first mate

Is this to do with the summary health care records and what if you had opted out of those. I'm still no clearer exactly how relevant/what information is taken from the pateint records. Presumably practice staff do not have time to do this, so who would physically be putting info together and how? Is nature of info, name, age/DB , gender, address and whether surgery used in last year, or will more information be taken for 'statistical' purposes at same time?

If others recall, there were moves in the last year or so to widen access to patient records. I am not trying to muddy the waters, I just want to be clear as to exactly how this 'statistical' information is gleaned?

First question, just how do they get to 'pull' details from patient records? Will they have access to full records or simply a list of names and addresses supplied by you? I feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea of any LA personnel being able to 'pull' stuff off my records- just on principle!

Plus some children can find clowns really scary!

boosboss, Absolutely. This garden is clearly meant to be a quiet, tranquil spot. There are plenty of other spaces in the park for youngsters to run and burn off energy. All of us, single people; OAPS, parents, children and dog owners need to cherish this special area and to respect the massive amount of free time and labour that has gone into its creation. If that means we all have to police it to protect it too, then we should.

Microchipping is all well and good but the vast majority of owners already do this. Even if the ne'er do wells are in some way forced to microchip, who, in these times of austerity, is going to be tasked with carrying scanners to do spot checks? Remember also that chips can and have been removed by the same dodgy types, who have little compunction in visiting pain on their dog. I do so wish that having dogs on lead was enforceable on the streets, this seems to me a far more practical solution for less cost, a dog on the lead can be both avoided and controlled.

Thsmes Water is part owned by Kemble Holdings and the Chinese! It seems to have an incredibly complex financial and investment structure so I wouldn't be surprised if left hands do not know what right hands are doing. Do the inevstors care that much about the quality of service? Obviously they care about profit, but as seems to be the case thus far, making a profit does not have to be justified by the quality of service- they charge you anyway.

Heron was out in Japanese Garden in Peckham Rye today- enjoying the sun. Saw three rats too- very busy.

You can trust the Murdochs to try to exploit anything and anyone they can to their advantage -which one of them is running SKY now? As an aside, I've been told that other than HD most digital pictures will be inferior to good analogue. I must admit, I put on my new HD TV expecting a revelation and could see only a small difference. I'm already getting loads of dropout, picture freezing/ breaking up, so no better than analogue and possibly worse. Trying to remember the point of the switchover- oh yes, room for many more channels offering more choice..........? Has it all been a big money spinning con?

I second Razors. The extension over the outrigger can put your neighbour in shadow.

tallulah71, yes, the monitoring is really important and we should all do it, whatever the interaction.

beckyg, You make some fair points but it is noteworthy that 'Blue' has formerly had 'nice' games with dogs of a similar breed type- the problem was engaging with a smaller breed. One can only conclude that the owner's knowledge of his dog was not perhaps as rounded as it needed to be. It sounds as though he was not monitoring his dogs closely enough and was very slow to intervene. It is good that he has agreed to muzzle his dog but people have every right to be angry at what happened. Sad to say it also tells us something that dogs of very similar type (blue staffs) have been involved in other serious attacks on dogs. Either the dogs have been poorly socialized/inadequately trained, or they have a strong genetic predisposition to this behaviour.

LD, You misunderstand, David mech shows that wolf hierarchies are rigid. Wolf packs are rigid- but they are built on family units where the parents are boss and keep the kids in line. On the other hand, dogs though genetically related to wolves, do not form rigid hierarchies. Feral dogs may form loose packs but there is no hierarchy that reflects wolf behaviour. As I said I do believe that you get more confident dogs and more pushy/assertive dogs but somehow dominance implies a broad agenda that motivates actions which I do not believe really reflects what dogs are all about- I think they live much more in the moment. I agree about socialisation. Dogs have such an incredible range of morphologies and massive differences in behavioural thresholds that they really do have to learn about each other. Those differences almost amount to 'cultural' differences between breeds and types and this can cause poor communication and misunderstandings to occur. As I said, I do agree that owners can ratchet up a fear reaction but owners should not have to get to that stage. All of us have to read canine signals better and not just base all dog interactions using our dog as the measure. My dog might desperately wnat to get to the little dog over there- but she is cowering away- perhaps she doesn't feel well today or perhaps my dog reminds her of a dog that attacked her a few weeks ago- who knows. Bottom line, I should call my dog away and quit bothering the other dog. At the very least this will help to build the others dog's confidence. As a final note all it need take is one bad experience to make a fomerly confident dog fearful.

