# Seems it was a Pit Bull



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

BBC News - Illegal pit bull in Daventry attacked and killed baby girl

Not sure if they did any tests it does not say much just an update I think of the dog that killed the baby


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Oh dear. So sad any child was killed by any dog.....I hope the facts were correct though.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

So it was bull breed or crossbreed of some description that fitted a set of measurements....... dont get me wrong no place in society for dog like this but imo breed is irrelavent


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

BBC News - Illegal pit bull in Daventry attacked and killed baby girl

update


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> So it was bull breed or crossbreed of some description that fitted a set of measurements....... dont get me wrong no place in society for dog like this but imo breed is irrelavent


still...some are more suitable for family life- how many pugs killed babies or mauled anyone for that matter?
As I mention- my brother has an amstaff -they are legal over there (same logic ) and the dog went for my boy - who was just talking loud and making some gestures - not even near the dog..the dog came after the child...was stopped mid air =when he jumped!!

some breeds are bred to guard and are much easier to upset, to trigger...so more dangerous -plus their powerful jaws and sheer strength!

Tea cup yorkie will not kill you -even if gets annoyed with you...

So I put blame on those who allowed that dog near the child...


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

Still not sure how this would offer any measure of comfort to the family to know the breed?


----------



## evel-lin (Jul 1, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Still not sure how this would offer any measure of comfort to the family to know the breed?


It's not about the family though is it, it's so the media can shake their heads and say "look here's more proof that pitbulls are evil" and people can tell themselves that they are safe because they have a different breed of dog


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

It's hardly relevant now is it? 

A well bred PB should absolutely never show aggression towards humans.
Trouble is, BSL and their undeserved reputation has driven them into the hands of idiots, fighters and BYBs. 

I wonder also, if people are afraid to socialise them properly.

Very sad all round and another nail in the coffin of probably the most abused dog breed on the planet


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

evel-lin said:


> It's not about the family though is it, it's so the media can shake their heads and say "look here's more proof that pitbulls are evil" and *people can tell themselves that they are safe because they have a different breed of dog*


That's the biggest piece that worries me. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had that go something like this:
Me: hey, letting your kid do ___ to the dog is probably not the safest thing. Dog owner: oh it's okay Fido is ___ breed and everyone knows they're great with kids.

Deed not breed is more than just a bully-breed defense mantra. Nothing about BSL keeps kids safe, and in more ways than one it results in the exact opposite. Kids being put in harms way because the dog isn't a ___ so it's okay.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am sure that I read that the dog had been reported and nothing had been done - so we are back to the law as it stands being ignored rather than upheld. If the dog had been removed before it killed a child then the tragedy would have been averted.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> still...some are more suitable for family life- how many pugs killed babies or mauled anyone for that matter?
> As I mention- my brother has an amstaff -they are legal over there (same logic ) and the dog went for my boy - who was just talking loud and making some gestures - not even near the dog..the dog came after the child...was stopped mid air =when he jumped!!
> 
> some breeds are bred to guard and are much easier to upset, to trigger...so more dangerous -plus their powerful jaws and sheer strength!
> ...


Awesome, lets just ban anything bigger than a teacup dog shall we? What about cats? There used to be a belief that they stole babies breath.... as it goes pit bulls are actually bred ( if bred well) to be human friendly, so like I said this was probably just some cross breed who happened to fit a set of measurements. Pit bull in this country isnt even a breed, and like I said that dog has no place in society, regardless of breed.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The only reason the breed is relevant is that the tabloids can whip up more hysteria over bull breeds . A dead baby is a horrible tragedy whatever breed was involved.

Pekingeses were used as personal attack dogs Scrip, plan on banning them anytime soon . And pitbulls were never guard dogs, fighting dogs yes but dog aggression doesn't equal human aggression


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

They had two dogs that were reported in May for barking according to bbc news.

BBC News - Daventry dog attack: Neighbour complained about barking


----------



## evel-lin (Jul 1, 2010)

ouesi said:


> That's the biggest piece that worries me. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had that go something like this:
> Me: hey, letting your kid do ___ to the dog is probably not the safest thing. Dog owner: oh it's okay Fido is ___ breed and everyone knows they're great with kids.


Exactly  I think some people think that animals are just moving cuddly toys. My kids have been reared with hamsters and cats (hoping to get our first dog next year) and we've always tried to teach them about how to behave around an animal and pointing out that an animal has teeth/claws to defend itself and they need to be gentle.

Some of the videos on fbook/youtube where children are right in the dog's face when it's clearly unhappy are horrifying, especially when the adults are laughing


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> still...some are more suitable for family life- how many pugs killed babies or mauled anyone for that matter?
> As I mention- my brother has an amstaff -they are legal over there (same logic ) and the dog went for my boy - who was just talking loud and making some gestures - not even near the dog..the dog came after the child...was stopped mid air =when he jumped!!
> 
> some breeds are bred to guard and are much easier to upset, to trigger...so more dangerous -plus their powerful jaws and sheer strength!
> ...


Maybe not through force or strength, but if it bit you in the wrong place it could.
I think that's one of the biggest problems in the dog world, the assumption that certain breeds are totally safe and no harm will come to you in their presence. 
Even more disturbing when other dog owners believe it.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Given that some of the breeds responsible for child fatalities have included jack russells, dachshunds and a Pomeranian I think Cheekyscrip is totally wrong on that count!


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

News said it was a banned breed, but the 2 dogs were reported a while ago as people said they were fighting sounded to be killing each other
I wonder where the other dog is now? doesnt say they were the same breed, but the neighbours said they looked the same


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I am sure that I read that the dog had been reported and nothing had been done - so we are back to the law as it stands being ignored rather than upheld. If the dog had been removed before it killed a child then the tragedy would have been averted.


The only things I've read have concerned one report to the local council of noise nuisance, which is completely different to owning a dangerous dog so wouldn't have changed the outcome of this tragedy one iota.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I have a yorkie and I did a search on it. There has been one recorded death by a yorkie in America since the 70s. I can't find any more information on it. I stopped looking as there were loads of reports of yorkies being killed by other dogs or people. I do still think that all dogs can injure and despite her size she is muzzled at the vets just in case.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

Of course the size of the dog makes a difference in the potential damage a dog can do. But the majority of dogs  mutts and purebreds are of a size that can do significant damage. Staffies and pitbulls are medium sized dogs, smaller than labs. Most of the popular family breeds are medium to large sized. So most of the dogs who fall in this category can (and do) cause significant damage.

And size is not the only factor that goes in to the kind of damage a dog will do. Ive used this example before, but if my child has to be bitten, I would much rather it be by my great dane who I know has excellent bite inhibition than by an unknown smaller dog whos bite inhibition is unknown. 

The other issue with the "small dogs cant do damage" line of thought is that it feeds in to a mentality that overlooks unacceptable behavior from small dogs, instead of attending to it and dealing with it responsibly.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> Northamptonshire Police said they had drawn on national expertise in the area of dangerous dogs in its investigation.


Yet no group of experts in relation to dogs support the idea of breed bans. Says a lot I think. Targetting breeds and using them as a scapegoat for failings elsewhere does nothing to improve public safety.


----------



## 8tansox (Jan 29, 2010)

"I'd just like to remind you that more parents are responsible for childrens' deaths than ANY breed of dog." 

This is my stock answer when I'm bombarded with numpties comments about my Rottweilers....That shut most of the ignorant twerps up. I have to say though, it does us dog owners no favours at all when a dog kills a child, but once again, the rest of us law abiding citizens pay the huge price. I'm ready for the tirade of abuse in the coming weeks....


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

The other dog was given back to the owner so it says on the news


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

My cat is the same size as my dog. Due to behavioural issues I know exactly how much damage a cat can do to someone - she may not kill me, but she can certainly hurt me significantly. So whilst I haven't experienced it, I'm under no illusions that my dog couldn't seriously hurt someone too, even if she is only 5kg.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Personally I think the breed is relevant. Not because it was a bull breed but because it was an illegally owned banned breed.
I just wouldnt trust somebodies dog owning 'skills' who couldnt obey basic laws (its why I dont trust dogs that are off lead on roads no matter how well behaved the owners say they are).


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> Personally I think the breed is relevant. Not because it was a bull breed but because it was an illegally owned banned breed.
> I just wouldnt trust somebodies dog owning 'skills' who couldnt obey basic laws (its why I dont trust dogs that are off lead on roads no matter how well behaved the owners say they are).


The problem with that is an illegal dog is one who an "expert" has decided matches a very loose set of criteria. They may not have known it was a "pitbull"


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> Personally I think the breed is relevant. Not because it was a bull breed but because it was an illegally owned banned breed.
> I just wouldnt trust somebodies dog owning 'skills' who couldnt obey basic laws (its why I dont trust dogs that are off lead on roads no matter how well behaved the owners say they are).


Thing is the they say it was a pitbull. How was this determined? Did they have a pedigree certificate? It's not about breeds but "type" and you have an easy example of a police sniffer dog being found to be "of type". In otherwords according to the logic used, a pitbull. Now if the police can't always get it right how can we expect owners to always get it right?

Saying that I can appreciate what you are saying. You do get those idiots who do get a dog wanting it to be a pitbull as an extension of their image.

What is frightening however is the fact that the report is concentrating on the breed and only mentioning possible conditions and reasons for the attack which does nothing to help prevent additional attacks.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Been chatting to someone who knew the dog. Apparently it was actually a mongrel.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> Personally I think the breed is relevant. Not because it was a bull breed but because it was an illegally owned banned breed.
> I just wouldnt trust somebodies dog owning 'skills' who couldnt obey basic laws (its why I dont trust dogs that are off lead on roads no matter how well behaved the owners say they are).


The problem with your theory is it could have been a lab, staff, am bull, rottie x which are not banned but could well be deemed type,using the same set of criteria that this dog was assessed under. So erm no those owing cross breeds with more than a hint of bull breed should not all be tarred with the same brush.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

TBF I didnt mean mongrels, I meant Pitbulls!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> TBF I didnt mean mongrels, I meant Pitbulls!


No differentiation is made between the 2 in this country........ staff x = pitbull , lab x = pitbull ,ambull= pitbull, rottie x = pitbull


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Been chatting to someone who knew the dog. Apparently it was actually a mongrel.


Interesting. 
Somehow the press have got hold of the idea that it wasn't merely PB "type" (as they have done in the past) but are specifically calling it an American Pit Bull.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> TBF I didnt mean mongrels, I meant Pitbulls!


But a mongrel can fall under type, the law doesn't work on breeds but the dogs fitting a certain physical description. Even a great dane cross was put down under that law. Someone could adopt a staffy mix, or even have one chosen by the police as a sniffer dog, only to be told that they're a pitbull.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

Snoringbear said:


> Been chatting to someone who knew the dog. Apparently it was actually a mongrel.


Did the person who knew this dog have any other info? Like behavior-wise?
Knowing the breed doesnt give us any useful info, but knowing the dogs previous behavior might...


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Did the person who knew this dog have any other info? Like behavior-wise?
> Knowing the breed doesnt give us any useful info, but knowing the dogs previous behavior might...


Just said it was aggressive and unsocailised.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Just said it was aggressive and *unsocailised*.


That is no surprise and would seem to be the one common denominator in all these cases.
As tragic as this was and as much as I feel for the family, I can't help feeling that they have brought this on themselves. You'd think they'd learn, but they don't, they just blame the dog, never considering that is was their own lack of care that led to the dog becoming the unsocialised aggressor


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I feel sorry for the person that knew the dog. They knew it was aggressive and presumably knew it looked like a pit bull but did not report it. I think I would feel a lot of guilt in their shoes. Not saying I might not have done exactly the same thing because it is horrible reporting something like that but I would still feel the guilt now.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> No differentiation is made between the 2 in this country........ staff x = pitbull , lab x = pitbull ,ambull= pitbull, rottie x = pitbull


I always thought than anything crossed to a staffy that was bigger than a staffy was considered pitbull type.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Just said it was aggressive and unsocailised.


makes you wonder why anybody would want to keep a dog like this.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Did the person who knew this dog have any other info? Like behavior-wise?
> Knowing the breed doesnt give us any useful info, but knowing the dogs previous behavior might...


and....maybe the question is already answered but I haven't read all the thread...but, how long had this owner had the dog?


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

It all comes down to that all important tape measure. 

Say a staffie is bred to a slightly larger dog (eg a lab) and has 6 pups. Once they mature the pups will all look slightly different from eachother - some may measure up as type, be deemed "pit bulls" and destroyd, and the rest can be determined as regular legal crossbreeds. 

Frankly anyone who thinks you can determine how dangerous a dog is based on a tape measure needs their head checked imo!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> I always thought than anything crossed to a staffy that was bigger than a staffy was considered pitbull type.


Why? A boxer x lab could quite easily be deemed type by the daft tape measure, hence bsl does not work. If all staff x's are dangerous and banned then why not the staff itself, or even the lab it was crossed with makes no sense.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> TBF I didnt mean mongrels, I meant Pitbulls!


ahh but pitbulls are not a breed, they are a type which is why legislating them will never work


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> still...some are more suitable for family life- how many pugs killed babies or mauled anyone for that matter?
> As I mention- my brother has an amstaff -they are legal over there (same logic ) and the dog went for my boy - who was just talking loud and making some gestures - not even near the dog..the dog came after the child...was stopped mid air =when he jumped!!
> 
> some breeds are bred to guard and are much easier to upset, to trigger...so more dangerous -plus their powerful jaws and sheer strength!
> ...


Exactly! And if this_ was _ an illegal pit-bull, and wasn't registered, tattooed and neutered, then the owner of the dog (presumably the grandmother) should be prosecuted.

In addition she and the parents should face charges of negligence - all of these stupid people conspired to have a small baby in the house with an illegal animal, and didn't take enough care to ensure the child's safety.

It also seems that there had been complaints to the council about excessive barking - this suggests that the dogs were left for long periods and ignored. They were not really treated as most of us would treat our pets i.e. included in family activities and cuddled and played with. It may be that they were also poorly fed and had never been near a vet in their lives - who knows what was going on with them.

There is a huge difference between a pet dog, and a dog which just lives in the house - one is treated with love and is well-socialised, the other is just a commodity; one is likely to be properly trained, even if only to "No", "Sit" and "down"' the other has probably just been kicked and shouted into obedience.

(Having said that, I would not leave any dog and small child together unsupervised, and if the dog was too big to physically control, I would even be very careful about supervised access)

We have had no information about the physical health or condition of the dog, or how it had been kept. There is likely to be a lot more to this than meets the eye.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Exactly! And if this_ was _ an illegal pit-bull, and wasn't registered, tattooed and neutered, then the owner of the dog (presumably the grandmother) should be prosecuted.
> 
> In addition she and the parents should face charges of negligence - all of these stupid people conspired to have a small baby in the house with an illegal animal, and didn't take enough care to ensure the child's safety.
> 
> ...


Exactly..no information


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

evel-lin said:


> It's not about the family though is it, it's so the media can shake their heads and say *"look here's more proof that pitbulls are evil" and people can tell themselves that they are safe because they have a different breed of dog*


This is what worries me - there is an implication that other breeds are 100% safe - and they AREN'T. Any dog can bite. The thing that makes bull breeds and large breeds particularly dangerous is their sheer power.

Lack of healthy caution is dangerous in itself. It leads to complacency - and it is the children and dogs that suffer.

