Staffordshire bull terriers in suburbs?

CL32

I missed your initial post before it was edited. I'm presuming some have a go hero loner busy body reported you for walking your dog without a muzzle in an effort to make a difference to this world and possibly single handedly stop the slide of civilization.

I am proud of the number of people whos opinions about Staffs we have changed. We went to socialisation classes and training classes just to show her off. She comes everywhere with us and I'm not shy about striking up conversations with strangers.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CL32 wrote: »

I am proud of the number of people whos opinions about Staffs we have changed. We went to socialisation classes and training classes just to show her off. She comes everywhere with us and I'm not shy about striking up conversations with strangers.

Or wrecking my house

Mr. Presentable

andreac wrote: »

Sorry but you are wrong here, they are NOT more dangerous, its a restricted breeds list, not a dangerous dogs list so please be careful on how you word it. These dogs are on the list because so called idiots havent a clue about these breeds and decided to come up with the law.

Yes these dogs can be more powerful than certain breeds, but what about breeds like great danes, saint bernards, boxers etc? they are big too and have a lot of power in their jaws to do just as much damage but they arent on the list.

I dont agree with this list in any sense, deed not breed if you ask me!!!

I admire the loyalty bull terrier owners show for their breed, but while your own dog/s may be the soul of good behaviour you cannot use your dog as the definition for the breed, any more than you can use the rogue behaviour of one retriever to define all of that breed.

The reason you have a well behaved animal is that you are a responsible - if not law-abiding - owner.

Why are certain dogs restricted? Because they have a greater propensity to cause harm, and the harm done is often more severe.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Oh, one last remark: Calling the Staffy the "nanny breed" does not make it seem safer - it makes it seem more dangerous. Consider the fact that it is called thusly because it is more protective of children in its "pack". By nature this makes it potentially more aggresive to ones outside its pack.

PaulB91

nipplenuts wrote: »

I admire the loyalty bull terrier owners show for their breed, but while your own dog/s may be the soul of good behaviour you cannot use your dog as the definition for the breed, any more than you can use the rogue behaviour of one retriever to define all of that breed.

The reason you have a well behaved animal is that you are a responsible - if not law-abiding - owner.

Why are certain dogs restricted? Because they have a greater propensity to cause harm, and the harm done is often more severe.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Oh, one last remark: Calling the Staffy the "nanny breed" does not make it seem safer - it makes it seem more dangerous. Consider the fact that it is called thusly because it is more protective of children in its "pack". By nature this makes it potentially more aggresive to ones outside its pack.

pieces that interested me from your link

The scene of the attack

Over 50 percent of the bites occur on the dog owner's property. (See Insurance Information Institute, Dog Bite Liability, accessed 8/30/07.)
Dogs bite family and friends

The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.

However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.) However, there are serious deficiencies in how dog bites are studied, making it difficult to know for certain whether a pit bull ban would reduce dog bites in general. (See Dangerous and Vicious Dogs: the Problem With Statistics.)

It would appear unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

• Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

• An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

• Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

i will read the rest in more detail

CL32

Aaden Hollow Partridge wrote: »

Or wrecking my house

Heh. Sorry again.

On the plus side she did sleep for two days straight. Did yours?

arybvtcw0eolkf

CL32 wrote: »

Heh. Sorry again.

On the plus side she did sleep for two days straight. Did yours?

Yes, and I finish the course of prozac this week -

ppink

this was interesting

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

CL32

ppink wrote: »

this was interesting

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

That was an interesting read.

Parts of it are like a propaganda leaflet for GSDs though. Wonder why such back up information wasn't available for the Rotts, Akitas or Pitbulls.

lrushe

ppink wrote: »

this was interesting

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

I'm always sceptical of articles posted from the internet, if you search long enough you can find a survey, study or article to support almost any angle of an argument imaginable. Live life and experience it first hand, then come and tell me what you think!

Mr. Presentable

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?

Or is it just information that doesn't suit your position that is questionable?

arybvtcw0eolkf

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?

Or is it just information that doesn't suit your position that is questionable?

