yet another child pays the price of owning a status dog

[bicykillgaz]

we had a blanket ban on hand guns because of two nutters ,how many more kids have to die because of utter ***** keeping fighting dogs.

My point is handguns are banned yet there still on the streets, pit bulls are banned yet reports of 'pitbull type' dog attacks occur. Bans only effect the law abiding types who on the whole are decent dog owners otherwise due to the massive popularity of staffys and other bull breeds or molosser type dogs ranging from mastiffs to Rottweilers, boxers down to bulldogs and French bull terriers these attacks would happen daily. It's a tiny percentage of dogs that attack.

 

How will a ban work? Chavs will move on to another breed like boxers, mastiffs and such. As I said in an earlier post there are plenty of breeds that can be the next weapon of choice do where does it end?

 

To stop it you need the punishment to fit the crime if a child dies as a result of a dog it's manslaughter. One way or another it's down to the owner either through neglect, lack of training or deliberate training. A well socialised, well trained and well supervised staffy, mastiff Rottweiler is no more a risk than a lab, springer or what ever.

[Grazy]

You could train a pet tiger or wolf to be a nice happy pet... it would still have that killer mentality when it needed it though...

 

You should have a licence like a FAC to have any dog with "Bull" or "Terrier" in it (with some exceptions of the smaller and more docile breeds).

 

So that people are accountable at least. i.e having a reason to own it and then having check ups by police dog officer every year to check how you are keeping the animal etc...

 

that would deter some of the "chav scum buy a dog because you think it makes you look hard and add a little silly neck tattoo like eminem" types from owning one. Half of them probably wouldn't be able to read the licence.

 

 

What rubbish!!! I have a British bulldog and it's the most docile dog I have ever met. You can't go around making statements like that. I've also known 4 staffies who have been lovely dogs and well tempered. It's the owners not the dogs and every owner should take care with any situation with a child no matter what the dog. As I said my dog is so docile but would I leave him alone with my 2 year old niece, no of course not, as you never can tell. But as for heading a licence for a certain type of dog-that is not right. I do agree however that all dog owners should be licence whatever bread they have.

 

[daz2202]

I've said it before. I am the toughest in my house. So I wouldn't bring a dog in that could compete with that.

 

If my springer turned on one of my nippers it would have breathed its last breath. If a mastif or alike turned it would probably do me in aswell.

 

If I am with my kids I cross the road so not to have to walk my kids closely to pass a dog like this.

[bicykillgaz]

we had a blanket ban on hand guns because of two nutters ,how many more kids have to die because of utter ***** keeping fighting dogs.

Also how many children and adults died as a result of those two tragic incidents? A fare few as I remember how many tragedies have happened involving dogs since?

[Fisherman Mike]

Tougher sentences wont save lives and in 90 % of these cases the owners are of low intelligence and cannot be educated.

 

All dogs should be licenced and micro - chipped and breeders should be strictly registered. Quick scan by the police, vet, or RSPCA with a hand held scanner..no chip, no dog, £1000 pound fine..

 

Indiscriminate breeding for profit must be stopped along with this stupid cross breeding. All its doing is putting 1000's of unwanted dogs on the street each year.

 

Owners should be vetted during the licence procedure as they are now, by many rehoming centres. This would also stop dogs being acquired for fighting which is still going on.

 

No owner should be allowed to exercise a dog they cannot physically control in a public place unless its muzzled.

 

Without proper licencing procedures and ownership control this is going to happen time and time again.

 

More dogs will be acquired by young couples, they will breed the dog with mateys down the road, then they will sell the pups for £50 quid each in the pub, they will keep one, then they will decide to have a baby, then the dog will be abandoned or neglected or mistreated, then it will end up in a rehoming centre. ( if its lucky)

 

As far as I'm concerned this is not Manslaughter its Murder..

 

Time to stop all the rhetoric and making excuses and do something tangible.

 

No intelligent, responsible and serious dog owner would be concerned about or object to proper legislative control if it would save the life of baby or child surely.

 

Until next time which I guarantee will be within 6 months..

Edited February 11, 2014 by Fisherman Mike

[Gordon R]

Some of the above makes sense, but dog licensing is almost unenforceable. One in ten cars on the road has no insurance - so much for enforcement.

