Child killed by pet dog

JustAFan said:
Not sure you can really lump all heavily furred dogs into the "Husky Type" since the breeds may not all have the same characteristics.
Click to expand...

From Wiki. They are similar to other arctic breeds, like the Canadian Eskimo Dog, the Siberian Husky and the Samoyed.

They are bred for largely the same purpose and their ancestors lived in similar conditions to Huskys et al. They are not exactly the same of course but they are similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2014

If you look at fatal dog attacks in the past 10 years or so in American you will see that Huskies make several appearances and the Alaskan Malamute makes a few. For me buying one of these dogs is not something that should be taken lightly. If you want to keep one in your house or your back yard and take it for a mile walk everyday then you are giving it a lifestyle that it is not genetically engineered for. I just think that these types of dogs are for the kind of owners who appreciate what they are getting themselves in for and who are prepared to put the work into the dog that the breed requires and that work is not inconsiderable.
 
Don't buy into this dangerous dog type at all. Its down to the owners and how they treat it, how they train it. The 10 year old Jamie Buldger killer kids were just kids, they weren't big at all yet caused some of the most horrific injuries know to anyone, the same with Mary Bell. Point being, size has NOTHING to do with it, nor does breed, race, country of origin. Its all down to the upbringing of the animal or person and what experiences they go through.

Sick of hearing certain dogs, films, games, music blamed for peoples actions or carelessness. Its all the same IMO. One day English bull terriers, Victorian bull dogs, Malamutes and Staffordshires will all be banned like some kind of Christian Bale Equilibrium and I bet we still keep seeing dogs harming people.
 
Claymore said:
Don't buy into this dangerous dog type at all. Its down to the owners and how they treat it, how they train it. The 10 year old Jamie Buldger killer kids were just kids, they weren't big at all yet caused some of the most horrific injuries know to anyone, the same with Mary Bell. Point being, size has NOTHING to do with it, nor does breed, race, country of origin. Its all down to the upbringing of the animal or person and what experiences they go through.

Sick of hearing certain dogs, films, games, music blamed for peoples actions or carelessness. Its all the same IMO. One day English bull terriers, Victorian bull dogs, Malamutes and Staffordshires will all be banned like some kind of Christian Bale Equilibrium and I bet we still keep seeing dogs harming people.
Click to expand...
There's the difference, not killing them.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
I was always under the impression that sled dogs are not suitable for family pets. That they are hard to train and have incredible energy levels due to being bred for serious physical work and if they don't have lots of exercise then they are prone to wrecking their owners houses. I am pretty sure that Husky type dogs are in the top 10 dogs for killing people too. They look great but I don't think that the average family who will only walk it to and from the shop every day should have one. They are for the committed owner only.

I think that if you have big dogs around small children then the risk is always there. I am a dog lover and owner but I would never buy that type of dog if I had a young family. I really wanted a Wolf hybrid dog a couple of years back but being honest with myself I don't have the facilities to keep one (you would need a farm really) so I decided against it because it would have been irresponsible of me and potentially dangerous.
Click to expand...
Siberian Huskies are great family pets for active people. They are very people focused and eager to please dogs. Though their high energy levels do make them unsuitable for very young kids as they are quite immature and bouncy a lot of the time; the risk is more them being knocked over than anything. They really are like big kids that just want to play all the time, utterly useless as a guard dog as they are friendly with everyone generally.

I likely would have got one last year, if it wasn’t for the fact I didn’t want such a high energy dog and the climate not really being suited for them over here.
 
what baffles me is that you need a license to own a dog, yet stupid people who are incapable of training or looking after bigger breed dogs are freely allowed to reproduce.
 
Claymore said:
Don't buy into this dangerous dog type at all. Its down to the owners and how they treat it, how they train it. The 10 year old Jamie Buldger killer kids were just kids, they weren't big at all yet caused some of the most horrific injuries know to anyone, the same with Mary Bell. Point being, size has NOTHING to do with it, nor does breed, race, country of origin. Its all down to the upbringing of the animal or person and what experiences they go through.

Sick of hearing certain dogs, films, games, music blamed for peoples actions or carelessness. Its all the same IMO. One day English bull terriers, Victorian bull dogs, Malamutes and Staffordshires will all be banned like some kind of Christian Bale Equilibrium and I bet we still keep seeing dogs harming people.
Click to expand...

