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.

My point was that even when you think a dog is perfectly safe to be around children - you still take precautions, not whether the family worried about that dog or not.

It wasn't the parent's dog and they'd lived with it for a week - that is a research identified risk for serious dog attacks, breed isn't.

I think it's hugely important to get that message out, because otherwise nobody learns anything and it happens again and again.

Like I said, it's a child protection issue. These children living with dogs are at risk.

There's a big difference between 'no breed is more likely to attack' and the potential severity of an attack. Ok so let's say a teacup dog and a mastiff are equally likely to attack. The likelihood of that attack leaving you seriously injured/dead is very different. That's why somedogs are more dangerous than others

How do you explain away deaths caused by mini dachshunds then, Hubble? Or Pomeranians? Or JRTs? Labradors, the ultimate "family pet"?

And how to you explain the quantity of serious injuries and deaths caused by bull type dogs massively superseding those of the breeds you have listed Pluto? I agree that no dog is entirely safe BUT, as has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, a muscular dog which has the sort of personality a bull dog has brings a much greater risk of serious injury and death. That, to me, is obvious, common sense.

It goes without saying Perfumed that I agree with you. It is irresponsible and reckless to bring into your home a dog which, by definition, you couldn't control if you ever truly needed to. Actually, I find it irresponsible and reckless to argue otherwise two days after the death and serious maiming of two young children. Those who have compared the act of owning such animals with driving a car/owning knives etc are simply deluded.

So many people have told their own stories of attacks by these dogs. Blackfellpony's comment was largely ignored alongside many others. There is some sort of desire from the owners of these sort of dogs to stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to acknowledge what they have in their homes, near their children.

If you look back 10+ years ago, the majority of fatalities were from Rottweilers, but you're not advocating banning them. Nor other breeds, like Akitas and Chows, which have been legislated against too.

I find it funny that you claim we're reckless and irresponsible for responding to a thread YOU started immediately after a baby was killed and another injured. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. You didn't start this thread because you wanted to open up an intelligent, thoughtful discussion, you did it to stick it to people who defend these dog breeds.

How is it deluded to say that you're putting your child at more risk by putting them in a car than you are by having a dog in the house? It's a fact. It's also a fact that more parents murder their own children than dogs kill children.

People have also told their stories about being attacked by other breeds, but you've ignored them every time.

Also, I don't have a Staffy and never have had one. I have a beagle and a puggle, so I'm not defending them out of any personal bias.

Lots of things people have and do in their homes is irresponsible. Putting babies on change tables and leaving them there, leaving a pot handle hanging over the edge of a stove, having hot water in a bath, unanchored bookcases, having a car with no reverse camera, or one that doesn't pick up a small child behind the car etc. All of these things have resulted in the deaths of babies/toddlers, or near-fatal injuries. One of my DD's friends has terrible scarring from burns she got from pulling a pot of boiling water onto herself as a child. But no one advocates banning these things.

You're blowing smoke out of your ass if you think dogs are the most dangerous things your child will or can encounter. They don't even rank close to the top of dangers children face every day.

There is some sort of desire from the owners of these sort of dogs to stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to acknowledge what they have in their homes, near their children.

If you read your own thread you would see that many of us don't have a staffy/bull type dog.

We just don't agree that banning the breed is the best way forward.

I do t explain them away at all. They happen. All dogs are potentially dangerous. All dogs can kill a baby quite easily. No one is saying 'X breed is safe, staffies are the devil.' There are no safe breeds.

My point is:

-All dogs have the potential to maim or kill
-The potential damage done depends on the vulnerability of the victim plus the ability of the dog. So a Pom could kill a baby but it's unlikely to kill an adult.
-no one stands much of a chance against certain types of dog, namely the large or muscular breeds.

• some breeds are more likely to have an attack pattern that is persistent and thus harder to stop.

I personally don't think it's analagous to boiling pans of water etc. You have to cook. A pan is an inanimate object. The danger is removed totally by a gate to the kitchen. The pan will not bound off the stove and go for you. The danger is controllable.

