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 work with dogs. I've never worked with a dog that was involved in a fatality, fortunately, since these are very rare, but the most serious bites I've personally known of or been involved with were:

A basset hound whose owner needed skin grafts after the dog mauled her arm.

A springer spaniel who severed two fingers from its owners hand.

A Labrador who left a child's face permanently disfigured.

Studies show recurring factors in serious and fatal dog attacks are to do with owner behaviour, not breed. Breed specific legislation is a failed concept, it does not protect the public, and it's a huge waste of resources spent targeting dogs which will never cause a problem in their life just because of how they look, and abjectly fails to effectively tackle dogs which are actually dangerous.

In the UK, the way dogs are determined to be illegal is via a tape measure. If it fits a certain set of measurements, it's illegal. If not, it isn't. A dog whose parents are known to be legal breeds can fit the measurements and so be deemed a "pit bull" and illegal. In a litter of puppies, some can be deemed "pit bull types" and so illegal and some not, even though they have the exact same parentage. It's nonsensical. Clearly a dog isn't more or less dangerous because the distance from the ground to the top of its shoulders is or isn't the same as the distance from its shoulder to its hip. But this is one of the measures they use to decide if a dog is illegal or not. It's a farce. It doesn't protect people, it just focuses resources in entirely the wrong direction.

What actually reduces dog bites is education for owners and particularly for parents who own dogs, and effective early interventions where a dog is showing problem behaviour but before it has escalated (it is extremely rare for a fatality to be the first incident a dog has ever had). But there's no interest in putting effective legislation in place because targeting so-called pit bulls is a crowd pleaser, an easy way to pretend something is being done when nothing is being done.

Yes, they are more like to be killed by their dads than dogs @Lumpycustards. But our goal surely should be zero children killed?

This was an entirely preventable death.I find the outpouring of sympathy for the parents is sickening. They may as well have sunk 10 pints and driven the wrong way down the M6 without using a car seat.

@Eeksteek
Are you joking re Akita's jaw strength?
An Akita's jaw strength is equivalent to a bull mastiff / cane corsa. There's a reason they're the drug dealer's dog of choice.

@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.

Not sure where you get this from. Labs are working dogs and have a high bite strength, similar to a German Shepherd and pit bull. Also they can be aggressive. I have a lab who is well trained but he is an alpha male and is aggressive as far as labs go. He responds perfectly to me and my family but I wouldn't leave him with anyone whom I hadn't socialised around him. I've had far more passive rottweilers.

Worst I see was a young child who was in the surgical ward when my son was there, his face had been ripped open by a miniature poodle. It was a horrendous state and he definitely was going to be left badly scarred. He was just over 2 years old.

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.

Excellent post.

Agree - excellent post

@Lifeisaminestrone

So it’s not the breed it’s the owner is just not a valid argument.

I have a cavalier King Charles. I chose it based on being biddable, child friendly and loving. If it showed any aggression with a child, it would be very easy for me to get the 7kg dog off.

Thankfully it hasn’t because it is a sweet dog and because it is bred to be a companion.

For the same reason, I wouldn’t get a terrier dog as while I could fend it off, it was originally bred to control vermin and temperament different to spaniels etc.

A bully dog went for me in the vets a couple of days ago. The owner told me, he was ‘friendly’ - she could barely control it on the lead. In my mind this was a wild dog, chalk and cheese to a family dog.

Totally agree with this. I don't think anyone should have a dog that they couldn't hold back if it suddenly decided to take off on the lead or pin to the floor if it 'turned'. My dog is 17kg and I wouldn't want anything bigger than that.

My dog is also a sweet dog who was neutered as soon as he was old enough (6 months).

@Clymene

Yes, they are more like to be killed by their dads than dogs *@Lumpycustards*. But our goal surely should be zero children killed?

This was an entirely preventable death.I find the outpouring of sympathy for the parents is sickening. They may as well have sunk 10 pints and driven the wrong way down the M6 without using a car seat.

Agree

@WiddlinDiddling

None of the breeds should be banned, anyone thinking that is absolutely utterly ignorant.

Not because I think some of these breeds are fluffy love-bugs who wouldn't hurt a fly, but because banning a breed INSTANTLY makes it much more desirable to the very people who should not have any dog at all - and of course, it pushes others to invent similar breeds they can easily cause to be dangerous to fuel their own egos.

the American Bully /XL bully/Toadline Bully etc etc, all came out of the pitbull ban, as dogs that were/are/probably (given the state of our law..) legal to own, that lend their owner some sort of kudos for having a muscle bound fat-headed dog they can parade around the streets and act macho over.

There are others you likely won't see, the Gull-Terr, the Bully Kutta, and then theres the one folk are less likely to recognise as a problem - the Akitas and Belgian Shepherds that are IMO far more dangerous, being owned by people who want to play at protection 'sports'...

The problem is as it has always been - some people should NOT have a dog, they should not be owning dogs, training dogs, selling dogs.

There have been 0 fatal attacks in the UK, that I am aware of - by dogs owned by people who were educated on dog behaviour, by people who were competent with positive reinforcement training, by people who bought dogs from reputable, ethical breeders or from similarly reputable, ethical rescues that assess dogs properly and put some training into them.

I have never heard of a Belgian Shepherd or a Malinois or a Dutchie attacking a child. I'd be interested to know why you think they are "far more dangerous" as we have one.

Sadly this couple had an error of judgement. They must be suffering terribly. Obv some dogs are more fierce than others .lab attacks slim .Staffin or husky types more prevalent. Do not leave young children alone with dogs.

