How many more killed babies do I have to hear about on the news before something gets done about these fighting dogs

[legscrossed]

I feel physically sick.

18 month old girl versus bull mastif.

Hideous

It absolutely petrifies me, we have a baby ourselves.

These threads all go the same way. Someone complains that they didn't want to hear such awful news and should have been warned.

Then someone says it isn't the dogs fault (even though usually no one has said it was)

Then people come on to say their fluffy wouldn't hurt a fly. Sometimes they add "as long as you don't do anything to startle them"

Someone will say that their Fluffy loves them and/or children very much and gets annoyed at those who don't want dogs running around leaping at people.

If muzzles or leads are mentioned they will often say that the dog has a right to exercise as though that trumps a child's safety.

There are two problem groups. The people who buy dogs for the purpose of terrorising others and the feeling they get from it straining on its big heavy chain.

And those who see dogs as fluffy cartoon-like things with human feelings who don't take reasonable precautions because of it.

There are lots of things that are dangerous as people have said. But most of those (cars, guns, chain saws etc) you don't let people bring them into your living room for the kids to play with. Because you know they ARE dangerous.

Agree with onager

I have been doing 'one to one' dog training and have learnt quite a few new things. Apprently dogs are either 'prey driven' or 'defense driven'.

My JRT was a nightmare because she had been terrorised by four off lead Rottweilers when only a tiny puppy. Everytime she saw anything she was slightly unsure of she went mad as she was defense driven. Having watched how these particular Rottweilers behaved when they saw my tiny puppy they were chasing her like prey.

Some of these dogs view small children in the same way and treat them like prey. It's about time someone taught these ignorant owner this!

well, on this thread, tethersend, quite a few people seem to say that dogs should be banned, which seems to me to come pretty close to blaming dogs.

"Legislating for dogs who have the capability to kill is no different to legislating for knives or guns which have the capability to kill people."

As I pointed out, people have the capacity for killing people- and fairly frequently do so. Yet we see no clamouring for legislation preventing single mums from taking up with new boyfriends- though statistically, they kill more babies than dogs do.

I am not a dog owner myself, but I have lived for many years in a country where no dogs are ever muzzled, because the assumption would be that a dog owner either has control over his dog or the dog is in such a bad way that it should be put down. And killings of children by dogs are not more frequent there. Which leads me to suspect that the problem is, once again, not dogs, but people.

One person said dogs should be banned.

Most people are saying dog owners are the problem. Even nice middle class dog owners often cry out 'Oh fluffles is jusy being friendly' when their giant lab knocks my child dflying and leave their darling's dog crap all over the grass and footpaths. As for the types who deliberately get aggressive breeds....

I grew up with the best dog ever. But I know people lose all objectivity over the capabilities of their pets. Dogs need to be much, much harder to obtain.

I agree. We need legislation to make it more difficult to buy a dog, and keep a dog.

That is the bit of the Swiss regulation that works.

Also, forgot this earlier, private dog owners are allowed to let their dog have puppies twice. If they have more than 2 litters, they HAVE to register as a breeder which is a lot of work. The vets are obliged by law to report if a dog owner brings a dog for a subsequent pregnancy. Breeders are highly regulated.

Sadly the majority of people who own dogs like these are never going to win parent of the year awards.

It is heartbreaking, I do not think the dogs can be blamed, it is the stupid people that get these dogs knowing nothing about the breeds just want one cause it looks tough!

When I had DS1 my mum had a king Charles that was very interested in DS1.
I knew there was no way I would ever leave DS1 and dog in same place and so mum re-homed him

Dogs killing children is outrageous and disgusting. We do need to do something about it very soon. I don't know what but this poor little girl should be the last one.

How can we campaign?

So would it be worth us agitating for a Swiss style change in the legislation? I am too lazy, but if anyone can work out how to to do it, who to approach or email etc, I can certainly get involved in that.

Where I live there are a few 'status dogs' and they are scary to the DC and I swear to god I used a park in another town only to find two men without kids had deliberately taken their ( rather beautiful and well looked after ) dogs in. As I was just about to ask what they were doing, one started staring in a rather threatening way (am not easily scared) they left and I saw fresh dog piss on the slide. They were taking their dogs in to shit and piss in the children's park! I've never even suspected people would even think about doing such a thing, but there you are-seem with my own eyes.

Onagar a voice of reason (hope it's not too lonely out there )

People are generally the issue of course.
Certain breeds are not meant to be around children, without adequate, capable supervision.

