> Education isn't working, no matter how many times this happens no-one but the victims seems to learn from it.

I think a big part of the problem is visable right here on the forum - people looking at somebody else to blame other than the owner.

I can not imagine the torment the owner will have to live with for the rest of her life, however, her child LOST her life in horrendous circumstances. That poor little girl should still be here.

I can't understand why neighbours would say how they saw the dog shake the girl like a rag doll, or why they saw the mother covered in blood and MUD - from wrestling the dog, if the girl was tucked up inside in bed, when the 'unprovoked' attack took place.

I do not think for one moment that any child could possibly be even the slightest bit aware how their own behaviour could trigger an attack from a dog, but parents who choose to take on a dog should make damn sure they know all they can in order to keep their kids safe.

This is the message that NEVER gets through as the lesson to be learned is covered over with talk of 'dangerous dogs' and 'blame the person that bred/sold the dog' - nobody pushes the point of negligence & ignorance on the part of the owner. Lessons could be learnt - but they need to be taught and the opportunity to teach these lessons when the public are actually interested, is missed, every time.

A sad, sad story. Another avoidable, tragic death of an innocent child that should and could have been completely avoided, but will definately be repeated by prats that think they know enough already and need not learn anything about dogs - not even for the sake of their children :( :( :( :(

As a rescuer, my policy is to not rehome dogs to families with small children. I would perhaps make an exception if I knew the family and that they understood dogs, knew that the children were under control, and, most importantly, knew the whole history of the dog, and deemed it safe in a dog savvy family-- but these are very unlikely cicumstances! I would never, never, never rehome a dog who had been picked up as a stray, with no known history, to a family with small children-- no matter how much the parent(s) may want the dog. The small flat and the fact that he seems to have been rarely out of it adds to the picture of the wrong dog in the wrong home. The rescue who rehomed him has a lot to answer for here.

Another tragic case with the now expected calls to ban dogs..muzzle dogs etc.................I am fairly sure it was Robert Killick who wrote an article some years ago comparing the number of children killed by their parents against the number killed by dogs..................over something like a 5 year period it was something like several hundred as opposed to single figures :-(
and Yes even one is too many.

I would never, never, never rehome a dog who had been picked up as a stray, with no known history, to a family with small children-- no matter how much the parent(s) may want the dog.

The trouble is, if this was the council stray kennels, which is the impression I got, it is not a RESCUE. They simply take in stray dogs, keep them for 7 days and then sell them or put them down. They don't check anyone for suitability, they don't ask questions, they sell the dogs when not claimed, to make room for more. A bit like lost luggage.

>About time Facebook banned all such livestock trading sites

Amen to that. 

>ultimately the mother chose that dog to come and live with her little girl, she was supposed to protect her........ dog choice is down to the owner, no-one makes someone have a dog.

At last.  Someone has written exactly what I have been thinking. 

The new, proposed, legislation stipulates that it will only apply, in private properties, to someone who is permitted to be there - ie NOT a burglar etc

All the criminal has to say is that they were there with permission of "someone" & the CPS has grounds to prosecute & they will as they like easy targets

> I would never, never, never rehome a dog who had been picked up as a stray, with no known history, to a family with small children-- no matter how much the parent(s) may want the dog. The small flat and the fact that he seems to have been rarely out of it adds to the picture of the wrong dog in the wrong home. The rescue who rehomed him has a lot to answer for here.

She may have tried legit rescues, who would have refused her point blank, as she lived in a flat with a No Pets policy and a young child. So she tried the selling sites, where no questions are asked, and eventually went to a council pound rehoming place who CLEARLY also asked no questions.

I wish the media would stop reporting it as a "rescue". Legit rescues are a world apart from the "clearance houses"  like the one she got the dog from.

The new, proposed, legislation stipulates that it will only apply, in private properties, to someone who is permitted to be there - ie NOT a burglar etc

All the criminal has to say is that they were there with permission of "someone" & the CPS has grounds to prosecute & they will as they like easy targets

From what I've read if the person is inside or entering your house and does not have permission to be there and your dog attacks you will be safe if the changes come in (as only the home owner can give permission to enter the home), but not if in the garden without permission, so delivery people and postman ext are covered.

