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!

@Odilla

It's not just bad owners though. It's a combination of bad owners and powerful dogs. You are always going to get bad owners. But a bad owner with a chihuahua is a lot less of a menace than a bad owner with a bulldog.

Enough of this bleating about "don't blame the dogs" like dogs are going to be mortally offended by hearing people saying they're dangerous. Dogs don't understand the concept of blame and it's not about blame anyway but about public safety. Having proper public messaging about the damage your desire for a certain type of dog can do to yourself, your loved ones and the general public is not about being nasty to poor ickle doggies but about trying to embed socially responsible behaviour.

Yes @Odilla! Very, very well said!

Any large dog can harm a child.

Pit bull type dogs were at one time considered a good dog for children, and they are popular, in the US at least, with vets and vet techs, as family dogs. Because they are often quite patient and handle a fair bit of rough treatment from small kids.

That being said, if you get dogs that are not well trained, or severely inbred, or that have been abused, you are likely to have problems. And there are dangerous situations that any dog owner, especially with larger dogs, need to recognize. Certain things can trigger a dog's prey drive, dogs in groups behave differently than alone, etc. Children can step into situations without realizing so adults have to be aware, at all times.

And large, powerful dogs includes many types that aren't banned, or which you don't hear about as being dangerous. German shepherds are big dogs that are very capable of hurting children, they also have a herding instinct that can easily become problematic and dangerous, they have a powerful bite. Dobermans were the bad, scary dogs people were hysterical about when I was growing up. Rotties are often used in dog fighting too.

Don’t Rotties also kill children - I remember a terrible incident in the 80s. Doberman are also pretty scary to see on the street and in the 70s people were cautious of German Shepherds as that was the macho dog of choice. Any of those breeds could kill a child in front of me and I couldn’t stop them. I could take on a Jack Russell though.

A 3 month old baby was killed this month in a woodland in Lincolnshire. The parents were walking their huskies and one of the dogs got loose and killed her. This happened late at night which seems a strange time to be dog walking. These parents were with their baby and she wasn't safe from the dogs. I can't bear to think what those children went through.
Is it naivety, ignorance or denial that makes people think their dog would never hurt someone?

@WaspRelatedEmergency

A 3 month old baby was killed this month in a woodland in Lincolnshire. The parents were walking their huskies and one of the dogs got loose and killed her. This happened late at night which seems a strange time to be dog walking. These parents were with their baby and she wasn't safe from the dogs. I can't bear to think what those children went through. Is it naivety, ignorance or denial that makes people think their dog would never hurt someone?

It isn't strange to walk dogs late at night .

Awful none the less ! Terrible . There should be tougher convictions for the owners ... to force people to take more control

Um, late night dog walking is pretty normal, meeting a baby in the woods late at night not so much tbh.

Not that I’m saying it’s anything other than the dog owners fault, you should indeed be able to walk your baby in the woods late at night safely... I’m
Just a bit surprised people do.

The parents were the dog owners. It was 11pm at night. Tbf I don't have a dog so I didn't know late night dog walking was common.

I agree OP. It should be considered as a safeguarding issue and families should not be allowed to have dogs like that as pets. I would ban these kinds of dogs all-together, I don’t care about the dog owners who disagree. We can’t lose any more children to this.

@FungalLurkins
A young child’s life is lost. A toddler dying in such a horrible inconceivable way and you are bragging about your risk assessments. One lost life is enough!

@WaspRelatedEmergency

The parents were the dog owners. It was 11pm at night. Tbf I don't have a dog so I didn't know late night dog walking was common.

Oh, dunno if that makes more sense or not tbh, but yeah, late night dog walking pretty common, taking a baby not so much.

@Bloodybridget
Agree wholeheartedly.
These parents KNEW what they are doing buying a fighter dog that is heavy, big, dangerous, designed for mauling and killing. I am a dog lover but I can’t breath properly if this kind of a dog is coming within 100 m distance from my child. My instincts kick right in, my children’s safety is absolutely paramount. I have ZERO idea of what’s in this dog’s head. Why did they HAVE to have a dog like that?
We safeguard our children, protect them from harm, we are questioned by schools for a random bruise appeared on our childrens body, we are charged for neglect leaving children unattended at home if the accident happens, but apparently having such a dangerous creature at home is fine?! How is this ok? How is this allowed? I agree that ANY dog can bite, but not every dog has such a great potential to kill.
This whataboutery about comparing risks has to STOP immediately. It was a completely preventable death. It was a direct consequence of parental decisions. It’s not an accident. They should be charged. They will never experience what their poor child went through.

@Dontcallmebabylalala

I agree OP. It should be considered as a safeguarding issue and families should not be allowed to have dogs like that as pets. I would ban these kinds of dogs all-together, I don’t care about the dog owners who disagree. We can’t lose any more children to this.

And when the breeds “like that” are banned just like the ones that already are banned and it only changes the breed of dog involved instead of solving the issue, what then?

@WonderfulYou

I hope they’re done for manslaughter

If your dog killed someone do you think you should be done for manslaughter?

If someone is driving drunk and had an accident and killed their kids, I believe they would be done for manslaughter.

How is that any different from having a dog like this?

(Although I'm not saying I hope these parents are done for manslaughter.)

