Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that Staffies are not "nanny dogs"

716 replies

Flowersinyourhair · 14/10/2016 20:07

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
CatchingBabies · 15/10/2016 13:01

OP - in response to this dog being undersocialised by neighbours reports.

The news story I have read is the dog DID live in that house, the mother and children were visiting. Yes they hadn't long moved in but it says they moved in a few MONTHS earlier.

Neighbours saying they've only seen the dog once or twice shows it's undersocialised and under-exercised. Dogs should be walked twice daily at minimum!

IceIceIce · 15/10/2016 13:02

YANBU. That sort of attitude leads to complacency which leads to dogs reacting in the few ways they can. Which unfortunately includes horrific attacks.

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 13:02

"they are teeny compared to all the ones I've seen. I've always thought of the big head as a staffie thing,"

They're not large dogs...officially they're classed as medium, I'd say small, lol.

They do have large heads, but it's in relation to their size, and as they're not that big...

The problem is that anything vaguely that shape is to most people a staffy, even if it's actually a rottie ridgeback cross or a mastiff lab cross or a boxer lab cross or any other cross that would result in a large muscular short coated dog with a big broad head.

Some of them will be staffy crosses, but if breed was an important factor in attacks it should be accurate and if it's not then concentrating on a breed means people think other breeds are safer, which is dangerous.

CatchingBabies · 15/10/2016 13:05

Apologies just seen the update that the gamut had moved in with the dog owner a week before the attack.

So a poorly socialised and poorly exercised dog currently living with no children, we don't know how many children it had been around previously, and then suddenly 2 small children move into its home.

Receipe for disaster sadly.

Pestilence13610 · 15/10/2016 13:05

Kennel club lists them as small.

Those large staffy types you see are strange mixes.

FucksSakeSusan · 15/10/2016 13:12

They're just dogs.

Many years ago they were bred as nanny dogs as pointed out above (I still wouldn't leave any dog alone with a child but that was their reputation).

However since the pit bull ban, they have become the replacement aggressive status dogs. Not only have they been massively overbred but quite possibly had aggression bred back in because that's what the mouth-breathing status dog owners want them for.

Regardless of any of that... Never trust a dog with a child and teach your kids respectful behaviour around animals.

Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 14:27

"However since the pit bull ban, they have become the replacement aggressive status dogs. Not only have they been massively overbred but quite possibly had aggression bred back in because that's what the mouth-breathing status dog owners want them for"

Indeed. This is absolutely the reason why these dogs have no place next to children.

OP posts:
Rozdeek · 15/10/2016 14:29

A lot of dogs that people think are Staffies are actually banned pit bull types or mastiff crosses.

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 14:37

"absolutely the reason why these dogs have no place next to children."

Which dogs though? Staffies, staffy crosses, dogs that are randomly being called staffies when they're not?

Kind of important if you think breed influences whether they should be round children.

Soubriquet · 15/10/2016 14:39

Yes

If you're going to start "banning" dogs, so make sure you have the right breed first won't you

FiniteIncantatum · 15/10/2016 14:42

I've shared my experience up thread but I've been thinking. I've never heard an owner after an attack saying "yeah to be honest I'm not surprised" or "yeah the dog had been exhibiting signs of aggression towards people for a while". They are usually in shock, can't believe it's actually happened and state how out of character it is.

Nobody can ever say my dog wouldn't ever. The truth is you just don't know. My experience hasn't put me off owning another dog, I would love one right now but it's not the right time. I will one day but lesson learnt, I'll never trust a dog fully ever again no matter what the breed, temperament or nature.

limon · 15/10/2016 14:43

Dogs should never ever be in close contact with small kids. I know of a datschund which savaged it's owner. Dogs are wild animals.

BoreOfWhabylon · 15/10/2016 14:44

Staffies were never bred as or known as 'nanny dogs' in this country. It's a complete myth - as googling 'nanny dog myth' makes clear.

It's a term that was recently invented in the USA by promoters of pitbulls.

thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/nanny-dog-myth-revealed.html

LilCamper · 15/10/2016 14:47

Dogs are not 'wild animals', they're actually thought to be the first species to become domesticated.

Mishaps · 15/10/2016 14:50

God almighty! - a discussion about what sort of dog it was - it was a dog - period. Dogs are not safe around children, so do not have one in the house when the children are young - the children come first! I am at a loss to understand this obsession with dogs - you would not keep any other creature who might harm your child in the home; why a dog?! - why anything?! Just ditch the dogs till the children reach their teens - surely to goodness they are more important that some mutt?! Surely peolple can manage for a few years without one!

