Is there a thread about the poor 5 week old baby yet? [warning, distressing content]

[thewinehasgonetomyhead]

Standing in the kitchen with my two DD almost in tears:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46565175

staffies are not dangerous dogs, well no more dangerous than other breeds,

And yet it's always the Staffies that go for my dog when out walking. Every. Single. Time.
I wouldn't trust my shih tzu alone with a baby let alone one of those mothers 😡
Yes I know it's the owner's fault not the dog's blah blah blah but a badly trained retriever/pug/spaniel is not as likely to attack a baby as a sbt.

we can never know what dogs are thinking

too right you can't
Even the fact that you think the dog is thinking is worrying

dogs don't think, they don't weigh things up, or reason, they don't evaluate the consequences of their actions or make moral choices or reflect on their behaviour
Then again this description presumably also fits many dog owners, so I suppose we can see where the idea that dogs think like humans come from, but it's more that some humans at the mental capacity of a dog

Not to be blunt, but for everyone who says “I never leave my toddler/small child alone with the dog”- well, that’s irrelevant isn’t it? Because if a reasonably sized dog (like a staff or Rottweiler etc) decides to go for a baby the only difference to whether they’re being supervised or not is that you’d get to watch it happen.

The point of supervision is not to pull an attacking dog off, but to stop anything happening in the first place. For instance, a small child chasing a dog, prodding or even kicking the dog. A small child taking the dog's toys away or sticking hands in food. A small child who cannot recognise or heed a dog showing signs of stress (eg turning head away, tail between legs, yawning when not tired, showing whites of eyes, ears back and - as a last resort - growling). A boisterous dog could knock a toddler over or give some overenthusiastic but friendly licking. An adult needs to be present to stop each causing the other stress that could escalate.

Staffies are also a breed that appeals to people who like to believe that they are "hard", which again leads to poorly behaved dogs and poorly bred dogs, as these people haven't a clue how to train an animal.

This.

Awful story. Poor baby.

Dogs should never, ever be left along with small children. I have four very well trained and biddable dogs who have excellent temperaments but there is no way I would risk them being left with children.

This is a dreadful tragedy that was sadly all too avoidable as these incidents so often are. Too many people buy dogs and do not understand them - they are complex social creatures who will warn and warn before they do something very aggressive (usually) but people do not listen to them. Heartbreaking.

Sad, however, to see the usual MN hate of dogs and their owners come crawling out of the woodwork yet again.

I think it is a little naive to say that staffies are no more dangerous than other breeds.

There instinct to attack may not be any more dangerous, but they are built to be powerful and when they bite they lock and it is very difficult to get them off.

I agree other dogs may be more prone to attack but may not have the power to cause as much harm or even death.

As I said this should not be a Staffies are evil thread, but we need to be realistic about the potential of these animals.

Dogs should not be left alone around vulnerable people, full stop!

People who think they are hard are also very likely to be in families that are dysfunctional or chaotic it's a recipe For disaster

Not to be blunt, but for everyone who says “I never leave my toddler/small child alone with the dog”- well, that’s irrelevant isn’t it? Because if a reasonably sized dog (like a staff or Rottweiler etc) decides to go for a baby the only difference to whether they’re being supervised or not is that you’d get to watch it happen.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking, even if you are there, how the hell are you going to stop it? it's a split second! surely the only safe thing is for kids never to be in the same room as the dog? but this is not what dog owners do, is it?

I used to have a very nervous Collie, she was gorgeous, I loved her, but she was flighty, out of fear mainly, not aggression, still, I would never have her around my kids if I still had her now.

I have cats, yes, they can scratch or bite (mine never have), I supervise, but with the cats, If they went for my kids I could stop them quickly and effectively, in fact, now they are bigger, my kids could stop them themselves before too much damage was done. It's just not the same.

So a person who thinks it's bad to let your dog destroy your baby is a dog hater
really??

I'm a cat person, I do leave ds alone with them in the room I I'm nipping up to get something but this is only after a few months when I know they don't pay him much heed. I would never leave them alone in a room where he is sleeping and never for an extended amount of time.

