# dog attack on a child



## robbie2 (Aug 20, 2009)

just heard with great saddness a 4 year old child has been mauled by a dog and has died ,the dog has been destroyed.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

Another one 

where and are there more details on what actually happened ?


----------



## robbie2 (Aug 20, 2009)

*dog attack on child*

on the local news,liverpool,also on the teletext on tv,


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

ah okies


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Liverpool Dog Attack: Four-Year-Old Boy Killed In Liverpool | UK News | Sky News

What a tragedy, and proof that the Merseyside Police's "amnesty" was not only cruel, but useless.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Liverpool Dog Attack: Four-Year-Old Boy Killed In Liverpool | UK News | Sky News
> 
> What a tragedy, and proof that the Merseyside Police's "amnesty" was not only cruel, but useless.


 
i agree what a tragedy 

What i dont understand is how its managed to happen in the early hours of the morning 

still not a right lot of information on the article


----------



## robbie2 (Aug 20, 2009)

*dog attack on child*

the amnesty was a load of b***ocks,the amount of cross pits and full pits,in my area is unbelievable, it has not been confirmed what type of dog it was yet that attacked the little boy.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

but it also says the attack happened early hours of the morning surely a child of that age should have been in bed asleep 

and the dog have no access to the child ?


----------



## robbie2 (Aug 20, 2009)

*dog attack on child*

the other child that was killed not so long back was in the early hours of the morning as well,not all people secure their dogs of a night time,thinking of them as family members and substitute children,when there children have grown up a bit,most do not get regarded as dogs,i have 3 dogs ,they are regarded as dogs first and family members second


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

i dont think having a dog as part of the family is a very good excuse 

this was a 4 year old child and should have been secure at bedtime 

my son is 9 years old and i have dogs but they are allowed nowhere near his room or him when im not around and i make damn sure of that too 

people have doors they can shut you can put catches on them for the clever poochies that can open doors 

im sorry thats no excuse


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I agree terrible thing! I guess we'll eventually hear the whole story, but in the meantime are left to guess. 

Like you Emma, I wondered how it happened in the early hours and could only assume that either a) the dog was allowed full roaming of the house, or b) the dog was shut in downstairs and the child woke up and went downstairs and the dog attacked????

Reading the comments from locals was pretty distressing and alarming to read though, too!!!


----------



## aliconda (Sep 6, 2009)

Emmaj said:


> i dont think having a dog as part of the family is a very good excuse
> 
> this was a 4 year old child and should have been secure at bedtime
> 
> ...


i agree with you. these so called 'dog owners' are stupid, even if a dog is rather tame or playful, the damage they can do when just playing is enough to keep them away from your children if you are not present. the fact that it may well be a deemed 'vicious dog' suggests to me that it should have been kept in a cage overnight - like my best mates British Bulldog was when we were growing up - Dudley was little threat to those he knew, but table and chair legs were a different matter :lol2: but still, it is the principle, both a dog and a child lost their lives today down to sheer ignorance of these animals capabilities. people are quick to call a man who puts a cobra to his face, an idiot. but if you put a dog in the same room as a child, that's what everyone does......sorry for ranting, but these things really do annoy me.:bash:


----------



## robbie2 (Aug 20, 2009)

*dog attack on child*

i to have 6 children and know mine are all in bed safe, i also have a safty gate on stairs so the dogs dont go up, not for safty but to stop them eating the cat food,agreed it is a 4 year old child at the heart of this tragic incident,but not everybody is as safty minded with dogs and children as you or i might be


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

feorag said:


> I agree terrible thing! I guess we'll eventually hear the whole story, but in the meantime are left to guess. Like you Emma, I wondered how it happened in the early hours and could only assume that either a) the dog was allowed full roaming of the house, or b) the dog was shut in downstairs and the child woke up and went downstairs and the dog attacked????
> 
> Reading the comments from locals was pretty distressing and alarming to read though, too!!!


there has been more added to it from when i 1st read it eileen i have just reread it 



aliconda said:


> i agree with you. these so called 'dog owners' are stupid, even if a dog is rather tame or playful, the damage they can do when just playing is enough to keep them away from your children if you are not present. the fact that it may well be a deemed 'vicious dog' suggests to me that it should have been kept in a cage overnight - like my best mates British Bulldog was when we were growing up - Dudley was little threat to those he knew, but table and chair legs were a different matter :lol2: but still, it is the principle, both a dog and a child lost their lives today down to sheer ignorance of these animals capabilities. people are quick to call a man who puts a cobra to his face, an idiot. but if you put a dog in the same room as a child, that's what everyone does......sorry for ranting, but these things really do annoy me.:bash:


 
hey you rant away i totally agree with you too :2thumb::lol2:


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

robbie2 said:


> i to have 6 children and know mine are all in bed safe, i also have a safty gate on stairs so the dogs dont go up, not for safty but to stop them eating the cat food,agreed it is a 4 year old child at the heart of this tragic incident,but not everybody is as safty minded with dogs and children as you or i might be


 
No thats very true but if more people were then these tragic accidents wouldnt be happening 

maybe thats the warning that should go out to dog owners with young children.............


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

Sorry to hear about the kid dying. 

Lets be honest whenever a case like this arises all of the time a) an irresponsible owner is involved b) a badly treated pet or c) both.

It won't matter what type of dog is involved, whether it was illegally owned or not deaths like this will attribute to more scrutiny on responsible and innocent law abiding owners. This story have already been made story of choice at the BBC. Watch out more nanny state laws will surely follow.....


