why own a dangerous breed?

EGAR

100%..? We are talking about animals, not machines.

are you serious

100% is impossible

example my 2 year old son knows 100% not to throw his messy chocolate biscuit on the clean sofa but he will still do it some of the time even when told not to.. my dog also knows 100% he should come back when I call him but he wont always come back immediately... :rolleyes:

Shanao

pokertalk wrote: »

every dog owner of every breed wether it be cross or of pure breed should own a cert stating that their dog is %100 socialized
%100 trained in re- call
%100 basic command training
if your dog does not have this cert then by law should be on a harness and lead whilst muzzled at all times in public

anyone agree??
this would be great for all responsible rb owners and well socilized dogs

Well that recall one would instantly disqualify most spitz-type owners then as you can never guarantee that they will always come back. We would be better with everyone being required to go to training classes (you need them for driving a car after all!!) with their dog and have proof that they have gone. But either way, its the irresponsible people who are just going to ignore it anyway, as they do right now.

pokertalk

ok not 100 but must pass all tests and show sufficent evidence that the dog is properly trained to a certain standard

pokertalk

Shanao wrote: »

Well that recall one would instantly disqualify most spitz-type owners then as you can never guarantee that they will always come back. We would be better with everyone being required to go to training classes (you need them for driving a car after all!!) with their dog and have proof that they have gone. But either way, its the irresponsible people who are just going to ignore it anyway, as they do right now.

large fines are needed then

are you serious

Large fines would be great in theory but as has previously been stated, if the dog wardens dont know what dog they are looking at how will they prove and therefore be able to issue any sort of fine to anybody.Prime example today I for

Prime example for the second time in about 2months I got asked today what type of dog was my rottie.. Both times same person he just doesnt know his dogs at all... Even though he was walking his own dog, nice fella just needs more educating!

pokertalk

garkane wrote: »

Large fines would be great in theory but as has previously been stated, if the dog wardens dont know what dog they are looking at how will they prove and therefore be able to issue any sort of fine to anybody.Prime example today I for

Prime example for the second time in about 2months I got asked today what type of dog was my rottie.. Both times same person he just doesnt know his dogs at all... Even though he was walking his own dog, nice fella just needs more educating!

yes but a warden knows a dog from a hamster:) i said all breeds as in every dog should hold this cert not just rb s

EGAR

My local dogwarden (retired now) sent out a litter of *Pit Bulls* to me. What arrived was a litter of black and tan GSD. A pound sent me a Pit Bull puppy, what arrived was a tiny 2-3 yro Whippet Lurcher, another pound sent me a Boxer, what arrived was a Mastiff. The list is endless...

And one DW told me that one of my dogs had a heart problem because his tongue was blue. When I pointed out that the dog was a Chow Chow cross he said and I quote: *A what, love?*.

pokertalk

the whole idea if my ehhh idea is that each dog will be assesed as an individual

are you serious

pokertalk wrote: »

the whole idea if my ehhh idea is that each dog will be assesed as an individual

I honestly think everyone who has ever commented on any of these post not only this one would whole heartedly agree with your "ehh idea" , but in reality is there much that we could do? *sigh*

pokertalk

i know my ehhhhhh idea would prob never happen but its something like that ,that needs to be done the alternative is to just have every dog out there muzzeled and on a lead and nobody wants that:mad:
otherwise lets just carry on with the rb list which makes less sense than my idea

faw1tytowers

A dalmation attacked my staffie and in my attempt to seperate the dog i got bit by the dalmation.... punctured a vein on my ankle and was on crutches for a week. The dalmation was a family dog for years one I know well and my own dog didnt even see the attack come. She since fears larger dogs.

I don't know why the dalmation attacked, but I still love ALL dogs. Personally I would be more scared of a barky chihuahua than a bull breed.

Why do humans snap and attack?

People should not be so small minded.

Discodog

There are two ways that the restricted breed & licensing legislation could go. We could go for total bans as the UK did years ago. Or we could introduce proper ownership & responsibility law for all breeds that the UK are now considering to replace the bans that didn't work.

In reality there is no great public clamour for any legislation as was born out by the fact that it was not & has never been an election issue. In reality, taking into account the emphasis on economic policies, it could be another 20 years (or more) before we change the law.
However if there were a couple of serious or fatal incidents involving restricted breeds then we would probably get a ban.

