http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8627361.stm

My sympathies go out to the parents of this baby.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7601588/Girl-one-dies-after-dog-attack.html

a little bit more info here if it's correct. I think we will get to know more over the coming days.

How sad, I believe sky news said it was a mastiff type dog.  It is very distressing when things like this happen that could be avoided and poor innocent children suffer due to the behaviour of adults.  Obviously I don't know the details but I do believe that many dogs are set up to fail by people.

I'm sure my friends, neighbours and family think I am over cautious and paranoid with my dogs (particularly my rottie) but as they haven't been brought up with children I don't fully trust either of them with children and would be even more cautious with a baby.  I would much rather be safe than sorry as I am aware of the damage they could potentially do and as such am very cautious who gets to look after/walk/spend time with my dogs.

My thoughts go out to this family who must be going through hell just now.

How appalling that this should happen yet again.  From what I read in the second link this was a dog that was looked after well.  Unfortunately there are too many people who don't think about the risks of taking their eyes off a child and dog together.  However much I tell my daughter not to leave her children alone with my dog - who is nervous of the 2 year old - she still ignores me.  When I was out one day my husband said that my daughter left the room to change the baby's nappy and left the two older ones with the dog.  I hasten to say goodness knows where my OH was but he is just as unreliable when it comes to watching the dog and children.  I won't give my daughter a key to the house!

This morning there was a very good article in the telegraph magazine called ' Armed to the teeth' about the dogs kept for the wrong reasons and discussing the dangerous dogs act.  In Oregon apparently they have a different way of dealing with dogs - giving people in authority more clout to go in to see a dog that has been reported as menacing before it does any harm.  They can insist that dogs are muzzled and give people advice before something happens.  The public are more likely to report incidences that can be acted on and owners are more willing to act on the advice the article says.  However it doesn't sound as if this applies to this sad case. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7589721/Armed-to-the-teeth-the-problem-with-pit-bulls.html

The articles imply the dog was ok with youngsters, well looked after, and not a status symbol. What they do say is that it's yet another attack that has taken place when the owner of the dog has not been present in the household.

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7589721/Armed-to-the-teeth-the-problem-with-pit-bulls.html

It's terrible to hear of another child being killed.

This article annoys me though with various things, hence I haven't finished reading it - bull mastiffs are a guarding breed not a fighting breed. The reason pit bulls are generally owned by criminal types is BECAUSE they are illegal - and as the article says the dogs are being TRAINED by these people to be aggressive. At least it does say the problem is the owners, not the dogs.

I don't think my viewpoint will be one which holds much popularity here.

However, am going to stick my head above the parapet...

I acknowledge that some breeds of dogs can attract a type of person not fit to own a sea monkey never mind a dog.

However, I do find it irresponsible when the consideration of what a dog is bred for is completely denied. The fact is that some breeds of dogs are bred for higher levels of aggression than others. Whether that be a link to guarding or fighting. Their temperament and their physical attributes have all been selectively bred for a purpose.

I own Border Collies. I accept they may bite given the right (or arguably the wrong) set of circumstances. Any dog with a set of teeth is capable of biting. However, I believe that only specific breeds of dogs will carry out a sustained attack.

I think to deny or to ignore the purpose of why your dog was bred is simply ignorant.

Whether people like it or not, there are other reasons why a dog will carry out a sustained attack aside from being in the hands of someone not capable of owning a dog. 

Colliecrew - I agree that it is irresponsible to breed dogs specifically for aggression - of whatever breed. I just wonder whether there was a particular reason that you replied to me? I own gundogs, not bred for their aggressive traits....

PS I think any breed of dog where the aggressive individuals have been repeatedly selected to be bred from would carry out a sustained attack - as would any breed or cross with some sort of brain  disorder that caused them to.

Those who knew the dogs are all saying they were well cared for and seem to speak highly of the owner, the attack happened when the owner of the dog was not present, maybe that is because the owner is aware of his dogs being dogs, that they are strong and powerful and need direction and supervision around children or better still they should be kept seperately when youngsters are around, something I have always done and always will.

Any breed of dog can hurt a child, it is down to vigilance of understanding that dogs can see babies and toddlers and their high pitched vocals as anything from annoyance to prey, or purely have an accident in the way they communicate with them.

As much as we all love our dogs, most of us understand they are still animals.

