Dog attacks boy

[GhoulsAreLoud]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8386023.stm

Sorry, this is a disturbing story. As a parent and dog owner is absolutely chills me.

I wonder what more can be done to prevent these kind of incidents?

Country I think you are kidding yourself if you'd trust any animal at all 100% my cat has torn my husbands shirt and broken the skin when he felt under threat.
They are never 100% tame, ever Shamu (the killer whales) trainer would tell you the animal could eat him anytime he gets into the water and nobody would blame him, it's what they do.

What is the betting it turns out this child was left alone with the dog and was poking it ?

I actually agree with Country, to a certain extent. Some dogs can be trusted 100%. But those dogs are few and far between. Most dogs are fine, but need supervision near young children. They will retaliate eventually, if their tail is pulled constantly, their hair tugged too hard, their eyes poked. But usually give warning first, that is often overlooked by young children.

The Doberman I grew up with was an exception to this. She was a nanny to us and to all my dads rescue animals/birds. She could never have hurt anyone or anything. My mums little black lab is the most gentle, docile (and lazy) dog you have ever come across. She was bullied by my mums cat since he was a kitten.

I wouldn't give the dog I have now the same trust, or my JRT. They are/were both great dogs. But they would have been capable of retaliating if they were pushed far enough.

NO dog is a mindless killer. But some will defend themselves against percieved threats. And I'd bet given the right circumstances a JRT could cause as much damage as GSD. Have you seen those things when they get hold of a stuffed toy???

"Oscy, I'd argue that Policemen are more likely to meet PBTs which are dodgy by the nature of their occupation"

Valhalla, I never said the PBT's were dodgy - the owners of those dogs were without excepion dealing drugs according to this person. That is not the same thing as labelling a whole breed of dog dodgy.
I do agree with your very valid and reasonable POV re breeding and training etc.

"I'd bet given the right circumstances a JRT could cause as much damage as GSD. Have you seen those things when they get hold of a stuffed toy???"

Indeed. As you probably know this kind of behaviour is about 'instinct' (terriers were/are master-ratters) so something smaller, especially if waved or shaken in front of them triggers that aspect of their breed.

Despite that, it really is about training and responsible ownership - for 'positive' examples of how pitbulls can be see 'The Dog Whisperer' - Cesar's 'favourite' dog and ambassador is a PBT and has been used to rehabilitate many aggressive dogs (including other PBT's).

And the real reason many staffys (which are very much people pleasers/submissive but can be dog aggressive with poor control) are confused for PBT's is that they are actually the grandfathers of PBTs. The line was initially from bigger/stockier Staffys being crossed (with dogs such as the American Bull Terrier) to produce what we recognise as PBT now. And the same traits are still there - people submissive but dog aggressive (hence bred for fighting - if two dogs are ripping each other apart (literally), how are you going to enter the ring once it's over if the 'winner' is in a blind rage? You'd risk injury, right? But no. The dog will submit to a dominant owner).

Ugh, I guess I'm veering off topic somewhat. But it's connected to the debate in such that the REAL problem is the ownership/training that these aggressive dogs are NOT getting. That's what needs to be addressed. Perhaps we need to return to dog licensing. I realise this will mean a HUGE number of dogs will be abandoned/PTS but the problem is spiralling out of control with more frequent attacks reported PLUS rescue already buckling under the strain of dogs wothout homes. In this way, won't we lose a number of 'unwanted' animals for the good of what will become literally only 'wanted' licensed dogs?

Will licensing stop these irresponsible owner/breeders? Unlikely. But it WOULD make it much simpler to take action against them and seize their animals.

Of course, the likeihood of licensing being reintroduced is slim to none.

Anyone else have any suggestions as to what would actually have an affect on the 'problem'. The current dangerous dog act clearly isnt helping much, if at all, and as has already been stated the problem doesn't just lie with the four breeds included in the act.

I don't consider Cesar Milan to be an example of good dog training, sorry.

Ah, I wasn't advocating his methods, simply stating that his ambassador dog is a PBT and the complete opposite of what is often perceived of how PBT is.

You can not compare a dog to a person.

All adults have the strength to kill a child but we leave our children in their care because we trust them. You cannot trust any animal in the same way therefore you have to take precautions when children are in the company of animals. That doesn't make you a dog hater it makes you a responsible parent.

Thanks for the correction shiney and new I agree with what you say regarding the need for people to have licences to breed. The problem is that certain breeds of puppies are worth quite a bit. These puppies, the woman I'm speaking about owns are 'pure bred' Staffs and she commonly sells each puppy for something in the realm of £750 to £800. I don't own a dog myself so I was very suprised at the price. Thing is drug users can breed them for extra revenue, so can those on benefits, young people etc. With a large litter you're laughing. And why bother not in-breeding? Saves cash.

But aside from that I have heard of even very docile loving family dogs 'switching' I read somewhere that dogs can sometimes develop brain tumours and have sudden mood swings. I really think all dogs are a risk, it's just that the margin of risk is greater with certain breeds.

I wonder whether licenses for dogs should be £1,000 per year, make dog ownership so expensive that people won't buy them or bred them and we gradually have just the very committed owning them.

Having had a puppy we should never have bought ourselves recently I wonder just how many people really have the time, space and inclination these days to do any dogs life justice, a quick trot around the park twice a day isn't really enough or any quality of life.

And owners, where as in this case anybody adult or child is killed should be charged with manslaughter, 8 weeks - out in 4 no doubt is a joke.

but if drug dealing and dangerous dogs are connected, then money is not going to put them off, plus it would go on illegally anyway as it does now.
Ownership of pitbulls and crosses, and other banned breeds is underhand and hidden anyway
And expat has pointed out resources for police do not stretch to checking out dogs when someone calls in
As the case detailed in this thread shows.