The worrying thing is that our ignorant legislators will not take the time to properly research the problem. As a result Ireland will continue it's time honoured approach that the dog is at fault & has to be punished. This was the belief in medieval times !.

minkynuts

I am a pedigree dog photographer, and have been one for the past 30 years, I have photographed all recognized breeds of dog at least 3 times. and travelled
to all of the countries of origin to do my work for books, calendars magazines and in all of that time I have only once been bitten bad enough to have to go to hospital and that was a chihuahua. I was laying on the ground photography another when this little sod raced out of the bushes and bit me in the arm .

Rob

Discodog

minkynuts wrote: »

I am a pedigree dog photographer

Gosh how do you hold the camera .

Did you do any shoots for the notorious Ash calendar ?.

I would always rather deal with a big dog that a little one.

On reflection I also think that there is a problem in that many people don't have the slightest clue about dogs. So they don't understand the dog's reaction to them & realise that it is linked to how they react to the dog.

It is amazing that with so many dogs & such a long history, that it hasn't become part of everyone's education. After all you are going to meet dogs whether you want to or not. Recent studies have suggested that we could dramatically reduce the number of dog bites by educating children.
In a recent study many children, when shown a photo of a snarling dog, thought that it was smiling :eek:.

We shouldn't criticise the OP for expressing a view that is mistakenly held by a lot of people.

arybvtcw0eolkf

zenno wrote: »

when it comes to staffie's 2 legs are good but 4 legs are bad. my friend has a staffordshire bull terrior and it is a very powerfull modra it licks people to death and only want's a rub but these dog's have serious affection to humans but unfortunately they can and will attack other dogs to the death. beautiful creatures but the owner needs to have intelligence and mussle this breed when close to other dogs only as I said they have serious affection towards humans.

Its hard to decypher that post so I'll just deal with the last line.

I've numerous photos of my dogs on this forum, almost without exception out doors, and you'll never see a muzzle on them - never.

I tried when the older dog was a younger, but I got sick to death of JRT's and Yorkies attacking him, or people crossing the road because he looked savage in the muzzle.

With or without the muzzle my younger dog, Ruby (avatar & sig) would crap herself if she was attacked by anything.

Kadongy

I had a mongrel growing up. She was a cross between a jack russel, a labrador and a bull terrier or similar I think. She was treated well.

She never ever displayed any aggression towards humans, even if provoked. However she would attack other dogs randomly. She was strong and squat and pretty fierce. One day we came home to find her covered in blood, and the other dog (a border collie/spaniel cross) had been badly savaged - probably would have died I think if not given vetinary attention.

I worked in an animal shelter also. There was a bulldog there that was gentle to the point fof soppiness towards humans, and I am not aware of any bad treatment he suffered. He was unable to live with another pet though - He killed a greyhound.

So I dont know if there are breeds that are dangerous towards humans. Most dog's traits are bred in by humans, and attacking people for no reason is not really a desirable trait. I do know that some dogs are genetically wired to be dangerous to other dogs or other animals though.

edit: Well the first dog would attack semi-randomly, rather than randomly. With the exception of the other pet, she would attack larger dogs only. She might have went for (or tried to) every labrador she ever saw. I remember her going for an alsatian. She would allow dogs smaller than her to harrass her and not show aggression on the other hand.
When she was going to attack a dog, she would go very quiet and still and lie down and focus on them. It was like a lioness stalking prey kinda. If you didn't hold her then, she would go from that to darting toward them. She meant business - beware the dog with no bark etc.

Discodog

Roselyn Huge Suburbanite wrote: »

I've numerous photos of my dogs on this forum, almost without exception out doors, and you'll never see a muzzle on them - never.
.

If I owned a RB I too would refuse to muzzle it. All a muzzle does is perpetuate the myth. No one asked President Roosevelt to muzzle his Pit Bull.

