# cockapoo bites child on face



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-bitten-face-door-neighbour-s-COCKAPOO.html

However, the child had gone to the neighbours house without permission and had gone inside without permission?

The child's parents have a staffie ..is it a cover up? there own dog bit her and they don't want theirs putting down so blaming the neighbours dog? ..as the father is laying it on a bit thick over being scared of a cockapoo when they have a staffie!

Be interesting to see what happens!


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Cockers are known to be serious resource guarders in some breeding lines which could then pollute the cockerpoo breeding, while staffies are extremely people friendly, so not really sure what your last comment means. Why would owning one breed mean you're not concerned about a particular dog of another breed?


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

BoredomBusters said:


> Cockers are known to be serious resource guarders in some breeding lines which could then pollute the cockerpoo breeding, while staffies are extremely people friendly, so not really sure what your last comment means. *Why would owning one breed mean you're not concerned about a particular dog of another breed?*


If you own a dog that most people are scared of you're not going to be scared of a dog that doesn't have a scary reputation..it's like owning a pitbull and being scared of a chihuahua!

Cocker spaniels and cockerpoo's are often used by hearing dogs for deaf I would have thought they'd have to have a stable temperament to be used for that. My friend has a hearing dog thats a cockapoo and she's got 3 kids.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

I think their account of what happened has been glorified for/by the media (it is the daily fail after all!).

Firstly, if blood had been "pumping" from her "deep" wounds, they wouldn't have patched her up with steri-strips. Secondly - pus? From a wound less than an hour old? I think not.

The whole account is dubious. Why are the parents letting the kids wander off to the neighbours house unsupervised? 

And what was the kid doing with her face close enough to the dogs that it was able to bite her in the first place?

And finally - Staffies aren't child eaters. I have a small elderly dog. Looks cute, but there is no way that I could responsibly have a child while he's still alive. I cannot have adult visitors in my house, never mind children, when he's there. My next dog will be a nice dog. Friendly. Good with dogs, adults and children. And guess what? It'll be a staffy!


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Sounds a bit like breed generalisation on your part if you're assuming most people are scared of staffies? 

Yes, cockerpoos have lovely temperaments, as do cocker spaniels, but there are a lot of very aggressive resource guarders being bred in that area of the country., which would tie in with the attack happening when the child bent to pick up the lead that was trailling. I hear it from my training colleagues in that area of the country a hell of a lot, so you can't make sweeping statements about any breed.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> If you own a dog that most people are scared of you're not going to be scared of a dog that doesn't have a scary reputation..it's like owning a pitbull and being scared of a chihuahua!
> 
> Cocker spaniels and cockerpoo's are often used by hearing dogs for deaf I would have thought they'd have to have a stable temperament to be used for that. My friend has a hearing dog thats a cockapoo and she's got 3 kids.


And Labradors are used as guide dogs. Guess which dogs come near the top of the dog bite statistics year on year?


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

some people are nervous of little dogs, and prefer bigger dogs....


Staffies are one of the only breeds that the KC suggests are good with children. Hence the name nanny dog!


----------



## Sarahliz100 (Jan 5, 2014)

Don't know why you'd assume it's a cover up? Plenty of cockers/cockerpoos out there with issues, not really a shock to think that one could bite a child intruding in it's house. 

Sad for the little girl. Hammers home the importance of always supervising your dog with kids, and also not letting your child approach other dogs - even if they're cute and fluffy! Have to say I do have an image in my head of this child and her siblings persistently pestering this poor dog even when it was apparently safe in it's own home until it was driven to the point of biting - especially if she's used to hugging/kissing/teasing her very tolerant staffie and this dog is less used to children. I do feel sorry for the dogs owners as after all the child was in their house without permission, but then if the children were regularly wondering onto their property then they knew it was an issue and should have made efforts to stop it.


----------



## bella2013 (Aug 29, 2013)

I think saying most people are scared of staffis is a bit of a generalisation on your part, if I was at work and there was a savage dog on the loose and I had to get somewhere and the choice was between a staffi kennel or a terrier kennel I would certainly go in the staffi kennel for hiding. and sayin that I own both breeds and my terrier is more likely to bite someone that my staffi.

ref the article I think it was very irresponsible to let the child go into the garden unsupervised and maybe she thought 'I can do that with staffi so every other dog should be tolerant to' ? just a thought.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> If you own a dog that most people are scared of you're not going to be scared of a dog that doesn't have a scary reputation..it's like owning a pitbull and being scared of a chihuahua!


Sorry but that's a load of bull. This is a 6 year old child who has been bitten by a dog and is terrified of seeing that dog again. I don't see why that's ridiculous or laying it on a bit thick!

Poor kid, hope she heals quickly and with no major repercussions from the incident.


----------



## HelenVF (Dec 4, 2013)

It's always hard to know what is the truth in that paper. One of those things that we are never going to know. At the end of the day, the girl has been bitten so they will have to take it from there. Only the girl knows the circumstances. 

Helen


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-bitten-face-door-neighbour-s-COCKAPOO.html
> 
> ...


Being in the Daily Fail, if they could have spun it to blame the Staffy, I think they would have.  And even the Cockapoo owner said it was her dog that attacked the little girl. I don't particularly like the way the little girl is hugging her staffy though...   OK, HER dog MIGHT be fine with her hugging him like that, but other dogs might not be, and if she's going round hugging all familiar dogs like that ...

Father is laying it on a bit thick though. She might be scarred, but she's still here.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> If you own a dog that most people are scared of you're not going to be scared of a dog that doesn't have a scary reputation..it's like owning a pitbull and being scared of a chihuahua!
> 
> Cocker spaniels and cockerpoo's are often used by hearing dogs for deaf I would have thought they'd have to have a stable temperament to be used for that. My friend has a hearing dog thats a cockapoo and she's got 3 kids.


Why wouldn't she be scared of it? It bit her, her staffy didn't. She's 6 I'm pretty sure her actual experience is behind the fear rather than a breed prejudice she's not likely to even know about yet.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Yeah they own a Staffie (well known to be great with kids) must be a cover up - seriously this is one of the daftest things i have ever heard!!!


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yeah they own a Staffie (well known to be great with kids) must be a cover up - seriously this is one of the daftest things i have ever heard!!!


Do you think they had a warning sign up?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Do you think they had a warning sign up?


Yeah probably says "warning you may well be licked to death"


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Hopefully the parent will have learned better in future and not let her wandering into next doors house and garden unsupervised (that sounds abit odd to me...I wouldnt want kids just walking into my house!). Alot of dogs feel more vulnerable when onlead so maybe the dog felt restrained when she picked up his lead?
Poor kid will probably end up terrified of strange dogs, if not coz of the bite then coz of the histrionics of the father!


----------



## Lynxe (Apr 27, 2015)

Unfortunately, there is so much of this story that is unknown. There's been a lot of criticism of the child wandering between houses, but we don't know the history there - if the families are close, that might be the norm. We also don't know what this child's relationship with the dog has been like in the past - there are images of her cuddling the staffie, but she could have had a similar relationship with the cockerpoo.

At the end of the day, it's a tragic event that ought to remind us that there are very few dogs in the world who can be totally, 100% trusted with small children all the time. Supervise your children, and supervise your dogs!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

How sad especially when the owner did not even know the child was in the house. Any breed can bite though that was a lot of damage so it obviously meant it. I would guess the dog has to be put to sleep for neighbour relations - personally I would not keep a dog that bit so seriously even if it was a provoked but it was certainly an avoidable one


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

I always insist on a family dog kowtowing to any kids that are around. They must never dominate or ever retaliate. They must sit lower than the child and move out the way, or follow the instructions of the kid as required. They must learn their place in life from a young age. After all, are we not God to them?


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-bitten-face-door-neighbour-s-COCKAPOO.html
> 
> ...


I know, right! Because everyone knows that Cockapoos don't have teeth, whereas Staffies have three rows of teeth and broken glass!


----------



## BlueJay (Sep 20, 2013)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> I always insist on a family dog kowtowing to any kids that are around. They must never dominate or ever retaliate. They must sit lower than the child and move out the way, or follow the instructions of the kid as required. They must learn their place in life from a young age. After all, are we not God to them?


Urgh.
A dog is a living creature. They may have been essentially created by man, but that doesn't mean that we have the right to force them to do everything. If they are frightened or uncomfortable, why shouldn't they make it known? (No, I'm not saying biting is acceptable)
My dogs are my pets, my family. I respect and care for them, I'm not going to thrust uncomfortable situations on them that are unnecessary and can be completely avoided.
My young cousin visited us at my mum's house a while back. Frodo freaked out; wouldn't take his eyes off her and refused to approach her at all. Stood in the corner until I removed him from the situation.
Guess what? Children aren't allowed in my house. In MY house, MY dogs come first.


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Gemmaa said:


> I know, right! Because everyone knows that Cockapoos don't have teeth, whereas Staffies have three rows of teeth and broken glass!


I was drinking coffee and you wrecked my keyboard!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Not sure why this story is particularly news worthy. People get bitten by dogs up and down the country every day, including plenty of children. Go to any A&E right now and there will be at least one dog bite victim! and yes, it's frequently your family Cockerpoo, Dachshund etc, rather than your terrifying Staffie. 

I can tell you now when I worked in veterinary practice, our most dreaded dogs to treat by far were Cocker Spaniels (apart from workers, who were all without exception, delightful). So many have terrible problems with nervousness and resource guarding; they are victims of their own popularity. You nearly always had to keep a long line on a Cocker just to get it out of it's kennel without biting or reacting. By contrast, the most favoured breeds to treat by far were Bull breeds; highly tolerant, patient and a delight to treat.


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

BlueJay said:


> Urgh.
> A dog is a living creature. They may have been essentially created by man, but that doesn't mean that we have the right to force them to do everything. If they are frightened or uncomfortable, why shouldn't they make it known? (No, I'm not saying biting is acceptable)
> My dogs are my pets, my family. I respect and care for them, I'm not going to thrust uncomfortable situations on them that are unnecessary and can be completely avoided.
> My young cousin visited us at my mum's house a while back. Frodo freaked out; wouldn't take his eyes off her and refused to approach her at all. Stood in the corner until I removed him from the situation.
> Guess what? *Children aren't allowed in my house. In MY house, MY dogs come first.*


They'll learn that from you pretty quickly I should imagine.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> I always insist on a family dog kowtowing to any kids that are around. They must never dominate or ever retaliate. They must sit lower than the child and move out the way, or follow the instructions of the kid as required. They must learn their place in life from a young age. *After all, are we not God to them*?


You're kidding right? I'm not 'GOD' to anyone... I don't even believe in a 'GOD' so why would I enforce this onto my dogs! I never want children and therefore my dogs aren't really used to children - they would probably be okay BUT still means I don't want children in my house making my dogs feel uncomfortable ( plus me as I really dislike children )


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Hanwombat said:


> You're kidding right? I'm not 'GOD' to anyone... I don't even believe in a 'GOD' so why would I enforce this onto my dogs! I never want children and therefore my dogs aren't really used to children - they would probably be okay BUT still means I don't want children in my house making my dogs feel uncomfortable ( plus me as I really dislike children )


I don't believe in God either and I daresay that dogs don't even know of that omnipotent existence in the first place. But I see that you got the point. 

Doesn't matter whether you have kids yourself or not. Your dog should always bow down to their superiority.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> I don't believe in God either and I daresay that dogs don't even know of that omnipotent existence in the first place. But I see that you got the point.
> 
> Doesn't matter whether you have kids yourself or not.* Your dog should always bow down to their superiority*.


 Hahaha!! I could use a laugh! Thanks


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> I don't believe in God either and I daresay that dogs don't even know of that omnipotent existence in the first place. But I see that you got the point.
> 
> Doesn't matter whether you have kids yourself or not. Your dog should always bow down to their superiority.


Are you for real a dog should bow down to a child because the child is superior what planet do you live on


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Doesn't matter whether you have kids yourself or not. Your dog should always bow down to their superiority.


yeeeaaahhh right...Im gonna let some pyschotic little hyperactive rugrat manhandle my teeny 6Ib Chihuahua and expect it to take whatever behaviour that follows!
You really arent all there are you??


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

The Daily Mail article said there was a bit to the child's nose, and she was bleeding from her nose. I can't see a bite there, can anyone else? And you'd expect any newspaper to be able to spell properly. It's WARY, not weary (which means tired).


----------



## Ownedbymany (Nov 16, 2014)

I wouldn't have been allowed out the house alone at that age let alone wandering into other people's gardens or houses regardless of how close my family was to the other family. Even at 6 I knew I wasn't allowed to leave the garden and that was that. If a 6 year old can wander onto the neighbours where else could it wander?


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

shirleystarr said:


> Are you for real a dog should bow down to a child because the child is superior what planet do you live on


Children are all superior to all dogs and dogs should stoop to each and every one them. Why do you question that obvious human point?

Planet Earth by the way.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Oh wow I am so glad I came back I fricking love the breedists in this place.....Imma thinking Imma gonna say nothing...

But I will say this, if children come to my house, they are taught to respect my dogs and leave them alone. Children are not superior to dogs, neither are adults, the children will stay out of my dogs way, and the only one giving instructions will be me...


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Yes, children should be taught to respect dogs and animals in general. The dog should be taught that a child is well above him or her and that he is merely a dog, a beast that follows orders from man, his God, and woman and children of course.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I think our resident troll is baiting us again



ChrisEdmunds said:


> I don't believe in God either and I daresay that dogs don't even know of that omnipotent existence in the first place. But I see that you got the point.
> 
> Doesn't matter whether you have kids yourself or not. Your dog should always bow down to their superiority.


Yeah right I think we know how you achieve that already thanks


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

It's achieved early on. I'm not trolling anyone. Dogs should be lower down the pack order than kids. K9 breastfeeders may argue differently.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> It's achieved early on.


Yes thanks I believe some of us saw the video and were not remotely impressed.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Gemmaa said:


> I know, right! Because everyone knows that Cockapoos don't have teeth, whereas Staffies *have three rows of teeth and broken glass*!


I so wish people would believe this of Dalmatians.Besides having to take the usual precautions around screaming excited kids we have to ward of the daft parents who thrust their little darlings at the "spottydog" for a cuddle. School holidays are a night mare. I have even opened my dals mouth to show a Father his teeth. I have had no reason what ever to doubt him but it is my job to protect him , if one of these kids hurt him and he tells them off there is no doubt who will pay the price and who will insisting on that price being paid.



ChrisEdmunds said:


> *Children are all superior to all dogs* and dogs should stoop to each and every one them. Why do you question that obvious human point?
> 
> Planet Earth by the way.


And this attitude to other living species is why we see such cruelty.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Yes, children should be taught to respect dogs and animals in general. The dog should be taught that a child is well above him or her and that he is merely a dog, a beast that follows orders from man, his God, and woman and children of course.


For a 42 year old male you sure act like a kid gave me a laugh anyway


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

northnsouth said:


> And this attitude to other living species is why we see such cruelty.


You're about as deaf as a dalmatian aren't you? You've not heard a word being said.



shirleystarr said:


> For a 42 year old male you sure act like a kid gave me a laugh anyway


I'm 25 love.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes thanks I believe some of us saw the video and were not remotely impressed.


Why's that? Because the kid lived happily ever after and the dog submitted to him?


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Doesn't matter whether you have kids yourself or not. Your dog should always bow down to their superiority.


But my dogs are superior to children. Kids should be bowing down to them.


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

sharloid said:


> But my dogs are superior to children. Kids should be bowing down to them.


I believe that you believe that. They have probably been conditioned into thinking that they are above kids. Just like that one in North Wales did.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

sharloid said:


> But my dogs are superior to children. Kids should be bowing down to them.


