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

Aggressiveness toward humans was removed from the genepool, not encouraged.

Do you think fighting dogs were kept like housepets when they weren't working?

Staffies were bred to bite the noses of bulls in a baiting ring and hang on with all their might. Whatever the temperament of an individual dog, it has an innate prey drive, which has been selectively bred over the generations to strengthen whatever part of that drive suited the breed's purpose - eg chasing, biting, fetching. Staffies were bred to bite, that's why their jaws are strong. Sorry if you don't like that and love your own staffie

This is true but it doesn't explain the full picture. Staffies gained their reputation of being great with people and children because of this selective breeding.

Bull baiting and fighting breeds needed to be handled by people (vets/owners/referees) when they were in a highly aroused state, a state in which many, if not most dogs, would bite.

Because of this SBTs who showed any sign of aggression towards a person was not bred from. This breeding went on for decades. That's why SBT are regarded as bombproof. They have been bred to be accepting of human touch no matter how aroused they are.

What happened here was solely the fault of whoever decided to leave the baby on the floor with two unsupervised animals. It could have happened with any breed and has in fact happened recently with JRTs, Northern breeds and Mastiffs.

Frequency this makes no sense. If they were bred to be safe with adult, experienced dog handlers (ie top dogs in dog terms) that doesn't make them safe with babies.

Poor little mite!

I can't comment on dogs around children because I'd be flamed on here.

I don't like dogs. I was bitten in the face by a black poodle as a toddler, so I'm told.

top dogs in dog terms

Alpha theory was discredited years ago by David Mech et al aka the person who came up with in the first place. The research behind the original theory was seriously flawed.

Mech took a group of captive, non related wolves and observed their behaviour in captivity. The wolves fought, Mech assumed they were fighting to be Alpha.

In the wild, this does not happen. Wolves stay in family packs. The Father is Alpha, the mother is Omega. There is no violence between them. The cubs often eat first. The hierarchy is based on experience and age not who bites the hardest.

It's also been observed that feral dogs do not behave the same way as wolves (either wild or captive) when left without human interference. They actually go out of their way to avoid fights because injury could lead to death. Their interactions are based on past experience with that particular dog and although they do co-operate with each other in order to gain resources they don't form strict, hierarchal packs as previously thought. Whether or not they will attack another dog is based on their past experiences and how important the resource at stake is to them.

Of course babies are not the same as adult humans but they still don't smell or look like bulls, do they? Bull baiting dogs were bred to attack bulls not babies.

I wonder how many poodles have killed someone.
Its ownership that differs though. When you have someone who uses their dog for status, they aren't picking a poodle. They are the owners that tend to cause the issue

I love the idea of having an animal bred to attack bulls in one's living room. Why not have the bull as well?

Do you think fighting dogs were kept like housepets when they weren't working?

It is very, very common for dogs who behave aggressively towards one particular thing (eg other dogs) to be hugely loving, affectionate dogs when they're with their family and away from that trigger - including with children.

I have a dog who behaves aggressively towards motorbikes (fear is the root cause). When he's away from motorised two wheelers he usually behaves impeccably. A cockerpoo tried to start a fight with him a few days ago and he chose to walk away. Toddlers have grabbed him in public (obviously not something I've allowed but sometimes parents are negligent) and he's simply moved away.

Dog behaviour and its causes and repeatability are rarely as simple as the general public often assumes.

I love the idea of having an animal bred to attack bulls in one's living room. Why not have the bull as well?

I know the answer to that too. It's because bulls weren't bred to be companion animals. Plus, they're very large, smelly and hard to house train.

HTH.

It's worrying when grown adults can't tell the difference between a bull and a baby.

it's not the breed it's the lack of parenting in this case
do you mean the actual canine parents, or do you consider yourself to be a parent to a dog?

Wordthe I suspect they mean to the child.

Dogs are predators. They hunt and they are able to kill. That's the joy of being a K9...
It's us humans who try to redirect this most basic of instincts through selected breeding.
Unfortunately, a dog breed for biting / fighting will not always be able to distinctive between a baby other dog or in the stuffy case a bulls head. It's programmed to bite a moving "thing".... whatever that may be.
(Ps I believe it is the parents fault for leaving their baby within reach of the dog.)

If I see one walking down the road, I cross over or walk as far away from it as possible. Hilariously, sometimes the owner takes offence. God knows why?

he intends for you to fear and admire him, so ideally you'd stay on the same side of the road but deferentially move aside whilst smiling admiringly at his dog and expressing gratitude that he doesn't aim it at your throat.

Keeping as far away as possible insults him, and we know how these types cant bear to be disrespected

I don't get offended if someone crosses the road (hardly ever happens though) it just makes me a bit sad but then I think about all the people she's met, and my dog before her, who still tell me now how much their perspective has changed after meeting them.

Interestingly the odd occasion someone has avoided me is when I've been dressed a bit 'street', when I've taken them out straight after work in my suit or whatevrr and hair done etc it's never happened.

People on here are unbelievable!!!! ANY ANIMAL can be dangerous to children!!
We have a Bassett Hound, known to be one of the most gentle, dopiest breeds in the dog world. When she is tired, even she can't cope with my three year old bouncing round..I would NEVER EVER leave her the same room as my child and baby!!

I don't know how many more horrific articles, parents have to read before they stop leaving dogs and children/babies in the same room alone!

Its is just so simple to avoid this..another poor innocent life taken, because of neglect. I know the parents will be going through hell, but everybody is fully aware that animals and children/babies shouldn't be left.

but everybody is fully aware that animals and children/babies shouldn't be left

I dont think they are aware, they take their cues from the archetypal facebook photo of 'awww look my attack dog is protecting my baby' and genuinely believe that the dog will always and unfailingly protect the baby

people need to move away from the “any dog can turn at any time” statement because it’s not true...any dog can bite under the right circumstances

Emphasis mine - I think this is what people really mean by a dog can turn at any time but essentially, this is what people need to know. But there needs to be more education about what these circumstances might be. I think a lot of people assume it's either down to the personality of the dog (which is just bonkers) or that a dog will only attack in response to massive harrassment by a child, except they often don't seem to know what kinds of things dogs would consider harrassment.

Supervision also isn't enough unless the supervising person knows the dog and their potential triggers, knows dog behaviour in general and is prepared to enforce safe distance and boundaries between children and dogs.

I believe it is the parents fault for leaving their baby within reach of the dog
of course it is the fault of the parents, it is not rational to blame a dog because the dog cannot make moral choices it just blindly responds to incentives

Collies were bred to herd, Jack Russells to catch rats, Staffies to fight other dogs. And they still do.
If a breed of dog has a bad reputation for aggression they shouldn’t be kept with small children.

Thank god for some of the voices of reason on this thread including (not excluding others) @SummerGems.

I had a staffie. Most loving dog ever.

I now have a larger breed.

Regardless or size, breed, nuture and how much you love and trust any dog - family pet - you simply do NOT leave it alone with a baby, child or any other person who is not in a position to control that dog.

It's that fucking simple.

I don't see what is the relevance of leaving the child alone with the dog. If a powerful dog attacks a baby or small child right in front of your face, there isn't much you can do.

Seriously?

a dog is a predator, evolved to attack and kill

predators will naturally target the smallest weakest individual

why would anyone want a predator living with their child?

It would be extremely rare for a dog to just suddenly attack out of nowhere. Not leaving them alone means you're there to see the warning signs that they are getting pissed off for some reason, some are very subtle, but they are always there