For over 30 years the most famous dog charecter in Hollywood films & TV was Rin Tin Tin. He "saved" dozens of children & was adored by all. He was a German Shepherd so they could not do a remake here as he would have to wear a muzzle !.

koneko

Frustrating thread is frustrating.
I have a GSD and love her to bits. Breaks my heart that people will do a circle around her or assume she's so somehow prone to be a vicious animal. Anyone that knows the breed will walk right up to her and get showered in doggy kisses. They're used as guide dogs and search and rescue dogs for frack sake

Wisco

The reality is that most people, including many dog owners, are terrible at reading doggy body language, and this results in bites. Many 'unprovoked' bites could be seen a mile away by someone who's good at reading a dog's posture and body language and are the result of a person being totally unaware that the dog is frightened/annoyed/terrified.
Bringing in any new licensing will not help either, as the current license scheme is not enforced, nor is there any money or facilities to improve things in that regard, at least not as far as I can see.
Sadly, the 'restricted breed' and 'unprovoked bite' issues are ones which we will not see the end of anytime soon. At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, there are idiots everywhere, and unfortunately many of them own dogs and other pets, even though they're probably not fit to look after a houseplant.

Discodog

Wisco wrote: »

nor is there any money or facilities to improve things in that regard, at least not as far as I can see.

There could be money if the enforcement was privatised.

caseyann

All dogs are potentially viscous.And all animals of all types should be treated with proper care and respect by their owners.
But no matter how safe you think your dog is with you and has always been,you have no right to assume that the dog is not ever going to bite someone.As you can not read the dogs mind.Could be a pulled muscle or a tooth ache and the dog could rip shreds out of someone by pure accident.
I was brought up to love our dogs but never to assume they arent capable of an attack on another dog or on a person.
If i see unmuzzled gsd or pit bull or any form of large dog off lead and running around i will always remain cautious and not enter their space.
I do believe though you can feel and see body language from a dog.

It is wrong that people take that chance with dogs as they do not know what their dog is capable of,and it takes a split second for it to go horribly wrong.Anyone who assumes their dog has not got potential to bite are bad owners.
If on lead and under control no big deal not having a muzzle,if off lead then they should be muzzled.

Why own them?
Well thats easy if you are a dog lover and treat your dog with the respect and care that they should be given,and respect people who are not comfortable with dogs.Then they are beautiful dogs to own and bring just as much love and companionship as any other pet.

caseyann

koneko wrote: »

Frustrating thread is frustrating.
I have a GSD and love her to bits. Breaks my heart that people will do a circle around her or assume she's so somehow prone to be a vicious animal. Anyone that knows the breed will walk right up to her and get showered in doggy kisses. They're used as guide dogs and search and rescue dogs for frack sake :/

Those dogs are picked from young age by temperament and ability.And given a training schedule and some make it and others dont.Saying they are used for that is silly thing to say,they are trained as guard dogs and police dogs to take down people aswell.
Breaks my heart that people assume that other people are not afraid of those dogs and you should respect their fears.

Discodog

caseyann wrote: »

All dogs are potentially viscous.

And the vast majority of dogs will never bite someone. You cannot let a million to one chance affect how you look after a dog. If the dog is properly trained, socialised & under reasonable control then you have done everything that is needed.

You could argue that every human has the potential to be a killer or a child abuser so you can't leave them with children. In reality we have to balance probabilities.

Ten of thousands of GSD's are kept as pets all over the world. Few have been selected or specially trained but become wonderfully loyal, dependable family pets. The same applies to Dobermans, Bull Breeds etc.

The law needs to focus on irresponsible owners rather than putting more unnecessary controls on the rest.

caseyann

Discodog wrote: »

And the vast majority of dogs will never bite someone. You cannot let a million to one chance affect how you look after a dog. If the dog is properly trained, socialised & under reasonable control then you have done everything that is needed.

You could argue that every human has the potential to be a killer or a child abuser so you can't leave them with children. In reality we have to balance probabilities.

Ten of thousands of GSD's are kept as pets all over the world. Few have been selected or specially trained but become wonderfully loyal, dependable family pets. The same applies to Dobermans, Bull Breeds etc.

The law needs to focus on irresponsible owners rather than putting more unnecessary controls on the rest.

Those laws are put on the everyone as they can not go around to every house and pick out who is responsible owner and who is not.

