Boy (8) dies after dog attack

Hoboo wrote: »

"Technically" youre contradicting yourself...you don't call it a breed but you deal with "breeders". Then don't call it a cockapoo. Call it a mongrel the same as your other mongrel. Which it is.

The rest just backs up my statement, it's a club which supports cross breeding, to invent a new breed to sell at extortionate prices to whoever wants the latest cute puppy, once they have the money. I have no doubt owners love and look after their dogs, but supporting such practices ****s in the face of the animal welfare struggle.

Every dog in the world was cross bred and then inbred at some stage to form today’s “breeds”.
What’s the problem.once the dogs are looked after what’s the issue?
Look at the bulldogs.surely the greatest contradiction of a breed ever.ai,sections.how natural is that?a genetic mess created by man.

It sounded very much like these owners were raising their dogs to be guard dogs in some way (i've no evidence of this so i'm probably talking out my arse) but it leads me to think why anyone would want a "guard dog", just look after your house and get an alarm installed, why the fck do you want to put a brute dog out the back garden and risk a mess like that?

My mother's dog is a labrador/staffy, and you couldn't make him a guard dog if you tried at his age. Every stranger that ever comes to the door or the back gate has been met by a bark at first, then a sniff and a lick, then curiously following the stranger. (I bring the dogs in/out at the visitor's request if asked, obviously).

My point is if you're gonna get a dog, train it to be the family pet, not a potential killer. Some owners wear that idea as a badge of honour and I don't understand it. Why would ya want to show off that you have an angry dog? "Don't mess with me", is that it? You trying to compensate for something?

I'm gonna end up going off on a rant lol

JustAThought wrote: »

the bile snd hatred on this thread is just shocking. As for the number of people who are happy to attack snd hurt a dog or the evil freaks who say they carry knives to stick in a dog when they ate out.There truly are monsters among us.

Those who are happy to hurt and injure animals are the ones that flare ted rights in psychologists reports, and it is the standard item that is reported in every murder and abuse story - known to have ihurt/tortured and been cruel to animals.Figurres.There are frightening people out there full of hatred and rage and ignorance.

No one is happy to have to hurt a dog but we all know there are dogs happy to hurt a child or other person and having sensible means to defend them is important.

DellyBelly wrote: »

This is something I notice as well. You seem to see a lot of council estate types/lowerclass people walking around with pitbulls. Nearly all the owners I see of pitbulls for some reason like ot wear North Face jackets with the hoods up and black tracksuits. Is it a status thing or so they believe they look hard?

these dogs are a "hard man" accessory, simple as that really. I'm sure there are exceptions but i'd say the vast majority of people who get restricted breeds enjoy the fact that these dogs have a scary reputation.

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

Every dog in the world was cross bred and then inbred at some stage to form today’s “breeds”.
What’s the problem.once the dogs are looked after what’s the issue?
Look at the bulldogs.surely the greatest contradiction of a breed ever.ai,sections.how natural is that?a genetic mess created by man.

Because dogs that are considered pure breeds, were bred for a purpose - gundogs for bird game, terriers to flush out vermin, shepherds to guard the flocks. Over the course of time, dogs do get recognised by Kennel clubs around the world, but not because they are back yard bred cross breeds who have no purpose, they are dogs that have evolved over time to assist their owners to hunt/find/flush/assist. Not because they look cute.

Cross breeds such as anything "poo" or "shon" are purely because they look cute. Their coats are a disaster - poodle and bichon fur is tightly wound curls that matt when mixed with the straight denser fur of labs/cockers/whatever the stupid portmanteau fashionable mix of the week is. Groomers find them really difficult to clip unless they are meticulously groomed every day trimmed every 6 weeks or so. Lots of them that have matted fur have serious attitude with groomers trying to sort out their coat disasters.

Heath and temperament are not considered when mixing these either. The reason that good responsible breeders health test is to ensure that diseases that are genetically passed on are not present in their breeding dogs. This isn't a once over at the vet, this is DNA testing, hip scores, PRA eye tests. They all cost money, and eat into puppy farm /back yard breeders profits. The vast majority of cockapoos are bred from golden cocker spaniels and toy or miniature poodles. Golden cockers can be nervous aggressive, resource guarding dogs. Not necessarily good with children. Toy poodles are the better dog from the mix but are rarely considered as a family dog.