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

aliconda said:


> i agree with you. these so called 'dog owners' are stupid, even if a dog is rather tame or playful, the damage they can do when just playing is enough to keep them away from your children if you are not present. the fact that it may well be a deemed 'vicious dog' suggests to me that it should have been kept in a cage overnight - like my best mates British Bulldog was when we were growing up - Dudley was little threat to those he knew, but table and chair legs were a different matter :lol2: but still, it is the principle, both a dog and a child lost their lives today down to sheer ignorance of these animals capabilities. people are quick to call a man who puts a cobra to his face, an idiot. but if you put a dog in the same room as a child, that's what everyone does......sorry for ranting, but these things really do annoy me.:bash:


It's not the same. A corn snake wont kill you. But a cobra will. Whereas a dog is a dog, any dog can do serious damage. Saying that "these dogs" are like cobras is suggesting they're more likely to bite, which is ridiculous.

ANY dog in the wrong hands will bite. Just the kids getting bitten by spaniels and "cute" breeds dont make the news.

As for there being "loads" of pits and pit crosses (mentionned earlier in the thread) just goes to show that people are happy to label anything that looks vaguely bull-ish as a pitbull. True pitbulls are incredibly rare no thanks to the DDA and amnesties. What you've seen are staffies, or mastiff crosses. And no more or less harmful than a pitbull, or a labrador, or a chihuahua.


----------



## Rum_Kitty (Jun 14, 2009)

Great...police are trying to find out the breed of dog involved...that'll be more negative press for staffs/pits/rotties then no doubt. Some people shouldn't be allowed children, or dogs.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I think they should routinely neuter the owners. Then at least they wouldn't be passing on their ridiculously thick genes on to future generations.

And that goes for people who let a 4 year old play with a dog at 2am in the morning.


----------



## Rum_Kitty (Jun 14, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> I think they should routinely neuter the owners. Then at least they wouldn't be passing on their ridiculously thick genes on to future generations.
> 
> And that goes for people who let a 4 year old play with a dog at 2am in the morning.


Finally some sense. People call me Hitler when I suggest this lol.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

LisaLQ said:


> I think they should routinely neuter the owners. Then at least they wouldn't be passing on their ridiculously thick genes on to future generations.
> 
> And that goes for people who let a 4 year old play with a dog at 2am in the morning.


 
:notworthy::notworthy: i 100% agree on that 

that was exactly what i said why the hell was the child able to gain access to any breed of dog at that time in the morning :bash:


----------



## Krista (Jul 18, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> I think they should routinely neuter the owners. Then at least they wouldn't be passing on their ridiculously thick genes on to future generations.
> 
> And that goes for people who let a 4 year old play with a dog at 2am in the morning.


Hi

I Couldn't agree more, and I mean that!

Jingle Bells


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Nobody knows what happened in this case apart from the police and the witnesses. We don't know he was allowed to play with anything at 4am, that is speculation and possibly not very respectful considering a child has died. Can we hold back on judging this situation until (if ever) we know the facts?

My daughter sleepwalks, she has in the past got out of the house when doing so, and begun to wander up the street in her nightie (she was chased and apprehended lol). My son was also badly bitten on the face by a dog in our house, through no fault of his (or even my own, although I always blame myself). My point is that things are not always as clearcut as the media would have you believe. Children get up and wander, parents have to sleep - it might not add up to an ideal situation but equally until we know the facts it's not fair to speculate that there was any neglect.


----------



## leggy (Jan 18, 2007)

This was ment to have happend at just gon 12. The dog was shot at about 2 .I have had mine up many a night at this time. Kids get ill or cant sleep so get up for a cuddle or drink. How sad that so many feel the need to Judge :gasp: A child is now dead and a family is now having to cope with there loss. I cant even think about the pain they must feel right now. RIP little man


----------



## luke2702 (Aug 17, 2009)

I feel so sorry for the child who has died. But i do think that the parents/grandparents must take some of the blame also the police, as this family was reported to the police for suspision of breeding banned dogs (say no more) and they did nothing! 

Well done to the police of liverpool for doing the dog amnesty it really looks like it worked and that they followed up on any leads they were given!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

I feel very sorry for the family and the poor child.

Which ever way you look at it no child deserves to die like that and no family should have to suffer such a loss.

It said on the news it was an American Bull Dog then they said at the end of the news clip the dog was still unknown and was being DNA tested to see if it was one of the four banned breeds.

Too many people in this country are not aware of what a dog is capable of doing. Allot of people seem to think every dog will be ok with a child no matter what. Sadly that is not the case.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

luke2702 said:


> I feel so sorry for the child who has died. But i do think that the parents/grandparents must take some of the blame also the police, as this family was reported to the police for suspision of breeding banned dogs (say no more) and they did nothing!
> 
> Well done to the police of liverpool for doing the dog amnesty it really looks like it worked and that they followed up on any leads they were given!!!!!!!!!!!!


How do you know that they WERE breeding banned dogs - perhaps the reason they did nothing was because they weren't pitbulls? It could have been a mis-identified staffy or boxer, you know how thick most people are when it comes to id-ing a pitbull. Most people couldn't tell a pitbull from a papillon.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

marthaMoo said:


> It said on the news it was an American Bull Dog then they said at the end of the news clip the dog was still unknown and was being DNA tested to see if it was one of the four banned breeds.


