BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:33 PM

SRS, I have had dogs ever since I was a small boy, and my chosen breed is Labrador Retriever. I have never seen or heard of a Lab biting anyone.
We have a TV program called JUDGE JOE BROWN and many of his cases involve dog bites. On his wall is a chart with many breeds of dog from the most vicious biters to the least. The Pit Bull is number one and the Lab isn't even on the chart.
My Brother had a Pit Bull, my Grandson has one, my Grand daughter has a Pit Bull mix, none of them have ever shown any tendency to bite.

Speaking in absolutes is chancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM

Greg F.... yes. Common law and common sense.

Ebbie... two years.... well, I suppose that may send a message. A message that dearly needs to be sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:42 PM

"Here's sommat I don't get. If a dog kills an innocent person, why does the dog owner not spend time in prison for at least the crime of manslaughter?" gnu

In the US, gnu, it most certainly does happen. Not long ago the owner of two dogs that killed a woman in San Francisco was first convicted of murder on the basis that she knew her dogs might kill. On appeal the charge was reduced to manslaughter; the defense argued that she could have known they might cause injury but that she had no way of knowing they would kill. She served more than two years.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:39 PM

a lot of damn fool questions about when my dog should be on a lead.

No damn fool questions involved. A dog in public should be on a lead AT ALL TIMES. The old rule that your right to swing your arm ends where the other fellow's nose begins.

When Dogs - or for that matter any animals - start having more "rights"[sic] than humans ( animals HAVE no "rights", but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated humanely)) we're all in very, very deep shit.

Anyone who equates the life of an animal with the life of a human being is an idiot, and a dangerous one at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM

There are so many sites devoted to praising & defending Pit Bulls that it is hard to sort thru possible 'neutral' opinions. People are quite vociferous about their favorite pets.

What is clear to me is that 'almost' all defenders and a large number of those who campaign against Pit Bull & Rottweilers abandon clear & logical arguments in favor of first person accounts and lists of examples to support their own subjective opinions. (Why, you'd think it was about race, religion or politics or something!)

The truth is almost always somewhere in between the extreme opinions, and all that is really clear is that care must be taken in dealing with all animals....and more so with 'some' animals. Breeding for specific characteristics IS a common practice, and this applies to behavior as well as physical characteristics. When a breed is described as "well suited for children's companions", there is the obvious suggestion that other breeds are less well suited.

I am quite aware that many, many Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and others can be friendly, happy family pets and never cause a problem, but to ignore the statistics about the % of problems that include those breeds would be to ignore reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:08 PM

Here's sommat I don't get. If a dog kills an innocent person, why does the dog owner not spend time in prison for at least the crime of manslaughter?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:03 PM

""Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."

Make up your mind.""

SIGH!!!!!

Context Richard. The posts above had singled out some breeds as dangerous and some as safe.

My response was that, dependent on the effectiveness of training, no breed was intrinsically less dangerous than another.

Perhaps I should have said "more or less dangerous", but I assumed that the context would take care of that.

So here goes for another try.

All breeds represent the same degree of risk, higher or lower, according to how well they are taught to socialise with humans, particularly small humans.

Does that suffice?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:55 PM

""More generally, the human/dog symbiosis is of such long standing that in general it does not need interfering with. Nothing in the world is 100% safe, but if the only way to placate the nanny state is to be crual to dogs I would rather they became extinct.""

In this, we are totally in accord, and I think that to remove dogs entirely from contact with children, would be detrimental to the welfare of both.

Babies and toddlers IMO should have only tightly controlled contact with animals of any species.

By this I mean that both animal and child need to be under a degree of restraint which allows for instant separation if necessary.

In answer, Lox, to your comments about children too small to have provoked attack being dragged from pram or cot, I can only suggest that these animals, barring the one in a thousand which is psychotic, have simply not been trained to defer to all humans in the pack structure. No wolf ever attacks another higher in the pecking order except when challenging the alpha animal for leadership, so a properly trained dog won't behave as the ones you mention have done.

It's not about being soft, or favouring dogs over humans, but about settling pack status.