Something another poor child will not get the chance to grow up and understand. So very sad, the parents must be inconsolable.

I think Colliecrew was pointing out that you mentioned the article states that these types of dogs are trained to be aggressive, but that even in the most responsible hands, a dog of a particular breed may have aggressive tendencies, not because the current generation have been bred for aggression, but because the breed was evolved for a particular purpose, and these traits were selectively bred for over many generations to make the dog what it is today.

One of our breeds is a giant, working breed bred originally to guard their owners property. It is a very old breed possibly little changed over the last 2000 years. They are in the main gentle giants, but I always remember that the dogs may have tendencies which come naturally to them, even in the most responsible hands, and great caution must be excercised. In the wrong hands, especially when these tendencies are encouraged, disasters are just waiting to happen.

[My ancient French breed also dangerous and very powerful were bred for war, baiting, fightig but over the centuries have been bred away from their original purpose. No longer used for war or fighting as many of the powerful dogs we have today. Collies and working gundogs who still are bred for the jobs we have for them in the here and now, if they are denied a chance to work I think are more likely to be wired up and bite, because of the lack of stimulation. Although these are not as strong and cause less damage than a rott or ddb they can still attack. To say otherwise is naive. They may have been bred for powerful roles but this was 100's if not 1000's of years ago. Aka the alaunts which my breed are said to have stemmed from.

Spaniels, collies, and other workers put in a family home to suffer are just as likely to carry out a sustained attack. But mr scumbag is less likely to own a collie.  Look at me with my hpr doesn't have the same affect for their lack of genetalia and brain cells.

Just as a conclusion to my post, it doesn't take that many generations of dogs (canines) to change the temperament either way. Remember the foxes in the horizon programme can't remember the name of the study.
Mr scumbag could possibly creating his own aggressive strain of any breed in south London, 3 generations of unstable breeding temperaments could create unthinkable problems for any breed of dog.

I didn't deny that certain breeds of dog have more aggressive traits - I have looked at info on the Brazilian Mastiff, and it was bred to be stranger aggressive (why???) - but that is the point - the dogs have been selected for aggression. I don't think large/ powerful/ potentially aggressive dogs should be in the hands of imbeciles. Pit bulls - since they get all the press - were bred as dog fighting dogs - which fortunately is illegal. But fighting dogs are NOT bred to be human aggressive (bulldogs were bred as fighting dogs - they are not one I have seen publicised in dog attacks). Any breed of dog can be taken and bred to be human aggressive - so the need is to tackle the criminality and up the legal repercussions. Otherwise we risk breeds being banned just because they are large and people fear them/ they were bred to guard - such as rotties and dobes. If you see where I am coming from.

I understand what colliecrew is saying and agree with some of it - just didn't see why it was aimed at me? Having watched things like this, yes, while I am in principle very much 'deed not breed' - I do wonder why certain breeds of dog have been bred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-Fjyy54_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyutvTJ4oDU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_PGm0p64bU

Absolutely spot on colliecrew. I remember someone on here arguing with me that a cavalier (bred purely to be a companion) was just as likely to attack and kill a child as a breed that's original purpose was to fight, which is complete and utter rubbish.

I understand what colliecrew is saying and agree with some of it - just didn't see why it was aimed at me?

It probably wasn't aimed at you :-) Colliecrew probably did what I often do and clicked on the reply button of the last person to reply on the thread :-)

> remember someone on here arguing with me that a cavalier (bred purely to be a companion) was just as likely to attack and kill a child as a breed that's original purpose was to fight

Was that this thread where people were saying that a cavalier is still a dog and capable of biting and causing harm, not that it was likely to kill a child?

munrogirl76, I haven't watched all of the clips but the bottom one states clearly that the presa dog is working and as such will have been trained to behave in this way.  It clearly wasn't out of control but was acting on commands.  I'm sure that with a skilled trainer a lab, retreiver or even a cavalier could be trained to demonstrate the skills the dog in the clip is using.

Cavlover, I agree that some breeds are particularly human friendly compared with others - like Cavs and Flatties - but ANY breed has its rogue individuals, and if those aggressive ones are bred from you can still end up with problems. Obviously the bigger/stronger the dog, the more damage it can do, and I can't see criminals thinking a Cav will make them look hard and trying to breed them for aggression - but I suspect that was the point being made - if aggressive individuals are bred, through generations, you will end up with aggressive dogs - that's how breeds like the Fila have been created. I do struggle trying to see a Cav mauling someone though - unless it's with their tongue!! Lol!

