I am really surprised that has has been no discussion on the appalling and tragic death of this poor child.

There have been a number of posts on this forum from people looking to buy dogs of this type, albeit  for those that 'fit' as a  permitted breed as well as a thread helping a breeder to get her dogs returned who are, it would seem,of the bullbreed type.

I see no justification whatsoever for people to be breeding these dogs and selling them as family pets to members of the public.
I get fed up by the term 'deed not breed'. Rottweliers are renowned for being able to turn from the playful family 'Rottie' into a dangerous attack dog.

Ditto the bull breed types that are resposible for so many lethal dog attacks.

A nip or grip by a Border Collie or a bite from a Jack Russell, is unlikely to require more than a trip to the MInor Injuries unit at a local hospital. A bite from one of  one of the bull breed types  can result in death or life changing injury.

Yes! I agree completely with everything you have written Jan, I too hate the deed not breed mantra. Sure, all dogs can bite but due to the tenacity of their nature and their physical traits these breeds are so much more dangerous when they do bite.

This report is the most comprehensive study ever into serious dog attacks on people, maimings and deaths caused by dogs, and breaks them down into breeds. Now updated to include 30 years worth of data from US and Canada it shows that pitbulls are responsible for about half of all deaths and serious maimings despite only comprising about 3.3% of the dog population. If you include rotties and other large molossar breeds then you're up at 70% of all serious attacks.

From the summary...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.

Just reading that report made me shiver. But thank you Chaumsong for posting the link.

Sadly it will not be read or heeded by those who will carry on regardless -breeding  and buying molossar types as family pets and quoting the 'deed not breed ' mantra.

On the other hand, I am always aware to the risks of even the sweetest natured dogs causing injury. My five year old Golden Retriever is only allowed off lead on deserted beaches or tracks as she can be a bit of a hooligan, running fast in twists and turns. I am anxious that she could accidentally knock into someone. Her recall is really good but I am utterly risk averse !

There was an incident in a park in Eastbourne many years ago where a lady in her 80s was knocked to the ground by a couple of goldies at play. I knew the owner quite well and her dogs were only off lead where permitted, which was where the incident occured. The elderly lady sustained a fractured pelvis and the owner of the dogs was 'pilloried ' in the local press. I felt so sad for her. She would never have imagined being in such a situation.

There but by the grace ..etc go all of us.

I was surprised to see no mention in dog circles, and hope it's out of respect for the victim and their family.

Also few details have been released, and we have in the past seen misidentification/assumptions re breed/type.

All I have seen is large powerful dog, and speculation of people in the area saying Pitbull.

We all know how good general public are at identifying a breed.

I’m on another forum and there has been a thread about the incidence and it’s been rightly condemned. However a number of regulars do have bull type breeds and of course want to defend their dogs and will often come out with the deed not breed mantra and often mention that a nasty dog attack not so long ago was something like a golden (or similar family dog breed). If someone mentions the fact that a bull breed can do an awful lot of damage whereas a smaller dog less so a huge row blows up.

Re the GR’s and knocking people over. We met a couple with a lovely golden and the four of us stood and watched as he played with my golden. The husband suddenly remarked then when their dog was six months old he cannoned into the wife and broke her leg in two places

I’m cautious with my dog when she’s off lead particularly when there are children about or people less able on their feet as she can be a bit bull in the china shop.

I don't fully agree with deed not breed, but I also don't agree with condemning entire breeds.  Yes, they're larger and more powerful, so more likely to do damage.  But there are other large, powerful breeds that never seem to come into the picture during these debates.

But you have to look at the whole picture.  How is it bred?  Temperament of the parents?  How were the pups raised and fed, before an owner ever came into the picture?

And yes, the sort of people who own these dogs.

The dog responsible, if the photo released is definitely that dog, is an XL american bully.  I've worked with a handful of these dogs over the past year and every one has been lovely.  The only one that I can see becoming a dangerous dog in the future, was the one owned by the impatient, angry, aggressive owner who wanted to handle him with shouting and hitting, and who stopped working with me when I tried to explain to him why that wasn't a good idea, and despite the progress the dog made in one session using positive reinforcement.  At that stage, he was still a fantastic dog, with so much potential to be an outstanding ambassador for the breed.  Because of his owner, that's not what will happen.

THAT is the problem.

Wow Jan you clearly know nothing about Rottweilers to make such a damming comment. Their bite will be much harder than say a Chihuahua if it did but I will tell you something, I asked a Police dog handler the worst bite on a human he had ever seen and he said that was from a Golden Retriever, never made the news because of the breed it was. Wasn't deemed newsworthy.

