Completely agree with you and the dogs we had who turned out to be quite vicious little critters were at first on their best behaviour it was only when they settled in we saw another side to them. Duncan was kept in a shed early part of his life went to a rescue where he was so scared he never dared hardly move then came to us where when he settled in and his nervousness became more and more apparent just couldn't be trusted with anyone but us.

You also, of course, have to factor in the intelligence and honesty of people who WANT a dog from a rescue. I'm sure there are some who will just pooh pooh any warnings or even not be totally honest about THEIR situation at home because they have their 'heart set' on a particular dog there.

I mean big dogs need exercise and most need stimulation too. How on earth you can be sure anyone taking a dog for rehoming WILL give that dog the right amount of exercise etc. that it needs to be a well balanced dog I don't know. Short of visiting them every day to be sure they are.

It was said about this dog that killed the little girl that it was only taken out a couple of times and she found it too hard to handle.

I don't know what the ideal answer is. But do think that for big, powerful, potentially dangerous dogs (by their sheer size and strength) a lot of thought and checking should go into who they are allowed to go to (and ideally those wanting to own one give the same amount of thought to it). You could be prosecuted for selling an unroadworthy car to someone if it was then subsequently involved in an accident and injured or killed someone.

You hear so many times about different breeds 'they are just great with kids' or that they are real 'family dogs'. Well as almost any breed of dog could be a danger in some circumstances and, as it is often mentioned - all SORTS of breeds of dogs have attacked, maimed and killed - not just dogs on lists of dangerous dogs, perhaps that sort of description 'good with kids' is meaningless and shouldn't be bandied about so much with regard to particular breeds and more importance and stress placed on how a dog is kept, trained and raised - or even what it's history was - and not rely on historical hearsay about them being 'excellent family pets'. And far more importance placed on WHO will be owning it and HOW and WHERE they will be keeping it and what their history regards dog ownership is etc.

Just my opinion but I don't think some of these huge powerful breeds of dog are ideal choice for a first time dog owner whatever their circumstances are. You can't beat hands on experience over reading up about stuff.

Look how many times we get new owners on here who sound frantic over even such stuff as toilet training and who don't have a clue how to go about it or where to start. I'm always amazed that they wait until after they own a dog to start asking about stuff like this and seem not to have had a clue what to expect. Or are despairing because a 2 month old puppy is pissing all over the house! Or think it can go 10 hours without a wee!

This is becoming a bit of a habit I am agreeing again lol

The term " good with kids " is meaningless . What is more important really is are the kids good with dogs ? Any dog will get irritated with unwanted attention eventually .

Well that was my point really but you still see it used all the time - on breed descriptions and even in the rescue dogs ads here and elsewhere.

Although I agree any dog (or cat or other animal) will get 'irritated' with unwanted attention eventually - I don't believe ALL would eventually retaliate by attacking. Some however will (and obviously do) and some will attack even if not physically provoked. I've read of dogs attacking babies that were squeaking or crying or even just sleeping!

I've sometimes read there is always a REASON for a dog attacking or that there must have been provocation even if we don't understand 'what it was'.

However, I have a son who was attacked, aged 5, by a GSD who just ran up to him - bit his face and ran off again. No provocation whatsoever - he didn't even see it coming. Fortunately a neighbour saw the whole incident from her window and could identify the dog and the family that owned it and it transpired the same dog had attacked another small child not long before that - running up to the kid from behind and taking a chunk out of his calf and the court case for that was 'pending'.

To me - that is a DANGEROUS DOG. How it got to be a dangerous dog - whether it was nurture or nature - I can't say but all dogs have the 'potential' to be dangerous and some dogs have proved they are. Whatever it was or might have been that caused them to be that way.

And 'unwanted attention' paid to a dog can cover a whole range of undesirable behaviour by children or even adults. Including downright cruel or painful stuff. We had a long thread on here by one dog owner whose dog had bitten her brother because he stared at it. Many said the brother should have known better and should have known dogs don't like being 'stared at'. Well I'm sure little kids wouldn't know that and in fact probably millions of adults don't either. Not every one is a dog expert.

I just think a bit more consideration given to who can own big, powerful, dogs should be given and that it shouldn't be so easy for just anyone to own one as long as they have the money to buy one or can convince a rescue org. they will follow their guidelines as per keeping it.

