the parents saying nah, hes fine and the children un-learn what their original instincts were telling them.
> 
> If we can access as many kids as possible and have those dog savvy kids continue to spread their knowledge, I think that can only be a good thing.


That's interesting - but there does seem to be a problem with very small children (pre-school age) not understanding dog body language. There's an ongoing (?) project at Lincoln Uni in the UK looking at this, I understand, especially the tendency for very young children to misinterpret a dog's snarl as a smile.

Teaching children to stay safe around dogs

I agree that education is the key - and when it comes to the very young, it's going to be the parents who need it. I had an experience the other week with my own exuberant eight month old dog. I always ask her to sit (and take treats) while children/prams pass. I was doing this as a mother with two youngsters approached. The little girl was loudly declaring that she was scared of my dog as they approached, and the mother instructed her child to 'run past'. So the child ran past squealing and waving her arms - behaving like prey in other words. Luckily my dog behaved and stayed sitting. But it was possibly the worst advice I've witnessed.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

maybe13 said:


> That's interesting - but there does seem to be a problem with very small children (pre-school age) not understanding dog body language. There's an ongoing (?) project at Lincoln Uni in the UK looking at this, I understand, especially the tendency for very young children to misinterpret a dog's snarl as a smile.
> 
> Teaching children to stay safe around dogs
> 
> I agree that education is the key - and when it comes to the very young, it's going to be the parents who need it. I had an experience the other week with my own exuberant eight month old dog. I always ask her to sit (and take treats) while children/prams pass. I was doing this as a mother with two youngsters approached. The little girl was loudly declaring that she was scared of my dog as they approached, and the mother instructed her child to 'run past'. So the child ran past squealing and waving her arms - behaving like prey in other words. Luckily my dog behaved and stayed sitting. But it was possibly the worst advice I've witnessed.


And this is the problem isn't it? The best time and place to educate is probably kids in schools. But while that would give adults in future the skills and knowledge it doesn't do anything to address the problem at the moment. It's the adults who are responsible for both kids and dogs at the end of the day.

And yeah, I've had several incidents like you mention. Not just with kids either. I've had grown adults screeching and flapping and dancing around because my dog has looked in their direction from across the street  I have a lot of respect for our neighbours, their kids are terrified of Spen and they're doing their best to teach them there's no need to be so frightened (I think they're frightened themselves though to be honest) rather than feeding their fear the way so many seem to.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Education on body language is a really good one to push on the education front.
> Ive done many talks and presentations on dog/kid safety that include visuals of what dogs are trying to tell us. IME kids get dog body language way better than we give them credit for, the problem is, the parents saying nah, hes fine and the children un-learn what their original instincts were telling them.
> 
> If we can access as many kids as possible and have those dog savvy kids continue to spread their knowledge, I think that can only be a good thing.


good post....but when we have parents who don't understand body language we have a really big problem.

Even bigger problem and I am not really sure why....when somebody has a dog that is dangerous( for whatever reason) many of them pass the dog on and some even lie about the reasons etc for rehoming.

Over 20 years ago I had a dog PTS because I felt he was getting too unpredictable and he was too big and in a word had become dangerous. I posted recently on PF and some agreed with my actions and some were totally against it...like I didn't do all I could etc and I should have tried harder and longer.....or maybe waited til the dog did attack a person and do them serious harm or even kill them.

I think also maybe cost could come into PTS any dog...and cold blooded cowardliness also plays a part.

My dog was a beautiful fit and healthy Bullmastiff aged 5 years old that we had from a puppy and it was a heartbreaking decision but even now, so far down the road, I still think we did the only thing we could have done.Even now, it is a sad thing that happened.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> Over 20 years ago I had a dog PTS because I felt he was getting too unpredictable and he was too big and in a word had become dangerous. I posted recently on PF and some agreed with my actions and some were totally against it...like I didn't do all I could etc and I should have tried harder and longer.....or maybe waited til the dog did attack a person and do them serious harm or even kill them.


Brave decision but one which comes along with the word responsibility. Responsibility is partly looking at options and not always assuming the best will happen.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Brave decision but one which comes along with the word responsibility. Responsibility is partly looking at options and not always assuming the best will happen.


It was a heartbreaking decision...which I still stand by but even the so called enlightened dog people on PFs were undecided if I did the right thing or not.