Doesn't matter, staffies don't get a mention :pac:

lrushe

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?
QUOTE]


Spaniel bites aren't going to insight as many 'studies' as say a pit bull, its just not as sentational a topic. I do think that alot of these studies are done by bias people. According to one of these 'studies' in 1987 Cocker Spaniels were named as the 3rd leading face biters, I don't have a Cocker Spaniel but it doesn't mean I have any ill feeling towards them cause some internet person I've never met gave me some 'facts' and figures to tell me what way to think.

ste15

Very few surveys are 100% reliable. For example, the actual density of dog population rarely is taken into consideration. If you have 10 houses on a road and 9 of those houses have pomeranians and 1 has a staffy, mathematically speaking, the odds you will be bitten by a pomeranian are allot higher than being bitten by the staffy, does this mean all pomeranians should be muzzled? (Before anyone replies please read what I wrote again, I am not taking into consideration dogs temperament and the breeds I chose are for the purpose of demonstration only! My point is, you can come up with a survey to prove anything.)
I started this thread to vent anger because somebody reported me without speaking to me first. This was my problem, I found it a bit sneaky. I understand the law, and I am now abiding by it, (regardless of my opinion of the restricted breeds law).
I disagree with generalisation on any subject, and to say any given breed will bite, or cause harm before another breed without taking into consideration the individual dog and owner is nonsense (my educated opinion). Its effectively racism in human terms. We are Irish so we must be all alcoholic, argumentative sods?

ppink

I would far prefer to be bitten by a spaniel than a GSD any day i can say

Ste15 thanks for clarifying why you started the thread.

Mr. Presentable

lrushe wrote: »

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?
QUOTE]


Spaniel bites aren't going to insight as many 'studies' as say a pit bull, its just not as sentational a topic. I do think that alot of these studies are done by bias people. According to one of these 'studies' in 1987 Cocker Spaniels were named as the 3rd leading face biters, I don't have a Cocker Spaniel but it doesn't mean I have any ill feeling towards them cause some internet person I've never met gave me some 'facts' and figures to tell me what way to think.

Of course it is worth pointing out the study is "from press accounts", so of you are naturally correct that certain attacks will be more often reported. No argument there.

Attacks counted

Cocker spaniel 3
Rottweiler 407
Pitbull 1110

Now we don't know the relative populations for the breeds so maybe there are many more rottweilers than cockers which would skew the results. But whether you agree with the report, it illustrates why certain breeds are controlled and others not - which was the purpose of my original reply to a post.

As another poster said, I'd sooner be bitten by a spaniel than a rottweiler. It's not just the risk of attack, but the result which is considerable.

PaulB91

lrushe wrote: »

I'm always sceptical of articles posted from the internet, if you search long enough you can find a survey, study or article to support almost any angle of an argument imaginable. Live life and experience it first hand, then come and tell me what you think!

seems like German Shepherds should be taken of the list of bad boy dogs

German shepherds are herding dogs, bred for generations to guide and
protect sheep. In modern society, they are among the dogs of choice for
families with small children, because of their extremely strong protective
instinct. They have three distinctively different kinds of bite: the
guiding nip, which is gentle and does not break the skin; the
grab-and-drag, to pull a puppy or lamb or child away from danger, which is
as gentle as emergency circumstances allow; and the reactive bite, usually
in defense of territory, a child, or someone else the dog is inclined to
guard. The reactive bite usually comes only after many warning barks,
growls, and other exhibitions intended to avert a conflict. When it does
come, it is typically accompanied by a frontal leap for the wrist or
throat.
Because German shepherds often use the guiding nip and the
grab-and-drag with children, who sometimes misread the dogs' intentions and
pull away in panic, they are involved in biting incidents at almost twice
the rate that their numbers alone would predict: approximately 28% of all
bite cases, according to a recent five-year compilation of Minneapolis
animal control data. Yet none of the Minneapolis bites by German shepherds
involved a serious injury: hurting someone is almost never the dogs'
intent.
In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have
recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog
was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without
human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was
protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs.
None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the
part of an otherwise healthy dog.

seamus

PaulB91 wrote: »

seems like German Shepherds should be taken of the list of bad boy dogs

Yet the UCD study indicates that of all the restricted breeds, the only one involved in any significant number of bite attacks are GSDs.

The problem with any studies that can be quoted is that we're missing key pieces of data, including:

- The nature of the attack - i.e. who was attacked, what was their relationship to the dog, where and when they were attacked.
- The ferocity of the attack
- The breed of the animal - "Pitbull" is not a breed, neither is "bull terrier cross"
- The population of each of these breeds in the country
- Whether the dog was licenced and/or leashed at the time (gives an indication as to the attitude of the owner)

One major problem with the UCD study (and the study using newspaper articles) is that the results are self-selected, i.e. people have to come forward. Someone who has suffered a serious bite from a strong dog to whom they're not related, is far more likely to report the incident.

Someone who has been attacked by a Pomeranian, despite serious scars, is very unlikely to go around declaring that they got their ass kicked by a 2kg dog, but someone who gets attacked by a 12kg staffie will be onto Joe Duffy the next day going on about dangerous pitbulls.

