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.

Sure knives and cars are dangerous, but bull terriers are a blight on the UK. Statistics don't reflect the chilling effect that these dogs have on their neighbourhoods and the local dog parks.

Museum Again, what about the fact that far more parents kill their own children? Those stats are being ignored on this thread time and time again.

Dogs are far less dangerous, as a whole, than humans.

What do you expect humans to do with this information? We're by far the most dangerous species, does this mean that we must cede to any less dangerous animals? I don't follow your logic.

I would have thought it obvious that humans have rights that other animals do not.

The fact that more humans kill children isn't really a logical argument. Buffalo kill more people than sharks but that's not an argument for having a pet thresher.
Item X being more dangerous than item y isn't an argument for having item y around.

Humans are dangerous
Dogs are dangerous.

We have the law and police and social pressure to keep humans in line. For dogs we need licencing, training and education. And perhaps some education and training for the humans on how to interact with the dogs safely?

It's not a matter of human rights.

It's not a human right to do to your child what Baby P's mother did to him. It's not a human right to beat your child black and blue, or verbally or sexually abuse them. But it happens ALL the time.

There's no logic in demonising dogs when you are far more capable, and likely, to do something to a child than they are.

OP saying that there's no comparison between having a dog around a child and putting a child in the car is absurd. Actually, just about everything OP has said is absurd and shows complete ignorance about dogs and all of the everyday risks you take and dangers you have around your children.

I've been called out to far more instances of humans treating their children appallingly (and, not surprisingly, there's almost always a record of animal abuse/neglect too) than I have ever been called out to instances of dogs attacking children.

The demonisation of dogs while passing off other, far greater, risks as "necessary" is ridiculous.

Yeah, put it this way Hubble, the law and police can do very little to actually keep humans in line.

A dog attacks a child? Dog is put down.

A human routinely abuses their child? Maybe the child is removed, but most of the time they aren't. The parent is "advised" to take a parenting course, but not forced.

As a dog owner, I am not keen on the proliferation of bull terriers in the UK. At the dog park and there are a fair few responsible BT owners, but near all the aggressive dogs are BTs.

As for 'all dogs are capable of aggression' - let's not beat around the bush, some are far more capable than others.

Humans can be a very unpleasant species, as you clearly see in your work.

I suppose licencing /compulsory training/chipping etc is like the law - it's not by any means a 100% garuantee that people will behave but the situation without it is a whole lot worse.

Just to be clear I'm not saying dogs should be banned. I'm not a dog person myself which is why I asked my initial question (why people have them in the house) to which I received several replies that make perfect sense (people get a lot from their animals and believe they enrich their lives.)
I do think that we should have the legislation in place to ensure that every dog lives in a home where the owners are willing and capable of looking after it properly. Licencing, chipping, training, higher penalties for abuse etc.

Sadly, that's easier done with dogs than children.

A dog attacks a child? Dog is put down.

You do realise this is not always the case, right? Not in the UK. Dogs have rights, innit.

Pluto, I share your view that humans get a pretty easy ride when it comes to treating their offspring poorly. The alternative is a bleak, fascist one.

We can, however, have unfettered control over dogs - so why not?

Pluto you are talking massive sweeping statements generalisations about very complex issues. People r not jus sent on parenting courses or having chuldren removed not are dogs routinely just put down

Noone knows what goes on behind closed doors with kids or animals that makes them try to kill/attack and social services have done a lot of shit things in misinterpreting what a dynamic is and the amiunt of 'help' tjey give to a family to protect bulnerable adulys and children.

It takes a lot of support and kids are not dogs. But dog owners should have at least have to signify their undeestanding of dog behaviour from real examples and interpeting them in a test environment and demonstrate knowledge of atrategies for dealing with it and around families/strange situations. It would go to some long way to educating those who dont know that they dont know or care

Can anyone tell me if their animals have ever routinely been chip checked by their vet so the vet can spot every stolen dog. Ive never beento a vet thats done that . Thiebes remove chips anyway so easily done and rhey also pit chips in collars or hold in hand or dont take to vets'!! What good do they do exactlyapart frim rare occasion whengenuine dog loss found?

Can anyone tell me if their animals have ever routinely been chip checked by their vet so the vet can spot every stolen dog

My vet checked my dog's chip once, but I got the impression it was on a whim and she said it was to confirm the chip was working properly.