@tabulahrasa
I don’t completely understand your point,
but it’s clear that despite the danger being there from every breed, some breeds are more able to kill. They need to be outlawed. Let’s not pretend to be oblivious to the fact that the dog in question is more dangerous than chihuahua. Every dog can bite, every dog can cause serious injuries. The dog in question is designed to kill, it’s in their blood. Having a dog like this at home in incomprehensible. It should be outlawed.

@Dontcallmebabylalala

We did outlaw some breeds, in the 30 years since attacks have risen.

Breeding and ownership should be regulated, not breeds - responsibly bred and owned dogs are never responsible for attacks.

If you ban breeds the people currently trying to make bully breeds larger, stronger and more dangerous will just move on to other breeds and try to make them larger, stronger and more dangerous.

@tabulahrasa
Agree about it being difficult to ban by breeds. Not impossible.

But I absolutely disagree about “responsibly bred ones”. It’s as difficult as to track all the dangerous breeds and ban them. How do you control “responsible ownership” on a day to day basis? Please don’t continue this ridiculous assumption that the dog that killed this child can ever be “safe” with “responsible ownership”. Any undetected health condition, that the dog suffers, any factor that can come into play can lead to an attack. And no one stands a chance if this dog attacks.

“How do you control “responsible ownership” on a day to day basis?”

I think it should be similar to owning a car tbh. Paid for by owners, compulsory lessons and a licence.

@tabulahrasa

“How do you control “responsible ownership” on a day to day basis?”

I think it should be similar to owning a car tbh. Paid for by owners, compulsory lessons and a licence.

Yet there are countless people on the road who drive with no license, insurance, tax or MOT. They know they are breaking the law, and they don't care. The same will apply to dogs too. The normal law abiding folk will stick the rules, and the ones who don't give shit, wont.

“Yet there are countless people on the road who drive with no license, insurance, tax or MOT.
They know they are breaking the law, and they don't care.
The same will apply to dogs too.
The normal law abiding folk will stick the rules, and the ones who don't give shit, wont.”

And there are lots more who get caught driving without any of those things, it’s not pointless having them in place just because some people slip through the net.

tabulahrasa @Dontcallmebabylalala

We did outlaw some breeds, in the 30 years since attacks have risen.

Breeding and ownership should be regulated, not breeds - responsibly bred and owned dogs are never responsible for attacks.

If you ban breeds the people currently trying to make bully breeds larger, stronger and more dangerous will just move on to other breeds and try to make them larger, stronger and more dangerous.

Then what do you suggest? We have a Rottweiler, a beautiful dog that adores us but another Rottweiler could a loaded gun in someone else's hands whereas a toy poodle, corgi, Westie etc etc is not physically capable of the damage that large guarding/some herding and bull breeds can do.

If something radical isn't done and maybe that's accepting banning scores of dog breeds 'devastating' lots of people, maybe EVERY dog breed will be made high on impossible to own. Which is the better choice?I genuinely would love to hear exactly what people think could work better than a straight up ban on a lot of dog breeds or heavy fines if you're found to own a larger dog with children, something I would be very sad to see.

tabulahrasa and *Dontcallmebabylalala

We did outlaw some breeds, in the 30 years since attacks have risen.*

*Breeding and ownership should be regulated, not breeds - responsibly bred and owned dogs are never responsible for attacks.

If you ban breeds the people currently trying to make bully breeds larger, stronger and more dangerous will just move on to other breeds and try to make them larger, stronger and more dangerous*

The only responsible way to ensure these dogs don't attack children is to never let them near children full stop.

If banning more breeds isn't the solution, what breeding and ownership regulation do you suggest? We have a Rottweiler, a beautiful dog that adores us but another Rottweiler could a loaded gun in someone else's hands whereas a toy poodle, corgi, Westie etc etc whilst capable of biting, is not physically capable of the damage that large guarding/some herding and bull breeds can do.

Regulation/Legislation needs to be far more black and white and extensive than the current flawed DDA. Anything over 20lbs in weight needs an expensive licence and compulsory training for the owner? Not allowed to be homed with children? Banning/restricting breeds based on weight would be easier to determine than breed type and probably have more impact?

I'd be very sad to see breeds being banned but I would genuinely love to know what people think could be put into practice that would actually work.

“Banning/restricting breeds based on weight would be easier to determine than breed type and probably have more impact?”

That’d never pass, the breeds some people think are dangerous are much smaller than labs and labs are way too popular to ban.

Temperament testing before breeding and fines that would cost more than selling a litter and proper licensing for owning dogs with the power to spot check would have a huge impact on dangerous dogs.

@tabulahrasa
This “temperament testing” doesn’t seem as a guarantee of anything and worthless in the long run and valid only at the point of testing. It doesn’t make me feel safe.

Buying a dog over the Internet is madness. If you are buying a puppy you see its parents. If buying or rescuing an adult dog you see it first. Best to get an adult dog from a rescue centre with advice from them.

We’ve had two JRTs. One from a rehoming centre who had been dumped from a car. She was the gentlest little thing. The second we paid £60 for - a relative put us in touch with the owners. She was one of three and just needed to be the only dog. Again she never attacked anyone.

[quote Dontcallmebabylalala]@tabulahrasa
This “temperament testing” doesn’t seem as a guarantee of anything and worthless in the long run and valid only at the point of testing. It doesn’t make me feel safe.[/quote]
It’s not a guarantee, but there’s a huge genetic element to behavioural issues. You’d at least weed out any dogs unable to pass whatever testing was put in place from passing on their issues.

If they can domesticate foxes in a few generations without even training them then you can definitely make dogs safer.