Not questioning what you've said at all, just picking up on this because it's reported a lot of the time in these cases, but how do they DNA test for breeds? Won't it only be as specific as species? Always puzzled me that, but I've not got a very scientific brain.


----------



## luke2702 (Aug 17, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> How do you know that they WERE breeding banned dogs - perhaps the reason they did nothing was because they weren't pitbulls? It could have been a mis-identified staffy or boxer, you know how thick most people are when it comes to id-ing a pitbull. Most people couldn't tell a pitbull from a papillon.


 
On the news (i know not the best source) it said that the police did not follow up on the complaint by the housing association about alledgedly breeding dangerous dogs.

I agree about people not being able to tell the difference between pitbull and papillon.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

LisaLQ said:


> How do you know that they WERE breeding banned dogs - perhaps the reason they did nothing was because they weren't pitbulls? It could have been a mis-identified staffy or boxer, you know how thick most people are when it comes to id-ing a pitbull. Most people couldn't tell a pitbull from a papillon.


i think the point is, the police were informed and they did nothing about it. The police have already admitted that they did absolutely nothing about the report... and that this could have been avoided if they acted on the complaint.


----------



## luke2702 (Aug 17, 2009)

Meko said:


> i think the point is, the police were informed and they did nothing about it. The police have already admitted that they did absolutely nothing about the report... and that this could have been avoided if they acted on the complaint.


 
You put it so much better than i could. Thanks


----------



## temeraire (Nov 13, 2009)

There is a rumour - (it may be nothing more than that) - that the uncle of the family was charged with owing a dangerous /DDA banned dog in the past.


----------



## luke2702 (Aug 17, 2009)

temeraire said:


> There is a rumour - (it may be nothing more than that) - that the uncle of the family was charged with owing a dangerous /DDA banned dog in the past.


 
Think that might be the truth but possibly only a rumour (yeah right)


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Meko said:


> i think the point is, the police were informed and they did nothing about it. The police have already admitted that they did absolutely nothing about the report... and that this could have been avoided if they acted on the complaint.


But why would they do something about it if they had determined that they weren't pitbulls? That is my point. We dont know the facts. This person might have been reported for breeding pitbulls when in fact they were proven to be staffies, boxers or plain old mongrels. That could be why nothing was done - do you think all breeders should be reported no matter their breed, on the off chance their dog bites?

I'm not siding with the owners in this case, I'm just saying it's easy to put blame on someone but the truth of the matter is a child died, it could have been a labrador, it could have been a collie, it could have been any breed of dog - and the police might never have been involved because people believe these breeds to be safer!


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Not questioning what you've said at all, just picking up on this because it's reported a lot of the time in these cases, but how do they DNA test for breeds? Won't it only be as specific as species? Always puzzled me that, but I've not got a very scientific brain.


I have also heard it said a few times before and have also wondered how they can do it. 

I found this though...


> A DNA profile is a special DNA signature that is present in each of our dogs and serves to uniquely identify the dog from a small sample of its DNA. If you like, the DNA profile represents a ‘biological microchip’ that can be used to uniquely identify a dog from its DNA. However, the profile can also be used to verify the biological parentage of a dog. This is because each dog inherits half of its DNA from its dam and the other half from its sire. This means that half of the individual components that make up the DNA profile are inherited from the dam and half from the sire. Comparison of a pup’s DNA profile with that of its presumed dam and sire will verify whether they are its biological parents, or exclude one or other if one of the parents is not correct. At the moment the DNA profile does not give us any information on the genes that the dog carries, so it cannot be used to identify any disease mutations that a dog might be carrying. However, the technology that lies behind DNA profiling is very similar to the technology that is used to develop DNA tests for the presence or absence of gene mutations that are responsible for inherited disease. It really isn’t too much of a stretch of the imagination to predict that in the near future DNA profiles in the do will expand to not only give information that will uniquely identify the dog, verify or otherwise a dog’s parentage but also give information on some of the disease genes that a dog might be carrying.


So I imagine they have sample DNA from every breed and compair it to that. Although I have heard it is quite unreliable.
Although I'm left thinking surely they must need the DNA of the parents to rule them out? 

I would of thought they would of had to of called the real experts in to determine its breed. But I doubt they will and will just go with the DNA test.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Well.
This mornings reports are edging towards them having bred 'Banned' dogs. 
Still nothing conculsive as to what breed it is yet. Still nothing to say what breed it is. 

The other thing to also remember that it is against Housing Associations rules to breed dogs in their properties. In fact in HA you can only have 2 dogs and 1 cat. Council housing (not flats, houses) the rule states 2 dogs and 2 cats.

So, firstly, even tho the HA Guy reported it to the police, they themselves should have also issued a notice to get rid and could have goone to court to also have them evicted.

Little things that some people don't know as they say.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

And with regards to DNA. They could never used it to determin if a dog had wolf in the breeding. So I'm not sure how they are thinking that DNA can be used to identify breed since as the tech to do so, does not exsist.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Thanks for explaining the DNA side of things MarthaMoo. :2thumb:


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

BBC News - Dog that mauled boy to death was an illegal breed

So it was an illegal dog an "APBT Type" 
Now after posting the explanation above how can they come back with the word "Type" type of what? Surely they would be able to give the exact cross of the dog. If they actually knew :whistling2:


----------



## saxon (Feb 26, 2007)

If you take this quote 'to the letter'........

