Four year old boy killed by dog

[Mungler]

Family friends had a pet dog - lovely dog and well tempered. It went for one of the children one day and was put down. When the vet gave it the once over on the slab it transpired that one of the children had inserted a crayon into its ear and this of course sent the dog mental.

 

1. dogs are domesticated animals

2. children do daft things, it's what they do and what they do best.

3. never have a domesticated animal living in your home that you couldn't get the better of if push comes to shove

 

People with large and or potentially dangerous dogs who don't have children and who look after their pets and take precautions (muzzle when out, fencing / pen at home) then fair play.

 

People with large and or potentially dangerous dogs who do have children.... imagine what your dog may do if cornered and a crayon (or such like) was forced into it's ear.

 

I still wonder why people want large and or dangerous dogs as domestic pets.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Mungler

[Zapp]

Moderators close this thread otherwise you're like those old women knitting at the gallows.

 

As long as the discussion remains relevant and civil the thread will stay open.

 

ZB

[MM]

or just remove all crayons from the house.

[Nial]

This has been posted before and is worth a read...

 

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%20...6%20Clifton.pdf

 

 

..especially the analysis.

 

"Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity

to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost

as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern: children are

normally at greatest risk from dogbite because they play with dogs more

often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to

engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to

defend themselves when a dog becomes aggressive. Pit bulls seem to differ

behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking

people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking

seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking

pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus

the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity

to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog."

 

 

On dangeous dog legislation...

 

"The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one

free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog

is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in

addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf

hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the

life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous

behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost

always the victims."

 

 

The conclusion...

 

"For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to

regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no

matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary

circumstances.

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 or a

Rottweiler 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.

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be

handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special

requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other

animals, if they are to be kept at all."

 

 

Nial.

[docholiday]

Nial great post and couldnt agree more

doc

[al4x]

it is a doog post but Pit Bulls are very different to rotweillers and dobermans hence the latter two aren't governed by the act, breeds named are

 

(a) Pit Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier types

 

B Japanese Tosa

 

c Dogo Angentino

 

(d) Fila Braziliero

 

 

these are all the most severe breeds used for fighting and the more difficult types of hunting and the ones that will take on adults. Theres a big difference between a breed that will bite and one that will maul

Edited December 1, 2009 by al4x

[bobbo]

hey back there you said, 88 illegal dogs were handed in. does this mean they all got terminated?

[al4x]

yup thats usual

[Imperfection]

The dog did wrong and had to be destroyed.It probably wasnt safe for a vet to destroy it humanely so in my opinion the Police did the right thing.I find it odd that people critise the Police for shooting an out of control dangerous dog which has already killed a child and not for a farmer who's sheep for example are being chased.

[Salop Matt]

I think the police did the right thing but am amazed they are allowed to in the crazy PC times/world we live in now.

 

It wouldnt suprise me if ARU officers are told the one and only time they may may use a firearm is against a human who poses threat to life where the use of a firearm is justified.

 

And if the police can shoot a dog or any other animal like this why cant they do dipatches of animals hit on the road etc ?

 

Am sure a 9mm round or 5.56mm would do the job of a head shot for dipatch fine.

[pegasus bridge]

my tuppence worth is this ;

i am sure that lots of 'nice' fighting type dogs exist, and when placed with good owners the chance of them attacking a person reduces significantly. However - i think the fact remains that chavs are attracted to these type of dogs for the image they portay. these chavs typically make very bad owners, and i have no doubt that they encourage aggression in these type of dogs. BUT - regardless of the type of owner, they are clearly very powerfull dogs with a physical / mental capability for sustained attacks, and when they do - it is difficult to prevent / stop these attacks.

 

I personally wouldnt have a dog that i wasnt sure i could overpower if i had to. I have two jack russel terriers, one can be snappy. I never leave him alone with my daughter, but ultimatley know that if he ever did become aggresive with her, i would have no problem in physically stopping the aggression.

 

perhaps a dog licence with a box to tick ' do you like burberry caps?'

 

joking aside - i know its a complex and emotive issue - but something needs to be done, if kids were regularly been bumped off by illegal guns - something would have been done much sooner than now.