One point I want to continue to make; ALL dogs are dangerous. They are an animal. If people would remember that, then things like this might stop happening so often.

I am going to assume that the dog attacked the baby out of jealousy as the baby wasnt old enough to be bothering it some other way. There are actually guidelines for introducing babies to homes where there are dogs. You're meant to introduce baby clothing etc to the dog before the baby is brought home (cant remember where i read that).

In this case the parents probably thought that their dog is friendly, wouldn't hurt a fly etc. So from that point of view, they made a mistake. But, everyone needs to remember.. a dog is an animal. Its instincts are different from human instincts.
 
Last edited:
Anderson's Cat said:
what baffles me is that you need a license to own a dog, yet stupid people who are incapable of training or looking after bigger breed dogs are freely allowed to reproduce.
Click to expand...

we dont know if in the latest example that the owners were doing anything majorly wrong. They may have thought that their dog was the nicest, most placid dog in the world. they may even have been in the room when the dog attacked the baby.
 
Claymore said:
Don't buy into this dangerous dog type at all. Its down to the owners and how they treat it, how they train it. The 10 year old Jamie Buldger killer kids were just kids, they weren't big at all yet caused some of the most horrific injuries know to anyone, the same with Mary Bell. Point being, size has NOTHING to do with it, nor does breed, race, country of origin. Its all down to the upbringing of the animal or person and what experiences they go through.

Sick of hearing certain dogs, films, games, music blamed for peoples actions or carelessness. Its all the same IMO. One day English bull terriers, Victorian bull dogs, Malamutes and Staffordshires will all be banned like some kind of Christian Bale Equilibrium and I bet we still keep seeing dogs harming people.
Click to expand...

Size and breed have everything to do with it. Would you prefer a kid being bitten by a chiwawa or a bull terrier? What is likely to cause more damage.
 
Flandall Ragg said:
Size and breed have everything to do with it. Would you prefer a kid being bitten by a chiwawa or a bull terrier? What is likely to cause more damage.
Click to expand...

To be honest that view is slightly flawed imo. Id rather be bitten by a cat but they are also known to smother babies in their cots. All breeds have the potential to kill a child Randall.
 
KanieKaned said:
To be honest that view is slightly flawed imo. Id rather be bitten by a cat but they are also known to smother babies in their cots. All breeds have the potential to kill a child Randall.
Click to expand...
Nah, its about what is the bigger risk

I cant stand seeing families with small children and dangerous dogs. I dont care how well they are looked after. Its still a risk
 
Flandall Ragg said:
Nah, its about what is the bigger risk

I cant stand seeing families with small children and dangerous dogs. I dont care how well they are looked after. Its still a risk
Click to expand...

Its a risk no matter what dog it is. You never leave any dog alone with children or in any way give the dog the potential to be able to have access to the child whilst your not looking. Ive seen yorkshire terriers trying to get at babies to cause them harm.

A friend of my missus brought her baby over to her mums (my missus mothers place) where there is a Yorkie. The little fecker was trying him damnedest when nobody was looking to get up onto the couch where the child was. It wasnt playful or being inquisitive neither the dog clearly felt this was some form of intrusion upon its domain and wanted to attack the baby. In the end the little bollocks got a boot off him owner and stayed well away form the baby after that.

Now thats not to say they would all being trying to harm the child but no matter the breed, size etc you do not under any circumstances leave kids alone with them.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
From Wiki. They are similar to other arctic breeds, like the Canadian Eskimo Dog, the Siberian Husky and the Samoyed.

They are bred for largely the same purpose and their ancestors lived in similar conditions to Huskys et al. They are not exactly the same of course but they are similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2014

If you look at fatal dog attacks in the past 10 years or so in American you will see that Huskies make several appearances and the Alaskan Malamute makes a few. For me buying one of these dogs is not something that should be taken lightly. If you want to keep one in your house or your back yard and take it for a mile walk everyday then you are giving it a lifestyle that it is not genetically engineered for. I just think that these types of dogs are for the kind of owners who appreciate what they are getting themselves in for and who are prepared to put the work into the dog that the breed requires and that work is not inconsiderable.
Click to expand...
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
From Wiki. They are similar to other arctic breeds, like the Canadian Eskimo Dog, the Siberian Husky and the Samoyed.

