Pet dog kills 3 day old in California

A_Sober_Paddy · 23-04-2016 11:56PM

super_furry wrote: »

Appalling parenting to have a child in the company of a dog like that.

A dig like that, I have a pit bull he is so friendly with kids, and people in general, blaming a breed is like blaming someone's skin colour or nationality...

jimgoose · 23-04-2016 11:57PM

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

A dig like that, I have a pit bull he is so friendly with kids, and people in general, blaming a breed is like blaming someone's skin colour or nationality...

I wouldnt blame the animal in the slightest - I blame the moron owner.

A_Sober_Paddy · 23-04-2016 11:59PM

jimgoose wrote: »

I wouldnt blame the animal in the slightest - I blame the moron owner.

Totally agree, but the breed restrictions will brought up again, it's laughably

24-04-2016 12:04AM

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Totally agree, but the breed restrictions will brought up again, it's laughably

I don't think anyone is laughing in the aftermath of a child being mauled to death. If breed restrictions reduce this risk, the why should they not be brought up in the same way that speed restrictions may reduce road deaths, gun restrictions reduce gun deaths and so on?

Boardz Fiend wrote: »

- Time Magazine published data from Merritt Clifton who recorded Pitbull related attacks and deaths over a 32 year period. He found that even though pitbulls accounted for only 6% of the dog population, they were responsible for 68% of attacks and 52% of deaths.

- Another report published in the April 2011 issue of Annals of Surgery found that one person is killed by a pit bull every 14 days, two people are injured by a pit bull every day, and young children are especially at risk. The report concludes that “these breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated.” That report was shared with TIME by PETA, the world’s largest animal-rights organization.

- A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds.

- 1982-2014 study by Merritt Clifton: Even if the pit bull category was "split four ways," attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other dog breed.

K-9 · 24-04-2016 12:05AM

Boardz Fiend wrote: »

So this thread was intended to highlight the stupidity of the parents. However, yes I happened to mention pitbull in the OP and so I will address your points and then I'm done -

1) Correct, I have not grown up around pitbulls. You dont need to own a pitbull to form informed and sensible opinions about them
2) I would consider this a moot point. What does a German Shepherds having a stronger bite force have anything to do with this?
3) You want statistics? Ok, being a new member to boards I am not permitted to post links which is a little inconvenient so I will just list the data which can be found easily via google. ..

- Time Magazine published data from Merritt Clifton who recorded Pitbull related attacks and deaths over a 32 year period. He found that even though pitbulls accounted for only 6% of the dog population, they were responsible for 68% of attacks and 52% of deaths.

- Another report published in the April 2011 issue of Annals of Surgery found that one person is killed by a pit bull every 14 days, two people are injured by a pit bull every day, and young children are especially at risk. The report concludes that “these breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated.” That report was shared with TIME by PETA, the world’s largest animal-rights organization.

- A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds.

- 1982-2014 study by Merritt Clifton: Even if the pit bull category was "split four ways," attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other dog breed.

Yeah, I think a pit bull or staff or whatever breed, I'd be more wary than a lab. And yeah, no doubt somebody will bring up an article of a lab attacking something!

Certain breeds you have to be more wary off, but even a lab is an animal, you just never know.

We're only just starting to find out just how awesome dogs are, so don't let very rare cases put you off them. Dogs are helping humans fight cancer, providing comfort to elderly people in nursing homes, patients in hospital after traumatic events like the Boston bombing, the list goes on and on.

Us humans are just learning how much dogs can help us.

Sheep Lover · 24-04-2016 12:06AM

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Totally agree, but the breed restrictions will brought up again, it's laughably

Well statistically speaking pitbulls are one of the most dangerous breeds.

Anyway, pitbulls have been bred so long and so badly for "pedigree" reasons they are really ****ed up genetically. Hereditary diseases and the like all in the name of having the "pedigree" look.. They've been bred for centuries for aggression, a "good owner" cannot overcome the dogs genes.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-04-2016 12:06AM

Conor, that could have been a Jack Russell or a lab, or a springer spaniel. A frightened dog is a potentially dangerous dog if it has stupid owners. Pitbulls are beautiful intelligent animals but unfortunately are seen as status for some people, irresponsible owners and they've gotten a bad name

melissak · 24-04-2016 12:07AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I trust them with me. I trust that they're not going to bite my face off if I'm giving them kisses, i trust them not to snap my hand if I put it down to take their food away. I have no fear of them with me because they are content and safe and relaxed. When I had my female dog with her puppies, I trusted her not to maul me when I was picking them up a few hours old.