Dogs don't just turn without warning, people ignore warnings and place themselves or allow kids to be in a situation which the dog isn't comfortable with.

Many many years ago one of the family Labs was sleeping, a visiting kid made him jump with a face mask on and he was bitten badly in the face. Was the dog to blame no. He would have been physically scarred for life.

Rottweilers and bull breeds don't just turn and are no more of a risk to biting a human than any other breed. Think you need to go back and educate yourself on this.

Genetics play a huge role in the dog and also how it is raised.
People breeding with no idea of the genetics behind the dogs. Back yard breeders breeding not for temperament are to blame as well. Sadly Rotts and many bull breeds attract a lot of the wrong type of owner as well. People getting strong dogs and have zero idea on how to train them, raise them or about dog behaviour and signals of a dog which isn't happy.

Any breed can turn, any breed can be good around children. The saying never leave a child unattended with a dog is a fair one and should be adopted by all owners. Teach children to respect the dog as well.

I've been bitten by dogs I know, a JRT and a Golden Retriever.

Rottweilers are renowned for turning into a dangerous attack dog  . Really , where did that biased inditement come from.

Yes bigger dogs can do more damage than smaller ones as a big generality but to state something so incorrect is just wrong. 
Regardless of breed if u look at many of this awful events there is a background of people who haven't a clue about their dog or probably any dog   recently acquired the dog so do not know its temperament or the dog is still unsettled . Often there is common theme in the demographic of the owners and the dog is acquired for the wrong reasons 
Totally wrong to make statement like that about Rottweilers and I dont own or breed them but do have experience of others who have very well bred Rottweilers
Its not all big breeds that can be aggressive in the wrong circumstances smaller breeds have also been responsible for serious i juries and sadly deaths

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/23/farmers-union-issues-warning-after-teacher-trampled-to-death-by-cows?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16367155664584&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2020%2Fsep%2F23%2Ffarmers-union-issues-warning-after-teacher-trampled-to-death-by-cows

Against:
"A 2021 study of fatal dog attacks in Europe during the period 1995–2016 placed the United Kingdom (with 56 fatalities) as fourth in the top five"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom

Ignoring all this breed vs deed stuff (and I'm one who can't see damning an entire breed just because of the actions of one of it's breed) do we know what caused the attack?  Yes it's a tragedy but without the full story, which we probably won't get as the gutter press wants to sell their rags, and the more sensational the story, the better.

A friend was telling me the dog was recently rehomed, home to home private route so no rescue involved. The dog was rehomed due to showing signs of aggression to another or other dogs in their household.
Before anyone jumps on it, dog aggression and human aggression are 2 seperate matters. The new owners only had this dog for a matter of days before this happened.
Questions unanswered are down to whether this dog had lived or been around kids on a frequent basis, whether the person rehoming it fully divulged all relevant info on the dog.
The new home, if they had only had the dog a matter of days why had they left said dog unattended with kids? Who does that anyway with their dogs they've had for years let alone a few unknown to them dog they've had a matter of days.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-caerphilly-dog-attack-eight-25422902

This is one recent report .

If that report is truthful then the new owners were at fault due to seeing it already having show aggression/reactivity towards humans.
I believe there was something that if someone rehomes a dog they are still to a degree responsible for the actions of the dog up to 6 months later.
The photo of the dog does look Pit like.
I've come across many pits when on my travels and all were great around people, would I trust them with other unknown dogs? Probably not.
Pits should not be aggressive towards people likewise Staffs because they need to be handled if they were doing the job bred to do, clearly they can't do that job now but they shouldn't be aggressive towards humans.
Sadly the pit isn't a recognised breed with any KC, it's the American Staff which is and they are very similar animals.
Sadly pits are bred by dubious people and dubious animals being that they are currently banned in the UK.
It's all about the look and muscle and not the temperament with these dogs in the UK now.

Anyway as it stands and I will remain standing on this point, the new owners, the adults in yhe family were negligent in leaving a new adult dog in yhe home unattended with kids. We have no idea what happened with the kids and what they were doing leading up to the attack.
Sad all round for the boy, his family, anyone witness to it and the dog itself.

> and place themselves or allow kids to be in a situation which the dog isn't comfortable with.

Absolutely.  I had a conversation with a woman a while ago about her 6 month old rott cross (can't recall what with, now, but it was something large, powerful and suspicious - corso or presa, something like that).  From her description, the dog was nervous of people and had already snapped multiple times and made contact.