@Indoctro

The one breed I don't trust around my kids especially is Labrador's.

My dog has been attacked twice by off the lead labs.

My neighbour has a chocolate lab which growled at another neighbours kids when they walked past it on the street.

My friend who has two boys the same age as me, has a lab and he growled at one of me kids even though he lives with kids

This so called family breed makes me nervous around kids. I definitely wouldn't own one.

Dogs are supposed to growl! They are telling you something. It’s a GOOD thing. Dogs who growl and are listened to and have their wishes respected are much less likely to bite. It’s not aggression, it’s just talking. Usually it means ‘I’m unsure and I need space’. Usually, us clueless humans don’t give it to them. We get in their space, and tell them off for growling which frightens them. Then they nip. For dogs, this is still not aggression - it’s completely normal for dogs to nip each other, but they should be taught as puppies it’s not appropriate for humans. But, if people respected the growl, the dog wouldn’t have escalated to nipping’. A dog that nips (when it could badly bite you if it wanted) is still holding back and just trying to get you out of its space. Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be managed, just that it’s not the ‘Aggressive dog red flag’ people think. Just because a dog is used to it’s own family doesn’t mean it will automatically love every kid, or more kids than usual. Lots of dogs are really threatened by change, and kids are loud and boisterous and can’t read signals before a growl, like eye rolling and nose licking. (Lots of adults don’t either)

These are very common issues with dogs and prime examples of why people can get hurt because they aren’t good at reading dogs behaviour and unitemtionally hinder a dogs ability to be a good dog.

Having sutured back together a lot of lips /faces post dog-bite; the common denominator in babies, kids & adults alike was usually Rottweilers.

I think the issue in this case is, not enough checks undertaken into the owners or the history of the dog. How do you buy a dog & then the owners need to be tracked down 🤔

For me, I cannot get my head around how a dog that's only be known for a week, was around a child of this age. A truly heartbreaking outcome.

@Clymene

Yes, they are more like to be killed by their dads than dogs *@Lumpycustards*. But our goal surely should be zero children killed?

This was an entirely preventable death.I find the outpouring of sympathy for the parents is sickening. They may as well have sunk 10 pints and driven the wrong way down the M6 without using a car seat.

I was querying your representation of statistics. On average over ten years, one child is killed a year by a dog and 52 by humans. That is excluding all car accidents, deaths in the home, fires etc which could be attributed to negligence.

Your attempt to gaslight me by inferring that I have no interest in minimising child deaths is not working here.
This is not dogs, it’s always humans. These dogs are not bred properly, not exercised, not trained, not stimulated.

It’s nothing to do with rescues either, I am sick of the cockerpoo brigade implying that their buying a puppy farmed dog is more responsible than rescuing.
Most people involved in rescue are a lot more knowledgeable than your fool who spends 1k on a dog from a breeder.

@Unsurprised456

It’s the upbringing not the breed

Just stop.

@caecilius1

Having sutured back together a lot of lips /faces post dog-bite; the common denominator in babies, kids & adults alike was usually Rottweilers.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dog-breed-most-likely-to-attack-bite-you-revealed-a7166296.html

I have 2 staffie Jack Russel cross dogs they are lovely and as soft as anything they are brilliant with my niece but just because they are lovely and soft doesn’t mean I would leave them unattended with a baby/child being soft doesn’t change the fact that they could snap even the kindest of dog could bite someone.

@Eeksteek I agree , dogs living with kids doesn't make them kid friendly

I have a dog and when any child visits my house my dog is locked away. I do not allow kids to play with my dog or be around my dog

Unfortunately others are so sensible. Hence how my child was growled at in a friends, luckily I was there and made my kid aware to stay away from the dog. I would never allow my kids to go to that house without me though now.

Please if you have children visiting your home, separate your dogs from them. Dogs don't need to mix with other peoples kids / ever.

@caecilius1 are you maxfax? I am surprised at this. It’s not my experience.

@Calandor

XL bully's are very scary looking and often poorly bred but I have met some lovely well trained ones. As always it's the owner usually.

But, they are massive especially their jaw and they are muscular and bred to be 'status' dogs more often than not. I'm not a fan personally.

Stop gaslighting with the As always it's the owner usually.

One look at that dog and you know who bred it, why they bred it, and who wants it.

I kept my cat away from my newborns!! (More of a fear of suffocation but still)

If you can understand that you couldn't train out the instincts of a wild animal to keep it safely in a domestic setting, then you should realise it's the same for these dog breeds which have had years of time/effort/money behind increasing strength, aggression and have them attack in a way which makes them more likely to kill.

The same level of effort has not been made to put 'friendliness' back into these breeds to the level of lap and other companion dogs.

1 child's (or adult's) death as a result of people having a saviour complex for dangerous breeds, ignorance of the dangers they pose, or simply wanting a 'dangerous dog' is 1 too many.

I have never heard of a Belgian Shepherd or a Malinois or a Dutchie attacking a child. I'd be interested to know why you think they are "far more dangerous" as we have one

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7874237/Woman-45-mauled-death-pet-Malinois-Swiss-dog-training-centre.html

The reason you don't often hear of bites from malis or dutch shepherds is that they're not particularly common breeds to own as pets. Doesn't mean they don't or can't bite. I've worked with quite a few malis, I would never ever recommend them as a breed to have around children. They're not nicknamed Maligators for no reason.

I agree but my friend at school grew up with two Staffies and they were lovely. Se as DH and his three siblings grew up with one. It's the owner not the dog.