A fourteen year old girl has been killed...(438 Posts)
...mauled to death by four dogs.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
It is absolutey horrible,but too many people are jumping into conclusion.
From what I just read here I am really surprised how many of you are quite uneducated when it come to judge dogs vs owners.It looks like none of you know those breeds or even have/had a dog yet everybody is ready to comment,in a nasty way sometimes...
I have both breeds,those deemed 'agressive' and those who suppose to be 'gentle',tiny little yorkie type,which I am worried the most as she is the one that will bite.
The rather large staffie is a picture of calmness,really gentle and considerate and he is the one who was bitten by dogs you mentioned as 'safe' :inc labrador,golden retriver,fox terrier,jack russel.Petrifying experience for me as an owner,as my dog even big and 'dangerous' (in people's eyes) never tried to retaliate.
So those who say it is NOT a dog it is an owner are right,plus in this case it was PACK of dogs,who had no training and daily exercise..it was jus a matter of time for this to happen.
PS.For those thinking this type of dogs are owned by 'morons',we both finished unis...
Im new to mumsnet... First of all R.I.P to Jade & my thoughts are with the family and friends at this time. But after reading many different story's and peoples opinions The owner did lock her dogs away and people were informed that she was weary of one of the dogs 'the pack leader' so why has a girl entered the home on her own when no one is there. The dogs on instinct will protect there territory and the pack leader will bite first the others in the dog world do what they are told. Can i just add the fifth dog was a shiz su (sorry my spelling is awful) not a dangerous breed. I don't think you can really point the blame at any one in this case but the owner should have taken better precautions if she believed her dogs were dangerous and the neighbors postmen etc should have complained! But so many people are now talking about banning these breeds I have two children and a staffordshire bull terrier if i saw any kind of aggression he would be gone i love my dog but my children will always come first but he has a very calm and gentle nature. Banning a breed will not solve anything but people need educating before owning powerful breeds we also have a 13year old staffordshire bull terrier in 13 years she has never put a foot wrong all she wants is love!! Other dogs do attack just people dont report them or they do and the media dosent report it as they are desperate to deem all are dogs dangerous. What has happened is a tragedy and being a mum i could not imagine the pain i would feel if this was my child but owning five dogs in such a small house and never walking them in my eyes is silly especially four very powerful breeds. I just hope that the law changes in a good way and makes the world a safer place for us all to bring our children up.
Lindsey (Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training, Blackwell, 2001) has a very comprehensive survey of the literature on dog aggression and the two characteristics that stand out in dog to human aggression are entire male dogs and a genetic history of aggression.
He also notes that statistically the breed trends for aggression vary depending on the popularity of breeds with a certain type of owner who wants a 'matcho' dog, suggesting that it is not Dobermans, GSDs, Rotties or pitt-bulls that become progressively more or less aggressive, but rather that particular breeds become more or less popular with a kind of owner who selects and reinforces aggressive behaviours to the detriment of socialisation and reward-based training.
The problem is man made so the solution should focus on us not the dogs, with more education to ensure more responsible breeding and ownership of dogs.
Oops, maybe I should have flipped the thread rather than only reading the first half of the replies. Have just seen Bakingtins post. I completely agree with it.
I haven't read every post yet, so sorry if I'm repeating, but I believe that licencing is the way forward.
Every dog should be bred by a licenced breeder and sold only to those with a licence.
The money raised by licences would pay for the administration and policing, similar to the DVLA.
It should not be restricted to specific breeds. There should be a limit of 2 or 3 dogs per household.
Dogs should have check ups every year, without which the licence cannot be renewed, similar to the way in which MOTs are needed for car tax.
I own a lovely Golden Retriever and have children. I word never leave my toddler alone in a room or the garden with my dog.
Licences should be free for dogs for deaf or blind people. Everybody else pays. No exception.
That was very well put Bakingtins. Nice to hear a professional viewpoint from someone who works with animals and I agree that would be the way forward with dog wardens.