I couldn't argue that, as not every human is capable of abusing kids or rape.
Capable of killing someone yes all humans are capable of that.
If you are assuming your dog is not a potential for biting someone then you are a bad owner.All dogs all animals have a chance of biting,even if they never do still always possibility they could and thats how they should be treated with respect.

Discodog

caseyann wrote: »

Those laws are put on the everyone as they can not go around to every house and pick out who is responsible owner and who is not.

They don't need to. It is extremely easy to spot irresponsible owners. The laws exist to raise revenue & to control the number of dogs roaming the streets. It operates by killing the dogs & not punishing the owners.

caseyann wrote: »

Capable of killing someone yes all humans are capable of that.

Yes but we don't make law on the basis that this is likely to happen otherwise our streets would be full of armed police.

EGAR

caseyann wrote: »

All dogs are potentially viscous.

Ahhh . *Vicious* is not a word I would use in connection with dogs. Vicious means:

1. Deliberately cruel or violent.
2. (of an animal) Wild and dangerous to people

The only creature truly capable of viciousness is Man.

The Sweeper

caseyann wrote: »

Could be a pulled muscle or a tooth ache and the dog could rip shreds out of someone by pure accident.

I don't agree with this at all. A sore or otherwise distressed dog may snap at a person or deliver a single bite. It would take a sustained attack to 'rip shreds out of someone'. A dog needs to be seriously in drive to deliver a sustained, multi-bite attack.

If you have a dog capable of the level of drive required to deliver a sustained attack, I really cannot believe you won't have seen that tendency in the dog before the attack happens. (Though I do realise that many people who own dogs that are potentially dangerous, regardless of their breed, may not recognise that high drive tendency for what it is.)

Oranage2

There's a lot of 'scumbags' out there with pits and stafs that are well trained and social- there are also a lot of lovely people with non-restricted dogs that are animal aggressive -

Problem is the owners - and if you know your dog is vicious then you should muzzle and leash it and this goes towards the small terriers too.

Without doubt a JRT or a westie being walked by a lovely lady will start savaging my dog and when i kick their dog off mine they look at me like im the scumbag - I've a Springer spaniel.

Though nothing puts me more on edge when i see some scummer with a pit, but so far nothing has happened!

The Sweeper

You also need to be aware of the limitations of your dog. My bull arab X looks a little intimidating. However he is a sweet natured dog. (He lives with six cats.)

Saying that, I wouldn't trust him with smallies - maltese, JRT, CKC type dogs. My dog is best running with dogs the same size as him or larger, because he can be boisterous. He plays with a boxer bitch who's extremely full on and their play is REALLY physical - wrestling and throwing themselves around.

However, on a leash I'm happy to not muzzle my dog, because (a) he's not proven dog-aggressive (never been in a fight), and (b) he's leashed and I have no intention of letting him off that leash and I change direction if I see someone with a small dog because I don't want Gus going bananas and starting in on the wee dog. I also talk to owners from a distance, and ask them to call their dog away. I explain my guy is "boisterous and a bit full on", not "going to eat your dog".

Usually people are reasonable. Usually.

koneko

caseyann wrote: »

Those dogs are picked from young age by temperament and ability.And given a training schedule and some make it and others dont.Saying they are used for that is silly thing to say,they are trained as guard dogs and police dogs to take down people aswell.
Breaks my heart that people assume that other people are not afraid of those dogs and you should respect their fears.

Give it a rest, you know exactly what I'm saying. If the breed is automatically vicious and dangerous, they wouldn't be used in these situations. Stop trying to pick holes in people's posts to fit your own end.

Discodog

Oranage2 wrote: »

if you know your dog is vicious then you should muzzle and leash it

If you know that your dogs has aggressive tendencies you should train & rehabilitate it. If necessary call in a specialist trainer. This should be a legal requirement.

Muzzling may protect other dogs/humans when you are out but it won't protect when you are at home. So a muzzle is not a long term solution.

Whispered

The Sweeper wrote: »

Saying that, I wouldn't trust him with smallies - maltese, JRT, CKC type dogs. My dog is best running with dogs the same size as him or larger, because he can be boisterous. He plays with a boxer bitch who's extremely full on and their play is REALLY physical - wrestling and throwing themselves around.