To me you wouldn't leave a three-year-old alone with a small baby - and a dog is about on the reasoning level of a two- to three-year old - but with very sharp teeth. For this reason alone you should never leave a baby with a dog.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I feel sorry for the person that knew the dog. They knew it was aggressive and presumably knew it looked like a pit bull but did not report it. * I think I would feel a lot of guilt in their shoes.* Not saying I might not have done exactly the same thing because it is horrible reporting something like that but I would still feel the guilt now.


I wouldn't! They were probably aware that the council was involved regarding the noise nuisance and left it to them.

If I reported every unsocialised dog I ever encountered I would be living at the police station.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Exactly..no information


They may not have known what 'type' the dog was (if it was a 'type'), but they should certainly have had more sense than to allow it access to a small baby.

If they were 'noisy players' as you suggest, that in itself suggests that they tended to over-exciteability - excited dogs can do a lot of damage even if they don't bite! they can knock over prams and cots and children, and tread on them or scratch them.

The woman who allowed this to happen should be prosecuted.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

On a slightly different track - was any information released about the 'pit-bull' (that transpired to be a malamute/husky - another much-maligned breed) which killed the 4-day old baby in Wales? There was a lot of missing information when that was reported, too, and I just wondered if any further details had been released.

Though if information has been released, and it doesn't confirm the journalistic stereotype of 'devil dog', it is unlikely to be widely reported.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

But that's it..it suggests nothing...A noisy dog does not a child killer make.

I agree that THIS dog should not have been allowed access to the child (hindsight is a wonderful thing), but to suggest that a noise complaint means the dog was not kept as a pet is a bit judgemental IMO.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lostbear said:


> On a slightly different track - was any information released about the 'pit-bull' (that transpired to be a malamute/husky - another much-maligned breed) which killed the 4-day old baby in Wales? There was a lot of missing information when that was reported, too, and I just wondered if any further details had been released.
> 
> Though if information has been released, and it doesn't confirm the journalistic stereotype of 'devil dog', it is unlikely to be widely reported.


That was a really odd story. A member on another forum said they knew the family well, and the dogs were nothing to do with the death of the kid..... Really odd, and never any other explanation given but also highlights that we should take what written in the daily rag with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Did the person who knew this dog have any other info? Like behavior-wise?
> Knowing the breed doesnt give us any useful info, but knowing the dogs previous behavior might...


This being the whole point! The dog was destroyed at the scene which doesn't allow for any investigation into why the dog behaved in such a manner.

Until we stop going on about breed and start looking at behaviour we are never going to get to the bottom of these cases. Perhaps if we did the general public might become more informed on how a dog should be raised.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I feel sorry for the person that knew the dog. They knew it was aggressive and presumably knew it looked like a pit bull but did not report it. I think I would feel a lot of guilt in their shoes. Not saying I might not have done exactly the same thing because it is horrible reporting something like that but I would still feel the guilt now.


They said it didn't look like an APBT.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

shirleystarr said:


> The other dog was given back to the owner so it says on the news


Oh thanks, i didnt hear that, just wondered


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> But that's it..it suggests nothing...A noisy dog does not a child killer make.
> 
> I agree that THIS dog should not have been allowed access to the child (hindsight is a wonderful thing), but t*o suggest that a noise complaint means the dog was not kept as a pet is a bit judgemental IMO.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> But that's it..it suggests nothing...A noisy dog does not a child killer make.
> 
> I agree that THIS dog should not have been allowed access to the child (hindsight is a wonderful thing), but t*o suggest that a noise complaint means the dog was not kept as a pet is a bit judgemental IMO.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> That was a really odd story. A member on another forum said they knew the family well, and* the dogs were nothing to do with the death of the kid*..... Really odd, and never any other explanation given but also highlights that we should take what written in the daily rag with a pinch of salt.


I wondered about that at the time - lots of rabbits flying off in all directions with the story as reported, but even at the time neighbours of the family said that they'd seen the dogs immediately after the incident, and that neither seemed excited (which you would expect if their adrenaline levels were raised by their prey drive) and neither had any blood on them.

And what new parents allow a dog (comparatively new to the home) to be anywhere near a 4 day old baby?

I'd love to know the SP on that incident. I've tried searching online but couldn't find anything - but I'm rubbish with technology.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> I wondered about that at the time - lots of rabbits flying off in all directions with the story as reported, but even at the time neighbours of the family said that they'd seen the dogs immediately after the incident, and that neither seemed excited (which you would expect if their adrenaline levels were raised by their prey drive) and neither had any blood on them.
> 
> And what new parents allow a dog (comparatively new to the home) to be anywhere near a 4 day old baby?
> 
> I'd love to know the SP on that incident. I've tried searching online but couldn't find anything - but I'm rubbish with technology.


Is this the case you mean? 
Baby died '&#39;'after being pulled from pram by family dog'&#39;' | Wales - ITV News


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Is this the case you mean?
> Baby died '&#39;'after being pulled from pram by family dog'&#39;' | Wales - ITV News


Yes - I think it is, thank you.

This report suggests to me that the dog picked the baby out of the pram (compression injury) and is a far cry from the "savaging" that the press reported. In this instance it does seem to have been an horrific accident, though - but further evidence of how we need to be very vigilant about any dog and any baby - no matter how short a time they are left together.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Picklelily said:


> This being the whole point! The dog was destroyed at the scene which doesn't allow for any investigation into why the dog behaved in such a manner.
> 
> Until we stop going on about breed and start looking at behaviour we are never going to get to the bottom of these cases. Perhaps if we did the general public might become more informed on how a dog should be raised.


Sadly that is the way the Authorities behave where Dogs are concerned. They did exactly the same thing with Excaliber in Spain, killed the Animal instead of testing Him to see if he had Ebola and if so how long he would be contagious to Humans if at all, for. Just destroy them instead and in doing so lose any hope of trying to understand why things happen the way they do. Pathetic isn't it?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Blitz said:


> I feel sorry for the person that knew the dog. They knew it was aggressive and presumably knew it looked like a pit bull but did not report it. I think I would feel a lot of guilt in their shoes. Not saying I might not have done exactly the same thing because it is horrible reporting something like that but I would still feel the guilt now.


An acquaintance has a dog who I have told her from day one is a liability. The dog had bitten several times - very minor damage, just slightly scraped skin, but the behavior around the bites I found really disconcerting, and I told her many, many times that the dog was dangerous. They brushed it off as he never really "hurt" anyone, I was overreacting, dogs bite... And I'm younger than them, they've always had dogs, what do I know right?
Long story short, that dog went on to do horrific, life-changing damage to a neighbor's arm. Would have killed an elderly person or child. (And no, not a pitbull or anything close to one, mix of two very furry breeds - deliberately bred.)
I really believe with some dogs, you just know. There is that gut feeling that this dog is just not right, and that dog - even as a young puppy, was just not *right*.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

These are the dogs we need to study. These are the dogs we need to figure out how to identify before they do damage, and study them, see what makes one of these dogs different than the dog who nips you when you cut the nail quick or you surprise him with a collar grab.



Lexiedhb said:


> Why? A boxer x lab could quite easily be deemed type by the daft tape measure, hence bsl does not work. If all staff x's are dangerous and banned then why not the staff itself, or even the lab it was crossed with makes no sense.


Yes, like colette said, if you're using a ruler and centimeters to determine what makes a dog dangerous, you need your head examined. 
Bates is a "dangerous" dog by the current UK standards. He's a mutt. He's a therapy dog, as tolerant as kids as you can get without being dead. Yet by UK standards he's not fit to be in a home, let alone in a home with kids. Yeah... okay...


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> Sadly that is the way the Authorities behave where Dogs are concerned. They did exactly the same thing with Excaliber in Spain, killed the Animal instead of testing Him to see if he had Ebola and if so how long he would be contagious to Humans if at all, for. Just destroy them instead and in doing so lose any hope of trying to understand why things happen the way they do. Pathetic isn't it?


The case of Excaliber just horrifies me on so many levels


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

Gemmaa said:


> *Maybe not through force or strength, but if it bit you in the wrong place it could.*
> I think that's one of the biggest problems in the dog world, the assumption that certain breeds are totally safe and no harm will come to you in their presence.
> Even more disturbing when other dog owners believe it.


This made me laugh! For some reasons it reminded me of something Baldrick from Blackadder would say.
I would preferred to be attacked by a small dog than by a large and powerful dog any time. With a small dog I have a better chance at defending myself.
Large dogs have bigger mouths and more powerful bites than small ones, coupled with body strength and it is a no brainer for me.
Having said this, no breed is totally safe but in the event of an attack some are safer than other because of their size.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

I have a question for all you guys who think that breed specific legislation and its enforcement is uncalled for, unfair, unjust and/or ineffective.

What do you believe is a productive, fair and sensible way forward?

What is an achievable way forward?

What concrete actions do you take to address and rectify this issue?

I'm asking this with an open heart and no agenda, without prejudice or sarcasm. Since I agree it is unfair - for instance, half the Staffies or Staff x I know are so sweet natured they don't even defend themselves, much less initiate a dispute with human or canine.

All the same, we are also have to address those who DO. And they exist, too. Saying "it's all so unfair" will accomplish nothing. Saying "education is the answer" is too vague and, as not mandatory, too uncertain and ill defined.

So what would be your proposal to protect both dogs and humans? Most of all, what SPECIFIC measures will protect vulnerable young children and frail elderly people.

Here is the link to Defra : https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs

The contact form is cited on that link. Your local Borough will have the contact details for your MP. If you truly care as much as you say you do, you state your thoughts where it counts and put your name and address behind it.

Otherwise, its just empty talk. After my last broohaha on PF I concluded that futile disputes don't benefit anyone or anything. Which is why I delved into the topic, read, researched and then sent my conclusion and proposal to DEFRA. Which did include enforcing and tightening legislation. Which did include compulsory vetting and schooling. And which did include implementing national educational programs such as the excellent "prevent-a-bite" campaign for kindergarten and primary school children which has been adopted in many countries around the world.

The sad irony is, the "prevent-a-bite" concept was developed by an English fellow. Yet, the best concept means nothing if people don't make use of it and disseminate it. ( e.g.
preventabite-schaffhausen ).Why don't we do likewise, how can we make it happen?

So what are YOU willing to do, what are YOU able to do to reduce the likelyhood and risk of us reading another story of a kid or person getting mauled or killed by next week or next month?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The only way to do is encourage education where to get a puppy and to get one from mentally sound parents and how to raise them. Teaching people especially children how to safely interact with dogs. Also showing the young penis extension idiots that they can do much more amazing things with their dogs, there are programmes in the US encouraging them into sports like weight pull and agility instead. 

All this information is already out there of course but people would rather use the internet to look at celeb gossip and pictures of cute cats :frown2:


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

It's a big question, probably with no one definitive answer. 

For bites and attacks in the home, then I don't see what else could be done other than educate tbh, or ban dogs from home with children under 10, which would be a tragedy IMHO. 

But I do think MUCH tighter restrictions on breeding and selling of animals are a must, and I think there is some case for a license, even if it's just to prove who the dog belongs to, that it exists and where it was from etc. 

And up the welfare requirements, it's not enough for a dog to have just food, water and shelter IMHO, they MUST be exercised, socialised and trained, especially if being bred from.

One thing I would like to see would be a prime time, BB1 series on REAL dog behaviour, presented by modern, qualified trainers. Something that will engage dog owners and try to kill some old wives tails once and for all. 

I could go on forever about this issue tbh, would be an interesting topic for a dissertation


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> The only way to do is encourage education where to get a puppy and to get one from mentally sound parents and how to raise them. Teaching people especially children how to safely interact with dogs. Also showing the young penis extension idiots that they can do much more amazing things with their dogs, there are programmes in the US encouraging them into sports like weight pull and agility instead.
> 
> All this information is already out there of course but people would rather use the internet to look at celeb gossip and pictures of cute cats :frown2:


But do you feel this education should be - as presently is - remain voluntary? Or should it become mandatory, i.e regulated and enforced via corresponding legislation?

And in either instance - why?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Personally I get tired of hearing suggestions along the lines of compulsory this, license that. None of those suggestions would make the slightest difference to these rare tragic instances that crop up from time to time. Its just yet more hoops for decent dog Owners to jump through.

There is no such thing as a 100% safe world and no amount of legislation will ever make it so. More kids are killed on Roads every year in this country that are killed by Dogs so I see no reason to introduce more legal restrictions of any kind.

What I think is necessary is for Government to *LISTEN* to experts instead of asking them for advice then ignoring them (casing point the Badger Culls). Then introduce public information ads and a campaign through the Royal College and in Vets surgeries, even in health centres advising people on keeping Kids safe around Dogs.

Its information people need in my opinion not more rules and regulations which some will flout anyway. Indeed the existing rules may already have been flouted in this tragic case and if so then a fat lot of good they did protecting this child!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I have a question for all you guys who think that breed specific legislation and its enforcement is uncalled for, unfair, unjust and/or ineffective.
> 
> What do you believe is a productive, fair and sensible way forward?
> 
> ...


I have no problem with ths dangerous dogs act, having a dog out of control, frightening others and being a nuscience is no fun for anyone, and should be reported and punished. I have a problem with singling out a type of dog, based on a few measurements and characteristics, and deeming all dogs who conform to be "dangerous" and thus muzzled and leashed for their life time, without ever having put a foot wrong...... thats bsl, and its total s*it. Any legislation should cover all dogs regardless of breed or back ground.

I do wonder if some sort of training could be put in place for those wishing to own a dog...... I mean no one rushes out and buys a horse without having spent time learning how to look after one, but plenty rush out and buy a pup.
whst can I do? Make sure I am a responsible owner, and keep myself, friends family and my dog safe, by educating them.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> Personally I get tired of hearing suggestions along the lines of compulsory this, license that. None of those suggestions would make the slightest difference to these rare tragic instances that crop up from time to time. Its just yet more hoops for decent dog Owners to jump through.
> 
> *There is no such thing as a 100% safe world and no amount of legislation will ever make it so. More kids are killed on Roads every year in this country that are killed by Dogs so I see no reason to introduce more legal restrictions of any kind.*
> 
> ...


You are right. There is no way to eliminate ALL danger.

But in your example - more kids die in road accidents than from dog bites - we took some steps, we enforced several measures, to MINIMISE and significatly REDUCE the risk of kids dying in car crashes.

Seatbelts, child seats, speed limits, etc. We didn't just say "kids die in car crashes - how sad". We DID something to reduce the risk.

But when it comes to fatal dog bite incidents - we are doing nothing. Other than saying afterwards how unfortunate and unfair towards some breeds it all is. Leaving the decent, diligent owners nowhere. Aside from with a stigma.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

You can't eliminate every risk, parents are a far greater risk to children than dogs statistically. But you can reduce them to a degree


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> None of those suggestions would make the slightest difference to these rare tragic instances that crop up from time to time.


The trouble is we will never know if education would have made a difference. We may guess it wouldn't ...but who knows. Some people need it spelled out.

Personally, I think with the variety and number of dogs now owned within the home, finding a way to educate is imperative.

I don't think it's enough to simply say 'accidents will happen'.



> But do you feel this education should be - as presently is - remain voluntary? Or should it become mandatory, i.e regulated and enforced via corresponding legislation?