There was a young girl at the weekend who wanted to stroke Yla. I gave her permission, not because the kid is above my dog, but because Yla was comfortable with it. I also gave the girl a treat to give to Yla, not because it's her right to interact with my dog, but again because I thought it was in the best interests of Yla.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Yes, children should be taught to respect dogs and animals in general. The dog should be taught that a child is well above him or her and that he is merely a dog, a beast that follows orders from man, his God, and woman and children of course.


Ohhhh the hilarity........


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Why's that? Because the kid lived happily ever after and the dog submitted to him?


No because it was cruel and dangerous behaviour but nice to see you have shown your hand Mr O Really/Leahping or whatever you call yourself today.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Oh wow I am so glad I came back I fricking love the breedists in this place.....Imma thinking Imma gonna say nothing...
> 
> But I will say this, if children come to my house, they are taught to respect my dogs and leave them alone. Children are not superior to dogs, neither are adults, the children will stay out of my dogs way, and the only one giving instructions will be me...


Ahhhh you missed a classic the other day ---- I believe Rotties were described as "devil dogs"............


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> I'm 25 love.


right and in your profile says you are a 42 year old male (going to check under the local bridge now I think lol)


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ahhhh you missed a classic the other day ---- I believe Rotties were described as "devil dogs"............


Don't mention it. They'll close the thread.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> You're about as deaf as a dalmatian aren't you? You've not heard a word being said.


I am not deaf and neither are all Dalmatians. I have READ your comments, sarcasm and lack of wit does not make your point any 
more valid. Thankfully I can choose not read any more of them!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

This will end up the same way with all this "submitting" and "dominance" nonsense flying about..........


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No because it was cruel and dangerous behaviour but nice to see you have shown your hand Mr O Really/Leahping or whatever you call yourself today.


I saw the video and I thought that it was right for the dog to be so sensitive to a child.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

What an odd, strange thread. First off, it's the daily fail, I don't know how much I would be believing about the story other than a child obviously got hurt. I don't get the permanent scaring thing. She's not disfigured needing reconstructive surgery, it's a cut that will fade in time. 
I have a permanent scar on my lip from a dog bite, on my chin from a bicycle accident (actually, several permanent scars from biking), a cat bit me on the ear and left a permanent scar there, I won't go in to the permanent damage I have from horse related injuries. 
My own children have their own scars, some animal related, some not. 
It's called living life on this planet. Stuff happens. I'm more concerned about the kiddo's mental scars. I hope she gets some good help there.

That it was a cockerXpoodle should not matter one bit. All dogs with jaws that open and close are capable of biting. 
I hope there is a thorough investigation done by qualified individuals, we can learn so much from these incidents about how to keep dogs and children safe.

I won't make any assumptions about what was reported because I don't trust the reporting. However, the neighbor's comment about the dog thinking it was an intruder does bother me. Protective does not equal aggressive. Folks really have a warped view of what a protective dog looks like and acts like. For sure, a dog who lashes out at a child who is clearly not a threat is not offering protection, that's what I would call a liability. 
Dogs should not feel the need to use teeth on someone just for walking in the house unannounced. What if that person is a first responder come to help an incapacitated owner inside?
We have two dogs with strong guarding instincts. Our great danes have always been very protective of the kids. It's incredibly subtle. No barking, growling or big displays, just quietly keeping the kids in their sights and sometimes subtly positioning themselves in front of the kids, or moving between the kids and something/someone they're not sure of. And always deferring to me or OH.



IncaThePup said:


> The child's parents have a staffie ..is it a cover up? there own dog bit her and they don't want theirs putting down so blaming the neighbours dog? ..as the father is laying it on a bit thick over being scared of a cockapoo when they have a staffie!


What a statement! 
Basically it's so unbelievable that a breed other than a staffie would bite a child that you are more inclined to believe the whole thing is an elaborate cover up by the parents who went so far as to blame the neighbor's dog? Good grief. If breed prejudice isn't destructive enough...

Staffies do bite kids, as do cockers, as do poodles. It is also true that spaniels of all types can have some pretty weird, OTT resource guarding that generalizes everywhere, and it can be exceedingly hard to deal with, not to mention dangerous.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> I believe that you believe that. They have probably been conditioned into thinking that they are above kids. Just like that one in North Wales did.


Of course they have. They're not quite domesticated husky types that will go for a child as soon as they see one. I'm not sure how I've managed to hold on to them so far. How dare children be walking on the same streets as my wolfs.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I haven't read the story, but if the child was unsupervised and uninvited at the Cockerpoo house I'm not sure why it's being made into such a big story. Didn't her parents ever teach her that not all dogs are friendly? While you obviously don't want your dog's first instinct to bite, the girl was intruding and IMO the dog hasn't acted out of character. I couldn't hand on heart guarantee how mine would react either.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Meezey said:


> Oh wow I am so glad I came back I fricking love the breedists in this place.....Imma thinking Imma gonna say nothing...
> 
> But I will say this, if children come to my house, they are taught to respect my dogs and leave them alone. Children are not superior to dogs, neither are adults, the children will stay out of my dogs way, and the only one giving instructions will be me...


You've missed a lot of "fun" my dear. We had to bring out the goats on a few occasions. 
We have a resident troll, now incarnated as ChrisEdmunds. He started out as LeighPing, got banned for being a general ******* with nothing but headaches to contribute to the forum, and has continued to make up new usernames and emails and keeps coming back - what, like 20 times now? It's actually very sad... I'm not sure why the mods are letting him stay this time. Maybe they're hoping we'll all ignore him. I'm sure trying my best  The asinine nature of his posts speak for themselves


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Maybe it's because I'm actually Chris Edmunds. There's a novelty eh.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Yes, children should be taught to respect dogs and animals in general. The dog should be taught that a child is well above him or her and that he is merely a dog, a beast that follows orders from man, his God, and woman and children of course.


Above them in what respect? I don't think the dog is the one who needs reminding for what he is, he knows he is a dog, you seem to be the one with issues about their status and place in life...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Thing which strikes me is once again, owner was not around. This tends to be one of the main factors whenever you hear about any dog attack.


----------



## ChrisEdmunds (Apr 24, 2015)

Meezey said:


> Above them in what respect? I don't think the dog is the one who needs reminding for what he is, he knows he is a dog, you seem to be the one with issues about their status and place in life...


Deviating embelishment won't change my viewpoint that children are above all dogs. I'm sorry that some of you can't seem to fathom that.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

ouesi said:


> What an odd, strange thread. First off, it's the daily fail, I don't know how much I would be believing about the story other than a child obviously got hurt. * I don't get the permanent scaring thing. She's not disfigured needing reconstructive surgery, it's a cut that will fade in time.
> I have a permanent scar on my lip from a dog bite, on my chin from a bicycle accident (actually, several permanent scars from biking), a cat bit me on the ear and left a permanent scar there, I won't go in to the permanent damage I have from horse related injuries.* .


I'm sorry you have permanent scars, but my thoughts exactly. I'm covered in permanent scars from a lifetime of eczema. When I tan (which I do, ridiculously easily), all the tissue from long-gone scars shows up like the night sky in the countryside. As do the 2 surgical scars I have (one of which is above my lip). If they've changed me at all, they've made me stronger.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> Deviating embelishment won't change my viewpoint that children are above all dogs. I'm sorry that some of you can't seem to fathom that.


So explain your reasoning? Interested to know why you think dogs should bow down to them? Why they should be superior? Why do it what does it achieve? Why do you think it works?


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Dealt with the reports, previously banned members are not welcome.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

This incident could have been avoided if the parents where watching their child imo, bloody ridiculous, My 3 yr old granddaughter knows not to leave the house even to go into the back yard on her own...how the hell did she make it next door..also stranger in the house? would not most dogs be funny with that and not even mentioning we don't know if that child poked/prodded the dog in question, it was obv the neighbours dog or they wouldn't have admitted it. Kids should be taught not to approach dogs they don't know and to respect animals weather it was a neighbours dog or not talking to it through a fence with its owner present is different from a kid entering the house when the owner is perhaps no tin the room. I keep my doors locked and have multiple stair gates I have to say but never had a kid try and get in


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Goblin said:


> Thing which strikes me is once again, owner was not around. This tends to be one of the main factors whenever you hear about any dog attack.


Yup... When we actually take the time to properly investigate these incidents a few key factors always seem to pop up. Unsupervised child, unsupervised dog is a recurring theme. 
Bears mentioning that breed is NOT a determining factor when it comes to dog bite incidents.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I feel sorry for the little girl, but I don't think she will be horrendously scarred for life. But she will probably be afraid of dogs after this.
But, unless that's the usual arrangement, she shouldn't have been in her neighbour's garden unsupervised. If one of my kids had gone wandering off into a neighbour's garden at that age, I would not have been best pleased with them - and they would have known it.

Plus, I don't see why the cockapoo bit her on the face unless she had her face down near the dog - surely it would have been more likely to go for her legs and maybe her hands and arms if she tried to fend it off. Those bites look like the girl had her face in the dog's face.

But overall, I am cringing at the remarks allegedly made by the father. I'm sorry, but this guy wants his 5 seconds of fame (or compensation?).
I don't doubt he was shocked at what happened to his daughter, but now he is milking it and the Daily Fail is helping him do just that.

Perhaps the little girl's parents thought she understood about dogs because of the way she interacted with their staffie, but it looks like she didn't. We all make mistakes with our children, but her parents should now be making sure that she understands why dogs sometimes bite, rather than putting all the blame on the neighbour's dog.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

westie~ma said:


> Dealt with the reports, previously banned members are not welcome.


thanks westie ma another Troll bites the dust I wish they would not keep coming back and just stay away


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

when I was a child my neighbour had the most beautiful, amazing, gentle Irish Setter he was stunning, The owner taught us kids, the sensible ones who asked, how to handle him and how to approach him, we were never left alone with him but welcomed at any time to visit.I witnessed a lad poking him with a stick through the fence and bush that surrounded the house. I reported it to the adults. The child was reprimanded,we saw it again,the owner took steps to protect his dog and the child, (he was a bully , he still is), One day he climbed the fence and goded and teased the dog , now quite an elderly gent, , I saw it from the window , the dog bit him, despite my seeing and telling the adults what I saw the dog was destroyed.
That was a life lesson to me, children should never be allowed alone around dogs for the sake of every one.


----------



## Sarahliz100 (Jan 5, 2014)

northnsouth said:


> when I was a child my neighbour had the most beautiful, amazing, gentle Irish Setter he was stunning, The owner taught us kids, the sensible ones who asked, how to handle him and how to approach him, we were never left alone with him but welcomed at any time to visit.I witnessed a lad poking him with a stick through the fence and bush that surrounded the house. I reported it to the adults. The child was reprimanded,we saw it again,the owner took steps to protect his dog and the child, (he was a bully , he still is), One day he climbed the fence and goded and teased the dog , now quite an elderly gent, , I saw it from the window , the dog bit him, despite my seeing and telling the adults what I saw the dog was destroyed.
> That was a life lesson to me, children should never be allowed alone around dogs for the sake of every one.


Gosh that's sad


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am another one with plenty of scars. I am lucky that the two worst are well hidden. One is on my leg and I never wear shorts! and the other is underneath my eyebrow , oh and one under my chin. They are horse and bicycle accidents but I have a dog bite one on my thumb. The child does not look as though she will have a very big scar, my neighbour has a much bigger one in a similar place from a horse accident.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

ChrisEdmunds said:


> It's achieved early on. I'm not trolling anyone. Dogs should be lower down the pack order than kids. K9 breastfeeders may argue differently.


I'm afraid you seem to be misunderstanding dogs. They do not need to be 'lower down in the pack'. From that it sounds as though you have been guided by Dominance theory - a theory about dogs and dog behaviour that has now been completely discredited.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I don't understand why everyone's getting so worked up about dogs bowing down to owners. Milly bows to me and Max all the time. That girlie really knows her place in the pack. 

Of course, she's _play_ bowing and hoping to entice me into a game, or, lately, trying to get me to sit up because it worries her when I lie on the settee/she wants up for a cuddle.  (Come on! You didn't _really_ think I meant bowing in submission .... did you? )


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

BoredomBusters said:


> *Sounds a bit like breed generalisation on your part if you're assuming most people are scared of staffies? *
> 
> Yes, cockerpoos have lovely temperaments, as do cocker spaniels, but there are a lot of very aggressive resource guarders being bred in that area of the country., which would tie in with the attack happening when the child bent to pick up the lead that was trailling. I hear it from my training colleagues in that area of the country a hell of a lot, so you can't make sweeping statements about any breed.


only speaking from experience from when I've chatted to others. There was a man down road with 2 staffies and 3 kids.. he said several times people wouldn't let their dogs play with his. He wasn't the only one.. know of at least 2 other staffy owners round here. one even has 2 spaniels too people will fuss them but he has to keep the staffy on the lead even though she's smaller than the spaniels! ..and its a lovely sweet little thing..JJ's played with them when no-one else has been around so he could let the staffy play. We saw two lovely dinky ones the other day in field early sunday morning he said there's not often anyone around thats why he went at that time before people started coming out so his could have a run! ..It's not my 'generalisation', it's what others have said.

I was chatting with a friend when she visited me last, and she asked if I'd get another dog after Inca. I said I wasn't sure but really felt for the poor staffies in rescue and would consider giving an older girl an home. My friend said to not get a staffy cos she had two next door to her and she wouldn't trust them with her dogs! I'm assuming if I do she'll either stop visiting or the dog will have to stay in JJ's crate in the spare room the whole time they're here!

Personally I'd like a little dinky one I just haven't decided whether I'd be better going for a pup so it grew up with JJ (but then couldn't be sure how big it would grow) or whether I could find an older rescue who would be fine with another dog.(and was already the size I was looking for) I know they're good with people and kids but I've often seen it said that they aren't good with other dogs.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> Sorry but that's a load of bull. This is a 6 year old child who has been bitten by a dog and is terrified of seeing that dog again. I don't see why that's ridiculous or laying it on a bit thick!
> 
> Poor kid, hope she heals quickly and with no major repercussions from the incident.


I meant the father of the child is laying it on a bit thick not the child! ..and if the wound is so bad why has she only got steristrips and not stitches? By the time she's grown that mark will be barely visible.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Sarahliz100 said:


> Don't know why you'd assume it's a cover up? Plenty of cockers/cockerpoos out there with issues, not really a shock to think that one could bite a child intruding in it's house.
> 
> Sad for the little girl. Hammers home the importance of always supervising your dog with kids, and also not letting your child approach other dogs - even if they're cute and fluffy! Have to say I do have an image in my head of this child and her siblings persistently pestering this poor dog even when it was apparently safe in it's own home until it was driven to the point of biting - especially if she's used to hugging/kissing/teasing her very tolerant staffie and this dog is less used to children. I do feel sorry for the dogs owners as after all the child was in their house without permission, but then if the children were regularly wondering onto their property then they knew it was an issue and should have made efforts to stop it.


It's not so much the fact their dog is a staffy (could be any breed) it's just how the father comes across. Like he was putting it on and exaggerating it for compensation, maybe even panicking cos they relaised they weren't present and if the neighbour wasn't present either (apparently upstairs) how do they know the child wasn't tormenting the dog? She shouldn't even have been in someone else's house! ..and its the cockerpoo that's gonna suffer and end up getting put down when its the parents of the child who are at fault!


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

It's the Daily Mail, they can hardly be held up as a bastion of journalistic excellence or accurate reporting. I'd take pretty much everything in the article with several very large heaps of salt to be honest.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-bitten-face-door-neighbour-s-COCKAPOO.html
> 
> ...


