to not understand why people have these types of dogs in their homes

[FunnysInLaJardin]

I've heard the arguments for and against keeping pit bull/mastiff type dogs and just don't understand at all why anyone would keep a powerful muscular dog as a pet in a family home. Yet another sad news story today in a village just down the road from my home village.

This isn't a AIBU really, just a 'why do they do it'. Is a pet really worth the risk? There are so many other dog types to chose from. I don't understand at all.

I know first hand of a case where a friend got a dog from a rescue centre (RSPCA) and within days it was showing serious signs of aggression and being very destructive. She complained and the dog was taken back by the centre. Days later she saw the dog being advertised on their website with no mention of the 'issues'. She rang the centre who told her they "would never manage to rehome any dogs if they painted them in such a bad light."

I would never, ever consider a rehomed dog after that.

But idiots who have the mentality to not bother with any form of responsible ownership are putting their kids at risk with any dog. More so the smaller ones because they are likely to suspect them less than the bigger breeds.

For responsible owners the risks are much much smaller and there are proven benefits to pet ownership.

It's dangerous to JUST Blame the breed. Because if everyone does that what happens to the dogs? They end up PTS or stuck in shelters when there's nothing wrong with them.

It's time people realised that the biggest risk is themselves. Their stupidity and irresponsible ownership!

That part gets lost amongst the dog shaming. People can be idiots!! There are stupid idiotic owners out there adding to the breed discrimination.

It's always been my worry as well with rehoming an older dog. I thought it best not to get a dog at all until the girls are much older, and in any event, the cats may leave home and I don't want them to do that!

I disagree that it cannot be a breed thing. We carefully researched dog types before getting ours ( a poodle cavalier cross). She is a daft "cat like" think but I would never give her blanket trust. She is more forgiving of my son's liveliness and to be honest, training him has been harder than training her!! For some reason dogs get lively round my son particularly terrier type dogs so I was keen to avoid that type (my mum's terrier cross bit him). We had tested the type we have on him and was much better. Dogs are bred for specific purposes and it is important for owners to bear that in mind. Some dogs are designed to shred some have softer mouths (but can still harm obviously).

All I can imagine is that the poor mother will be feeling so terrible about what has happened. Yes, a dog in a small flat is not ideal. But it looks like they had access to outside space so she probably thought it was ok. I really feel for her. Her precious daughter has been killed. She deserves sympathy right now.

Am thinking. 17 people killed by dogs since 2005. How many have been killed by reckless drivers on that time? How many by abusive parents? Think the statistics will demonstrate that dogs are a small threat compared with our own species.

the story makes me feel sick it,s like bringing an indangered specious into the home you woulden,t would you it,s time their were some clear laws about animals i think all powerful dogs should be muzzled not just for younger children but to protect all the public. i coulden,t imagine the horror for the parents what a horrible thing to have to witness.

Meant to add. We were also careful about the temperament of the parents (of our dog) because actually poodles can be a bit snappy. Cavaliers generally not tho. What we have is a very lively but not snappy dog who I still watch like a hawk. Tho tbh she is 'my' dog as she has boned with me for some reason and will do as I say. But in my experience smaller dogs tend to be more snappy and can cause serious harm (not sure someone has mentioned this but a JR was responsible for killing a small baby)...
Treat all animals with respect is my rule.

I'll make it clear before I get flamed that reports I've read could easily be wrong, in which case I apologise, but form the information I've read this does look like a very clear example of irresponsible ownership.

The place that has admitted to supplying the dog is not a rehoming centre at all, it's a kennels. The owner seems to have found it through a website for people buying and selling dogs. The flat in question is apparently a housing association property and tenants are not permitted to own dogs. If this is correct, the whole thing is a recipe for disaster. The dog should never have been in this situation.

It annoys me when dog owners swear their dog would never go after anyone and is as placid as they come. They might genuinely believe that, but it is not true!

Our old neighbours had two Staffs and kept going on how affectionate and soft their dogs were, until one day they attacked my DH in our own garden and on another occasion they went after me, again in my own garden - the dogs kept digging a hole under the fence! At the time I was 5 months pregnant, sitting reading a book at the bottom of the garden and had no routes of escape. It was my luck the owner was out in the garden at the time and heard my screams for help. Not so much as an apology from him though, as their dogs are lovely and they will never harm anyone. Well, it did not feel like that to me when faced with a dog who was aggressively baring its teeth, barking and ready to launch on me.

We lived next to a similar set up in London. Single mother (well on off boyfriend) with toddler and newborn in a small 1 bed flat, on benefits. The mother gets...an enormous fighting dog - am not a dog person so cant specify the breed think it was a staffie cross. I couldnt bear to think of those babies in that tiny flat with it. It would jump the fence and shit in our garden so was not under control. THe boyfriend would train it on the heath trying to get it to be more aggressive. I tried to talk to her but she was adamant she needed the dog "for protection". Pretty sure they were dealing drugs. Horrid set up shudder to think of it so glad we moved. I think sadly she was very very thick (not relating that comment to this case but here it was true.)

fromparistoberlin

A) it sounds vile because it is and its exactly what people do to dogs. A dog is a dog, under the skin they're all the same, the same as humans.

B) so a labrador bit you but you're scared of staffies because of their owners? So not only are you breed biased with no actual experience of the breed to back up your unfounded fear you are judgemental of peoples social background.
Well guess what, I own a staffordshire bull terrier and i am a nicely spoken middle class girl and i certainly do not swagger down the street smoking spliffs. My dogs real leather harness cost me a pretty penny and i polish it with oil after walks to keep it looking smart. My dog is powerful, muscular and also 14 inches tall.
Yeh thats right, his head doesn't even reach my knee.
Terrifying.

