Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

699 replies

FunnysInLaJardin · 06/11/2013 11:12

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.

OP posts:
Dahlen · 07/11/2013 13:03

I think it's probably because the case that prompted this thread is an ongoing legal case and therefore MN have to be very careful to avoid direct commentary on it.

It's the same with online newspapers when they are unable to accept comments on an article for "legal reasons."

It's probably not you breaking any Talk guidelines, more that it's a bit too directly relevant to this case.

Mignonette · 07/11/2013 13:10

But no legal action can be taken against the Mother. The Police have already clarified that. And other potentially prejudicial comments have been allowed to remain.

Thanks for responding Dahlen.

It would help if this was clarified especially w/ regard to the apparently selective manner that the guidelines have been applied.

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/11/2013 13:12

Agreed mig

Because it makes it look all one sided .

LaRegina · 07/11/2013 13:16

Mig why, though, can no legal action be taken against the parent in cases like this (not necessarily this one...)?

What was the Police comment on that?

EldritchCleavage · 07/11/2013 13:19

I wasn't aware any criminal proceedings were being considered. And people asked for statements often trot out the 'legal reasons' excuses when really they just don't want to comment. There might be a civil case but there wouldn't be any contempt risk in that case.

Maybe it is a taste thing, in that it is considered bad taste to allow posts slating the family mere hours or days after the death?

Mignonette · 07/11/2013 13:19

Was watching BBC news last night when this was said. There is yet to be a law covering an attack by a dog within a private residence where the dog is contained.

friday16 · 07/11/2013 13:20

I think it's probably because the case that prompted this thread is an ongoing legal case and therefore MN have to be very careful to avoid direct commentary on it.

Matters do not become sub judice until either someone has been arrested, a warrant has been issued for their arrest, a summons has been issued or someone has been charged (you don't necessarily have to have been arrested in order to be charged, although realistically it's unlikely).

It has to be like that, as otherwise newspapers would cease to exist. Train crash? Can't report it, as the driver might be charged. Blokes wins Millionaire? Can't report it, as someone might be charged for coughing. It would be impossible for anyone to discuss anything if the test were "could someone be charged with something, maybe?"

If the mother in the case is arrested or charged, there are contempt issues. Until then, there aren't.

Dahlen · 07/11/2013 13:21

The case - if any - might not have anything to do with legislation concerning dangerous dogs though.

Dahlen · 07/11/2013 13:21

But hey - I don't know. I'm only guessing, just like everyone else.

Mignonette · 07/11/2013 13:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

sherbetpips · 07/11/2013 13:29

I am sorry but it is not about training. A dog is a pack animal at the end of the day, even the most docile little thing can turn and snap when it gets its hair pulled or a paw stood on. A child being bitten by a small dog is a bite and an injury. Having an animal in a small house or flat, that is physically capable of killing your children is just insane. These breeds of dog were not bred to be cuddly family pets, they are working dogs and should be treated as so. Babies and toddlers lack the self control to act accordingly around these sorts of animals so can never, ever be left alone with them.

EldritchCleavage · 07/11/2013 13:31

Oh, I'm not advocating taste-based deletions, just musing as to whether that is the reason.

Mignonette · 07/11/2013 13:32

And I will make one more point directed at those saying i am being harsh or unfair to blame this Mother -

If your child had been invited round to play and had been attacked and killed by this dog would you still be so understanding, so reluctant to apportion responsibility to the parent in charge? Because I don't believe you if you say yes. This little girl deserves our anger and disgust. She is deserving of anger directed change.

Mignonette · 07/11/2013 13:32

I meant the little girl deserves our anger and disgust at the recklessness of the parents actions.

WereTricksPotter · 07/11/2013 13:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Owllady · 07/11/2013 13:38

It was someone's dog before she had it, someone who hadn't taken responsibility for it. If all dog owners are held properly accountable for their dogs for the entirety of its life, it wouldn't have ended up in that flat anyway.

WereTricksPotter · 07/11/2013 13:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Owllady · 07/11/2013 13:43

But if your circumstances change you are still responsible for that animal and responsible people take responsible precautions (like asking for a reputable rescues help so that the dog can have change of ownership with a history) That isn't what happens with these unclaimed strays

LaRegina · 07/11/2013 13:44

But surely it all comes down to one simple fact - if no parent allowed a dog like that to have free access to their child, this kind of horror wouldn't happen. There are so many dangers in the world and we can never remove them all from the face of the earth. We can do our best to protect our children though.