You know, it's stupid remarks such as these that are largely responsible for the undeserved bad reputation Bull Breeds have and the unfounded and unwarranted hysteria, should one bite a person.

Why would you assume this child had been bitten by the Family Staffy and the Parents are blaming the Cockerpoo because they don't want their own dog put to sleep?

Ridiculous. Do you actually think before you type?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Sad story. Not sure why the child wandered between houses. If they families were close, you would think they would resolve this matter reasonably amicably without it having to get to the press etc.

The injuries from the child's face looks like she got a paw in the face (not saying she wasn't bitten). Note the four linear scratches (nails) and the fifth one that moves in places (dew claw?) I've seen injuries where children/people have been pawed and the dew claw has caused a rather nasty injury/tear.

Of course she could well have been bitten too (no reason why she couldn't have been) but the injuries look like there was a paw strike in there somewhere?
Nobody other than the child witnessed what happened, so who knows.
Why was the child's face that close to the dog?

Why did the police have trouble getting there because of kids "mucking around"? What does that mean?
Why wasn't the girl taken to hospital? 
Why instead was she patched up with steri-strips?

Just a few unanswered questions. Evidently not 'black and white' case here.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

My god we have a right mixed bag of pooches and owners round here My daughters best friend when she was 2 was Samson my mates rottie he absolutely loved her and vice versa, I do know someone with a rottie and a bichon both are nasty but the owners a moron who didn't train them which is why his dogs are nasty, my 3 are all different crosses and all are great with everyone even when one got poked by a brat in the street because they are all well trained to the best of my ability....Owners are the problem in many cases but if a kid pushes them or they are in a position where they feel threatened there's only so much they an take....as someone just said, thee are many questions that don't appear to have been answered here


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> Sad story. Not sure why the child wandered between houses. If they families were close, you would think they would resolve this matter reasonably amicably without it having to get to the press etc.
> 
> The injuries from the child's face looks like she got a paw in the face (not saying she wasn't bitten). Note the four linear scratches (nails) and the fifth one that moves in places (dew claw?) I've seen injuries where children/people have been pawed and the dew claw has caused a rather nasty injury/tear.
> 
> ...


Very good point here and just reminded me of when my friends dog was playing with my lad years ago, she scratched his face and he said 'Owe she bit me' it wasn't a bite but did look very much like this


----------



## kare (Sep 8, 2014)

What I don't get is these owners being in a different part of the house. I have to close a stair gate and 2 doors to so much as pee in peace!

The only situation I don't have a dog behind me in the house, without pointedly telling them to stay, is when there is still a chance in their mind the cheese or meat I was just using may still succumb to gravity and fall off the side into their mouth.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> It's not so much the fact their dog is a staffy (could be any breed) it's just how the father comes across. Like he was putting it on and exaggerating it for compensation, maybe even panicking cos they relaised they weren't present and if the neighbour wasn't present either (apparently upstairs) how do they know the child wasn't tormenting the dog? She shouldn't even have been in someone else's house! ..and its the cockerpoo that's gonna suffer and end up getting put down when its the parents of the child who are at fault!


Sorry, but from the OP, I, for one, gathered that you were suggesting that it was the staffy that attacked the girl, and not the neighbour's dog.

I suspect I'm not the only one.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

lemmsy said:


> Sad story. Not sure why the child wandered between houses. If they families were close, you would think they would resolve this matter reasonably amicably without it having to get to the press etc.
> 
> The injuries from the child's face looks like she got a paw in the face (not saying she wasn't bitten). Note the four linear scratches (nails) and the fifth one that moves in places (dew claw?) I've seen injuries where children/people have been pawed and the dew claw has caused a rather nasty injury/tear.
> 
> ...


She was.  

From the article:


> *The pair drove their daughter to the hospital and rang the police.*
> 
> Trevor added: *'The doctors patched her up with strips and glue*. They said there is going to be permanent scarring.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> I meant the father of the child is laying it on a bit thick not the child! ..and if the wound is so bad why has she only got steristrips and not stitches? By the time she's grown that mark will be barely visible.


I had a pretty bad wound when I was about 9 and had these, I still have the scar and it's quite obvious.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Very sad and deff unavoidable


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

LinznMilly said:


> Sorry, but from the OP, I, for one, gathered that you were suggesting that it was the staffy that attacked the girl, and not the neighbour's dog.
> 
> I suspect I'm not the only one.


No, not at all the only one.

Let's be clear @IncaThePup, here is what you said in your OP:


IncaThePup said:


> The child's parents have a staffie ..is it a cover up? there own dog bit her and they don't want theirs putting down so blaming the neighbours dog? ..as the father is laying it on a bit thick over being scared of a cockapoo when they have a staffie!


You are very clearly suggesting that it could have been the staffie that bit the child, and the parents were trying to cover it up by blaming the cockerXpoodle. Now you're trying to backpedal and say that's not what you meant. Sorry, but I'm not that easily fooled and nor are other forum members.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Much as I feel sorry for the girl she could get more serious injuries falling off her bike quite honestly. Also how about Parents taking some responsibility by not allowing their kids to wander in and out of other peoples homes willy nilly? It could just as easily have been a serious road traffic accident! Parents should take some responsibility for the safety of their own very young children and that includes knowing where they are.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

silvi said:


> Plus, I don't see why the cockapoo bit her on the face unless she had her face down near the dog - surely it would have been more likely to go for her legs and maybe her hands and arms if she tried to fend it off. Those bites look like the girl had her face in the dog's face.





northnsouth said:


> That was a life lesson to me, children should never be allowed alone around dogs for the sake of every one.


This is going to sound pedantic, and I don't mean it to, so apologies in advance :Shy (OMG will you LOOK at all the new smilies?! I'm so excited! Sorry just had to get that out  :Vomitenguin:Troll)

Okay, so at the risk of sounding like a nit-picky stick in the mud, I have to comment on the above.
I would hope that most dogs could tolerate a kid in their face without doing damage. 
I have kids, I have dogs, my kids are taught not to feed their faces to dogs, my dogs are taught not to eat offered faces.

It's a two way street. 
It's both our responsibility to teach our kids how to behave around dogs, but it's ALSO our responsibility to make sure our dogs are safe around kids. I know there are exceptions, some kids have issues that mean they have trouble with impulse control or movement etc., some dogs have issues that mean they too have trouble with impulse control and reactivity, but for the most part, I don't care how obnoxiously a kid throws their face in a dog's face, I would expect the dog to have a ton of coping skills to avoid using teeth. 
Obviously in this case we don't know what the kid was doing to the dog, or if the dog is super reactive or what, but in general terms, I expect a dog to be able to avoid using teeth. Especially a dog who was routinely interacting with kids.

On that note, about the kids and dogs left alone. Again, we're not talking wild animals here. Dogs have co-evolved with humans, we have a long history of working together as species. I don't think it's too much to expect a dog to be safe with children even in those unsupervised moments that happen to even the most diligent of parents. Our dogs have been sleeping in our kids' beds since the kids left our bed. (Granted, we're one of those weirdo hippy families who kept the kids in our room until they were ready to move out, sleeping on a futon on the floor - with the dogs, but you get the idea.) By the time the children are old enough to have unsupervised moments, I would hope they are old enough to have unsupervised moments with the dogs. If I can't trust my dogs to not rearrange the kids face in the time it takes me to go pee, I shouldn't have that dog in the house.

To add to that, if the kid does something stupid and gets bitten, I would still expect the dog to exercise restraint about it. Like I said I have a scar on my lip from the family dog biting me. I was blowing in his face, he didn't like that, mom told me to stop, I didn't, I got bitten. Mom said "I told you so, now get a towel and quit bleeding on the floor."

My own daughter (now 12) just a few weeks ago learned her own hard lesson. I've told her over and over again to watch where her face is when she's playing with the dane. But she's twelve and I'm uncool so I got brushed off. Sure enough, Breez shook her head the other day and whacked my daughter in the face giving her a good old nose bleed (not broken thankfully). I was nice though, I didn't say "I told you so" until after I got ice and a towel for her :Muted


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Why the hell is a 6 year old allowed to wander into neighbours houses???  wow!, the smileys!!!!! We asked and PetForums sure answered!! :Joyful 

My front door is always locked and so is my back gate, our 6 YO couldn't get out if she wanted too! 
There was another one like this a few years ago, but a teenager. She went into someone else's house when they were out (a friend's I think) and was mauled by the dog. I think she in fact died it was so bad.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

ouesi said:


> My own daughter (now 12) just a few weeks ago learned her own hard lesson. I've told her over and over again to watch where her face is when she's playing with the dane. But she's twelve and I'm uncool so I got brushed off. Sure enough, Breez shook her head the other day and whacked my daughter in the face giving her a good old nose bleed (not broken thankfully). I was nice though, I didn't say "I told you so" until after I got ice and a towel for her :Muted


And that is clearly why you keep gaining sainthood around here. 

I agree that dogs and kids should both be trained on how to behave because accidents happen (and I defy anyone to say they can watch 5 kids and a dog 100% of the time) but I still wouldn't leave any visiting younger children (under 10-ish) unsupervised with Benji. I'm reasonably sure the biggest danger he would pose to them is burying them under the tennis balls he obsessively drops at feet but I don't know so I don't risk it.

I hope the poor girl heals up well and gets past any fear she may now harbour. I'm not sure how I feel about the cockerpoo, though. I don't think it's fair to condemn it with so little evidence but I wouldn't be able to keep any dog who had bitten with that much intent.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

LinznMilly said:


> She was.
> 
> From the article:


Woops! I missed that!
Thank you.

I still think there are several peculiarities about this case.

I agree entirely with Ouesi's comments about kids and resident dogs.

12 year old kiddo here too with our border collies/sheepdogs. He enjoys training and the dogs especially enjoy working with him (he's very generous with reinforcement). Lovely relationship they have. 

I think the difficulty with the case in the article, is that this was NOT a resident dog. I don't understand why the kid had access to the neighbour's house and dog.The fact that they were no witnesses bar the child and dog is very difficult.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> This is going to sound pedantic, and I don't mean it to, so apologies in advance :Shy (OMG will you LOOK at all the new smilies?! I'm so excited! Sorry just had to get that out  :Vomitenguin:Troll)
> 
> Okay, so at the risk of sounding like a nit-picky stick in the mud, I have to comment on the above.
> I would hope that most dogs could tolerate a kid in their face without doing damage.
> ...


LOL OMG that just made me giggle...I have had so many nips and bites from going to stroke dogs in my life...totally my own fault yet I still can't resist them when they run up to me...thankfully most are play bites ...and double OMG the smiley faces are so cool:Bear:Beaver:Spiderman


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

ouesi said:


> No, not at all the only one.
> 
> Let's be clear @IncaThePup, here is what you said in your OP:
> 
> You are very clearly suggesting that it could have been the staffie that bit the child, and the parents were trying to cover it up by blaming the cockerXpoodle. Now you're trying to backpedal and say that's not what you meant. Sorry, but I'm not that easily fooled and nor are other forum members.


It was the fathers over reaction about the neighbours cockapoo giving him nightmares, when he's a grown man and the owner of a dog often considered alot more scary than a cockapoo. I was just saying how do we know it wasn't their dog? If he wasn't there and didn't even know she wasn't in the house how does he know she hadn't just stuck her face in their dogs face?

He could have easily said if they said it was their dog she would have to be put down because its a staffy and people are scared of her. It's not that odd a thing to think I know someone who claimed a strange dog had injured their toddler cos they had to take it to casualty as the wound wouldn't stop bleeding, thats not what really happened ..the toddler had walked into kitchen when dog was eating and bent down to pick up its food in their hand! ..they didn't want dog putting down at a time when rotties had a bad rep. ..just saying..it happens! his complete over reaction made me suspicious as thats what the person did with their toddler! ..had people looking for a dog in the park that didn't even exist!


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-bitten-face-door-neighbour-s-COCKAPOO.html
> 
> ...


I haven't read the article but this sort of comment disgusts me!! Why would you make an assumption like that about a dog u don't know. Just because it's a staffie?

Um utterly gob smacked to be hoist.  How are they ever going to get over their media bettering if people keep making daft assumptions about innocent individuals!

I have a Cocker and a staffie and I trust my staffie far more than my Cocker. He can be a funny bugger at times. Not that he's nasty far from it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> It was the fathers over reaction about the neighbours cockapoo giving him nightmares, when he's a grown man and the owner of a dog often considered alot more scary than a cockapoo. I was just saying how do we know it wasn't their dog? If he wasn't there and didn't even know she wasn't in the house how does he know she hadn't just stuck her face in their dogs face?
> 
> He could have easily said if they said it was their dog she would have to be put down because its a staffy and people are scared of her. It's not that odd a thing to think I know someone who claimed a strange dog had injured their toddler cos they had to take it to casualty as the wound wouldn't stop bleeding, thats not what really happened ..the toddler had walked into kitchen when dog was eating and bent down to pick up its food in their hand! ..they didn't want dog putting down at a time when rotties had a bad rep. ..just saying..it happens! his complete over reaction made me suspicious as thats what the person did with their toddler! ..had people looking for a dog in the park that didn't even exist!


How do you know it wasn't the cockerXpoodle? We can play "how do you know" all day long. 
Why is it so hard to believe that a cockerXpoodle might bite a child? ALL dogs can bite!
Spin and backpedal all you want but your opening post is there for all to see.

This idea that it's more believable that the staffie bit the child than the cockerXpoodle is not only untrue, it's the kind of ignorance that gets kids bitten, breeds demonized, and perfectly safe dogs PTS.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Kid got out....kid got bitten..Poor dog possibly PTS...Poor kid hurt....could have been avoided...enough said really eh


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Good God!...

There's a spiderman smiley! ￼

Although, my phone won't let me use it!

Stupid phone...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

After reading the article IMO it looks like the kid picking up the dog lead could have been the trigger. An already worried dog having his flight response restricted could end up with the dog escalating to a warning snap, a young child with their face close to the dogs mouth could end up with injuries that match this childs injuries.

Obviously that is all speculation as no one knows for certain, it's just something that struck me when reading.

As for the OP trying to speculate the staffy owners are lying to take the heat off their own innocent dog...well, :Facepalm (I'm loving some of these new smilies hehe)


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Clare7435 said:


> Kid got out....kid got bitten..Poor dog possibly PTS...Poor kid hurt....could have been avoided...enough said really eh


No silly, you have to blame a staffie for it first! :Shifty:Banghead


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> No silly, you have to blame a staffie for it first! :Shifty:Banghead


Oopsi...silly me....mean nasty staff...evil things with razors for claws DUH


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> It was the fathers over reaction about the neighbours cockapoo giving him nightmares, when he's a grown man and the owner of a dog often considered alot more scary than a cockapoo. I was just saying how do we know it wasn't their dog? If he wasn't there and didn't even know she wasn't in the house how does he know she hadn't just stuck her face in their dogs face?
> 
> He could have easily said if they said it was their dog she would have to be put down because its a staffy and people are scared of her. It's not that odd a thing to think I know someone who claimed a strange dog had injured their toddler cos they had to take it to casualty as the wound wouldn't stop bleeding, thats not what really happened ..the toddler had walked into kitchen when dog was eating and bent down to pick up its food in their hand! ..they didn't want dog putting down at a time when rotties had a bad rep. ..just saying..it happens! his complete over reaction made me suspicious as thats what the person did with their toddler! ..had people looking for a dog in the park that didn't even exist!


But the neighbour is agreeing that it was their dog that did it!!!

If there was any chance it wasn't their dog, they'd say so.

