Dangerous dogs with children

tbain

lindseykim13 wrote: »

I think the point is that staffies are very strong and powerfull enough to harm a child like many other dogs the same/similar size. If you have children then i wouldn't personaly have a dog capable of this.
I have a springer spaniel and while she still has teeth and quite capable of biting she's not going to be able to maul a child to death.
However no matter what dog you have if you bring a baby into that home one bite from any dog could kill that baby. So my advice would be (and i'm no expert) no dog should be left alone with a baby or toddler. Once the child is older i would consider a dog such as spaniels and small dogs safe with that child. In the sence that the child would be big enough not be killed by the dog.
I would measure it up size/age of child compared with strength of the dog.
I would also make sure that i didn't own a dog before having a baby otherwise dog would get territorial if a new baby came into the home.

So in the ops case i would get rid of the dog preferably to someone who has no kids. They will be asking for trouble bringing a baby into that particular dogs home. I wouldn't risk it and as much as you can try not to leave you dog and baby alone things happen and it only takes a phone call or doorbell for you to forget for a split second. Unfortunatly that's all it takes.
I waited until my youngest was 2 before getting a dog i wouldn't of got one earlier than this.

Couldn't agree with you more, that is precisely how I feel. If you have children you have to get an appropriate dog not a staffy, lockjaw or large dog.

Misty_Blue

tbain wrote: »

I disagree with a few of your points. Firstly I have heard of many incidents where a staffy has attacked a child. Here is a couple of links as examples, although there are many more:
http://itn.co.uk/news/6c4e78375d5984c9642ce722ebe2c768.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6602975.stm

I didn't say there was never a case, I said I couldn't think of one off the top of my head - ie I think most people could think of at least high profile two Rottweiler "attacks" and one Pitbull type one in recent times.

tbain wrote: »

Nanny dogs? How can anybody, even a lover of the breed describe them as that?

Breeds come by their long-standing nicknames for a reason. Staffords got theirs because of their stable temperament and tolerance with children.

tbain wrote: »

How anybody would want to own one when they have kids is beyond me.

So where do you draw the line? I have Gordon Setters and Rough Collies. Either one of these breeds is big and strong enough to maim or kill a child, so are you against keeping these breeds with children also? Would you condemn anyone with kids in the house to keeping toy breeds only?

tbain wrote: »

If you love the breed fine, but why are people making out they are great with kids when many are not and they pose a risk?

I don't love the breed. It's not my breed and I have no involvment with it. My comments come from years of experience in showing and working dogs, and the number of Staffords I've met along the way. People are making out that they're a good breed with kids because by and large, it's true. Yes, there will be some (some, not "many" as you seem to think) which are not, just as there are dogs in every breed in existance which are not.

As a general rule of thumb, Staffs are excellent family dogs if raised and socialised well and kept in a house where the children have been taught to behave correctly around dogs. It's a shame the sensationalist media portrayal of the bull breeds has led to so many people having misinformed opinions about them.

Misty_Blue

tbain wrote: »

Couldn't agree with you more, that is precisely how I feel. If you have children you have to get an appropriate dog not a staffy, lockjaw or large dog.

As I pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as a "lockjaw" dog. It's a myth.

tbain

Misty_Blue wrote: »

As I pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as a "lockjaw" dog. It's a myth.

Look I can't be bothered with the knitpicking or the arguing for that matter as on this occasion I know I am right. You're obviously the type of person that would describe a rottweiler as a 'little softie!If you take a look at some of the other posts they actually agree with me so I'm not the only one that would be reluctant and unwilling to take on these kinds of breeds with children. It is simply common sense, why take the risk with the most precious thing in your life, your child? Oh and referring to an earlier thread you made , there is no 'media frenzy' , the media simply reports when these dangerous incidents occcur simply reflect what has happened and how dangerous these dogs are.

You are so wrong and way off the mark with certain things I can't even agree to disagree with you!

