Because everyone thinks "it'll never happen to me". Deliberate, wilful neglect and cruelty is one thing - an error of judgement is another (by which I mean I don't think prosecution would be of any value at all), even when it results in tragedy.

> It's still an extreme reaction by the dogs to whatever the baby did

Definitely :(

Its never worth the risk. It would break my heart if anything happened to my children or my dogs, especially if it could have been easily prevented by myself. My life would be over.

Ditto :(

>remember I had to have a behaviourist in with Willis when Archie was born?

I remember that well - poor Willikins didn't know if he was coming or going! and, of course being so big could have hurt the baby just by turning round awkwardly (a Moses basket wouldhave been no protection at all!). But do you think he'd have bitten, and kept on biting?

I'd like to think my dog would never do anything and im pretty sure he wouldnt, but when push comes to shove - why risk finding out otherwise?!
Also, i'd think of my dog as well as the baby. Its good to keep them seperate because then the dog can have some peace and i would be able to rest easy that dog is chilled and baby is safe.

>Its good to keep them seperate because then the dog can have some peace and i would be able to rest easy that dog is chilled and baby is safe.

Totally agree.

> I'd like to think my dog would never do anything and im pretty sure he wouldnt, but when push comes to shove - why risk finding out otherwise?!

Exactly - I'm sure none of us think our dogs capable of anything like this but there's no situation or event important enough to take the chance IMO.

You know, I don't think he would, but he is capable of grabbing stuff he thinks is killable and holding it there (as Keith the cockerel will testify) and one bite in the wrong place would have been disasterous.... I would never, ever have taken Archie near him in a car seat, basket or anything else - not even in my arms - Willis was just too wound up. So we kept them separate until Archie grew up and the worst Willis did was lick his head over the baby gate (I prefer to assume he wasn't tendorising him) lol

>(I prefer to assume he wasn't tendorising him) lol

LOL!

tottally agree carla
i can,t believe the baby was put on a table
and as for leaving dogs in the same room.then falling asleep.
when my kids were growing up
i trusted my dogs, same as my dogs now when grand kids come up
but i have never left dogs in any room with kids unless a adult
is in same room
feel for the family tho,
a stupid mistake will haunt them forever

sorry teri wasnt aimed at you i think i hit the wrong reply. i agree withyou totally. sorry im late in replying, havent been on this thread for a couple of days. :-D

Poor, poor baby, poor, poor parents, poor, poor dogs, poor, stupid grandmother!

She will have to go through the rest of her life with the knowledge that her stupidity in thinking that the baby would be alright on a table has cost her grandson's life, ruined her daughter and son in law's lives, and meant that the two dogs have been destroyed.   

She HAS to take responsbility - just as a parent who leaves an unlocked gun cabinet where a child can get to the weapons.

I feel very sad and very sorry about this.

When will people start to think?

>Poor, poor baby, poor, poor parents, poor, poor dogs, poor, stupid grandmother!

The grandmother put the baby on the table (she had done this with no ill effects before, weather we agree with that as a suitable place for a baby I don't think is relevant), she did not leave him unatended with dogs - she stayed in the same room but unfortunately fell asleep. I doubt very much she planned on going to sleep. I can't find it in myself to be harsh to a woman who has just had her baby grandson killed by her own dogs - while she was in the same room, because she nodded off. We are all only human, nodding off is an easy mistake to make.

>She HAS to take responsbility

She will carry the burden of responsibility forever. Her whole life has been turned into a nightmare - because she fell asleep. I know I can be a judmental mare quite often, but I can't blame the lady. I've fallen asleep with my baby in my arms on many occasions, I've fallen asleep while laying next to my baby on my bed and he rolled of the bed and bruised his head - it easily could have ended tragically and I would hate to think the rest of society would be be slagging me off for being an irresponsible, neglegent idot. I would hope that people would support me through what must be the hardest thing to cope with - the death of a baby.
We all make mistakes, sometimes they don't matter, sometimes they do, sometimes the smallest mistake can be tragic. Some mistakes don't even seem like a mistake unless they have a negative outcome.

I think if the baby had been in a moses basket or even a car seat on the table it wouldnt have been so bad, but to leave a baby on a table is just irresponsible.  But then she knows that now its too late and will be paying for it for the rest of her life.

"Some mistakes don't even seem like a mistake unless they have a negative outcome."
That is SO true. I was in Romford the other day, and bumped into the people who bought one of our litter last year. He is absolutely gorgeous, friendly, and really well adjusted. We were talking outside a shop, and another staffy walked past with it's owner, launched at our staffy, teeth bared, growling, all sorts.  Everyone stopped and turned around, very quick to say 'my, staffies are aggressive'.  In my utter disgust at the generalisation of the comment, I shouted out in the middle of Romford, 'did no one notice the other staffy that was sitting nice and calmly and didn't retaliate?' - suddenly everyone stops and comments on what a 'good' staffy our one is and 'is he crossed with something else because staffies are so mean and they kill children' - !!!!!!!!!!!

The media plays a massive part in portraying SBTs.  And so do the chavvy types who live in our area who use them to 'look hard'.  IMO it's responsible breeders like us that have to show the world that SBTs are lovely dogs and not evil incarnate.  What needs to be remembered is bull breeds have no more potential to hurt or kill than any other dog, but the outcome of an attack from a papillon would be rather different from that of a staffy because staffies are more powerful, same as an elephant is more powerful than a staffy, you'd be more worried about being trodden on by an elephant than a spider.   (do people get what I mean or is my tiredness causing me to talk crap?)