They are bred for largely the same purpose and their ancestors lived in similar conditions to Huskys et al. They are not exactly the same of course but they are similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2014

If you look at fatal dog attacks in the past 10 years or so in American you will see that Huskies make several appearances and the Alaskan Malamute makes a few. For me buying one of these dogs is not something that should be taken lightly. If you want to keep one in your house or your back yard and take it for a mile walk everyday then you are giving it a lifestyle that it is not genetically engineered for. I just think that these types of dogs are for the kind of owners who appreciate what they are getting themselves in for and who are prepared to put the work into the dog that the breed requires and that work is not inconsiderable.
Click to expand...


Husky makes a lot of appearances, Alaskan Malamute, two that I saw but one was a mix between a Malamute and a Wolk, I think Jack Russell Terriers showed up as much as Alaskan Malamute's on the parts of the list I read. Heck I think even Lab. Retrievers showed up as much, and those are dogs well known for being good family dogs.

But yes especially with babies and very small children it is wise not to leave them unattended with dogs, very difficult when you have a dog living in your home. the good thing is that despite all the millions of dogs owned by families all over the world, very few have these types of incidients, so responsible dog ownership is still something most families can safely take part in.
 
KanieKaned said:
To be honest that view is slightly flawed imo. Id rather be bitten by a cat but they are also known to smother babies in their cots. All breeds have the potential to kill a child Randall.
Click to expand...

I think the smother babies things is pretty much an old wives tale.

http://www.federalwaymirror.com/lifestyle/28455384.html
http://alphamom.com/parenting/baby/will-my-cat-smother-my-baby/
http://www.odordestroyer.com/newsblog/cats-and-babies-11/
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/catsuck.asp
 
JustAFan said:
Husky makes a lot of appearances, Alaskan Malamute, two that I saw but one was a mix between a Malamute and a Wolk, I think Jack Russell Terriers showed up as much as Alaskan Malamute's on the parts of the list I read. Heck I think even Lab. Retrievers showed up as much, and those are dogs well known for being good family dogs.

But yes especially with babies and very small children it is wise not to leave them unattended with dogs, very difficult when you have a dog living in your home. the good thing is that despite all the millions of dogs owned by families all over the world, very few have these types of incidients, so responsible dog ownership is still something most families can safely take part in.
Click to expand...

Responsible dog ownership for all parents of young children starts with the choice of dog they own. They should only consider owning a dog that is known to have a placid temperament and not particularly dangerous in the unlikely event it bites them. If they decide to own a dog that - as a breed - has a higher than the average likelihood of a) attacking children and b) killing them, then they are being irresponsible no matter how carefully they rear that dog.

I always think discussions like this are the same as drink driving or speeding. If you're very careful and take all necessary precautions it's quite possible to drive safely while over the speed limit and after drinking a couple of beers. It's still a stupid and pointless risk to take.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Responsible dog ownership for all parents of young children starts with the choice of dog they own. They should only consider owning a dog that is known to have a placid temperament and not particularly dangerous in the unlikely event it bites them. If they decide to own a dog that - as a breed - has a higher than the average likelihood of a) attacking children and b) killing them, then they are being irresponsible no matter how carefully they rear that dog.

I always think discussions like this are the same as drink driving or speeding. If you're very careful and take all necessary precautions it's quite possible to drive safely while over the speed limit and after drinking a couple of beers. It's still a stupid and pointless risk to take.
Click to expand...

You should really do a lot of research on dogs before you pick one. Check with reputable breeders, online sights, your vet, heck even check with your home insurance agent they may have information by breeds on dog attacks (mine did). Of course if you are being the good person who is adopting from a rescue shelter, you have to be very careful also. If you have a mixed breed really check out what breeds are mixed in there.

Even then you can find instances of almost any breed at some point attacking someone, so there will be no risk free dog. But you can certainly make a responsible choice. What type of pet owner you are is also a choice you make.

Our current dog is a chocolate Lab, we rescued from a shelter and we got very lucky in that he only had a couple of behavioral issues we had to work on (too much barking, jumping on visitors, thinking he was a lap dog, and digging), but patience and a bit of work training him solved those issues. When little ones visit we are still careful with him, one because he is a big dog and could easily unintentionally hurt the little ones just by knocking them over and because he is an animal and still has instinctive behaviors that a child may unknowingly trigger.
 