> From what I've read if the person is inside or entering your house and does not have permission to be there and your dog attacks you will be safe if the changes come in (as only the home owner can give permission to enter the home), but not if in the garden without permission, so delivery people and postman ext are covered.

It won't cover outbuildings, garages or gardens, apparently.
Which means the annoying kids from next door CAN climb over the fence to get their ball instead of asking you first, and if they get bitten it's your fault.
If your dog is in the garden and someone breaks into your shed or garage, and the dog stops them, you will be liable.
I would also take it to mean that if you have kennels and someone breaks in and gets bitten, that's also not covered.

Not the best legislation, is it?

> Not the best legislation, is it?

This is only proposed legislation, so if you have a problem with it I hope that you are lobbying your MP ! :) :)

Mastifflover

My thoughts exactly, we need to take responsibility for our own actions. 

I do feel for the mother but at the end of the day she brought the dog into the house and it would appear that something was amiss in the management of the dog and her daughter for this tragedy to have happened.

Calling for free pages, council pounds etc to be closed down will not stop the problem.

tbh I don't know what the answer is but feel that it is part of the culture of people not accepting responsibility for their actions and decisions.

I find it rather ironic that council pounds have a part to play in rehoming unsuitable dogs to equally unsuitable homes, yet it's the very same council that runs the dog warden who has to deal with some of the fallout.
Another example of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.
Surely it would be simplicity itself to bring in the same rules that reputable rescues use, or am I living in cloud cuckoo land ?.

Surely it would be simplicity itself to bring in the same rules that reputable rescues use, or am I living in cloud cuckoo land ?.

I think they'd shift a lot less dogs then and have a lot more pts -but then again would that be such a bad thing......?

I don't think it would be a bad thing, Goldmali.
I've been reading lots about this tragedy, but commenting little. It's easy to get het up and spout utter nonsense, so kept my thoughts to myself. However I have to agree with you about difficult dogs being pts and spending more time getting the good ones into homes. I have no doubt plenty of those 'difficult' dogs would turn into marvellous pets with experienced people who know how to deal with them and have the time and energy to work with them, but there are too few of those people about and most folk want a nice friendly dog that they don't have to spend all their time training. It's a sad fact that nowadays dogs are seen as a commodity to be picked up and put down like a game on the iPhone, not as a hairy member of the family. So many people seem unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

>I've been reading lots about this tragedy, but commenting little. It's easy to get het up and spout utter nonsense, so kept my thoughts to myself. However I have to agree with you about difficult dogs being pts and spending more time getting the good ones into homes. I have no doubt plenty of those 'difficult' dogs would turn into marvellous pets with experienced people who know how to deal with them and have the time and energy to work with them, but there are too few of those people about and most folk want a nice friendly dog that they don't have to spend all their time training. It's a sad fact that nowadays dogs are seen as a commodity to be picked up and put down like a game on the iPhone, not as a hairy member of the family. So many people seem unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

Couldn't agree more. Utterly tragic case, clearly, but it is beyond me why people take in these hugely powerful dogs of unknown background in to homes at all, let alone homes with young children. I know it is not breed specific, but really I can't see the place in the average household for dogs that you really have no hope of stopping if they do turn.

There are so many dogs being put to sleep as there are insufficient homes anyway. Unfortunately, I think the time has long come to make some hard decisions about which ones.

> >Surely it would be simplicity itself to bring in the same rules that reputable rescues use, or am I living in cloud cuckoo land ?. <br /><br />I think they'd shift a lot less dogs then and have a lot more pts -but then again would that be such a bad thing......?

It's not even that.

Strays for which they are legally responsible for 7 days cost them money, those that are claimed the owners are charged for their keep, plus some. 

They are not rescues and are not going to use up scarce tax/council tax resources, nor should they.  I expect the only reason any of the dogs are sold is to defray costs, otherwise it is cheaper for them to be PTS.