[paul65]

I was attacked by a German Shepherd dog about 10 years ago. I had seen the dog daily in the local park, I was on nodding terms with the owner who appeared to be a decent woman and the dog obeyed her commands. One day it decided to have a go at me for some reason and completely ignored its owner's commands. Fortunately I was quick on my feet and managed to avoid its attempts to bite me until the woman managed to grab it and get it under control. The woman was totally horrified and beside herself with apologies. She said the dog had never done such a thing before and I was inclined to believe her.

 

So, I take the 'It's down to the owners' arguments with a pinch of salt. A dog might attack for some reason, if the dog is of a powerful type and chooses to attack, an adult might be badly hurt, a child might be killed. As per Pegasus Bridge's comment above, I wouldn't have a dog I couldn't overpower and I wouldn't trust any powerful or snappy dog around my children.

Edited December 1, 2009 by paul65

[Gordon R]

Listened to Radio 2 at lunchtime. Man rang up and said it was lack of dog training. He had some rare cross-bred guard dogs who he let play with his three nephews - 2, 4 and 6, because his dogs were trained. He said "my dogs are as soft as grease" - whatever he meant by that. He modestly claimed to be something of an expert in these matters. As the host pointed out - almost all dogs involved in attacks are owned by people who swear the dogs have never bitten anyone before. People get delusional about trusting their own dog. You can't guarantee a dog's behaviour in every circumstance - no-one can.

 

It's a tragedy for the young lad, but where were the family brain cells when they let a dog do this.

 

I have two Akitas - they go nowhere near my grandchildren. The dogs are locked out when they visit. I never leave my dogs alone with relatives, friends or anyone. They remain on a lead. Why take a chance. It's too late once it has happened.

[Fisherman Mike]

Dogs and Young Children.... they are like oil and water they just dont mix. I dont care if 1000 of us say their dog is safe to be left alone with their young kids the simple truth is they are not. Dogs are humanised and wrongly, How many of us have said " Hes one of the family" or "Its like losing your best mate" Yes we do get close to our pets and we do mourn their passing but leaving a 4 year old in a room with a breed of dog potentially bigger, stronger and inherantly more vicious than the poor boy is basically manslaughter.

 

Time methinks for a radical reform of the laws of Dog ownership in this country. No ! this is not a knee jerk reaction its something I have thought about since the last incident of this type over a year ago.

 

1. Proper Licencing for every dog kept as a pet or working animal with no exception. With licences issued after inspection of the home and the potential owners own personal circumstances

2. Every dog microchipped at birth

3. An end to indescriminate breeding of Dogs by using a national breeding register and by applying for a formal application to breed.

4. Proper penalties put in place for people who break the law in respect of The Dangerous dogs act or the Animal Welfare Act. and I mean proper penalties such as imprisonment.

 

This would

 

1. Prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.

2. Eliminate Dog fighting and other forms of cruel sport involving dogs which is now becoming increasingly common across Britain.

3. Put and end to indescriminate breeding by people who just dont know what they are doing.

4. Reduce the pressure on the Animal welfare charities who have to pick up the pieces every year

5. and perhaps most importantly... Protect the poor dogs.

 

in 90 % of these cases the dog is only doing what hes been bred to do over many years.......... KILL. !

 

Any responsible dog owner would have no worries that such a set of regulations would impinge on his ownership of such a loyal and wonderful companion.

 

FM

[Gordon R]

Mike - most of the things you suggest could be applied to firearms. Licencing has not taken guns out of the hands of criminals, nor would it keep dogs from scrotes, nor prevent them from breeding.

[EvoCars]

Are you saying it's the childs fault he was killed by the dog?

 

Who's to say the child wasn't ill or was just having a bad night? Either way it's totally irrelevant. The only FACTS we know is a 4 year old boy was killed by a dog.

 

 

No, I'm not saying its the child's fault, I'm saying its the owners/parents fault, would you knowingly have dogs from a fighting stock around a child? I personally love all the bull type breads, but I would not leave one that's been raised as a fighting dog with anyone, let alone a child.

[MM]

confirmed! illegal pitbull type.