JustAFan said:
You should really do a lot of research on dogs before you pick one. Check with reputable breeders, online sights, your vet, heck even check with your home insurance agent they may have information by breeds on dog attacks (mine did). Of course if you are being the good person who is adopting from a rescue shelter, you have to be very careful also. If you have a mixed breed really check out what breeds are mixed in there.

Even then you can find instances of almost any breed at some point attacking someone, so there will be no risk free dog. But you can certainly make a responsible choice. What type of pet owner you are is also a choice you make.

Our current dog is a chocolate Lab, we rescued from a shelter and we got very lucky in that he only had a couple of behavioral issues we had to work on (too much barking, jumping on visitors, thinking he was a lap dog, and digging), but patience and a bit of work training him solved those issues. When little ones visit we are still careful with him, one because he is a big dog and could easily unintentionally hurt the little ones just by knocking them over and because he is an animal and still has instinctive behaviors that a child may unknowingly trigger.
Click to expand...

There will be no risk free dog but there will be a number of breeds that - for very obvious reasons - carry a much higher risk than others. These are the breeds people with young kids should avoid. To be honest, I'd rather people avoid them altogether, as they put other people's children at increased risk too.

A lab is a good choice. A bit big and boisterous but essentially even-tempered and they has a soft mouth. There's loads of breeds that are very low risk around kids. I just don't understand why people feel the need to own dogs that aren't.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
There will be no risk free dog but there will be a number of breeds that - for very obvious reasons - carry a much higher risk than others. These are the breeds people with young kids should avoid. To be honest, I'd rather people avoid them altogether, as they put other people's children at increased risk too.

A lab is a good choice. A bit big and boisterous but essentially even-tempered and they has a soft mouth. There's loads of breeds that are very low risk around kids. I just don't understand why people feel the need to own dogs that aren't.
Click to expand...

Yup you can and should make a responsible choice of what breed of dog you want to own.
 
KanieKaned said:
To be honest that view is slightly flawed imo. Id rather be bitten by a cat but they are also known to smother babies in their cots. All breeds have the potential to kill a child Randall.
Click to expand...


Yeah that's the point mate. Some people are just so wrapped up in the would rather be bitten by a smaller dog sideline. The point is any dog can kill, its more to do with the training and how its brought up than the breed/size. Same for humans, not all killers are adult and Raul Moat size.

Even in this recent case with the girl it was reported to be a dog causing a nuisance with neigbours pets and looked a rough area. Just don't think size of the dog played that much of a part here.

Part of me would love to see all dogs above Jack Russell, Border Terrier kind of size outlawed in the UK just to see what happens.... and IMO attacks on people, children or the postman would still go on.
 
We take risks all the time, driving to work being the biggest one. Sure the risk is there, but the benefits of owning a dog are big enough that those risks are worth it, particularly if you take the time and put in the effort you basically minimise the risk altogether anyway. I grew up with dogs in our house, and I wouldn’t trade that because of some small risk and would do the same when I eventually have kids. It would likely be a large dog with a greater potential for damage as well because those are the breeds that suit my lifestyle, where the small dogs don’t at all.
 
Dargonk said:
It would likely be a large dog with a greater potential for damage as well because those are the breeds that suit my lifestyle, where the small dogs don’t at all.
Click to expand...
I reckon you need a change in direction of your lifestyle if you need a dog with potential to harm. Strange comment, mate.
 
Claymore said:
Yeah that's the point mate. Some people are just so wrapped up in the would rather be bitten by a smaller dog sideline. The point is any dog can kill, its more to do with the training and how its brought up than the breed/size. Same for humans, not all killers are adult and Raul Moat size.

Even in this recent case with the girl it was reported to be a dog causing a nuisance with neigbours pets and looked a rough area. Just don't think size of the dog played that much of a part here.

Part of me would love to see all dogs above Jack Russell, Border Terrier kind of size outlawed in the UK just to see what happens.... and IMO attacks on people, children or the postman would still go on.
Click to expand...
If everyone owned JR's instead and there were no bull terrier/dangerous dogs - fatalities as results of dogs would reduce by 99%. I dont know how you cannot get your head around it. Its really quite simple.
 
It always unnerves me when parents have what you might call a 'large' size dog and a small child and they say things like "I'll leave Rex in the room alone with the baby without hesitation - he wouldn't harm a fly.'