LD, Dogs are social animals and need boundaries and 'rules' if they are all to get along in the same household. However, I disagree with you that there are clear hierarchies- dogs are not pack animals in the same way that wolves are- and, as I am sure you know, the wolf pack is built on a family structure where the parents are in charge, which puts rather a different gloss on the whole idea of the 'dominant' male and female. Studies on feral dogs show that they do not form true packs or hierarchies, rather the relationships shift with different individuals being more assertive in different contexts. People who own many dogs together often notice the same thing- a seemingly 'submissive' dog may becomes very assertive in a certain room or outside of the house. A seemingly' dominant' dog changes in another environment. As a rule bitches tend to be more assertive in the home and dogs outside. Dogs that consistently get into fights might be viewed as maladpative since it is not a biologically sound strategy for survival. Psycho wolves tend to get ostracised by the pack because an animal that fights causes upheaval and tension in the group, it is a also a massive waste of energy, not to mention the risk of injury. Adolescent animals and junior members of the wolf pack are disciplined but those meteing out discipline are likely to be the parents (see David Mech on studies of wild wolves in Yellowstone Park).Much wolf beahviour is ritualized social signalling, to which they are highly attuned. When a wolf attacks it really does intend to kill. Some dogs have lost this sensitivity to social signals, others are more sensitive. Though dogs are genetically close to wolves, behaviourally they are different in many ways. Once you put humans into the equation things are more complex still. Rather than 'pack leaders' I suspect that dogs see us as reliable providers of food, security and play- we also make the rules. Perhaps we are closer to secondary parent figures than leaders. A major reason we can get dogs to obey us is down to conditioning/associative learning and the fact that dogs have an almost unique ability to read and respond to human facial expressions. In varying degrees dogs have been selectively bred to have a need to repsond to us. It really does not have much to do with dominance. I think different types of dogs have evolved through artificial selection for different functions and as a result they have different thresholds for reactivity, for social signalling and for the exhibition of fear or aggression. One can quite easily point to breeds that are more laid back generally. Like your GSD- an example of a dog exhibiting working traits at the extreme end of what he was selectively bred to do, guard, so much so that he could not function in the average domestic environment. On top of all this humans can cause problems through inadequate socialisation, over indlugence, poor/no training etc.. I do agree that owners can increase their dogs fear or aggression by their own behaviour. However, we will have to agree to differ about boiling dog relationships down to dominance/submission/hierarchies. It is a view promulgated by the likes of Cesar Milan who is viewed as woefully out of touch by cynologists and the canine scientific community.

LD, I'm not sure what you mean by a dominant dog? Very confident dogs rarely have to assert themselves- a submissive/underconfident dog would most likely be ignored by them. Dogs that go looking for a fight and to impress themselves on other dogs on a regular basis may be unsound, have a very strong fighting instinct (it cannot be denied that this runs in some staffy/staffy type lines) or they are fearful of other dogs/have been allowed to get into bad habits. Some dogs are allowed to become bullies because of inadequate training. The times I see dogs scrap are when two intact males meet- this is natural and hormonal and a reason why owners of intact males should always be careful when allowing intact boys to run together- especially if there are bitches in season around. Some boys get along, some just ignore each other, but there is always the risk of a competitive set to. Breeds vary in how well intact males tolerate each other. Some bitches can take a strong, lifelong dislike to each other- again hormonal. Adult dogs have varying degrees of tolerance around puppies and adolescents. Some adolescent males will be 'targetted'by older intact males- hormonal again. A fair number of adult dogs will react badly to having a pupppy jump all over them. There are breed variations. Some dogs require more space than others (see Marie's excellent posters)and dogs from some breeds do less well at reading social situations. This can cause fights. Very occasionally a group of dogs may gang up on a 'weak' elderly or sick member but this would happen more in a pack situation at home. Dogs can treat other dogs as prey. Some dogs with a strong fighting heritage can roll over from play into prey drive/aggression quite suddenly. I suspect this is what happened with poor Morph. Most Staffy breed websites advise owners to carefully socialise and monitor their dog's play with other breeds, teaching the dog when to stop. Most also advise that while these dogs are great with people they need careful supervision around other dogs. This is not dominance it is a trait that has been selectively bred for. None of these instances is about dominance. The only case that really matches that description is when two intact males fight over a bitch for for territory. Most dogs are merely social opportunists who want to meet other dogs for play or for sex- the whole dominance paradigm doesn't really make much sense in those terms. Dogs that repeatedly want to attack other dogs are either not quite right, have learned to do this through fear/human taught, or have a genetic propensity to do this. A spat is rather different and ,yes, dogs have teeth and they will use them to make a point- but there will be no injuries afterwards.