My Harley is like that, not a bad bone in his body, just a few stupid ones He thinks every dog is his best friend and every dog is happy to play rough. Because of this I won't let him off lead around much smaller dogs.

He's a submissive player at times - he'll run over, knock into the other dog, then lie on his back wiggling. But when he gets excited, it's just a bit much for most smaller and some bigger dogs. He has been termed "impolite" by one or two people.

Sid_Justice

If there is no such thing as a vicious breed or dangerous breed are people saying breed associated temperament is nonsense? I just read the post about the UCD vet study and it's got a number of flaws. Especially the bit in bold, "common dogs bite more commonly than rarer dogs"? Well isn't that just a piece of genius and insight? Dogs that are more common than other breeds by a factor of 10 (retrievers, small terriers, collies and their crosses) then others... no sh1t sherlock.

I absolutely take the point that training, rearing and adequate socialising are the most important contributors to the behaviour of the individual animal. But let's not pretend that a nip from a jack russel (which may indeed cause a a&e visit, blood tests, shots and plenty of stress and worry) is not going to kill you. Being attacked by any of the 25+kg dogs with jaws bigger than your arm could be deadly, especially to small people.

I think anyone who lives near 'rough areas' will know of the trend of young people with hands down their pants and pants tucked into their socks walking around with dogs with the physical capability of mauling other dogs and people to death. I don't trust them with this responsibility (as offensive, politically incorrect and snobby/prejudice this may be to judge all teenagers like this). These breeds, their crosses and their mimics should be muzzled at all times, never off the lease in public area and euthanised immediately after any violence. I also approve of the phasing out of restricted breeds in council properties and in the meantime encouraging micro-chipping, neutering and spaying.

There is no right to own a dog it's a privilege and if you don't want to obey the rules of the land on the topic tough sh1t.

Bullseye1

Discodog wrote: »

If you know that your dogs has aggressive tendencies you should train & rehabilitate it. If necessary call in a specialist trainer. This should be a legal requirement.

Muzzling may protect other dogs/humans when you are out but it won't protect when you are at home. So a muzzle is not a long term solution.

It does keep your dog out of possible trouble so until your satisfied it won't be a problem better to air on the side of precaution.

Frecklefart90

The thing that annoys me is when im out walking my boxer (8 months) people will pull their little yorkies etc closer in to them. Layla is the friendliest dog ive ever seen, she is also very curious about EVERYTHING, she is a boxer pup, there is no way to change that. The disgust that some older people(women) look at her makes my blood boil. We were out walking her the other night and a couple crossed the road to avoid us, its ridiculous.

A few weeks back we had her up at the Shannon Estuary like always, a woman appeared with her 2 mongrels. One of them kept walking but one wanted to play with Layla so we let them run around the field we were in. The little fúcker jumped up and latched onto Laylas face and wouldnt let go, the woman tried to pass it off as if they were just playing. Im sorry but blood coming from my dogs face isnt a result of playing.

And this is a boxer, i can only imagine the reaction people with Staffies etc get.

Bullseye1

I agree with alot of what you have written. Now subtract the word dog and replace with child and you see a much bigger problem in this country. Parents who are incapable or unwilling to bring up their kids properly. This is the much bigger problem Ireland as a society has.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

If there is no such thing as a vicious breed or dangerous breed are people saying breed associated temperament is nonsense? I just read the post about the UCD vet study and it's got a number of flaws. Especially the bit in bold, "common dogs bite more commonly than rarer dogs"? Well isn't that just a piece of genius and insight? Dogs that are more common than other breeds by a factor of 10 (retrievers, small terriers, collies and their crosses) then others... no sh1t sherlock.

I absolutely take the point that training, rearing and adequate socialising are the most important contributors to the behaviour of the individual animal. But let's not pretend that a nip from a jack russel (which may indeed cause a a&e visit, blood tests, shots and plenty of stress and worry) is not going to kill you. Being attacked by any of the 25+kg dogs with jaws bigger than your arm could be deadly, especially to small people.

I think anyone who lives near 'rough areas' will know of the trend of young people with hands down their pants and pants tucked into their socks walking around with dogs with the physical capability of mauling other dogs and people to death. I don't trust them with this responsibility (as offensive, politically incorrect and snobby/prejudice this may be to judge all teenagers like this). These breeds, their crosses and their mimics should be muzzled at all times, never off the lease in public area and euthanised immediately after any violence. I also approve of the phasing out of restricted breeds in council properties and in the meantime encouraging micro-chipping, neutering and spaying.