What is weird about bringing risks down to acceptable levels??? Very few things in life are totally without risk. There is SIGNIFICANT risk of death every time we leave our house - If i allow my child to play in the road there is significant risk from cars. If i don't allow this, but walk with my child holding her hand on the pavement, i haven't eliminated that risk, i have reduced it to an acceptable level. There is still risk, because cars DO mount the pavement and sadly kill people. I could list more.

I have owned a rottie while dd1 was small - i reduced the risk to an acceptable level by ensuring my dog was used to her touch etc, by training him to a high level of obedience, but NEVER leaving them alone together, by teaching DD to respect the dog. She got so much from that dog i can't begin to tell you. He cemented our family life in more ways than i can mention. He was my best friend and my DD adored him. That dog made such a profound difference to my life and i will always remember and love him, so will my DD. Rotweillers have a very even temprement and well trained make excellent family pets. I can't say there was NO risk, because like many things in life, there is always an element of risk - but it was acceptable.

I am an intelligent woman with many years experience with dogs, im not an idiot who got a big hard looking dog. I have to admit to finding great comfort from having Tiny around when DP was away from home, it was enough to be able to have him with me whenever I answered the door to a stranger - however, i could have received the same reassurance from a labrador.

My little sister was attacked by a family dog who was always around children and fine with it when she was 3. She was lucky enough to survive the attack with facial scarring. After plastic surgery, her scars are minimal. She was not left alone or unattended with the dog. We were all in the room. And it was unprovoked. Dogs can't speak, and we don't know why it happened so it will remain a mystery. That's the level of risk LEM. You can't regulate risk when you never know the factors to consider.

Having said all that - i absolutely agree with those who have said that we need tighter legislation to ensure responsible and safe dog ownwer ship. If banning certain breeds would achieve that then i would welcome it, i just don't think that it will. I am not sentimental about dogs, i do however recognise their value in the family. Yes, certain dogs are less suitable for family life and i recognise that. Maybe a ban of powerfull breeds is the only way forward, however i don't know where the line should be drawn.

I'm sorry about your sister toddler, however if this wasn't your family dog then why was it in the room with a strange child? If i have visitors with children, i put him out, ok, because he is over friendly jack russel pain in the arse, but i am not willing to take a risk with children who he doesn't know. That is how i would have reduced that particular level of risk, i would have put the dog in another room.

I think LEM I was saying that although we can only mitigate some risks eg holding hands to prevent child getting hit by a car mitigates risk but it could still happen as the car could leave road etc, we don't need to take the risk of having a dog around a child at all if that makes sense.

Leaving the house causes risks obviously eg getting run over/ mugged etc. However we all need to leave the house - go to work / school / doctors etc. There is ABSOLUTELY NO need to have a dog around a child and therefore why have an (in your view) acceptable risk when you (and more importantly your child) could have NO RISK at all.

I hope I'm not coming across as arsey I'm just trying to type what's going through my head if you see what I mean

Say they did add the staffy and the mastiff to the banned breeds list. All that would happen is that, regular, responsible caring owners will panic and dump their dogs in already over stretched pounds.

The eejits who buy them as status dogs would ignore the law. Eventually when the police have seized enough illegal dogs from said eejits, they will turn to another a breed. Probably a rotwielller or GSD. These breeds will then be deemed the devil dogs because high numbers of them will be bough by eejits who have no interest in training the sufficently or caring for them properly.

We will ban Rotweilllers and GSDs. The eejits will take a liking to Akitas and dobermans. History will repeat. We will ban akitas and dobermans. And so on and so forth. How long will it be before it is your breed of dog they after banning?

Instead of banning the breeds how about not allowing people with violent criminal records to keep dogs and harsh penalties aka jail for those who flout the law?

So are you saying then that i shouldn't take my child to the park as there is risk that she might fall off the climbing frame? That i shoudlnt take her to the beach in case a freak wave washes her away? God forbid - but where do we draw the line with risk? I would say that the risk to my child from my dog is negligable compared to risk from other things around us.