I'm a vet, and had an interesting discussion with my boss today about how the 'dangerous' breeds have evolved over his 40 years in practice. It used to be German Shepherds then Rotties and Dobermanns, now it's SBTs and Bull breeds. I agree with several posters who've said the latest 'hard' breed is the Akita/ husky/ malamute. For this reason banning breeds is pointless. There are many 'staffs' around that have more than a whiff of pit bull about them. The only people that have benefitted from banning pit bulls are the lawyers arguing the toss about what constitutes one.
On the general scale of how wary I'd be of an unknown dog, Staffies would be low on the list, most of them are everybody's pal. Much more likely to be bitten by a Collie or a terrier. Part of the problem is the breed characteristic of being tenacious though - other breeds might nip but would not continue to attack.
The pack mentality is a massive part of the problem, it's only 'discredited' as someone else mentioned, as a theory about dogs asserting authority in a human household, a group of dogs will act co-operatively in ways a single dog wouldn't.
I welcome compulsory microchipping of all dogs but doubt it will make much difference unless it is vigorously enforced. I think the return of expensive dog licensing, compulsory basic training for all dogs
owners , licenses being more expensive for entire animals specifically selected for breeding with all others being neutered in their first year, compulsory 3rd party insurance and much heavier penalties for the owners when these terrible tragedies occur is long overdue. Enforcement to be funded through revenues from dog licenses. I agree that only the owners who are responsible in the first place will comply, but if funds are used to pay for more dog wardens then the irresponsible owners can be better policed. Our council currently has a single dog warden covering a large area - totally inadequate for the size of the task.
I am sick of the attitude that it is a right to own an animal and when something goes wrong it is up to the vet/ the PDSA/ the RSPCA / a rescue to pick up the pieces. Owning a pet is a privilege, not a right, and comes with heavy responsibilities. If toughening up means people can't thoughtlessly acquire 5 dogs and then breed more - good.
Moomins I agree with you too, but whilst so many idiots in this country put human life on the same level as their dogs then more people will be attacked/killed and nothing will change. When will our government act? Dogs in suburban areas should be on leads at all times and nobody should have staffies/mastiffs/alsatians, they are guard dogs for a reason ffs, I don't care how fluffy/nice the owner thinks they (always uttered by the owner after the latest attack on a child) are when they are a threat to anyone else and although I don't trust any dog, these are the dogs responsible for attacks/deaths.
We have farm dogs in the family. They sleep in the barn, run about all day and have a healthy, happy life. They are not cooped up in a house or small yard 24hours a day, with bugger all stimulation or other animals for company.
City/town dogs are, quite often, either pampered poochies or guard dogs kept by idiots who have no idea how to control animals.
They are not little people in furry coats!
jelly you're so right, the trouble is apathy with many dog owners. My parents have always had dogs, but they maintain they are just that and people come first.
There are two sets of dogs near me who make me nervous. Two staffy type dogs always in the front yard who bark viciously whenever anyone walks past. Owner usually not there but if she is just grunts and doesn't seem bothered about anyone but herself. Other house the two big german Shepherds escape out their unfenced house and come running up and bark and anyone who happens to be walking past on the pavement. They snarl, circle and bark. Happened to me and the kids once we were terrified for a few minuted until finally the woman came out and shouted them in. I hate walking past these two houses, it is so unfair that people like this are allowed to own potentially dangerous dogs just so they can have a 'guard dog'.
DH was just out on a cycle ride in the country and came across two aggressive dogs (he said they were terriers of some sort, but not SBDs) in the road who chased him. He shouted as loudly as he could at them, climbed off his bike, shook it at them and they backed off. Then a little further along were two young girls walking their westie and they said the dogs wouldn't let them past so they were waiting for them to go. DH offered to walk back that way with his bike between them and the dogs if necessary. They went for DH and he yelled at them again and threw his bike towards them. Anyway, the owner came out of his house and had a go at DH and the girls! DH was fuming and said after what happened to this poor young girl in the news people like him should bloody well control their dogs and it isn't just walkers and cyclists, but motorists using these country lanes, his dogs shouldn't be on the loose. The guy walked off. Says it all. Makes my blood boil. However, the young girls (and their westie!) were really grateful to DH.