"The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 bans the breeding, sale or exchange of four kinds of dogs: pit bull terriers, Japanese tosas, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros. 
Cross-breeds of these are also covered by the law. Other dogs that appear bred for fighting are also banned. "


That would again include almost all 'bull' breeds as people refer to these as 'bred for fighting' whether it be another dog or to hunt another species like bear, lion etc.
In fact it could be any dog they chose to label with the 'type'.

What the dog was is irrelevant as has been pointed out.
It could have been a JRT, they have killed babies in the past, you just wouldn't have heard such a big thing about the breed in that instance.

The fact remains a baby lost his life due to a**holes having the dog in the first place. I put more blame on the grandmother, even though I sympathise with her immensely as well, I have bull breed dogs and grandchildren who visit. 
I never have any of my dogs with the kids unless highly supervised. Any excitement and they are put away even though they are well socialised.
One of them is a sod with dogs but 'I hope' wouldn't hurt a child. I just wouldnt' take the risk anyway.


Do these people never learn?


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

marthaMoo said:


> BBC News - Dog that mauled boy to death was an illegal breed
> 
> So it was an illegal dog an "APBT Type"
> Now after posting the explanation above how can they come back with the word "Type" type of what? Surely they would be able to give the exact cross of the dog. If they actually knew :whistling2:


They say Pitbull TYPE.That to me is a DIY Pitbull.There is no "TYPE" in American pit bull terier it's just that.So IMO they don't know and it was likely a DIY Pitbull not the real deal.So how they DNA tested it ?.God knows.


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

my dog is no guard dog but if it was dark and somthing startled him im sure he would attack it regardless what it was! dogs dont really think like us its


MASTER PROTECT MASTER you never know, ide like to hear the rest of the story though! poor kid not a nice way to go, but that poor dog to one to many other dogs who are destroyed for no fault of there own but the retard who owns it!


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Pimperella said:


> Well.
> This mornings reports are edging towards them having bred 'Banned' dogs.
> Still nothing conculsive as to what breed it is yet. Still nothing to say what breed it is.
> 
> ...


 According to the news, the person who made the report to the police was a housing officer who reported dogs being bred in the house. It's not illegal to breed dogs. No mention was made of it being a banned breed which was being bred, according to police.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people defending the breed type and saying that they are really all sweet like pussy cats and no more dangerous than a jack russell. They were bred for one thing only, aggression. So said the expert this morning too. Anyone who wants to say otherwise is delusional.
I wish there was a proper clampdown and all pitbulls, Amstaff, Irish Staff and the like rounded up and put down. The people who get caught with them should be banned from ever owning another dog, or indeed being involved with dogs in any capacity much as paedophiles get banned from being around kids.And there should be some kind of test for anyone who wants to own certain breeds to check for competence. As the owner of a Rottweiller cross, I'd be happy to take this test and indeed, have Ursa temperament tested by an expert.
Anyone who insists on owning a large animal which is capable of killing a human being, should have to prove that they are intelligent and dedicated enough to be able to properly care for and control such an animal.
Sadly it seems like the lower the IQ of the human, the higher the aggression level in the sort of dog which appeals to them.


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

fenwoman said:


> According to the news, the person who made the report to the police was a housing officer who reported dogs being bred in the house. It's not illegal to breed dogs. No mention was made of it being a banned breed which was being bred, according to police.
> Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people defending the breed type and saying that they are really all sweet like pussy cats and no more dangerous than a jack russell. They were bred for one thing only, aggression. So said the expert this morning too. Anyone who wants to say otherwise is delusional.
> I wish there was a proper clampdown and all pitbulls, Amstaff, Irish Staff and the like rounded up and put down. The people who get caught with them should be banned from ever owning another dog, or indeed being involved with dogs in any capacity much as paedophiles get banned from being around kids.And there should be some kind of test for anyone who wants to own certain breeds to check for competence. As the owner of a Rottweiller cross, I'd be happy to take this test and indeed, have Ursa temperament tested by an expert.
> Anyone who insists on owning a large animal which is capable of killing a human being, should have to prove that they are intelligent and dedicated enough to be able to properly care for and control such an animal.
> Sadly it seems like the lower the IQ of the human, the higher the aggression level in the sort of dog which appeals to them.


but they werent bred for agression to people. look at the tests done on temperement in America, pitbulls pass at a higher percentage than golden retrievers or beagles...its the idiots owning breeds to look hard thats the problem.


----------



## tortz (Nov 25, 2007)

We have a staffy and time after time they get a bad name along with many other breeds, any dog can turn weather its a rottie or a chihuahua! Our staff is daft as a brush, but i would never leave him alone with any child i think people who think there dog is great with people & wont attack are very naive! I dont think in every case the dog is to blame, the owner of the dog is!
There are to many people using these sorts of breeds as trophys and as a weapon.
The owners of dogs who attack or who are bred for fighting etc should have stiffer penaltys most of the time they stop them from owning dogs for a few months and fine them as if thats gonna stop them.

I feel sorry for the little boy and the family but i blame the gran she shouldnt of had the dog in the first place!!
But i find it strange this child was wondering around in the early morning???

Like fenwoman i would be more then happy to take a test to own a certain breed of dog, its such a shame a few naive silly people give dogs a bad name.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

fenwoman said:


> I'm sick and tired of people defending the breed type and saying that they are really all sweet like pussy cats and no more dangerous than a jack russell.