...really? That's just asking for trouble. I don't see how confidence in the temperament of any animal could possibly stretch that far.
 
Dargonk said:
We take risks all the time, driving to work being the biggest one. Sure the risk is there, but the benefits of owning a dog are big enough that those risks are worth it, particularly if you take the time and put in the effort you basically minimise the risk altogether anyway. I grew up with dogs in our house, and I wouldn’t trade that because of some small risk and would do the same when I eventually have kids. It would likely be a large dog with a greater potential for damage as well because those are the breeds that suit my lifestyle, where the small dogs don’t at all.
Click to expand...
Why take a risk at all when it comes to your own children? Why not take a hamster or a rabbit? A pet your kid can actually play with without having to be worried about anything.

We used to have a very nice stafford till about 12 years ago, he was the sweetest dog I've ever met in my life. Well, the other day I was talking to the missus and she too was glad that we don't own a dog exactly like him right now because we have our little 5 year old daughter and no matter how sweet any dog could be, we still wouldn't trust him with her. I can't imagine what we would go through if anything ever happened to her, let alone caused by a pet that we wanted. Nothing is worth that risk mate, nothing. Maybe you'll see that for yourself once you have kids though.

People really put their foolish wants and needs above the well being of their kids, I'll never understand that.
 
Sultan said:
I reckon you need a change in direction of your lifestyle if you need a dog with potential to harm. Strange comment, mate.
Click to expand...
I meant a large dog. Every dog has the potential for harm. In the end our dog had to be a family pet and one that could act as a running partner if we wanted without having stupidly high energy levels.
 
Vato1979 said:
Why take a risk at all when it comes to your own children? Why not take a hamster or a rabbit? A pet your kid can actually play with without having to be worried about anything.

We used to have a very nice stafford till about 12 years ago, he was the sweetest dog I've ever met in my life. Well, the other day I was talking to the missus and she too was glad that we don't own a dog exactly like him right now because we have our little 5 year old daughter and how sweet any dog could be, we still wouldn't trust him with her. I can't imagine what we would go through if anything ever happened to her, let alone caused by a pet that we wanted. Nothing is worth that risk mate, nothing. Maybe you'll see that for yourself once you have kids though.

People really put their foolish wants and needs above the well being of their kids, I'll never understand that.
Click to expand...
Why take the risk driving to work today, you could be killed or lose your daughter that way. Risks are in everything we do in life. In the end, I think having a dog in the household adds far more than the tiny potential risk that it could turn, and Personally I wouldn't want to grow up without a dog as a kid. Hamster and rabbits, don't have the level of intelligence or interaction that a dog can give. Dogs break that point of simply being a pet, to actually being a companion for me and as a kid our dogs were basically one of our best friends as well. I wouldn't want to deny that to my kids. Sure I would take precautions and all that, but not to the point of doing away with the dog.
 
It's like some people need to try and show the world that these 'dangerous' breeds are harmless. We get it, most of the time they will harm noone and will be great with kids and whatnot. However you are only right until you're wrong, and sadly, being wrong in this particular aspect can have devastating consequences. Most of these dogs will not harm anyone, I agree, but you don't want to be that guy who burries his kid because his one wasn't like most.
 
Vato1979 said:
It's like some people need to try and show the world that these 'dangerous' breeds are harmless. We get it, most of the time they will harm noone and will be great with kids and whatnot. However you are only right until you're wrong, and sadly, being wrong in this particular aspect can have devastating consequences. Most of these dogs will not harm anyone, I agree, but you don't want to be that guy who burries his kid because his one wasn't like most.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that is why we have gone out of our way to train our dog and it has been highly socialized, while making sure the breed actually suited our lifestyle. We also went to the breeders home to meet the parents and see exactly how it was brought up before we decided on our pup. When we eventually have kids, we wouldn't be leaving them unsupervised together, at least until they are old enough to fully understand dogs themselves. I have no issues acknowledging there is potential there, but in the end I'm not going to let a whole bunch of what if's that are highly unlikely to happen make me stop doing things that also have so many positives. Otherwise we might as well stop our kids from going to the beach, or playing in the park as there is potential for things going wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking precautions, but if we try to totally protect our kids from everything we are basically stopping them from living at the same time.
 