> a cavalier (bred purely to be a companion)

That was what I wanted to ask about - I know they're toy breeds now, but I thought, as spaniels, they were bred originally for gun work also?

Cheekychow - I am aware the Presa was working - and had been trained to. I didn't realise I needed to clarify every clip - I'm on mobile B/B and quite frankly can't afford to therefore. Clearly people are completely missing the point I'm trying to make. To the best of my knowledge, that is purely what the Presa was bred for - safe if properly trained as a working dog - but as a pet????

> I didn't realise I needed to clarify every clip - I'm on mobile B/B and quite frankly can't afford to therefore.

Oh, I'm sorry, my mind reading skills are clearly not working today.

You said that you didn't understand why particular breeds are bred and are now saying they are safe if properly trained.  Can you see why I am confused?

To munrogirl, cavaliers were bred as companions. :-)

Oh sorry Munrogirl if you thought my comments were aimed at you! I did as one of the other posters said and just clicked on the last post. My post was in no way a direct reply to you, it was just my ramblings on the topic :)

>cavaliers were bred as companions.

Yes, but from gundogs (even Charlies, the 'base' breed for CKCS, were developed from gundogs originally).

Does anyone know if there is a website where you can look at dog-bite statistics?

I am really curious to know! I think border collies would be a breed high on the list and I would be curious to know if I was right about that.

I think some breeds are much more likely to "bite release" (such as collie type dogs) and others breeds who would carry out a more sustained attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2254479/Sausage-dogs-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html  This article is a couple of years old and is based on the findings from american research that featured in a journal. 

One of the most interesting points for me is that it doesn't look at figures from hospitals and police but from reported behaviour.  Granted a larger dog is likely to do more damage but that doesn't mean that smaller dogs won't be vicious.  The dog bite stats collated in hospitals and by police are likely to be skewed towards larger dogs where medical intervention has been necessary.  If one of my dogs jumped up at a child and inadvertantly head butted that child, a broken nose or black eyes may be the outcome.  The same behaviour from a yorkie or papillion would be unlikely to require medical attention.  Larger dogs are not necessarily more vicious/aggressive but are merely bigger and the impact is larger.

Poor baby, only 18 months old :( :(

A little bit more info in todays article, but not much.

> I have looked at info on the Brazilian Mastiff, and it was bred to be stranger aggressive (why???)

Also known as Fila Brasileiro or Fila (banned under the DDA), it was used for protecting ranches from poaches & jaguars, tracking & holding large game and has also been used to return slaves that ran away. Sadly, it appears that even today, people want the old temperment in thier pet dogs - that is the bit I can't understand :(

> Does anyone know if there is a website where you can look at dog-bite statistics?

This is the most comprehensive study ever of serious dog attacks on people.

As you can see, any breed of dog is capable of biting, but (thankfully) not many breeds have the jaw power, tenacity and temperament to actually kill a person.

> I think border collies would be a breed high on the list and I would be curious to know if I was right about that.

According to the Clifton survey collies seriously maimed 3 people in 24 years with no fatalities, pitbulls and their crosses maimed 1182 people, killing 110 people.

Collies may be prone to nip, but a well placed kick or a shout would scare them off. Breeds bred to fight are bred not to stop because they feel pain, they are bred to carry on no matter what.

> Larger dogs are not necessarily more vicious/aggressive but are merely bigger and the impact is larger.

Agreed. It's not just being a big dog though, it's the breed traits that are important. A borzoi at 35" to the shoulder, weighing 50kg is a big dog. They have strong jaws but they are typical hounds (wimps) - one could easily be put off attacking you by standing on it's toe or raising your voice.

The Clifton report summarises by saying this...

The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as
their victims are paying the price.

That study has to be looked at in the context of it being american/canadian data and therefore reflects the popularity of particular breeds across there.  It mentions rotts in the context of how popular they are over there but they are a breed that is less popular over here.  Alaskan malamutes have only recently gained in popularity here so the bites in the UK will be minimal in comparison to US where there are more of them.

I have seen that data before and the dog breed listings made me laugh.  A rottie pug mix- eek!  Hopefully the pug was the father!