Sorry, but it's pretty ridiculous when both parties agree whose dog it was to suggest that the parent is lying just because you think it's less likely based purely on breed.

Children do things they shouldn't, dogs bite, the mail runs weird stories that make no sense full of over dramatic hyperbole...they're all every day things, they're all sad and preventable, but none of those add up to the girl's dog being more likely to have caused an injury that they all agree was in fact caused by the neighbour's dog.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

The owner of the cross breed said it was their dog that bit the child something still does not add up to me though to start with article states the child was used to wandering into the neighbours house if so she would have met this dog a number of times if so why did her father state he has been worried about the neighbours dog before this and if true why let her go in to their house


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Lauren5159 said:


> Good God!...
> 
> There's a spiderman smiley! ￼
> 
> ...


There's a penguin, too! enguin How cute??? I'm just itching to find a reason to use this one, though ompus Sir Poshington! (My son's nickname!)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

anda We have a panda, OMG we have a panda people :Mooning


----------



## Apollo2012 (Jun 10, 2013)

I haven't read the article but the comment made by the OP about the owners 'covering up' for there dog just because a staffy is such a horrible thing to say. the likelihood of the opposite being said if the article was* 'the neighbours Staffy bit next doors child who's family has a Cockerpoo'* infact you could pretty much guarantee the Cockerpoo wouldn't of been mentioned if it was the other way round, it would of been an article all about those 'demonic' staffies 

In all seriousness I hope the child recovers ok. but I hate the fact anything than mentions certain breeds gets twisted if not by the news articles themselves then by the people who share them


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

:Eggonface Is this a fried egg? What does it mean? It's so tiny on the iPad can't work out what half of them are.

:Wideyed I reckon this one looks like a constipated owl.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> It was the fathers over reaction about the neighbours cockapoo giving him nightmares, when he's a grown man and the owner of a dog often considered alot more scary than a cockapoo. *I was just saying how do we know it wasn't their dog? If he wasn't there and didn't even know she wasn't in the house how does he know she hadn't just stuck her face in their dogs face?*
> 
> He could have easily said if they said it was their dog she would have to be put down because its a staffy and people are scared of her. It's not that odd a thing to think I know someone who claimed a strange dog had injured their toddler cos they had to take it to casualty as the wound wouldn't stop bleeding, thats not what really happened ..the toddler had walked into kitchen when dog was eating and bent down to pick up its food in their hand! ..they didn't want dog putting down at a time when rotties had a bad rep. ..just saying..it happens! his complete over reaction made me suspicious as thats what the person did with their toddler! ..had people looking for a dog in the park that didn't even exist!


So .... if they'd had the cocker x poodle, and the neighbour had the staffy, would you have applied the same logic?

Or are you just breed-bashing?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Siskin said:


> :Eggonface Is this a fried egg? What does it mean? It's so tiny on the iPad can't work out what half of them are.
> 
> :Wideyed I reckon this one looks like a constipated owl.


Egg on face and wide-eyed, apparently.

:Beaver We even have a beaver, guys! Never knew we needed a beaver icon until now. :Hilarious (That's the Hilarious icon, before anyone ask )


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

:Snaphappy ooh look it's me with my camera


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

and just as round I might add haha


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

errrrmmmmyyyygawd new smilies!!! Because clearly everyone needs a cigar smoking yellow dude
:Cigar:Cigar:Cigar


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

:Spitoutdummy, :Vomit I have wanted smilies to sum up these emotions for sooo long :Shamefullyembarrased


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

1


StormyThai said:


> :Spitoutdummy, :Vomit I have wanted smilies to sum up these emotions for sooo long :Shamefullyembarrased


Where are the smilies hiding?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> 1
> 
> Where are the smilies hiding?


If you look in the reply box it is the fourteenth button along, in between the "left align" and the picture link button


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Right! That's it! The laptop is coming out! 

I need to use the smilies!!!!!


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Where are the smilies hiding?


There's a little smiley face in the bar along the top of the reply box, click that and they appear at the bottom :Woot


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> If you look in the reply box it is the fourteenth button along, in between the "left align" and the picture link button





Lauren5159 said:


> Right! That's it! The laptop is coming out!
> 
> I need to use the smilies!!!!!


They are pretty cool I have to say


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Thanks Stormythai.

This one could come in useful sometimes. :Spam:Spam:Spam


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

:Muted I particularly like this one...and know a few people who I'd like to use it on lol


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Clare7435 said:


> They are pretty cool I have to say


I can see them... I just can't use them when I'm on my phone... *imagine crying smiley!*


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Lauren5159 said:


> I can see them... I just can't use them when I'm on my phone... *imagine crying smiley!*


I have an old fashioned phone which keeps messing up on the net so I can only use them on my laptop


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

:Bag
Ummm, is this to help fight the crazy or is it implying something?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> :Bag
> Ummm, is this to help fight the crazy or is it implying something?


That's about as close to a picture of me as you're ever likely to get.  :Joyful


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I think my most used shall be......

:Yawn yawning....... although i do very mych like green y fronts guy :Couchpotato


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

*Laughing here all the smilies are great :Smuggrin*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sorry :Sorry to get a little serious while we all test out the new smilies, so first.................
enguinigeon:Beaver(why do we need a beaver here? ) :Bear:Catanda.........



ouesi said:


> This is going to sound pedantic, and I don't mean it to, so apologies in advance :Shy (OMG will you LOOK at all the new smilies?! I'm so excited! Sorry just had to get that out  :Vomitenguin:Troll)
> 
> Okay, so at the risk of sounding like a nit-picky stick in the mud, I have to comment on the above.
> I would hope that most dogs could tolerate a kid in their face without doing damage.
> ...


Yes, I agree with all of your post, so I'm certainly not going to :Spitoutdummy, but I think it's a little unfair on the cockapoo in this case.
We don't know the full story, so it's all speculation..... but if the cockapoo had not been brought up around children, then it would have been a hell of a shock to it if a 6 year old suddenly appeared in 'his' garden and (perhaps) tried to cuddle it. 
Training a dog not to react with small children is a great idea, but you need to find a calm, willing child to practice on first. Not always easy.

We don't know the situation between the neighbours here. If the relationship is like some of ours have been with neighbours over the years, it could have been pretty fraught already, and it could well be that the cockapoo's owner had practiced 'avoid' with his neighbour's child/children, rather than join them in a 'let's train my dog' session.

But I agree, I would have expected more of a warning nip than an attack on the child's face (but as someone already said, it could have been a 'paw' reaction).

But anyway.........................
The only thing I find with these smilies, is it takes time to find out what they are before you post them and some are a little  (so it's taken me ages to do this post )


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> Sorry :Sorry to get a little serious while we all test out the new smilies, so first.................
> enguinigeon:Beaver(why do we need a beaver here? ) :Bear:Catanda.........
> 
> Yes, I agree with all of your post, so I'm certainly not going to :Spitoutdummy, but I think it's a little unfair on the cockapoo in this case.
> ...


Took me a while too lol :Spiderman...but don't you just love that spiderman


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I have a complaint! There's favouritism going on here! 

We have: A beaver :Beaver A bear :Bear A Cat :Cat A Cow :Cow A chicken :Chicken A Panda anda A Penguin enguin and a Pigeon igeon Even a much-needed troll :Troll ...... But no dog?

PS, I think we've also hijacked the thread.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> I have a complaint! There's favouritism going on here!
> 
> We have: A beaver :Beaver A bear :Bear A Cat :Cat A Cow :Cow A chicken :Chicken A Panda anda A Penguin enguin and a Pigeon igeon Even a much-needed troll :Troll ...... But no dog?
> 
> PS, I think we've also hijacked the thread.


What no dog??? that's disgusting!! pmsl


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> I have a complaint! There's favouritism going on here!
> 
> We have: A beaver :Beaver A bear :Bear A Cat :Cat A Cow :Cow A chicken :Chicken A Panda anda A Penguin enguin and a Pigeon igeon Even a much-needed troll :Troll ...... But no dog?
> 
> PS, I think we've also hijacked the thread.


Yes, I spent ages looking for a dog smiley before I gave up.
Took much longer to look at the smilies than it did to type the post


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> Yes, I spent ages looking for a dog smiley before I gave up.
> Took much longer to look at the smilies than it did to type the post


Outraged!!!:Banghead:Bawlingunch:Rage


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Clare7435 said:


> What no dog??? that's disgusting!! pmsl





Clare7435 said:


> What no dog??? that's disgusting!! pmsl


Green y fronts guy nearly makes up for it........ :Couchpotato:Couchpotato:Couchpotato


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Green y fronts guy nearly makes up for it........ :Couchpotato:Couchpotato:Couchpotato


Nearly! Nearly! Makes up for it! But not quite! :Meh


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

But seriously funny haha :Couchpotato....looks a little like my ex actually


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Nearly! Nearly! Makes up for it! But not quite! :Meh


But we do have this :Finger
Not quite a dog, but very useful :Woot


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> This is going to sound pedantic, and I don't mean it to, so apologies in advance :Shy (OMG will you LOOK at all the new smilies?! I'm so excited! Sorry just had to get that out  :Vomitenguin:Troll)
> 
> *Okay, so at the risk of sounding like a nit-picky stick in the mud, I have to comment on the above.
> I would hope that most dogs could tolerate a kid in their face without doing damage.
> ...


I do agree with your comments and I trusted my dogs.and my children and kids I knew who had been taught how to behave around dogs, I would leave them in the room together, but I had to know the child well and know I could trust their behaviour,, I never left the dog in a room with a child I did not know. My daughter brought a friend home for a play date in an instant I could see she was dog savy the fact my BC was sitting on her first command was cool,others would shriek and get all excited, after being told how to behave,(shut up!!) it was down to me to protect both parties. I never forget what happened to that Irish Setter.
My dallie has delivered several black eyes via his waggy tail over the years.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

So where are the smilies then????


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Do these smilies work?...

ETA: NOPE! They don't!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lauren5159 said:


> Do these smilies work?...
> 
> ETA: NOPE! They don't!


:Nailbiting


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

:Mooning


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Meezey said:


> :Mooning


Someone always has to lower the tone....... :Nailbiting


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

SingingWhippet said:


> Someone always has to lower the tone....... :Nailbiting


That Lauren one said that smilies don't work!!! Was just checking honest :Couchpotato:Vomit. :Beaver beaver *snorts* pfft no goat though . :Rage unch:Muted those 4 are MINE!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Wait!?! 
No dog?
No goat?
:Wacky:Bawling:Sour


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Right! That's it!

If there's no goat... I'm out!

*please ignore the lack of smilies. PF isn't as mobile friendly as I'd like it to be*
*please insert a smilie rolling it's eyes here*


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Lauren5159 said:


> Right! That's it!
> 
> If there's no goat... I'm out! :Finger
> 
> ...


All better layful:Spiderman


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

ouesi said:


> All better layful:Spiderman


Amazing! Thanks 

Now you can just follow me around PF and smilie-edit my posts accordingly


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Lauren5159 said:


> Amazing! Thanks
> 
> Now you can just follow me around PF and smilie-edit my posts accordingly


:Lurking:Lurking (stalker smilie) :Smuggrin


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

It's taunting me!!!

Look! I can see them, I just can't bloody use them!!!


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Lauren5159 said:


> It's taunting me!!!
> 
> Look! I can see them, I just can't bloody use them!!!


Why are yours so big, mine are tiny. Not fair.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Siskin said:


> Why are yours so big, mine are tiny. Not fair.


Wait,  we're still talking about smilies right? :Angelic


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Siskin said:


> Why are yours so big, mine are tiny. Not fair.


Size doesn't matter 

But I'd rather small and usable, than big and useless!


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Wait,  we're still talking about smilies right? :Angelic


No idea


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

HA!


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2015)

Lauren5159 said:


> HA!


No way! And it's a great dane! Make that a merle dane with natural ears and I will be your bitch :Woot


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

:Stinkyfeet HA I can't believe we have stinky feet...Hey we may not have a dog or a goat...but what we do have is a :Troll....and an :Mooning Mooning arse...which given recent happenings I think is really convenient


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Lauren5159 said:


> It's taunting me!!!
> 
> Look! I can see them, I just can't bloody use them!!!





Lauren5159 said:


> Size doesn't matter
> 
> But I'd rather small and usable, than big and useless!


Now, if we could make that pic a permanent feature, we'd all be able to see which icon we want so much easier, as well as being able to use them.

As for the size matters and small and useful vs big and useless .... Not going there! Not going there _AT ALL_!



Clare7435 said:


> :Stinkyfeet HA I can't believe we have stinky feet...Hey we may not have a dog or a goat...but what we do have is a :Troll....and an :Mooning Mooning arse...which given recent happenings I think is really convenient


And a facepalm icon! :Facepalm _Don't_ forget the facepalm icon!

Meanwhile, saying as we've already derailed this thread, we might as well spam it with doggies, too :

This one looks appropriate:


And my personal favourite (so far)


ETA: If anyone else wants to add doggy-icons, this site was linked over in Forum Advice and Suggestions:
http://yoursmiles.org/t-dogs.php?page=2

Myself and another member have taken your complaints to the appropriate authorities (OK, we've posted on the Emoticons thread in the above-mentioned forum subsection)


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!
> 
> *Your logic astounds me. As usual.*
> 
> ...


Do you actually write for the Daily Mail yourself?


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting that if it had been a staffie or rottie etc it would have been put down already!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-bitten-face-door-neighbour-s-COCKAPOO.html
> 
> ...


I am incandescent with anger reading a report like this about the crass stupidity of people around dogs!!!
First of all, how can the father say he had reservations about the dog and then allow his 6yr old to wander next door unattended? As it is no one was there to witness events so how on earth could they know exactly what happened?
My heart bleeds for these poor cross breeds, I HATE hearing them referred to as 'designer dogs' they are nothing of the sort they are just poor victims of fashion. Unfortunately cute dogs are just assumed to be walking teddy bears and when they act more like the real thing because they are fed up with being pulled around and pestered, suddenly it's the dog's fault.
CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE LEFT ALONE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S DOGS
GRRRRRRRRR
Right now I've had a rant I'll go back and read some of the other comments!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Sarahliz100 said:


> Don't know why you'd assume it's a cover up? Plenty of cockers/cockerpoos out there with issues, not really a shock to think that one could bite a child intruding in it's house.
> 
> Sad for the little girl. Hammers home the importance of always supervising your dog with kids, and also not letting your child approach other dogs - even if they're cute and fluffy! Have to say I do have an image in my head of this child and her siblings persistently pestering this poor dog even when it was apparently safe in it's own home until it was driven to the point of biting - especially if she's used to hugging/kissing/teasing her very tolerant staffie and this dog is less used to children. I do feel sorry for the dogs owners as after all the child was in their house without permission, but then if the children were regularly wondering onto their property then they knew it was an issue and should have made efforts to stop it.


Yes that is exactly the scenario I would imagine too. It can be really threatening to a dog not used to this sort of attention. And I really can't get my head around the Father's comment that he had doubts about the dog and then making it seem like it has all come from nowhere, as if he has no responsibility for educating and overseeing his children.
It really makes my blood boil because now this poor little dog is being painted by the press like some savage beast (ok, I know no one takes Daily Mail reports seriously - hope not)


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Why was the child allowed to wander in and out of the houses without the adults being aware of it? Surely even if you think your dog is child safe you'd rather know if there is a kid around them. 