I would be good for the SPCA's or other dog groups to go about conducting a large-scale countrywide survey to find out how many people have been attacked by dogs, what kinds of dogs they were, how serious it was and so forth.

Then you can probably get some kind of handle on it.

CL32

I found this extremely interesting:

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Dutch-Agriculture-Minister-scraps-pit-bull-ban.html

Edit: All bull breed owners on here should read this (and related) links. I would use it as the basis of a new thread but we have seen the pro and anti opinions 100s of times before. With Italy set to follow suit it could be the long hoped for first step to some common sense laws across Europe.

lrushe

nipplenuts wrote: »

lrushe wrote: »

As another poster said, I'd sooner be bitten by a spaniel than a rottweiler. It's not just the risk of attack, but the result which is considerable.

A bite to the face is a bite to the face especially on a child's delicate face. I know of a work colleague's daughter who received 56 stitches to the face and a broken tooth from a Westie last year plus some less severe punctures to the back but it went unreported as it was a family members dog.
I rather no one be bitten by any dog and that will only happen if there are restrictions on owners not dogs.

morganafay

lrushe wrote: »

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?
QUOTE]


Spaniel bites aren't going to insight as many 'studies' as say a pit bull, its just not as sentational a topic. I do think that alot of these studies are done by bias people. According to one of these 'studies' in 1987 Cocker Spaniels were named as the 3rd leading face biters, I don't have a Cocker Spaniel but it doesn't mean I have any ill feeling towards them cause some internet person I've never met gave me some 'facts' and figures to tell me what way to think.

Cocker Spaniels are apparently the dog most often put down for being vicious. Don't know if that's true but a veterinary nurse told me it was true in her practise. But I'm guessing that if someone buys a Staffie/GSD/Rottie to be a guard dog or just to look tough, they're not gonna put it down for being vicious. But if someone's family pet Cocker Spaniel is vicious they will . . .

ppink

I would have thought that a dog like a cocker spaniel or westie or whatever small dog does not get much interest as the liklihood of it doing fatal damage is less than a larger dog.
in fairness it that were a pitbull or a staff that had hold of that kid mentioned above it would have a lot of other problems then just 56 stitches to. the face
To me it seems to be about degree of damage. With children I suppose any dog can badly damage but with adults I would think it is big dogs who damage the most.

Whispered

Very true ppink - so why are labs, st bernards and other large dogs not subject to those laws too.

It's been pointed out many times, a lot of RB owners don't dislike certain aspects of the law - they dislike the fact it is only there for certain breeds. We owe it to other people to protect them from potentially dangerous dogs. The problem is when someone picks out some breeds and says "thats them".

Don't you think it's fair to suggest that this can cause MORE problems?
A woman we walk with has 2 labs, she got an awful fright walking one day when a mother told her barely walking child to "run over and rub the nice doggy". Queue a small child running at a dog who has no exerience with kids and a snap. Had that dog been a RB it wouldn't have happened because he wouldn't have been a "nice doggy". By turning some dogs into monsters, you have the same people who believe a dog can be dangerous just due to its breed, thinking a dog will be friendly just due to its breed. People need to realise that ALL dogs have the potential to snap. Not just some of them.

And people speaking about staffies as large dogs - they may be wide, but I certainly would not consider them a large breed.

lrushe

ppink wrote: »

just 56 stitches to. the face
QUOTE]

Just 56 stitches to the face??? Have you seen the size of a childs face? 56 stitches is a considerable degree of damage not to mention the mental damage and that was a small dog, as Helen said you go up the scale to bigger dogs like labs and collies you could just imagine the damaged they could do and in my opinion its more likely as people have the misconception that these are 'good' dogs so they let there defences down around them. I love all dogs and don't like to blacken ones name over the other I only use the above as points of reference. If all dogs on the restriced list were banned tomorrow the idiots who put them there ie. bad owners would just turn another breed into their 'favourite of the month', you can make any dog vicious, then were do we stand, we'll have owners of boxers, labs etc. getting on saying 'its not the dog, its the bad owners' and the cycle starts again. Restictions on breeds does not and will not work, if people are so worried about their safety around dogs they should stop going for the quick fix and realise people are the problem.

ppink

lrushe wrote: »

ppink wrote: »

just 56 stitches to. the face
QUOTE]

Just 56 stitches to the face??? Have you seen the size of a childs face? 56 stitches is a considerable degree of damage not to mention the mental damage and that was a small dog, as Helen said you go up the scale to bigger dogs like labs and collies you could just imagine the damaged they could do and in my opinion its more likely as people have the misconception that these are 'good' dogs so they let there defences down around them. I love all dogs and don't like to blacken ones name over the other I only use the above as points of reference. If all dogs on the restriced list were banned tomorrow the idiots who put them there ie. bad owners would just turn another breed into their 'favourite of the month', you can make any dog vicious, then were do we stand, we'll have owners of boxers, labs etc. getting on saying 'its not the dog, its the bad owners' and the cycle starts again. Restictions on breeds does not and will not work, if people are so worried about their safety around dogs they should stop going for the quick fix and realise people are the problem.