I agree with you about bulldogs. And all the other brachycephalic breeds. If you look at file pictures of bulldogs 100 years ago, it's a different dog. The exaggerated features of underbite and wrinkles in current bulldog stock makes for a very unhealthy dog. That can happen when bred purely for aesthetic purposes and any working potential has been exhausted. Not that anybody needs a bull baiting dog, but FFS, any animal that has trouble with simply breathing, should not be bred. As it stands, the vast majority of bulldog bitches can't naturally whelp and need to have medical intervention in the form of C-section to give birth.

lawred2 wrote: »

And off leashes despite laws and bylaws to the contrary

Apart from indivual County Council bye laws - The law of the land states that a dog must be under effectual control. Nowhere does it mention leads/leashes. If you can demonstrate that your dog is under your control and has good recall, then you are not breaking the law.

That said, I only walk mine off leash where they have space to run and explore, such as my local beach. I live semi rurally so they don't have to walk on footpaths or in estates. They don't really give a hoot about other dogs and only want to sniff, dig and run. So they wouldn't exactly get a good quality walk if I brought them to the local estate. The problems are down to ineffective training on the behalf of some owners, and practically zero enforcement of irresponsible owners by Country Councils.

lawred2 wrote: »

And off leashes despite laws and bylaws to the contrary

There’s laws in relation to carrying an offensive weapon aswell.old Rambo the drama queen might want to look them up.
I read some sh1te on the internet over the years but old Rambo is near the top of the list

ifElseThen wrote: »

Had this recently in Corkagh park. My children rolling around the hill when out of nowhere a GSD comes up and is standing over the three year old, her body almost under the 4 legs. Child was terrified even though the dog just wanted to play. Owner comes up, "Ah she's grand, she wouldn't hurt anyone." I went through him, off lead , no muzzle. I have used the story of this boy to drive home to the kids not to stray too far from me in the park. I carry a pocket knife when going to the park solely to be able to cut a dog if it had a grip on one of my children.

Good luck with that plan , Do you really think a pocket knife would do the job if a pitbull had a hold of one of your children ? Try bring a cigarette lighter and newspaper !

ifElseThen wrote: »

Had this recently in Corkagh park. My children rolling around the hill when out of nowhere a GSD comes up and is standing over the three year old, her body almost under the 4 legs. Child was terrified even though the dog just wanted to play. Owner comes up, "Ah she's grand, she wouldn't hurt anyone." I went through him, off lead , no muzzle. I have used the story of this boy to drive home to the kids not to stray too far from me in the park. I carry a pocket knife when going to the park solely to be able to cut a dog if it had a grip on one of my children.

Absolute psycho.

I carry a gun whenever I go to the beach in case a seagull attacks me.

Thankfully this thread has been moved to CA where I won't see the absolute nonsense being spewed by the "dog experts" as frequently. It reminds me why I don't bother with A&PI forum.

For feck sake, so much made of that comment.

The wee critter/creature/crater/whatever is a common phrase in Ireland. And it's not meant in any way disrespectfully. It is a term of endearment.

Kinda like being called a quare fella?

I don't think it's a disgusting comment as such, it's just not relevant.

Maybe the poor kid pulled the dogs tail (although I doubt it had one), maybe he poked it in the eye or kicked it.

Doesn't matter.

Regardless of whether the dogs attacked him because he annoyed or hurt them or whether it was entirely unprovoked - there should never have been a situation whereby 2 dogs (of any breed) could maul a little child.

Serious negligence took place here. Whether by training a dog to be vicious, and/or allowing a child to be around dogs unsupervised.

The parents need to be charged and hit hard. Some will say they have suffered enough, well sorry - no - they haven't. They caused the death of a child. They should face manslaughter charges.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can't say I would agree with this at all.
Certain breeds most definitely have traits that differ from other breeds. Why are bloodhounds used to track? Because they have the most evolved and advanced sense of smell. Corgis are notoriously possessive of their owner. My mother had one and it would sleep under her bed and would growl at me when I came in to kiss my mother good night even though the snarky bastard knew it was me and had known me for 10 years. The dog didn't dislike me. It was playful and loving to me when we were together but when he was having "me time" with my ma I could fcuk right off.


Alsations and Border Collies are just born intelligent. Poodles are air-heads.


Rottweillers and pitbulls are thugs. Period. Doberman Pincers are nazis.

That’s exactly the kind of rubbish people who know nothing about dogs routinely spout. Have you any dogs yourself?

Poodles are airheads is almost as ridiculous a comment as Rottweilers and pit bulls are thugs.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I was taking the piss about poodles and dobermans

It doesn't read that way. Neither do the rest of your posts. You have outdated and stereotyped ideas of how dogs should be.

Dogs shouldn't be fed meat or scraps and slops everyday. They need proper dog food that keeps them healthy and nourished and focused.

