Heroic action saves tot from dog

[terbang]

Good skills by those that aided poor wee tot. Wading in there and having a go at an attacking staffie would take some balls and I am sure a young lass will belive so for the rest of her life.
Yup I too wondered about her supervision but one would expect a public place would be free of dogs that maul too.
Hit the dog owners hard when their dogs are left unsupervised and are roaming, doesn't matter what kind as even labbys can nip. It is clearly the owners responsibility to ensure their mut doesn't hurt anyone else.

[WRT]

I still don't understand why you don't have to do a course to own a dog.

You dont in order to have children, and there is arguably more responsibility required there.

(Not saying you dont have a good point, btw . . . )

[Filterer]

Where were the parents...... anyone who has a 2y.o knows you can't leave them to their own device.

By the sounds of it the guy that saved the kid carried her to an ambulance, I know if I was her parent, i'd be the one carrying her - so one can only assume the parents still wern't there when the ambulance arrived.

[terbang]

You dont in order to have children, and there is arguably more responsibility required there.

Weelll yeaaah, but how many 2 year olds have you seen ripping the faces of pitbulls that are left unattended?

[rwh]

Where were the parents...... anyone who has a 2y.o knows you can't leave them to their own device.

By the sounds of it the guy that saved the kid carried her to an ambulance, I know if I was her parent, i'd be the one carrying her - so one can only assume the parents still wern't there when the ambulance arrived.

He was holding her face together - I don't think I'd be asking him to let go. Not if I was thinking clearly, anyway - no doubt I wouldn't be under those circumstances.

Richard

[WRT]

Weelll yeaaah, but how many 2 year olds have you seen ripping the faces of pitbulls that are left unattended?

Not many, but there have been plenty of 2 year olds that have grown up to do gruesome/violent acts of their own, wouldn't you agree? I think a lot of it comes down to the same thing - poor "parenting". Unless you are suggesting that if we are going to put down all dog breeds that are highly represented in attack stats, then we should also put down the human "breeds" with similar predispositions?

Controversial, but I guess it could work . . .

Regardless of whether it is raising a puppy or a baby, if the parent isn't up to the job, then you are likely to have trouble when maturity is reached. Surely there should be something in place to teach owners/parents before they are allowed to be in charge? Hell, maybe you shouldnt be allowed to become a parent until you have proven you can successfully raise (and look after) a puppy?

[terbang]

Not many, but there have been plenty of 2 year olds that have grown up to do gruesome/violent acts of their own, wouldn't you agree? I think a lot of it comes down to the same thing - poor "parenting". Unless you are suggesting that if we are going to put down all dog breeds that are highly represented in attack stats, then we should also put down the human "breeds" with similar predispositions?

Controversial, but I guess it could work . . .

Regardless of whether it is raising a puppy or a baby, if the parent isn't up to the job, then you are likely to have trouble when maturity is reached. Surely there should be something in place to teach owners/parents before they are allowed to be in charge? Hell, maybe you shouldnt be allowed to become a parent until you have proven you can successfully raise (and look after) a puppy?

Respectfully but I don't see your point in relation to this incident. Should we as a society react to this kind of mauling by mandating better parental supervision so that our kids won't get mauled by marauding, though not wild, dogs? Dogs that are clearly not properly supervised by their owners? Maybe a message to parents that not all dog owners, as in this case, can keep their dogs under supervision and that kids shouldn't pester strange dogs. But we definatly need a hard crackdown on dog owners who cannot or do not supervise their dogs. Especially if they are of a breed that is known to have attacked before.

[WRT]

I dont see the problem as being one of the dog being "born bad", admittedly some dogs are higher represented in mauling statistics, but it is not purely a matter of breeding. These are often the dogs that appeal to people who like to raise a "fierce" dog, and as such, are often encouraged to be aggressive by their owners.

If instead these dogs are nurtured by owners who know what they are doing and are trying to raise a pet rather than a guard dog, then they are just as capable of being a controlled, restrained companion as any other breed.