Her opinion of those incidents was that it was the other person's fault (including a child), and she was absolutely against my recommendation of muzzling the dog (with appropriate conditioning) because it wasn't fair on him, or his fault if someone ignored her warnings about her behaviour.  He'll be a statistic, one day (if he isn't already - she didn't call back to book in for training, unsuprisingly so I don't know how he is now).

The report says the dog had to be shot 'seven times'.  Ye Gods

I hope his breeder is questions, and any animals she has, especially the dam, is put down.  The breeder is TOTALLY responsible for what has happened, on every count.

Previous owner not necessarily breeder has been questioned and said he had rehomed the dog so was not considered his responsibility . From that report police are satisfied

It did occur to me given the age of the children where they left with the dog or could the children coming home from school have their own key and decided to go into the house .
Trouble with all these things we only know what the media want to report .
Whatever the background it so sad

https://www.pets4homes.co.uk/classifieds/mchbiiowm-14-month-old-labradoodle-chesterfield

Just come across this advert. Owners/breeders should be responsible for dogs they have re-homed with temperament issues. IMO (although I am not an expert by any means) a dog with potentially dangerous behaviour should stay with the owner or be PTS, not passed on.

american bulldog again it appears.   I think there is a case for dogs of a 'type' ie large guarding/fighting breeds or crosses of having a requirement for their owners to have passed an exam in dog behaviour/training in order to keep one. no exam pass no status dog

from what I have heard the current owner should have taken extreme precautions- the hearsay is it killed a cat a few days earlier and bit a man who patted it the weekend before.  This is what locals are saying .   certainly its previous owner said it had aggression issues with other animals in its selling advert which I would class as a red flag as children are not always viewed by dogs as humans in same way adults are.

A report I read said the children had just got off the school bus so it could be the mother was not expecting the visiting boy.

Report from BBC Wales on the opening of the inquest, more detail about what happened.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59260354

Worrying that there are 10 puppies who could have inherited the dogs temperament.

I think if it had not been visiting boy it would have been the child who lived there.  can't be very bright household to allow any child to be alone with a huge powerful dog they have owned for 2 days?   I wouldn't do it even if were a famously child friendly placid breed.

regarding the puppies unfortunately it sounds as if they have already gone to new homes. if were still with the breeder I would pts the lot of them but hard to trace if dispersed.

i totally agree with you Weimed. My comment was referring to something on Furriefriends post.

I believe there was something that if someone rehomes a dog they are still to a degree responsible for the actions of the dog up to 6 months later.
The photo of the dog does look Pit like.

It's illegal to breed, sell, give away or rehome any dog "of the type" so if the police determined the dog was of a proscribed breed, then the original owner did break the law in several ways. I noticed in another article he was quoted as saying something along the lines of "It's nothing to do with me as I am not the owner".

wonder if he paid tax on that litter?  sell for a lot of money those dogs.  something else to get him for.

The least the people could do is hand it over to a rescue who can then assess the dog.
Selling it is totally the wrong thing to do, there are huge red flags here and serious behavioural work that needs to be addressed.

I've been waiting for more information before making a comment.

The whole story is unbelievable tbh - who on earth would buy a dog named Beast with the reputation it has and then after only 2 days allow her own child to be in the house with him without an adult present?

Another tragic story with people breeding/owning totally unsuitable dogs to be family pets.

Perhaps the law should come down heavier on the breeder of this dog and the person who bred from it and sold it on?

> Rottweilers and bull breeds don't just turn and are no more of a risk to biting a human than any other breed.

They may not be more likely to bite, but if we accept that any breed of dog can bite then you have to agree that these breeds will do much more damage when they do bite.

Pitbulls for example make up about 3.3% of the dog population in USA and Canada, but are responsible for almost half of all serious maimings and deaths.

The can bite part may relate to poor breeding, upbringing, socialisation, whatever - it doesn't change the fact that an individual of any breed - in fact every breed will have dogs that bite, but some breeds are just better at killing people when the odd 'bad' individual has an off day.

That is true but what do we do ban every dog over a certain size and weight .?
We know the dda hasn't worked as it was expected .
Another point that needs research is why we are 4th ? On the list of dog injuries
What is happening in other countries that we  have more ?

banning dogs over size weight?  no I don't think so but maybe its time for an exam for potential owners to pass before allowed to legally own larger/heavier dogs?  an exam on dog behaviour and positive reinforcement training & managing a dog around children/vulnerable. can't pass can't own one.  bit like a driving test- we don't allow people to drive a potentially dangerous car without passing test.  we know 99% of time its the idiot owner not the dog thats the problem- start cutting the idiots off from owning dogs and that would solve a lot.  I would also insist those who walk the dog have the exam not just the owner.  make the score on weight not breed and then that includes all the crazy cross breds

and yes I know small lighter dogs can kill but it is a lot rarer.