I agree with you shiny, in fact, when we were looking into rehoming our rottie which died, we had some really sad conversations with Battersea about them being very gaurded about us being able to find our dog a home as they had been inundated with rotties as people had done just what you said, panicked and got shot of their rotties because of some incidents around that time. We weren't doing that, our dog had history and in my heart of hearts i knew we couldnt keep him

I am not completely niave, there is a definate problem with status dogs and i would honestly rather see the staff banned than have them exploited in this way. But like you say, if its not the staff it will be the boxer, the mastiff breeds, how long before its the labrador? Harsher penalties for irresponsible dog ownership definately.
I worry about Akitas if i am totally honest, they are such teddy bear looking dogs but they are one of the breeds i am actually extremely wary of as they do seem to have tendancies towards aggression ime yet they have a butter wouldnt melt look about them.

LEM "So are you saying then that i shouldn't take my child to the park as there is risk that she might fall off the climbing frame? That i shoudlnt take her to the beach in case a freak wave washes her away?2

That's exactly what I'm not saying.

Everyone needs to lead a normal life eg go the beach, go to the park, fall off climbing frames etc, because these things are necessary to live a normal life (you could of course never leave your house but that would not be a normal life).

My argument is you do not need to have a large (and therefore could be dangerous) dog to lead a normal life. And, IMO only of course, I would not have one as a family pet if I had children.

Agree totally with you re Akitas.

The Swiss experience sounds like an approach that could work. I wouldn't normally choose for more regulation as we have so many in the UK already, but the number of children that are injured or killed is unacceptable. I would give the owners of dogs that kill a substantial jail sentence too.

I don't know about Akitas in general. But my fathers has never shown any aggressive tendencies and I used to roll around the floor play fighting with him.

He's a big softy at heart. My mums cat lost her first litter of kittens. A stray she had taken in a few months before her cat got pregnant managed to get into the same room as the kittens and killed tham all. When my mum got up that morning the Akita was trying to help the cat revive her kittens by licking them for her they way she was

I'd still never let him anywhere near kids though. He was not raised around small children. We have no idea how he would react if they upset him. He is not allowed in the same room as him. I think they're a bit noisy for him anyway. He always elects to go into the back kitchen or yard when the children are there.

AFAIK they were bred for fighting which would suggest that are not people aggressive. I may be wrong though.

I don't know if bannign breeds etc would work.

My ds was attacked when small by an off the lead border collie who bit through his shoulder and tore an artery, he ended up in hospital for several days and is badly scarred.

Banning mastiffs etc would not have stopped this happening.

I still have bad feelings towards the owner who said it "wasn't his dog" who did that and walked off as we waited for the ambulance.

Anything that could stop this happening to anyone else (including banning dogs) would be good to me. When I walk down the street with my 8yo ds and he has a panic attack if he sees a BC - and he's had therapy for it, but his fear is very deep rooted - I wonder why anyone would have a dog if it would do this to a child.

I am not entirely convinced that the Swiss have found the answer tbh.

So you have a list of banned dogs. I worry that some will see that as absolute, ie. "we have a safe dog, not one on the dangerous dog list so it would never hurt a child".

And as others have pointed out, banning Staffies mean that other dogs become the dog of choice for violent young men.

I have not yet seen any statistical evidence that the new regulations are doing anything except keeping the vets busy, they are too new for that. It will take a year or two I suppose for there to be long term comparisons available.

I think that tighter regulation of dog breeders is one way forward.

And compulsory lessons for new dog owners. Even making it more difficult to get a dog will put some off who just want the status symbol.

They have just had a report on this on the London news. They were talking to a neighbour who has a rottweiler. His wife said 'you can't keep an eye on the kids and the dog all the time', he says he leaves the kids alone with the dog as they have had him since he was 7 weeks old and therefore he is part of the family and his kids playmate. The reporter asks if they will change their ways in light of what happened over the road and his wife says 'no, it can happen to anyone'.
I really don't know what to say.

I can see the argument with just banning the larger dogs since even the small ones can do damage.

Still if you banned a broad range of powerful/large dogs it would be immediately obvious that someone walking down the street with a huge dog on a thick chain was breaking the law. At the moment you seem to need a DNA test to know if it counts or not.

And even though a smaller dog could attack me or someone near me. There would be an advantage if I were stronger than the dog.

These stories are horrific..

I don't understand how a dog like a staffy can be described as a nanny dog when it has the potential to kill ? Yes, I realise other dogs do bite - the JRT, the Westies, poodles as mentioned at vets etc, but surely the bite/nip you'd receive from one of these breeds is significantly less than the damage a staffy/GSD/Bull mastiff etc. would cause ?

Which, IMO, would put them in the dangerous dog catergory, regardless of responsible ownership.