You cannot eliminate risk with all the socialising and training in the world. So it is a managed risk

Yes I think that sounds fair.

Of these type of incidents that are reported, in very few circumstances have I seen much of an attempt to manage risk. Never mind breed stereotyping, the major constant seems to be irresponsible ownership.

All the PP's stating the lack of garden because it was in a flat...has that been reported as fact. Could it have been a ground floor flat with a garden? Even if there were no garden it doesn't mean that it wasn't being taken for walks.

It wasn't a rescue dog, it was an unclaimed stray. It isn't a rescue place either, as sharplily says

I have had rescue dogs , one a an unclaimed stray through a proper rescue organisation, none of them have ever bitten anyone, let alone killed someone but I feel my dogs were responsibly placed with me rather than me just picking them off the shelf, so to speak. I have never treated them like humans either

All the people saying its the owner not the breed. Why dont the government do licenses for cetain breeds? To make sure they are properly cared for? Is there a reason? Is it just too difficult to control? If not then my personal view is that they shoyld be banned. If the ownership cannot be controlled then its a risk that is not worth taking having them available for family pets at all.

Dogs are animals at the end of the day and act primarily on instinct. It is naive and irresponsible human owners that are at fault in my opinion. I think dogs and small children are just not predicatable enough to be left alone together and I would question whether they should be living in the same house - there have been so many of these incidents now that, as a parent, I just wouldn't do it. Most responsible parents wouldn't leave a dangling blind cord in a house with a small child in it now so why would you have a dog big enough to kill a child in the house? I just don't understand the thinking. If you are a dog lover surely you can live without one for a few years while your children are young - or make sure they are kept separate and appropriately supervised?

I have first hand experience of this. A family member has a large dog (not one that we'd consider a banned or dangerous breed). Soppiest dog you have ever met, I had never heard him bark in the 4 years they'd had him. They'd never had any trouble with him. They came to visit once when I had an eigtheen month old. They kept him out in the garden and he was sitting happily at the owners feet round the garden table where we were all sitting. We had all known this dog for years. My 18 month old came past him to get to me to show me something, excitedly and he suddenly barked, lunged out, and went to grab him in his jaws - it was only the quick thinking of his owner in that split second who kicked the dog back, grabbed my son up and jumped onto the table with him and just got him out of the way in time that stopped it being a very nasty incident. They put the dog in the car and I have never seen him do anything like it again. Taught me a very importnat lesson about dogs and small children though.

Everytime it happens there are thread with outraged dog lovers complaining they are lovely dogs really! It is the owners! - yes - probably right - but can you guarantee that any individual dog will never snap and turn on a young child? I don't see how you can and I wonder how many more poor children will have to die in the most awful of circumstances before people decide it's not a risk worth taking.

peanutbuttersarnies That's how some other countries do it - in Germany there is a list of indexed breeds, dogs of that type have to pass character tests where they are tested for aggression and behavioural problems.

I think if you are a drug addict or have previous charges for violence you're also not allowed to keep these breeds.

I am not 100% sure but I believe in Switzerland you have to take classes if you want to own a dog, like a dog owner's driving license.

The personal stories don't really help either way, whether negative (I got attacked by a Staffie once) or positive (Oh, but my mastiff is lovely). It's just anecdote.

Read the Malcolm Gladwell piece linked to earlier. it is excellent at making sense of whether, and when, it is appropriate to generalise about this.

I will admit I haven't read the whole thread, but I have to say I cannot really understand having any sort of dog with a baby/small child, although I know that plenty of people do so and for the most part without any problems.

It's just that dogs can still essentially be very unpredictable, especially around babies who don't know how to treat them.

My friends with dogs and babies always go on about how sloppy their (big!) Dogs are and how they would never hurt their child, and admittedly the dogs are very well trained. But surely it only takes for the baby to take the dog by surprise or accidentally hurt it by pulling its tail or poking its eye, for the dog to lash out and real damage to be done?

Thanks beewitched. I dont understand why our government dont do that. Sounds sensible. I wonder if the statistic for attacking are any better there.

I just feel sick for that poor woman. I drove past the street on the way to the gym and wondered what was going on, I had no idea it was going to turn out to be something so tragic.

As far as I'm aware is was closest in breed to a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but a bit of a mixed breed which is why reports are saying the more generic 'bulldog'.

Whatever the Mother's reasoning for taking on this particular dog (and the rights and wrongs of that) to her mind, she was giving a dog a chance and her family a pet. I don't know a great deal about the kennels other than my next-door neighbor sings their praises and it's a little family-run business. It's just massively sad for everyone involved :'(

It's very tempting for the rest of us to assign blame, because that presupposes there was some obvious and practical precaution that could have been taken to prevent it; that we are sensible people who would take such precautions; and therefore, that nothing like this could happen to us.

What if this is just part of that 'managed risk' OP was talking about? Just that completely unpredictable, ineradicable whatever per cent chance that the family pet would attack one of the family children? The risk is inherent in dog ownership. It can be reduced if the owners are responsible, but not eliminated.

My dog is powerful, muscular and also 14 inches tall.
Yeh thats right, his head doesn't even reach my knee.
Terrifying

are you smoking spliff? seriously? so you think because your dog only reaches your knee he could not fucking decimate a toddler?

I am sure your dog is a lovely cuddly wuddly angel of the staffie world, but face facts if he wanted to he could kill

do you deny that?