> Agreed. It's not just being a big dog though, it's the breed traits that are important

According to the list you gave a link to, the Fila was responsible for only 1, non-fatal attack and that was on a child. Yet this is a breed, bred to have a massive hatred of strangers.

As you point out, pit bulls top the list, yet that is a breed, bred to fight dogs not people.

A Pomeranian (!!!) attacked and killed 1 child - OK that is almost the lowest figure one could get, but  just goes to prove even the tiny dogs can kill.

These figures are from America & Canada, in America it is common to leave ones dog tied up outside the house all day, new laws have been introduced in some parts to stop this as it is proven this can result in 'anti social' dogs that are more likely to bite.

I don't think breed characteristcs have as much a part to play in attacks as the poeple responsible for the dogs in the first place.
However, I do agree that the bigger the dog, the more potential for serious injury to the person it's attacked.

ETA, it's not just the macho brigade that can turn thier dogs into biters, not fullfilling the dogs mental & physical needs can make it bored, frustrated and more likely to over-react to a situation, many 'nice' owners can cause these sorts of problems.

Have seen on the internet that the breed is now thought to be an American Bulldog!

Not really a big surprise is it. 

Unfortunately it is us, the responsilbe owners of dogs that are really going to suffer now!

Thank you Tigger :) Very interesting.

I agree wholeheartedly that a BC are prone to nip (hence my bite release comment). Mostly that is attributed to their breed characteristic (i.e. nipping at the heels of livestock to cause movement).

The point I originally made (and thought I would be shot down for)is that, I believe, there are few breeds that would carry out a sustained attack possibly ending in a fatality.

I always hear "it's not the breed, it's the deed". I accept some guarding/fighting breeds have attracted some idiot owners. However, there is a big element that is simply down to the breed characteristic.

I often hear "my *dog* is a big softie" - that's fine but please acknowledge the original purpose of your dog. To not do so could end in tragedy.

My cat was the victim of someone not acknowledging their greyhound was likely to chase a small, fast moving object and, as such, they refused to muzzle or have them on lead. My cat was in the wrong place at the wrong time :(

Does anyone know if there is a website where you can look at dog-bite statistics?

I know in america they a group is trying to temperment test as many dogs of diffrent breeds as possible, they list the results of how many tested, how many passed and how many failed on there website
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

Yes, but from gundogs (even Charlies, the 'base' breed for CKCS, were developed from gundogs originally).

That's so long ago to be irrelevant -in particular with the KCS. First there was the Toy Spaniel in the 1500's (possibly even 1400s, but without a name then), bred to be the companion of the wealthy, nothing else, then during the 1600's the Pug and possibly Pekingese was mixed in to get the short face in what was to become the King Charles Spaniel, then in the early 1900's the nose was lengthened to become the Cavalier. I really don't think gundogs from the 1500s and earlier matter much now. :) The "original" Cavalier, Ann's Son, who won the famous prize at Crufts, was said to be King Charles x Papillon. Later some Cockers were used, but those were Cockers bred to be as small as possible, "pocket Cockers", so again I wouldn't have thought there was an awful lot of working instinct there -and as there was a lot of inbreeding and a lot of matings with KCS of course, what few Cockers there were were a very small minority indeed. :)

I always hear "it's not the breed, it's the deed". I accept some guarding/fighting breeds have attracted some idiot owners. However, there is a big element that is simply down to the breed characteristic.

I fully agree and I do not agree with the "Deed not breed" mantra. Some dogs simply do NOT have a place in modern society, and others could do with a radical change as their original purpose is now irrelevant so should be bred out if it still exists (we don't need dogs fighting with other dogs, with bulls or bears or anything similar -I'm not talking herding or retrieving or similar of course) and some breed standards are outdated as far as temperament description goes. That goes for my own breed as an example -who NEEDS a breed to be "wary of strangers" these days? What possible good could it bring? Even a police dog need to be able to be friendly and happy around tiny children and any non-criminal, yet they can still do their job -no need to be wary. Betetr to ask ALL breeds to be relaxed among strangers, or similar.

One of our local kennels is not taking any mastiff type dogs in anymore for boarding!!  I dont know the details of why they have come to this decision but will be interested to find out. A friend went to pick her lab up and there was a notice up!

> I fully agree and I do not agree with the "Deed not breed" mantra. Some dogs simply do NOT have a place in modern society,

I disagree, my staffie has a place in modern society. He has no instinct to fight, unlike the majority of collies and GSDs we come across at shows or training classes.