With the best will in the world, even if you are supervising a dog around children, it can still attack. Ifcthat does happen, you stand much more of a chance of preventing damage if it's a pug that can be swatted/kicked out of the way. If you're sat supervising a mastiff around kids you do not stand a chance of stopping it if it turns, It doesn't matter if you're there, supervising.
i have seen this happen - the dog that attacked my family member just snapped and went for his head. He did not stand a chance of stopping it. It took four grown men to pull the dog off. If they hadn't been present he'd have likely died. If there's been children in the room it doesn't bear thinking about.
They are a textbook 'good' owner family by the way - the dog was KC registered, walked,trained, never unsupervised around children - all the things advocated here. It still nearly killed someone. That's why I can't wrap my head around someone having such a potential danger in the house.

We have a small, soppy as hell cocker spaniel. I can easily control it under normal circumstances. But if it suddenly leaps after something more interesting than me (like a leaf/paper bag/imaginary pigeon) the sheer speed makes it hard to react in time.
After this week, I have been reinforcing good dog etiquette like mad with our (teenage) kids. I hadn't realised quite how much they get in its face when playing or lounging around. No more of that. Compulsory reading up on dog stress signals for all of them.
Now how do I get the cat to stop winding it up?

TheHubbles well said!!

So you think all kids that have accidents in the home, have happened because they don't have baby gates?

Again, no is comparing a dog to a knife, a pan of water etc

They are comparing risks. Your child is more likely to get hurt by something other than a dog. We manage risk every day in different ways.

The talk about risk involving knives what was because a poster asked a question about all dogs. Not about staffys/bull /mastiff type dogs. She asked why anyone would have any dog at all if they think it's a risk to have a child a dog left alone. She feels anxious around dogs and was asking a genuine question about dogs in general. Not about staffys.

I have a spaniel. She has never shown any aggression, I still don't leave her alone with the youngest child. She is actually a very small cocker but I manage the risk, like I manage the risk with knives by putting them away.

I don't ban anything that's a slight risk. Because it's not possible.

Again Staffys etc are not my kind of dog. I am not keen on them because where I live there are a 'hard mans dog' . Where I grew up, I never saw one in a family environment, just paraded around by dickheads who liked and laughed at the fact that they snarled and went for everyone they walked past. So in my head they have a negative link.

However I don't think that anyone who has a staffy is a dickhead. I don't think that anyone who has one encourages them to be violent. I also don't think banning breeds outright works.

I don't have a horse (or dog ) in this race. I would never have a staffy, I just don't feel comfortable around them. But I don't agree and out and ban is right or all owners of them are irresponsible.

"a muscular dog which has the sort of personality a bull dog"

Behavioural traits are not inherited by looking like one, especially when crosses of other breeds completely end up looking like one.

"It is irresponsible and reckless to bring into your home a dog which, by definition, you couldn't control if you ever truly needed to."

That's most dogs.

I also think it's a bit telling that you won't acknowledge the fact that far more parents kill their own children than dogs kill children.

Almost everything you do in life has some degree of risk. It's totally ignorant of you to assume that banning something will stop the risk. Consider mobile phones in cars: it's illegal, but it doesn't stop people from using them and putting themselves/others at risk. Bans don't work. And thinking you can live in some sort of secluded bubble where all risk is removed is absurd.

Thank you for the links and advice Gab and Widdlin.

bruce the op is ignoring the fact that several people on here are not staffie owners ( or even dog owners!).
I've already said this thread is not a discussion, it's simply to bitch.
She nows insults the posters who don't agree with her ( and ignores any valid comments they have).
It's the same as what happened 10+ years ago with rotties.

Ive just tried to read through most of this thread and it comes accross very reactive in places balanced with lots of sound advice and horrific stories so horrible to hear... But to experience ...awful.

Amongst breeders certain lines within a specific breed (like labradors, say) become widely known for the temperaments of pups thrown. Some are known for fabulous temperaments and traits. There are lines of working spaniels which should be avoided at all costs as family pets (families buying with yhese genetics in their past will mostlikely remain ignorant of tgis even if they do ask or take the trouble to dig this deep into a dogs genetics to know what they are working with or fighting against!