It won't cover outbuildings, garages or gardens, apparently.
Which means the annoying kids from next door CAN climb over the fence to get their ball instead of asking you first, and if they get bitten it's your fault.
If your dog is in the garden and someone breaks into your shed or garage, and the dog stops them, you will be liable.
I would also take it to mean that if you have kennels and someone breaks in and gets bitten, that's also not covered.

Not the best legislation, is it?

Yeah I can still see thAt problem, when I was a kid (not that long ago) I was taught to knock the door and ask if I could get my ball or whatever back, it just seems many parents nower days arnt teaching there kids basic manners.
There use to be a kid in our street when we first moved here who would just walk into people's houses, found him sitting on top our shed one day and one nabour found him watching there tv and another was having a shower and turned around to find him standing there watching them! Don't know if he has special needs or not but if I had done such things as a kid I would habe got my butt smacked.

Maby if they made if that the frount garden/outside the front door your not covered but if  there in the back garden shed ext without permission your safe, would be a better option. That was delivery people as re still safe as they shouldn't be going in your back garden without your permission.

>There are so many dogs being put to sleep as there are insufficient homes anyway. Unfortunately, I think the time has long come to make some hard decisions about which ones.

Have to agree.

Press release from the KC pointing out it was NOT a Bulldog:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/press-releases/2013/november/bulldog-statement-following-the-death-of-lexi-branson/

There was a piece in my paper that made the comment that they had been contacted by two separate bulldog breeders stating that the dog was not bulldog but likely to be a cross with another bull breed such as a staffi.

> Press release from the KC pointing out it was NOT a Bulldog:

But it doesn't actually matter what breed/cross it was - it was capable of killing this girl as is ANY dog (I would imagine) given the right circumstances. This just detracts from the message that dogs can be deadly as said previously :(

>But it doesn't actually matter what breed/cross it was - it was capable of killing this girl as is ANY dog (I would imagine) given the right circumstances.

I really am willing to be educated, but honestly I don't believe this to be true. Yes, perhaps any dog is technically capable of killing a small child who has no other protection. But an adult completely unable to stop it doing so even when stabbing it? I truly don't think that is the case for many types of dog.

Should also say that I have absolutely no issue with mastiff/bull types  in the right hands and with the right temperaments - not my cup of tea, but then many breeds aren't. It just seems a worry/a shame that they are so ubiquitous now and so many poorly bred and in the wrong hands.

>  I truly don't think that is the case for many types of dog.

But a bite in the 'right' place on a baby/small child could be fatal (just even blood loss) - an adult may not be around to prevent it happening :(

> I really am willing to be educated, but honestly I don't believe this to be true. Yes, perhaps any dog is technically capable of killing a small child who has no other protection. But an adult completely unable to stop it doing so even when stabbing it? I truly don't think that is the case for many types of dog.

Here is a link to an arcticle of a child being attacked by a collie. The child didn't die, but it took SEVERAL adults to stop the dog, the little boy need 200 stitches to his face - if the owner of the dog was by herself, would she have been able to stop the attack and would the little boy have lived?

A snippet from the article.

"He also has wounds to his neck that were millimetres from the main artery carrying blood to the brain.
"He has scars all over his back, the back of his head and behind his ear."
The dog has since been put down.
Miss Mann is now warning parents to take care around all dogs, not just those seen as dangerous breeds.

Please, please, please do not ever underestimate the power of ANY breed of dog, nor how hard it can be to stop ANY breed of dog when it is attacking.

As mentioned earlier, I feel that owners should have to be licenced to own/buy a dog. They would need to pass tests to prove that they are fully aware of the needs and actions of dogs, have lessons to teach reading the actions and signs of dogs etc. After this if they pass they get a provisional licence. After getting this they need to go every week for 6 months to training classes and after this they will have a full licence ( for a single dog or multiple pet ownership, two difference licences ) This licence would need to be shown to breeders or rescue centres.( provisional for a first pup, but the full licence must be approved within a certain time ) They could also be asked to show the licence at any time by the police or traffic warden ( rather like a driving licence ) This may stop unsuitable people owning dogs and also help people understand their animals better. It may still not prevent dog attacks but it should help.
Just my opinion

> As mentioned earlier, I feel that owners should have to be licenced to own/buy a dog

Who pays for this tho' ? It would be very costly to enforce properly and if it wasn't, people wouldn't bother.