Would I trust them around a small child? No. It's not that I don't trust them - I know they're good dogs, I just don't know if they'll be scared or upset, I would assume they would be okay around young children however that 1% doubt for me isn't worth taking. A split second is all it takes. A child to startle him, pull his tail or accidently step on his paw. Sure, he could give a warning. But he might not. And although I feel it's highly unlikely, I am no dr Doolittle and can't read their minds so I do what I can to keep them safe and not stressed, and any kids that theyre in contact with safe.

They are extremely jealous of my other half, they own me. So it takes them a bit of getting used to not being the centre of attention.

Tl;dr
They're good dogs but they're spoilt and I can't read their minds. So not worth taking a chance however unlikely I assume it is to happen

I can't handle people kissing dogs. I love my dog but she spends a lot of the day licking her arse. Also eating gross things she finds around the place.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-04-2016 12:09AM

Meh it hasn't killed me yet and I'll take smothering them with kisses over having them snarling at me.

Dyr · 24-04-2016 12:10AM

I like how people come out this weird a dog "like that" qualifier, you don't let a dog near a newborn at all, from a Jack Russell upward..if they can kill a rat, guess what?

K-9 · 24-04-2016 12:15AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Conor, that could have been a Jack Russell or a lab, or a springer spaniel. A frightened dog is a potentially dangerous dog if it has stupid owners. Pitbulls are beautiful intelligent animals but unfortunately are seen as status for some people, irresponsible owners and they've gotten a bad name

A frightened Jack Russell and a pit bull, both can be vicious, A jack Russell is bred to kill rats though.

A frightened lab, I'd be less scared off. Except a pissed off black lab, they are scarey! A lab is bred to retrieve the duck or pheasant in one piece, intact and unblemished to the Lord of the Manor!

Dyr · 24-04-2016 12:20AM

I'd never trust a lab I didnt know, they're big strong ****ers and the people that own them are often clueless, they just wanted a cute "family" dog that they think wont be any hassle.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-04-2016 12:22AM

I'd agree. They're a good solid dog, I'd be taking my chances with the jrt just as soon as a frightened lab

The King of Moo · 24-04-2016 12:23AM

If there genuinely are more attacks by pitbulls and similar breeds (and I have some doubts as many attacks by a dog tends to be reported as a pitbull even if it's actually a different breed), could that be due to a tendency to buy such breeds as symbols of toughness by people who might not be so good at giving a dog the proper care and training it deserves?
If so, it would mean that they commit more attacks because more arschlochs buy them who don't look after them or even train them to be aggressive, rather than because they're more naturally more aggressive than other breeds.

24-04-2016 12:23AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Conor, that could have been a Jack Russell or a lab, or a springer spaniel.

I wouldn't leave my child near a jack russell either...on the other hand if a jack russell bit my child I could punt it over the hedge and deal with the wound. Similarly, I can't imagine too many deaths by spaniels, even if they are tetchy. The problem with pit bulls seems to be the mix of aggression and the ability to transform that into a brute force that can be fatal.

K-9 · 24-04-2016 12:23AM

Bambi wrote: »

I like how people come out this weird a dog "like that" qualifier, you don't let a dog near a newborn at all, from a Jack Russell upward..if they can kill a rat, guess what?

Lol, look at my post straight after yours!

I wouldn't be scared of a Jack Russell, brought up with up a terrier and a true breed, snappy as feck though, better than a cat at catching a mouse or rat.

6-7 year old children up for me. They'd have enough sense to know yeah, a dog can be snappy, usually only if you annoy the poor thing enough.

We all know lab retrievers are the best dog ever, so problem solved.

K-9 · 24-04-2016 12:34AM

Bambi wrote: »

I'd never trust a lab I didnt know, they're big strong ****ers and the people that own them are often clueless, they just wanted a cute "family" dog that they think wont be any hassle.

