Dogs… To think it doesn’t matter whether it’s a legal breed or not?!

[MsWalterMitty]

Just read about the recent child death in St Helen’s. It’s so awful!

The breed of dog has been released and it turns out it’s not an illegal breed. It’s called an American Bully XL, never heard of it so I googled it, even though I had an idea what it might look like due to its name.

Surely, whether it’s legal or not, this dog seems like a really stupid choice for a family!

I've been bitten by a yorkie as a kid. Getting chased by a pit bull was far scarier!

Sadly there is so much ignorance in dog ownership .
People getting dogs that are grossly unsuitable for them, and people who have zero control.

With a license , It’s likely only the responsible will buy one.

Lessons are never to be learned.
More children will be mauled.

So what are we saying? Ban big dogs, labs unless they are service dogs?

This family have paid the ultimate price and I strongly suspect the man was thinking he was a big tough guy and needed a dog that matched his view of himself. He wanted to show off to his friends.

Where the women was in all of this decision making is another issue but buying a dog like this for buttons and bringing it into the home where there was a young child is completely reckless and stupid.

I have a big dog. Lab who I trust but I dont have young children and do I trust it 100% not to growl or bite if a child gets rough or teases? Nope...

I once spent 3 days as a house guest with a golden retriever that barked at me every time I moved. I'm pretty dog savvy but even I was uncomfortable. The dog has since accepted my existence as the next time I saw her I turned up with a load of high value treats and gave them to her basically I bought her acceptance with dried liver

The same dog however, is great with their 3 year old. Difference is of course that I was seen as an outsider.

Old DDog was attacked on two separate occasions by labradors - on one occasion he needed a lot of stitches on his head. Somewhat to our surprise he retained his sunny disposition.

There's dodgy dogs of every breed tbh. Fatal injuries are the easiest to find statistics on (well, a Wikipedia page) but it's not the only thing that should be considered.

Dachshunds are sometimes reported to be the number 1 breed most likely to bite. Yet I've seen multiple parents actively encourage their child to go and touch dachshunds without even asking the owner first - which is rule number one! My dog prefers not to be touched by people outside his family. It's not like he's going to leap for your jugular if you do touch him, but he just doesn't want to be stroked and will move away. In much the same way, I'll allow my DP to touch me in ways I'd never allow the general public to... and yet I've had lots of people just reach out and start touching my dog without asking either me or him.

You can tell people are grasping at straws when they have to pull out a one off case in South Africa as evidence that it's not breed that matters! The child that was killed by the lab (which apparently somehow didn't look like a lab) happened in South Africa FGS.

Now look at the list of killings by dogs in this country and say breed is irrelevant! Bull breeds should be phased out IMO, they can be lovely but when they're not they're deadly and the risk is just too great.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom

[quote BananaPlants]@tabulahrasa - All dogs can bite, but there is a difference between a non fatal bite from a dog that is resource guarding and an attack where an animal has a strong kill instinct and mauls and shakes a baby to death. That’s not really retriever territory is it?[/quote]
There’s a golden retriever lab mix who killed a child in the US about 10 years ago, I won’t link to it because all the articles are pretty graphic tbh.

Like I said there are absolutely breeds that are not suited to the average pet owner.

But I strongly believe that blaming breed does nothing useful, it creates the fallacy that some breeds are safe and really we should be changing the laws round breeding and ownership.

That poor baby. It may be awful to say it but the parents are at fault here, they brought this huge powerful, unknown dog into their home with their baby and another young child, they made that stupid choice. I have no doubt they are devastated at their loss but that doesn’t excuse their stupidity.

Bill breeds can be lovely. My uncle had a Rottweiler that was a dote. However you never trust an animal 100% particularly around dc & far too many people do not have the experience for dogs.

@Nobodycarestakeitelsewhere

It's mad that people will accept a prized border collie has been bred for generations to herd sheep and that genetics are essential to that, but when it comes to dogs that have been bred specifically to fight, it's all "deed not breed" and suddenly genetics don't matter one bit. It's a coincidence that these dogs are killing children and you're just prejudiced if you question whether they make great family pets.