There is no right to own a dog it's a privilege and if you don't want to obey the rules of the land on the topic tough sh1t.

Discodog

Sid_Justice wrote: »

These breeds, their crosses and their mimics should be muzzled at all times, never off the lease in public area and euthanised immediately after any violence

You screen name doesn't offer much justice for the dog. The owner should have to surrender the dog & then pay for all the assessment, retraining, & kennelling costs. The dog should only be put down if, in the view of experts, there is no other option.

Killing the dog just allows the owner to go & get another one. Anyone who promotes aggression in a dog should be treated as if they were in possession of a weapon.

Discodog

Frecklefart90 wrote: »

And this is a boxer, i can only imagine the reaction people with Staffies etc get.

I have had four Boxers & they are the most misunderstood dogs on the planet. "Is that a Bulldog ?" :mad:

Discodog

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Parents who are incapable or unwilling to bring up their kids properly. This is the much bigger problem Ireland as a society has.

If a young child commits a crime we don't imprison it. We accept that it is too young to understand the consequences of it's actions & is influenced by it's upbringing.

A typical dog has the "intellect" of a two year old. Yet we blame the dog.

Frecklefart90

Discodog wrote: »

I have had four Boxers & they are the most misunderstood dogs on the planet. "Is that a Bulldog ?" :mad:

I got that the other night, hopefully when she is fully grown people will cop the fúck on when they see her.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

You screen name doesn't offer much justice for the dog. The owner should have to surrender the dog & then pay for all the assessment, retraining, & kennelling costs.The dog should only be put down if, in the view of experts, there is no other option.

Ah cmon now Discodog.If one of my kids were savaged Id want the dog put down immediately and not wait for an "assessment" from a so called expert.

Killing the dog just allows the owner to go & get another one.

If the law was doing its job that person should never be allowed to own another dog for the rest of their lives.

Anyone who promotes aggression in a dog should be treated as if they were in possession of a weapon.

Exactly and the penalty should be the same for carrying a knife/gun/mace etc.And if that dog attacks someone it should be either a charge of grevious bodily harm or even attempted murder.The law is at fault in cases like this.

caseyann

The Sweeper wrote: »

I don't agree with this at all. A sore or otherwise distressed dog may snap at a person or deliver a single bite. It would take a sustained attack to 'rip shreds out of someone'. A dog needs to be seriously in drive to deliver a sustained, multi-bite attack.

If you have a dog capable of the level of drive required to deliver a sustained attack, I really cannot believe you won't have seen that tendency in the dog before the attack happens. (Though I do realise that many people who own dogs that are potentially dangerous, regardless of their breed, may not recognise that high drive tendency for what it is.)

You are mistaken!!!!
I have witnessed such a thing and the dog was in so much pain it lashed out at everything around it for mere panic.And never done it before in five years of life.;)

The Sweeper

So much pain? So you've gone from "a pulled muscle or a toothache" to 'so much pain'? There's a big difference.

From your first post, I took it that the dog would be in some hidden pain you couldn't see signs of, and you'd touch it and it'd go mental at you. I said I didn't agree with that, because if a dog is a bit sore from a pulled muscle, or a bit sort from a toothache, I think you'll usually get a warning and a snap or bite. I don't think a dog that's never shown a sign of aggression in its life will make a sustained attack - one where it comes at you again and again to 'rip you to shreds' even after you kick and push it away - just because it had a pulled muscle and you touched it.

If you're trying to lift the dog into your car to go to the vet after it's been hit by a car, or if it has something exceedingly painful like pancreatitis and you're trying to move it, bets are off.

I believe most dogs who are not by nature aggressive, if snapping at someone through pain or fear, are pushed to the 'final solution' and their first attempt will be a one-bite argument - an effort to get you to piss off. For a dog to come at you repeatedly it has to be off its bonce on adrenalin caused by pain, fear or fury.