My comments however, were drawing a parallel between dogs and their owners, and kids and their parents. If either one is raised incorrectly, then they become a menace to society. Perhaps society needs to look at educating owners and parents more? Or licencing them? With a car/bike you have to do a course and prove you are capable of handling a vehicle, should it be the same for dogs and children?

(My appologies if my comments appeared to be condemming the parents of the child that was mauled, as this was not my intent. My heart goes out to them as this must be one of their worst nightmares, and not something any parent should have to go through.)

[JimO]

I'd dispute that....Labs will probably come out top if you define a "dog attack" to include any time a dog bites a child, but almost invariably that will be the dog acting as it would with an over-boisterous puppy and administering a disciplining "nip". I don't think I've ever heard of a Lab responsible for a full-on, won't let go, life-threatening mauling.

i know of one

[Dave Lobster]

Prime Minister Helen Clark says dangerous dogs give her the "creeps"

Well, Mr Clark, you give me the creeps.

[candor]

I have a dog and I agree with banning some of the dangerous breeds.

Not only do they attack people, my arithritic Beagle gets monstered frequently on walks because he has no agression at all (unlike his master who is free with swift kicks in the kidneys).

The problem is defining the aggressive breed, and then defining if a particular mongrel belongs to that breed.

Am on my third DOMESTIC dog. From my grandparents to me we have 100 dog years of non vicious dog ownership under our belts.

In fact mine is more like a lamb - a real chocolate box cutie - Grmn Pointer.

But before I spent ages selecting him a quite thuggish relly of mine who values toughness and can be violent himself offered me one of the dogs he keeps (staffy pit), assuring me he is not a mean dog as "it's how they're raised".

So glad my prejudices made me say no. That dog has now killed a few neighbours cats and had a few attacks on other dogs in their local park.

He is not very bright like the big german hound dogs that I prefer, so is not careful not to bite you (hard)when playing like all dogs I've had are, and he seems to make up for being a foot tall with this natural excess of aggression without much provocation it seems.

Yep dangerous breeds give me the creeps, they are not real dogs and give the rest a bad name. Ethnic cleanse please with neutering and no more births of short stocky dogs should fix this picture.

If they're not bad why feature them on a gang patch - surely not for cutenesss or Garfield could as easily be there!

One other dog that worries me is those rolie dogs ?sharpeis are they. One that was just standing there on the footpath chomped on my dogs neck as we walked by taking a hunk of fur and a little flesh off. Sick psycho. It was cold, casual and calculated with no warning growl.

Now if I see creepy dogs in parks I call mine back on the lead (being part greyhound he can and has outrun creepy dogs to jump into my arms) and I often see owners of small dogs pick them up with they see a pit or staffy.

Once fought a baby pit bull off him that launched at him like a missile (with a few kicks) as we passed by! No way little creep.

Good dog owners and dogs and other people should not have to live on tenterhooks because some like noxious pets to match their own type.

[rwh]

dangerous breeds ... are not real dogs

Seems a bizzarre statement to make in an otherwise perfectly reasonable post ... what's 'not real' about them?

Richard

[geoffm]

I know! We could put a microchip in the dog and that will...er..stop umm. the problem. Or maybe not, but it woudl sound really good and Something Must Be Done - For the Children
Geoff

[Dave Lobster]

I know! We could put a microchip in the dog and that will...er..stop umm. the problem. Or maybe not, but it woudl sound really good and Something Must Be Done - For the Children
Geoff

It raises revenue for the government though. Which is what it's all about. Same as the licencing. WTF has that done? Apart from raise revenue..

[candor]

Whats not real? What I meant is that they are not representative of the generally "good value" most dogs offer. To their owners and society. To me they have a function of teaching children to be better people by enabling learning of empathy thru a good natured critter.

Dogs bred and trained for aggression are like anathema to all that has been achieved in thousands of years of domesticating imo. Real dogs to me are not feral - they're not aggro like some wild dog breeds as they've generally been bred for good compatibility and caring with humans.

To me an "attack dog" as Dunn puts it is no relation to domesticated canine species. My view of a real dog is one that would not have it in them to do that.

To bite maybe (no one ever died of a warning or defensive bite or snap), but to conduct a frenzied savage killer attack - nah, that's not natural for the majority of household k9s!