Owning a dog is a privilege, and I would like eventually to see compulsory training with the dog, as a condition of obtaining a licence. That would prevent the mismatching of dog and owner.

Yeah! I know. Nanny State. But it has to be better than doing away with domestic dogs, and remember, children get nasty bites from rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and pet rats too.

Do we really want to keep them away from all animal contact?......I wouldn't have thought so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM

Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."

Make up your mind.

DeG - anyone who has a Labradoodle has to be barking mad.

Lox - we know you hate dogs. I am sure you ahve been banging on about it for ages. But there is a history of symbiosis of dog with man that goes back thousands of years. Most people like most dogs - and most dogs like most people. Most (indeed almost all) dogs are not dangerous to most (indeed almost all) people most (indeed almost all) of the time.

Personally, I can't stand the aptly named Shit-sues - a dangerous foul smell at both ends, said ends being distinguishable only be the fact that one has teeth and eye disease. But I don't want to condemn all the sad little inbreds to wearing nappies and being unable to open thier mouths.

There are however breeds that have been specifically bred for hundreds of years for aggression and to maximise their abilities to capitalise on that aggression. For those alas the only answer (for the next few hundred years until that innate aggression has been bred out - as it largely has in Great Danes which as well as being boarhounds were once warhounds and manwork dogs - is muzzling, and licences to breed.

The problem with Labradors is showring driven. A high tail carriage became fashionable first in black labradors and then in other labradors. A specialist lab showring judge once told me that 40 years ago if you stood at the tail end of a line of labs standing inthe showring you would never see an arsehole - but now you see them all. Watch any dog resisting threat or itself threatening. Its hackles go up and so does its tail. This is to make itself look larger and a more substantial opponent. Breeding for the high tail carriage selected for dogs that tended to be aggressive.

I don't know if the problem has now been solved in Pointers (to those from other places than England, that is what you call "English Pointers") but when people were trying about 25 years ago to re-create the lost strain of all-black pointers there was a similar temperament problem in mostly-black pointers - not afaik becuase of any association between colour and temperament but simply because breeders forgot to consider temperament.

The main problem however is people. A few years ago a woman in the USA was badly savaged by a pair of mastiff-type dogs that were rather rare. If I remember correctly they were Dogo Canario. Immediately after the breed was identified the few show breeders who had been preserving the breed became wholly inundated with potential purchasers. People wanted dangerous dogs.


The Japanese Tosa in action

Dogo Canario merely threatening

American Pit Bull in training

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM

Good point Maryrrf.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Maryrrf
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:21 PM

"I know I would be extra careful around certain breeds of dogs"

I agree with Bill. Any dog will bite under the right circumstances -It is my understanding that close to 70% of all FATAL dog attacks are by Pit Bulls and Rotweillers. They may or may not have more of a tendency to bite - but they are so powerful that when they do, it's bad news.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM

Well, it was not hard to find some statistics, if not scientific research into causes:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in 2000 a study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979-1998. The study found reports of 238 people killed by dogs over the 24-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 76, or about 32 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities or about 18 percent of the study-identified fatalities. In aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 50% of the fatalities identified over the 20-year period covered by the study, and for 67% of the DBRF reported in the final two years studied (1997–1998), concluding:
"It is extremely unlikely that they [pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers] accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."[3]

Another study, with similar statistics, concludes:

""Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."

So...it would be interesting to KNOW what is responsible...DNA, perhaps... for such statistics, but it would still appear to be prudent to be especially careful around certain breeds.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:16 PM

I think Sorcha's response to her grandchild was perfectly rational: "don't tease or provoke animals: they're not stuffed toys and will react".

Adults also need to be conscious of the fact that animals are not stuffed toys or rational beings either however, and may behave in an unexpected instinctive fashion with other 'little animals'.

The answer lies neither in demonising 'devil dogs' nor blaming 'idiotic' owners. Dogs can be sometimes dangerous and people can be careless too, but the ultimate responsibility in any situation that goes wrong, must always lie with the parents and/or owners, and not with the child and/or animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:04 PM

I think the point he makes about viewpoints becoming scewed is quite valid, Lox, but maybe I need to take my meds. Or maybe just more meds as I seem to be taking enough to not turn a reasonable argument into perosnal abuse...