[bicykillgaz]

really sad story and it must have been horrific for all involved, i agree with a lot of whats been said the dog did need shooting and to me it doesn't matter if it was with expanding ammo or not, i hate hearing stories like this not least because a small child has lost its life, but it also brings attention to people who own nice natured well behaved bull breeds like me.

i agree any dog which is been trained or used for fighting needs destroying, but unfortunately don't see licensing as the answer to the overall problem, as if i am willing to pay for a licence to own my dog as a pet, someone who stands to make thousands out of a dog would be even more willing pay it.

they need to attach sentences which will actually detere these *********, if a dog kills another dog or human it should be manslaughter or murder for the owner.

also i trust my dog implicitly but never leave him un attended with my 18 month old nephew when he comes round and never will if he wants to stroke my dog he has to sit with me on the floor and i get my dog to sit facing away so he can only stroke his back and his fingers are well away from his ears and eyes, as its not always a dogs fault i've heard loads of storys about dogs been destroyed then the vet noticing pencil crayons snapped in ears and allsorts.

 

does anyone actually know what breed it was as i've seen it called "a pit-bull type" "bulldog-mastif type" and a "bull type" which covera an awful lot of breeds not that the breed makes it any less tragic.

 

and to the person who asked about shooting it with there guns, one of the conditions on our fac is 'for the killing of animals for the protection of other animals and humans', so i would think it was perfectly legal, so long as you had a safe shot, i would think a side shot like for a deer behind the front shoulder with a safe backstop would be accetable, not sure about a shot gun though but if i had it with me i'd use it to save a little kid, point blank to the middle of its spine would do the trick then when it let go another to the head.

 

and to the ******** who shot his own dog for been snappy your a waste of air!

[Mungler]

Mike - most of the things you suggest could be applied to firearms. Licencing has not taken guns out of the hands of criminals, nor would it keep dogs from scrotes, nor prevent them from breeding.

 

Spot on.

 

"Banning" anything from knives to hand guns makes no difference to the criminals or the criminally daft.

 

There are wider issues and if anything wants banning it's being a chav. The only way to reduce chav numbers is to turn off state benefits and encourage them to take responsibility for their own lives, get a job and be less inclined to breed at the expense of the tax payer. Wooohah there. I just came over all Daily Mail. I need a little sit down now in case I pop a blood vessel.

[bicykillgaz]

i agree mate the dog/gun/knife is just a tool its the one using it which needs erradicating

[death from below]

i agree mate the dog/gun/knife is just a tool its the one using it which needs erradicating

 

Lovely looking staffy you have there mate

[kdubya]

i agree mate the dog/gun/knife is just a tool its the one using it which needs erradicating

 

quite wrong, the dog is a living thing with a mind of its own, one day it will do what it wants when it wants, so if it has the capability of killing a kid then why take the risk

 

Oh I forgot you can control a dog :yp: yeah of course you can? who 's next for the dog whispering course

 

 

KW

[Bazooka Joe]

Time methinks for a radical reform of the laws of Dog ownership in this country. No ! this is not a knee jerk reaction its something I have thought about since the last incident of this type over a year ago.

 

1. Proper Licencing for every dog kept as a pet or working animal with no exception. With licences issued after inspection of the home and the potential owners own personal circumstances......Was already in force, you had to be registered

 

2. Every dog microchipped at birth.....every dog had to be micro-chipped

 

3. An end to indescriminate breeding of Dogs by using a national breeding register and by applying for a formal application to breed. .........Couldn't breed, Dogs castrated, Bitches Neut ed.

 

4. Proper penalties put in place for people who break the law in respect of The Dangerous dogs act or the Animal Welfare Act. and I mean proper penalties such as imprisonment.............. All dogs had to be Insured in case of

 

Already being done Mike with the dangerous dog act.....waste of time, this was a kneejerk reaction from the government, same as the handguns.

 

BJ.

[Boromir]

Already being done Mike with the dangerous dog act.....waste of time, this was a kneejerk reaction from the government, same as the handguns.

 

BJ.

 

Well something has to be done, cause it wont stop at this, tougher sentencing only good if you catch the owner and who will own up to being the owner?

 

Tougher sentencing? this governement doesnt know tough even though they can send in young men and woman into wars they shouldnt be fighting.

[al4x]

The act does give them certain powers have a look for stats on the number of dogs seized and destroyed under the act and you'll be surprised. What needs acting on is the routes these dogs take into the country but hey if we can't stop people smuggling why should be we be abe to stop people smuggling in dangerous dogs