To tell my sister if she buys a Staffie I won't bring DS around to hers?

[Annarose2014]

I suspect I am. I've heard so much about them being amazing, wonderful Nanny dogs.....

But I've also heard of a lot of attacks. I'm desperately afraid of them, truth be told. I don't trust them. Especially as the dog wouldn't live with DS, but only see him about once a week so its not like DS would be "his" charge.

Sister has wanted one for years and is bitterly disappointed as this is the year she's finally in a position to buy a dog.

But in fairness I just said that she could certainly get one, but would have to see DS elsewhere other than her place as I wouldn't be comfortable with DS in an enclosed area with one in case DS did something wrong and the dog felt threatened and we wouldn't be fast enough to stop something happening.

AIBU?

Agreed with other that breed is irrelevant. People choose Staffies because they are very loyal, loving dogs. Growing up we had a springer spaniel who suffered phantom pregnancies and would snarl anyone who went near her teddy bear baby! No one got bitten because we weren't silly enough to get close!

When I met my DH he had a young mistreated rescue Staff (I already a dog) and I was wary due to news coverage. That dog is so soft I have completely changed my view, she loves nothing more than cuddling up on DDs bed now.

Most of what can be said about a staffie can apply to any dog. All dogs need to be raised right etc, and you shouldn't leave a child unattended with any dog. There is always the possibility that the dog could feel threatened or whatever.

The thing about staffies as I understand it is not that they are any more likely to "turn" than another dog, but that if they do they can do alot more damage. They have very powerful jaws and (although they are not pitbulls) still can be hard to persuade to let go.

Therefore attacks by staffie type dogs make the press because they damage caused is so great.

I would advise your sister to buy a break stick (triangle shaped stick) if getting a staffie just in case it gets hold of something it shouldn't, for instance gets in a scuffle with another dog at the park.

WeAllFloat
That is a bit like saying you should never let a child into a car. Because if god forbid, the worst happened, it would be your fault. Your fault for letting the idea of modern cars and seatbelts convince you it was all going to be ok?

It is hysterical nonsense. Given how many dogs there are in this country, attacks are vanishingly rare.
I'm willing to bet there are more children hospitalised as a result of the stairs in their house than there are from the dogs in their house, but keep up the hand wringing and pearl clutching at anyone who is wreckless enough to have a pet

I am amazed any of your children grow up with an ability to cross the road safely though. A little more common sense and less hysteria wouldn't go amiss.

So, did you follow guidelines on safe sleeping to reduce cot death? Or is that hysterical? The chances of cot death are very small, but we do things to reduce that tiny % that it might happen. Introducing a dog that can kill children with such ease (albeit a very unlikely event) increases your child's chance of dying by more that the cot death.

"but keep up the hand wringing and pearl clutching at anyone who is wreckless enough to have a pet"

Unless they're a toy breed...because it's those 3 inches bigger than a toy poodle that make staffies lethal you know.

No, tab.....it's the crushing bite, refusal to release and huge strength.

I would if I was confident that the dog owner was responsible and knew what they were doing. In the wrong hands it can be extremely harmful. I was bitten on the mouth by my much older brothers dog when I was 5, I cornered it in, which I did not realise that you should never do this, nobody told me not to go near, as a result it went for me. Yes I am wary, I always tell my child not to touch unknown dogs as you do not know their reaction, or pull tails etc. Yes they go near dogs, but not too near. Some breeds are more powerful than others, as people have said, the damage can be greater from a Staffie or Rotweiller, than a Chiuwahwah (sp). I have even read of Old English sheep dogs who attacked a child, and caused a lot of damage to their face.

I agree totally weAllFloat, to minimise it is really not taking it seriously.

But who has ever been killed by a cocker spaniel

Oh god our old cocker was astonishingly nasty with children and wildly over protective of my mother. It amazes me we never had a bite which I think was more down to us being extremely careful around her. I'd never risk a cocker spaniel with children now even if its unfair. And they're neurotic (but look pretty)

My sister has Vizla's - two are lovely, friendly perfect with DS (now 10) the third (raised exactly the same way from a puppy) growls in that real menacing way around DS and is aggressive with children generally. I won't leave DS with him even now and kept him at arms length when smaller.

Your comparison to SIDS is just downright offensive WeAllFloat

And if you are going to be so vile as to make the comparison, at least get your basic facts correct.

There are around 300 deaths from SIDS every year since the sleeping advice came in. 13 children have died from dog attacks in the last 10 years.

Around 35 children die each year while walking on the pavement, making it hugely more risky that being in a house with a dog. I presume you let your children walk on the pavement? How can you sleep at night knowing you recklessly endanger their lives likes that?

I use a wrist strap, spare. And of those 13 children, 100% of their deaths occurred through being near a dog, yes? So, being near a dog massively increases the chance of being killed by one. What's offensive is the attitude that if op doesn't want to increase her children's likelihood of dying, even by the smallest number, she is being hysterical because mumsnet think attack dogs are soft as butter!? And, all of those 13 deaths were 100% preventable, unlike SIDS.

How is that wrist strap going to help when a car mounts the pavement and runs your child over?
Best to minimise that risk by never leaving the house...