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM

"70% of the dog bites reported in the U.S. come from Labrador Retrievers. But you don't hear about when someone's black lab bites the neighbor kid, do you? "

There are good reasons why certain dogs are chosen for guard duty, herding sheep, hunting...etc. While ANY breed of dog can be made mean and nervous and dangerous by mistreatment, and any breed of dog can be trained to be relatively safe and well-behaved with decent & loving care, there ARE tendencies which are well documented.

I was a paperboy for several years, and have been snapped at by teeny little yappy dogs and big dogs just pretending to be tough, and know that one must use care around any dog one doesn't know.
The problem is, most of the stories of really vicious dog attacks seem to involve just a few breeds, and many of those stories include lines like "...my Fido never did anything like that before! He plays with my kids and was raised in a happy home."
   There 'seems' to be some inbred factor in certain breeds that causes more extreme results when the dog does get upset, or defensive, or feels threatened...whatever.
I have never read about careful research which might explain why the statistics are what they are, but it ought to be done if it hasn't already. Until then, I know I would be extra careful around certain breeds of dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:40 AM

Question: Lox, what is your solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:42 AM

""Which actually represents your views? That all dogs are dangerous, or that all blonde Great Danes have the temperament of an angel?""

Do you get off on reversing what I say, in order to be able to rubbish it?

Nowhere have I said, nor do I believe, that all dogs are dangerous.

What I actually said was {""BUT does this mean that all properly trained dogs are completely safe?...........NO, IT DOES NOT!, and anybody who says it does is an idiot.

NO dog can be trusted absolutely, especially where small children are concerned.""}, which is not the same thing at all.

I then gave an example of a scenario in which almost every dog, no matter how placid, might react with a bite

Your Bonnie was one of the sweetest natured small horses I ever met, and there is no doubt that it would take some very special circumstance to make her angry enough to snap. Just as well, since, when on hind legs she could overtop my six feet one inch height, which she always did by way of greeting.

That does not equate to stating that she could absolutely be guaranteed never to bite a human being, though I believe I'm right in saying she never did.

Your profession is all about the meaning of statements, and it does you small credit to deliberately misinterpret with a view to pot stirring.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:31 AM

As usual, Clarkson is amusing, but at no point actually addresses the issue.

The same article also suggests that tightening up airport security is a waste of time and will change nothing, and that we should just accept that sometimes men with beards go a bit crazy.

Apart from the fact that he implies that air travellers are only at risk from caricatured men with beards, he addresses none of the points raised.

Bear in mind that he is an entertainer - whose current fame depends on pretending to be a caricature, and having two sidekicks whose job it is to laugh at him. Consequently he is allowed to do and say just about anything - but anyone taking him seriously needs to start on the meds.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:37 AM

Much as Jeremy Clarkson provokes as much controvery as the subjects he writes about he does often make sense -

From This article in the Times

No, really. Because one dog once ate one child, some hopeless little twerp from the department of dogs had to think of something sincere to say on the steps of the coroner's court. Inevitably, they will have argued that the current law is "not fit for purpose", whatever that means, and that "steps must be taken to ensure this never happens again".

The steps being considered mean that every dog owner in the land will have to fit their pet with a microchip so that its whereabouts can be determined from dog-spotting spy-in-the-sky drones, and that before being allowed to take delivery of a puppy, people will have to sit an exam similar to the driving theory test. The cost could reach £60, and on top of this you will need compulsory third-party insurance in case your spaniel eats the milkman.

So to ensure that someone in the north called Mick doesn't shove his pit bull into a primary school playground to calm it down, I will now have to computerise my labradoodle and answer a lot of damn fool questions about when my dog should be on a lead.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM

"Is that what you'd say when a human kills another human?

Your honour, I shot him because he poked me in the eye.

Poor doggy!..."


Before anyone takes this comparison seriously, lets remember that the dogs in question were considered family members, and the children were attacked in their own homes.

So lets extend the comparison.

Your honour, I killed my baby son/brother because he was climbing all over me and poking me in the eye.

A human with that approach would have to be a total psychopath.