Misty_Blue

tbain wrote: »

Look I can't be bothered with the knitpicking or the arguing for that matter as on this occasion I know I am right. You're obviously the type of person that would describe a rottweiler as a 'little softie!If you take a look at some of the other posts they actually agree with me so I'm not the only one that would be reluctant and unwilling to take on these kinds of breeds with children. It is simply common sense, why take the risk with the most precious thing in your life, your child? Oh and referring to an earlier thread you made , there is no 'media frenzy' , the media simply reports when these dangerous incidents occcur simply reflect what has happened and how dangerous these dogs are.

You are so wrong and way off the mark with certain things I can't even agree to disagree with you!

If you know you're right can you provide me with some evidence as to how Staffords or any other breeds have locking jaws? So I can correct my opinion?

Yes, some people have agreed with you. Plenty others haven't.

By your own admission your only knowledge of this breed is what you've seen in the media.

searching_me

misty blue couldnt of put it better myself x

beaujolais-nouveau

Misty_Blue wrote: »

Staffords do not have the nickname "Nanny Dog" for no reason!

Well, I've never heard them called by that nickname. Aren't you thinking of Newfoundlands?

Misty_Blue wrote: »

In all my time as a dog owner, I have met only one dog aggressive Stafford (and never a human aggressive one).

You should come and live in south London, then. I've had a staffie run out of its garden gate and attempt to sink its teeth into the back of my dog's neck - it drew blood - we were just walking past and did not even make eye contact until the staffie attacked. In the Park, I always give staffies a wide berth: they are just so flaming unpredictable and capable of doing such damage. I know staffie owners who boast that their dog will have mine (a small terrier) "for breakfast" and about how it would be impossible to unfasten their dog's jaws, if it decided to attack another dog.

Misty_Blue wrote: »

I have met countless nasty, snappy Jack Russels, Poodles, Maltese, Yorkshire Terriers, Chihuahuas etc, and the only dog owner I ever reported to the police for breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act was a Yorkshire Terrier owner. You don't hear people calling for these breeds to be legislated against.

I have yet to hear of anyone being killed or their face hideously maimed by a Jack Russel or a Chihuahua, etc.

I agree with the people here who have said that no dog can safely be left with a child - never mind a baby - and the trouble with staffies (even when trained, which the one referred to in the OP is not) is that you don't get a second chance. The first attack is usually the last.

Hawthorn

A GSD darn near killed my mums spaniel too! And, a Westie nearly had my dog the other day. It's owner had a hard time controlling it.
And those staffie owners want shooting. I hate that people use these dogs as 'ard man dogs grrrr.

tbain

Misty_Blue wrote: »

If you know you're right can you provide me with some evidence as to how Staffords or any other breeds have locking jaws? So I can correct my opinion?

Yes, some people have agreed with you. Plenty others haven't.

By your own admission your only knowledge of this breed is what you've seen in the media.

I have never said that my only knowledge of the dogs is through the media, I have never owned one but my husband has many years ago and I know people who have had that breed of dog.

Am I the only person on the planet that has referred to these dogs as lockjaws? I don't think so.

At the end of the day I am entitled to my opinion as much as everybody else and you trying to ' argue me down' won't change that. I have not said anything controversial or wrong, I have merely expressed concerns at certain breeds of dogs living with children. Which is an extremely valid argument. You have done nothing but defend the breed and generalise which is naive and stupid. ( I mean for Goodness sake 'nanny dog!')

Misty_Blue

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Well, I've never heard them called by that nickname. Aren't you thinking of Newfoundlands?

No. You're thinking of the Newfie which was named "NAnnie" in Peter Pan, probably.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=staffordshire+bull+terrier+nanny+dog&meta=

tbain wrote:

Am I the only person on the planet that has referred to these dogs as lockjaws? I don't think so.

Probably not, but that doesn't make it true.

tabain wrote:

have merely expressed concerns at certain breeds of dogs living with children.

Absolutely. So may I ask again if you would think it madness to keep a Gordon Setter in a house with young children?

tbain wrote:

You have done nothing but defend the breed and generalise which is naive and stupid.

And you have done nothing but castigate the breed and generalise. I don't need to resort to calling your argument "stupid" however.....