Their temperament is to nip though, and they'll only do that when really pissed off. A parent will have stepped in long before the bite stage.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-04-2016 12:39AM

http://tinypic.com/r/213oxi1/9

Don't think that lad was in a nipping mood. He's the only dog I was EVER afraid of. Had to tear him off one of my dogs, and he went for me. Don't think he'd have been too forgiving!

K-9 · 24-04-2016 12:43AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

http://tinypic.com/r/213oxi1/9

Don't think that lad was in a nipping mood. He's the only dog I was EVER afraid of. Had to tear him off one of my dogs, and he went for me. Don't think he'd have been too forgiving!

I did tell ye somebody would bring up the lab pic.

They're all dogs... The odds favour the lab retriever though.

That can't be argued.

kylith · 24-04-2016 01:12AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Nah it's not. I know a guy who has a pitbull, (he was trying to get me to take him in) and he's a typical asshole owner. He has videos up of his pitbull (rocky) jumping at a rope hanging out of a tree and that dog can jump and grip that rope and swing out of it and it being 4/5ft off the ground.

The locking jaw thing is bollox. I used to do have my jack Russell hanging off a tennis ball 4' above the ground.

Any dog can do damage. It's simply that idiots who don't train of socialise their dogs are more likely to have pitbulls than golden retrievers.

MadDog76 · 24-04-2016 02:05AM

Discodog wrote: »

The dog could of just as easily suffocated the baby by accident such as laying on it. Children should never be left with dogs because you can't trust the child. As for the rubbish about bite pressures etc any dog can inflict serious injuries. A family Labrador could do just as much damage.

There is a lot of good advice about preparing a dog for the arrival of a new baby. Unfortunately the arrival of a baby is one of the reasons why people get rid of dogs.

Yeah, all those tragic stories you hear about a small child suddenly turning on the family dog and savaging it to death ......... you really can never trust a child, even one of your own!

24-04-2016 02:27AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Absolute dribble.

I guess it is and it isn't. The trouble here is people like to deal in absolutes. They will focus on one breed over another. Or one species over another. And they will tell you "with a baby or child" - this is what you have to do or not do.

I take a different approach really. I treat every _entity_ as an unknown and make my best judgement based on what I know about them. Especially _in context_.

Would I leave my wolf with a baby? Absolutely. Why? Because I know how he reacts to babies in and out of our family - over time - and over experience. I have not looked at him and thought "wolf" I have looked at him and thought "I dunno - lets work this one out slowly" and I started from there.

When my first baby was born I would not leave my animals anywhere near it. I supervised - over a long controlled time with a long controlled weening - a "never leave them alone" policy leading to a "Yeah they will be fine alone" policy.

And you know what - it had _nothing_ to do with the species of animal. Because when my _second_ child was born I did not leave my first child alone with him either. Because how the hell would I know how she would react to him? I might think "She is a lovely and loving child - she would never do anything wrong" - and left them alone - and she might have put a pillow on his face and sat on it - purely to fulfill some entirely innocent narrative in her head that I would never have pre-predicted.

So for me it is never about "Never leave a child alone with a dog" or "never leave a child alone with - " whatever. For me it is more a case of "what entities are you leaving your child alone with and how well do you know that entity".

And if someone on here left a baby with me right now tonight - I would leave it with my wolf much sooner than I would leave it with my 2 year old son. Because the latter entity is one I have not tested or evaluated in _any_ way in that environment or with that stimulus. I am 90% sure how one would react and 70% sure how the other would react. So if I had to make a bet - - - -

MadDog76 · 24-04-2016 02:43AM

A few years back, my son (4 years old at the time) startled my Mam's ageing half-deaf Shih-Tzu (he didn't hear my son come towards him) and he snapped at my son ............. this dog had been around playful children his whole life and was extremely gentle in nature but he was caught off-guard and reacted.

Now, it was only a nip on the finger and my son got more of a fright than anything else so no harm done really ............ but if my Mam's Shih-Tzu had been a Labrador then the nip could have been a wound needing stitches because Labrador's are bigger than Shih-Tzu's ........... if my Mam's Shih-Tzu had been a Pit-Bull then I dread to think the story I'd be telling you now because Pit-Bull's are bigger than Shih Tzu's and much more aggressive than Labrador's .......... the breed of a dog absolutely does matter!