The only thing that makes the bull terrier breeds'etc more dangerous than a jack russell is size.If a loose Jack russel in the street bared it's teeth at me.it wouldn't worry me the size of the dog could ofcourse harm me at least draw blood but not kill.If a loose rotty,Mastiff,Pitbull type'etc in the street bared it's teeth at me than brown pants wouldn't be far behind.There size tells you that this could be the day.

These dog are only always in the lime light coz the the type of undesirable people they can attract.Say theoretically for example that the desired breeds was labrador,st burnard'etc was in the place of these pitbull types.That attrcted these so called hard men.Then it would be the labrador,st burnard'etc that these type of undesirable people always go for.Then these labrador,st burnard'etc would alway be in the paper due to not proper training,being thought to be agressive'etc.Coz of the way they are rase coz that's the way they want them.Bull terrier breeds,Mastiff breeds are haunted by there past.Coz the only reason these so called hard men want them for is coz of there past repetition.

Let say you get you wish all these dogs you say need to go.Know gone.Problem solved ?.NO! they move to the next breed they can use.So that's Rottweiler,german shepherd,belgian shepherd,Dobermann,Boxer'etc'etc'etc.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

fenwoman said:


> . They were bred for one thing only, aggression. So said the expert this morning too. Anyone who wants to say otherwise is delusional.
> .


Experts are usually there to tell the public what we are supposed to hear rather than the truth.
Not disagreeing with what you said, just that i never take the experts word as gospel. If an expert sat there and said they're perfectly fine then they'd be sacked - just like that drugs minister.


----------



## karmadog (Oct 9, 2008)

LisaLQ said:


> I think they should routinely neuter the owners. Then at least they wouldn't be passing on their ridiculously thick genes on to future generations.
> 
> And that goes for people who let a 4 year old play with a dog at 2am in the morning.


I couldn't agree more... :2thumb:


----------



## Mrs Mental (May 5, 2009)

At the end of the day its the little 4 year old laddy my heart goes out to. Poor little boy, what an unimagineable way to die and such a waste of a young life. I think its absolutely heartbreaking. 

Any dog has the potential to be aggressive/nasty/fatal - we are humans and not dogs and we cannot therefore think the same way they can or pretend that we know exactly how they are thinking and what they are thinking and we cannot second guess their next move. I dont care how expert the expert is *no-one *can *guarantee* anything with an animal. 

These dogs are so dangerous because of their sheer size and strength. I dont agree with putting them all to sleep but I do think some sort of education or license or training or whatever its 4 in the morning I cant think properly!!) should be introduced *prior* to owning them.


----------



## ChokolateLatte (Nov 9, 2009)

Mrs Mental said:


> At the end of the day its the little 4 year old laddy my heart goes out to. Poor little boy, what an unimagineable way to die and such a waste of a young life. I think its absolutely heartbreaking.


 
Thank goodness some here think of the child who died first. I have a son not much older and how you can blame a child for it I don't know. 

A four year old can leave their bed at night, they aren't babies to have gates at the door which they could easily open themselves, they are school children. I have experienced myself waking in the night to realise my son missing to find him downstairs asleep on the sofa at 3am after getting up in the night. They aren't usually able to tell the time at that age and when they wake up, they get up instantly.


----------



## davidlottr (Nov 14, 2009)

im sorry but it looks to me like most of you seem to think all dogs are bad, or that they should be shut away.

i have 2 dogs i have a bullmastiff and a staff, now you lot will most prob think i got bad dogs but the thing is its got nothing to do with the dog, its the owner.

a dog will only do what the owner has taught it.

my dogs and 99% are good and mine are family members (not like, they are).


----------



## kirksandallchinchillas (Sep 29, 2009)

davidlottr said:


> im sorry but it looks to me like most of you seem to think all dogs are bad, or that they should be shut away.
> 
> i have 2 dogs i have a bullmastiff and a staff, now you lot will most prob think i got bad dogs but the thing is its got nothing to do with the dog, its the owner.
> 
> ...


I think people are being realistic and sensible by supervising their dogs - the one time in 100 something can happen is still a risk, which usually ends in the dog's death even though it may have been provoked or frightened.

However good a young child is, most trainers say never leave leave a dog and child unsupervised, even for a minute. 

I would rather put my dogs on a lead or put them in another room rather than have the risk (however small) of an incident. I am not just thinking about the child, but the dog's safety and wellbeing too.


----------



## davidlottr (Nov 14, 2009)

i understand the bit about leaving a dog and a kid in a room on there own BUT why should the dog be shut away? same for people that leave there dogs outside. 

if people spent more time teaching there dog rather than showing them off then this sort of thing would not happen.

like i said its not the dogs fault, if yourr going to shoot something shoot the owner.

if you cant control your dog then you should not have one.

that dog is now dead and what is the owner going to get F**K ALL

put it this way if i got a gun and shot a kid, the me in prison for the rest of my life.