Same with Lure Coursing Whippets That genetic drive to chase is evident from a few weeks old.

A series on police dog training on YT showed puppies specially bred being assessed for “Front tooth grip” and calm confidence.
The assessor said of one that failed that it was not to be expected “Of this breeding” ( pup was nervous )
Clearly DNA has a huge input in basic drives.

There’s a golden retriever lab mix who killed a child in the US about 10 years ago, I won’t link to it because all the articles are pretty graphic tbh.

Why do you think UK deaths have weight towards certain breeds?

@Uttoxerley

“Eeksteek

It IS the breed. Labs and spaniels are bred to like being with people, to listen, to have weak mouths, to enjoy touch. Hundreds of generations of the survival of the soppiest! Fighting breeds were bred to react with aggression, to attack in a frenzy, to be wound up, to hold on with a crushing bite. If a lab snaps (generally out of fear and anxiety because it’s been poorly raised or it’s needs are not met) it snaps, and then runs away to safety, or can be pulled off. It will let go if hurt. It snaps in its own defence, because it doesn’t have hundreds of generations of being bred to strengthen its desire and ability to fight and attack. Fighting breeds have a much higher chance of reacting like this, and a much higher risk of causing terrible injuries if they do. It’s not their fault, and good training and a healthy environment can certainly produce good individual dogs. But that isn’t the same as saying they don’t a higher risk of killing or maiming as a breed.

Genes load the gun. The environment only pulls the trigger. Labs etc come with rubber bullets and safety catches. Fighting breeds are armour piercing rounds with hair triggers. The might not fire, but they kill if they do. All dogs can be dangerous, but big powerful, fighting dogs are the most dangerous, most often. Having one at all is quite a responsibility, but having one around a child is an unacceptable risk snd should absolutely have to consequences to stop other people taking the same risks. It’s what we do with any other child neglect, to deter other parents from making the same poor parenting decisions. The parents would face charges if the child had been accidentally killed or injured by any other weapon, because weapons shouldn’t be near children.”

Wholeheartedly agree with this. The “deed not breed” argument dangerously minimises the issue.

Very articulate post, especially the second paragraph with the loaded gun analogy.

It always interests me when people say BSL doesn't work. How many attacks have been prevented due to removing potentially dangerous dogs from society?

@Nobodycarestakeitelsewhere

It's mad that people will accept a prized border collie has been bred for generations to herd sheep and that genetics are essential to that, but when it comes to dogs that have been bred specifically to fight, it's all "deed not breed" and suddenly genetics don't matter one bit. It's a coincidence that these dogs are killing children and you're just prejudiced if you question whether they make great family pets.

They’re bred specifically to fight animals and still be easy to handle by humans, even when injured.

Why would one party of that be relevant if the other isn’t?

But mostly - you don’t get behavioural traits passed on by just looking a certain way, which is how breed is usually assessed after an attack.

“Why do you think UK deaths have weight towards certain breeds?”

Because they’re the most common type of dog and because they’re usually not pedigree dogs, it’s people afterwards going... yeah looks like one of those.

Genes load the gun. The environment only pulls the trigger. Labs etc come with rubber bullets and safety catches. Fighting breeds are armour piercing rounds with hair triggers. The might not fire, but they kill if they do. All dogs can be dangerous, but big powerful, fighting dogs are the most dangerous, most often. Having one at all is quite a responsibility, but having one around a child is an unacceptable risk snd should absolutely have to consequences to stop other people taking the same risks. It’s what we do with any other child neglect, to deter other parents from making the same poor parenting decisions. The parents would face charges if the child had been accidentally killed or injured by any other weapon, because weapons shouldn’t be near children.

Very well put

@Nobodycarestakeitelsewhere

It always interests me when people say BSL doesn't work. How many attacks have been prevented due to removing potentially dangerous dogs from society?

You’d never know that, but...

People who were planning to breed or own those breeds won’t have just gone, hmm, those dogs are real hard to get hold of now, think I’ll not bother having a dog.