Anyway.  My point it SBTs along with ANY dog are capable of harm, but SBTs shouldn't be picked on.  It's a fact that an SBT and a JR attacked this baby.  But when people talk about keeping dogs on leads because of dog attacks IN GENERAL (see BBC news a few weeks ago) they always show a pic of a staffy and THAT's what is causing this debate.

I hope that people don't start to blame the grandmother, she made a tragic mistake which she will have to live with for the rest of her life, and probably in her opinion she felt her dogs were 100% trustworthy.  I don't know anyone that would leave their dog with a youngster if they felt they couldn't trust them!

> IMO it's responsible breeders like us that have to show the world that SBTs are lovely dogs and not evil incarnate

Was the mother not rehomed for aggression?

> My point it SBTs along with ANY dog are capable of harm

Indeed, but some breeds are capable of doing more harm and have a greater inclination to be reactive and it is a wise owner that appreciates that.

I don't know anyone that would leave their dog with a youngster if they felt they couldn't trust them!

But that's the point.  We all probably think we can trust our dogs 100% - probably Jaden's grandmother thought the same.  In my opinion, it's just too big a risk to take for both a child and a dog.

> What needs to be remembered is bull breeds have no more potential to hurt or kill than any other dog,

Not true - and as the owner of more than one I'm shocked that you're not aware of it.  I appreciate the clarification of the comment re being more powerful but they also have different character traits from other breeds hence why so many were developed and selected for fighting.

I don't understand why some people buy dogs from breeds that were initially created and thereafter constantly selected for best suiting the original purpose then seem bewildered when their guarding breed is over protective, their herding breed is off to round up everything within sight of the horizon, their sight hound is off in pursuit of the dots on the horizon the BC/BSD/GSD missed, their terrier has disappeared down a rabbit hole, the gundogs are off into the wild blue yonder or plunging into rivers, streams etc and their fighting breed is kicking off big time at another canine.

Those who want easy going, biddable, placid and soft natured family pets and live somewhere considerably more dense in population than Utopia should do a lot more homework than appears to be done to date and in many cases having done so should perhaps be rethinking their initial choices IMO

I also completely disagree with the bullbreed statement Teri.  Astarte (when she returns) will be able to confirm but I believe the bullmastiff (the gamekeeper's dog) was developed to hold onto (not savage) poachers for the gamekeeper to catch up and get the law onto them.

And this was a tiny baby, ANY dog could have had the ability to kill it purely by it's size alone, a little 3 month old, that is what makes this case even more tragic.

I'm not sure GCG, but the Bullmastiff AFAIK comes under the umbrella of the mastiffs / mollosers and not a bull breed, despite it's name.  As you say that particular breeds purpose was quite different from bull breeds hence why it is officially in the working group.

A link to the history of the Bullmastiff

Aaaaah, and here I am thinking I was being a little smart-bottom.  I had assumed that all bull-breeds had "bull" in the name somewhere but that would not be correct going by what you say.  So when speaking of bull-breeds are we just talking about staffies and bull terriers?  Sorry, I feel really thick here.  The only dog that has ever truly went for and bitten me has been my friend's lhasa lol!

> So when speaking of bull-breeds are we just talking about staffies and bull terriers? 

I'm not sure exactly what or how many breeds nickyvangalis was referring to but personally I wouldn't put the Bullmastiff in the same category as SBTs, EBTs or APBTs - these are after all terriers too.

SBTs certainly have long held the reputation of being great with people, in particular children.  The breed however was designed to be a formidable fighting machine in one time legal organised pits.  It's my understanding that breeds developed that way by necessity had to be good with people because there was much involvement of handling seriously injured dogs :(

Unfortunately having been mass produced by undersirables for the self same market, there now appear to be instances where the 'nanny dog' reputation of this breed has been turned upside down :(

I've had a quick blitz through breed clubs - not sure if there are greater details to be found elsewhere but here's a link to info on the Staffordshire BT - KC standard first, breed history and origin info lower down the page :)

Reading this back I think it's unclear that my reference to bull breeds relates to their breed characteristics in general terms, i.e. dog to dog, rather than opinion of events or specific to either breed which led to the tragic death of  baby Jaden.

Apologies to anyone who may have thought otherwise.

> I had assumed that all bull-breeds had "bull" in the name somewhere

I think it has more to do with the dogs origins than name,breeds that were originaly developed for bull baiting and the dogs that were developed from them.Most do have the word Bull in the name(as have some kind of bulldog in there) but not all.Boxers are a Bull breed.

Very true charlie72 :)  I think perhaps there's confusion re names in many breeds and also the original purposes for a breed's deveopment

Im with you my kitchen is a dog zone, my lounge is but my bedroom is not!! We have a bungalow and keep the nedroom doors shut. I share (not literaly) the bathroom with the dogs as we only have one bath so all the pooh ends up in my bathroom. I just do not want dogs hair all over the place.

I have no problem with people sharing abedroom with their dogs I just do not want to.

But I do not leave Jake & Whistler alone with my three Great nieces and nephew. They are not brought up with children 24/7. I dont want them grabbed, Whistler would be frightened he comes and sits on my lap if they come to the office. Jake keeps washing their face which is a bit un hygenic and Rubin is 6 months old and they could sit on him!! If they were my children it may be different but I am trusted with the three children and I keep them apart when I can - all 5 is bedlam. Besides my two dogs do not need the aggro, last visit I was getting the glue off Whistler and sequins for days (we were fairy tiara making) not to mention the carpet, when OH let them in.

My OH will not have a dalmation he got bit by one I am not happy with a GSD for the same reason but OH wanted a GSD I wanted a dalmation so we had a BC & Cocker instead.