As for the sort of person who looks at a dog attack and immediately goes to zomg conspiracy and there's photos *best homer Simpson impression* vile humans


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> Now, if we could make that pic a permanent feature, we'd all be able to see which icon we want so much easier, as well as being able to use them.
> 
> As for the size matters and small and useful vs big and useless .... Not going there! Not going there _AT ALL_!
> 
> ...


found the icons the dog ones but how do you download it to the pc and how do you then put it on here I am a numpty at all of this


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> I am incandescent with anger reading a report like this about the crass stupidity of people around dogs!!!
> First of all, how can the father say he had reservations about the dog and then allow his 6yr old to wander next door unattended? As it is no one was there to witness events so how on earth could they know exactly what happened?
> My heart bleeds for these poor cross breeds, I HATE hearing them referred to as 'designer dogs' they are nothing of the sort they are just poor victims of fashion. Unfortunately cute dogs are just assumed to be walking teddy bears and when they act more like the real thing because they are fed up with being pulled around and pestered, suddenly it's the dog's fault.
> CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE LEFT ALONE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S DOGS
> ...


DAMN RIGHT....I have 2 of these teddy bear looking dogs and surprise surprise they come from unwanted homes, and I am sick to the back teeth of people letting their kids run up and fuss them without asking, don't get me wrong, they are trained well and love kids but I always say to a child doing this ''How do you know my dog doesn't bite?'' The parents are bloody idiots...I wouldn't even leave them in a room alone with my Granddaughter because kids poke...they prod even if they don't mean to and I wouldn't take the risk


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> Now, if we could make that pic a permanent feature, we'd all be able to see which icon we want so much easier, as well as being able to use them.
> 
> As for the size matters and small and useful vs big and useless .... Not going there! Not going there _AT ALL_!
> 
> ...


These are so cool...so many dogs


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

It’s not just the teddy bear looking dogs. The number of times children have run up to our great danes and wrapped their arms around their necks is insane. 
Then there are the idiots who see a big dog and want to incite the dog someway to prove how brave (stupid) they are. 

Fortunately our dogs are used to stupid human behavior in all incarnations, and just shrug it off. Well, Breez is a diva and does demand treats for putting up with unpleasant interactions. I swear she rolls her eyes and looks at me as if to say “I am going to get paid for this."


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> It's not just the teddy bear looking dogs. The number of times children have run up to our great danes and wrapped their arms around their necks is insane.
> Then there are the idiots who see a big dog and want to incite the dog someway to prove how brave (stupid) they are.
> 
> Fortunately our dogs are used to stupid human behavior in all incarnations, and just shrug it off. Well, Breez is a diva and does demand treats for putting up with unpleasant interactions. I swear she rolls her eyes and looks at me as if to say "I am going to get paid for this."


PMSL...I can imagine the fusses they expect in payment....mine look at me as if to say....get this human off me or you will suffer later lol


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

shirleystarr said:


> found the icons the dog ones but how do you download it to the pc and how do you then put it on here I am a numpty at all of this


No need to download it.
Just pick the smiley you want to use, click on it, and copy the ubb code that comes up above all the pictures.
Paste the code straight into your post.
(it won't show up in your reply as a picture until you hit 'preview' though)
For example:

And that's it


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

My son goes to a very well heeled, middle class primary school (put it this way, I'm not the type that's approached to join the PTA!) and it genuinely shocks me how many of these dolts want a 'designer dog' for their little darlings. 

The mind set truly is 'costs a lot, cute name = perfect family pet'. Now, of course I'm generalising and a great many do make lovely pets but these are people who aren't unintelligent, buying a living thing because they are what's in. 

Usually school kicking out time is rows of designer dogs barking and going nuts and ten thousand children running to pet and hug them.

We are usually on the other side of the street, being completely avoided by the yummy mummies because Shadow is big and black so obviously may well be of a dubious nature in comparison to the leaping balls of cuteness who are barking at each other when the reality is, she would adore a fuss from some kids. 

People really can be ten shades of stupid when you least expect it.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Never ceases to amaze...... I remember having the conversation with a family member about their "F1 Hybrid" labradoodle, meaning it was a pedigree....... I was like "a what?"


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

That's EXACTLY the tripe that's spouted!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> After reading the article IMO it looks like the kid picking up the dog lead could have been the trigger. An already worried dog having his flight response restricted could end up with the dog escalating to a warning snap, a young child with their face close to the dogs mouth could end up with injuries that match this childs injuries.
> 
> Obviously that is all speculation as no one knows for certain, it's just something that struck me when reading.
> 
> As for the OP trying to speculate the staffy owners are lying to take the heat off their own innocent dog...well, :Facepalm (I'm loving some of these new smilies hehe)


Again speculating, but why did the dog have the lead on in its own house? Definitely looks like the little girl was using the dog as a play thing. Nothing unusual there, I remember pulling our cats around in cardboard boxes at about this age (why? I don't know why.....it was a long time ago). However not to be recommended with someone else's dog.
I get Ouesi's point about dogs should be taught some sort of tolerance of children and we do our best but we don't have children/grandchildren/nieces & nephews etc and the only contact our dog is likely to have with little ones will be completely random. I just think it is grossly unfair that the dog pays the price in these cases regardless of how the humans in the situation have behaved.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

oh I did it woooo hooooooooo


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> Again speculating, but why did the dog have the lead on in its own house?


If you read the article it is clearly stated that the dog had a lead on and was ready to go for a walk. My dog has a lead on his house on occasions, there is nothing odd about a dog having a lead on in their own house lol

This dog hasn't paid any price as of yet, the owners have been told that they must muzzle their dog 'The officer did say I could take her out before work without a muzzle as I'm up quite early and there won't be many people around, but during the day he will have to wear it.'
But yes, I agree that it sucks that the dogs are the ones to answer for the humans mistakes, unfortunately that is a human trait


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

shirleystarr said:


> oh I did it woooo hooooooooo


Yay!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Never ceases to amaze...... I remember having the conversation with a family member about their "F1 Hybrid" labradoodle, meaning it was a pedigree....... I was like "a what?"


Didn't happen to me but a friend told me about a cockerpoo owner assuring her that it was a pedigree, on the basis that the father & mother were both pedigrees :Wideyed
Lovin' these smilies but where are the doggies etc. Are there any spaniels :Kiss


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> If you read the article it is clearly stated that the dog had a lead on and was ready to go for a walk. My dog has a lead on his house on occasions, there is nothing odd about a dog having a lead on in their own house lol
> 
> This dog hasn't paid any price as of yet, the owners have been told that they must muzzle their dog 'The officer did say I could take her out before work without a muzzle as I'm up quite early and there won't be many people around, but during the day he will have to wear it.'
> But yes, I agree that it sucks that the dogs are the ones to answer for the humans mistakes, unfortunately that is a human trait


Sorry I did read the article but missed the bit about the dog being ready to go for a walk.
And the dog will be paying a price of some kind or another because there will now always be a lack of trust towards this particular animal. Animals are never able to tell their side of the story however clever they may be in other respects.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I havent read all this thread about this, but saw it on facebook, in my opinion, its partly the girls parents fault,their children shouldnt be in other peoples garden or houses without permission, the dog was protecting its territory, and there are no witnesses as to what prompted the dog to bite, it hasnt mauled her,and i do not think this dog should be put down, i feel sorry for the girl, but also for the dogs owner, the injury isnt that bad and wont leave a bad scar, but i think the parents are going a bit too far,as obviously they were friends with the neighbour before


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> Didn't happen to me but a friend told me about a cockerpoo owner assuring her that it was a pedigree, on the basis that the father & mother were both pedigrees :Wideyed
> Lovin' these smilies but where are the doggies etc. Are there any spaniels :Kiss


http://yoursmiles.org/t-dogs.php?page=1


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

shirleystarr said:


> oh I did it woooo hooooooooo


lol me too....now I can say this daily fail article is making me want to


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> Sorry I did read the article but missed the bit about the dog being ready to go for a walk.
> And the dog will be paying a price of some kind or another because there will now always be a lack of trust towards this particular animal. Animals are never able to tell their side of the story however clever they may be in other respects.


I don't think a dog wearing a muzzle is paying any price so long as the muzzle is introduced  There is nothing in the article indicating a lack of trust from the dogs owner, if I am honest they are being quite responsible about it all.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

Clare7435 said:


> lol me too....now I can say this daily fail article is making me want to
> View attachment 229157


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

jaycee05 said:


> I havent read all this thread about this, but saw it on facebook, in my opinion, its partly the girls parents fault,their children shouldnt be in other peoples garden or houses without permission, *the dog was protecting its territory,* and there are no witnesses as to what prompted the dog to bite, it hasnt mauled her,and i do not think this dog should be put down, i feel sorry for the girl, but also for the dogs owner, the injury isnt that bad and wont leave a bad scar, but i think the parents are going a bit too far,as obviously they were friends with the neighbour before


I'm sorry but I really dislike this excuse for a dog biting. 
I have a great dane, a guardian breed, and a muttdog with strong guarding instincts. People come on to our property all the time uninvited, and if my dogs felt the need to respond to that with teeth I would feel it was a huge failure on my part as a dog owner.

There is no "protecting" in putting holes in a small child's face. That is not protective behavior. That is unacceptable behavior IMHO.

I like that there is more of a push to *understand* why dogs bite, but that doesn't mean we should excuse or accept the biting. 
I'm not saying this is true in this case, but let's say the dog bit because he felt his personal space invaded and has a history of not having his signals heard so felt the need in this case to go straight to a bite. 
I am understanding of what would have led that dog to bite, but that doesn't mean you say "oh, well, he doesn't like people in his face" and call it quits. You work with the dog to get him more comfortable with stupid human behavior, you use positive techniques to build the dog's confidence and trust in humans, and you work to reduce the likelihood of a bite. This is a big piece that seems to be missing sometimes.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Agreed that I wouldn't call a dog biting 'protective' behaviour. However, I don't think the behaviour should be a failure on the owner's part. The dog was in it's own home, somewhere you associate to be a safe place for the dog. We know no other details in regards to whether the dog was anxious, or whether the child was teasing the dog, or manhandling it, nothing. Dogs are dogs at the end of the day, and even the best behaved dog has the ability to bite if the circumstances are right.

One of my neighbours has to walk behind my garden to get to the road etc, and my god the way Cash barks at him you'd be forgiven for thinking he's some out of control monster ready to rip his arms off!  I consider barking at a stranger crossing the back of our garden completely acceptable IMO. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't bite if that man was to enter my garden, but I'm always very careful about making sure there is never an opportunity for him to be left unsupervised at the times of day I know the man passes.

As I said before, I couldn't hand on heart guarantee how mine would act in similar circumstances. Missy loves kids and I'd trust her the most, and Cash seems to have a natural affinity with kids, but I still wouldn't trust them 100%.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

A few years ago, when we first had our Saluki and our Saluki/Greyhound cross, they spent a lot of time in our back garden in summer just watching the world go by.

Our back garden was on a path to the main road, so all of our neighbours went by the bottom of it too and our dogs hardly ever barked at any of them (unless they deliberately hassled them, like rattling on the fence as some of the kids tried now and again).

But the postman, who delivered post via the back garden was scared of entering our garden in case these two tall 'monsters' attacked him.
So he used to call out and dangle our post over the top of our fence. This of course sent both dogs scatty and they jumped up trying to grab the post out of his hands....

So, we fixed a post box to our back gate, but we also invited our postie in to see the dogs on 'their territory'.
He reluctantly agreed to do this and gingerly opened the back gate....the dogs immediately stopped barking and went over to sniff him (much trembling by postie....). After a quick sniff, they went off and left him alone.

The thing was, our postie had developed preconceived ideas about our dogs, just like it seems the father of the child in the article had done.
Lucky for us and our dogs, he spoke to us about it, rather than taking his complaint further and we worked out a solution and he got to realise that our dogs were not dangerous.

Had he, on the other hand, carried on dangling our post over the back fence, eventually one of our dogs would have grabbed his hand rather than a letter and the result could have been disastrous all round.

So this rather anecdotal post is just to say that, had there been a little more communication about the dog between the neighbour (who said he was already unsure of the dog) and the dog's owner (and the outcome communicated to the neighbour's child of course), all of this could have been avoided.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Agreed that I wouldn't call a dog biting 'protective' behaviour. However, I don't think the behaviour should be a failure on the owner's part. The dog was in it's own home, somewhere you associate to be a safe place for the dog. We know no other details in regards to whether the dog was anxious, or whether the child was teasing the dog, or manhandling it, nothing. Dogs are dogs at the end of the day, and even the best behaved dog has the ability to bite if the circumstances are right.
> 
> One of my neighbours has to walk behind my garden to get to the road etc, and my god the way Cash barks at him you'd be forgiven for thinking he's some out of control monster ready to rip his arms off!  I consider barking at a stranger crossing the back of our garden completely acceptable IMO. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't bite if that man was to enter my garden, but I'm always very careful about making sure there is never an opportunity for him to be left unsupervised at the times of day I know the man passes.
> 
> As I said before, I couldn't hand on heart guarantee how mine would act in similar circumstances. Missy loves kids and I'd trust her the most, and Cash seems to have a natural affinity with kids, but I still wouldn't trust them 100%.


What I said was "If MY dogs felt the need to respond with teeth to people showing up to our house uninvited, I would consider it a failure on MY part.

What others do is up to them.

That said, I think we tend to sell dogs short when we just assume X, Y, Z behavior will lead to a bite. Dogs repeatedly show themselves to be very capable of not biting.

Visiting small kiddo does a cartwheel, overshoots, lands in the kitchen falling on top of the dog who is eating dinner at the time. Both fall to the ground in a heap, dog grunts, extricates himself out from under the kid, gently licks her face, goes back to eating his dinner.

Old, grumpy, arthritic dog sleeping at the foot of the stairs. Toddler falls down the stairs, lands on top of the dog. Dog jumps up, roars open mouthed at toddler, teeth flashing, zero damage, no contact made between skin and teeth.

Middle of the night I get up to pee, trip over sleeping great dane, land with my face on top of great dane's muzzle. Dane looks at me surprised, never even thought about using teeth.

Dogs are far better at not using teeth than we give them credit for. We absolutely can (and IMO should) can nurture and encourage that reluctance to use teeth in our pet dogs.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

shirleystarr said:


> http://yoursmiles.org/t-dogs.php?page=1


added to favourites!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

silvi said:


> A few years ago, when we first had our Saluki and our Saluki/Greyhound cross, they spent a lot of time in our back garden in summer just watching the world go by.
> 
> Our back garden was on a path to the main road, so all of our neighbours went by the bottom of it too and our dogs hardly ever barked at any of them (unless they deliberately hassled them, like rattling on the fence as some of the kids tried now and again).
> 
> ...


I'm thinking of introducing my neighbour and Cash actually too for the same reasons you did your postie in your case. I think that would help change the perception that Cash doesn't like him. The neighbour has stopped a number of times just outside my gate and tried talking to Cash which just incites him further and now of course the neighbour believes Cash 'hates' him.

And I agree that communication goes along way in these kind of situations. Still, you have to wonder why the father was allowing his child to enter the home of a dog he felt 'unsure' of!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> I don't think a dog wearing a muzzle is paying any price so long as the muzzle is introduced  There is nothing in the article indicating a lack of trust from the dogs owner, if I am honest they are being quite responsible about it all.