At the moment we can only look to *encourage* dog owners to attend classes, read booklets, understand their dogs. And I think there is room for improvement even in this area anyway...many puppy classes do nothing more than teach a puppy simple commands and how to play. Many give little information to the owners. I think we maybe need to look at a dog curriculum that needs to be covered in classes for dogs of all ages detailing how to understand your dog and how to ensure he has a balanced life.

Would it ever be enough to be simply voluntary ...no probably not (so who would have learned the Highway Code to the degree they did if it wasn't mandatory?).

And I agree that licences are unweildly and unlikely to happen.

However, what could be introduced is something similar to that which is offered to drivers caught speeding ....a chance to attend a course on driving. And if I remember correctly, parents that have a parenting order against them have to attend a parenting course.

So how about those dog owners who have had complaints made against them or whose dogs are deemed as not receiving a good level of care being given a dog Asbo and required to attend a class?

This would not be breed specific ...it would be behaviour specific.

J


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> The trouble is we will never know if education would have made a difference. We may guess it wouldn't ...but who knows. Some people need it spelled out.
> 
> Personally, I think with the variety and number of dogs now owned within the home, finding a way to educate is imperative.
> 
> I don't think it's enough to simply say 'accidents will happen'.


I agree entire with the notion of Education but using a Stick to Educate people is not the way to do it. I think gentle reminders with Posters and Add campaigns on TV is the way forward.

How about less BBC time on those diabolical Party Political broadcasts and more time educating people about sensible ways to prevent these tragic occurrences instead? That is what I would like too see. The BBC is a public Broadcaster funded by the Licence payer after all.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> I have no problem with ths dangerous dogs act, having a dog out of control, frightening others and being a nuscience is no fun for anyone, and should be reported and punished. I have a problem with singling out a type of dog, based on a few measurements and characteristics, and deeming all dogs who conform to be "dangerous" and thus muzzled and leashed for their life time, without ever having put a foot wrong...... thats bsl, and its total s*it. Any legislation should cover all dogs regardless of breed or back ground.
> 
> I do wonder if some sort of training could be put in place for those wishing to own a dog...... *I mean no one rushes out and buys a horse without having spent time learning how to look after one*, but plenty rush out and buy a pup.
> whst can I do? Make sure I am a responsible owner, and keep myself, friends family and my dog safe, by educating them.


You will be surprised at how many people do just go out and buy a horse without knowing how to look after one.
I used to make my living looking after these horses when the owners had realised they had taken on more than they could cope with


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I have to admit, and some people might not want to hear it, but idon't think ANY person should be able to buy ANY dog. 

The little old lady opposite might be able to cope with a couple of spaniels, but should she be allowed to buy 5 rotties and keep them in the garden. 
Should someone in a 5th floor bedsit be allowed to have 6 huskies or whatever?

I could go out tonight and come back with a Cane Corso x pit pup, nothing stopping me at all, other than my understanding that I could not provide a safe home for that pup. 

So I do think a combination of education and legislation is needed. 

You cannot just refuse to introduce restrictions because some people with ignore it IMO. 
Look how many people refuse to keep to speed limits, should we abandon those laws? 

JMHO x


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

> That's the biggest piece that worries me. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had that go something like this:
> Me: hey, letting your kid do ___ to the dog is probably not the safest thing. Dog owner: oh it's okay Fido is ___ breed and everyone knows they're great with kids.


Had a stark reminder of this today, walking back to the car in town. An old fella stopped me and asked if Betty's headcollar was a muzzle. When I explained the what and why of a headcollar, he was immediately "I was surprised when I thought it was a muzzle, those dogs are not dangerous, you can leave them with kids". Aaaargghh!!

I had to explain that this wasn't the case with Betty, that she was nervous of children and therefore unpredictable around them, and I kept her away from them. He looked unconvinced....

Betty has limited experience of young children (none under 13 in our immediate family/friends) and is a naturally anxious dog. I wouldn't stand there and say she is dangerous, but if she reacted close to a child she has the bulk to cause inadvertent harm, and if cornered & frightened by a child - who knows what could happen. We keep well away from kids and I'm always ready to block their access.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> You will be surprised at how many people do just go out and buy a horse without knowing how to look after one.
> I used to make my living looking after these horses when the owners had realised they had taken on more than they could cope with


Hmmmmmm maybe rush out and buy something totally unsuitable, over horse themselves, or get an arab expecting it to live out 24/7 in the scottish highlands.... but really without any knowledge of how to muck one out, ride, tack up, the number of a farrier where to buy hay from, or at the very least has found a decent livery yard with help on hand? Which folk do with puppies......


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Hmmmmmm maybe rush out and buy something totally unsuitable, over horse themselves, or get an arab expecting it to live out 24/7 in the scottish highlands.... but really without any knowledge of how to muck one out, ride, tack up, the number of a farrier where to buy hay from, or at the very least has found a decent livery yard with help on hand? Which folk do with puppies......


Yes they do, some go out with the Disney idea that they will buy a foal and they will bond and the horse will just learn to be an awesome riding friend...
My old Legend was one of those, he ended up being labeled dangerous because of the lack of handling and they all became scared of him to the point that they left him in a field until I came along and actually did something with him.

It does happen, and it happens just as much as it does with dogs. But as horses don't go around taking chunks out of the general public most don't get to hear about it.

You can buy horses for as little as £1 at some auctions so it opens up the impulse buyers.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I joined a falconry forum, fairly specialised animals you would think, the welcome pack said most people joined when they'd bought a falcon or hawk on a whim and realised they had no idea what they were doing :frown2:. You see it with just about any animal, I want a baby marmoset I've totally done all the research. If they had they would have learned they need a group and they should be parent reared adults. So I can't imagine horses are any different.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I have a question for all you guys who think that breed specific legislation and its enforcement is uncalled for, unfair, unjust and/or ineffective.
> 
> What do you believe is a productive, fair and sensible way forward?
> 
> ...


As I said in the other thread, we need to study each individual case. From there we draw educated conclusions about contributing factors.

For example, we know that breed is not a contributing factor, so laws that address breed do no good.

However, we do know that how the dog is kept IS a contributing factor. For example, dogs who are kept outdoors on chains/tethered to structures are far more likely to bite and injure than those who are kept inside as family members. Knowing this, many towns and cities in the US have enacted anti-tethering laws. They are clear, straightforward, and simple to enforce. A dog is either kept on a chain or not kept on a chain. No need to measure the size of the dogs muzzle in proportion to the head or other such nonsense. A chihuahua on a chain is just as illegal as a great dane on a chain.

This is just one example of how we can address the issue of dog attacks without making it a breed issue.

In the meantime we continue to examine each case and make recommendations for laws and education based on what we find out. IOW, we act based on sound knowledge, not knee-jerk emotional reactions.

As far as what *I* am willing to do, I put my efforts in to education. Politics is not my area of strength, but education is. I have access to communities, schools, parents, and children, and I spend a lot of time educating indirectly through every day conversations, and educating directly through programs where my trainer friend and I do demonstrations, presentations, flyers etc. to help raise awareness and educate the general public. 
I also volunteer at our local shelter working on the training and evaluation end. Making sure dogs end un in a home that is a good match for both parties, with again, helps keep everyone safe.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Yes they do, some go out with the Disney idea that they will buy a foal and they will bond and the horse will just learn to be an awesome riding friend...
> My old Legend was one of those, he ended up being labeled dangerous because of the lack of handling and they all became scared of him to the point that they left him in a field until I came along and actually did something with him.
> 
> It does happen, and it happens just as much as it does with dogs. But as horses don't go around taking chunks out of the general public most don't get to hear about it.
> ...


Oh I know about the auctions, heart breaking. I guess it is as you say, you just dont hear about it. In 23 years of owning and being around horses ive never known someone buy a horse on a whim, buy something unsuitable yes but not just, ohhh theres a pony for sale off this guy in the pub- ive never been within 10ft of a horse, but I'll have that!
. In 4 years of dog ownership, I have heard the daftest excuses for returning a dog to rescue, and seen a litter of lab pups bred and snapped up without a single thought, one of which now has elbow dysplasia, and is awaiting surgery :mad2: and lots of people who just had no idea what getting a dog means- myself included!!!


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> You can't eliminate every risk, parents are a far greater risk to children than dogs statistically. But you can reduce them to a degree


But what achievable and practical measures and steps would YOU propose to meaningfully reduce this risk?

As an example of an achievable & practical measure....lets take alcohol related deaths ( ARD) , aka drink driving fatalities: ( figures from the DoT)

In 1979 we had 1640 ARD

In 1989 there were 810.
In 1999 there were 460.

In subsequent years those figures sharply declined to 230 (2011) and then increased to 290 in 2012 ( not enough checks, insufficient police)

Either way - we have 1640 preventable deaths vs. 290. Which figure is better? Its a result of enforced legislation, concerted and ongoing education/PR AND applied consequences.

Hoping that people would just be sensible and responsible didn't do it. Education alone wouldn't do it. Why would dog fatalities be any different. I know they are rare...but arguably, there should be NONE.

So how would you approach it?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> But what achievable and practical measures and steps would YOU propose to meaningfully reduce this risk?
> 
> As an example of an achievable & practical measure....lets take alcohol related deaths ( ARD) , aka drink driving fatalities: ( figures from the DoT)
> 
> ...


No, I disagree.
There are some things you simply cant prevent. Some dogs develop brain tumors, some dogs develop epilepsy... A friend of mine had a rhodesian who developed epilepsy and attacked a coffee table. The coffee table could have been her, or a child. This sort of thing is hugely rare, and even rarer for it to end up with damage to a human, but it does happen, and you simply cant legislate that sort of thing away. Its like trying to legislate meteor strikes. At some point, reason must prevail.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Why? A boxer x lab could quite easily be deemed type by the daft tape measure, hence bsl does not work. If all staff x's are dangerous and banned then why not the staff itself, or even the lab it was crossed with makes no sense.


A friend of mine used to run the local stray kennels and that was her definition of a pit bull type...anything crossed to a staffy that was bigger than a staffy...so boxer x staffy would fall into that category.

She also said that it was their policy not to rehome any staffies or staffy xs cos of their unpredictability so they were all PTS when the 7 days were up.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> A friend of mine used to run the local stray kennels and that was her definition of a pit bull type...anything crossed to a staffy that was bigger than a staffy...so boxer x staffy would fall into that category.
> 
> She also said that it was their policy not to rehome any staffies or staffy xs cos of their unpredictability so they were all PTS when the 7 days were up.


Howvsad that the dogs were not judged on their own merit. And that the staff was just shoved into a category without giving the indivudual dog a chance to prove itself. :frown2:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> You will be surprised at how many people do just go out and buy a horse without knowing how to look after one.
> I used to make my living looking after these horses when the owners had realised they had taken on more than they could cope with


I have spent most of my adult life taking horses just like these too. People do buy horses on a whim...and every day they buy horses that are beyond their capabilities but just will not be told about it.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Howvsad that the dogs were not judged on their own merit. And that the staff was just shoved into a category without giving the indivudual dog a chance to prove itself. :frown2:


It is very sad and Staffies are just such wonderful dogs. I called round to see her one afternoon....she kept horses which is how I met her. The staffies were kept at the back of the kennels and not viewable to the general public. She had a beautiful black and white male staffy about 12 months old. He was gorgeous.

I told her I would take him....she wouldn't let me have him. He was PTS. There were so many of them. She retired about 15 years ago so this was policy way back then. Not sure what the policy is there now or if it is still going.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> It is very sad and Staffies are just such wonderful dogs. I called round to see her one afternoon....she kept horses which is how I met her. The staffies were kept at the back of the kennels and not viewable to the general public. She had a beautiful black and white male staffy about 12 months old. He was gorgeous.
> 
> I told her I would take him....she wouldn't let me have him. He was PTS. There were so many of them. She retired about 15 years ago so this was policy way back then. Not sure what the policy is there now or if it is still going.


See now that is just nonsensical! I do also suppose there are not endless kennels, and not everyone wants a bull breed...... so you have to have some sort of policy or dogs spend their lives in a 6x4 kennel.......


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Yes they do, some go out with the Disney idea that they will buy a foal and they will bond and the horse will just learn to be an awesome riding friend...
> My old Legend was one of those, he ended up being labeled dangerous because of the lack of handling and they all became scared of him to the point that they left him in a field until I came along and actually did something with him.
> 
> It does happen, and it happens just as much as it does with dogs. But as horses don't go around taking chunks out of the general public most don't get to hear about it.
> ...


Ponies at the local auction have been given away for free cos nobody wants them. Local woman bought 1 large riding horse and 4 Shetland ponies for £200 for the lot.Then it cost her another £200 to get a vet to sedate the large horse cos it refused to load into a trailer.and she had no clue at all. Poor horses.

as with buying a little foal.....I even heard of 1 stupid woman who had a foal and kept in in her living room. She put pictures on FB showing it lying on her sofa with her.....fast forward to a 4 year old and it was PTS cos it was dangerous and never learned how to be a horse.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> Ponies at the local auction have been given away for free cos nobody wants them. Local woman bought 1 large riding horse and 4 Shetland ponies for £200 for the lot.Then it cost her another £200 to get a vet to sedate the large horse cos it refused to load into a trailer.and she had no clue at all. Poor horses.
> 
> as with buying a little foal.....I even heard of 1 stupid woman who had a foal and kept in in her living room. She put pictures on FB showing it lying on her sofa with her.....fast forward to a 4 year old and it was PTS cos it was dangerous and never learned how to be a horse.


A young girl and her mum turned up at our yard with a pony they had got on a whim. Admittedly they took it away from some low life, but they really had no idea. Put it in a stable with a door too high to look out of and thought they could just turn up when they felt like it to give it some food, etc.

All us other owners had to carefully educate them on the basic necessities and all ended up using our own feed and hay until they sorted themselves out. Eventually, they realised they were out of their depth and the pony was rehomed to somewhere suitable.

Their hearts were in the right place, but it's not as easy as people sometimes think.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> A friend of mine used to run the local stray kennels and that was her definition of a pit bull type...anything crossed to a staffy that was bigger than a staffy...so boxer x staffy would fall into that category.
> 
> *She also said that it was their policy not to rehome any staffies or staffy xs cos of their unpredictability so they were all PTS when the 7 days were up.*


Heartbreaking, but understandable in this litigious society - someone neglects a rescue staffie-type - it behaves badly or nips someone - the rescue gets the blame, and perhaps they lose homes as a result.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Either way - we have 1640 preventable deaths vs. 290. Which figure is better? Its a result of enforced legislation, concerted and ongoing education/PR AND applied consequences.


I'd argue the point. The legislation and enforcement was a minor influence. The main influence by far was the change in perception that drinking and driving was unacceptable. This is shown easily by the way people everyday break an enforceable law.. speeding. It's generally "accepted" by society as normal but you still get speeding tickets.

You still haven't shown where BSL has actually made the public safer, despite the number of implementations around the world. How are we supposed to educate when people are conned into blaming a scapegoat?

Instead we do have models which work and have been shown to be effective (Calgary one such). Implementing it would mean the Government admitting they hadn't a a clue and ignored the "experts" even during the consultation for the recent changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act where people did try to get the message across.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> No, I disagree.
> There are some things you simply cant prevent. Some dogs develop brain tumors, some dogs develop epilepsy... A friend of mine had a rhodesian who developed epilepsy and attacked a coffee table. The coffee table could have been her, or a child. This sort of thing is hugely rare, and even rarer for it to end up with damage to a human, but it does happen, and you simply cant legislate that sort of thing away. Its like trying to legislate meteor strikes. At some point, reason must prevail.