And make sure it is properly policed much like driving is ?

Given the length of time it would take to get new legislation in place, and the unlikelihood of effective policing and penalties, I think the better way would be for social media “influencers” to be persuaded to make owning “weapon dogs” / status dogs so uncool and socially unacceptable that no young man or woman would want one. How that would be achieved I don’t know.

(Pegasus has just arrived to give my pigs their flying lesson )

I do think it’s very hard on breeds of dog which for many generations have been bred to be tough fighters or guards now to be unwanted (except by people who shouldn’t own them) for the very characteristics that were once so prized.

Pegasus is going to have to work very hard :)

Status dogs and the hard man image. Sadly we have a society like some others where they like their big muscled dogs. Gives off a certain image.
Bad breeding and generation www where anyone can buy whatever they want with no questions asked.
These XL bullies have become more and more popular especially the ones which are imported from the US docked and cropped. As they aren't a recognised breed and many dubious people breeding them then they can be an unknown. I've come across a few and had no issues with them around people, it's around other dogs I wouldn't fully trust an unknown one.

In Australia to own a dog which is entire you have to pay more. It is dog licencing by the council and its usually 3 x as much to pay for an entire dog than it is a neutered one. I don't know the stats in Aus for status dogs and whether they have the same issues there as we do. To register a litter you have to take a test to prove you know what you are doing  to register through the state kc schemes the parents have to have min health testing on certain things. A registered breeder has to go through hoops and the parents of a litter will have to be health tested. Yeah they have their ooodly doodles as that is where it all started but it's well known to head to registered breeders is a good thing.
But if we were to run this then it would need strict enforcement and our kc to refuse litter registrations whereby parents aren't fully health tested to what the breed clubs want. It would go some way.

The status dog attitude, I'm not sure how that would work unless you have some well known big I am men promoting softer looking breeds like the Spaniel for instance. Or using the muscled breeds in a softer way and portrayed as big soooks in the media. The media need to move away from stereotypical breeds which are deemed dangerous/aggressive. Stop plastering news reports of a GSD, Pit etc looking fierce. Try using photos of a Lab doing the same, there are photos out there and maybe tides could turn. A Lab on the attack can do a lot of damage, they aren't a small dog either.
Yes there will always be dog bites and yes there will always be sadly deaths from dog bites because every dog has it in them to bite when push comes to shove.
Of course the larger more muscled breeds have more power to their bites can cause more harm if its more than a warning nip.

>In Australia to own a dog which is entire you have to pay more. It is dog licencing by the council and its usually 3 x as much to pay for an entire dog than it is a neutered one. I don't know the stats in Aus for status dogs and whether they have the same issues there as we do. To register a litter you have to take a test to prove you know what you are doing  to register through the state kc schemes the parents have to have min health testing on certain things. A registered breeder has to go through hoops and the parents of a litter will have to be health tested. Yeah they have their ooodly doodles as that is where it all started but it's well known to head to registered breeders is a good thing.<

This is not National Law in Australia, it differs from State to State, some States require all dogs & bitches not owned by licensed breeders to be neutered by 6 months, but also allow bitches belonging to licensed breeders to be bred from from the first season until the bitch can no longer produce puppies, there are no universal periods between litters, so a bitch could produce 2 litters a year from 8/9 months to the end of her life.
Each state has it's own laws some of which are draconian & others are much more lax, implementation of the breeding laws by the police also varies from police authority to police authority.

Other countries are far stricter than Australia, including Germany, Sweden & Norway I believe. You rarely if ever see stray dogs in Germany, Norway(where neutering dogs, apart from on medical reasons, is illegal) or Sweden

I am with you in this Suejaw. The first ( as I remember)  full facial transplant was on a woman in France whose face was bitten off by her pet labrador while she slept.
And again, I am  unhappy to relate, I met a man who showed me his hand, with missing fingers due to a bite from his pet golden retriever.

But I stick with my opinion that molassor breeds of the type under discussion should only be in the hands of those who are experts in the breed, and breeders who will only permit ownership to those who can be trusted to  ensure the safety of family members and that of the general public.