But mostly if it had worked dog attacks would have gone down, not up.

Because they’re the most common type of dog and because they’re usually not pedigree dogs, it’s people afterwards going... yeah looks like one of those.

So the identified breeds are based on people's made up assumptions? 😆

To me it is not about breeds, it is not really about 'dogs'. In my experience there is a fundamental lack of education/awareness of how humans should interact with dogs, especially children.

How would you react if a stranger, three to four times your size walked directly over to you, uninvited, and reached your hand towards your head. Wouldn't leave you alone, followed you around, chased you. You would call the police.

The amount of times parents have either encouraged (or not stopped) their children from doing this to my dogs.

A lot of dogs, especially if they haven't been brought up around children, are afraid of children. Children are unpredictable.

Yet time and time again, parents allow children to interact with dogs unsupervised. Chase them, reach out to them, crowd them, invade their space. It is no wonder these accidents keep happening.

I have dogs, neither of which have ever shown aggression towards humans. I never allow them to be unsupervised around children. We can be out and children will run over and parents make half hearted, don't annoy the dogs. Yet if my dog snapped, it would be my fault.

'macho' men are drawn to specific breeds. The thugs themselves are the main problem, a very real secondary problem is the strength, weight and jaw strength specicific to the breeds dis reputable breeders and owners choose.

“So the identified breeds are based on people's made up assumptions?”

Pretty much, yes.

Pitbulls (in this country) American bulldogs and xl bullies are basically a certain shape of mongrel.

Staffies are rarely staffies, bearing in mind actual staffies are often smaller than a cocker spaniel.

Dogs I actively avoid in park: akitas and huskies, the latter until the owner says is fine/not fine. We don’t get bull breeds much around here. I don’t get the “deed not breed” argument.

There are quite a few German shepherds but they’re lovely dogs generally. There are companies that train them as guard dogs/family pets and generally they are no trouble although so strong that they’re owners can’t always hold them back, but super well trained and are usually 18 months or older.

The only reason I am cautious around Staffies is that they have lock jaws so can cause horrendous injuries very quickly. I have met so many gorgeous Staffies with beautiful temperaments so I can totally see why people love the breed.

@JuvenileGreyFox

The only reason I am cautious around Staffies is that they have lock jaws so can cause horrendous injuries very quickly. I have met so many gorgeous Staffies with beautiful temperaments so I can totally see why people love the breed.

Their jaws don’t work any differently from any other dog, they’re just strong for their size.

Pretty much, yes.

So police shoot the dogs which is what generally happens & seize any others. Often putting down others if they are on the list. And yet all of this is done with no knowledge of what breeds they have actually shot & when they record X death caused by Malamute or Jack Russell cross it's just guesswork?

Clearly we are a nation of dog lovers and ownership has exploded over lockdown. This creates a lot of people owning dogs who actually you probably wouldn't trust to look after a fillet of fish. But it also creates lots of voters who think their dog has broken the stereotype, is the kindest, gentlest dog in the world who would never do anything so terrible as hurt a person, let alone a child. The government don't want to piss off their voters by coming up with a more robust way of managing "types" of dangerous dogs. Restricting ownership merely to "banned breeds" allows them look like they are doing something, whilst doing nothing. We need legislation because clearly the current law isn't working.

Also, lots of people say their children know how to behave around their animals. But what about people you invite into your home, what about when you go out? All unpredictable times when dogs can and do, serious damage. The bigger the dogs, the stronger the owner will have to be to stop an attack. Looking at these big muscular breeds, some just wouldn't stand a chance.

Posters searching the world desperately trying to find Labs or Collies that have gone rogue and killed really aren't helping. Sadly it's about risk. As a society can we can manage a incident where one dog kills someone (absolutely tragic as that would be) once every 10 years? At the moment it feels like we are having these incidents once every week.

These parents are clearly going through hell right now. But unless we talk about this, now, it will keep happening and more children will die. Clearly some people are incapable of responsible dog ownership and this is the time when government have to step in and take that responsibility away from people to protect them, their family and society generally.