But are you saying because we can't prevent ALL of them we shouldn't bother to prevent ANY of them?

Kids, people or dogs being viciously mauled or killed by dogs are NOT as rare as meteor strikes. Neither here in Europe, nor anywhere else. And the overwhelming majority of those incidents COULD have been prevented.

To be clear, I come from this with a background of a breed who has the OPPOSITE image problem: Bernese Mountain Dogs. A breed who has the - completely erroneous - image of being an inherently and invariably cuddly, large teddybear oozing benevolence to all man and animal kind.

And a great many can be EXACTLY like that. Yet a few can be vicious and iffy as heck. I know one who should be euthanized immediately, he is one nasty piece of work. He was an iffy puppy, a dangerous youngster and now a SUPREMELY disconcerting adult. The owner, incidentally, isn't to blame. True, who knows what goes on behind doors, but his owner tried. Really hard. He knows what he should do, he just can't bring himself to do it. Even though the dog has bitten him a few times.

At least he is sensible enough to muzzle the dog in public. But what if he wasn't? How many people or dogs would that dog have to bite before SOMETHING is done? And I tell you with certainty - quite a lot and quite a few. Berners don't have an extensive track record of maiming or killing which is why they are NOT on a dangerous dog list. Even when some belong there.

My point? I would have ZERO problem with enforced legislation and regulation even IF it includes my own "cuddly teddybear image "breed. I would have ZERO problem with compulsory owner education, mandatory temperament tests , applying for a special owner's permit or anything else .....because if the dog and I are fine I have nothing to hide and if it ain't the public has a right to be protected. If owning a large powerful is really THAT important to me, I jump through any hoop. And if I can't be arsed to jump, I am just paying vapid lip service.

ALL laws are utilitarian in nature. The greatest benefit for the greatest masses. You can't rely on common sense, voluntary willingness to be/become educated, and people merely debating the issue ad infinitum without any useful outcome. Hence - laws, rules, regulations, restrictions. Not inherently a bad thing.

We need actions, not words. Nor another "RIP little one".


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Goblin said:


> I'd argue the point. The legislation and enforcement was a minor influence. The main influence by far was the change in perception that drinking and driving was unacceptable. This is shown easily by the way people everyday break an enforceable law.. speeding. It's generally "accepted" by society as normal but you still get speeding tickets.
> 
> You still haven't shown where BSL has actually made the public safer, despite the number of implementations around the world. How are we supposed to educate when people are conned into blaming a scapegoat?


Goblin....here, with your message, is where I get stuck.

It is clearly a cause close to your heart.

But when asked specific questions such as "what achievable, sensible, fair measures and proposals do YOU have to change the current status quo AND reduce the risk of fatal dog bites" - the ONLY response you make is ....the above.

Do you believe that "its all so unfair" benefits ANYONE? The fact is there IS a BSL. And it won't dissolve into the ether because it's all so unfair and unjust.

So what, if any, proposal would you make? What sensible, reasonable and achievable strategy forward would YOU suggest?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> My point? I would have ZERO problem with enforced legislation and regulation even IF it includes my own "cuddly teddybear image "breed. I would have ZERO problem with compulsory owner education, mandatory temperament tests , applying for a special owner's permit or anything else .....because if the dog and I are fine I have nothing to hide and if it ain't the public has a right to be protected.


As you mentioned yourself though, it's not about breed, it's about the dog. Pushing it to breeds only does the opposite to what is effective. A german shepherd has a stronger bite than a pit bull. They were the "dangerous dog" when I was growing up. Should laws change simply due to fashion? Part of the message needs to be people need to be responsible for all dogs, not only based on breed. How is singling out specific breeds doing this? It's actually doing the opposite.



> ALL laws are utilitarian in nature. The greatest benefit for the greatest masses. You can't rely on common sense, voluntary willingness to be/become educated, and people merely debating the issue ad infinitum without any useful outcome. Hence - laws, rules, regulations, restrictions. Not inherently a bad thing.


Laws are made by politicians, not people who will necessarily do the right things or base decisions on those who know about the subject. People do speak out about BSL. People do try to educate. Then again it's easy to understand why people become disillusioned when even people who know about dogs support BSL despite being given plenty of evidence to show it doesn't work. They still support it even though despite being asked, they cannot show it works at all.



> We need actions, not words. Nor another "RIP little one".


We need actions which work, not politician knee jerk reactions which are not based on facts but which look good on paper. Society also needs the truth which is the simple fact laws do not work which are based on breeds.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> See now that is just nonsensical! I do also suppose there are not endless kennels, and not everyone wants a bull breed...... so you have to have some sort of policy or dogs spend their lives in a 6x4 kennel.......


what is nonsensical?
the policy was PTS......never said I agreed with her, my relationship to her was strictly horses.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> But are you saying because we can't prevent ALL of them we shouldn't bother to prevent ANY of them?


HATEOTT, if you read post #80, which it seems you did as you liked it, clearly thats not what Im saying. And even if I hadnt posted what I did in post #80, its a logical fallacy to conclude that because we cant prevent all attacks Im saying that we shouldnt try to prevent any. I cant imagine too many people think in such an extreme dichotomy.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Kids, people or dogs being viciously mauled or killed by dogs are NOT as rare as meteor strikes. Neither here in Europe, nor anywhere else. And the overwhelming majority of those incidents COULD have been prevented.


I never said they were. I said that attacks like those caused by a seizure or brain tumor are very rare. Considering that about 10 meteors hit the earth a year, yeah, Id say the global incidence of dog fatalities due to unpreventable reasons like brain tumors are about even.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> To be clear, I come from this with a background of a breed who has the OPPOSITE image problem: Bernese Mountain Dogs. A breed who has the - completely erroneous - image of being an inherently and invariably cuddly, large teddybear oozing benevolence to all man and animal kind.
> 
> And a great many can be EXACTLY like that. Yet a few can be vicious and iffy as heck. I know one who should be euthanized immediately, he is one nasty piece of work. He was an iffy puppy, a dangerous youngster and now a SUPREMELY disconcerting adult. The owner, incidentally, isn't to blame. True, who knows what goes on behind doors, but his owner tried. Really hard. He knows what he should do, he just can't bring himself to do it. Even though the dog has bitten him a few times.
> 
> ...


Okay... you dont have a problem with enforced legislation. I do. Actually, more specifically I have a problem with poorly researched legislation that has been proven to be ineffective and even detrimental as BSL has been. More of the same ineffective legislation makes even less sense.

Out of curiosity, other than posting on this forum, what are you doing to keep kids and dogs safe?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> But when asked specific questions such as "what achievable, sensible, fair measures and proposals do YOU have to change the current status quo AND reduce the risk of fatal dog bites" - the ONLY response you make is ....the above.


Seem to be cross posting so will directly answer this. There are plenty of places where the example is set. Denver with BSL has higher bite statistics the Boulder despite Boulder having more people. You have all the experts saying BSL doesn't work even when consulted. We've done the petitions during the consultation change for the latest Dangerous Dogs Act and were once again ignored. So for me, it's grass roots education. It's teaching and showing anyone I know or meet that BSL doesn't work. It's not immediate or highly visible but then I can't dictate policy to the UK can I  Luckily enough I live in an area without BSL so it doesn't affect me directly. I'll also dispute and ask people why they support BSL on forums when it has been shown not to work and may actually make a situation worse.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> No, I disagree.
> There are some things you simply cant prevent. Some dogs develop brain tumors, some dogs develop epilepsy... A friend of mine had a rhodesian who developed epilepsy and attacked a coffee table. The coffee table could have been her, or a child. This sort of thing is hugely rare, and even rarer for it to end up with damage to a human, but it does happen, and you simply cant legislate that sort of thing away. Its like trying to legislate meteor strikes. At some point, reason must prevail.


Quite! And lets not forget we don't really know what triggers these rare attacks either because the Dogs are destroyed so quickly that studies are near enough impossible.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> *If I could wave a magic wand and make every crack dealer and low-life with their bullmastifs, pitbulls, Staffies, etc disappear....I frggin would. But I can't.* And neither can you.
> 
> Lastly, fair question. What do I do? I thought I'd answered that myself in my original post. I DO believe in appropriate legislation, petitioned the government for restriction and stricter legislation and I am currently petitioning to implement a "prevent-a-bite" program in schools and kindergartens. Happily and unabashedly plagiarised the concept. To reduce the risk to pre- kindergarten kids and babies I am working on a similar concept which is aimed at health visitors, nurses and GP's.
> 
> Would you care to help me with this?


Don't you see the problem with the enforced legislative argument? By your own admission we can't stop low life's owning inappropriate Dogs so by definition legislation more than likely wont work. They will simply ignore the Law and have inappropriate Dogs anyway. We cannot solve this with more Law.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

You try breed bans to stop lowlife thugs getting their hands on breeds they move onto something else, no pitbulls fine onto cane corsos and presa canarios which are more dangerous in their hands because they're not as human friendly and don't suffer fools easily. Keep banning breeds and they'll just find something else.

Blaming the breeds doesn't work, educating people does.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> You know and I know the REASON certain dogs are on the BSL isn't JUST due to politics and BSL breed hating, ignorant people baying for blood.


No, I know the reason that the dog breeds in question ARE DUE TO POLITICS. How many of the banned breeds were in the UK when introduced in what numbers and with what bite statistics? It's already been demonstrated the "big bad breed" changes all the time. BSL has simply fixed the image in people's minds.

What "fighting" are you talking about. Dog fighting or vs humans. They are two different things. Dog fighters do not want dogs attacking them and so vs human aggression is not desired. The tragic incident in question was caused by a dog we are told was a pit bull. Have a look at the definition of "type" some time, used to recognise a pitbull. Add in a pit of politics and any dog will be one. We are also told that the government knows what it is doing.



> So if YOU care about dogs, instead of just arguing and debating, please let it go.


Why when BSL has been shown not to make people safer anywhere where it has been implemented?

Doesn't matter your assertions that these dogs are owned by X,Y,Z. Facts and statistics show BSL has no benefit. Denver's Breed Specific Legislation

If anything BSL has been shown throughout the world to have the opposite effect to which you are pushing. Why did Italy reverse it along with many other places? It's expensive and doesn't work. United Kingdom - Dog bites increased by 50% between 1997 and 2007, and a number of fatalities involved non-banned breeds. Cost between 1991 and 1996 to enforce was around $14 million. Even worse increase in bite statistics I believe in Scotland (Scotland Parliament passes bill to repeal breed ban - KC DOG BLOG)

Why should we support a policy that penalises breed, encourages people to ignore bad behaviour "as it's not a bad breed" and ultimately makes the public more at risk?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Don't.
> 
> Don't spin it. Please don't spin it. I don't know whether you do it inadvertedly or deliberately - given the frequency and regularity in which this occurs, I'd say it's the latter - but could we please stay focused on " what specific reasonable, fair and achievable measures can be implemented to reduce fatal dog bite incidents?"
> 
> ...


calm down dear...yet again you are going hysterical and getting your knickers in a twist.

Not all bull breed owners are shady types...and if you really loved dogs, all dogs as you say, you wouldn't be advocating getting rid of "those types".

I have 2 different bull breeds....don't think I would know what crack looked like if I fell over it...and honestly, I have never ever dealt in drugs.

LB......told us all how old she is...she is another with 1 of those dogs....LB, did you ever deal drugs?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

You can put as many laws in place as you like, but there will always be those who ignore them, flout them and plain do not care.

If everyone was law abiding, there would be no crime. Old ladies wouldn't be mugged for their handbags, cowboy 'tradesmen' wouldn't rip them off for their life savings, there would be no assault, murder, burglary or child abuse.

Laws don't work, either as a deterrent or a punishment, otherwise, there would be no repeat offenders.

Condemning dogs because of their looks and measurements is going to change nothing.

Some dogs become dangerous because of the way they're bred, reared, handled and sometimes, because the morons who own them want them to be aggressive.

Anyone who will do that to a dog is not going to be a squeaky clean, upstanding citizen with a sense of right and wrong, he's going to be a dangerous idiot, and there are a lot of dangerous idiots out there.

What law is going to deal with that?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Don't.
> 
> Don't spin it. Please don't spin it. I don't know whether you do it inadvertedly or deliberately - given the frequency and regularity in which this occurs, I'd say it's the latter - but could we please stay focused on " *what specific reasonable, fair and achievable measures can be implemented to reduce fatal dog bite incidents?*"


Oh for Petes sake... I have answered that question so many times in these conversations with you. I have listed over and over on this thread and others what DOES work, what we DO know, what DOES make a difference in preventing attacks. Either you dont read my posts, or you just dont want to hear that BSL is not the answer. This is the frustration Goblin is talking about. No matter how many options and alternatives you give people, they just dont want to hear it. I dont get it.

I will try one more time.
1) Expert examination each individual case of a dog fatality. Examine the dog, the human behavior, the environment.
2) Using that expert advice, enact enforceable laws that prevent behaviors that lead to attacks. Example: anti-chaining laws. Example: the Calgary model.
3) Enforce existing laws on humane treatment of dogs. Dogs who are well-kept in safe environments dont turn in to Cujos. Dogs who are abused and neglected do. 
4) Using expert advice, educate the public on safe child/dog interactions and safe handling techniques. Educate folks on training techniques that promote trust and bonded relationships.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> You know and I know the REASON certain dogs are on the BSL isn't JUST due to politics and BSL breed hating, ignorant people baying for blood. The sad reality is that those breeds often ARE owned by supremely shady character, ARE used for fighting and DO have a documented track record of fatalities and inflicting horrific wounds. You are helping nobody in constantly diverting with "but what about other breeds". The little girl at hand was killed by a BSL breed, not a poodle or a chihuahua. Drug dealers and other assorted scum do not parade round with Goldies. So if YOU care about dogs, instead of just arguing and debating, please let it go.


Im not the one mentioning breeds. You are.
Where have I constantly said anything about other breeds? 
If youre saying let it go to arguing against BSL... Sorry, but no.
I will not let it go. 
BSL does not work.
BSL gets innocent children put in harms way.
BSL gets innocent dogs PTS.
BSL is expensive to enforce and is rarely enforced well even when the funding is there.
BSL does not reduce dog bites or fatalities.

The first part of solving the problem is to stop doing that which makes the problem worse.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Just imagine the possibilities if the money used to try and enforce BSL was spent on education and the positive difference that would make long term.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> Don't you see the problem with the enforced legislative argument? By your own admission we can't stop low life's owning inappropriate Dogs so by definition legislation more than likely wont work. They will simply ignore the Law and have inappropriate Dogs anyway. We cannot solve this with more Law.


But we will NEVER make progress with positing an argument like the above. We will never help dogs or people with it either.

Even if you discount the lowest of the low lifes owning these breeds, the overwhelming majority of UK's fatal bite incidences - children, adults or dogs - didn't involve the dogs of heroin dealers and gang members. They were simply the wrong breed of dog in the wrong hands.

Do you believe my aim is to ADD stigma to certain breeds and their owners? But yeah, I do want to make it harder who should or shouldn't, can or can't own certain breeds. I don't want to see another snarling-at-people-viciously, with blood stained teeth, Staffy depicted in the papers. What I WANT to see depicted the gentle, goofball Staffy x I know who is is the embodiment of sweetness. Her name is Nina. HERS is the image I see when I petition for more stringent controls of ownership.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I agree that education is key here, last weekend i was at a dog show with my young male BSD when he was suddenly grabbed round the neck by a toddler whose parents proudly declared " he has no fear, he just loves dogs. " . Luckily my dog is easy going despite not being used to small kids but it could have ended in disaster and i told the parents exactly what i thought of them !. 