I was generalising but this dog's card is now marked imo.
I'm not a fan of muzzles. I fully appreciate they are necessary in some instances and better than having the animal pts but wouldn't use one as a solution by choice. Don't think I'd like wearing that sort of face furniture every time I stepped out the front door :Grumpy


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

The dog apparently knew the child and the wound really does not look like a bite. Dog was waiting to be taken for a walk, child bent down and picked up lead and dog pawed rudely in excitement. Pure conjecture but surely it is a more likely scenario.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If the dog was in the hallway with a lead on, waiting to go for a walk and the child bent down and picked up the lead, maybe he was just over excited, jumping up and caught her face. The moral of the story is don't let your young children wander off into neighbour's houses uninvited I suppose. There's worse things can happen. It says the child ran into the road screaming, would they have blamed a car driver if the child was knocked down? How come this vicious, attacking dog didn't follow her? The police hadn't spoken to the neighbour, because there were kids outside messing with the police car. :Wideyed Sounds like a great place to live. No, my own dog wouldn't jump up at a child, nor would I expect her to bite them, lick them to death maybe and she doesn't get excited about walks, nor would I put a lead on and leave her waiting. So agree with Ouesi, when it comes to my dog, she wouldn't be put in a situation where a child could wander about unsupervised and I wouldn't expect a bite, regardless. When it came to my children, they wouldn't be wandering about on the road and in neighbour's houses either, unless they were invited and expected. It's sad I think that the mum and dad don't seem to take any responsibility for what happened at all, even though the dad says he was already worried about the dog.  The dog being muzzled on walks isn't going to prevent this kind of thing though is it. The child was in the house at the time. Still, it is the daily mail, so anything could have happened.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> I was generalising but this dog's card is now marked imo.
> I'm not a fan of muzzles. I fully appreciate they are necessary in some instances and better than having the animal pts but wouldn't use one as a solution by choice. Don't think I'd like wearing that sort of face furniture every time I stepped out the front door :Grumpy


Does he look unhappy to you?


If I pick up Thai's muzzle he will practically launch himself at me to put his nose in his muzzle, if introduced properly a muzzle is a good thing.
IMO all dogs should be muzzle trained as a matter of course, that way if ever the dog needs to wear a muzzle (say for vet treatment) you are not adding yet more stress to an already stressful situation.

Muzzles are not a bad thing, and the sooner people get past the "muzzle = I have failed as a dog owner", the sooner people will be responsible and muzzle the dogs that need it IMHO of course.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Does he look unhappy to you?
> 
> 
> If I pick up Thai's muzzle he will practically launch himself at me to put his nose in his muzzle, if introduced properly a muzzle is a good thing.
> ...


totally agree with this.
I have to muzzle Sophie when she visits the vets because she completely loses it and everyone is too busy minding they don't get bitten to actually see if she is okay. So I suggested the muzzle (had to find a special small, skinny one too) and introduced it to Sophie at home first, so that she knew it wasn't just for visiting the vet's.
Not an ideal solution, but now wearing the muzzle itself doesn't bother her at all (although she looks like a very small Hannibal Lecter). The vet's does though .


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

My lot are more likely to lick a burglar to death to be honest....thankfully the nose they make when people come into the garden is deterrent enough...


----------



## karmacookie (Nov 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> A few years ago, when we first had our Saluki and our Saluki/Greyhound cross, they spent a lot of time in our back garden in summer just watching the world go by.
> 
> Our back garden was on a path to the main road, so all of our neighbours went by the bottom of it too and our dogs hardly ever barked at any of them (unless they deliberately hassled them, like rattling on the fence as some of the kids tried now and again).
> 
> ...


I had a similar problem a few weeks ago. some new kids moved into the area and kept coming to the back gate and dangling their hands over the fence, winding the dogs up and having them jumping up. when the dogs jumped the kids would quickly pill their hands away. I talked to the kids and told them to stop coming near my gate then talked to the parents. They seem to have got the message but if they did it again and ended up with a bitten finger I bet my dogs would get the blame and not them or the parents.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

silvi said:


> totally agree with this.
> I have to muzzle Sophie when she visits the vets because she completely loses it and everyone is too busy minding they don't get bitten to actually see if she is okay. So I suggested the muzzle (had to find a special small, skinny one too) and introduced it to Sophie at home first, so that she knew it wasn't just for visiting the vet's.
> Not an ideal solution, but now wearing the muzzle itself doesn't bother her at all (although she looks like a very small Hannibal Lecter). The vet's does though .


That reminds me of the time just after Max had his accident which caused him to temporarily lose the use of his legs. The vet (his own - not the E-vet he had to see on NYD last year) gave me a muzzle to use for toilet trips in case he tried to bite me when I went to help him/support his back legs up and down the stairs.

Max was too determined to get back to his normal self that he hardly waited for me to get the sling out, never mind muzzle him. 







<------ Sums Max up perfectly 

You can find more dog icons under Personages | Puppies on the yoursmiles site.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

I think a dog biting is protective behaviour and its natural behaviour too. It just doesn't fit in with the way in which we need a dog to behave in our homes and in the social domestic environments in which we live. A dog biting is every bit as natural and instinctive though as John Prescott throwing a punch at a member of the public that threw an egg at him. We supress that behaviour through training and many people would restrain themselves and not lash out as Prescott did (For our overseas friends John Prescott was Deputy Prime Minister in the UK until 2010).

Whilst we obviously try and train aggressive behaviour out of them they can never be completely trusted, particularly around Children in my opinion and should be supervised at all times around them. I am always wary of children around my Shepherds. We just don't know when illness or some other anomaly overrides the training and natural canine behaviour will kick in.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I wouldn't class a dog biting out of fear, protective if I'm honest.
Now if a dog is IPO trained in bite work then that is protective...but most pet dogs bite out of fear rather than anything else.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> I wouldn't class a dog biting out of fear, protective if I'm honest.
> Now if a dog is IPO trained in bite work then that is protective...but most pet dogs bite out of fear rather than anything else.


Not really. The dog isn't trained for protection purposes, it's just a fun game for the dog and I doubt very few have that desire to bite outside the training field. A PP dog OTOH is a different kettle of fish and HAS been trained for protective purposes. Even still the dog wouldn't be expected to bite in most circumstances.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Does he look unhappy to you?
> 
> 
> If I pick up Thai's muzzle he will practically launch himself at me to put his nose in his muzzle, if introduced properly a muzzle is a good thing.
> ...


I think it's really great that you have been able to acclimatise Thai to the muzzle so positively, he certainly doesn't look unhappy. Why is it necessary?
Whereas I take your point about it being a responsible option and not feeling a failure for using one I worry about it being regarded as a one size fits all quick fix for owners who can't be bothered to work with their dogs, would you agree?
I am not a very experienced groomer but I work very hard to get my customers comfortable on the table so that they will co-operate. In my situation using a muzzle can feel like failure but there are instances when I use them. I have a senior westie I clip down, she has always been feisty but she getting senile and gave me a nasty nip last time. She is also becoming incontinent so needed a good bath and tidy. I popped a muzzle on and probably got it done in half the time it would take coaxing and shadow boxing which in the long run is less stress. And I kept all my fingers - result!!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Not really. The dog isn't trained for protection purposes, it's just a fun game for the dog and I doubt very few have that desire to bite outside the training field. A PP dog OTOH is a different kettle of fish and HAS been trained for protective purposes. Even still the dog wouldn't be expected to bite in most circumstances.


You misunderstand my post.
I meant that only a trained dog could be classed as protecting (a police dog taking down someone attacking their handler for example), I would not expect a trained dog to bite in this particular scenario.

Fear is the most likely reason dogs bite in these situations, not the only reason, but the most likely. My point was that I doubt protecting anything crosses the dogs mind. Unless they have been trained to do so


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> You misunderstand my post.
> I meant that only a trained dog could be classed as protecting (a police dog taking down someone attacking their handler for example), I would not expect a trained dog to bite in this particular scenario.
> 
> Fear is the most likely reason dogs bite in these situations, not the only reason, but the most likely. My point was that I doubt protecting anything crosses the dogs mind. Unless they have been trained to do so


I agree. Fear is very often the driving force behind these bites.

I wasn't implying you meant a trained protection dog would bite, was just responding to the IPO dog as a trained protection dog.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> I think it's really great that you have been able to acclimatise Thai to the muzzle so positively, he certainly doesn't look unhappy. Why is it necessary?
> Whereas I take your point about it being a responsible option and not feeling a failure for using one I worry about it being regarded as a one size fits all quick fix for owners who can't be bothered to work with their dogs, would you agree?
> I am not a very experienced groomer but I work very hard to get my customers comfortable on the table so that they will co-operate. In my situation using a muzzle can feel like failure but there are instances when I use them. I have a senior westie I clip down, she has always been feisty but she getting senile and gave me a nasty nip last time. She is also becoming incontinent so needed a good bath and tidy. I popped a muzzle on and probably got it done in half the time it would take coaxing and shadow boxing which in the long run is less stress. And I kept all my fingers - result!!


He wears one in situations where other dogs may get too close for his comfort. He has never used his teeth whilst in my ownership, but being a dog with teeth he is capable so we muzzle up to make it more relaxing for all concerned.

Whilst I agree that *some *people may use them as a "one size fits all" most don't, although saying that, so long as the dog has been conditioned to wear the muzzle correctly I see no reason why it's a bad thing if an owner wishes to muzzle their dog for whatever reason.
Some owners muzzle to stop scavengers which I have no issues with, why should I if the dog is happy to wear one?

I don't understand why you would feel a failure for using a muzzle whilst grooming, obviously it's great that you try to condition the dog without a muzzle but it's not a failure to make a stressful situation less stressful...far from it IMO.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> I wouldn't class a dog biting out of fear, protective if I'm honest.
> Now if a dog is IPO trained in bite work then that is protective...but most pet dogs bite out of fear rather than anything else.


It is a self protective response mechanism so it is protective but sure, not in the sense of protecting anybody else or premises. All my dogs natural protective response in terms of defending other people and things is to make a lot of noise.


----------



## RottieRubysMum (Apr 6, 2015)

What is with all the breedism and controversial opinions on here lately? I was a long time observer on here during my research into getting a dog, before we adopted Ruby, and it was never like this.

There is someone stirring the pot and it's getting on my nerves because everyone is so supportive but then things like this happen!

My preteen brother was over at the weekend, first time meeting Ruby, and I briefed him before he met her, told him exactly how to act, never left him alone with her and taught him to respect her space and the fact that even though she won't bite him, she'd sooner roll over and concede after being mistreated for years, she still could if she wanted to. It's common sense! Don't make my dog feel uncomfortable, otherwise I'll make you feel bloody uncomfortable! She loved him in the end, just a bit freaked out by his hyperactive nature, but she dealt well with it


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cbcdesign said:


> It is a self protective response mechanism so it is protective but sure, not in the sense of protecting anybody else or premises. All my dogs natural protective response in terms of defending other people and things is to make a lot of noise.


Ahh self preservation, I'm with you now


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> I don't understand why you would feel a failure for using a muzzle whilst grooming, obviously it's great that you try to condition the dog without a muzzle but it's not a failure to make a stressful situation less stressful...far from it IMO.


It's having the confidence to know when it is the right choice and not just the aforementioned quick fix. Also some owners are not at all cool about it so it is as well to be sure in your own mind that you've explored as many options as possible.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> It's having the confidence to know when it is the right choice and not just the aforementioned quick fix. Also some owners are not at all cool about it so it is as well to be sure in your own mind that you've explored as many options as possible.


Ok so if the dog is conditioned to wear a muzzle so they don't care, why does it matter if they are used for a "quick fix" or any reason?
Owners not being "cool" about it is exactly the attitude I wish to stamp out. 1. what business of theirs is it if I wish to muzzle my dog? 2. If the dog is properly conditioned what is there not to be "cool" about?

A muzzle is not a badge of shame, nor should they be treated as such


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

For God's sake, it's a muzzle.

It's not going to shorten the dog's life, cause it any pain, create stress or danger.

What is the harm? 

If someone wants to incorporate muzzle training into their routine with their dog, good for them.

I cannot imagine too many people using a muzzle as a 'quick fix' for aggression problems. In general, the type of owner who cares that their dog could be reactive and takes steps to limit any potential damage is not going to be the type of owner looking for an easy solution.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I was generalising but this dog's card is now marked imo.
> I'm not a fan of muzzles. I fully appreciate they are necessary in some instances and better than having the animal pts but wouldn't use one as a solution by choice. Don't think I'd like wearing that sort of face furniture every time I stepped out the front door :Grumpy


And if the father hadn't let his little brat go wandering into other people's houses the dog wouldn't have to go out with a muzzle on everytime.

Years ago when I lived at home I was in the shower and the child next door walked in, scared me to death cos for one I was starkers and I did shout at him... but not only that ..on coming in he'd left the gate open and the door and let our dog out. I had to throw on some clothes and go find the dog. Luckily I found him before he reached the main road, but I gave the neighbour a few choice words when she came to see why I had shouted at her little brat who had apparently run home crying.

The parents of the child are to blame as the child would be considered too young to understand.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> And if the father hadn't let his little brat go wandering into other people's houses the dog wouldn't have to go out with a muzzle on everytime.
> 
> Years ago when I lived at home I was in the shower and the child next door walked in, scared me to death cos for one I was starkers and I did shout at him... but not only that ..on coming in he'd left the gate open and the door and let our dog out. I had to throw on some clothes and go find the dog. Luckily I found him before he reached the main road, but I gave the neighbour a few choice words when she came to see why I had shouted at her little brat who had apparently run home crying.
> 
> The parents of the child are to blame as the child would be considered too young to understand.


Really???? Brat? How charming!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> And if the father hadn't let his little brat go wandering into other people's houses the dog wouldn't have to go out with a muzzle on everytime.


Orrr (now here is a novel idea) the owner of the dog could make sure people can't just wander in off the street


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Orrr (now here is a novel idea) the owner of the dog could make sure people can't just wander in off the street


Who walks into complete strangers houses without knocking or ringing the doorbell!!! we were taught to ask first... no discipline these days, kids do what the hell they want and parents aren't allowed to discipline them.

I always keep my doors locked and back gate into garden here is locked so people can't just walk in when the dogs maybe out. (even window cleaners and gardeners do it) They have to knock or ring door bell first and wait for me to bring dogs in and unlock the back gate.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Who walks into complete strangers houses without knocking or ringing the doorbell!!! we were taught to ask first... no discipline these days, kids do what the hell they want and parents aren't allowed to discipline them.
> 
> I always keep my doors locked and back gate into garden here is locked so people can't just walk in when the dogs maybe out. (even window cleaners and gardeners do it) They have to knock or ring door bell first and wait for me to bring dogs in and unlock the back gate.


The kid didn't walk into a strangers house, they were neighbours.
Do you know that the child did not knock? A 6 year old may not have made much of a noise, the owner was out in the garden..maybe, just maybe, the child knocked (wouldn't have been able to reach a doorbell) and it wasn't heard, the door was open so the child pushed open the door to see the dog that she obviously interacts with on a regular basis...unfortunately this time, the dog injured the child so it made the news!

I will repeat tho, there is nothing wrong with muzzling a dog if the dog has been conditioned to wear one comfortably.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> Who walks into complete strangers houses without knocking or ringing the doorbell!!! we were taught to ask first... no discipline these days, kids do what the hell they want and parents aren't allowed to discipline them.
> 
> I always keep my doors locked and back gate into garden here is locked so people can't just walk in when the dogs maybe out. (even window cleaners and gardeners do it) They have to knock or ring door bell first and wait for me to bring dogs in and unlock the back gate.


It wasn't a complete stranger, they're neighbors. We have neighbors who we are close enough with that we knock once, then walk in. Not everyone lives the exact same way.
Please don't be calling this child a brat, lacking in discipline and whatnot. You don't know this child, you have no idea what actually happened, it's the daily fail for crying out loud.

Ever heard of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"?