TheRealFellatio makes a very good point, that I always wonder about when there's a report of staffies being involved in an attack. 50+ years ago, before they had any status as 'hard' dogs, my great aunt was a staffie breeder. When I was a child she had retired and just had her 3 which weren't replaced as they got old and died. Her staffies were tiny, stockier than my westie but no bigger. As a child (7ish) I could pick them up and carry them with one arm. I'm not sure that the huge staffies we see today are actually staffies.
I've just been on the owner's facebook photos of her dogs, which she has unwisely left open to public comments. Some of her comments at the time of putting the photos up suggest that she was not deliberately breeding dangerous dogs, but more ignorant and a bit deluded about them. The large white evil looking one (the one I think is a dogo )is explicitly mentioned as having aggressive behaviour haha (albeit mild at the time- growling and "being a bully") back in September last year. There is a picture of an extremely wary looking staffie who apparently was looking like that because "he'd just woken up".
Not a dangerous woman, but a stupid and misguided one, yes. She is getting an immense pasting in her (open) comments on the photo of dogo.
yes exactly. Just look at the designer dogs trade. none of those are KC registered because they are crossbreeds.
If I ruled the world newtering of all animals (cats included) would be compulsory as there are far too many of them. But reality is that this is completely unenforceable, because you can't legislate for animals that get out during a season or someone who has more than one who happen to breed before the female can be spayed and that's before we get to those who deliberately bring their animals together because they "want the dog to experience motherhood," (yes, I have seen this said on here, for instance,) or because "kittens are cute and it's lovely for the dc."
Duchesse. I don't leave dog poo on arable land.
The trouble is, backyard breeding of puppies and kittens can be big bucks that go completely under the radar for of the tax man for people who are otherwise unlikely to have a decent job. It involves precious little effort or brains on their part, and even without KC reg papers a good puppy can go for hundreds.
but with all these proposed measures to prevent these dog attacks, no-one has as yet come up with a suggestion as to how the government is going to afford to pay for them to be enforced.
In theory you make registered breeding only legal, with registered breeders having to microchip their puppies before selling them. the microchip would, in theory, then become the dog licence. but how do you enforce that? fact is you can't. There will always be people who will allow their dogs to become pregnant, even if you make newtering compulsory, because you shouldn't spay a dog until it has had its first season, and the recommendation now is to not newter male dogs until they are two. So the unscrupulous will still allow their bitch to get pregnant during her first season just for the cute puppy factor and there is absolutely no way to prevent that from happening. And there is absolutely no politician in this country who would bring in a law that said any dogs bred outside of licencing laws should be destroyed, that would never make it through parliament. So now you already have unlicenced puppies born to a non licenced breeder, except you can't necessarily prove it.
There do need to be penalties for owners whose dogs inflict injury on to people, but we simply do not have the financial resources in this country to bring in schemes which call for compulsory training/breeding regulation/licencing etc, and to implement such a law would just be paying lip service to the anti dog brigade, but it would never be enforced. in much the same way as the using mobile phones while driving law has on the whole been a worthless effort.
I thought at least one of those dogs looked like a dogo argentino.
Can I just chip in and say that you absolutely should not leave dog faeces lying around in fields either! Farmers growing food crops get very upset about this as any pathogens will not have had time to fully break down in the short life cycle of a vegetable crop, meaning that there will be dog poo on your turnips and carrots. An arable field is a not an open-air dog loo.
When I lived in a HA flat you were not allowed dogs, and iirc council flats in my area was the same, i know so many people flouted it that eventually they called an amnesty and tried to stop anyone new having dogs, it didnt work, so many laws need bringing in and enforced, but I can't see the logistics of it working.
Speaking recently to a local policeman in my area as regard to some nuisance/scary owners and their dogs n my local park, he said that the dogs would attack policeman on command so they were scared confronting these people, very worrying really.
Join the discussion
Please login first.