Any human who gave my daughter a "warning nip" would be playing with fire if I saw it. I wouldn't just send him outside, I would exclude him from ever having anything to do with me and my family ever again. I would then inform the police.

If a family member scarred my daughters cheek in retaliation for her affection, excitement, overenthusiasm or even naughtiness, I would also call the police and warn them never to darken my door again.

So why do these dogs get special treatment?

Why run the risk of it happening again?

This is where humans/owners need to start taking responsibility and owning up to the risks.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:53 AM

Problem is that each argument presented falls under scrutiny.

So Dogs retaliate when provoked ...

... what about babies pulled out of cots?

It happened last year to the child of a pub landlord.


In the cases above the dogs were well treated - so it isn't always about abuysed dogs.

In the cases above, there were adults present - so it isn't always about supervision.

In other cases, it has happened to babies who could no more go and poke a dog in the eye than a doll could - so it isn't always about provocation.


What is the common factor?

There is always an element of risk because dogs are dangerous.


In the situation above with the 2 year old "learni8ng his lesson", what about the adults learning the lesson that small children and dogs who bite should be kept a safe distance apart at all times.

So yes dangerous Dogs are a human problem.

Yes stupid adults should take responsibility for them.

They should take responsibility and accept that their dog is a risk to kids.

Who do you think you are saying that everyone else including children should take responsibility for being attacked by your dog!

If the dog wasn't there there wouldn't be an issue.

Numerous small children are killed by dogs and the response here is to say "yeah well what did they do"

Is that what you'd say when a human kills another human?

Your honour, I shot him because he poked me in the eye.

Poor doggy!...


The reason you are quitting this discussion is because you have yet to provide a good reason.

All you have done is assert your opinion.

Now why not test it and see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

It is currently looking totally unsupportable.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:59 AM

For some reason a post I made under a consistent guest identity was deleted (or coincidentally vanished).

Don, your postings here are wholly at variance with views I have heard you repeatedly express in person - typified by your repeated statements that Bonnie my blonde Great Dane bitch (RIP) had, "like every other blonde [Great Dane] the temperament of an angel".

Which actually represents your views? That all dogs are dangerous, or that all blonde Great Danes have the temperament of an angel?


More generally, the human/dog symbiosis is of such long standing that in general it does not need interfering with. Nothing in the world is 100% safe, but if the only way to placate the nanny state is to be crual to dogs I would rather they became extinct. I like most dogs better than I like many people - and anything that can barely tolerate cats can't be all bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:51 AM

I grew up with dogs, and I enjoy having dogs again now. I am not getting more cats because I'm tired of the cat hair and litter boxes, but also because my dogs get too excited when they see cats.

I agree, Lox' statements like "Sorry if you've got one and you don't want to face the truth, but the cost is just too high" indicate that he isn't going to accept any of the rational answers provided here. Let's just hope that he doesn't continue to be part of the problem--if you see a dog you percieve as dangerous and act afraid of it, you're going to confuse the dog at the very least (or hurt it's feelings!) and you might set up a dangerous situation by your own behavior.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:09 AM

I couldn't fathom raising my kids without the dogs they have known, the same as I grew up with a favourite dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:45 PM

Well, I gotta admit that my dog Ralph sounds vicious at times. He and my stepson's dog Harry go ballistic every time somebody drives up, and they're even worse when a dog or a cat or a deer goes by.
But when you open the door, Ralph and Harry are your best friends. These dogs are Shih-Tzus, so nobody takes them very seriously.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:25 PM

Me too, Sorch.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:16 PM

I know that NOTHING anyone says is going to convince Lox or anyone else that it is a HUMAN problem, so I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Beer
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM

Dogs are not the problem. It's their owners.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:14 PM

Yup, kick me when I'm sleeping...I do bite!

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:11 PM

The Michael Vick pit bulls were to be put down -- PETA and HSUS both said that being trained to fight all 28 or so could never ever be trusted. Then my friend Rebecca stepped in.