First you try to accuse the staffy as the biter and the father as a liar, now you're calling the child an undisciplined brat. How about deferring judgement until ALL the facts come out? How about deferring judgement full stop?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Who walks into complete strangers houses without knocking or ringing the doorbell!!! we were taught to ask first... no discipline these days, kids do what the hell they want and parents aren't allowed to discipline them.
> 
> I always keep my doors locked and back gate into garden here is locked so people can't just walk in when the dogs maybe out. (even window cleaners and gardeners do it) They have to knock or ring door bell first and wait for me to bring dogs in and unlock the back gate.


Kids don't have the same sense of right or wrong though at that age. I've mentioned it before, but last summer a group of kids between 5/6 and 9 approached our open caravan door and started cooing over the dogs. The older two children didn't hang about, but the 6 year old proceeded to climb up and through the doorway of the caravan and perched herself on the coffee table! The whole time I was in kind of awkward stunned belief at the child's utter bravery and lack of manners. I had hold of Cash as she shoved her face in his and hugged him. All of this lasted a matter of minutes I should imagine and once her mum found out she was in our caravan she was told in no uncertain terms to get home! Luckily all was well and all the dogs, particularly Cash, dealt with the unexpected intrusion well. However, I would of been horrified had I been in the shower or on the toilet or something and the dogs were left at the mercy of said child. I don't blame the kid at all. She saw dogs and in her young mind thought they was cute fluffy puppies to play with. But just goes to show how quickly these things happen.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I pulled up to my ground floor maisonette today, dog in boot. I was instantly confronted by 3 kids. " our ball is in your garden, can we have it back please" - dog - woo woo woo woo get me out- kids " oh you've got a dog, can we stroke him..... " me wait a mo I'll get treats. Give them their ball, tell them to put it out of sight, give them a treat each get dex out, quick assessment of body language on sight of kids- all good, waggy tails, gives kids sit and paw for their treats. Enjoys chest scratch.
If these kids had wandered into my garden unannounced, whilst I'm pretty sure no teeth would be involved, his reaction would have been very different! I took this opportunity however, as he's not exposed to kids on a regular basis, and positive interactions can only help if suddenly confronted!


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I was generalising but this dog's card is now marked imo.
> I'm not a fan of muzzles. I fully appreciate they are necessary in some instances and better than having the animal pts but wouldn't use one as a solution by choice. Don't think I'd like wearing that sort of face furniture every time I stepped out the front door :Grumpy


What the hell is wrong with muzzles, Chance has to wear one and knows when it comes out good things are coming, but would you rather he killed another dog should it run up and start some thing as he's restricted to his lead, or he mauled a child if they were to run up and grab him by the neck? 
You are not a dog they are and with conditioning they couldn't care less about having to wear one


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

RottieRubysMum said:


> What is with all the breedism and controversial opinions on here lately? I was a long time observer on here during my research into getting a dog, before we adopted Ruby, and it was never like this.
> 
> There is someone stirring the pot and it's getting on my nerves because everyone is so supportive but then things like this happen!
> 
> My preteen brother was over at the weekend, first time meeting Ruby, and I briefed him before he met her, told him exactly how to act, never left him alone with her and taught him to respect her space and the fact that even though she won't bite him, she'd sooner roll over and concede after being mistreated for years, she still could if she wanted to. It's common sense! Don't make my dog feel uncomfortable, otherwise I'll make you feel bloody uncomfortable! She loved him in the end, just a bit freaked out by his hyperactive nature, but she dealt well with it


In most of the recent cases, breedism seems to come from the resident troll, as do most incidents of controversial conversations.

In this case, however, it sadly seems to come from a fully established member who is known for more than starting or posting controversial topics and is simply letting herself down big style. 



IncaThePup said:


> And if the father hadn't let his* little brat* go wandering into other people's houses the dog wouldn't have to go out with a muzzle on everytime.
> 
> Years ago when I lived at home I was in the shower and the child next door walked in, scared me to death cos for one I was starkers and I did shout at him... but not only that ..on coming in he'd left the gate open and the door and let our dog out. I had to throw on some clothes and go find the dog. Luckily I found him before he reached the main road, *but I gave the neighbour a few choice words when she came to see why I had shouted at her little brat who had apparently run home crying.*
> 
> The parents of the child are to blame as the child would be considered too young to understand.


You really are showing your true colours in this thread, aren't you? And they're not very pretty.

I understand that you were scared, but you were partly to blame for not locking the door before your shower. And, who gave you the right to shout at a child that isn't yours? It's up to the parents to discipline their children - not neighbours.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

You all just aren't getting it, we should immediately beat every child senseless night after night. We'll really teach them how to behave them :Shifty.

Most of the breedism comes from our resident utterly pathetic person er troll


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Some folk learn stuff on forums like this, some don't, as is once again evident here.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

As far as trolls are concerned I happened upon this earlier on a completely unrelated search. Seems like you don't gt the answers you want anywhere...
http://www.dogforum.com/general-dog.../page3/#/forumsite/20536/topics/218450?page=1


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> I understand that you were scared, but you were partly to blame for not locking the door before your shower. And, who gave you the right to shout at a child that isn't yours? It's up to the parents to discipline their children - not neighbours.


Although I do not agree with what Inca has been saying I totally do not agree with what you have said here. I think it is out of order. Why should someone lock their door before having a shower , what a ridiculous state of affairs. And why shouldn't someone shout at a child that has behaved in such an atrocious manner. I am sure you would shout at a child that not only came into your house uninvited but let your dog out. Maybe children would behave a lot better if everyone carried on in the way it used to be and reprimanded any child that misbehaved around them.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Although I do not agree with what Inca has been saying I totally do not agree with what you have said here. I think it is out of order. Why should someone lock their door before having a shower , what a ridiculous state of affairs. And why shouldn't someone shout at a child that has behaved in such an atrocious manner. I am sure you would shout at a child that not only came into your house uninvited but let your dog out. Maybe children would behave a lot better if everyone carried on in the way it used to be and reprimanded any child that misbehaved around them.


No, actually, I would have approached the parents and had a go at them - I wouldn't shout at the child who doesn't know any better.

As for locking the door if I'm going in the shower, I would have thought making sure the house is secure when you in such a compromising position would be common sense. Or if not the house, then at least the bathroom - especially if you don't live alone.

But then, I never leave my door in such a way that anyone can just waltz in unannounced in the first place.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Although I do not agree with what Inca has been saying I totally do not agree with what you have said here. I think it is out of order. Why should someone lock their door before having a shower , what a ridiculous state of affairs. And why shouldn't someone shout at a child that has behaved in such an atrocious manner. I am sure you would shout at a child that not only came into your house uninvited but let your dog out. Maybe children would behave a lot better if everyone carried on in the way it used to be and reprimanded any child that misbehaved around them.


But it seems as if the child had been told this was ok and it was normal, going on the daily fail which has only a glancing relationship with the truth of course. So why reprimand a child for something that you had let her do? Change the rules and don't allow it sure but it should be up to the parents to reinforce the rules


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Who lets their kids enter other people's houses without permission from the home owner?! Who leaves their doors unlocked anymore?!

Both of the adults are at fault -- one for feeling too secure and not thinking to teach the child boundary etiquette, and one for not being secure enough. It's not the child's nor the dog's fault, it's the parent's and the owner's... Not either/or. BOTH.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I was generalising but this dog's card is now marked imo.
> I'm not a fan of muzzles. I fully appreciate they are necessary in some instances and better than having the animal pts but wouldn't use one as a solution by choice. Don't think I'd like wearing that sort of face furniture every time I stepped out the front door :Grumpy


Tough luck imo. If a dog has proven it will bite then imo it should be muzzled.

Mine didn't bother about his "face furniture", it didn't stop him doing anything he enjoyed apart from tearing holes in other dogs. I lost count of the number of people who called me cruel for muzzling him. I'm quite sure they'd have been the first to complain had it been their dog being stitched up at the emergency vet after an encounter with him. I think the whole attitude that muzzles are bad, should only be used as a very last resort when everything else has failed, are uncomfortable etc needs to die a death. Some dogs should be muzzled for their safety and the safety of others.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Who lets their kids enter other people's houses without permission from the home owner?! Who leaves their doors unlocked anymore?!.


Um, there's a couple of my neighbours' that I knock and walk in and they do the same...in fact anybody who comes to see me regularly just walks in.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

Ha ha! It took me a minute, but I just got the ridiculous irony of Incathepup’s latest posts.

If as in her OP it was actually the family's staffy who bit the child, then we can’t also blame the child for entering a house unannounced too can we? :Facepalm


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Who lets their kids enter other people's houses without permission from the home owner?! Who leaves their doors unlocked anymore?!


Only time my door is locked when I'm home is when I go to bed. When I had a private garden (communal one here) the back door was open until we went to bed in warm weather. Here I'll likely get a baby gate and put that up so that I can have the door open without worrying about Spen going out and the gate being left open by someone.

Family are welcome to just walk into my house if the door is open or unlocked. As I'm welcome to just walk into theirs if the door is open or unlocked. Same with some friends.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Although I do not agree with what Inca has been saying I totally do not agree with what you have said here. I think it is out of order. Why should someone lock their door before having a shower , what a ridiculous state of affairs. And why shouldn't someone shout at a child that has behaved in such an atrocious manner. I am sure you would shout at a child that not only came into your house uninvited but let your dog out. Maybe children would behave a lot better if everyone carried on in the way it used to be and reprimanded any child that misbehaved around them.


I think locking the door while having a shower is fairly normal behaviour? A child walking in on you would be the least of your worries in most places in the UK!!!!! Mine is unlocked until I go to bed but I would lock it if home alone when having a shower or bath...


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Culture clashes.  I would never do well in another country *or town that isn't this one!! :Shamefullyembarrased

The majority of doors here are doors that lock automatically from the outside as soon as they are closed. You need the key to get back in. I couldn't imagine leaving the door unlocked, or walking into somebody else's house/garden without having been given sure permission before hand. I had a neighbour who used to reach over my 6ft. fence, unlock the bolt and come into my back garden to talk to me instead of knocking on the front door, or even calling over the back gate...

I suppose everybody has set different boundaries for themselves. Instinct would make me shout at anybody who came into my house unannounced and don't know many people who would just accept it TBH.

It's a foreign concept to do that.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Also the muzzle thing - Brock's muzzle is just part of his walking stuff, I pick it up and he comes running over because he knows he's going out, just the same as if I pick up his harness or his headcollar or his lead.

As for stopping him doing anything...well it stops his bites connecting, it does stop him picking up sticks - but after a year and a half if wearing it, it hasn't stopped him trying to, so he's clearly made no connection with the muzzle and why he can't pick up things that don't fit through it.

It's no great hardship for him, it's just something I put on him as far as he's concerned, just like anything else I put on him.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I think locking the door while having a shower is fairly normal behaviour? A child walking in on you would be the least of your worries in most places in the UK!!!!! Mine is unlocked until I go to bed but I would lock it if home alone when having a shower or bath...


We don't ever lock our doors, not even at night. Granted, no one is going enter unannounced though, the dogs do a great job of "announcing" any arrival


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I thought I lived in a fairly nice place until this conversation...Pretty sure I'm from the scummiest place ever now LOL. Everyone else seems to be able to leave their homes unsecured without worrying about people coming in and stealing or messing the place up. 

Maybe I'll buy an island. I'd like to be able to accidentally shut my door without being locked out.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> We don't ever lock our doors, not even at night. Granted, no one is going enter unannounced though, the dogs do a great job of "announcing" any arrival


I think living in a very remote location is different to living in a town or city, in rural locations dogs would announce people coming from a fair distance away, less so if your in a high foot traffic area. Mine don't announce anyone not even if I don't hear them knocking.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

OMG I can't imagine being in the shower with the house door unlocked - what is that film where someone is in the shower and a knife comes round the shower curtain - Psycho I think? Shudder.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Meezey said:


> I think locking the door while having a shower is fairly normal behaviour? A child walking in on you would be the least of your worries in most places in the UK!!!!! Mine is unlocked until I go to bed but I would lock it if home alone when having a shower or bath...


I don't lock the door at all if I'm in, I do lock the bathroom door, but that's to keep the people that live in my house and the pets out, lol.

I live in a small town, no huge crime rate, the cats are in and out anyway, Brock is always behind another door or two or crated and my children are teenagers I'd be quite glad if they escaped tbh...


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

lullabydream said:


> some people are nervous of little dogs, and prefer bigger dogs....
> 
> Staffies are one of the only breeds that the KC suggests are good with children. Hence the name nanny dog!


Please not the whole 'nanny dog' thing again. It has been debunked and Bad Rap (one of the biggest bull terrier advocacy groups around) has even dismissed it as it is potentially dangerous for children. The term 'nanny dog' or 'nursemaid's dog' (when referring to SBTs) only came about in the 70's. Then again in the 80's. It is a term that has also been used to describe vintage photos of children with bull terriers. And the SBT is not just one of the few breeds the KC says is good with children. They recommend A LOT of other breeds including the Bernese Mountain Dog, the Pyrenean Mountain Dog, the Estrela Mountain Dog, the Wheaton Terrier, the Finnish Lapphund, the Newfoundland and the Keeshond. There are countless others that they recommend for families in general.

Saying that any breed is a 'nanny dog' or that they are 'ridiculously safe' is dangerous and fool hardy at best.

I wonder how many people have gotten a Labrador thinking they are going to be safe since they are the Andrex dog only for them not to train the dog or socialise it properly and for that dog to go and bite/attack somebidy. I wonder how many APBTs and SBTs have mauled people because they were thought to be 'nannies'. It's about time that breed labelling like this stops. If you want to reduce bites and attacks then you should come to realise that too.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Careful, tabulahrasa...Stray children above the age of 11 don't have a very high adoption rate at local shelters as other parents are afraid that older children won't adapt to their pets as easily as younger ones. If you can't find a behaviourist insane enough to help you, you can always muzzle your kids until they are in their 20s.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Careful, tabulahrasa...Stray children above the age of 11 don't have a very high adoption rate at local shelters as other parents are afraid that older children won't adapt to their pets as easily as younger ones. If you can't find a behaviourist insane enough to help you, you can always muzzle your kids until they are in their 20s.


Oh I completely missed the boat with getting them rehomed, I should have done it when they were young and cute...now they're all big and mouthy, I don't know about muzzling, but I'd happily gag one of them if I could.

Dogs, even ones that need a muzzle are so much easier than teens, lol.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I think living in a very remote location is different to living in a town or city, in rural locations dogs would announce people coming from a fair distance away, less so if your in a high foot traffic area. Mine don't announce anyone not even if I don't hear them knocking.


Definitely, that's what I was trying to point out. When someone says "who leaves their door unlocked these days" well, that would be me. When someone says "who walks in to houses without the owner's permission" well, that would be us. Our neighbors know our dogs, our dogs know our neighbors, if I get caught late at work I call my neighbor and ask her to let the dogs out for a pee. If she thinks she left her stove on, I go in her house and check. We call it being neighborly. 
I totally understand that life in the big city is completely different. The point is, we don't go around assuming everyone is like us...


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> And if the father hadn't let his little brat go wandering into other people's houses the dog wouldn't have to go out with a muzzle on everytime.
> 
> Years ago when I lived at home I was in the shower and the child next door walked in, scared me to death cos for one I was starkers and I did shout at him... but not only that ..on coming in he'd left the gate open and the door and let our dog out. I had to throw on some clothes and go find the dog. Luckily I found him before he reached the main road, but I gave the neighbour a few choice words when she came to see why I had shouted at her little brat who had apparently run home crying.
> 
> The parents of the child are to blame as the child would be considered too young to understand.


Oh now, I have asked you this question before. Do you actually think before you begin typing?