I also agree that banning certain breeds is futile as long as the 'macho' image of some breeds is emphasised. Those that feel the need to use their dogs as an extension of their gonads will simply move onto another breed. We need to breed away from reactive, guarding traits and stop glorifying stuff like 'man work' in some dog sports. As well making health testing mandatory temperament testing should also be compulsory before breeding.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> But we will NEVER make progress with positing an argument like the above. We will never help dogs or people with it either.
> 
> Even if you discount the lowest of the low lifes owning these breeds, the overwhelming majority of UK's fatal bite incidences - children, adults or dogs - didn't involve the dogs of heroin dealers and gang members. They were simply the wrong breed of dog in the wrong hands.
> 
> Do you believe my aim is to ADD stigma to certain breeds and their owners? But yeah, I do want to make it harder who should or shouldn't, can or can't own certain breeds. I don't want to see another snarling-at-people-viciously, with blood stained teeth, Staffy depicted in the papers. What I WANT to see depicted the gentle, goofball Staffy x I know who is is the embodiment of sweetness. Her name is Nina. HERS is the image I see when I petition for more stringent controls of ownership.


The wrong dogs end up in the wrong homes all the time. Border collies in homes where they get little exercise or stimulation, terriers with small animals with owners who don't think to keep them separate, breeds like papilion and toy poodles intelligent little dogs who can do just about anything in the hands of the handbag crowd. Again teaching people how to choose the right dog for them works better than some kind of test where you get assigned a breed.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Just a thought but perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong end of the lead. Instead of focusing on the dogs why don't we focus on the owners and the family. So from the very early days when health visitors have access to babies/toddlers in their own homes perhaps they could carry out some kind of risk assessment/questionnaire asking the parents about their management strategies and passing on any concerns to social services who could follow up with visits. Perhaps the child could be put on the at risk register if the relevant professionals (including teachers) are concerned about a dog in the household and the parents then be made to attend training and implement improvements in management or forfeit the dog. Sounds a bit way out and unlikely but just wondering why we concentrate on the dog and not the parents.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> calm down dear...yet again you are going hysterical and getting your knickers in a twist.
> 
> Not all bull breed owners are shady types...and if you really loved dogs, all dogs as you say, you wouldn't be advocating getting rid of "those types".
> 
> ...


Well, as you will know if you read the zombie apocalypse thread, I am in possession of half a bottle of night nurse - but honestly, officer it is for personal use only.

There _are_ a lot of thugs and idiots with bull breeds - and TBH I think that every press story about how 'vicious" they are means that the bollock-brains who get them as a macho status symbol are even keener to have them.

I think it's a pity they haven't got wooly fur like a poodle, so that they could be cut into fancy shapes and get the reputation of being whimsical little snookumses (which they are, but don't look as though they are). But from a thugly point of view, they tick all the boxes - look tough, easy to handle, and have a reputation for devouring wolverines and picking their teeth with the bones. Poor dogs don't stand a chance


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Not all people who want/like/own bullbreeds are the unwashed, unethical macho types. 

I like very short coated dogs so when they come indoors they are clean. My dogs are all pets.

I love the intelligence of the bull breeds, they make fantastic companions.

When supposed dog lovers and dog enlightened people come out with way off comments, its no wonder the rest of society thinks one way about this wonderful type of dog.

and, for what its worth, I really don't care what anybody thinks of my choice of pet.....I look after them, I care for them....if my husband doesn't object and I like then that's good enough for me.

Each to their own....I am not a fan of anything long coated....spend enough time grooming horses, not starting with dogs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

The following is a comprehensive study of the problem of dog bites in the US and proposed solutions. Its a 35 page PDF, but well worth the read for anyone interested in actual facts, studies, and potential solutions.

http://nationalcanineresearchcounci... Bites Problems and Solutions 2nd Edition.pdf

We keep fairly good records in the US of dog bites as any bite requiring medical attention has to by law be reported to the CDC.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

This is from the document ouesi linked to.

The researchers identified a co-occurrence of multiple, controllable factors: no able-bodied person being present to intervene (87.1 percent); the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog(s) (85.2 percent); failure to neuter/spay the dog(s) (84.4 percent); a victims compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage interactions with the dog(s) (77.4 percent); the owner keeping dog(s) as resident animals rather than family pets (76.2 percent); prior mismanagement of the dog(s) (37.5 percent); and abuse or neglect of the dog(s) (21.1 percent).

Four or more of the factors identified co-occurred in 80.5 percent of the incidents during the 10-year period studied. Only rarely (in 2.5 percent of the cases) was there only one factor identified. Serious and fatal dog bite incidents were found to be complex, multifactorial events. The studys authors strongly recommend that coding for these factors be used to study serious but nonfatal dog bites as well, since this is likely to suggest sound prevention strategies.
Moreover, breed was not one of the factors identified. The study found no evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another.

I think all of these factors are things that should be emphasised by our politicians, police and newspapers rather than jumping on particular breeds - especially in light of the final sentence.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just a thought but perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong end of the lead. Instead of focusing on the dogs why don't we focus on the owners and the family. So from the very early days when health visitors have access to babies/toddlers in their own homes perhaps they could carry out some kind of risk assessment/questionnaire asking the parents about their management strategies and passing on any concerns to social services who could follow up with visits. Perhaps the child could be put on the at risk register if the relevant professionals (including teachers) are concerned about a dog in the household and the parents then be made to attend training and implement improvements in management or forfeit the dog. Sounds a bit way out and unlikely but just wondering why we concentrate on the dog and not the parents.


would be nice in theory.....how many health professionals would be clued up on dogs aswell?

I think maybe all this would do is demonized more dogs for no good reason.

My friends daughter got married last year. we went to the wedding and stayed over at the reception hotel.

The daughter took her dog with her but left him in the car and dogs weren't allowed in the rooms.

I got up next morning and she had him out with her just outside my room....I went weak at the knees...what a gorgeous dog....it was almost a when harry met sally moment.lol

I asked what kind of dog was he...I really had no clue. He was an AmBull.....wow...and what a big softie...........just gorgeous, every last pound of him. I asked what he was like with cats , she just said he is obsessed with his ball and nothing else made him lift an eyelid.

and that dog...I would have 1 just like him in a heartbeat.He greeted me like an old friend. he was well socialized and brought up from apuppy with a young family. gorgeous.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Even if you discount the lowest of the low lifes owning these breeds, the overwhelming majority of UK's fatal bite incidences - children, adults or dogs - didn't involve the dogs of heroin dealers and gang members. They were simply the wrong breed of dog in the wrong hands.


Look at the causes of these incidents and the common factors. It's not breed but more the situation and that's just the incidents highlighted by the already biased media. How does the focus on banned breeds help Eliza-Mae Mullane: Six-day-old baby killed by pet dog in Pontyberem, Camarthenshire | Metro News ? Another tragic incident where my heart goes out to the family.

You argue for BSL, are not able to back that argument up and ignore all the evidence proving more can be done without BSL and have the audacity to state it protects dogs. Yes, people should abide by laws but many people who have had dogs murdered under BSL are law abiding citizens. Legislation should not be accepted simply as it's legislation. It should only be supported if it serves a purpose.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Oh for Pete's sake... I have answered that question so many times in these conversations with you. I have listed over and over on this thread and others what DOES work, what we DO know, what DOES make a difference in preventing attacks. Either you don't read my posts, or you just don't want to hear that BSL is not the answer. This is the frustration Goblin is talking about. No matter how many options and alternatives you give people, they just don't want to hear it. I don't get it.
> 
> *I will try one more time.*
> 1) Expert examination each individual case of a dog fatality. Examine the dog, the human behavior, the environment.
> ...


I knew it would be a waste of time. You simply want to talk about what YOU want to talk about. You are unwilling to listen to what was actually said, you constantly extrapolate from your country to ours, regardless of how inappropriate or inapplicable this may be. To cite one of your examples: anti- chaining. How many UK dogs invoved in fatalities were chained up? Either prior or during the attack? The overwhelming majority of them were pets in the house, or pets who escaped from the house because somebody didn't close the door properly. How is an anti- chaining law or lobby going to help?

Calgary model. THAT is your shining example of a fair and appropriate dog law in action? Why - because it discriminates ALL dogs instead of certain breeds. Keeping dogs on a leash continously whilst outside your home might be a grand idea when you live in rural USA where people, like yourself, live on 20 acre county estates. NOT the norm in Europe, not just the UK.

So ALL our dogs, except those of vast land owners, should be forever confined to a leash? Or should we, without land , just stop owning dogs alltogether?

My personal favourite is the "expert examination" AFTER yet ANOTHER fatality has occured. Don't get me wrong - in principle I believe it is a great idea. In practice, what are you prepared to bet that the owners simply sob and faithfully state that they just never saw it coming, the dog was a cherished pet and it's all so sad and tragic? From which we have learned - what? And reduced the risk - HOW?

You don't know what you are talking about. You have a narrow, polarized, country specific viewpoint and a huge proclivity to argue with anyone who doesn't share it or pay fawning hommage to it.

Of ALL the US States I have travelled in and travelled across, I don't think I've ever seen so many chained-up, debarked, ill kept, disrespected and pitiful creatures than from Rockhill to Charleston. So DO forgive me if I find it more than a tad odd that one of their inhabitants comes and perpetually lectures on how WE should address the problems with ours.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Calgary model. THAT is your shining example of a fair and appropriate dog law in action? Why - because it discriminates ALL dogs instead of certain breeds. Keeping dogs on a leash continously whilst outside your home might be a grand idea when you live in rural USA where people, like yourself, live on 20 acre county estates. NOT the norm in Europe, not just the UK.


Actually I expect in most of the EU local laws are that dogs should be on leads in public places like beside roads, in town centers etc. The fact that dog owners frequently don't follow these laws is beside the point. After all they don't have dangerous dogs do they  I know in Germany the length of leads can also be dictated and in some places areas have lead restrictions at certain times of the year to protect wildlife. Doesn't mean we don't have the ability to let the dogs off lead in other places simply it may be an inconveniance.

What I don't get is you support a model which doesn't work but as soon as legislation which has been shown to actually work is mentioned you protest against it. Seems to be you are fine with any legislation which doesn't affect you personally.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

We can take lessons from the chained dogs though they're undersocialised, kept in one place so are generally frustrated and guarding that space and then strangers come into it. That's no different to an undersocialised dog attacking a stranger in their house or garden.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I knew it would be a waste of time. You simply want to talk about what YOU want to talk about. You are unwilling to listen to what was actually said, you constantly extrapolate from your country to ours, regardless of how inappropriate or inapplicable this may be. To cite one of your examples: anti- chaining. How many UK dogs invoved in fatalities were chained up? Either prior or during the attack? The overwhelming majority of them were pets in the house, or pets who escaped from the house because somebody didn't close the door properly. How is an anti- chaining law or lobby going to help?


Anti-chaining addresses the conditions in which dogs are kept. The environment.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Calgary model. THAT is your shining example of a fair and appropriate dog law in action? Why - because it discriminates ALL dogs instead of certain breeds. Keeping dogs on a leash continously whilst outside your home might be a grand idea when you live in rural USA where people, like yourself, live on 20 acre county estates. NOT the norm in Europe, not just the UK.


The Calgary model addresses the dogs behavior and the behavior of the people in control of the dog - the owners. 
A leash law simply means keeping dogs leashed in areas where it is unsafe for them to be loose. Dont you have laws in the UK about keeping dogs leashed around roads or livestock for example? So you adapt the model to fit the place where youre applying it.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> So ALL our dogs, except those of vast land owners, should be forever confined to a leash? Or should we, without land , just stop owning dogs alltogether?


See above. No, you should not stop owning dogs altogether. Though owners who have shown that they will not care for their dogs responsibly should be banned from owning dogs. Like dog fighters and other forms of abuse.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> My personal favourite is the "expert examination" AFTER yet ANOTHER fatality has occured. Don't get me wrong - in principle I believe it is a great idea. In practice, what are you prepared to bet that the owners simply sob and faithfully state that they just never saw it coming, the dog was a cherished pet and it's all so sad and tragic? From which we have learned - what? And reduced the risk - HOW?


The owner interview would consist of more than just what happened. Behaviorists are fairly well trained in asking detailed questions about how the dog was acquired, raised, trained, and what specific activities were going on before and during the attack. The dog can also be examined behaviorally by trained experts.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> You don't know what you are talking about. You have a narrow, polarized, country specific viewpoint and a huge proclivity to argue with anyone who doesn't share it or pay fawning hommage to it.


Actually, I do know what Im talking about. I would not call myself an expert by any means, but I do work closely with several individuals who are experts - if you can call someone who gets called in as a dog bite expert in court cases and expert. I guess thats up to anyones judgement.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Of ALL the US States I have travelled in and travelled across, I don't think I've ever seen so many chained-up, debarked, ill kept, disrespected and pitiful creatures than from Rockhill to Charleston. So DO forgive me if I find it more than a tad odd that one of their inhabitants comes and perpetually lectures on how WE should address the problems with ours.


I believe I was answering your question. It was you who asked what should we do right? So I answered.
BTW, you dont know where I live


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Actually I expect in most of the EU local laws are that dogs should be on leads in public places like beside roads, in town centers etc. The fact that dog owners frequently don't follow these laws is beside the point. After all they don't have dangerous dogs do they  I know in Germany the length of leads can also be dictated and in some places areas have lead restrictions at certain times of the year to protect wildlife. Doesn't mean we don't have the ability to let the dogs off lead in other places simply it may be an inconveniance.
> 
> What I don't get is you support a model which doesn't work but as soon as legislation which has been shown to actually work is mentioned you protest against it. Seems to be you are fine with any legislation which doesn't affect you personally.


But the Calgary model specifically states that ALL dogs must be on-leash at ALL times in ALL public places. That simply makes it an unfair law to ALL peacefully interacting dogs instead of confining it to selected breeds. True, one could argue that being unfair to ALL dogs is marginally better and just than being unfair to some. But is THAT the best we can do ? Discriminate against ALL dogs?

As to legislation affecting me personally - not what I said. Keeping a dog of ANY breed isn't mandatory. Nobody is forcing anybody, anywhere to keep a particular dog. Moreover, we have a right to walk and live in safety, be that with our dogs or alone. If my breed was implicated and documented in umptieth dog and human fatalities and attacks around the world, I'd be the first to request to have them put ON the BSL. And request to tighten up the legislation on who can own one whilst I'm at it.

Or....I could choose NOT to own one of them. Or own one and accept that doing nothing except moan about the unfairness won't change anything for the better.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Or....I could choose NOT to own one of them. Or own one and accept that doing nothing except moan about the unfairness won't change anything for the better.


Or you can highlight the fact it does not make any difference and campaign against an unjust law which has no effect instead of saying "I'm alright jack". I'll say it again, we don't have BSL where I am. Doesn't mean I'm going to accept BSL elsewhere or state it's important legislation and support it as it doesn't affect me.

Let's look at the calgary model shall we..