And now you've gone from not having certain breeds as pets to never letting children near a dog, just in case of an attack?
Good job your children aren't leaving the house, I guess. That way, they'll never run the risk of coming into contact with a dog.

WeAllFloat - if you really think staffies are more dangerous than other breeds because of their huge strength then you should keep your DC away from anything bigger than a chihuahua.

Because they're not stronger than larger dogs, they're just stronger than dogs of a similar height but different build.

Then why is there such a thing as banned breeds? If all dogs are the same, only varying in size and colour??

Because it was a knee jerk reaction to public pressure...which if it was based on anything reasonable would have reduced injuries and deaths in the 20+ years since it was introduced rather than incidents going up year on year.

So you'd have a pit bull in your home?

We stopped our kids visiting Granny she SIL brought untrained Dalmatian with them for a visit! Constantly licked the kids, snaffled food out of their hands , knocked them over!

We have a little boy who is disabled and couldn't walk and he was just constantly slobbered over... We had to watch kids constantly too as they were not arsed about dig bring round a baby !!!!

I'm not a dog lover ... Can you tell?

If I lived in a country where they weren't banned? Yes, they're a breed I'd consider when looking for a dog.

They fit most of what I look for in a dog, energetic enough to do what I do without being OTT, very trainable and handler respondent, not tiny, not huge and short coated. (I don't do grooming if I can help it, I prefer training and games to combing and brushing)

Well, if you think those qualities are enough to override the very real risk of your kids getting mauled or killed, then I'm very glad you won't have to bother with grooming a bothersome small dog. Priorities seem a little squewed, but hey.....

Nope, trainable and handler respondent are way more important than coat, then the right exercise requirements but luckily there are enough breeds out there that I can find plenty that will suit my lifestyle without having to spend too much time grooming.

I work with dogs and have worked with 100s of staffies over the years and all 4 of the banned breeds. I would have a pitbull, tosa or dogo in my house with no qualms but would think twice about having a fila (the 4th banned breed) because one of the breed clubs in Brazil breeds for aggression towards humans.

Similarly there are several perfectly legal breeds which are starting to appear in the UK which are far more worrying then any of those on the banned breed list. The DDA is acknowledged to be an absolutely terrible piece of legislation that has done nothing to reduce dog attacks (fatal or otherwise) because as a rule breed (while not irrelevant) is not the thing that connects attacks. Usually the owner of the dog is not present, the dog does not live with the child and may not have been exposed to them before the incident, the dog is normally kept outside and poorly treated and socialised and there is a resource present.

I work with dangerous dogs and have worked closely with Kendall Shepherd. This week on a voluntary basis I have attended the shooting of a dog that attacked the owner and was then not approachable, caught a loose stray dog that had badly attacked 2 other dogs and had to use a bite sleeve and remove a dog that had been extremely aggressive to a stranger in the house. All the dogs were destroyed as they were not safe to be rehomed and the owners were not responsible enough to keep them or it was not safe to keep them. I am not blind to the problem of irresponsible ownership and dangerous dogs but the overriding factor is not breed. Tbh half the dogs identified to me as staffies are actually far better described as mongrels due to a lack of over riding conformation, a lack of thought for breeding and a carelessness or cluelessness about parentage.

WeAllFloat

But it isn't a 'very real risk of getting killed' is it.

I don't understand how an average of 1 death a year can be interpreted by you as something that represents a 'very real risk'.

Falling down stairs kills 700 people a year so if you have a genuine interest in keeping children safe, you'll be campaigning for bungalow living rather this hysteria about dogs.

You clearly have a strong view about this, but isn't backed up by any evidence. You're embarrassing yourself coming out with ridiculous statements about 'very real' risks, while clearly surrounding your own DC with much, much riskier things like walking on pavements or having cleaning products in your house. Maybe time learning about how statistics work would be useful?

Glad your laundry list of dog requirements is based solely on your whims, and not on risk to children. Selfish and very short sighted. Every family of a child killed by a dog says how loving it was. Perhaps they can now say it was easy to groom too, to justify their selfish choice in dog.

Still no one has the answer to why some breeds attack and some bite

Usually on these threads someone will post numbers of people admitted to hospital because they have been bitten by a dog I think collies are often listed as being responsible for most these admissions (might be wrong there)

Yet we only hear of a few breeds that really attack and seem to attack well I am not going to expand on that because it is too awful to think about but we have read these stories heard about them on the news and they have at times been nice well trained family dogs

"Glad your laundry list of dog requirements is based solely on your whims, and not on risk to children. Selfish and very short sighted."

Rofl, my, um, laundry list is a bloody sensible one.

Trainable...that means they're easier to work with, it means I can get them to behave in the way I want them to.

Handler respondent...they're focused on what I want, again great for training and means they aren't likely to suddenly start doing what they feel like doing instead of what I've taught them to.

Exercise - well firstly half the point of having a dog is to spend time with them, there's not much point in me walking more than the dog and it would be stupid to get a dog that needs more exercise than I can provide as bored dogs are dogs more likely to have problem behaviours.

My list is mostly about ensuring I have a well trained, well behaved, mentally and physically fit dog where I'm equipped to meet it's needs...of which grooming is a tiny part.

But ok, keep focussing on the bit where I'm not swayed by small and fluffy rather than what suits my household.