I do not subscribe to the need for 'protection'  dogs and most certainly not to dogs owned to promote 'macho image' and bred by those who wish to perpetuate this image .

What happened to the laws to restrict breeding? Why is there no policing on Facebook ( which now seems to be the MO of breeders ) to restrain/restrict such people from advertising/buying/rehoming such dogs as the one that killed Jack Lis, and so many others.

Or is all this breeding,buying and rehoming  done under the radar/dark web?

> What happened to the laws to restrict breeding? Why is there no policing on Facebook ( which now seems to be the MO of breeders ) to restrain/restrict such people from advertising/buying/rehoming such dogs as the one that killed Jack Lis, and so many others.

I think the breeding control laws were to be policed by the local councils, but with inadequate funding and each applying its own interpretation of the rules. “More honoured in the breach than the observance” is the phrase which springs to mind, else there would not still be so many wrecked ex-puppy farm dogs in certain rescues.

As for Facebook - they don’t even police items which directly lead to harm to children. And they allow restricted groups (I forget the technical name for them) where the bad as well as the good special interest groups can flourish.

Sorry Jan but the 'big dog = more dangerous' thing leads to places where no sane dog owner should want to go.

Whatever next - a society where the largest dog you're permitted to own is a terrier, because their jaws are smaller?

Sorry, it's bonkers.

Labradors are big dogs, much bigger than pit bulls and most bully breeds. Imagine trying to get all owners to have a license or pass an exam, it would be impossible to enforce or regulate. Police are stretched enough as it is and we all know how badly the DDA has performed

I don't think I was 'size ist ' in my posts.

I was, however, emphasing the dangers posed by dogs such as those that have been identified as an 'acturial' risk by reason of their size and genetics/ breeding.

My concerns are not ( not !!) to degrade/demean enthusiasts of those breeds but to highlight the need to ensure that these dogs are not homed where they are a risk to family members and the general public which includes other dogs.

Sorry guys. I know I've offended a lot of you but in the absence of enforcement of legislation  ( DDA act/ breeding licencing etc) you need to step up and do your best (I know you all have Facebook groups ) to get the message across.

Gonna sign off from this thread and take cover from flak behind empty wine bottle.

Just re-read my post and started to cry.

I feel ashamed that the death of a precious child should provoke dispute and anger. And  I have been part of that.

My only hope is no parent should ever, ever again, have the constant nightmare of knowing how terrible  a death their child or loved one suffered.

Not sure if it's current, but when our DDA.came into being, in some.German 'lands' any dog over 15 inches tall had to be muzzled in public.

That would include most of the least aggresive dogs, and exclude many highly reactive small ones.

Temperament of any dog is paramount, and there really is no place for dogs that.are untrustworthy around people.

Who would decide 5his, and how is the question?????

Again as you point out its individual dogs which will be the issue not damn whole breeds. Some breeds do have strong guarding instincts like the Dogo which is currently a banned breed and in yhe wrong hands will be dangerous if not also raised right. Breeds bred to be suspicious of strangers too.
The American Staff or Pitbull if you prefer were never supposed to be human aggressive or be problematic towards people.

I think we have too many people in this country who have dogs and shouldn't full stop as they have no idea about training and dog behaviour.
We also have many people owning breeds which they shouldn't because they don't have a damn clue what they are doing. They want that breed so they find a byb and get one. A reputable breeder wouldn't be selling a puppy to someone who is wholly unsuited to owning one.

I would be totally out of my depth in owning a Mali or a Border Collie, even a working cocker Spaniel is too much for me. Far too high energy for me. This is where people aren't honest with themselves about what they can actually give the dog, the breed.
They see a breed and want it and if they can't get one from a good breeder then they go onto the next maybe even lying to get what they want or they get a poorly bred one from someone down the road.

Previous owner knew dog was aggressive but still rehomed instead of taking responsibility for the dog and have it PTS.
Maybe it's about time owners and so-called rescues take the responsible route too and PTS all dogs over 12mths old that show aggression instead of fobbing them off on unsuspecting new owners.

Previous owner knew dog was aggressive but still rehomed instead of taking responsibility for the dog and have it PTS.
Maybe it's about time owners and so-called rescues take the responsible route too and PTS all dogs over 12mths old that show aggression instead of fobbing them off on unsuspecting new owners.
This should apply to dogs of any size.

> it's about time owners and so-called rescues take the responsible route too and PTS

Having taken such a painful decision myself, I fully agree.

A dog with an unreliable temperament should never be re-homed.