Dogs must be on-leash in all public spaces in Calgary unless otherwise indicated by a posted sign that the area is an off-leash area. If a listed off-leash area and posted sign differs, the posted sign is considered correct.
Dogs must be under their owner's control at all times. In off-leash areas, this means dogs must be able to respond to their owner's voice, sound or visual commands. This will help protect your dog from unforeseen hazards such as cars, unfriendly dogs or coyotes.
In on-leash and off-leash areas, dog owners must pick up and properly dispose of their pet's feces. Dog owners are also required to carry a "suitable means" (e.g. plastic bag) for picking up their pet's feces.
All parking lots are on-leash, including parking lots for designated off-leash areas.
Dogs are not permitted within five meters of "No Dog Areas" whether a sign is posted or not. No dog areas include: play structures, school grounds, wading pool/swimming areas, sports fields, golf courses or cemeteries.
All areas within natural environment parks, including asphalt pathways, are on-leash unless designated as an off-leash area with a sign.
No dogs are allowed in Inglewood Bird Sanctuary and Inglewood Wildlands, or off of the pathways in the Weaselhead Natural Environment Park, in order to protect sensitive wildlife habitat.
So what is there to complain about.. Most people would say this is common sense.. The main thing I can see is the idea that dogs have to be allowed somewhere, not assumed to be able to run free everywhere unless they are disallowed which people generally ignore anyway.

Fact is, this works. It protects people. It reduces bites. It doesn't cause fear and panic as someone walks down a street with "fighting dog". It encourages responsible ownership for all dogs. Now.. how does BSL do that again?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Anti-chaining addresses the conditions in which dogs are kept. The environment.
> 
> The Calgary model addresses the dog's behavior and the behavior of the people in control of the dog - the owners.
> A leash law simply means keeping dogs leashed in areas where it is unsafe for them to be loose. Don't you have laws in the UK about keeping dogs leashed around roads or livestock for example? So you adapt the model to fit the place where you're applying it.
> ...


Anti-chaining laws examine the effect of.........chaining a dog. NOT general living conditions.

The so called stellar, exemplary "Calgary model" is simply a perpetual and enforced leash law across all breeds. Nothing more.

Never mind which way you shake it you can't compare the US and the UK, be that in keeping dogs or anything else. It thus makes little sense to continually do just that.

Working with dog bite experts doesn't make you an "almost expert" via working alongside it. It just makes you opinionated. Which is cool but hardly a stringent criteria that everyone needs to conform to your views.

We don't need more dog bite experts, we need less morons owning vicious dogs and more effective laws to enforce this. Since we are STILL not talking about simply preventing all and every dog bite, but from incurring more FATALITIES and disfiguring maulings. As not all bites are equal.

YOU stated repeatedly that you live in rural SC. Which I read as South Carolina. Where I noticed a great many chained up, debarked, ill kept, pitiful dogs. A more fertile ground for improving the life of dogs right on ones door step is hard to fathom. Makes it sort of hard to understand if one chooses to engage in endless online tit-for-tat instead.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Congratulations HATEOTT, you win. Im out. In fact you and the posters like you who get a hard on seeing how hateful you can be towards me before I respond in kind (you know who you are) and the members who sit here and watch you behave like this without ever offering me any support may have even succeeded in chasing me off the forum entirely. Good job.

I work in rescue - Im in the trenches helping those pitiful dogs you saw. How do you think I know so much about anti-chaining laws? Because I work to try to get them enacted in communities like the ones you saw. And with fellow volunteers have succeeded in getting many of them passed and will continue trying to get more passed. 

But see, here I am defending myself against what? Just vitriol for no other reason than because I point out that BSL doesnt work and offer alternatives. 

I have not once, not one time make any personal comments about you HATEOTT, but you continually make personal remarks about me while fellow members stand by and let you do it. I guess everyone thinks its fine to just stand by and watch because I can take it. I can defend myself. 
Guess what? Im also human. And I can honestly say it hurts more to be left out to dry with no support than it does to listen to HATEOTTs diatribes against me.

FWIW, I dont ever post in defense of myself. I post in defense of those who have no voice, and when I see others being attacked.

There is no BSL where I live. (Which BTW, I have mentioned maybe twice where I live, and never on a thread HATEOTT participated on, so you had to dig to find that one - beyond creepy.) 
But no, there is no BSL here. I dont have a bully breed. I have a mutt who most people think is a lab (or a piggin lab according to other charming PF members). I dont have to participate in this at all. Its not my problem, yet I choose to post in support of those who have bull-breeds who face these unjust rulings. And this is the thanks I get. Done, done, done, done.... 

If youre not in the trenches with me getting your ass kicked on occasion, Im not interested in your feedback. ~Brene Brown 

Thank you to the few members who dont sit idly by.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Let's face facts here.. There has been no supporting evidence for BSL despite plenty against it and despite being asked for several times. There has been a push by an individual supporting the need for it as "legislation" as it protects dogs and the public despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. When a model is mentioned which has been proven to work the only reasoning against it is that it would affect all dogs, including obviously their own. The complaint is based on one part of the model and even then the statements are false. Doesn't this really say a lot about why BSL is accepted and supported? Easy to say they would put their own breed on a list, something else entirely if it would happen.

Then again one of the main changes needed in attitude in my opinion is that owning a dog should be counted as a priviledge we need to earn every day. It's not a right. Maybe if more dog owners felt that way, we wouldn't have BSL and the UK wouldn't have the rescue problem it currently has. That may well mean inconveniance such as having to find places "out the way" for letting a dog off leash. Personally I think my dogs are worth it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Congratulations HATEOTT, you win. Im out. In fact you and the posters like you who get a hard on seeing how hateful you can be towards me before I respond in kind (you know who you are) and the members who sit here and watch you behave like this without ever offering me any support may have even succeeded in chasing me off the forum entirely. Good job.
> 
> I work in rescue - Im in the trenches helping those pitiful dogs you saw. How do you think I know so much about anti-chaining laws? Because I work to try to get them enacted in communities like the ones you saw. And with fellow volunteers have succeeded in getting many of them passed and will continue trying to get more passed.
> 
> ...


Please don't bow out of the forum altogether Ouesi, lots of us would really miss your input/experience/advice and even if we don't say it very often we do appreciate it. I'm away at the moment and having to steal a few minutes on my OH's laptop so I'm finding it hard to keep up with many threads at a time and must admit to not having read all of this one but just wanted to say my bit.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

So... how about a system where owners of SOME breeds need to register with the local council, and attend training/education classes?

Owners of OTHER breeds could be required to do the same IF their dog is seen as out of control or the owner is felt to be incapable.

I agree that this is BSL but not in a national, blanket-ban, shock-horror way - more tailoring it to owners and also the local councils having records of who-owns-what. Kind of a hometown-based dog licence?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MerlinsMum said:


> So... how about a system where owners of SOME breeds need to register with the local council, and attend training/education classes?


Why.. why not treat all dogs the same, as they actually are? Why should only a minority be required to be responsible, bearing in mind those that did attend would probably be responsible owners anyway? What purpose other than false propaganda would it serve?

Setting laws up based on breeds has been proven again and again to not work.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Why.. why not treat all dogs the same, as they actually are? Why should only a minority be required to be responsible, bearing in mind those that did attend would probably be responsible owners anyway? What purpose other than false propaganda would it serve?
> 
> Setting laws up based on breeds has been proven again and again to not work.


Why should my friendly, socialised non BSL breed dogs be penalised? Why should they be treated the same as BSL breeds?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Why.. why not treat all dogs the same, as they actually are? Why should only a minority be required to be responsible, bearing in mind those that did attend would probably be responsible owners anyway.


Ask the French - they have that in place, and have done for a long time. It is certainly a way of assessing if Mr or Mrs X are suitable owners for the breed they've chosen..... making sure they're educated as to their responsibilities, and being able to keep a tab on them if they can't or don't.

And any owner of an out of control dog of any breed can be made to fess up and pay a fine/attend classes, just like anyone caught speeding is sent to a speed awareness class.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> Why should my friendly, socialised non BSL breed dogs be penalised? Why should they be treated the same as BSL breeds?


Why should any friendly socialised dog be penalised whether they have the wrong set of measurements or not?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why should any friendly socialised dog be penalised whether they have the wrong set of measurements or not?


Because it's what's at the other end of the lead that really matters.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why should any friendly socialised dog be penalised whether they have the wrong set of measurements or not?


Ooooh, thought you were too busy to defend your mate? But not too busy as it seems! HATEOTT a bit too hot for you?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> Why should my friendly, socialised non BSL breed dogs be penalised? Why should they be treated the same as BSL breeds?


Because something like a Golden Retriever is more likely to bite than a pitbull for example as has been determined by behavioural studies. Like the fact that you cannot base things on breeds when the most probably term for most dogs is mongrel. Like the fact that BSL does not work in terms of protecting the public. What does work for reducing bite reductions is when attitudes change for everyone across the board, not specific to breeds. Show me how targeting a minority of breeds makes people safer.

As to asking the French.. show me statistics showing me that since BSL has been in place, dog bites have been reduced? You can also answer the simple question.. what is a Pit-bulls or Boerbull. What about if there is a bit of a labrador in there? Is it then still a pit bull.. at what % does it become no longer a Pit-bull?

People say they are dog lovers.. how can a dog lover say they support BSL when they are condemning dogs to die based not on behaviour, simply as they look a certain way?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> Ooooh, thought you were too busy to defend your mate? But not too busy as it seems! HATEOTT a bit too hot for you?


Not remotely. I actually admire HATEOTT although we have had our differences of opinions on a few threads. I don't recall saying anyone was my mate either, I'm a 50 something year old woman not a school child. My question to you was genuine and not combative but if you don't want to answer it thats fine I won't be sulking over it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I think what's needed is to look not simply at any legislation such as BSL but the purpose of any legislation. The simple question is does BSL perform and actually achieve it's purpose? Can anyone give me a purpose and show BSL fulfills that purpose?


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

As far as Im concerned, it fulfils its purpose! Im sick of running into off lead aggressive bull breeds, and thank god they weren't pitbulls.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Closed until a mod can read it, I'm busy with Thanksgiving this weekend...Jill


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

I can't believe what I'm reading here :eek6:
Sensible debate is fine, twisting posts just to cause arguments will result in a ban. 

Re-opened but will keep an eye so keep it civil.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> what is nonsensical?
> the policy was PTS......never said I agreed with her, my relationship to her was strictly horses.


The fact you offered a dog a home and she would not allow it was what I found nonsensical....... along with her policy!


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> The fact you offered a dog a home and she would not allow it was what I found nonsensical....... along with her policy!


ah....thank you.

I would have taken him and I did think her policy was unreasonable.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> some breeds are bred to guard and are much easier to upset, to trigger...so more dangerous -plus their powerful jaws and sheer strength!


I think thats perhaps a tad unfair.
I own a large powerful guardian breed, and trust him to the end of the earth. No well bred dog should turn on its family for no reason, regardless of breed, bottom line.

In fact, a well bred and socialised 'guarding' breed (which to my knowledge, pits aren't even classed as) should be MORE stable and sure than the average dog, not less.

Its sad when things like this make normally rational sensible people pluck logic out of thin air to back up their pre existing fears of a breed.
Even my dad, who adores my doberman and is quite open minded about dog breeds, was telling me about this story and ended it with 'well, I guess theres a reason they're illegal', and I had to explain to him the lack of logic in the entire 'pitbull' thing.

20-30 years back, it was MY breed that was all over the papers as the evil devil dogs. And while there hasn't been a high profile dobe attack story for a long long time, the stigma still persists and people still avoid my dog in the streets. These kinds of things take forever to go away, if they ever truly do. And its so sad that a few bad dogs with terrible owners can ruin an entire breed that way.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> As far as Im concerned, it fulfils its purpose! Im sick of running into off lead aggressive bull breeds, and thank god they weren't pitbulls.


Would you actually be able to identify a true pitbull ?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Would you actually be able to identify a true pitbull ?


Good question......and I have been asked and told more than once that my bullmastiff is a pit bull, isn't she?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> Good question......and I have been asked and told more than once that my bullmastiff is a pit bull, isn't she?


Yes of course....... : anything with a broad head = pitbull to most

I particularly liked this i came across the other day


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> As far as Im concerned, it fulfils its purpose! Im sick of running into off lead aggressive bull breeds, and thank god they weren't pitbulls.


I'm sick of running into aggressive Labradors on and off lead...can we have them banned?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

I've been asked when out if Dresden is anything from a great dane to a greyhound to a rottweiler, to a 'dobie x' and even someone who said he looked like he 'had pointer in him'.

People cannot identify dog breeds, its shown time and time again, even with a pretty recognisable distinctive breed like mine. Getting them to accurately identify a cross breed is probably asking for the moon on a stick.

Dresden has been attacked (as in, more than rough play, a dog that is actually out to mess with him) to date by a german shepherd, one staff, 2 westies, one shih-tzu and one shih-tzu cross. 
Little dogs give him infinitely more trouble and are far more aggressive to him at the park than any other type of dog. The last time, the little sod was actually clamping down on his back leg as he tried to run off, and the owner stood there doing nothing. We had to throw a coat over them to try and break them up, and the woman eventually picked up her little precious which proceeded to try and nip her.
Not once did my big mean dobe retaliate, even though he could have picked that little git up and flung him aside easily, he just tried to escape.

Sorry, don't buy this breed rubbish. 
If I avoid any types of dog when out with Dres, it is the smaller ones. 
The majority of big dogs don't bother with Dresden. 9 times out of 10 the smaller ones do, and most of the time its to be pushy, snappy and horrible toward him. 
If we're cool with banning breeds that annoy us or give our dogs hassle, can we start with westies and shih-tzus please?


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> I've been asked when out if Dresden is anything from a great dane to a greyhound to a rottweiler, to a 'dobie x' and even someone who said he looked like he 'had pointer in him'.
> 
> People cannot identify dog breeds, its shown time and time again, even with a pretty recognisable distinctive breed like mine. Getting them to accurately identify a cross breed is probably asking for the moon on a stick.
> 
> ...


Would you like me to muzzle mine?   

I've re-opened this so let's try to keep it on topic.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

My bullmastiff is a big girl but she gets really upset if we come across small fluffies. She will do anything to avoid them and not look at them.

Somebody posted its whats at the end of the lead that is the problem....couldn't agree more and there are just as many idiots at the end of the lead for small dogs as big dogs


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

westie~ma said:


> Would you like me to muzzle mine?
> 
> I've re-opened this so let's try to keep it on topic.


The comment was said in jest, just as the above comment calling for labs to be similarly treated was, presumably, light hearted. In context of what I wrote, it should be clear I don't agree with blanket bans on any breed; me calling for all westies to be muzzled and leashed makes as much sense as someone else calling for staffies to endure the same just because their dog has been set on by one; that was kinda the point.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> The comment was said in jest, just as the above comment calling for labs to be similarly treated was, presumably, light hearted. In context of what I wrote, it should be clear I don't agree with blanket bans on any breed; me calling for all westies to be muzzled and leashed makes as much sense as someone else calling for staffies to endure the same just because their dog has been set on by one; that was kinda the point.


I put three sarky smilies in my post


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> As far as Im concerned, it fulfils its purpose! Im sick of running into off lead aggressive bull breeds, and thank god they weren't pitbulls.


20 years and that comment proves BSL hasn't worked. It's simply propaganda not a solution.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> As far as Im concerned, it fulfils its purpose! Im sick of running into off lead aggressive bull breeds, and thank god they weren't pitbulls.


