Active discussions

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

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
minifingerz · 15/10/2016 22:47

The thing is that you can supervise a dog as much as you like but if it attacks and you can't pull it off yourself or a child because it's a massive ball of solid muscle with an exceptionally strong bite, you've got a problem.

Staffies' personality isn't the problem. Their strength is the problem.

Onthecouchagain · 15/10/2016 22:47

"to be"

Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 22:50

"rest of us are free to have dogs (whichever dogs) if that's what we want"- well not quite of course. Some breeds are banned already. Some maybe ought to be. A 10 minute Google will sadly show you numerous reasons why.

OP posts:
Pluto30 · 15/10/2016 22:53

Sure, and it's made no difference. In fact, it's made the problem worse.

Staffys aren't banned, however, and that's the breed you've been talking about this whole time.

justdontevenfuckingstart · 15/10/2016 22:55

minifingerz I totally agree. I have a 20 month Rott. He is lovely and me and oh have discussed this case but he is so strong there is absolutely nothing you could do, he is nearly 60kg of pure muscle.

Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 22:57

"Sure, and it's made no difference. In fact, it's made the problem worse". Would you argue for the reintroduction of the four banned breeds then?

OP posts:
Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 22:58

"He is lovely and me and oh have discussed this case but he is so strong there is absolutely nothing you could do, he is nearly 60kg of pure muscle"

I hope to God you don't have children now or in the future given that you have accepted that.

OP posts:
TisMeTheLadFromTheBar · 15/10/2016 22:59

In my opinion, children should never be left unsupervised with animals. Those poor children, such a tragedy, both for the baby who died and the baby who was seriously injured. Nothing can bring back their baby. Sad

Pluto30 · 15/10/2016 23:02

Not necessarily, but I think it's important to acknowledge that the ban has caused more problems than it's prohibited. I do agree that people should have to have a license in order to own pets (all pets), and that, like gun laws state here, they should be visited randomly by police annually to ensure that the living conditions etc. for the dog are appropriate.

Pluto30 · 15/10/2016 23:03

Or prevented, rather. Prohibited isn't the right word.

justdontevenfuckingstart · 15/10/2016 23:08

flowers sorry my post was to say that I would NEVER leave him alone. I have 2 children and have had 2 Rotts. I am responsible enough to realise the dangers of leaving ANY dog alone with children and and DH would never do that.
We have a very big strong dog so are aware. And for what it's worth I have scars from a dog attack 30 years ago and that was a little terrier.

Glad to see that my responsible dog owning means I shouldn't have children.

Just lovely.

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 23:10

"Would you argue for the reintroduction of the four banned breeds then?"

I'm not hugely bothered about 3 of the breeds, they're rare and much more distinctive.

What banning pitbulls has done is to make dogs that look a certain way illegal, not dogs that have pitbull in them and it doesn't actually deal with dog behaviour, just appearance.

It's a stupid pointless law that does nothing to actually deal with the situation.

So yes, it should be lifted and a fit for purpose dog law should be created.

"Some maybe ought to be. A 10 minute Google will sadly show you numerous reasons why."

It was a kneejerk legislation brought in after one dog attack over 25 years ago fuelled by press coverage and with no evidence or research done as to whether it would actually do anything useful.

There were no numerous reasons.

Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 23:10

I don't think that owning a dog that you know you wouldn't be able to stop if it decided to attack is at all responsible for a parent. I make no apology for that opinion.

OP posts:
Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 23:11

"one dog attack over 25 years ago"- are you suggesting that there was only the one Pit Bull attack 25 years ago after which the breed was banned? Seriously? One attack?

OP posts:
DT2000 · 15/10/2016 23:13

I've owned six dogs over the past 18 years, 2 staffs, 1 Labrador, 1 collie x, 1 springer and a bulldog cross. The collie x bit my son, the Labrador turned on my partner. The staffs have been the least aggressive breed we've had.
Labradors have the highest rate of attacks out of any other dogs but these don't get reported to the papers like staff attacks do.

TheHubblesWindscreenWipers · 15/10/2016 23:14

The comparison to knives was in response to me asking why people would want an animal they know to be a risk in the house - a pp pointed out that there are many risky things in a house, such as knives. I don't think it was meant to be a direct comparison of the two objects themselves.
I personally (and this is just me,) wouldn't have a dog (any dog) in the house with a small child. That reflects the anxiety I feel just trying to keep an eye on one very curious and active toddler (who never sleeps, so I never get a break.) when a dog has visited I found myself very uncomfortable. Ds has no idea how to behave around dogs, I'm no dog expert so I wouldn't be confident about reading warning signs etc, and just the effort of keeping two active creatures away from each other - too much for me. I accept that people more confident and familiar with dogs may feel differently.

The breed does make a difference - I could boot a pug out of the way but a muscle dog of any mixture - not a hope. It doesn't matter if it's X percent staff or bulldog etc They are incredibly strong.
I've seen what a bite to the face can do and it's devastating. The answer is I think to licence dogs and make owning them unattractive to people who can't or won't put the effort in. Breeders need to be very tightly controlled and all dogs should be in a home where they are properly cared for and kept.
A pp suggested public service ads and yeah, I think that's a great idea. Look at the sea change in attitudes to things like drink driving or seat belts for example. Changes to the law plus social change are needed.

justdontevenfuckingstart · 15/10/2016 23:14

flowers Jack Russell? A Corgi? Anything that is a whirlwind of teeth and claws? All can cause harm.

tabulahrasa · 15/10/2016 23:19

"you suggesting that there was only the one Pit Bull attack 25 years ago after which the breed was banned? Seriously? One attack?"

It was rushed through after a 6 year old was attacked by one in Bradford, there was a whole load of media coverage and her MP took it up in parliament.

Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 23:23

Tab- I've just spend 5 mins on Google and come up with a statistic of over 2,000 attacks and 85 deaths as a result of pit bull type dogs in America. By far the highest of any other breeds. I'd link if I knew how on MN but it was an easy Google.

OP posts:
Original poster
Flowersinyourhair · 15/10/2016 23:23

"Jack Russell? A Corgi? Anything that is a whirlwind of teeth and claws? All can cause harm". I don't disagree but dogs that are stronger are more likely to cause death.

OP posts:
ayeokthen · 15/10/2016 23:26

Flowers did you watch the documentary on dangerous dogs on BBC3 recently? It was presented by Professor Green and was really interesting. The head of the Met police's dangerous dog unit said that the breed responsible for the most attacks on children requiring hospital treatment in the last 20 years was dachshunds.

minifingerz · 15/10/2016 23:26

"All can cause harm".

Yes, but an attack by a heavy, muscular dog with powerful jaws is more likely to kill you.

minifingerz · 15/10/2016 23:27

"the breed responsible for the most attacks on children requiring hospital treatment in the last 20 years was dachshunds."

Any reports of dachshunds killing children?

ayeokthen · 15/10/2016 23:29

So maiming small children to the point of needing surgery is ok? As long as they're not killed it's fine. Silly me.

TheHubblesWindscreenWipers · 15/10/2016 23:32

All can cause harm

Yes they can. Heck, a rat bite can need a few stitches.

But would you rather be locked in a room with an angry pug or an angry pit bull?

All animals can bite, or scratch etc. But the damage they can do differs.