bluesupersted, I guess your real beef is with the owners and we are all with you on that. Dogs should not be offlead on the street at any time - this needs to be made law, which it is not right now. The park is a different matter though as dogs should be allowed some free running. Nonethless, owners should not allow their dogs to bound up to humans uninvited. I am also in favour of areas of the park where dogs should be on lead but would not wnat this extended to the whole park, but at least this way everyone has the option to avoid off lead dogs. On another note, I have recently had a succession of little children that have bounded up to my dog in the street and stroked him without asking. Fortunately my dog is reasonably tolerant of this but he does not always enjoy it. Children really must be taught to be more savvy about dogs- I feel it is something we have lost. But modern dog owners seem to be pretty ignorant about dogs too, so we have bad manners all round. Finally, I understand your fears about the dog 'Blue' and nothing is more important than the safety of your child. But the other posters are right when they say that the behaviour with a dog that went so tragically awry does not mean it would be aggressive with children or humans- the two are not interlinked. I can see how empty this might sound and I agree that the seeming incompetence of the owner is of major concern, but as the poster above says, dog on human attacks are rare.

I guess the grass will eventually grow back but it isn't only footballers that would like to use that area- it's a siginificant portion of the park that should be ready for other park users to enjoy over summer.

CC, I'm sure you meant that in a good way but it sounded pretty patronising to me. I think old age is rather more than a state of mind- your genes may have something to do with it for starters.

Marie81, Great posters- they should be put all around the park.

Huggers, Yeuuch! If the dog has a squitty tummy then perhaps we should all think about carrying a bottle with mild detergent to wash pavement off. A well known trainer and behaviourist called John Rogerson is of the view that all of us should be teaching our dogs to defecate on command so that we can control where they go and when. He says that all dogs for the hearing and blind do this so why not pet owners. It is food for thought.

Lady D, I'm not quite sure what you mean by submissive dogs. A dog can be made fearful of other dogs by owners letting their dog bound up to any dog in a rambunctious manner. Please bear in mind that some dogs and breeds are better than others both at reading and displaying social signals. A dog that looks overwhelmed is not necessarily submissive or inviting attack, they simply do not want to engage with that particular dog/s. Likewise, a dog that bounds up to another uninvited or in a very pushy way either has no manners/is inadequately socialised, or is from a breed that is less naturally attuned to social signalling- both staffs and labradors are examples. I'm sorry but I do think the notion that some dogs 'invite attack' is misconstrued and is often used to blame the hapless owner for having a 'submissive or fearful' dog. Some dogs and pups get told off for being over familiar with other dogs- owners need to monitor what the pup/dog is doing and whether the dog they are approaching looks comfortable with the fact. Dogs initially express discomfort in quite subtle ways but all owners should know what those signals are and take action. Also breeds developed for particular functions will have a strong desire to act out the behaviours they are hardwired for- collies nip and herd; terriers hunt and kill; hounds chase and kill. Puppy training and socialisation has to accomodate and train around these various urges. Labradors and other gun dog breeds have been selectively bred to be overfriendly; for instance, lab pups can often barge into situations heedless of the other dog's signals to bee off- and get out of my face. However, labs are also highly responsive and biddable and can be trained from puppyhood to greet other dogs politely. All of us owners just need to be a heck of a lot more aware about the dogs we own and the dogs other people own. If you just want to switch off in the park and walk around in a daze then don't have a dog. Lady D, well done for having a good Staff. However, though I know it is a natural urge I would still try to discourage chasing of small prey in town, if only to set an example. Also dogs in hot pursuit of furries are not controllable and running out of the park is a possbility. I have a bugbear about a red staff that jumps in and out of the Japanese garden to chase squirrels- the owner has no control at all.