Tell that to Harvey my 'devil' staff who ended up with a lovely hole in his head from a lab.

Why should my friendly, socialised, none DA bully be penalised just because i want a bull breed, and not a breed that doesn't fall under BSL, when there are still many many idiots who own all breeds who allow their dogs to attack others.

Your attitude is down right disgusting.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Ang2 said:


> As far as Im concerned, it fulfils its purpose! Im sick of running into off lead aggressive bull breeds, and thank god they weren't pitbulls.


Oh dear


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There are aggressive dogs in all breeds, I've seen a bichon full on go for a staffy, thankfully both onlead, who's owner just laughed. Had it been the other way around or had the staffy retaliated there would have been uproar. 

I love bichons before the bichon owners get offended awesome little dogs but there's definitely a different reaction when it's something small and cute compared to a bull breed.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> There are aggressive dogs in all breeds, I've seen a bichon full on go for a staffy, thankfully both onlead, who's owner just laughed. Had it been the other way around or had the staffy retaliated there would have been uproar.
> 
> I love bichons before the bichon owners get offended awesome little dogs but there's definitely a different reaction when it's something small and cute compared to a bull breed.


My bullmastiff is a big powerful girl and is terrified of small fluffies. If a small fluffy was to really have a go at her and get a grip, Bullmastiff would make mince meat of small fluffy.......that's the difference.

Even though I find it odd Bullmastiffs body language is one of fear and wants to get away from fluffies, I have to be realistic and understand the amount of damage she is capable of.

She has never been attacked by any dog and hopefully I can keep it that way. We have other dogs in the house that she plays with very well...she is so tolerant . We have a 7 month old EBT that plagues the life out of her who decided last week she was going to take Bullmastiffs bone off her and Bullmastiff said not a chance. She didn't bite but jumped on EBT and pinned her to the floor.

I have seen some smaller breed owners getting a real kick out of allowing their dogs to attack a larger dog and when the larger dog doesn't react, they think its cos its scared......and from people you wouldn't expect that sort of reaction from.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Am I right in saying pitbulls were banned in the UK in 1991? 
Does anyone remember a huge problem with pits in the UK prior to that? I was born 10 years before the ban, and I don't remember ever even _seeing_ a pitbull, or a staff come to that, until after the ban. 
My parents also don't remember ever seeing staffs, and certainly never hearing about pitbull attacks, before the ban.

Clearly, the ban has done nothing but make the situation worse. 
And I suspect the government realise this, as despite the number of 'staffy' attacks and how demonized these dogs are, they haven't proposed banning them. 
Perhaps 20 years ago, they would have by now?
It only took a tiny amount of pit attacks for them to ban _that_ breed, but they are apparently not rushing to do the same with Staffs, which kinda suggests to me they realise it would be utterly ineffectual.

However, I do believe its probably too late to reverse the damage the ban has done to pits, even if it were over-turned now, it would still be a huge mess, possibly an even bigger one.
They should never have been banned in the first place, then they wouldn't have become desirable to exactly the sort of people who shouldn't have them.
But, sadly, they were and now we're dealing with the fall out from that.

I can't even appease myself by thinking 'well, with hard work we can educate and make pits undesirable dogs for those kinds of people!' because you know they'd just move onto a different breed. Its akitas and huskies around here, now. And they're two dogs who, more so than pits, should not be in inexperienced hands :/


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

They were banned because of a couple of high profile attacks where the breed was never even identified. But people panicked so the government had to be seen to do something. At least there were pitbulls in the country, there was one tosa inu and no dogos or filas. Once they were banned they became the penis extension dog of choice


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> I can't even appease myself by thinking 'well, with hard work we can educate and make pits undesirable dogs for those kinds of people!' because you know they'd just move onto a different breed. Its akitas and huskies around here, now. And they're two dogs who, more so than pits, should not be in inexperienced hands :/


It's not about making pits undesirable is it though. The key is to make people responsible for their dogs no matter what breed. How can you do that when saying only these breeds are dangerous? As you say it's just different dog breeds used. Target the attitude and penalise it, not breeds, especially the idea of guilty purely based on looks, not actions.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Shadowrat said:


> Am I right in saying pitbulls were banned in the UK in 1991?
> Does anyone remember a huge problem with pits in the UK prior to that? I was born 10 years before the ban, and I don't remember ever even _seeing_ a pitbull, or a staff come to that, until after the ban.
> My parents also don't remember ever seeing staffs, and certainly never hearing about pitbull attacks, before the ban.
> 
> ...


We got a rottie in 1997 and 18 months later there were terrible attacks by rotties and a couple of children and at least 1 baby were killed by them,

There was much hype re banning these dogs, having them all PTS.

Before Rottie attacks it was GSDs and since then it has been Akitas. I have seen staffy Xs and more recently...like last year have seen 2 AmBulls. Not sure if I have ever seen a pitbull in the flesh.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> However, I do believe its probably too late to reverse the damage the ban has done to pits, even if it were over-turned now, it would still be a huge mess, possibly an even bigger one.


I would potentially agree with the above point if it wasn't for:


> Its akitas and huskies around here, now. And they're two dogs who, more so than pits, should not be in inexperienced hands :/


When it comes down to it, the continuation of BSL leads to dogs being killed solely on a random opinion of looks matching an ambigious list of features. This is wrong.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Goblin said:


> It's not about making pits undesirable is it though. The key is to make people responsible for their dogs no matter what breed. How can you do that when saying only these breeds are dangerous? As you say it's just different dog breeds used. Target the attitude and penalise it, not breeds, especially the idea of guilty purely based on looks, not actions.


I said 'undesireable to _these types of people_', which is key. 
What I mean is not to make pits undesirable in general, only to those who have them for the wrong reasons.

Its my personal view that a big part of the reason these thugs choose pit types is because thats the breed represented in the media, fashion, music videos (particularly a certain genre of music), movies and so on as the ultimate 'tough guy' dog. I don't think anyone can deny thats a factor.

Around here, at least, the chav owner with the lunging staffy is just trying to emulate a 'culture' of gangs and dog fights; they think thats cool and something to aspire to. They don't want people realising or thinking their status dogs are actually lovely friendly dogs. 
I don't see groups of goths, or bookish types or bohemian/hippy types or hell just 'normal' every day people hanging around street corners with badly socialised bull breeds.....ever. Its a certain type of person that sort of image appeals to, and its due in no small part to media. 
If the pits and bull breeds portrayed in music videos, fashion and so on were replaced with, say, dalmatians, you can bet you'd see that breed take over as the status dog. Stupid people are very easily influenced by the media.

My point was that if bull breeds, or in fact ANY dogs, were suddenly seen as really uncool and unappealing to these types of people, perhaps they'd leave them be, which is why I think pushing the gentleness and friendliness of the breed in the media may help turn the wrong kinds of people off them; if they lose their 'scary' image, the people who just want scary dogs will move off them. But as I said, they'd just move onto another breed, so y'know, not a solution in the long run.
Maybe the media should just stop portraying dogs, of any breed, as accessories.

While the ultimate goal would obviously be to make people, _all people_, more responsible as owners, I do firmly believe there is a type of person who has no interest in being a 'responsible owner'. They just want a status dog, bottom line. We've all seen them, we've all seen shows like 'dangerous dog owner and proud'.
Remove the 'status' from a breed, and the idiots who want them for that reason will stop wanting them. Stop portraying them in media as an accessory to a certain lifestyle, and people who emulate that lifestyle won't want them.

Of course we know they'd move onto another breed, so its not a solution of course, I was just explaining what I mean by making a breed undesirable to the wrong type of person; I didn't mean making them look aggressive or undesireable to all, just to those who have agendas in owning them. 
There is a reason these people don't have collies or labs or greyhounds; they don't have the image they want.
But the media could change that, if they chose. Thats how fickle the whole thing is.
And its a vicious circle, because the more the media portrays a type of dog as a necessary accessory to a type of image, the more the wrong people will get them, and the more badly raised and bred dogs of this type will be out in society causing trouble and re-inforcing the media's image. And so it goes on and on.

Perhaps Im jaded because I live in an area with a lot of these types of people, with a lot of poorly cared for staffs who run about off lead, and I see them every day standing in their little groups thinking everyone is scared of them because they have a staff.
I personally like to smile and say 'what an adorable dog!' to them as I pass, and watch them seethe, because thats the last thing they want people to think about their dogs.
Sad but true.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Most of those types I see have the most obedient dogs, they're just trotting alongside them staring up adoringly. The problem isn't that bull breeds are aggressive its that they're too soft for their own good. They make a good penis extension for idiots because they will take rough treatment.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Most of those types I see have the most obedient dogs, they're just trotting alongside them staring up adoringly. The problem isn't that bull breeds are aggressive its that they're too soft for their own good. They make a good penis extension for idiots because they will take rough treatment.


True. Case in point saw a young lad 17ish walking down the road today with what was obviously an am bull, or am bull x - big dog..... no lead, no collar, dog not moving more than a foot away from him (bloody idiot it was a busy road). I imagine if I asked him what breed the dog was, he would have said "pitbull" :


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> True. Case in point saw a young lad 17ish walking down the road today with what was obviously an am bull, or am bull x - big dog..... no lead, no collar, dog not moving more than a foot away from him (bloody idiot it was a busy road). I imagine if I asked him what breed the dog was, he would have said "pitbull" :


They don't realise just how small the properly bred ones really are do they? People talk about banning dogs over a certain size but you'd be banning nearly everything if you went by staffy or pitbull size


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> They don't realise just how small the properly bred ones really are do they? People talk about banning dogs over a certain size but you'd be banning nearly everything if you went by staffy or pitbull size


Yep, really not big dogs at all. Terrierists would rule.......


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I recently saw statistics compiled on what Breeds had bitten Postal Workers, (Delivery Drivers, Postmen/women), in 2013.

Most recorded bites were by Chihuahuas, Cocker Spaniels and Jack Russell Terriers. 

There was not one bite on record by a Staffy.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I recently saw statistics compiled on what Breeds had bitten Postal Workers, (Delivery Drivers, Postmen/women), in 2013.
> 
> Most recorded bites were by Chihuahuas, Cocker Spaniels and Jack Russell Terriers.
> 
> There was not one bite on record by a Staffy.


Cos the staff was too busy rolling around on its back waiting for the postie to tickle its belly!!!!:scared:


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I would potentially agree with the above point if it wasn't for:
> 
> When it comes down to it, the continuation of BSL leads to dogs being killed solely on a random opinion of looks matching an ambigious list of features. This is wrong.


I never said, or implied, any support for BSL. I sincerely hope you're not implying I am! :eek6: I've never ever suggested anything of the sort.

However, it is simply a fact that some breeds are more specialised than others, and to deny that is, in my view, not helping the issue. 
The attitude of 'all dogs are the same' is a dangerous one, to me, and far too prevalent, leading to people taking on more than they can handle because they believe a pug is identical to a border collie which is identical to a borzoi. 
They're not. 
Someone who excells at owning a pug may quite likely struggle to manage a malinois; I don't think anyone would argue with that.......its not shaming the malinois to admit that, its simply recognising that dog breeds can be worlds apart and what thrives in one home would fester in another.

If they weren't all different, we wouldn't need to bother researching a breed before getting one; we'd just whatever looked good to us, because hell, they're all the same, right?

But we don't, do we? We look at the breed traits and work out what we can live with, what we can't live with, what we want and what we don't want, and make breed choices based on that first and foremost. And we do that specifically because all breeds are different, with different needs and different management, and we know there are some things we could deal with, or even embrace, and some things we absolutely could not.

There is a reason we don't recommend akitas and huskies to first time owners, generally. There is a reason I would not recommend _my_ breed to most average first time owners, either, but I think they're wonderful dogs, for the right people. 
The sad fact is you can 'get away' with less than ideal dog ownership with some breeds a lot better than you can with others.

Would you advise a malinois to a first time owner? Of course not. Thats not BSL, its simply common sense.

Both akitas and huskies are, in my view, specialist breeds that your average fair weather dog owner with only minor dog knowledge would likely not succeed with. They would, however, probably be more successful with a different breed.

This is why it bothers me that huskies and akitas are more commonly these days ending up with people who don't know the first thing about dogs and only want them for an image.

Thats not good for ANY dog, obviously, but when you are talking about a breed like a husky that needs serious devotion, tons of exercise every day, and in an ideal world, a regular job to do, its not hard to see why, in the hands of someone less devoted, you would have a _huge_ problem.
Im pretty sure none of the 4 husky owning chavs on my street alone are giving their huskies what they need to be fulfilled, and those needs are arguably more specific and impacting than a different, lower energy breed.

That is why Im saddened by the trend toward huskies in my town; because I walk past homes on my walks with Dresden where I'll see 3 or 4 huskies cooped up in houses howling because they're thoroughly under stimulated and bored out of their minds because their owners don't understand they need a bit more stimulation and exercise and work than next doors CKCS. 
Or they just don't care because they got them for the good looks, and didn't even stop to consider they might need a different management style to the breed they had before.

I am not 'judging' any breed as more aggressive, that never came into it. I simply believe the needs of some breeds are more involved and require more knowledge and devotion than others to be stable, happy, decent dogs. If it makes me a supporter of BSL to recognise and accept that different breeds tend toward different traits and require varying management styles, then I guess Im a rabid BSL supporter 

And when those breeds are ending up with the worst kinds of owners, yes, I stand by my concerns on that - for the dog's welfare alone.
Even I discounted a husky, despite them having been my favourite breed for decades, because I simply didn't think I could give them what they needed to be happy, fulfilled dogs. I just wasn't right for them, and Im someone prepared to give a LOT to a dog. 
If I can see that about my own lifestyle, I find it hard to believe the local chavs with ther huskies and akitas are surpassing the effort I was prepared to put in to such a dog.

I'd say the exact same thing if they had moved onto malinois, or border collies. Its tragic when any breed is turned into a status symbol (come on, I own a dobe, a breed thats been there and done that whole thing; I know) but its arguably an even bigger concern when its more specialised breeds.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Looking at breed traits and choosing responsibly based on what kind of dog you want is just good sense. There's a difference between a pitbull is likely to be dog aggressive and maybe not the best choice for a multidog family and that dog aggression means they will eat small children for breakfast. No dog is suited for everyone, people choosing the wrong breed is a huge part of why so many are in rescue.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> The problem isn't that bull breeds are aggressive its that they're too soft for their own good. They make a good penis extension for idiots because they will take rough treatment.


I 100% agree. And there are some breeds that just won't stand for poor treatment quite as readily, which is why it concerns me even more when I see these people moving onto more specialised breeds.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> I never said, or implied, any support for BSL. I sincerely hope you're not implying I am! :eek6: I've never ever suggested anything of the sort.


You said we can't really change it even though you don't support it and I have said I can understand your reasoning for that although don't agree. The problem is it doesn't achieve anything and just means dogs are killed for looks. It also only perpetuates the idea of dangerous dogs = breed.



> However, it is simply a fact that some breeds are more specialised than others, and to deny that is, in my view, not helping the issue.


Too true. Hovawarts are a not for "novice owners" either and I am sure that most people can name breeds similar. The fact unfortunately is that most people go for looks not traits. Add to that indiscriminate breeding and you are compounding the problem. People spend far more time choosing a car than a living breathing animal. So we go back to education. Part of the reason some people pick huskies is that they aren't on a dangerous dog breed list so not dangerous. That's another reason BSL does the opposite to it's intention. It encourages a false sense of security.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Cos the staff was too busy rolling around on its back waiting for the postie to tickle its belly!!!!:scared:


Our Staffy Girl, Leah, was very menacing to the postman. She used to try and rummage in his post sack to see if he had any treats.