A fee like that would certainly mean curtains for our dog ownership and breeding hopes and she has a super life and always will with us.

Piffle, she may have a very good life. But are you experienced enough to responsibly breed her? I am not and I was bought my first puppy (aforementioned Doberman) before I could even walk. I have never lived without a dog for more than a year since. I also gain a lot of advice and insight from my father, who single handedly raised a litter of abandoned puppies when he was 11 years old and has never not had a dog since.

Can you check any studs for potential health problems that could be bred into the puppies? Do you have the time/money/experince to ensure the puppies are well cared for during their time with you. And could you ensure they go to good homes? Do you have the experience/time to offer ongoing support to the new owners of your puppies re: training

Would you have the space and be able to rehome an older dog should one be returned to you for any reason?

If you can answer yes to all those questions fair enough. But I would insist (and pay for) the stud to have a full and comprehensive health check before you decide to use them. Particular breeds have health problems that responsible, experienced breeders are trying to breed out.

The problem is that we're all applying intelligent logic and debate - and the sort of people who have these dogs are thick scum that don't really give a shit about the safety of their kids or anybody else's - just as long as they have a dog that makes them feel hard.

Nancy, I am not thick. I am offended at being presumed to be actually.

I don't like the SBT because they make you look hard. If that was true, I would have the big ball of fluff that is my foot warmer atm. I'd have taken home the equally gorgeous Akita. Or the Staffy that was afraid of men.

I like the SBT beacause they have a great character and are lovely with children.

To ignorantly catagorise people, in the way just have is what is thick imo.

Many people, own many different breeds of dogs for there own reasons. Not all, or even most of them, wish to look hard. Those eejits are the minority. You just hear more about them, because there is never a need for the well behaved SBT and their respectable owners to be in the newspapers.

Shiny - they are absolutely NOT in the minority. come to south London and spend a day staffie spotting and then make a judgement call on who's holding the lead - they're all very much of a type I assure you.

Sadly, I have to agree with Nany on this.

It's a chav dog.

I have never been to London, but the reality is very different here. I am amused that you would describe the little old dear at the end of our road, with her little old rescued SBT 'a chav'. I am fairly certian she has no desire to 'look hard'.

Maybe you notice those ones more because they offend you? The nicer ones escape your attention, because they do nothing to draw attention to themselves.

Where I live in Edinburgh - a lot of the time they do not have them on leads and it is a certain type of person who owns them.

Most of the young men who own them "get off on it" when they see people flinch as they walk past.

Shiny, i notice them because they are EVERYWHERE. I no longer run on my local common because I don't feel safe. I've been to my MP's surgery about it and several residents called a meeting with local police about it. it is a huge, huge problem in many areas.

I've just had a look on the London Gumtree in the 'pets for sale' section - I would say it's 95% staffs.

I don't live in a city or anywhere near one and yep, it's nearly all chavy types like the bloke downstairs who have staffies.

They are the Burberry of the the dog World.

Well, I'm one person who will say I absolutely trust my dog 100%.

What I mean by that is I can read his behaviour and know how he'll react in different circumstances.

I am NOT saying his behaviour is always perfect.. Far from it, and he does need to be watched when he is around my kids, but I do know that he understands his place in our pack.

Could he be trusted outside our pack? Def. not. One thing I absolutely trust is that in strange surrounding or with strange people / dogs, my dog needs to be watched more closely and will need more guidance as to what is acceptable behaviour.

But, I'm afraid I'm with many others on this thread. I would avoid staffies / other similar breeds unless I knew the owner. (FWIW, I do know several lovely staffies with equally lovely owners but Staffies aren't chocolate labradors and I would always err on the side of caution with such powerful dogs)...

Mind you, saying all of that, I refused to let my (18mo) DS go near a little bichon frise this morning because I didn't know the dog / owner - even though the dog appeared extremely friendly.

I don't think anyone can make a judgement call about someone else's dog.

And I would just like to say to anyone who honestly believes there isn't a significant minority of people who have staffies / staffie-like-breeds as a weapon that the police can't remove from them, then you are deluded.

Obviously, not all staffie owners are like that... But they do exist.

I would say I live in a reasaonably 'nice' suburban area, and there are a few here. Def. done to be threatening / menacing.

A lot of those with the Staffs are young guys who are tryig to look hard or using them as a means of protection. That's not an exaggeration, I live in south-east london and it's just fact. You can stand and observe whilst groups of them meet up in the park with their dogs and get the dogs to 'playfight'. They do it in broad daylight on the corner at the end of my street. Everyone knows they're using them for fighting. Police have come by in the past and just cautioned them.

the thing is, Staffs are known for being kept by people wanting a hard image.

That's not to say that everyone who owns a staffy is like that, but if you knowingly buy a breed of dog that people will associate with thugs and lowlife then you become a part of that image whether you are or not.

I'm sure staffies can be lovely dogs. But the reality is that a lot of people buy them as status symbols, so when you buy a staffy you are automatically associating yourself with those types.

I think rather than putting a hefty penalty on dog owners the penalty should be on breeding. Far too many people breed dogs and there are far too many unwanted puppies in the world already. My personal view is that a dog should be registered when it is purchased and that microchipping should be compulsory. If you then plan to breed the dog you would need an additional licence which should be applied for before the dog is six months old. Once the dog is six months old you should be required to newter the dog, and failure to do so if the dog has not been licenced to breed would result in a fine.

From what I understand, the 2 areas that have dedicated dog units attached to the police are London and Merseyside. In other words, they are concerned about criminal activities involving dogs.