If you're telling me you saw a dog with a simple muscle strain rip someone to shreds, I'd wonder if that dog really was as placid as you thought it was, or whether or not it was actually in far, far more pain than you realised.

getz

dammitjanet wrote: »

I witnessed a similar scene a while back at a street fair where a dog attacked a smaller dog and wouldn't let go. A garda was on the street and after a good 5 minutes (seemed a lot longer) got them seperated. It was awful and the owners were paniced, pulling at the dogs and yelling and crying which seemed to make the matter worse (i'm sure though, put in the same situation, i'd be paniced too).

Difference being the 2 dogs were not what are traditionally seen as vicious breeds. As others have said, it's the owners that make the dog.

It's awful that the only solution possible was to kick their own dog in the head, I can't imagine ever being driven to that myself. Poor dogs

there is a simple way to make a fighting breed of dog[ie staffie] let go of another dog,without kicking and punching it,and that information should have been passed on by the dogs breeders,to the new owner

caseyann

The Sweeper wrote: »

So much pain? So you've gone from "a pulled muscle or a toothache" to 'so much pain'? There's a big difference.

From your first post, I took it that the dog would be in some hidden pain you couldn't see signs of, and you'd touch it and it'd go mental at you. I said I didn't agree with that, because if a dog is a bit sore from a pulled muscle, or a bit sort from a toothache, I think you'll usually get a warning and a snap or bite. I don't think a dog that's never shown a sign of aggression in its life will make a sustained attack - one where it comes at you again and again to 'rip you to shreds' even after you kick and push it away - just because it had a pulled muscle and you touched it.

If you're trying to lift the dog into your car to go to the vet after it's been hit by a car, or if it has something exceedingly painful like pancreatitis and you're trying to move it, bets are off.

I believe most dogs who are not by nature aggressive, if snapping at someone through pain or fear, are pushed to the 'final solution' and their first attempt will be a one-bite argument - an effort to get you to piss off. For a dog to come at you repeatedly it has to be off its bonce on adrenalin caused by pain, fear or fury.

If you're telling me you saw a dog with a simple muscle strain rip someone to shreds, I'd wonder if that dog really was as placid as you thought it was, or whether or not it was actually in far, far more pain than you realised.

It was a pulled muscle :rolleyes: ever had a pulled muscle?

EGAR

I think a lot of ignorance is still rampant when it comes to dogs and animals in general. Anthropomorphism is often at the root of it all. How often have I heard comments like *He should have known better*, *He should be grateful that I took him in*, *He nearly talks to you* etc?

Regardless of how WE feel and think, we CANNOT apply the same to dogs.

Dogs are subject to different influences than we are inasmuch as they are opportunistic scavengers by nature. They are not little furry humans on four legs. They are animals and as such do not know right from wrong as we perceive it.

The times I have been bitten (apart from the full on attack by the Yellow Lab I had taken in as a *stray*) were done by dogs in extreme distress, ie RTA's, breaking up a dogfight, pain/fear induced "aggression" at the vets.

It seems that common sense is not that common anymore if it ever was.

A dog is a dog is a dog, it is not a child substitute, it is not a weapon and above all it is NOT human.

getz

Discodog wrote: »

I have had four Boxers & they are the most misunderstood dogs on the planet. "Is that a Bulldog ?" :mad:

i would take that as a complement,bullies are among the most gentle dogs about,despite their looks,i am now on my third,and over 35 years i have also had two staffies.

ISDW

getz wrote: »

there is a simple way to make a fighting breed of dog[ie staffie] let go of another dog,without kicking and punching it,and that information should have been passed on by the dogs breeders,to the new owner

It would be very useful if you could post here what it is, could be helpful to people.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Ah cmon now Discodog.If one of my kids were savaged Id want the dog put down immediately and not wait for an "assessment" from a so called expert.

My reply was in response to the following:

Sid_Justice wrote: »

and euthanised immediately after any violence.

That's not the same as savaging your kids.

If you kill the dog you never get to find out why it bit so you learn nothing. It's too easy to assume that it was "bad" dog & then go out & get another one without discovering what the owner did to make it bite.

getz wrote: »

i would take that as a complement,bullies are among the most gentle dogs about,despite their looks,i am now on my third,and over 35 years i have also had two staffies.

I agree but you know the problem where ignorant people take one look & assume the worst.