http://www.channel4.com/contact_us.html#viewerenqs

This is the link to e-mail channel 4.

I was disgusted with tonights programme and think channel 4 were extremely irresponsible in airing it. As if there hasn't been enough media hype lately about aggressive dogs they have to do this. No dog will ever conduct an unprovoked attack. There will ALWAYS be a reason and it is up to us as intelligent beings to find that reason. If that dog had truly meant to hurt their child she would have been on the critical list, just because it was a Cocker Spaniel does not mean it is incapable of doing severe damage, as for showing him burying the poor little thing where was the need in that? Programmes like this make me sick, there will be hordes of viewers now thinking that they should be having their dogs put to sleep at every little thing.

Why don't they show programmes that teach people how to treat their dogs before all this kind of thing happens, it's sad to think that these kind of shows are purely ratings driven. Sad for the familys concerned and even worse for the animals.

Sorry but I don't agree that Ch4 were irresponsible in showing the programme. Why do you think they were? The only thing I didn't agree with was no one said whether the vet had given Benji a full medical before the decision to pts was made.

The little girl WAS badly bitten - just because she wasn't on the critical list doesn't mean the dog didn't do a lot of damage. The fact she had bites all over her - not in just one area, shows it was a prolonged attack rather than a single bite.

I feel dreadfully sorry for the family, as they were clearly devastated and I, too, feel very sorry for the little dog. However, I do think that dogs do sometimes attack for no reason - not as often as is publicised, but it does happen unfortunately. In this case though, perhaps the stress of the new training regime took its toll?

There was a reason Ramoth. The dog had been spoiled and allowed to get away with murder.

Actually channel 4 were Responsible for airing the fact that children should never be put at risk with a dog that attacks unprovoked, and explained this was the reason.

Children always come first.

i think they made the right decision and they did see their vet as was explained, VS did say it was their decision but she would advise the dog was pts.

you have the most aggressive animal living in your home and yet people still allow a bite to be acceptable. Not in my home. my kids safety comes first.

that poor little girl was mauled not just bitten, the dog is now at peace.

i totally agree with you moobli the programme could have editted it better but as you say it was a child no matter the damage, you cant risk it happening again and each time the dog bit the more servere it got next time it might have done more damage. i know no matter how much i loved the dog or long i had the it, if it did that i would put down the dog i just feel for the family involved.

It might have been that the dog had a neurological condition, we don't really know what the reason for the behaviour was, esp. as the child was alone when it happened.

The dog may have had a brain tumour or simply felt threatened by the child somehow, but we will never know

Very sad, but I think (with the info we have been given) the decision was the right one...as long as the dog was vetchecked, which I had the impression he was.

The question is whether the ending would have been different if he'd been brought up in a different home, one which was more dog savvy. If the problem was a training one then probably, but if it was a medical one, the outcome would have no doubt been the same

I was out playing squash and missed it but from what my mum told me it was awful and the dog was spoiled rotten. Was it down to the way it was spoiled/treated that brought this on?

I'm glad I missed it really.

Absolutely correct.
And no dog ever bites for no reason. The reason may not be obvious but it will be there.

In cases where a trigger can not easily or instantly be determined, then medical checks is the way to go, and should be in a lot of cases where triggers are known but something medical could be at the root of it.
Not doing thorough checks, including bloods, MRI, Thyroid levels etc etc means a perfectly easily treatable medical condition could be going ignored and the dog gets killed.

I do have three *EX* biters, one of whom did bite a child and was taken to be killed for it. Thankfully, the vet refused - it was obvious the dog, [ who became mine through Rescue ], was in severe pain when he bit.

It sickens me that other dogs possibly suffering illness, an outwardly unseen condition, or pain which is not so obvious, are just killed instead of being diagnosed and possibly treated, like the one described on that program might have been had the myriad of medical possibilities been explored properly.

**I did not see the episode, [ I wont watch that woman - one series was more than enough for me ], so I am going by what has been said about it.

I think it left a lot of questions unanswered. Certainly drastic action was required, and it may be that having the dog put down was the only option, but the subject was oversimplified. If a neurological condition was suspected, then at the very least they could have shown a consultation with a vet about the condition. It would have added weight to the programme, and the seriousness of the issue. Certainly the family had discussed the problem with their vet previously, but as I understood it, it was the family, not the vet, that initiated discussions of having the dog put down.

What Channel 4 showed could easily be construed as - Dog trainer can't deal with dog, dog must be put to sleep. I'm sure VS is an excellent dog-trainer, but the fact remains that dog-trainers are not governed by coherent regulations/accreditation. If it was my dog biting a child, I wouldn't give it any opportunity to get near a child again, but to have it put to sleep on the recommendation of somebody who could feasibly have no more idea of dog psychology/behaviour/health than I have... I don't think so.

I just want to reinfrce that I'm not saying they did the wrong thing, just that the programme could have done more work showing the logic behind it. And, come to think of it, they could have done a bit less of the invasive, heart-string-tugging bit showing that poor man burying his dog. Ratings come first, eh?

Any and all dogs `could` bite though. If they bite its up to us as their owners to find out why, and to not put a dog in a repeat situation in which it feels the need to bite, certainly not without gentle desensitisation with expert help if appropriate, and to ensure their health is not a factor to go ignored.