BUT

if my dog kills a kid then i get F**K All 

tell me why


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> im sorry but it looks to me like most of you seem to think all dogs are bad, or that they should be shut away.
> 
> i have 2 dogs i have a bullmastiff and a staff, now you lot will most prob think i got bad dogs but the thing is its got nothing to do with the dog, its the owner.
> 
> ...





kirksandallchinchillas said:


> I think people are being realistic and sensible by supervising their dogs - the one time in 100 something can happen is still a risk, which usually ends in the dog's death even though it may have been provoked or frightened.
> 
> However good a young child is, most trainers say never leave leave a dog and child unsupervised, even for a minute.
> 
> I would rather put my dogs on a lead or put them in another room rather than have the risk (however small) of an incident. I am not just thinking about the child, but the dog's safety and wellbeing too.





davidlottr said:


> i understand the bit about leaving a dog and a kid in a room on there own BUT why should the dog be shut away? same for people that leave there dogs outside.
> 
> if people spent more time teaching there dog rather than showing them off then this sort of thing would not happen.
> 
> ...


 
no one has said anything about dogs being evil and bad and shouldnt be owned 

i think you will find that alot of people in this section have 1 or more dogs 


as kirks has said its more to do with the fact of people putting way too much trust in dogs and leaving them around young children unsupervised 

yes i agree dogs become what the owners bring them up to be and in an ideal world they would all be fantastic poochies 

sorry it dosnt work like that there are some idiots out there that end up spoiling dogs and not giving propper training and upbringing which will then end up in injuries or even tragedy 

so no one was saying that all dogs are bad or even yours for that matter all they are saying is people should be more careful with dogs around children NO MATTER WHAT BREED!!!!


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> i understand the bit about leaving a dog and a kid in a room on there own BUT why should the dog be shut away? same for people that leave there dogs outside.
> 
> if people spent more time teaching there dog rather than showing them off then this sort of thing would not happen.
> 
> ...


 

now look at it from this point of view wether its the dogs fault or not...............who is really going to willing take on a dog that has taken the life of a child ?

im sorry but once that has happened then its highly likely to happen again.......... 

the only other option other than put the animal to death would be have t locked up in a small kennel block all of its life...............what kind of life is that for a dog ? 

have limited interaction because of the fact its killed a child 

yes people are put in prison but they understand why they are there and what they are there for dogs dont


----------



## davidlottr (Nov 14, 2009)

Emmaj said:


> *i dont think having a dog as part of the family is a very good excuse *
> 
> this was a 4 year old child and should have been secure at bedtime
> 
> ...


i dont now what your on about as this is what p**sed me off, this is why i put up my first post


----------



## davidlottr (Nov 14, 2009)

Emmaj said:


> now look at it from this point of view wether its the dogs fault or not...............who is really going to willing take on a dog that has taken the life of a child ?
> 
> im sorry but once that has happened then its highly likely to happen again..........
> 
> ...


the fact is this dog has lost its life as the owner is a think C**T, the owner should be shot aswell as the dog had not been trained right.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> i dont now what your on about as this is what p**sed me off, this is why i put up my first post


 
because when you have young children in a house with dogs then the children should be safe and the dogs should be too 

isnt this how the child in question has lost his life in the 1st place a dog roaming about and a child in the house ?


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> the fact is this dog has lost its life as the owner is a think C**T, the owner should be shot aswell as the dog had not been trained right.


 
How do you know that the dog would never have killed if it had of been trained right ?

No one can say that............


yes i agree with you that not enough people train their dogs properly 

but you can never say that something wouldnt of happened if............because it can


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> the fact is this dog has lost its life as the owner is a think C**T, the owner should be shot aswell as the dog had not been trained right.


 
and also the fact is that this dog that has lost his life also took the life of a child................


----------



## davidlottr (Nov 14, 2009)

if you know its not good with kids then you should not have it.

i dont like the idea of loking a dog away they should be treated like a member of the family, and as for who ever said people treat there dogs like another kid, yeah why not if you get it from a pup then you teach it (you teach a kid) you watch it grow (you watch a kid grow) and the best thing about a dog unlike people is they will never stab you in the back.


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> if you dont is not good with kids then you should not have it.
> 
> i dont like the idea of loking a dog away they should be treated like a member of the family, and as for who ever said people treat there dogs like another kid, yeah why not if you get it from a pup then you teach it (you teach a kid) you watch it grow (you watch a kid grow) and the best thing about a dog unlike people is they will never stab you in the back.


 
Dogs are not children..............they are DOGS yes you can train or teach them things but they DO not have the understanding of the way things go i life like right and wrong like children do 


wether a dog is good or not with a child you should NOT leave them alone with a dog in the day at night or when ever 

Yes my dogs are part of my family but my child comes 100% before anything and his safety is my responsibility as it is with anyone else who has children

so shutting a door and keep the dogs away from a child really isnt too bad a thing when think of the things that could possibly happen and result in loosing your child as well as your much loved pet


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*police and dangerous dog laes*



luke2702 said:


> On the news (i know not the best source) it said that the police did not follow up on the complaint by the housing association about alledgedly breeding dangerous dogs.




The cynic in me suggests that the police use the excuse of dangerous dogs to raid houses where they suspect there is organised crime rather than any interest in human safety.Drugs = assets and cash that can be confiscated under the proceeds of crime act,a nice little earner.No suspicion of organised crime = no interest from the police.On a very positive note for these breeds I met a woman in the week whose policeman son had bought a stafford puppy.He bought one as a family pet based on the fact that when he went to arrest people,even if there was aggro the dogs of this type were of good nature and he was impressed by their friendly nature.


----------



## midori (Aug 27, 2006)

davidlottr said:


> if you know its not good with kids then you should not have it.
> 
> i dont like the idea of loking a dog away they should be treated like a member of the family, and as for who ever said people treat there dogs like another kid, yeah why not if you get it from a pup then you teach it (you teach a kid) you watch it grow (you watch a kid grow) and the best thing about a dog unlike people is they will never stab you in the back.