He used to bring her a biscuit, 'cos he had a soft spot for her, and she loved him.

She was very easily bought.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Goblin said:


> You said we can't really change it even though you don't support it and I have said I can understand your reasoning for that although don't agree. The problem is it doesn't achieve anything and just means dogs are killed for looks. It also only perpetuates the idea of dangerous dogs = breed.


Perhaps someone with more drive and optimism than me would have a different view, but I just can't see the issue with BSL getting better, at least not in my life time. As time goes on, it only seems to get worse, with more breeds coming under fire. Despite all the lengths advocates of these breeds are going to to show the public that its always the owner and not the dog, and that these dogs are perfectly lovely as any other, Im not seeing any improvement in the situation. 
Even with my breed, which was the 'devil dog' of the 70s/early 80s, and hasn't been involved in a high profile attack story since, cannot shake its reputation. 
Even now I get people cross the road away from me and Dres, or make comments, and I would bet my life none of them have had any personal experience with a dobermann, they just have their minds made up for them by the 'reputation' that still persists, even decades on.
These kinds of things can be so hard to change once they've been established, if we ever truely can.
We can't even seem to bring ourselves to understand media scaremongering for what it is when it pertains to our own species, let alone a different one.

I just guess my view of human nature is bleak on this one. Even with my rats, I've been fighting the prejudice and ignorance about the species for 16 years now, and have noticed little to no improvement in people's attitudes.

The reason I worry it can't be rectified is because I do firmly believe there are people out there who don't WANT to do the right thing by their dogs, and no amount of education will change that; its a fundamental character trait. They don't see dogs as anything other than accessories to aid them, so even with all the education in the world thrown at them, they don't give a damn.

I wish we could solve the issue with BSL, as current BSL law is obviously a sham. But frankly, I can't think of a practical way to fix it. Edcuation is good, but only for those who want to be educated, which sadly, probably isn't high enough numbers to make a difference.
I try and do my bit with my dobe by making sure he is a good representative of his breed when out in public, and that he shows how loving, controlled and obedient he is, and we have had some lovely comments from older people who were surprised by his behaviour. So I have changed some minds, I like to think, about dobes and hopefully that has a knock on effect to other stigmatised breeds too. 
But ultimately, its too complex for me to be able to fathom a solution that will work and doesn't just cause more issues in its place.



Goblin said:


> Part of the reason some people pick huskies is that they aren't on a dangerous dog breed list so not dangerous. That's another reason BSL does the opposite to it's intention. It encourages a false sense of security.


Its odd that huskies have become a status dog for louts, because all my life I've always viewed huskies as good natured, playful, clownish dogs. I've never, ever viewed them as remotely intimidating, and I imagine they'd make crap 'guard' dogs or 'protection' dogs. I can only imagine its the vaguely wolfy look that is drawing people, because wolf = untamed wild animal, ooooh, scary. Possibly the same reason people are going to akitas too; that thick coated, prick eared 'natural' look so they can make believe they have a wolf on the end of their lead. 
Even though if you ever see a real wolf, they don't look like either, but hey 
I'll never forget the guy outside the job centre once with what was blatantly an overweight malamute. When I said 'he's a malamute, isn't he?' he was adamant the animal was a wolf. And he wouldn't be moved on it.
It was a malamute, 100%, he just.......was either utterly delusional or was trying to see if I was stupid.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Goblin said:


> You said we can't really change it even though you don't support it and I have said I can understand your reasoning for that although don't agree. The problem is it doesn't achieve anything and just means dogs are killed for looks. It also only perpetuates the idea of dangerous dogs = breed.
> 
> Too true. Hovawarts are a not for "novice owners" either and I am sure that most people can name breeds similar. The fact unfortunately is that most people go for looks not traits. Add to that indiscriminate breeding and you are compounding the problem. People spend far more time choosing a car than a living breathing animal. So we go back to education. Part of the reason some people pick huskies is that they aren't on a dangerous dog breed list so not dangerous. That's another reason BSL does the opposite to it's intention. It encourages a false sense of security.


I have never spent more than 10 minutes picking and choosing a car. I don't want a black one or a white one, prefer a hatch back and as many miles to the gallon as I can get......now choosing a dog....whole new ball game.lol


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Goblin said:


> You said we can't really change it even though you don't support it and I have said I can understand your reasoning for that although don't agree. The problem is it doesn't achieve anything and just means dogs are killed for looks. It also only perpetuates the idea of dangerous dogs = breed.
> 
> Too true. Hovawarts are a not for "novice owners" either and I am sure that most people can name breeds similar. The fact unfortunately is that most people go for looks not traits. Add to that indiscriminate breeding and you are compounding the problem. People spend far more time choosing a car than a living breathing animal. So we go back to education. Part of the reason some people pick huskies is that they aren't on a dangerous dog breed list so not dangerous. That's another reason BSL does the opposite to it's intention. It encourages a false sense of security.


I just love the look of your dogs on your posts....what breed is Emma? and why did you call her that?

I ask cos my Bullmastiff is called candy...a suitably gentle name for a big girl cos I didn't want to be judged by calling her something heavy and harsh like Bi tch or Dominatrix etc.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> I just love the look of your dogs on your posts....what breed is Emma? and why did you call her that?


Emma is an old english bulldog. We are her third owner. Originally her name was Pasha but her 2nd owner renamed her. 2nd owner only had her for 2 weeks before trying to rehome her as her other, older dog kept attacking her. Didn't want to change it. Due to being attacked (not just with previous owner) she can have a tendency to be dog aggressive in the wrong situation.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Emma is an old english bulldog. We are her third owner. Originally her name was Pasha but her 2nd owner renamed her. 2nd owner only had her for 2 weeks before trying to rehome her as her other, older dog kept attacking her. Didn't want to change it.


thank you. she is lovely


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

An update in the press, more on the background of the dogs and owner. The coroner misses the point about the behaviour, too.

Family of baby girl who was mauled to death by banned American pit bull 'paid the ultimate price' | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

Snoringbear said:


> An update in the press, more on the background of the dogs and owner. The coroner misses the point about the behaviour, too.
> 
> Family of baby girl who was mauled to death by banned American pit bull 'paid the ultimate price' | Daily Mail Online


Oh dear gawd...
I had a really hard time reading through that article, at every turn another contributing factor completely disregarded, all put down to breed. 
The whole read what example after example of everything that is wrong with BSL.

The pictures of a destroyed dog bed as an example of a dog being "crazy"? Are you kidding me? By those standards I should have had both my dogs euthanized for "craziness" years ago.
And it highlights that this person knows nothing of the most basic management techniques. Uh... crate anyone? How can you bring a child in to a home with a "crazy" dog and not have at least a crate?

That's just one example. The whole article is rife with them and I can't bring myself to read through it again to point them all out.

Bottom line, to me this is a case that epitomizes all that is wrong with BSL. Right there in a nutshell in one child's unnecessary death.

Everywhere people are reading the line "The public should be aware that this breed is classified under the Dangerous Dogs Act for a reason - its dangerousness" and looking over at their "safe" lab, dalmatian, spaniel, etc. and breathing a sigh of relief, thinking they don't have to take any common-sense precautions with those "safe" breeds. And more kids will get bitten and worse.

Not a single lesson learned from this poor child's death. Not one single reflection on the dangerous human behavior that led to this tragedy.

And what is to stop this woman from getting another dog? Doing just as piss-poor a job with that one as she did with the previous ones? And having the exact same outcome?

Ugh... I despair


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

So a destructive dog is a dangerous one now? No it's a bored, unsupervised one . Or one with bad separation anxiety. And of course a "dog whisperer" brought in who couldn't help. 

At least 20 people dead by dogs since 2005 without mentioning the breed. How many were killed by cows?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Seems horses and cows kill more people per year than dogs

What animals kill the most humans in the UK? - News - Kent News

So why do we just accept that 10 people per year get killed by horses without wanting to know the breed/type of horse involved?


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> So a destructive dog is a dangerous one now? No it's a bored, unsupervised one . Or one with bad separation anxiety. And of course a "dog whisperer" brought in who couldn't help.


Yes, the "dog whisperer" was a nice touch wasn't it? 

Though I have to take the "couldn't help" part with a grain of salt (or big boulder of it more like it). In my mind I picture a trainer saying "you can't do anything about the chewing when you're not home, so you have to put management systems in place like crating or restricting the dog to one dog-proof room." And the owner simply heard the "there is nothing you can do" part.

That sort of miscommunication happens all the time. That's why you often hear trainers ask the client to repeat the management plan back to them to make sure they actually understood the instructions. Yet another reason to go with a qualified behaviorist who will have received training on human behavior as well as dog behavior.

I've posted pictures somewhere of the bed Bates tore to shreds with the cat as his accomplice. I'll be sure to let Bates know he's a danger to society now. I'm sure he will be properly impressed with his new status as "dangerous dog."


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

Found them. The dangerous mutt dog beware! Clearly the cat is next, you can see it in his eyes!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Clearly his next step is eating small children :scared:. 

I agree the owner probably heard the trainer wrong or just didn't bother with management even if it was costing them quite a bit of money.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Seems horses and cows kill more people per year than dogs
> 
> What animals kill the most humans in the UK? - News - Kent News
> 
> *So why do we just accept that 10 people per year get killed by horses without wanting to know the breed/type of horse involved?*


Because that would just be silly and ridiculous!

Oh.... Wait....


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sweety said:


> Our Staffy Girl, Leah, was very menacing to the postman. She used to try and rummage in his post sack to see if he had any treats.
> 
> He used to bring her a biscuit, 'cos he had a soft spot for her, and she loved him.
> *
> She was very easily bought.*


Our staffie is a canine tart, too.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Our staffie is a canine tart, too.


Yep as is mine!


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Lol sounds about right.... Diz would trot off with anyone if the treat was right 

We had four big burly police officers in here a couple of weeks ago, and they were all cooing over her and she was flirting with them


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Our staffie is a canine tart, too.


but usually they are.....and prob why they have always been so popular.

small, hardy, loving.....who wouldn't want one?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Oh dear gawd...
> I had a really hard time reading through that article, at every turn another contributing factor completely disregarded, all put down to breed.
> The whole read what example after example of everything that is wrong with BSL.
> 
> ...


I see your point, but to me this epitomizes everything that is wrong with dog ownership in this country. And even worse, they don't seem to learn. She can't see she's done anything wrong, it's the dog's fault - she's tried everything. The frightening thing is that this is commonplace, not the exception. In fact, it's a wonder and a testament to the good, tolerant temperament most dogs have that there are not more of these cases. Just makes me mad that they think it's the dog and they've done nothing wrong.

And just to prove the point, a classic ignorant owner on the tv tonight ......sigh.........


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> I see your point, but to me this epitomizes everything that is wrong with dog ownership in this country. And even worse, they don't seem to learn. She can't see she's done anything wrong, it's the dog's fault - she's tried everything. The frightening thing is that this is commonplace, not the exception. In fact, it's a wonder and a testament to the good, tolerant temperament most dogs have that there are not more of these cases. Just makes me mad that they think it's the dog and they've done nothing wrong.


I totally agree with everything in your post. Blamed the dog, learned nothing, no reflection, all the fault of the breed/dog, no human fault... it's infuriating.
And yes, it's a huge testament to the true nature of most dogs that they put up this and worse without a single incident.

Really, instead of examining dangerous dog behavior, we need to be examining dangerous human behavior.

Which goes back to what I said pages ago. "Can't fix stupid."


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

ouesi, where has your avatar gone?

I haven't read the whole thread, but what I have read caused me to recall a few papers I read on the subject of dog bites and BSL.

The first is a paper published in 2008 that looked at the characteristics of 234 dog bite incidents in NI a few years back:










Characteristics of 234 dog bite incidents in Ireland during 2004 and 2005 -- O'Sullivan et al. 163 (2): 37 -- Veterinary Record

This paper was written off the back of a telephone questionnaire, and dog bite victims were divided into two groups - those who owned the dog in question (Owner Group), and those who were attacked by a dog not known to them (Non-owner Group).

Here's what they found about the breeds involved - they didn't publish the exact data, so it's not clear whether the terrier category included Staffords or Pit Bulls and how many.










Just a bit more info from this study...

Here are the circumstances in which the bites took place:










Here's what the bite victims thought should happen to the dog:










And here's what actually happened to the dog, where it was known:










Obviously this is just one study from a cross-section of one region, but it makes interesting reading. This was one of the authors' conclusions regarding the breed aspect of their findings:










There's a lot more to this paper. If you want a copy I can email you the PDF, just drop me a line.

What else is out there?

Well, there's this one from 2010, which looked at which breeds attacked guide dogs. Obviously guide dogs are dogs and not humans, but they are now being afforded some of the same rights as humans when it comes to crime.










Incidence and impact of dog attacks on guide dogs in the UK -- Brooks et al. 166 (25): 778 -- Veterinary Record

Here's what they found about the breeds involved in 100 attacks on guide dogs in the UK:










Looks like, this time, that bull breeds were over-represented...










Again, there is more to it than I can write here.

Finally, there is this 2012 paper on the public's perceptions about BSL in the UK, which also makes for very interesting reading. They quizzed 459 dog owners on what they knew about BSL.










Dog owners' perceptions of breed-specific dangerous dog legislation in the UK -- Oxley 171 (17): 424 -- Veterinary Record

Here are some interesting snippets from it:




























I have all the above papers as PDFs is anyone really wants to read the whole things.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

Great post Shoshannah  Whod of thunk to look at actual stats eh? 

No, theres some good info out there if people care to look. Like I said earlier, the CDC here in the US keeps good records, and we know that the issue is not breeds, nor is the solution breed bans.

I found this little tidbit too, a couple years old (2012) but all still very applicable.
Failure to Improve Safety | Stop BSL


> THE UNITED KINGDOM
> The United Kingdoms Dangerous Dog Act bans the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds of dogs and their crossbreeds. Yet reports from the U.K. indicate that dog bites requiring hospital treatment have not decreased. Rather, 4,328 dog bites were reported treated by U.K. hospitals in 1999, whereas in the year ending April 2011 there were 6,118 such treatmentsan increase of 41% over ten years [HES data]. The U.K. also continues to experience approximately four dog bite fatalities per year.
> 
> The media and many others have noted a sharp increase in the number of status dogs being obtained and ultimately abused. A Dogs Trust press release from 2012 noted that numbers of stray status dogs had increased by 148% from the previous year. One contributor to a 2011 roundtable debate on the DDA observed: Banning breeds inevitably makes them more desirable for the wrong kind of person. Pit bulls and Staffie crosses are now so common that people are inevitably moving on to the next thing  huskies, molosos, presca canarios. We cant add every dog to a banned list. We need to look at why people are getting these dogs. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has repeatedly observed that the Dangerous Dog Act does not address the ownership and management issues that lead to the creation of dangerous dogs.
> ...


Tons more info on the actual link, but the above is worth reading IMHO.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

http://www.fairdog.dk/elements/documents/research/comparison-of-golden-retrievers-and-bslbreeds.pdf was one of the studies important for Lower Saxony in Germany not having BSL.

To me this whole incident shows how the system fails. How much background research was done before the inquest statement made it's declaration?


----------