I'm not sure how James Barber could help? Simple measures would include the requirement that all dogs are always walked on lead on the street. I still cannot understand why this is not implemented as the only people I ever see walking dog off lead are young bull breed owners of a certain type. In the park there should be certain sections where dogs are kept on lead. This would give people (both dog-woning and non dog owning) the opportunity to avoid other offlead dogs if they want. I note that some dog owners are still letting their dogs off in the Japanese Garden, where there are notices quite clearly asking owners to keep dogs on a lead. Why? At entrances to parks and around the cafe area dogs should be kept on a lead. I frequently see dogs meandering off lead around the cafe and owners letting their dogs off at the narrow passageway past the toilets. If you see a dog on the lead in a park don't let your dog go bounding up to it- this is bad manners, bad practice and can cause problems. If you are unable to call your dog away then you need to go back to training classes until you can. Dogs need to be well socialised and allowed to play together but where there is a mssive differtence in size and strength it is not hard to see how problems can develop. All play should be carefully supervised and stopped if it looks to be getting OTT. It is important to make a distinction between 'spats'- which will happen between dogs and are generally all about display and warnings and 'attacks' where puncture wounds are left.Nonetheless, you do not want a tiny dog getting into a 'spat' with a very large dog because there is the possibility that the smaller dog feels overwhelmed and becomes aggressive. The smaller dog starts to dislike larger dogs and then possibly all dogs. If you have a large dog, try to consider the smaller dog owner a bit more. Prey drive is a different issue and involves different neural pathways to other types of aggression which tend to develop out of fear. Dogs that play in a very pushy way and use their teeth a lot, delivering nips while chasing should be monitored and have their chase instinct redirected. Owners of these kinds of dogs need to train around different outlets for prey drive. Don't let your dog chase squirrels teach it to chase a ball instead. Bottom line any dog developed for hunting- all terriers, all hounds and many other groups, have the capacity to develop/show strong prey drive. These dogs needs to be taught as pups to redirect that drive into appropriate outlets. If you cannot be bothered to spend the time to do this, do not buy/own one of these breeds.

I think the point is that this particular dog appears to have something of a history. Aside from Fuzzyboots, I've counted three other incidents that have appeared on this thread that all seem to have involved this same dog- a blue staff is fairly distinctive. Given the apparent history, I find the shock and contrition of the owner a little unconvincing- unless he is in massive denial and some people do bury their head in the sand where their dog's behaviour is concerned. This particular dog will need a massive amount of structured training and may never be wholly trustworthy with other dogs, especially small dogs. It should not be let off lead in the park or on the streets and probably will need muzzling for now. Will the owner comply?

Specialist advice on the law can be sought at Trevor Cooper http://www.doglaw.co.uk/

Fuzzyboots, Many thanks for taking the time to write more about this awful incident, especially under the circumstances. Yes, it sounds like the interaction between the dogs went wrong, but it sounds as though this dog has attacked a few times. It seems that the dog might start off playing but it rolls over into something else, or the dog treats the other dog as though it is a toy. Given the opportunity I am sure this dog will try to do the same again. It is known that bull breed types from what would have been fighting stock are not great at reading the body language of other dogs or of signalling their own 'intentions'. For this reason owners need to be extra vigilant with them around other dogs. As you say, they tend to be good/extremely biddable with people and children and I think this misleads a lot of owners who cannot grasp that while they may be reliable with humans they are less likely than the average dog to be reliabel with other dogs. Again, I am so sorry for your loss and I am sure the local 'dog community' will help and support you in any way we can. Most of all in trying to get some redress for you.