She got herself appointed "special guardian" of the dogs by the Court. The dogs were assessed by professionals, not by "animal lovers". One -- one -- had to be put down. Others took different paths: four or five were enlisted as police K-9 officers; most of the others found quiet, childless, caring homes and are doing quite well; a very few are living out their lives in the specialized kennels to which they were taken -- they are so traumatized they trust no one except the kennel attendants. NONE of these dogs attacked anyone when they were taken out of the hell-hole in which they were kept and haven't attacked anyone since.

BUT! The dogs are under control and are trusting the people they live with. In a sense, you can say that they have PTSD and can't get therapy.

Oh, yeah -- you pull my ears or stick your finger in my eye and I might bite you too.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:52 PM

Micro chipping will NOT stop a dog from biting..but yes, it will ID theowner.

My grandson was bitten on the cheek (well, more of a slash, really) in the same room as the dogs owner and his mother.

Grandson had been poking the dog, pulling ears,tail, etc...(Border Collie). He was told to stop by his mother....and the dog was giving 'warning signals'. Owner put the dog outside.

Later, let the dog back in..and the FIRST thing grandson did was pull an ear...dog whipped around and caught his cheek with a canine tooth.

They came over here after leaving the hospital, and I said well, O, what did you do to the dog? I pulled his ear.

And did you learn anything? Yes ma'm. Don't tease dogs.
I think he was 2 at the time?

He was also 'trying' to be afraid of his own dog....his mum and I put a quick stop to that!

It's just all in the Situation, the kid, the dog....

My thought is still...gee, a mastiff in the same room with an 18 month old? Both loose?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:44 PM

I can't agree that they should not be in children's homes. We have probably all seen adults who are afraid of dogs because they never had a dog to love when they were young.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:25 PM

Oh, I wanted to add that my dogs have all been micro-chipped and they all wore current license tags.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:25 PM

"Not entirely fair Lox.

It is necessary to give a child the same warnings about animals as you would about fires and hot kettles."

This is true, but my comments are fair on the basis of what is reasonable to expect an 18 month old or a three year old child to understand, internalize and comply with consistently.

Anyone who has had kids knows that lessons are learned slowly over a long time, that kids concentration shifts its focus in the blink of an eye and that they are ever curious to discover and learn not to mention pushing boundaries.

Besides which, Kettles and Pots and Pans are made safe when there are children around. For your comparison to be fair, dogs would also need to be made safe when there are kids around.

How that is achieved humanely and effectively would be a more useful topic for this thread.

Personally I think that they shouldn't be in childrens homes. Guns locked in cabinets have been known to be taken out by kids, so dogs which are curious excitable creatures would be less easy to keep safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:24 PM

Don T, I was directing my dissenting comments to Lox, not to you.

But I would respond to your scenario, "Comes the day when a child stumbles, and falls on the dog, will you be swift enough, I wonder, to react before the dog's reflexes kick in, and he snaps. I sincerely hope that you never find out the answer to that question." thus:

I live alone with my dog, there are no children here. On the street I am by the side of my dog when children seek to pet her. Yes, I would say that my reflexes and my understanding are 'swift' enough to react.

As for being fortunate in my choice of older dogs to adopt, I would agree. However, it is my belief that a dog picks up on the owner/handler's approach to life, to danger, to joy. I have seen this over and over again: Owners of dogs that are suspicious and aggressive and fearful almost invariably are the same way themselves. I have learnt to be wary of people who have uncontrollable dogs.

Lox, of course I don't mean that a child is responsible in the sense that you postulate, only that a child who has been taught caution and respect of an animal from the time s/he is sentient will be far less likely to ever be attacked.

I have no way of knowing what transpired in this most recent case - nor do you. The child may have been a totally innocent bystander and one who paid the ultimate price for someone else's previous mistreatment of the dog. We don't know. In any case it is tragic.

Just as it is tragic when a child is killed or maimed in a car accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:14 PM

I must stress and repeat that the two most recent attacks did not occur when the child and the dog were alone together.

In both cases there were adults on hand.

The first child only survived because the owner killed the dog with a kitchen knife rather than watch it rip any other bits of her head off.

Are childrens injury's easier to bear when the attack has been supervised?

Licenses don't work in the US and they didn't work in the UK only because they aren't/weren't enforced.

