Another fatal dog attack

[Viviennemary]

I felt sick when I just saw this on Sky News. A nine month old baby in Wales. Its desperately sad. But when is anything going to be done about those dangerous dogs. Legislation is needed.

I have to agree. My job involves speaking to people on the telephone and recently I was speaking to a woman with very young children. I heard a dog barking in the background and being a dog owner myself I asked what sort of dog they had. I expected her to say a tried and tested breed. Instead she replied Cane Corso. Those dogs need very careful management in experienced hands and the woman wasn't old enough to have such experience or have the time, with very young children, to give it careful management. I hope that dog never turns on the kids because it would take no effort at all on its part to badly injure or kill one of them. We can't legislate against ignorance or stupidity, I'm afraid.

Dogs can cause fatalies by e.g. licking their master's open wound and inadvertently affecting it.

There is no way a springer spaniel severed anyone's jugular.

The Springer, Weimaraner, 'terrier' and Patterdale deaths were due to sepsis from bites, not from fatal injuries.

One of the Lakelands and the Jack Russell were tiny babies, so misadventure here by parents who obviously left dogs alone with babies for long enough for substantial attacks on helpless infants.

Another where a Lakeland was mentioned, it was three dogs including a Great Dane and an 'Alsatian' on a 9 year old child.

I mean, feel free to take those as evidence contradicting that the vast majority of the fatalities list is bull-breed and mastiff types, usually poorly bred and cared for, and often killing healthy grown adults if you wish - but it does make you look a bit daft.

At least if the parents of e.g. the Jack Russell or Lakeland deaths had been present, they would have had a chance of stopping an attack before it was serious and/or fatal. With an XL, even if they'd been there the minute it attacked, they had no chance.

Terriers are going to be more likely to be aroused by baby noises. They’re bred to hunt and kill small wriggly squeaky things and the more it wriggles and squeaks the more excited the dog is going to get until it stops wriggling and squeaking, at which point it considers its job done and typically loses interest.

It’s also worth remembering that when a dog is stressed, anxious or excited it will tend to default to things it’s bred to do.

Apologies; I should have read on, because you are correct. It bit the back of his hand and he died of sepsis. Same with the Weimaraner one.

The thing is, bully breeds are bred to be pure muscle and to have a prey drive that is so strong they do not let go of their victims.

Sorry if I "look a bit daft", I'm autistic, Your final paragraph makes you look pretty daft though because if you've ever seen a ratting Jack Russell or Lakeland terrier you would know that the parents would stand no chance whatsoever of getting it off the baby once it attacked.

You are free to express whatever views you like about Keir Starmer, but shoehorning them into a thread about a child's death is in poor taste.

A fox terrier attack from 1934 (victim five weeks old)

St Bernard from 1935 (victim 11 months)

Then we have a five day old baby killed by a jack russell in 1986, a Lakeland terrier involved in a fatal attack on a nine year old in 1991 (other dogs were a Great Dane and an Alsatian) a jack russell and a SBT killed a three month old boy in 2009. Another JRT killed an eight day old boy in 2012, and a three week old was killed by a Lakeland terrier involved 2015.

The springer spaniel wasn’t an attack. It was a puppy who accidentally bit its owners hand and he subsequently died of an infection, which is tragic but not an ‘attack.’ But OK, we’ll include it. Same with the Patterdale terrier attack although that does seem to have been more aggressive in nature.

Hardly any data exists prior to 1980 re breed of dogs so to discount the first two, that’s seven.

The number of fatal dog attacks 1980 - now total 95. I won’t be dodging any spaniels any time soon.

A ratting terrier is indeed a fearsome beast, but a parent with their child being attacked is a fearsome beast too. I'm not saying they won't do damage, I'm saying that the parent has a chance of getting something left of their child back.

I don't think a ratting terrier is going to match the XL Bullies that keep coming even when they've been shot by police. 🙄

Even if this dog is confirmed as a 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier', that's a very broad-brush description too. A pedigree SBT is not a huge dog, some of the ones sold under that name are very different.

