To think that Staffies are not "nanny dogs"

[Flowersinyourhair]

Ok. I await the cries of "it's not the dog, it's the owner" and "we had one and it was wonderful" etc etc. However, once again here we are looking at a news story about a dead baby and a seriously injured toddler as a result of a Staffie attack. AIBU or does something drastic need to change regarding perceptions of dogs like this who are apparently fine, until they're not. This dog was, it seems, the dog of a PC. Not a thug or a dog fighting yob. A PC.

I await the barrage of abuse here. I just feel so sad about these poor defenceless little boys who harmed no one and have suffered so tragically.

What twaddle you are spouting, Pestilence.

I've always had Yorkshire Terriers and my current one has never given me any reason for concern however I do know that if he ever did turn (although as a very experienced owner I could spot the signs) I know I could boot him up the arse and he would go flying - the damage would be minimal. My children are older though - I would have thought twice having a dog, even a small yorkie (my current one weighs 5lbs) near a baby. Under 4 really.

I've had dogs all my life and havent got a reason to want to stay away but then I've always chosen a dog that I could overpower.

I couldn't have a dog in my home that could overpower me. It makes me feel sick.

As a dog owner I am happy for any vetting, insurance, license - whatever it takes.

This thread makes me so sad. I will always own staffies. Always. Our girl is a happy, well adjusted, well looked after part of the family. She has her needs met, she gets plenty of exercise, attention, stimulation and she feels loved and secure.

Yes I have a small child. Yes I put the necessary boundaries in place that I would with any dog. My dd is not allowed to poke and prod her, she is not allowed to bother her when she is in her bed, she does not approach when she is eating (even though she isn't food aggressive in the slightest), I monitor their interactions to make sure dd is being gentle and kind, etc etc, as you should with any dog.

My calm, well trained staffie is much less of a risk to children than the wild bulldog next door, the out of control snarling chihuahua down the road and the aggressive jack Russell cross that goes for everyone that passes. My dog is calm and friendly and I trust her as much as you should trust a dog. But some of you would have a perfectly well behaved dog pts because of what she is. That is so very wrong.

I know loads of perfectly lovely Staffies, StormWhale, if that helps. All with sensible owners who know their dogs and put appropriate boundaries in place around dog/child interaction.
They are a fantastic breed and I would have one for their temperament.

I had a Staffie. My ExH had her before we met. She was the biggest sap of a dog and very well cared for. Wouldn't hurt a fly until that is that she did.

I was sat on the floor with DD playing and suddenly noticed a change in her (the dog). I can't to this day pinpoint what it was I noticed. The way she was holding herself I think. I put my arm around DDs waist and pulled her to one side of me and went to stand up with her. The dog bits my arm.

This was entirely out of character and completely against what her normal nature was. She went back to ExH that day.

y calm, well trained staffie is much less of a risk to children than the wild bulldog next door, the out of control snarling chihuahua down the road and the aggressive jack Russell cross that goes for everyone that passes

People are missing the point though - it's the potential for damage.

I should say the bite was meant for DD not me. It was only because I grabbed DD that she was unharmed.

Meta I don't need luck anymore as my children are now a lot older and I will not be having anymore ! I was trying to put across that most of the dog owners I know do trust their family pets around their children to a certain extent , or as much as anyone ever can . I don't think this is unusual tbh .

We are going to get another rescue dog , I have looked at several 'staffis' , although none would fit the KC breed guidelines as they were all massive , I realised that although they were lovely , I would not feel comfortable having them around my well trained 6 yr old , when he is secondary age I will reconsider the breed as a family pet . I feel guilty saying this as rescues are bursting at the seams with this breed , due to over breeding and impulse buying of them when they are super cute puppies , they are generally delightful ,smiley , whole body waggy, happy little dogs who crave human attention

Finite that is absolutely terrifying. Imagine if you'd run to get your phone that was ringing in another room. Or gone to get your handbag that was in the hall. Everyone who says they never leave their kids with the dog, I don't actually believe that. I believe that when you plan to go and do something somewhere else in the house, you make sure the dog isn't alone with your child. But there are always times like I said that it's 5 seconds of running to get a phone or something, when you actually do leave dog and child together.

"All with sensible owners who know their dogs".
We have no idea how much this dog yesterday was "known" to its owners, whether it was trained/cared for etc. We don't know how many times it had been 'wonderful' around these children. What we do know if that this mother felt she trusted it enough to let it into her home and leave it alone with her children. Because it's a Staffy, a "nanny dog" and they're great with children aren't they. Until they're not.

I hope Metaphoricus lives nowhere near me. I wouldn't like to think one of her relatives is my vet

Waitrose can you not see that you can reduce the risk for any aggression by treating the dog properly and understand dogs body language. Dogs do not just snap, they show you in a multitude of ways that they are uncomfortable before biting. The problem is people do not understand the cues, and ignore them.

A well adjusted, well trained dog with a good owner is no threat to children, no matter what the breed. This is because the owner will be supervising and ensuring the dogs needs are met so they are calm and content. If for any reason the dog is off sorts (illness or pain etc) then the owner will notice the signs and take the necessary steps to help the dog and protect anyone from harm. They will also not allow anyone to treat the dog with anything less than the utmost respect, meaning the dog will never be pushed to their limit.

Also if we are talking about potential for harm, why are children allowed to ride horses? A horse can easily kill a child, even a much older child. I don't see many threads about that though.

Roussette - I was naive and did trust her. By this point I'd had her for years and she had never shown one ounce of aggression towards a human.