I never heard of dog behaviourists for many years and hardly anyone took dogs to training classes decades ago. Dog diet wasn't discussed in depth and all that - yet I read that with all the increased coverage of this and the further understanding of it all - dog attacks are on the increase all the time?

I don't like to criticise or comment on one particular case (that hasn't yet been fully investigated) and in which the child involved has paid the ultimate price, so has the dog and the mother - well I can't even begin to imagine what it's done to her. And nothing will turn back the clock now. And to apportion blame after such a tragic event seems in very poor taste.

But for every incident of this type - lessons should be learned. If it only widens the discussion of the problem.

It does nothing to just have some insisting all dogs are good and it's the owners at fault. Or for others to insist that just some breeds are bad and should be banned. I think it is the wider question of dog ownership that needs to be addressed. Quite how I don't know. Education is usually the key to all this sort of stuff. But I don't see any govts spending money on that. They are far more likely just to pander to public concern with a kneejerk or populist reaction like adding one or two more 'breeds' to existing banned dog lists.

Sorry this is very long - it was published in Dogs Today magazine and I think is quite pertinent to the discussion going on here (I think the author is referring to a Daily Mail article) :-

"If only the Daily Mail had contacted vet and behaviour expert Kendal Shepherd.... here's what she has to say:

Thoughts on the tragic case of Lexi and Mulan

For anyone who has fought long and hard for some common sense to be brought into current ‘dangerous’ dog legislation, this case will have caused many people a sleepless night or two. Even more so if one has tried to impress on the ‘powers that be’, as I have, the urgent need for proper forensic investigation of all dog bite incidents, including fatalities, to determine cause and to enable public education regarding dog behaviour and dog bite prevention.
Even from, albeit generally unreliable, newspaper reports regarding this latest case, warning signs are emerging, obvious to any informed commentator, which are all the same being interpreted as ‘without warning’ and ‘out of the blue’ by those involved in this tragic incident.
The ‘facts’ that have emerged so far according to the media reports I have read are listed below. Each results in questions which urgently need to be asked and by those sufficiently expert in interpreting the answers and their implications. It is imperative that any inquest demands and takes account of such investigation and expertise.
1. An erroneous photo of a Dogge de Bordeaux as the alleged culprit on a fine choke chain accompanied by a much younger Lexi in the London Metro paper on Wednesday 6th November;
Why is a photo of dubious provenance falsely implicating a large dog breed allowed to be printed with no repercussions on the newspaper concerned? Metro staff verbally confirmed to me that this was an image supplied by a neighbour of a previously-owned dog. So where is that dog now? Is Lexi’s mother a serial large dog owner? What is the significance of the choke chain? Is this how her dogs have been routinely communicated with?
2. The dog, now called ‘Mulan’, picked up as a stray and taken (to be rehomed if not claimed within seven days) to Willow Tree Dog Rescue, which has recently taken on the contract for Leicestershire County Council. The dog is thought to have been about 7-8 years old;
How long had the dog been in the rescue centre? Was any kind of temperament or behavioural testing carried out by someone qualified and experienced enough so to do?
3. The kennels stipulating that the dog was not suitable to live with young children, but would be ‘OK if stopped from jumping up’;
Was jumping up the only reason the dog was deemed unsuitable to live with young children? How was ‘stopping jumping up’ undertaken? Threats and coercion or rewarding an alternative behaviour, such as sitting? The presence of a choke chain on the previous dog suggests the former.
4. The dog taken on by single parent living in a flat;
Was a home check carried out prior to rehoming and/or afterwards? What exercise did the dog routinely get? On lead/off lead? How much living space/quiet time? Was the dog registered at a veterinary surgery? Had it been vaccinated? How did it behave for veterinary examination? Any medical problems diagnosed, possibly age-related (this was a middle-aged to elderly large cross-breed)?
5. Mulan growled at Lexi and was ‘told off’ by Lexi’s mother before launching the attack. This was interpreted by a neighbour as acting without provocation or warning.
Dogs don’t growl for fun – it is a warning sign. What was Lexi doing to provoke being growled at? How many times had Mulan growled, at whom and in what context? What had been the routine response to his growling? Recognition of it as a clear warning sign and resolution of the threat from Mulan’s perspective, or increasing threat and punishment of ‘naughty’ behaviour? Had punishment become associated with Lexi? Was the reprimand the trigger- the straw that broke the camel’s back?
Of course, the overwhelming majority of dogs do not respond to reprimand with any aggression, let alone a fatal attack. The co-evolution of the intimate relationship humans have with dogs was only made possible by canine tolerance of human anger. What we haven’t begun to investigate is how ‘normal’ dog-human relationships survive, because we spend far more time studying ‘problems’ – the dog who has already bitten a jogger, wrecked the furniture, eliminated in inconvenient places etc. How many dogs out there are tolerant of routine punishment without retaliation? And how far are these ‘suitable’ dogs convincing both certain trainers and their owners that dogs will tolerate everything we throw at them? How many preventable ‘accidents’ are there just waiting to happen?
But we cannot yet be sure if factors so far identified in this and any other fatality are simply correlations rather than causations. At what point therefore can we determine what combination of components have to come together to cause any dog bite as well as fatalities, rather than simply being ‘innocent bystanders’ in the event? Only by thorough and mandatory investigation of every event by those behaviourally qualified to do so will we gather the data to be able to inform, educate and prevent. With the greatest respect to police investigations, these are generally carried out in order to determine culpability and the viability of a prospective prosecution. Finding someone to blame is not the same as identifying cause in a non-judgmental way. It does however absolve others of responsibility in what may be, in reality, ‘there but for the grace of God go we’ situations.
There are indeed valuable bite prevention initiatives being implemented however it appears to me that many of these are targeted towards perceived ‘irresponsible’ dog owners rather than it being recognised that safety education regarding dog behaviour is essential across the whole social spectrum and from a very young age. The average 4 year old, such as Lexi, will already have been told many times not to speak to strangers, not to play with matches, and, when crossing the road, to look left, right and left again first. But where was the equally life-saving information regarding what a dog’s growl means? Such education ought to be in the National Curriculum rather than being left to chance and the hit-and-miss regional provision of very well-meaning charities.
Where therefore does the overall blame lie?
If anyone is to blame for Lexi’s death, to me it is the government which is consistently ignoring the need for mandatory and up-to-date education, of both children and adults, regarding dog behaviour and the dog-human relationship. It is also ignoring the need to even-handedly and thoroughly investigate all dog bite incidents, relying instead upon the adversarial system and implementation of punishment to act in a preventative manner. But could any threatened punishment, however severe, have prevented this week’s tragedy? Why the apparent reluctance to insist upon expert and public investigation? Could it be that this might reveal unwelcome truths about correlations and potential causes of dog-related fatalities which will not be a vote-winner in any political party’s book?
But at what price a child’s life compared to complying with the public need for vengeance and thereby winning headlines and votes?
Very many more questions than answers – but it is high time that both the questions to be asked and the urgent answers required are taken seriously and used as far as humanly possible to prevent future tragedies of this nature.
Kendal Shepherd