 
I don't think you have a very balanced view on the subject, tbh. Have you got children? 

I love my dogs as much as I love my kids, and, although plenty of people probably disagree, they are of equal importance to me as my children and pretty much come over and above my husband and the rest of my family. 

However, they are not people, they are dogs, and should be treated as such. For a start, they don't have the same needs as people, and a also don't have the same understanding or a system of moral values. (dogs are amoral) 

I don't think someone shutting a dog in another room for five minutes, or even part of the day, is 'locking it away'. The other side of the coin to doing that is what if you left the child and dog together alone and something bad happened? Your dog would be PTS and it would be your fault... Things can and do go wrong. There is a story going around of a dog that suddenly bit a child and upon being pm'ed, they found the child had stuffed a pencil in the dog's ear. I'm not even sure if that story is true, but it is certainly possible. Children do all sorts of silly things, even if they have been taught how to behave around animals, and parents cannot supervise totally 100% of the time. 

My dogs spend part of their time in the kitchen, behind a stairgate. They also sleep shut in the kitchen. My children have strict instructions they must not go nto the kitchen at night, or in the morning without a parent being up and about. (For a start, one of my dogs has fits, and is very aggressive whens he first comes round) Thsi doesn't make me a bad dog owner, nor mean I don't care about my dogs. They get everything they need and more.


----------



## saxon (Feb 26, 2007)

davidlottr said:


> if you know its not good with kids then you should not have it.
> 
> i dont like the idea of loking a dog away they should be treated like a member of the family, and as for who ever said people treat there dogs like another kid, yeah why not if you get it from a pup then you teach it (you teach a kid) you watch it grow (you watch a kid grow) and the best thing about a dog unlike people is they will never stab you in the back.


 
This dog did.......

I'm damn sure it's owner, whether it be the grandmother or the uncle, would have wanted it to kill the child.

I think it said in one ofhte write ups that the neighbours said this dog had been friendly with children until the incident happened.

On another note...

It always seems to be at a grandparents house that these incidents happen. I think this is because the dogs have not been brought up with children 24/7 in the environment so are not as tolerant of children.
I know mine get excited when the grandbrats come over so therefore they are not allowed to be around them unsupervised and unleashed.
Other than the min pin as he is fantastic with them and even if he did 'attack' wouldn't be able to casue damage like the bull types I have.


----------



## mrandmrsk (Nov 28, 2009)

Emmaj said:


> i dont think having a dog as part of the family is a very good excuse
> 
> this was a 4 year old child and should have been secure at bedtime
> 
> ...


 
i cant understand why you would have a dog that you cannot trust i have 5 st bernards and although they live outside i can honestly say that i can trust them with my children even if they were covered in pedigree chum (i dont feed pedigree chum) just an example its not the dog in most cases its the distrust the dog has i the humans and this is mainly caused by its upbringing 

cheri


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

missmoore said:


> i cant understand why you would have a dog that you cannot trust i have 5 st bernards and although they live outside i can honestly say that i can trust them with my children even if they were covered in pedigree chum (i dont feed pedigree chum) just an example its not the dog in most cases its the distrust the dog has i the humans and this is mainly caused by its upbringing
> 
> cheri


 



No dogs not matter what breed should be trusted ALONE with children 

i trust my dogs with my child but i would never leave my child ALONE with them


----------



## mrandmrsk (Nov 28, 2009)

sorry emmaj i thought you ment that you dont trust you dog anywhere near your children as i said all mine live outside and i dont let them in as we live by the pack rules here unless at the late stages of pregnancy when they are never left alone sorry for the missunderstanding:blush:
cheri


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

missmoore said:


> sorry emmaj i thought you ment that you dont trust you dog anywhere near your children as i said all mine live outside and i dont let them in as we live by the pack rules here unless at the late stages of pregnancy when they are never left alone sorry for the missunderstanding:blush:
> cheri


thats no problem lol 

i have no problem in trusting my dogs with my son under supervision

I have no problem with any breed of dog and 100% agree with people that the owner makes the dog 

but like i have already said dogs do not understand human emotions and rules like we do 

And just to say a dog thats not been trained properly may bite well tbh there is always a chance with any dog biting even the best trained in the world 

illness, pain and panic can cause even the sweetest and best trained dogs to bite 

and thats the point i was trying to get across earlier in my posts


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

missmoore said:


> sorry emmaj i thought you ment that you dont trust you dog anywhere near your children as i said all mine live outside and i dont let them in as we live by the pack rules here unless at the late stages of pregnancy when they are never left alone sorry for the missunderstanding:blush:
> cheri


 Pack rules don't apply. You have no pack if your dogs live outside. The pack lives and sleeps and eats together. You simply keep a lot of dogs outside. The humans live inside. If your dogs live one per kennel there is no pack. Never really saw the point in owning a dog which didn't share my life and wasn't my companion and protector and friend. An outside only dog is just a dog. There is no pack bond because it doesn't share your life and home.