Its extremely hard to know what you will get from a mix of genetics only best guess . What I do know is that a dogs propensity. or behaving and playing and fighting in certain ways is visible

I loved the poster that was circulated some time back about noticing what a dog is telling you. Dogs have highly attuned sensory accuity. They will notice a slightest eyr movement but many are unaware of theirs, at their peril.
So what I think is dangerous is grouping together a whole host of traits and calling it something innocuous as 'nanny' believed by many who have continually used thisas defence . JRT's have the fighting trait bred into them to fight anything and not give up.
Chocolate labs became a massive fad and the result was many unscrupulous breeders took the breed overly bred it and its ended up with the label of a bit crazy. Its very easy tosee the different lines of breeding in the intelligence shown and those of badly bred lines.

So no one breed means anything much in particular but the people that capitalise on a dogs traits (agressive type/behaviour/traits, fad for designer dogs, a certain colout or look) create and escalate the problems and I wouldnt want to get one purely because they do nowhavesuch an appalling reputation and their breeding . Having said that there are those breeding with the highest of aim at heart, are they still capable of causing more damage/death as a result of the shape/power of their jaw and mode of attack. I dont know. My experiences include highly tolerant Gsd's, guard labradors ripping the arse off a child(who was trespassing), aggressive without provocation dobbies, a collie who killed its elderly owner, corgie attacked child's face just because someone came into the room, puppies being attacked by pitbull crosses

Puppies that have caused a deal of harm to adults and children because they are puppies and real not some soft toy. Their looks belie their intentions.

Nanny is a dangerous labrl for any breed each dog stands on its own merits or not. How can anyone know for sure which is going to react how. Only best guess.

I wouldnt trust an unknown dog unless I knew very well the owners level of integrity and experience and even then keep careful watch.

Wouldnt trust any dog to be entirely predictable in volatile situation or if warnings ignored.

Anyone know of thr poster im thinking of showing a dogs warning signs with a child?

There is no education around taking a dog into your home and inmost cases people aren't killed but seriously not taken seriously enough

I'd be interested in seeing that poster if anyone digs it out. As someone or too familiar with dogs it'd be useful

Would love to be able to attach it here but device not allowing. Ah!

So it says on the poster: Think this is cute? Look closely
It shows child bent down peering close into dogs face and then labels all the warning signs in the dog

Its a good warning. To find it I used keywords: poster warning dog child and clicked on images. Hope someone can find and post.

Only found this way of linking so far

goo.gl/images/REkPiO

goo.gl/images/REkPiO

Dont know where the went then

Flowersinyourhair Mon 17-Oct-16 06:28:08

". Actually, I find it irresponsible and reckless to argue otherwise two days after the death and serious maiming of two young children. Those who have compared the act of owning such animals with driving a car/owning knives etc are simply deluded. "

And why is it deluded to compare it to car driving? Are children never killed or maimed in car crashes? Doesn't even make the papers half the time, let alone the headlines.

Most car journeys are not essential. We use our cars to go on outings, or to go to a slightly better stocked shop, or to visit a friend, or to go swimming. All completely unessential but all things that add to our quality of life. We take a calculated risk simply to have fun.

Lots of people on here would argue that dog ownership adds to their enjoyment of life. I am not and never have been a dog owner myself but I can totally see where they are coming from. And since I did allow my children to get into a car to go to softplay when they were that age, I can't really say anything.

Again, I very much suspect that statistics will show that the biggest living risk to a child will be a man. Often a new boyfriend. Yet we don't see threads suggesting that women should be banned from dating until their children have moved from home.

Maybe to add here to that is the stat that 2-3 on ave per week women killed by men but not sure how this isshoo relating to dog and 'nanny'

Crossing road and driving cars and other risks. This is animals and morerelevant to taking other people into our lives than driving a car

For many they live for their animals For children their animals may have saved their sanity or given a connection to the world in hugely adverse situations

Re:poster. Thank you - that's interesting to see. Im certainly no expert about dogs but looking at that I'd say the animal wasn't happy.

Noone knows what these animals have experienced to turn them suddenly into their other self at its worst in attack state. The figure quoted about deaths of women is also directly linked to dog and generally animal cruelty.