Who would pay for this? It would be extraordinarily expensive to set up; and would be the only licence you'd have to pass tests to obtain before you could even buy the subject! You can buy a car without a licence (just not drive it on the roads) so why would a dog be more strict?

It just may make people think twice before buying a dog so that most sales would be only to people truly interested in buying a dog and may deter the rest. The licence would cost as well which would help towards the cost. People could buy a dog on a provisional licence as long as they attended the training classes afterwards.
The first training classes pre the licence could be actually held at a training class where they would pay for the lesson, be amongst dog owners and learn the basics of owning a dog, once they have the provisional then they would continue at the classes but this time with their dog/pup. I don't think this would cost other people a great deal.
To get a driving licence people pay for lessons so this would be along these lines as the professional dog trainer could agree when a person is ready enough to have the provisional. It would be extra money for the trainer actually training the person and then the dog, however it would have to be a qualified trainer.

I'd like to know where the classes would be held and run by whom, as at present it is very difficult to find venues that will allow dogs and at a cost that the organisers can charge to afford the rental.

At present my friend runs pet obedience classes at A Moose Lodge hall.  when that closes and gets sold for development there will be nowhere to run classes locally.  She charges around 32 a session.  Most people are not prepared to pay more.

I'd like to know what qualifications the trainers/examiners would need and set out by whom, we all know how little those that legislate know about dogs

I am not a dog trainer, but perhaps arranged by the ADTB or other professional group. I have not worked out the running of this, it is just an idea because I feel that it is owners that need a licence more than a dog. This is only an idea so please don't shoot me down in flames, but it could be a way of making sure that only people that understand dogs are actually allowed to own dogs. It would also prevent every yob from owning big dogs for the wrong reasons and may also prevent knee jerk buying from websites and newspaper ads.

> It would also prevent every yob from owning big dogs for the wrong reasons and may also prevent knee jerk buying from websites and newspaper ads.

I've no problem with the idea of having training. The problem is with the enforcement of the 'scheme' - how do you ensure that ALL people have had their training etc ?? Would all breeders be legally compelled to only sell to those with the right paperwork ? Would dog wardens patrol the streets/parks asking for paperwork and how many wardens would be required and who would pay for them ? Who would pay for the cost of prosecution etc ?? So many questions and SO much cost. There is no point having a scheme unless it works :)

Tragic as it is we need to get this into proportion, more people are killed by cattle each year, and arguably fewer people have contact with cattle than with dogs.  Then the number of people killed on Roads, or even due to other accidents.

> I've no problem with the idea of having training. The problem is with the enforcement of the 'scheme' - how do you ensure that ALL people have had their training etc ?? Would all breeders be legally compelled to only sell to those with the right paperwork ? Would dog wardens patrol the streets/parks asking for paperwork and how many wardens would be required and who would pay for them ? Who would pay for the cost of prosecution etc ?? So many questions and SO much cost. There is no point having a scheme unless it works

Maybe something long the lines of the French system, where owners of certain breeds must attend educational classes before being permitted to own them, and details are lodged with the local council equivalent?

Maybe something long the lines of the French system, where owners of certain breeds must attend educational classes before being permitted to own them, and details are lodged with the local council equivalent?

But that's basically just the DDA, which we know doesn't work. You can't own one of the proscribed breeds without a license, but literally thousands of people do all the same. You can't breed from them either, and they should have all died out now, but they haven't. The wrong people will always find a way.

> But that's basically just the DDA, which we know doesn't work. You can't own one of the proscribed breeds without a license, but literally thousands of people do all the same. You can't breed from them either, and they should have all died out now, but they haven't. The wrong people will always find a way.

Doesn't it work in France, then? While I acknowledge it is a form of BSL, it seems to be a middle road between outright banning, and the free breeding of dogs of uncertain temperament that's going on here. I've always thought of the French as being fair and equable, and at least they do have something in place that protects responsible owners, with a general emphasis on education and responsibility.