 

I would dispute that 90% of the owners are of low intelligence. The problem is owners who don't believe that their dog would ever do any harm.

 

As for licensed breeders - I had to laugh. Never heard of Welsh puppy farms.

[VikingRebel]

Exactly, that's why I think it would be beneficial to have a licence style system with periodic checks. If people really wanted the dogs, they'd comply :-)

 

The irresponsible and the thuggish don't comply with the current ban on pitbull type dogs, what makes you think they will comply with even more layers of legislation and bureaucracy?

[VikingRebel]

I must say, I always find many of the responses to these kind of news stories on this forum, quite bemusing. I would have thought shooters would be the last people to engage in hysterical, knee jerk politics, but I guess this cancerous doublethink has spread to every facet of British society these days.

 

I will point out, that more children die from drowning in ponds and swimming pools each year, than by dogs. And yet, not once after a tragic story of a child drowning, have I ever seen anybody suggest that people should be banned from having ponds or swimming pools in their gardens, or that they should be licenced, regulated and the owner's forced to submit to having their ponds and swimming pools inspected by the authorities every couple of years. Why doesn't that kind of accident ever warrant a knee jerk response, but every accident involving a dog, seemingly does?

[Mungler]

There are a few things from the news coverage of this that don't stack up.

 

Anyhoos, I again wonder why someone would have a dangerous dog as a pet in their home or indeed any dog that they couldn't get the better of if it all goes wrong one day.

 

It's like the banning smoking in cars with kids thread - does the government really have to legislate for this? What parent in this country doesn't know that smoking in a car with your kids and keeping a pit bull at home isn't a good idea?

 

Here, the dog has been confirmed to be a pit bull - that dog is already covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act and so wouldn't have been easy to come by. The starting point is the owner knowingly broke the law to source a banned breed and then took it home and put it in an environment with a baby. Any change in the law or extra legislation would just mean more laws being flouted and ignored by those who really don't care.

 

Laws are for the law abiding and no one else.

 

Next we'll need a law making sure we all wipe our bottoms and wash our hands after a dump, just to cater for the few who don't.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Mungler

[the govnor]

I've said it before. I am the toughest in my house. So I wouldn't bring a dog in that could compete with that.

 

If my springer turned on one of my nippers it would have breathed its last breath. If a mastif or alike turned it would probably do me in aswell.

 

If I am with my kids I cross the road so not to have to walk my kids closely to pass a dog like this.

 

Totally 100% with you there Daz. I have to ESS and the same going with mine.

 

It,s the Pond Life who walk round with them LOOK AT ME I AM HARD. Total Boneheads.

[Penelope]

The dog's name was 'Killer'. Says it all really.

[Mungler]

The dog's name was 'Killer'. Says it all really.

 

Seriously?

[kent]

ok so did the owners bite the kid to death? if so it was not the dog, if it was the dog then sorry chum regardless of spin and the usual my dogs a good well behaved dog horlics then it was the dog.

 

KW

 

I don't doubt the dog had issues, after all the first and most important test of breeding worthiness is temperament. The very fact that this dog exists so long after the ban speaks volumes about the pond life that keep them still. the very fact that the dog managed to get near an 11mnth old unattended speaks volumes. I know a little more than most about this case, suffice to say pending prosecution there is a past- hence the charges placed against the couple.

I 100% believe people are responsible for this 1. in breeding the dog of suspect temperament 2. in failing to raise the dog correctly 3. In allowing the dog to get anywhere near an 11mnth old.

Even a scratty little 14lb terrier can kill a child of this age real quick, as for the breed being too hard to fight off as people have mentioned- try a big GSD or similar, bite force of a pit bull seems insignificant when a dog like that hits you in the chest with its feet and puts its teeth towards you neck.

 

I put forwards if it was the dog at fault manslaughter and child cruelty charges would not be being brought against the owners, dogs unfortunately have a different rule book to us and we must take responsibilty

[Penelope]

So I heard on the news this morning on Radio 4.

 

 

Seriously?

[Mungler]

Say it all really

[Penelope]

It also appears that the Police have had calls about this dog in the past too.

 

 

Say it all really

[FalconFN]

I don't pal, but I do know that you don't leave a baby on its own with any animal, ie, they are uneducated bints,

 

So get off your high horse,

 

Atb

 

Flynny

It seems your judgement turned out to be right.