MadDog76 · 24-04-2016 02:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And if someone on here left a baby with me right now tonight - I would leave it with my wolf much sooner than I would leave it with my 2 year old son. Because the latter entity is one I have not tested or evaluated in _any_ way in that environment or with that stimulus. I am 90% sure how one would react and 70% sure how the other would react. So if I had to make a bet - - - -

You're 90% sure your wolf wouldn't savage the baby ......... not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for you either to even contemplate leaving any baby with your wolf under any circumstances whatsoever.

I'll give you credit for not saying "100%" at least .......... because we both know that that would have been a lie.

24-04-2016 02:54AM

You almost picked up on the point I was making. The point is we _never_ know 100%. We just do not. Ever.

Yet in the real world people leave their kids alone with other entities all the time.

And my point was that dealing in absolutes is the wrong approach. Dealing in what you know - why you know it - and how you know it - is at least safer.

I would suspect anyone who leaves their kids with anyone or anything and claims "100%". You. Just. Never. Know. That.

I guess the go to option for most would be "grand parents". But are they 100%? I mean really 100? Of course not. You simply do not know.

MadDog76 · 24-04-2016 03:09AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You almost picked up on the point I was making. The point is we _never_ know 100%. We just do not. Ever.

Yet in the real world people leave their kids alone with other entities all the time.

And my point was that dealing in absolutes is the wrong approach. Dealing in what you know - why you know it - and how you know it - is at least safer.

I would suspect anyone who leaves their kids with anyone or anything and claims "100%". You. Just. Never. Know. That.

I guess the go to option for most would be "grand parents". But are they 100%? I mean really 100? Of course not. You simply do not know.

I agree with you 100% ............ and we often have to weigh up the odds, for lack of a better phrase.

For example, I'd feel more comfortable leaving my 10 year old son in a room with a Basset Hound than I would leaving him with a Pit-Bull ............ any dog has the potential to attack but I know my son will be better able to defend himself against an attack from the Basset Hound than he would be from the Pit-Bull .......... I'd also feel the likelihood of an attack is much higher from the Pit-Bull than it is from the Basset Hound ........... but some people would rather stick their heads in the sand regarding children's safety around dogs rather than face reality.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 24-04-2016 03:17AM

I remember as a child I was attacked by the sheep dog out at my mother's family home. I was 8 at the time, I was playing hurling with my auntie, pucking a ball from a short distance.

She pucked it over my head and I turned my back and ran for it. The next thing I was being savaged by this collie.

I remember loads of screaming and swear words coming from the adults. I walked away with only superficial wounds.

That evening my grandad took the collie into the cow shed and strangled him with a rope.

njs030 · 24-04-2016 03:27AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'd also feel the likelihood of an attack is much higher from the Pit-Bull than it is from the Basset Hound ...........

Firstly, a pit bull isn't a breed of dog, it's a collective name for a group of dogs similar to the way hounds is a collective term (bassets, beagles etc). It includes Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers amongst others.
The dog in question is an American pit bull cross which is very different to an Irish pit bull.

The ironic thing about your statement is Staffordshire bull terriers were originally known as nanny dogs because they are so safe around children.

MadDog76 · 24-04-2016 03:38AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Firstly, a pit bull isn't a breed of dog, it's a collective name for a group of dogs similar to the way hounds is a collective term (bassets, beagles etc). It includes Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers amongst others.
The dog in question is an American pit bull cross which is very different to an Irish pit bull.

The ironic thing about your statement is Staffordshire bull terriers were originally known as nanny dogs because they are so safe around children.

When I say "Pit-Bull" I'm referring to the Bull Terriers, American Pit-Bulls, Staffs etc. but I think you already knew what I meant ............

What's ironic about your statement is the fact that NO dogs are safe around children, which you would know if you knew anything about dogs.

njs030 · 24-04-2016 03:44AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

When I say "Pit-Bull" I'm referring to the Bull Terriers, American Pit-Bulls, Staffs etc. but I think you already knew what I meant ............

What's ironic about your statement is the fact that NO dogs are safe around children, which you would know if you knew anything about dogs.

I suppose all those years working in rescue were a waste then....clearly you know more than me.

I said they were called nanny dogs because they are so safe around children. I didn't call them that, it's a historical name.

Pet dog kills 3 day old in California

Comments