A simple campaign of registration and policing would be easy in this day and age.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:12 PM

Not entirely fair Lox.

It is necessary to give a child the same warnings about animals as you would about fires and hot kettles.

I don't think for one moment Ebbie was suggesting that we blame children for being bitten.

My point is, and always was, that stringent precautions, allied with effective training should be the rule.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM

""A lead is a good thing but a muzzle can be a bit of overkill.""

I would have thought so too, until about three years ago, when I saw a toy poodle remove half a finger from a three year old outside a shop.

A split second, a bark, a yell from the child, mum looked up from where she was putting her purse into her handbag. Too late!

The kiddie was under control with mum holding a set of reins. Pity the dog wasn't.

It ain't size, it's temper, that determines the degree of harm, and in that case had the dog been muzzled, it wouldn't have mattered that he was walking ten paces ahead of his owner, with no lead.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:06 PM

"to teach each and every child to respect the space of every dog and to be aware of the animal's feelings. In other words, children too bear a share of blame when things go wrong"

So the 18 month old and the 3 year old who were attacked whilst in the same room as an adult at the time should have a) taken more responsibility, and b) been given a tutorial which they should have digested, understood and incorporated into their general behaviour?

Otherwise its their fault?

... um ...


Do you have anything intelligent to add to a thread about attacks on small chldren?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:54 PM

""In what way does licensing make a dog less dangerous? In the US licensing has been required for many years - although there are many people who flout the law - but I don't see that it makes anyone safer. As far as I know, it is simply a 'revenue enhancer'.""

Ebbie, I live in the UK, where dogs are not licensed.

Of course a licence won't make them safer, but it would provide funding for exercise areas where dogs could be safely let off the leash to run free for a whaile, and also funding for dog wardens to deal with the huge number of dogs which are turned out to roam by careless owners.

The combination of Licence and micro-chip, would enable wardens to find owners, and advise or report for prosecution, depending on the circumstances.

As things stand, an owner can say "Not my Dog!", and without hard evidence, he is untouchable.

So, no. Not just a revenue enhancer.


""Any incident of a dog attacking a child is tragic but it is essential, in my opinion, to teach each and every child to respect the space of every dog and to be aware of the animal's feelings. In other words, children too bear a share of blame when things go wrong. Even more to blame are the adults.

I think that blanket condemnation of a dog, whether on the basis of breed or size, is an over-reaction. Dogs give us something unique in this world and I, for one, would not even consider giving them up.""

In my opinion Ebbie, you have been extremely fortunate. Older dogs are notoriously less tolerant, both of children, and puppies.

Comes the day when a child stumbles, and falls on the dog, will you be swift enough, I wonder, to react before the dog's reflexes kick in, and he snaps. I sincerely hope that you never find out the answer to that question.

What part of my original post suggested to you, a blanket (or any other) condemnation of dogs?

I don't condemn, I recognise the nature of the animal, as one must in order to live safely with it.

And I certainly said not one word about anyone giving up his/her dog. Nor would I ever do so. When you have a well trained happy dog, you have a friend who gives utterly unconditional love to you, asking only to be cared for in return.

I just caution owners to remember this. That unconditional devotion is to you as pack leader. It may not, and often does not, extend to the other pack members, especially in the absence of the leader.

Nature of the animal.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:54 PM

Thank you Fooles.

Another PS--Would you turn a child loose in a paddock with a Shetland Pony or 'minature horse'? I've seen Mastiffs larger than ponies.

Dog owners/people can't help it if some dog owners and SOME PARENTS are stupid. Brains don't come with pregnancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:47 PM

"they should perhaps even muzzle and lead some of the dogs"

... not to forget their owners....

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM

And, just as all humans are not 'same' neither are dogs. Even those of the same breed.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:35 PM

3. Any dog will regard a new baby as a subordinate member of the pack, until the pack leader (owner) makes it clear that this is not the case.

4. Any dog can be trained to accept that all humans, large or small, are higher in the pecking order.


Exactly! Children, esp. small, creeping children appear to be prey to any dog; that's why an owner must be firm AND know HOW to control, set the pecking order, etc.