On what planet should dogs not be fed meat? Whilst not an obligate carnivore like cats, dogs most certainly need meat, and as much of it as possible. There's absolutely nothing wrong with feeding dogs human food, leftovers such as meat/veg/potatoes. To me, "scraps and slops" are perhaps vegetable peelings and inedible foodstuffs, which no carnivore should eat. If you ever looked into what went into commercially produced dry food, a lot of it would be considered "scraps and slops" A hell of a lot of owners refuse to feed commercially made dog food to their dogs. A lot the brands you can buy in a supermarket or pet shop/agri store claim that their foods have "complete nutrition" "scientifically tested" or "vital protection" "naturally hypoallergenic" "perfect balance" and "performance". They are just some of the phrases bandied about at will by pet food companies in a bid to get gullible owners to buy their foods. There's still no law against what they claim on the packaging and what is in the bag. A lot of brands are full of fillers, additives and colourants, causing more and more dogs to have digestive issues and allergic skin reactions.

Plenty of owners feed their dogs raw meat, vegetables and supplements rather than fill them full of double cooked wheat/maize with a tiny percentage of meat.
I would hazard a guess that you're the type of person that wouldn't feed raw meat to a dog because then they would have a "taste for blood":rolleyes:

this weekend family of 4, dad mom, kid, maybe 8, other kid in buggy but running around playing football withe their young pitbull terrier in my local busy park. all laughing, kicking a football to one other as the dog chased the ball and them. l watched as the dog finally got to a ball and he went to town on it, shaking it. the owner put his hand down to break the ball free but the dog wasnt giving it up, actively was tugging it, refusing to obey the dad. the ball was his. in my head, that dog is actively being made aggressive by the action and inaction of that father. shaking my head and just angry leaving the park, unmuzzled dog one thing, callous ignorance scared me though. ticking timebomb

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Do you have a dog?
You do know that playing tug is a game to pretty much every dog? It's featured in ad campaigns, tug toys are used as enrichment exercises and if you ever watched working dogs or agility dogs, they are usually rewarded at the end of their "work" with a game of tug on a rope. Plenty of dogs will play tug with a ball if they can get their mouth around it. One of my gundogs loves playing tug with his towel when I'm drying him down with it. There's countless burst footballs in my garden from the dogs playing with them.

I can just picture you though, startled look, shaking your head at the "callous ignorance". But TBH, from your description above, the ignorance is on your part. Given that you describe what sounds like a game and a typical scenario of the dog robbing the ball, I wouldn't be confident that you got the breed right either. (Hint, lab crosses, shepherd crosses, lurchers, bulldog crosses and pretty much every staffy are described as a pit bull by people who have never had any experience of a pit bull other than the stock file media pictures)

I owned two terriers. Had trainers for them. Grew up with dogs, hunted with dogs myself. When asked to, they did what they were told. Your gun dogs will also presumably drop your (pheasant/duck/child) when told. Generally there are rules to games with dogs but you will know that. This dog wouldn’t drop ball despite being repeatedly asked by owner. That was enough for me.

Regardless of what look I gave, an unmuzzled terrier within feet of me and my daughter is something I can comment on with the law on my side. What they want to do in their home or backyard is none of my concern.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Because the dog obviously thought he was part of the game. If he was allowed off lead to play and be involved, it's something that they are used to. And when dogs play tug, sometimes the best way to get them to give up the prize is to let go and stop the game or switch it for something better. But maybe they didn't know that. One of the most common questions people ask about their dogs is how to get them to give the ball back when playing throw.

And now it's gone from being a "pit bull" to a terrier?

And also, I see you signed in from another a/c and then deleted that reply, I still received it though, as did anybody else who subscribes to the thread so deleting your alter ego is a bit pointless.

sorry, don'y know what you mean about signing in from another account - i'm a regular poster from this account only. maybe correct yourself. there are no edits above.

the dog was a pit bull. it is a terrier. is my shortening of the dog description or referring to it in my own way a problem?

i think you're deliberately missing the point. i'm not questioning what the dog thought. of course he thought he was part of the game, unmuzzled in a busy park chasing children who were kicking the ball away from him. when he got the ball, he also thought it was his and what he did with it was go to town on it aggressively. then it wasn't just about tug. this wasn't led by the adult or chlild. it was in his mouth and dog was asked to drop the ball. he repeadedly did not and it became a game of tug. that was the dog dictating the game, not the other way around and you know, if you've experience in training or being involved in trained dogs, which from your post is becoming fairly obvious that you've been b.s'ing, you will know this is not on. but the base point remains from my opening, the pitbull was off a lead acting aggressively in a situation where there were children. so in my opinion that father/adult was being reckless and that dog, through no fault of his own, was not being brought up safely.