----------



## mrandmrsk (Nov 28, 2009)

i think you misunderstod my dogs all sleep together they all eat inside or outside together- top bitch often eats first but everyones bowls go down at the same time- they dont live outside full time they are allowed inside aswell we all play and walk together - you can see my dogs at www.fairviewstbernards.co.uk

i have one pregnant now she is brought inside for her extra meals to ensure she gets what she needs but breckfast and dinner they are all together.

i do also take the dogs in and check them etc on there own so as top bitch doesnt interfear!!!! she means no harm but i still need to check everyone no matter what she thinks!!!

my dogs are very protective of our family and esp the children i trust my dogs with us but if anyone were to hurt us infront of the dogs- i dont know what would happen.....5 st bernards??? best of luck:lol2:

cheri


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

In my house we live as a pack and 8 of the 11 dogs sleep upstairs with us.The 2 large dogs have a job to do and have free roam of the downstairs and garden and one mongrel prefers to sleep alone in the kitchen. Every morning we have a ritual as both sets of dogs do the morning greeting of whining,sniffing and play bowing.
I would never leave a child alone with dogs however friendly they are


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

I have a Bull breed with behavioural issues so I am more than aware of what they are capable of doing. I love him to bits and wouldnt be without mine. My main priority is to keep him safe. Yes life can be a little difficult, he has to be kept away from all other dogs but one in the house and we have to avoid all people and most other dogs when out, just to be on the safe side.

I know Bull breed owners will defend there breed. I wouldnt ever hear a word said about them untill I owned my boy. Now I have seen the other side of the coin I know these dogs are not for everyone. And I dont think just anyone should be able to own one.

These attacks are going to keep happening untill they do something about dog ownership and over breeding. 
The Government brought in a law the police cant enforce even when they are informed about illegal dogs they do nothing.
Its like there waiting untill they have enough amo to bring in a total ban on certain breeds as it will be easier for them.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

marthaMoo said:


> I have a Bull breed with behavioural issues so I am more than aware of what they are capable of doing. I love him to bits and wouldnt be without mine. My main priority is to keep him safe. Yes life can be a little difficult, he has to be kept away from all other dogs but one in the house and we have to avoid all people and most other dogs when out, just to be on the safe side.
> 
> I know Bull breed owners will defend there breed. I wouldnt ever hear a word said about them untill I owned my boy. Now I have seen the other side of the coin I know these dogs are not for everyone. And I dont think just anyone should be able to own one.
> 
> ...


 There already is a total ban on pitbulls but still they exist, are owned, get bred, bought and sold.


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

fenwoman said:


> There already is a total ban on pitbulls but still they exist, are owned, get bred, bought and sold.


Yes, mainly because very few people can tell the difference between the different Bull breeds and crosses we have in this country. 
If a total Bull Breed ban was in place (which is the way we are going) they wouldnt still be here.


Anyway I did hear on the radio the dogs owner has been arrested and charged with manslaughter.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Well I'm pleased to hear that, not that it'll make much of a difference I suspect.


----------



## Desmosedici (Jun 11, 2009)

I got a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and I got him before I even realised that breed of dog is a status symbol and all that crap I got him because hes a lovley dog, obidient...ish He tends to be a little too cheeky sometimes but I let him get away with it.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

marthaMoo said:


> Yes, mainly because very few people can tell the difference between the different Bull breeds and crosses we have in this country.
> If a total Bull Breed ban was in place (which is the way we are going) they wouldnt still be here.


What breeds would that cover then? I hope to god it isn't the way we are going, but I guess ignorance is bliss. Banning pitbulls has done nothing so far, it's banning the morons that keep, iresponsibly breed and beat/train them into aggression that we should be doing.

I say neuter all chavs caught with unsocialised or straying dogs.


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

LisaLQ said:


> What breeds would that cover then? I hope to god it isn't the way we are going, but I guess ignorance is bliss. Banning pitbulls has done nothing so far, it's banning the morons that keep, iresponsibly breed and beat/train them into aggression that we should be doing.
> 
> *I say neuter all chavs* *caught with unsocialised or straying dogs*.


 
I would do it free of charge:whistling2:


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

marthaMoo said:


> If a total Bull Breed ban was in place (which is the way we are going) they wouldnt still be here.


If they banned all bull breeds it would have to be all.Even the British bull dog,Boston bull terrier,Frence bull dog.
Or people can just make there own bull terriers.For example British bull dog X Patterdale terrier = Bull & terrier.British bull dog X Boston bull terrier = Bull & terrier.

Bull & terrier(British bull dog/Boston bull terrier mix).









Also if the got rid of bull breeds there's other breeds that these people will use in the same way.
Rottweiler,German shepherd,Belgian shepherd,Dobermann,Akita,malamute,Shar pei'etc'etc.


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

Shell195 said:


> I would do it free of charge:whistling2:


 
I could help. I qualified in Castration SO I know how to make the right 'slips' in the wrong places :whistling2:


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

Pimperella said:


> I could help. I qualified in Castration SO I know how to make the right 'slips' in the wrong places :whistling2:


 
Thats 2 of us, maybe we could start our own surgery we wouldnt need much just an old shed and a rusty knife:whistling2:


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

LisaLQ said:


> What breeds would that cover then? I hope to god it isn't the way we are going, but I guess ignorance is bliss. Banning pitbulls has done nothing so far, it's banning the morons that keep, iresponsibly breed and beat/train them into aggression that we should be doing.
> 
> I say neuter all chavs caught with unsocialised or straying dogs.


I also really hope it never happens. But the government know they need to do something and they will go for the cheapest option. That or just carry on with a useless law and do nothing.

As for neutering, I fully agree :lol2:



Gazz thats a funny looking little dog (although very sweet also) :lol2:
The most gorgeous dog I have seen was a Staffie x Boston. It was like a mini Staffie but with bat ears.


----------