If the parents of this child bought their dog carefully, trained and exercised it well, I have every sympathy in the world for them in this horrendous situation. If, like so many, they bought a stupid big dog, didn't look after it well and give it physical and mental exercise, then it's getting harder to find sympathy for anything but the poor children in these situations.

Where was this report you read, please? I've not seen a named breed on any of the major news outlets and Gwent police haven't released the name of the breed. The last statement from them (18 hours ago) was:

"Enquiries are still ongoing to establish the breed of the dog. It is important that we are certain of the breed and we will release information once it has been formally confirmed."

I don’t want to sound as if I’m mocking you but a baby isn’t a rat. Yes, they are terriers, they are designed to kill small rodents, they can be dangerous to an unattended baby but that’s the point, the baby shouldn’t have been unattended.

I am not a massive fan of most terriers myself - just personal taste - but no way are they as dangerous as XL Bullies!

Oh you absolutely would.

Bully breeds are built to not be able to be removed from their prey.

Some posters not clear on the very important difference between:

”People have been killed by…”

and

”People are often and increasingly killed by…”

I was only pointing out that terriers can inflict a lot of damage.

I'm not pro bully in any way, I know that Staffies are banned in several countries. But almost any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands, that is all I'm pointing out.

I'm walking away from this now so if anyone else wants to ridicule the autistic idiot for what they said, they can feel free.

almost any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands

Any dog can bite and any dog can cause damage, especially to a vulnerable newborn.

No one is mocking you.

"Even if this dog is confirmed as a 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier', that's a very broad-brush description too. A pedigree SBT is not a huge dog, some of the ones sold under that name are very different."

This is a very important point. A genuine SBT has short legs and is broad and muscular. Unfortunately, the breed has been hijacked by people trying to pass off long legged, slender dogs as SBT when they are clearly no such thing. I even seen rescue organisations do it. If it is not short and built like a small tank, it is not a SBT!

It was a local one I think. So I did believe it but can't remember where I saw it. I suppose they will release the information in due course

S'ok, the data aren't always presented clearly. It's easy to misread them a bit especially when so many people here have competing agendas and will always present the data in a way that supports their case. If Joe Bloggs loves his xl bully and someone says it is a bite risk, he is naturally going to point to historic deaths by weimaraner and springer spaniel.

P.S. am mum of an autie. I don't think anyone here is mocking you. If they do, tell me, I'll have their guts for garters.

There are always clear signs that a dog is going to bite. The dog should be taken to a vet immediately any one of those signs appears and be humanely put to sleep. That needs to happen before the bite ALWAYS.

No home visits in our authority only got them myself by special request as twins and c section so couldn't drive

And what if the dog is a different breed?

But I don't think more legislation will prevent such tragic incidents. We do need though a more realistic view of dogs in this country though, they are all potentially dangerous animals not part of the family or fur babies who are welcome everywhere.
I think it is the over sentimental way many people in the UK is the problem. And you can't legislate against that

I agree. Any dog can be very dangerous for a small child/baby, and the children who are the safest are the ones with parents who recognise that, not the ones with parents who think their dog would never ever harm its “baby brother/sister” because it loves them so much. Recognising your dog has the potential to be dangerous doesn’t mean you think it’s an aggressive monster, it’s just acknowledging the fact it’s an animal.

I'm constantly astounded at some of the videos that pop up on YouTube or Instagram. Tiny babies with the dogs next to their faces. I've had dogs all my life and never let them near my children when they were babies. They were always supervised as the kids got older.

My darling old dog was initially rarher terrified of my baby. My newborn used to try to "bite " her ie suckle off her ears, head and nose, and the noise of her crying distressed the dog I always monitored them very closely as a scared dog is one who may snap. (But as my baby became a toddler, the dog became her protectress and second mother, and the toddler would crash out asleep on her and the dog wouldn't stir a paw until she woke up. Ah, I miss that gentle girl.)