I did not pass my dog along.....which would have been the easiest option.

I was convinced he was a tragedy waiting to happen.

After events, my husband came across a Bullmastiff rescue( totally by accident) and he told them what had happened to our dog. The rescues first question was who bred the dog and then told him that they had had several dogs taken to them with similar stories and all bred by this breeder.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> It was a heartbreaking decision...which I still stand by but even the so called enlightened dog people on PFs were undecided if I did the right thing or not.


Thing is, it's not anyone elses decision to make is it? Or anyones place to second guess your choices. It may well be that someone else in a different situation with a different set up could have managed the dog safely. But they didn't have the dog. And passing on a dog with what I'm guessing were pretty serious issues isn't the responsible thing to do.

We all have our limits when it comes to what we feel capable of or willing to deal with at the end of the day and there are, imo, fates far worse than a humane death. Not all problems are fixable, not all dogs are saveable. It's time we stopped thinking they were. And I think it's much easier to say what you would do if faced with a particular behavioural issue than it is to actually live with that issue day in, day out, to have the worry of something happening if your management fails.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Thing is, it's not anyone elses decision to make is it? Or anyones place to second guess your choices. It may well be that someone else in a different situation with a different set up could have managed the dog safely. But they didn't have the dog. And passing on a dog with what I'm guessing were pretty serious issues isn't the responsible thing to do.
> 
> We all have our limits when it comes to what we feel capable of or willing to deal with at the end of the day and there are, imo, fates far worse than a humane death. Not all problems are fixable, not all dogs are saveable. It's time we stopped thinking they were. And I think it's much easier to say what you would do if faced with a particular behavioural issue than it is to actually live with that issue day in, day out, to have the worry of something happening if your management fails.


This, totally.

If a person driving a car under the influence of alcohol had an accident and killed someone, would they not face a prison sentence?

Therefore, should an owner of a dog that was known to be aggressive and unpredictable but who did not take all sensible and reasonable precautions (whatever they may be) to keep that dog away from a small child face just as harsh a punishment?

So many of the dogs involved in these tragedies have been known to be a serious threat (regardless of their breed btw).


----------



## hells85 (Feb 10, 2014)

diefenbaker said:


> Stats are stats. They make no account for other factors which may be skewing the numbers, 10% of fatal driving accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Therefore 90% of fatal driving accidents are caused by sober drivers. Therefore we are all better off driving drunk. Just because you may be more likely to be killed by breed X doesn't necessarily make breed X any more dangerous than breed Y.


Yeah that was my point.... BSL is no good because no breed is inherently more dangerous than another, various dogs become popular at various times and during those times those particular breeds end up killing people, eventually the fads change and its different breeds doing the killing. SO why have breed specific legislation instead of just aggressive dog/idiot owner legislation?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> This, totally.
> 
> If a person driving a car under the influence of alcohol had an accident and killed someone, would they not face a prison sentence?
> 
> ...


yes...totally agree but its just how far do you let things go before taking action?

I would not rehome a dog unless my personal circumstances change so the rehoming would be down to me and no fault of the dog.

There have been several tragic stories like this poor baby right through this year and from what I remember, all done by recently homed dogs.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> Over 20 years ago I had a dog PTS because I felt he was getting too unpredictable and he was too big and in a word had become dangerous. I posted recently on PF and some agreed with my actions and some were totally against it...like I didn't do all I could etc and I should have tried harder and longer.....or maybe waited til the dog did attack a person and do them serious harm or even kill them.


You did the right thing - I had to do the same with an over-anxious staffie which became seriously DA when she was attacked by two other dogs. We tried everything we could think of - training classes, behaviourist, sedatives etc to overcome the problem, but she went for every dog she saw (though she was fine with our other dog and our cats and rabbits). The kids were of an age where they ran in and out of the house, leaving doors open in their wake, and twice she got out and went for other dogs - I realised that someone's pet was going to be killed if I didn't let her go.

I could have tried to re-home her, but staffs are 10-a-penny in shelters, and I couldn't bear to think of her (she was a sweet and very affectionate dog with people) languishing in a concrete cell, or being passed from hand-to-hand if people found they couldn't manage her. I had her PTS - it was horrible - a beautiful, healthy dog and I killed her. I still feel guilty about it, but I still know I did what had to be done.


----------