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 14:52

"I've never heard an owner after an attack saying "yeah to be honest I'm not surprised" or "yeah the dog had been exhibiting signs of aggression towards people for a while". They are usually in shock, can't believe it's actually happened and state how out of character it is."

Well yes, because those of us who acknowledge that our dogs have issues make damn sure they're never in a situation where someone is at risk.

But acknowledging that your pet dog isn't safe around other people and managing that type of behaviour effectively is very very hard and it's much easier to kid yourself on that your dog is fine.

FiniteIncantatum · 15/10/2016 14:55

I'm not disputing that at all. I know plenty of people who have aggressive dogs and are very careful with regards to who the dog spends time with. My point was just that sometimes a dog can act completely out of character. People don't always know what their dog is capable of until it's too late. That was the case with me and I was a very experienced dog owner.

Saucery · 15/10/2016 15:14

A hamster bit me when I was little, Mishaps. Should they be banned too? And I got a nasty peck from one of my Granny's chickens.

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 15:19

"My point was just that sometimes a dog can act completely out of character."

I think that's much rarer than people think though, what I meant was, you don't get people going - yeah he was a bite waiting to happen is because the people who acknowledge that deal with the situation.

My dog is... Unequipped mentally to socialise with anyone bar my family and a couple of trusted friends, he has never bitten, but if he did it would be completely my own fault and due to my negligence.

People don't own up to that.

FireSquirrel · 15/10/2016 15:25

I've just read one of the news reports on this story which say that the family with the children had moved in with the family who owned the dog, and that the two families had been living together for only a week when the accident happened. This is a classic example of a potentially triggering situation - I said in my previous post that some of the common factors we repratedly see in dog attacks are dogs being looked after by someone who isn't their normal owner or dog is in an environment which isn't their usual home. Having just moved house AND had a new family move in with them would've been a stressful situation for everyone including the dog, and stressed animals are more likely to exhibit behaviours that they wouldn't do normally. Breed had nothing to do with it, any dog could become reactive in this situation. Common sense would tell you that any interactions between kids and dog should've been very carefully monitored and introductions done slowly until everyone was settled and confortable with each other. This situation was a ticking time bomb and could've so easily been prevented - the risk factors should've been obvious yet were seemingly ignored. The blame should be totally placed on the dog's owner and the parent of the children.

Also linked to this article was one about a boy who suffered severe, life changing injuries after being attacked by a Labrador, and a girl who was killed by what was initialy reported to be a staffy type and turned out to be a Jack Russell Terrier; bith of those breeds are among the most popular choices for family pets. Any breed is capable of biting and almost any breed is capable of causing death. Banning breeds does nothing but target innocent dogs and deflect from the real issue, which is lack of awareness of dog behaviour. Focus should be on education for pet owners, parents and their children.

JaniceBattersby · 15/10/2016 15:42

I feel massively uncomfortable discussing this in this thread, but for all those people saying that a Staffy attack 'sells papers' or that the media deliberately hype up Staffy attack reports, honestly, you're wrong. If a Staffy attacks a child, at my paper we'd expect (and have had) about 19,000 web hits on the story. When a different and more unusual breed (I'm not saying which, because it will out me and my paper) killed a child locally we got 90,000 web hits. That's because a Staffy attack isn't that unusual. So actually I have no interest in demonising Staffys.

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 15:47

"the media deliberately hype up Staffy attack reports, honestly, you're wrong"

So if it's not deliberate, why do they report dogs that aren't staffies as a staffy attack?

AutumnColours9 · 15/10/2016 15:51

Any dog can turn. But when a pitbull type does it is often horrific. That's the difference from hamsters, chickens and smaller dogs.

Mostly I believe it is bad ownership but in some cases the owners were excellent and the dog turned. Almost all cases of this type in the news are pitbull type.

statetrooperstacey · 15/10/2016 15:54

I had a dog many years ago that attacked someone and had to be put down, it was a small dog but It took me and two men hitting it with spades to slow it down, not stop it, just slow it down. As I said it was a small dog and I don't know how else to describe it but it seemed to just sort of loose its mind, it was foaming at the mouth and was completely focussed on its victim, we were hitting it so hard I couldn't believe we didn't kill it and it never flinched, it also didn't pay us any attention whatsoever, I have never seen anything like it. When a dog 'goes' its fucking terrifying, they are faster than a person.

Bruce02 · 15/10/2016 15:54

So if it's not deliberate, why do they report dogs that aren't staffies as a staffy attack?

I honestly have no clue if the media hype up staffy attacks. But how many people are killed by non staffy dogs in the UK?

Usually low level dog attacks of any kind don't make the news. I would expect anyone being killed by a dog would make the news, regardless of the breed.