If you read my full post what I said was that if it were a bigger dog the child would have a lot more problems than just 56 stitches to the face.

Did any of you who are against the restricted breed act ever try to find out from the relevant dept as to where they came up with these breeds. Seems to me like those who brought in the act are the only ones who can answer that question, anything else is just speculation.

bigdogbarking

Personally i don't agree with Breed specific legislation and have expressed my concerns many times to my local TD's. Punish the deed and not the breed.
I for one, don't muzzle my staffies in public,not anymore, and not because of my disdain for the law, but purely for the protection of my dogs. Twice while out walking my dogs, we were attacked by dogs freely roaming the streets (first time it was a German shephard, second time it was a ladrador). My dogs being muzzled were unable to protect themselves and the few seconds it took for me to intervene, my dogs were badly cut. they had no chance of protecting themselves.

When i attend and partake in dogshows i never see any breeds muzzled and there never seems to be a problem.

i remember once on another site an example being used for arguing against BSL, it always stayed in my head. it was along the lines of : "some priests are dangerous to children but they are not gonna make EVERY priest walk around with their hands tied together" gave me a chuckle anyway

PaulB91

ppink wrote: »

lrushe wrote: »

If you read my full post what I said was that if it were a bigger dog the child would have a lot more problems than just 56 stitches to the face.

ya see i'm not sure that's true, small dogs (terriers) tend to rip and tear while big dogs just clamp - 56 stitches sounds more like a frenzied ripping attack

ppink

possibly true. i just know who i would sooner have to deal with. a big dog has a lot of power.
also harder for someone to extract you from a big dog than a small one imo

PaulB91

i've lived in a house with 7 dogs over my life time, border terrier, lab/collie, cairn terrier, lab/boxer, German Shep, German Shep cross x 2

can you guess which two have actually bitten people (luckily not seriously)

yep, the two terriers, the border terrier bit a firemans bum when he came in to check the house fire next door wasn't coming through our adjoiing wall and the Cairn will bite anything that moves near her when she's eating

The Sweeper

We should conduct a bite survey here on the A&P forum. Perhaps the mods would allow us a restricted thread on which people could just contribute yes or no to if they've ever been bitten, what breed of dog bit them, whether or not they feel the attack was provoked, and where would they rate the bite on a scale where 1 is a graze that didn't break the skin, and 10 was serious injury or fatality.

For instance, my own personal experiences:

As a child, attacked by a pekingese, totally unprovoked (wasn't even interacting with the dog), rate the bite as a 2.

As a teenager, attacked by my neighbour's cocker spaniel, provoked (I wouldn't give him his tennis ball back in the middle of a game, and he bit me for it), rate the bite as a 1.

As a young adult, attacked by my neighbour's dalmation, unprovoked, the dog was running free in our estate and went for me as I walked home to my house in the evening. Rate the bite as a 1, because I was wearing a very thick leather jacket, but that could have gone much worse if I had panicked.

As an adult, attacked by my mother in law's JRT cross, provoked in as much as I was trying to get him into shelter during the build up to a big storm so the weather had him frantic. Rate the bite as 0-1 because I had boots on, but the little bastard meant it.

These are all incidents where the dogs genuinely went for me, not in play. The spaniel and the JRT cross were moments of temper on the parts of the dogs, but the pekingese and the dalmation were sustained and utterly unprovoked attacks, in that I was not interacting with the dogs in any way, yet they came at me aggressively. The dalmation particularly, he jumped repeatedly for my face, and I kept giving him my arm, in its thick leather jacket, and he'd wool that, stand off, then come at me again.

There were a huge amount of dogs of all breeds around when we were kids, including alsations and dobermans, and often allowed wander freely, yet it was the pekingese that was the only one to ever draw blood...

ppink

it is all about different people different situations and different experience i suppose.

we also had a lot of dogs (and still do!) but it was collies and GSD who did the most damage by far.