Nothing wrong with using the term good with kids on any labels.. as that is just a bullet point as you cant duplicate full profiles on kennel doors etc. its what happen next that's important . as long as the rescue or breeder are ethical and professional they will back that and any other bullet points up with a much fuller profile , assessments of dogs and families/ applicants, lots of fact finding procedures and paperwork, lots of training visits education etc

we never believe anything that the old owner says and always see for ourselves, personally I would always look for a rescue that uses foster homes, we rehome 200 - 300 springers a year our return rate is probably less than 5,, because we do spend time living with the dogs before they go off to a new home, we have rehomed dogs with young kids

VERY good point there about the 'foster homes'. I agree - gives a chance to observe a dog in a proper home setting - not in a totally alien one like in a rescue or kennels.

We must all know people who own dogs who are just FINE at home but who can never be boarded or kennelled because they turn into something else (even if that is a totally despondent, depressed and anxious dog) when kennelled. Kennels or boarding are not the ideal places to assess a dog.

What's important is whether they BOTHER with the 'what happens next' stuff. But prevention is better than cure in every case. The more that can be done BEFOREHAND the better. I mean in regards to ascertaining whether an applicant for a 'rescue' dog is really in a position to offer it a suitable home and a suitable 'lifestyle'.

What you talk about is the 'ideal world' situation. If that actually happened all the time in the 'real world' we wouldn't be reading about a case like this right now would we?