My Dad calls it scaremongering.

I suppose if you tell an owner of a potentially dangerous dog this, it could kick them up the rear and get them motivated into getting their dog trained, but then you get those who think "A kennel will sort him out" and send the dog to rescue.

Sadie play fights with Louie and is very vocal and looks vicious when she's doing it, my OH's Grandma, when she sees this always says "It'll be a child next if you don't stop that" - Urm no it won't she lives with 4 and two are ages 5 and 2 and she's fantastic with them. She only plays like this with Louie. But of course she's older and I have to respect my elders - so I just nod and say yes - I'll have to stop it before Sadie mistakes a brown furry hooligan who rolls in god knows what, for a small pastey white and blonde child who she's helped bring up for the past 2 and 5 years, who she's also helped learn to walk.

I don't get it..personally. Unless a dog has bitten a child or shown signs of wanting to or lack of tolerance towards children - you can't really say it could be a child next - well you can't.

Benjie has come around loads - he used to hate everything. He now lets the above 5 year old lead him around the house by the collar - something I get a warning growl for - no warning or anything for her - he is totally relaxed with most children - he doesn't like the random ones that run up to him in the park.

But again, if you know your dog may have the ability to attack a child - then you take precautions right? Benjie is always on a lead when we visit a park where there can be children around (It's his usual walk as there is a big field next to the fenced off park area and we do one big circle walk) - we always tell the children - "you can't stroke this one - sorry" yet you get the persistent ones - who just have to stroke the dog regardless of you telling them they can't. - But I suppose children's manners are a different can of worms.

I'm not a trainer or a professional (Just realised that's who you were addressing) but I have trained my own dogs - I know my own dogs, I know the body language of them when they aren't particularly happy; Sadie slinks behind me, Louie raises a front paw and holds it there when he is unsure and Benjie's ear's go back. I think the important thing of training - is the bond and trust between handler and dog AND the realisation that all dogs have limits and are all capable of turning - Sadie could still turn on the children she lives with - which is why there is always someone supervising.

I think that answers it all?

Bumping Re the new questions

all of us dog savvy people now the "it could be a child next" line doesnt make sense, but we know this by instinct.

but what evidence do you use?
what referances?

Have there actually been any studies? Are there any well carried out studies to refer to? If not I suppose all you can do is refer to your own experience with aggressive dogs?

Not being a professional I have no idea but I've just read "Fight" by Jean Donaldson and in regard to the whole dominance/pack hierarchies debate she points out -

"What's astounding is the way dog people in general have contracted, like a contagious illness, whichever hypothesis appeals to them...The culture is one where anyone can say virtually anything as long as it's compelling sounding and supported by anecdote and the promulgator's belief system."

Which I think brilliantly sums up the problem with so many dog trainers and dog training theories in general.

J.

thats a great quote, but i thought it was referring to pet dog owners, not trainers.

Mother*ship.
No, she is definitely referring to trainers as the bit I skipped says "They then teach it to the general public as though it were the theory of gravity".

After experiencing a few different trainers and listening to many different opinions on Dogsey, in the park, in Dog books and magazines etc. I have to admit that this really made me think.

So, out of interest, how do you explain to the GP that dog on dog aggression is generally not an indicator for dog on human aggression? And how do you back up your claims?

It's a well known piece of knowledge amongst dog professionals that aggression is not naturally cross species. It is very often the case that if a dog is dog aggressive, it is because it just doesnt like dogs (for varying reasons), not because it doesnt like cats, horses, humans whatever.
To reply that just because a dog attacked another dog it is therefore likely to attack a child is the same as if you said it attacked a cat, it is therefore likely to attack a child or an elephant, or, indeed, a dog.
That is not how the canine psychology of aggression funtions.

Of course, a dog can be aggressive to more than one species at once, but its not a given.
Hence my phrase "that ole chestnut", as the "it could be a child" next line is usually one that is attributed to media led misinformed stereotyping or everyday people that dont own dogs or are just everyday pet dog owners, yet know nothing or little about dog behaviour, psychology, and training.
But thats not to judge, one would not expect non dog professionals, including everyday pet owners, to know such things, that's why their are dog professionals.
However, such statements are seen as truth, when they are in fact fallacies, yet are dangerous, as they are used to inform rules and regulations in a scaremongering way.

No, the dog that attacked the puppy is clearly "dog aggressive", therefore its aggression is of a predicatable nature

See above. This statement is not possesive of logic founded upon canine psychology, it is a statement possessive of logic founded upon ignorant (that's ignorant in the proper dictionary meaning, not the insulting one) stereotyping.

Actually, you are out of step with most professionals, whom instinctively know the statement "and it could be a child next" to be erroneous and misinformed stereotyping

No they arent. Dogs which have an aggressive attitude toward dogs PLUS an aggressive attitude toward children PLUS an aggressive attitude toward zebras PLUS an aggreesive attitude toward buses would therefore be aggressive toward dogs AND children AND zebras AND houses.
Whereas, dogs that just have an aggressive attitude toward dogs are just aggressive to dogs, but perfectly safe to children, zebras, and buses

But that is not rational logical thought either.
That is a statement informed thru your own emotional reasoning.
You were bit in the thigh during the course of you work, as you say, professional risk.
Im a dog walker myself, but im also a dog trainer whom also deals with behaviour problems.
(I would quite happily walk a dog that would attack a puppy btw, i just would do it properly, unlike the person in the OP)
You were bit in the thigh to do with that criteria and context of that situation at that time..that does not therefore have any natural nor given relation to the notion "it could have been a child's face".
It does not add up in canine psychology terms, let alone everyday logic.
That is like saying i got my foot run over by my neighbour reversing out his drive, he could have smashed a child into the air at 60 miles an hour.

As you say, that dog. Not dogs, nor canine aggresion, as a species Also one would need to know all the full and historical details of that dogs deterioration to determine of their was a progression of aggression

the quote about other trainers all having different ideas is a different issue to the one i am musing about though.

Yeah, I know I was going a bit OT but I was so struck I couldn't resist squeezing it in. My excuse being that in the face of the lack of proper evidence this 'belief system as absolute truth' seems to be what gets thrown out.

Re your last paragraph, the best way i can answer that is to quote a reply to another member whom came out with the "it could be a child next" line on another post.
Very interesting and pretty much what I understood.

HI mothership, so, as you say, i fall back on my experience.
But as regards your question "how do i back that up, that's what I'm asking.
I would like others to help out on that, hence this thread.