My grandson pushes the limits with our 14 yr old McNab border collie because he is used to playing with his "grrrrlllzz" three boxers and the nanny who is a pit bull (I hear ya, SRS!) He now knows the the old McNab will give him a warning nip if he doesn't pay attention. It was quite a surprise for him. They are never left unsupervised.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:13 PM

PS--some children should be on leads too!

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:09 PM

Yes, what the the child do to the dog?
If a mastiff accidentally STEPPED on an 18 mo old, the child would be hurt
mg--it is a myth that 'pit bull's can't let go. They can. If they want to.

I am VERY dog friendly, but NO DOG should be left unsupervised with a child...esp an 18 mo old child

My dogs are vaccinated, micro chipped and neutered. A lead is a good thing but a muzzle can be a bit of overkill.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Leadfingers
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:05 PM

I ALWAYS wonder , when I read about a "Gentle" dog biting a child , what the child did to the dog ! As Don said , poke a dog in the eye and see what happens !
When I was a toddler my parents had a wire haired mongrel who we were NOT allowed to 'play' with except under Supervision ! As a result , we NEVER got into the Ear Tweaking , Tail Pulling , Eye Poking thing that SOME children seem to get into !

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM

In what way does licensing make a dog less dangerous? In the US licensing has been required for many years - although there are many people who flout the law - but I don't see that it makes anyone safer. As far as I know, it is simply a 'revenue enhancer'.


I adopt my dogs through the humane society, and since they are all older dogs - my notion being that puppies have no problem getting placement - any or all of the dogs I have adopted could have developed bad habits down the line. I have had no problems with any of them- and there have been three dogs in recent years, and more in years past.

My latest one, that I got almost five years ago, came with the notation that she was not to be adopted into a home with small children. It turns out she is fine with small children - IF I monitor the action. Too many chattering children, crowding around, each trying to pet her, make her nervous, and I can see that she might bite. As the owner I see to it that the children are made aware of it so that they back off. And then the dog calms right down and goes back to tailwagging. She loves people.

Any incident of a dog attacking a child is tragic but it is essential, in my opinion, to teach each and every child to respect the space of every dog and to be aware of the animal's feelings. In other words, children too bear a share of blame when things go wrong. Even more to blame are the adults.

I think that blanket condemnation of a dog, whether on the basis of breed or size, is an over-reaction. Dogs give us something unique in this world and I, for one, would not even consider giving them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:24 PM

1. There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication.

2. Bad owners do indeed make bad dogs, and good owners make good dogs, no matter the breed.

3. Any dog will regard a new baby as a subordinate member of the pack, until the pack leader (owner) makes it clear that this is not the case.

4. Any dog can be trained to accept that all humans, large or small, are higher in the pecking order.

5. A properly trained Rotweiler or Pit Bull, is no more intrinsically dangerous than a Collie, Peke, or Chihuahua.

BUT does this mean that all properly trained dogs are completely safe?...........NO, IT DOES NOT!, and anybody who says it does is an idiot.

NO dog can be trusted absolutely, especially where small children are concerned.

Try an experiment. Poke your perfectly trained dog in the eye when he least expects it, but make sure you have plenty of bandages handy.

When your over enthusiastic child does so accidentally, while trying to play with the animal, the response will be even more violent, since Rover knows he is dealing with a weaker opponent.

The bottom line is that in the right circumstances, all dogs will react in self defence, and a good dog is the more dangerous because his reaction is unexpected, and more damage will result.

IMNSHO, ALL dogs should be licenced and micro-chipped, and neutered except when they are being bred by licensed breeders.

Even then, they should all be kept on a leash and soft muzzled in public places, except for fenced areas designated as exercise facilities for dogs, the provision of which should be funded, along with dog wardens, using the licence money.

Children and adults will still be bitten, even killed, by dogs, but at least the numbers will be reduced to a minimum.

I have owned several dogs, none of which ever bit anybody, but none were ever left alone with my kids.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:19 PM

It is one thing to be bitten by a dog who bites and lets go..not sure if lab retrievers do or do not. It is another to be bitten by a dog who can not let go and keeps on with it. Until baby's face is ripped off, as happens fairly often down here. mg