And another toddler mauled to death by a dog?

[i-need-a-martini]

2 years old and killed by a mastiff cross.

The grandmother managed to free the boy from the dogs jaws and rushed him inside. The dog followed her in and grabbed the baby right out of her arms because he wasn't finished.

By all accounts a well cared for dog with no history so we can't blame the owners here.

Why do we continue to allow these dogs to be kept in homes??

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/town-unites-behind-family-of-mauled-toddler-20130806-2rc22.html

[***super_nova***]

My dogs are medium sized dogs (12kg), they have never shown any sign of aggression towards anybody or anything, they have never growled at a person, I can do literally anything to them.  Even when one had a very painful injury I was able to handle her without her snapping.  My dogs love everybody.  BUT, I would never let them alone with my granddaughter, or other small child. 

The problem with the "punish the deed, not the breed" slogan is that in most of these incidents happen without any warning whatsoever, and once the dog "bites" it is too late.  And if you look at the statistics it mostly the Pitbull type that is responsible for death, I saw somewhere that although these types of  dogs are only small percentage of dog populations they are responsible for over 90% of fatal attacks.  The problem is that fighting dogs will not give notice, they just attack, because they were bred like that for generations.  That was the ultimate selective breeding; in dog fight dogs that did not manage to attack first usually lost = ended up dead.  "Normal" dogs will growl before they bite, they will usually only bite if they are protecting their possession (bone or food), or territory, but fighting breeds attack to kill.

They say that the dog responsible for this little boy's death was mastiff cross, well, I would like to know what it was crossed with.  Of-course, it might not be pure bred mastiff crossed with something, but many generations of who knows what crosses.  And of-course, if he does have a Pitbull in him the owners will not be volunteering that info.

[bright.ton42]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

The law has no issue with the male that owned the dog. The dog was registered and not on a list of banned dogs.

---

so, it's OK for me to have dogs with NO TRAINING - NO SOCIALIZATION - KEEP THEM CHAINED UP - NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE ELSE - AS LONG AS I HAVE THEM REGISTERED? The dogs will attack anything that moves - but they are registered so it's OK. I see.

---

The law is a fool.   No NONE of the above is OK.  The dog didn't stand a chance.  The poor little baby didn't stand a chance.Education is so badly needed so that young children are never left alone with dogs.  

[azureline**]

I would not leave my grandchildren alone with our mini dachshund, he would eat their hand if it had food in it.

Poor little boy 😞

[monman12]

"The law has no issue with the male that owned the dog"

Agreed, however (my perceptions showing) I surmise from nothing more than the media photographs that I would not be surprised if the dog was selected for is "toughness"  and that it was not/trained or socialised fully.

I have always thought that dog owners require training as well as their dogs, also screening!

I have owned Great Danes and Basenjis, and   with both breeds I was interviewed and checked as to suitability by the breeders before I was allowed to purchase their animals.  The breeders in all cases were women, who really cared for their dogs, in fact with my first Dane the breeder shed a tear when she parted with her puppy. We remained friends for many years after that, and 2 more Danes.

nɥºɾ

[i-need-a-martini]

Monman - where did you read that the dog was normally tied to a tree?

That's the opposite of everything that I have read - that the animal was well loved and well behaved and that it was used to children as other young family members played with it etc.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Monman - where did you read that the dog was normally tied to a tree?

I can answer that - 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/why-didnt-the-dog-take-me-asks-deeon-higgins-grandmother-j...

[azureline**]

I do know you can't tell a dog's breed by the pic but that dog may be more recognisable as the cross rather than the mastiff.

[givemeaspell]

So sad, for everyone involved. I agree tho - why have a dog if u are going to chain it up, that is also sad. I doubt whether that grandmother will ever get over what happened. I have a small dog no grandkids yet but when they do come I will not let them alone with him, u cannot trust any dog, the problem is the bigger the dog the worse the outcome can be. Our neighbors have a pit bull it constantly barks at our fence and tries to get through it is of great concern to me however at this stage I don't want to report the dog and risk it being put down but if it cnttinues this behavior I will have no option, if I had grandkids I would be on to it immediately.

[i-need-a-martini]

Thanks Monman.

[i-need-a-martini]

There is a huge difference in the outcomes when someone is attacked by a dog generally like the one that jkilled this baby.

You often hear the argument "Maltese Terriers can be vicious or a fox terrier can be quite savage" but the fatality rate is almost exclusive to a small handful of breeds - rottweilers, huskys, cattle and any combination of dog that has a mastiff mix in them. Regardless of how well these dogs are trained if/when they turn on a human the attack is so different to any other breed that a small child has no chance.

Just ban the breeds. We've already banned American Pit Bulls so what is the issue - just extend the list!