Like you say I never left them alone in a planned scenario but yes they had been along in a room together. Grabbing the high chair, answering the door, Grabbing my phone, starting a bath. All takes less than 30 seconds but had it been that day at that time I dread to think what could have happened. That day I was sat on the floor but another day I may have been sat on the couch having a coffee and a chat with my mum or a friend. Another day I could have been in the same room but slightly distracted in a million ways and I wouldn't have noticed whatever it is that I did that day.

It scared me.

I think we need to look again at dog ownership and particularly dog breeding - the latter should be tightly controlled and licensed. All dogs should be licensed and a much higher annual license fee should be payable for unneutered dogs and bitches. There are too many puppies being bred that then end up in shelters.

I got a rescue staffie x when my DC were late teens - she is a wonderful dog but I would not have considered having her if I had had young children or grand children.

That's where the 'appropriate boundaries' bit comes in, Flowers. If you're going to quote me then please don't choose just the bits that bolster your argument.

Finite and I think everyone on here particularly those with stronger dogs like Staffs should honestly take note of your story.

You cannot be watching dog and child all the time. It's impossible. If you did, you wouldnt be able to carry on with life, prepare meals, drink tea, answer a text, watch telly. You can't be watching the dog for 'signs' hour in hour out. I honestly would be thinking dog/child should be in seperate rooms always if I had a young child.

One split second like finite says and it could be tragic.

Stormwhale

The last thing I want to do if offend you by the way. I can see that your staffy is a well loved family pet. My personal experience with Staffs has also been very positive.
Yes of course if they are treated well and have good ownership then more than likely they won't turn - it's just the potential for damage that I find upsetting and to be honest concerning.

Precisely Roussette
Finite was lucky, any lovely family dog has this potential. Denial puts people at risk, acceptance manages risk.

Any person/parent who trusts their dog to be alone young children and babies is a complete and utter idiot.

It really is that simple.

Yes some dogs are more 'child friendly' than others, yes a well trained dog is as not likely to snap and yes family dogs who know the whole family probably won't harm someone they know, but nothing is guaranteed.

I do love dogs, but I wouldn't trust one to be alone or unsupervised around anyone unable to defend themselves should they snap.

All it takes is a dog to feel a little under the weather, hot, tired, grumpy, and little hands pat too hard, step on their tail, poke in the eye etc and there is no knowing what a usually tame and timid dog might do in a moment of madness or after a fright.

"What we do know if that this mother felt she trusted it enough to let it into her home"

Welling going by the news being reported now, it wasn't her home or her dog, the children and her had moved into the dog's home a week ago.

And, the photo being printed is not of a staffy.

It's always the same thing isn't it?

The dog that has attacked has either been recently bought or it's not their home

Breed standard for Staffordshire bull Terrier;

Desirable height at withers 36-41 cms (14 to 16 ins), these heights being related to the weights. Weight: dogs: 13-17 kgs (28-38 lbs); bitches 11-15.4 kgs.

I would say anything significantly bigger is not a staffie and I'd be wondering what it was mixed with...

My dog is 8kg, ancient and I could easily overpower him. I wouldn't have an animal in the house that was stronger than me and I absolutely love dogs.

The Concorde analogy is inaccurate, although illustrative. Concordes are very unusual planes and yet showed up disproportionately in accident statistics. Since they're machines, there were readily identifiable reasons for this thus withdrawing them from commercial flights made sense. Staffies are very commonly owned and actually not disproportionately represented in the stats for bites. Plus, a concorde is a concorde. There's no possibility for someone confusing it with a jumbo jet cross. Staffies are much more mixed and actually (KC registration apart) far more difficult to pinpoint.

If you have to use a mechanical analogy, what's happening on this thread is more like someone having a collision in a Ford car and several people then wanting to ban all Fords, without stopping to wonder how common the car is, whether or not media reports were right, what type of Ford it was and whether the collision was actually nothing to do with the make of car and much more likely to be a result of the driver speeding.

I agree with TheCats - accident prevention is a case of managing risk. If anything is offensive on this thread, it's the repetition of myths as facts and the witch hunting that's going on, without stopping to analyse what the risk factors actually are and limiting those. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act did not reduce risk to children, precisely because it was founded on this kind of lack of evidence and knee-jerk reaction.

We need to ensure that dog owners have a much better understanding of the risks that all dogs pose* and how to limit those. Much of that is about understanding dog behaviour, knowing what the warning signs are, and supervising children with dogs. That supervision isn't so that the adult can separate dog from child if the worst happens - it's about spotting it before it might happen and taking action well in advance. I think bringing back licencing and giving owners training in behaviour would be great (and it's what's happening in some countries with regard to keeping horses).

• which is not to say that dogs should therefore be outright banned. I had dogs as a teenager - the good they did my mental health far, far outweighed the risks they posed. The relationship you can have with a dog and the exercise they force you take mean that on balance, they're worth it. As PP have said, you cannot eliminate risk. You can however manage it.

My opinions changed massively that day. If we were having this conversation 5 years ago a couple of months before the incident I would have been posting on this thread saying that my child was perfectly safe around my dog, that she would never even sniff in her direction let alone be aggressive.

When DD was first in her own room she would lie at her door all night as if protecting her. If I didn't get up as soon as DD started to stir the dog would come and annoying me until I moved. When DD cried as a baby she would rub her nose on DDs feet and the tail would wag as soon as there was a giggle.

I don't know what happened that day. I just knew that my daughter wasn't safe around her anymore, never really had been. My feelings as a dog owner had possibly clouded the reality that no matter how well you think you know your dog you never truly know what they could be capable of unless your faced with it.