 

However dim these folk are, whatever the law throws at them will be nothing compared to the knowledge of what they have done. Terrible.

[Fisherman Mike]

I must say, I always find many of the responses to these kind of news stories on this forum, quite bemusing. I would have thought shooters would be the last people to engage in hysterical, knee jerk politics, but I guess this cancerous doublethink has spread to every facet of British society these days.

 

I will point out, that more children die from drowning in ponds and swimming pools each year, than by dogs. And yet, not once after a tragic story of a child drowning, have I ever seen anybody suggest that people should be banned from having ponds or swimming pools in their gardens, or that they should be licenced, regulated and the owner's forced to submit to having their ponds and swimming pools inspected by the authorities every couple of years. Why doesn't that kind of accident ever warrant a knee jerk response, but every accident involving a dog, seemingly does?

 

That’s rather superfluous analogy with respect. A paddling pool isn’t going to suddenly turn on its owners infant baby and rip its throat out !

[pontbeck]

I think it a very valid analogy, the premise is the same , take your eye off the ball for a second and tragedy can happen

[victormeldrew]

I have had large breed dogs all my life and currently own south african boerboel mastiff and had 4 kids and never had any problem.

 

This women left her child with a dog that her new boyfriend owned that she had not long been dating. who in there right mind does something like that.

 

 

[kent]

I have had large breed dogs all my life and currently own south african boerboel mastiff and had 4 kids and never had any problem.

 

This women left her child with a dog that her new boyfriend owned that she had not long been dating. who in there right mind does something like that.

 

 

 

Nobody IN THIER RIGHT MIND. Don't credit all with the same intelect

[Fisherman Mike]

I have had large breed dogs all my life and currently own south african boerboel mastiff and had 4 kids and never had any problem.

 

This women left her child with a dog that her new boyfriend owned that she had not long been dating. who in there right mind does something like that.

 

 

Sadly more than you realise.. which is why these cases are becoming all too frequent

Edited February 12, 2014 by Fisherman Mike

[southern]

Here, the dog has been confirmed to be a pit bull - that dog is already covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act and so wouldn't have been easy to come by.

Laws are for the law abiding and no one else..

Unfortunately, pit bull terrier types are all too easy to come by. They are a cross breed, so there is actually no way that a ban on them will ever be effective. Its like trying to ban something you could get by mixing water, lemon juice and butter, or whisky, crisps and toothpaste. Readily available ingredients which are perfectly legal until you mix them together.

 

Lots, even the majority, of owners of these types of dogs know what they have. Some don't.

 

I don't know what the answer is. Further legislation will be as unenforceable as the current stuff, and the people who need to be targeted, ie the irresponsible, the dog fighters, the ones who use them for "protection" will be ignoring it as they do now.

[kent]

Unfortunately, pit bull terrier types are all too easy to come by. They are a cross breed, so there is actually no way that a ban on them will ever be effective. Its like trying to ban something you could get by mixing water, lemon juice and butter, or whisky, crisps and toothpaste. Readily available ingredients which are perfectly legal until you mix them together.

 

Lots, even the majority, of owners of these types of dogs know what they have. Some don't.

 

I don't know what the answer is. Further legislation will be as unenforceable as the current stuff, and the people who need to be targeted, ie the irresponsible, the dog fighters, the ones who use them for "protection" will be ignoring it as they do now.

 

Actually the comparison is flawed by the fact that the ban is old enough to mean that very little if any APBT should be in the gene pool. The ban was on keeping and breeding, this includes cross breed APBT being used. You see the ingredients itself should not exist, though like suggested many times on handguns and other things you cannot expect the law breakers to stop just because said item or activity is illegal.

[southern]

Actually the comparison is flawed by the fact that the ban is old enough to mean that very little if any APBT should be in the gene pool. The ban was on keeping and breeding, this includes cross breed APBT being used. You see the ingredients itself should not exist, though like suggested many times on handguns and other things you cannot expect the law breakers to stop just because said item or activity is illegal.

It's nothing to do with the gene pool as the American Pit Bull Terrier is not a recognised breed in the UK. The Pit Bull Terrier Type which is banned here is a dog which conforms to the physical measurements of the APBT, so genes don't come into it.