I can't see what can be gained by banning breeds. Taking the staffie as an example, what will be achieved by stopping me and all responsible owners from having one if they choose?

I disagree, my staffie has a place in modern society. He has no instinct to fight, unlike the majority of collies and GSDs we come across at shows or training classes.

And who mentioned Staffies??! Not me!

I think as it has been said we no longer need, for example, bull baiting dogs Staffies would qualify as "some dogs".

I believe there are some breeds that we do not need but in my opinion these are the one's already on the banned list so in theory we shouldn't have them in the country anyway.

I own Rott's, GSD's, Akita and Staffie all of these are fantastic with people however I exercise caution with them and do not leave them running loose with children or milling about the house with children unknown to them.

The dogs we come across in our area that cause the most problems are collies.  The one's that we meet up the fields (and there are alot) are always biting - and meaning it....that is with other dogs not people.

> The dogs we come across in our area that cause the most problems are collies.  The one's that we meet up the fields (and there are alot) are always biting - and meaning it....that is with other dogs not people.

Ditto staff's comment.  My rottie has always had collies going for him, even when he doesn't look at them or is facing the opposite direction.  I have come across some very ill-natured collies at training, one in particular flys across the room at my boy every week, with the owner saying 'he doesn't bite he just runs at you'.  My dog would be perceived to be the one in the wrong if he retaliated which is very unfair. 

Should the question be whether dogs with working traits should be kept as pets?  Is it fair to have a breed with a high work/prey drive as a pet?   This would ecompass collies, huskys, rotties, GSD's, spaniels etc etc

Irresponsible owners are a nightmare no matter what the breed.  Tonight was a perfect example, out for a walk on the beach with one of my GSD's, I always put her back on the lead for the last 100yds as there is a busy road at the end of the beach.  Just as we got near the edge, a couple come walking on with 2 tiny dogs (sorry not very good on toy breeds could have been poms) not on leads, they come charging over, yapping, growling and circling me and my dog, whilst the owners try to recall them with no success whatsoever.  My 11 month old girl, bless her heart, didn't flinch or utter a sound, just had a good look. If the situation had been reversed, and it was 2 GSD's so out of control and blatantly aggressive, they would have been up in arms, but the dogs owners didn't even apologise.  If my girl had been off her lead, even a warning snap to such a small dog could have caused serious harm, and we all know who would have looked like the bad guys, me and my GSD. 

I know these types of breed have more of a potential to cause harm because of their size and power, so I too always excercise caution.

With all due respect, the thread was about dogs who have the capacity to carry out a sustained attack on a human potentially causing a fatality.

It was not about a dog being ill-natured with other dogs.

I recognise my breed for what they are. However, and the facts show, they are unlikely to carry out anything more than a bite and release attack on a person.

Yes, I agree that herding breeds don't make great pets given their need for work. I would never advise anyone to have a collie as a pet.

However, time and time again I hear owners of people with dogs who were originally bred for higher levels of aggression completely deny this. That concerns me greatly.

The fact is, there are some breeds which are more likely to carry out a sustained attack than other breeds. Why does this seem so difficult for some people to accept?

> However, time and time again I hear owners of people with dogs who were originally bred for higher levels of aggression completely deny this. That concerns me greatly.
>
> The fact is, there are some breeds which are more likely to carry out a sustained attack than other breeds. Why does this seem so difficult for some people to accept?

I don't think it is that people (including myself) won't accept it, but dogs that are described by people (like yourself) as being bred for higher levels of aggression were not actually bred for aggression purposes.  Breeders/owners have made some of them this although this was not the original purpose of the dog.

I don't think I have mentioned any specific breeds though Chow? Correct me if I am wrong. I have simply said "some" breeds have been bred for a higher level of aggression. That's a simple fact.

Yes, it is a fact, any dog has the potential to be aggressive, but those bred for for general guarding/fighting purposes are much more likely to display these tendencies, and as you say more likely to carry out sustained attacks than other breeds.  And whilst the way they been brought up/socialised/treated does have a bearing, a pit bull brought up to be aggressive and a labrador treated in a way to promote aggression, are 2 hugely different concepts.  Even basic anatomy of particular breeds (large, gripping jaws and powerful chests, etc) make aggressive tendencies more dangerous than the same aggression from a different dog, and as said, a biting incident is completely different from a sustained attack.