Sultan said:
I reckon you need a change in direction of your lifestyle if you need a dog with potential to harm. Strange comment, mate.
Click to expand...
Youve taken that completely out of context Sults, hes not implying he wants a savage pitfull thats frothing at the mouth. Its actually far from it.

Flandall Ragg said:
If everyone owned JR's instead and there were no bull terrier/dangerous dogs - fatalities as results of dogs would reduce by 99%. I dont know how you cannot get your head around it. Its really quite simple.
Click to expand...
Im not buying that, JR's can be right little cnuts when they want to be, in fact ive only known about 2 that have been lovely dogs over the years, the rest have been narky little bastards. I also wouldnt want to own a JR. I prefer much larger dogs and always have.

If people had the adequate training and took the necessay precautions to ensure as much safety as possible for themselves and anyone else around dogs then we would be in a better place. Sadly thats not what alot of people see being a responsible dog owner.
 
Last edited:
Dargonk said:
Why take the risk driving to work today, you could be killed or lose your daughter that way. Risks are in everything we do in life. In the end, I think having a dog in the household adds far more than the tiny potential risk that it could turn, and Personally I wouldn't want to grow up without a dog as a kid. Hamster and rabbits, don't have the level of intelligence or interaction that a dog can give. Dogs break that point of simply being a pet, to actually being a companion for me and as a kid our dogs were basically one of our best friends as well. I wouldn't want to deny that to my kids. Sure I would take precautions and all that, but not to the point of doing away with the dog.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people with kids shouldn't own a dog. Just that they should think long and hard about what breed to get.
 
I just dont have the patience for this thread.

JR's are narky and snappy. But its pretty darn unlikely that they can kill a person unless it is a very very small baby, and we all agree that any dog shouldnt be alone with a small baby. Right?
 
Flandall Ragg said:
I just dont have the patience for this thread.

JR's are narky and snappy. But its pretty darn unlikely that they can kill a person unless it is a very very small baby, and we all agree that any dog shouldnt be alone with a small baby. Right?
Click to expand...

Jack Russell's on rare occasions do kill babies, you can find it documented if you can be bothered.

No, we agree that leaving any child alone with any dog has a degree of risk attached to it. You wouldn't leave a child alone in a room with an iron left on, for example. I do agree that the size of dog increases risk of serious injury though. That does not mean though that you cannot have a large aggressive breed and a family.

http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

That PDF shows dog breeds by fatality in the US over a period of time. It show that the Malamute is one of the most dangerous dogs about. The case prompting this discussion, like nearly all others are dog bite tragedies are caused by owner stupidity.
 
Wouldnt it just be easier if they banned the most dangerous dogs. The ones that can cause most harm?

Plenty of times a dog can attack a child outside the home that has nothing to do with the dog.

I am glad we have now clarified that dangerous dogs increase risk of serious injury though. We are making progress
 
@Flandall Ragg

You would be much better off trying to make a case for banning alcohol than banning certain breeds of dogs, though you probably quite like getting drunk yourself so you might have a different view on that. These types of cases are rare as hens teeth but they always make the front of the press.

Far far more people lose their lives to alcohol related incidents and speeding for example. Personally I would not have an aggressive breed with small children in the house but you will have a hard time convincing those who do to give up their dogs because of the actions of a few irresponsible owners.
 
Jack Russell's were actually one of the breeds mentioned by beacon (our resident vet) as not a dog you could trust round kids. They'd struggle to kill anyone but the smallest baby but they'd take a chunk out of kids, readily enough.

So temperament is something to consider, as well as size. Although a large dog who attacks a child will obviously do more damage.

I think the "you might as well ban alcohol" argument you hear in discussions like this (and the legalisation of drugs debate) is disingenuous. Alcohol is too deeply embedded in our culture for us to suddenly ban it. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's just damage minimisation from here. Prosecutions for drink driving, serving drinks to underage kids, being drunk and disorderly etc. etc.

With dangerous dogs there are other - more radical - options. Anyway, legislation aside, I just don't understand why people are desperate to own certain breeds of dogs, when there is so much evidence that these breeds present an obvious risk to young children. It's all very well blaming "irresponsible owners" but I refuse to believe that every dog that ever mauled a young child was owned by someone who didn't know what they were doing. When an animal has aggressive instincts hard-wired in it's genes and the tools to do horrific damage in a very short space of time, it's inevitable that accidents will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.