SharpLily · 07/11/2013 14:18

sharplilly don' t you dare compare different dog breeds to different human races. Don't start such crap. Don't you dare!

Excuse me?

Crowler · 07/11/2013 14:23

^^That does sound a bit unhinged.

LaQueenOfTheDamned · 07/11/2013 14:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS · 07/11/2013 14:26

Yanbu. It is something that I cannot understand either. It is horrible to think that these dogs are out there running around off their leads in a park near you.

Tuhlulah · 07/11/2013 14:55

I've had a Rottweiler from Battersea, years ago. She was the gentlest dog i have ever encountered. However, when I took her to my parents and she saw my dad for the first time, who was wearing a hat, she barked very ferociously, and I saw what she was capable of -very scary. My dad became the love of her life, btw, and I never ever saw any behaviour like that again from the dog. My sister had four small children and although they loved the dog, I NEVER let them be alone with it -not because I suspected anything but because a dog is a dog. It is an animal. It cannot be trusted absolutely.

However, several years later, after my dad had died and dog was too strong for my mum to walk (and I wasn't around for a few weeks) my mum found a dog walker. All very satisfactory. However, I came home one day and found the dog walker having a cup of tea in my mum's kitchen, with the dog under the table. The dog walker's three young children were crawling all over the dog, (and I understand the dog had gone there to escape the children) and the dog was growling at them! WTF! I pulled the children out and told the dog walker who just replied, 'Oh, X (the dog) is fine, she loves my kids.' Even if she wasn't worried about her children (and I certainly was) the dog was unhappy! I think she was really stupid. That's the only way I can explain it.

My views on dogs have changed since becoming a parent. My DS is terrified of dogs. He has been bitten on three occasions by small dogs. Two chihuahuas, one cockerpoo. (I was bitten by a dog and several horses (!) as a child and am not scared of any animal). The problem with these dogs appears to be that the owners carry them, maybe because they are so small, or maybe because they are fashion accessories. So the dog -who probably thinks it is a handbag- is eventually put on the floor, and is scared, and bites anything that goes by it. (This happened to DS, walking home from school with DH, minding his own business, and the dog leapt out of a door way (at the end of a pink sparkly lead), and bit him. Owner didn't even apologise.)

So now I think that having a dog is wonderful, the relationship a child can have with a dog is so special. But some dogs make better pets than others. Dogs which are close to the working strain make less good pets because they are closer to being dogs than being domesticated animals. And the bigger the dog's mouth the more (physical) harm it can do (bearing in mind a chihuahua traumatised my DS). Bull types have locking jaws with more cubic pound capacity then a poodle or spaniel or small mongrel. If you have a small home get a small dog. If you have a huge outside space in rural areas, then yes, get a big dog.
Surely it can't be much fun if you are a big dog, all cramped up in a small flat, then allowed limited outside time, probably in a park or walked on crowded streets, when genetically, and not that many generations ago, your ancestors were bringing down bulls or used to taunt lions or herd sheep.

And yes, I do blame the deed and not the breed. BUT that being said, unscrupulous breeders who don't care about the temperamental stability of the animal they are using are surely more at risk of breeding temperamentally unpredictable dogs? I am aware that this strand of thought appears to imply that only rich people can have dogs because only they can afford the high fees for a quality puppy -and even then, these might bite.

One repercussion of this dreadful incident is that adoption of rescue dogs may decrease. After this, could you trust a rehoming centre's assessment that a previously abused dog was safe around children?

expatinscotland · 07/11/2013 14:56

Tenancy agreement says no dogs, so you risk eviction and making yourself intentionally homeless with a young child and get a dog and 'look after' another.

Kennel sign reads dog is not suitable for homes with small children, but you get it anyway.

On what level is any of this not beyond stupid?

I do not let my children play in homes where there are dogs and I'm not there. Ever. Because too many stupid people have dogs, and I don't want to bury another of my children because of someone else's stupidity.

Swipe left for the next trending thread