My family have a soppy but hyperactive dog (not a staff) and we are all in agreement that she and ds are never left alone together.

It doesn't matter how well you know an animal, they are animals with instincts at the end of the day And it's unfair to expect more than that of them. I'm not in any way blaming the parents of course, we all have momentary lapses in judgement (although obviously the exact circumstances are not known. They've suffered an absolutely tragic loss and I can't even think about being in that situation).

Staffs are gorgeous dogs when raised correctly, in fact I'd have one if it weren't for our cats. But their reputation stems from the wrong type of owner using them as a status dog and incorrect training of them.

Wordthe was that aimed at me?

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking, even if you are there, how the hell are you going to stop it?

AvocadosBeforeMortgages wrote a perfect reply to this upthread. I never leave my toddler alone with the dog because when I am there, I can prevent anything from happening in the first place. My dog wouldn't randomly attack him for no reason. But he might lash out if my son were to go up and poke his fingers in his eyes! Which is the kind of stupid thing a toddler might do if I wasn't there to tell him not to.

too right you can't
Even the fact that you think the dog is thinking is worrying
dogs don't think, they don't weigh things up, or reason, they don't evaluate the consequences of their actions or make moral choices or reflect on their behaviour

Dogs tell us a great deal about what they're thinking through their body language, and it's entirely possible for lay people to learn the fundamentals and beyond.

Dogs absolutely do think, and make choices; with training they learn to make the right ones without even being asked. For instance, my dog knows, after training, not to pull on the lead and he now makes the choice not to pull without me asking.

They do evaluate their options and weigh up options - for instance, when I ask my dog to come back to me when he's doing something particularly fun I'll often watch him glance at me, glance at the fun thing and then decide coming back to me is more valuable to him because he'll get a delicious treat. Dogs think and problem solve - mine has many puzzle toys where he has to work out how to get the treats out.

You are, however, right that they don't make moral choices, feel guilt or reflect on their behaviour. That's not how dogs operate.

I take it you've never owned a dog before

dogs don't think, they don't weigh things up, or reason, they don't evaluate the consequences of their actions or make moral choices or reflect on their behaviour
Then again this description presumably also fits many dog owners, so I suppose we can see where the idea that dogs think like humans come from, but it's more that some humans at the mental capacity of a dog

Wordthe Just in case you were aiming your post at me, yours is is the kind of uneducated and rude post I was referring to.

The original intention of the Dangerous Dogs Act was to ban more breeds, such as the Staffordshire bull terrier, and place additional controls and requirements on the ownership of others, such as German shepherds.

This would’ve saved countless injuries and deaths, but MPs caved into pressure groups and so-called 'animal welfare' groups. This included such groups as the much-discredited RSPCA, despite the fact that, as a registered charity, it is supposedly barred from political lobbying.

The biggest argument was that it would result in unnecessary suffering and 'hardship' because animal lovers would rather destroy their own animals than comply with a few basic safety procedures.

Nasty underclass violent people like owning Staffies.
Above mentioned people are more likly to be shit parents.

Good lord.

itsaboojum that is utter nonsense.

I know of a couple who were attacked by their ‘baby’ staffie whilst they were sleeping (they had been drinking/eating takeaway - they think the dog was confused by the smell). They were both horrifically injured and the dog had to be shot.

I think if we were to look at the socioeconomic backgrounds involved in cases of destruction of a child by a dog we would see that you are quite right @Sushimonster

Why on earth was a tiny baby left alone near a dangerous dog, I read the thing has been put down and the parents done for child neglect well good on both counts, how many more children have to die before common sense avails and dogs are kept away from babies

Well what a huge surprise that you agree with such an offensive and ignorant viewpoint.

So staffie owners are more likely to be nasty, violent, underclass, shit parents? Really?

There instinct to attack may not be any more dangerous, but they are built to be powerful and when they bite they lock and it is very difficult to get them of

Lock jaw is a complete myth. They have strong jaws but they aren't 'lockable'. There is no mechanism in their jaw structure to keep the jaw closed.

Staffs aren't considered a dangerous breed.

HTH.

Well, not really, since there is considerable public debate as to whether they are and should be classified as high.