They are discussing this on BBC news this morning about how to ensure rescues rehome to suitable people.

Very sensible woman and loved the Rottie Riley who rather liked the news reader !!

If you missed it look on iplayer about 2 hours 20 mins in as it was on at 8.20 am

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/5249948/Lexis-death-was-tragic-but-I-wouldnt-muzzle-Kaiser-hes-a-big-softie-with-my-kids.html

The problem is with the enforcement of the 'scheme' - how do you ensure that ALL people have had their training etc ??

Surely it would work the way of driving licence, TV licence etc, they cannot guarantee that everyone has the licence but the fines should be prohibitive if they are found without a licence. There will always be someone that flouts the law, but they should pay if found out. Re the wardens in the park, no they would not need to patrol, just if a dog was not acting in a well behaved way the owner could be reported and asked to produce her/his licence, either then if there was a warden around or a knock on the door later.
As well as driving and TV we have to have a licence for so many things in life, owning a shotgun, owning wild animals, even being a child minder etc etc, why should a dog owner licence be such a big deal

> why should a dog owner licence be such a big deal

Because in a cash-strapped economy the Government/local authorities can't afford to pay for such a scheme :) Everything costs money - if you want it, then taxes have to go up :)

Doesn't it work in France, then?

I have no idea, but I don't think you can compare countries. I mean, look at what Sweden was like before neutering was made legal and long before designer crossbreeds were the fashion. There were no crossbreeds! Accidental maings were so rare. I worked at a vet's surgery for a few years, at a different one for one year, and the number of crossbreeds I saw in total I could count on one hand. They were so rare I can still remember every one.  But here neutering was legal and still lots of accidental matings and crossbreeds.  I think different cultures, different ways, makes a huge difference.

The dog looks wary of the camera man never mind anything else.

>Everything costs money - if you want it, then taxes have to go up :-)

That's the point, do we want it?  I don't, as such occurrences are fortunately very very rare, and still would happen , so why put such onerous expensive things in place for the vast majority???

We cannot legislate for every might happen.  People have to take personal responsibility.

As I said we don't have dangerous cow measures.  We don't legislate for many dangerous situations.

> People have to take personal responsibility

Agreed - it really annoys me when people take risks with their dogs whether it's the number, size or the way they manage them :(

Don't think you need a licence of competence to have a horse, and horses especially on roads can easily result in deaths of riders and with vehicles."horse riding in the UK accounted for 10 deaths and 100 traffic accidents each year."

Read more:
http://www.motleyhealth.com/health-news/how-dangerous-is-horse-riding

>As mentioned earlier, I feel that owners should have to be licenced to own/buy a dog. They would need to pass tests to prove >that they are fully aware of the needs and actions of dogs, have lessons to teach reading the actions and signs of dogs etc. After >this if they pass they get a provisional licence...

Basically, what you are saying here, is that every single dog owner in the UK must/should be penalised because of the idiocy of some dog owners.

And pay handsomely for the privilege too !!   

Meanwhile, the very people who the licensing is aimed at would not be affected.   They wouldn't bother with a license - in the same way as many people drive without a license, tax, or insurance.    In the same way as people own and use guns without a license.     They have to be caught before paying a penalty - clearly this doesn't work or no-one would ever own a gun without a license, or drive without being legal.

What is really needed, is for people to stop blaming others for everything and take on responsibility for their own actions or lack of.   

We also need a complete culture change.   People need to stop thinking of dogs as furry toys.   And treat them with the respect they deserve.   They also need to realise that dogs can be unpredictable.   Even the softest, daftest dog can be unwell and behave  in an uncharacteristic and dangerous way.   It's not as if they can tell us if they are feeling weird or unwell.    Many  owners don't recognise the subtle signs of a dog who is uncomfortable in a situation, so are equally unlikely to to recognise a dog who is feeling out of sorts.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Basically, what you are saying here, is that every single dog owner in the UK must/should be penalised because of the idiocy of some dog owners.<br /><br />And pay handsomely for the privilege too !!

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">What is really needed, is for people to stop blaming others for everything and take on responsibility for their own actions or lack of.

Need a like button.