Dog thieves don't take dogs to vets, so vets should just be cut out of the equation.

Bring on dog wardens! Every dog licensed, chipped, and owner carrying poop bags.

Never seen a dog warden check dogs either so whats the point in chipping. - Makes the agencies involved lots of money though! Distressing trp to vet for what. Some myth that this willkeep your dog safe!

Sorry op. Completely off topic!!

"Can anyone tell me if their animals have ever routinely been chip checked by their vet so the vet can spot every stolen dog."

No, but I'm on first name terms with my vet, so I don't know what she normally does.

Shriek, dog wardens do check chips. We have had a few owners who didn't know that chipping was required by law here turn up at the vets to get their dogs chipped because the dog warden had done random checks in the park.

Shriek dog wardens do check.

Well that is good to hear and cooincides with the advent of the law. I guess they can issue fines then but the dogs in parks are not generally the one without chips (apart from the need to raise aeareness generally responsible owners walk their dogs ib parks) the unchipped with irresponsible owner that cycle with dogs off lead on roads and mjust generally off lead around the streets or stuck indoors. The only people being caught are the responsible ones easily accessible fulking up the coffers.

Not sure why u commented about being on first name term with your vet Tabula, interesting!

*filling. Not fulking!

"Not sure why u commented about being on first name term with your vet Tabula, interesting!"

Oh there wasn't any hidden meaning, I've just had some pets with really dodgy health so because I'm there so often I suspect whether my vet routinely checks microchips is something I wouldn't know.

I can literally book an appointment just yang my first name and they know who I am... I'm pretty sure I keep them in business.

Reading the paper today it seems the baby was snatched from its mother's arms by the dog.

I think that the idea of 'supervising' a dog around children and babies is perhaps giving a false sense of security. This poor woman clearly was supervising (holding the baby.) With any dog that's stronger than you, you are not going to be able to stop an attack. A postmortem on the dog failed to establish a physical problem (such as illness/pain)

My heart goes out to them. Absolute tragedy.

Shriek dog warden in our old area was stopping people in the street asking if their dog was chipped ( before the law came in and advising them to do it before) so they're everywhere.

I really do wish we had the proper facilities to remove dogs in cases like this and conduct behavioural assessments on them.

We do have a small handful of experts in the UKwho could do this, and there is a chap in the US who does this and provides some useful and interesting data - for example, he has determined that a dog has been used to cover up child abuse... and also that a dog bit and killed someone whilst protecting their owner following extreme provocation (just two examples of many, I can't discuss a lot of them as frankly its too graphic!)..

But this would require purpose built kennel facilities that we just do not have - you cannot run a sensible, useful and informative behaviour assessment on a dog in a typical boarding kennel set up, and you cannot house a dog that has killed, in a typical boarding kennel set up, and the only housing available to the police is... boarding kennels (who bid for the LA contracts to house seized dogs).

A postmortem can tell you very very little about the causes of behaviour, if theres no brain tumour and no obvious physical injury such as severe joint issues or spine problems... lets say serious trapped nerves and muscle damage.. thats just not going to show up - nor of course can you behaviourally assess a dead dog.

I am not surprised to learn the baby was actually in the arms of the mother ... thats actually a pretty major trigger for many dogs, something small and prey-like (small, squeaky, noisey, moving) held up above a dogs head...

One of the things I have all clients who are planning on having a baby do, is to teach their dog to ignore them carrying something, teach them not to jump up and grab that 'something' and get used to people doing tasks and dog related chores one handed whilst carring 'something' (and we move from a totally inert object like a bag of flour, to something more interesting like a toy doll, and then add in the sounds a baby might make via smart phone apps)... because this is SUCH a massive trigger for many dogs.

This mother almost certainly didn't know that as this wasn't her dog, and its likely the owner didn't know this as she'd never seen the dog in that context before.

Tragic, and worse, probably avoidable if only proper preparation had taken place :(

"I think that the idea of 'supervising' a dog around children and babies is perhaps giving a false sense of security."

It depends what people count as supervising, if they're actually watching the dog for cues about how it is when they've introduced a child...well that's very different from just being present.

The suoervising most people are talking about is with their family dog and their children. This wasn't their dog and the children had only been in the house a week.

That's not the same as your family pet, with a fairly good idea of what it's like around familiar people.