A six year old child is, in the main, innocent. Children of this age know only what they are taught and if this particular Child had been allowed to wander in and out of her neighbour's home pretty much all of her life, how on Earth can she be expected to know that isn't acceptable?

None of this makes the child a "Brat".

And another thing. In an ideal World, we should all be able to take a shower with all of our doors unlocked. We should be able to go to bed at night, leaving our houses unlocked, but the truth is, we can't. What we should be able to do and what is reality are two very different things.

I would never shower with all of my doors unlocked. I would never go for a shower leaving Rosie unattended outside. That's what you did and some child wandered in and let your dog out.

In my opinion, that doesn't make the child a Brat, it makes you irresponsible.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Ohhh, yeah. Now that I think about it a muzzle will not stop the talking. Duct tape is more comfortable than a gag (or so I have heard)...Just make sure to double back on it around the back of the head so that it doesn't peal away.  

I'm feeling like this is becoming less of a joke and more of a tutorial on how to prevent post-parental headaches, LOL. I think kids turn into teenagers so that you can more easily encourage them to, you know...Leave.  Then they become adults so you want them to keep coming back.  Nature's cruel, but smart.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Please not the whole 'nanny dog' thing again. It has been debunked and Bad Rap (one of the biggest bull terrier advocacy groups around) has even dismissed it as it is potentially dangerous for children. The term 'nanny dog' or 'nursemaid's dog' (when referring to SBTs) only came about in the 70's. Then again in the 80's. It is a term that has also been used to describe vintage photos of children with bull terriers. And the SBT is not just one of the few breeds the KC says is good with children. They recommend A LOT of other breeds including the Bernese Mountain Dog, the Pyrenean Mountain Dog, the Estrela Mountain Dog, the Wheaton Terrier, the Finnish Lapphund, the Newfoundland and the Keeshond. There are countless others that they recommend for families in general.
> 
> Saying that any breed is a 'nanny dog' or that they are 'ridiculously safe' is dangerous and fool hardy at best.
> 
> I wonder how many people have gotten a Labrador thinking they are going to be safe since they are the Andrex dog only for them not to train the dog or socialise it properly and for that dog to go and bite/attack somebidy. I wonder how many APBTs and SBTs have mauled people because they were thought to be 'nannies'. It's about time that breed labelling like this stops. If you want to reduce bites and attacks then you should come to realise that too.


Still hanging on to that bone eh?
Here is what Bad Rap says about pit bulls and kids:


> It's a well known fact: Well socialized, responsibly owned pit bulls make some of the best family dogs. The American Canine Temperament Test Society lists this breed as having one of the most stable temperaments of any of the purebreds, right up there with golden retrievers. For the stats, check out Pit Bull Temperament Test Results.
> 
> Well socialized pit bulls will typically go out of their way to lick little faces and will wag, wag, wag their tails when they see a child. Many will let kids pull their ears, climb on their backs and, rough and tumble fans that they are, will love every minute of rugged kid-style attention. Can't imagine pit bulls and their kids? Then check this out: Pit Bulls & Kids
> 
> Be aware that these are strong, active dogs and can knock smaller sized kids down in their exhuberance. * As with ANY breed, no dog should ever be left alone with a young child. But you already knew that!


http://www.badrap.org/what-expect

I'm pretty sure bites and attacks don't boil down to "nanny dog" labeling


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Please not the whole 'nanny dog' thing again. It has been debunked and Bad Rap (one of the biggest bull terrier advocacy groups around) has even dismissed it as it is potentially dangerous for children.


No it has not, as previously discussed in a now closed thread, been debunked and you have produced no evidence to support that view.

Now I can understand what you are implying however just as one group of people state something about pitbulls, does not mean everyone else has to follow their example just as you want them to.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Still hanging on to that bone eh?
> Here is what Bad Rap says about pit bulls and kids:
> 
> http://www.badrap.org/what-expect
> ...


And is that old ATTS chestnut still being waltzed out? The ATTS was founded by Alfons Ertel (who was not a behaviourist in any way shape or form) to find the best dogs for military and police work. NOT the best family dogs. Dogs that don't display aggression and that are shy or fearful score poorly! As I said before Greyhounds typically score lower marks yet they are widely regarded as being a gentle breed. Why is that?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Nanny dog is just another way to say the breed is typically good with kids...I don't know why the term is causing so much upset. It means the same thing as "good family dog".

Or does it not... 

ETA: or is the argument that "good" family dog breeds don't exist...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And is that old ATTS chestnut still being waltzed out?


I've previously linked in different a test and report (in the other thread which you've ignored) which was used in Germany as part of the Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) discussion which contributed to the fact that Lower Saxony has no BSL. Please provide an opposing report which supports your viewpoint.



> ETA: or is the argument that "good" family dog breeds don't exist...


That's what I make it to say.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh my dear god!!!
I obviously know nothing about the breeds I have lived with over the last 20 years...can you please stop spouting rubbish about a breed/s you know zero about. Spend some time with the dogs rather than running with hearsay on the interwebz, you are looking ridiculous now


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Goblin said:


> No it has not, as previously discussed in a now closed thread, been debunked and you have produced no evidence to support that view.
> 
> Now I can understand what you are implying however just as one group of people state something about pitbulls, does not mean everyone else has to follow their example just as you want them to.


Oh but I DID supply evidence on that other thread! I also supplied a link to Bad Rap's statement about 'nanny dogs'. The way you lot are going on about SBTs and APBTs you'd think that none of them ever attacked anybody and that all those Pit Bull attacks must have been dogs that looked like Pit Bulls. Then some of you even tried to say that aggression isn't something that can be passed onto offspring yet just about every site I have looked at (regarding getting a puppy) have said NOT to get a puppy if one or more of the parents are aggressive. Why is that?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Bear with me while I go revive the initial e-collar subject that caused this entire fiasco.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Goblin said:


> I've previously linked in different a test and report (in the other thread which you've ignored) which was used in Germany as part of the Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) discussion which contributed to the fact that Lower Saxony has no BSL. Please provide an opposing report which supports your viewpoint.
> 
> That's what I make it to say.


A study that only used a few dozen dogs from breeds that are made up of thousands or millions of individuals. So hardly representative. I did say I would be in favour of a nationwide study that involves thousands of dogs.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

PF is like being on a merry-go-round this month.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And is that old ATTS chestnut still being waltzed out? The ATTS was founded by Alfons Ertel (who was not a behaviourist in any way shape or form) to find the best dogs for military and police work. NOT the best family dogs. Dogs that don't display aggression and that are shy or fearful score poorly! As I said before Greyhounds typically score lower marks yet they are widely regarded as being a gentle breed. Why is that?


Oh for the love of Pete...
Okay, to start with, you quoted Bad Rap, so I though I would clarify what Bad Rap ACTUALLY says about pit bulls and kids.

Secondly, have you ever taken a dog though the ATTS? Because I have, and dogs score based on their overall stability. They are also scored based on the temperament required in the breed standard. Stable temperament as in not reactive to noise or surprising stimuli is a great trait in a family dog. 
Greyhounds as a breed are not normally as confident and pit bulls and fluster easier, recover less slowly. Anyone with any sighthound experience knows how sensitive they can be. Pit bulls are the polar opposite of sensitive LOL, which happens to make them great with kids because they don't get offended by being stepped on, fallen on, tripped over, etc.

Bates' reaction to me accidentally stepping on him is to check and see if I'm okay and then derp di derp happily along.
Sighthound reaction to me accidentally stepping on her is to sulk for days.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> PF is like being on a merry-go-round this month.


No fricking kidding!! :Wtf:Inpain

@LurcherGreyoundGirl what exactly are you trying to prove here?
Do you have an issue with staffies and bull-breeds? Do you have an issue with the concept of a family dog? What exactly is your point?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Dunno...I asked the same question earlier, don't think she saw...It seems like it's just the term "nanny dog" that she doesn't like, but it's literally just another way of saying "family dog", and I don't think anyone can deny that those exist. Who knows...With this topic, we each start on a seat and when the ride is over, shock horror, we're all still sitting in that same seat we started in.

Maybe in a few years when it comes back around again it will be a more productive topic, due to more research. Right now we all feel the same at the end of the conversation as we did at the start...And that's happened a few times now. How about we call a truce...Come to some sort of arrangement.

Bully breed owners of PF...How about if your dog eats a kid, LurcherGreyhoundGirl gets to say "I told you so" and you can't retaliate? And LurcherGreyhoundGirl, if the bully dogs owned by people here all get to live enriched, happy lives and die happily with their family without eating Tiny Tim, the owners get to say "I told you so" without retaliation from you?

That's a fair deal, right... Orrrr, too morbid?...I certainly can't afford to fund a world-wide, billion-dog participated study to prove that nanny dog = family dog, so I suppose this is the next best thing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

Nanny dog. Voluntarily chooses to be with the kids, preferably touching them. Virtually immune to sudden movements, noises, and general kid silliness, often joins in the fun. Happiest when there is a kid around to play with, lick, or just lay on.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Dunno...I asked the same question earlier, don't think she saw...It seems like it's just the term "nanny dog" that she doesn't like, but it's literally just another way of saying "family dog", and I don't think anyone can deny that those exist. Who knows...


We are to ignore breed traits as this adds a label to our dogs...apparently 

Whilst I don't like adding labels to our dogs, a breed trait is not a label.
I have already tried to explain why knowing breed traits is important and that just because a small minority falls outside of that trait it does not mean the majority do not have that trait...

It fell on deaf ears as it did not fit in with the bull breed bashing, all from someone with zero experience of the breeds, all these "facts" are gleened from a few biased websites :Yawn


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Oh for the love of Pete...
> Okay, to start with, you quoted Bad Rap, so I though I would clarify what Bad Rap ACTUALLY says about pit bulls and kids.
> 
> Secondly, have you ever taken a dog though the ATTS? Because I have, and dogs score based on their overall stability. They are also scored based on the temperament required in the breed standard. Stable temperament as in not reactive to noise or surprising stimuli is a great trait in a family dog.
> ...


Did you not read that other link I provided? Bad Rap DID dismiss the whole 'nanny dog' thing as being false. I have also read accounts of other people putting their dogs through ATTS tests and they have said that any fearful dog scored poorly. With the way things are for dogs and the law I would rather have a dog who didn't show much or any aggression at all when presented with a threat as I would not want the dog getting into trouble with authorities.

As for Greyhounds. While I have heard of some Greys biting people I have not been able to find a single account of a Greyhound mauling someone to death. What does that tell you?

On the whole I am not against bull terriers, but I can be realistic. I know that their sheer strength and the fact they were originally bred to be extremely aggressive can make them a lot more dangerous than a lot of other breeds. Yes small dogs can badly injure small victims, but can they put older children and adults in intensive care?

And what I am getting at is that I want some of you to realise and admit to the fact that when your breed (not your personal dog) does attack it's going to be a lot more devastating than the kind of attack some other breeds would inflict. What I was also getting at on the other thread was that aggression is something that can be hereditary. Idiopathic aggression (AKA Rage Syndrome) is thought to be hereditary and in many cases breed specific. And the point I am trying to make is that many Pit Bull advocates take things way too far while defending the breed.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Did you not read that other link I provided? Bad Rap DID dismiss the whole 'nanny dog' thing as being false.* I have also read accounts of other people putting their dogs through ATTS tests and they have said that any fearful dog scored poorly.* With the way things are for dogs and the law I would rather have a dog who didn't show much or any aggression at all when presented with a threat as I would not want the dog getting into trouble with authorities.


Of course a fearful dog would score poorly. :Facepalm
A fearful temperament is not a very stable temperament now is it?!
Confident =/= aggressive. 
Really, you're not making much sense....

This right here shows how little understanding you have of dog traits, temperament, and how it relates to dog/human safety.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I don't lock my doors at all throughout the day, unless I'm using the back entrance in which case I don't bother unlocking the front door. Have never thought to lock it when taking a shower. I also have always never locked the bathroom door either, and have been known to pee with the door wide open with my mum and sister walking around. Obviously I wouldn't do so around strangers or even visitors, but I wouldn't think to lock the door through fear of someone walking in.

Also, on the subject of muzzles, I think it can very much be viewed in a black and white manner. If you have an aggressive dog you 'should' muzzle otherwise you're not responsible vs the it's cruel and restrictive crowd. It's also sad when people automatically assume a muzzle is a bad thing.
I personally don't muzzle Missy even though she's DA as I feel able to manage her safely. If she was bigger I might have reconsidered.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A test that is supposed to test for stable temperaments failing dogs that are nervous/fearful  imagine that. Any dog can attack and do damage, greyhounds are big dogs bred to chase down and kill prey. Imagine if that was what was said whenever someone asked about them, not the fact they're mostly sweethearts

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...ed-greyhound/story-20964018-detail/story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...--I-love-new-face-says-model-savaged-dog.html

In fact I found quite a few links warning of greys with children. Mostly because a racing dog would not have been socialised with them and therefore might need careful introduction but if the daily fail and co could spin it they would.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I think I'd rather get back to the subject of smilies, than with dragging up the arguments from that closed thread.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes I am horrified and outraged that there is a penguin. Such horrible creatures right up there with trolls


----------



## RottieRubysMum (Apr 6, 2015)

Loving these new smilies.

This is what Ruby and I say to breedism --> :Mooning

This whole argument is getting repetitive again and despite being proved wrong, people can't concede and admit their beliefs may be a bit skewed or even just agree to disagree! This isn't groundhog day and we're better than this as a forum.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Ahhh gotta love it certain people fight for dogs to have same rights as people to be treated as people to want dogs as equals........... Unless they are bull breeds or Rottweilers or Akita's and the likes those dogs shouldn't be equal in fact those dogs should all be PTS! God forbid a perfect pointy nosed hunting dog be so much as looked at the wrong way, pointy dogs cute dogs and fluffy dogs should be given the right to vote in these elections, they should be given council houses, given benefits rights to the NHS! Those other dogs should be sent to hell in a handbag.. Ahhh PF at its best! Gotta love the reasoning.. Not sure fluffy critters would have the same love but hey who cares those none bull breed Rottweiler dog will have seats in Parliament soon and will outlaw flurries...


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> Only time my door is locked when I'm home is when I go to bed. When I had a private garden (communal one here) the back door was open until we went to bed in warm weather. Here I'll likely get a baby gate and put that up so that I can have the door open without worrying about Spen going out and the gate being left open by someone.
> 
> *Family are welcome to just walk into my house if the door is open or unlocked. As I'm welcome to just walk into theirs if the door is open or unlocked. Same with some friends*.


That's different. If I'm expecting family, I leave the door unbolted (I have a safety thing on the inside of the front door, which means that the door isn't technically locked, but no one is getting in either) and they know they can walk in. Entirely different for a stranger to feel at liberty to do so. And for safety reasons, my brother has a key, so when I was getting the new settee delivered, I came home to be greeted by a 3-seater settee on its side on the stairs. :Hilarious



dogsaintdumb said:


> I thought I lived in a fairly nice place until this conversation...Pretty sure I'm from the scummiest place ever now LOL. *Everyone else seems to be able to leave their homes unsecured without worrying about people coming in and stealing or messing the place up.*
> 
> Maybe I'll buy an island. I'd like to be able to accidentally shut my door without being locked out.


SNAP! I have a self-locking inside door, so while the street door is unlocked when I go out (because I have- more than once - managed to lock myself in the porch and needed to wait for my dad to open the door for me) the flat itself is secure.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Please not the whole 'nanny dog' thing again. It has been debunked and Bad Rap (one of the biggest bull terrier advocacy groups around) has even dismissed it as it is potentially dangerous for children. The term 'nanny dog' or 'nursemaid's dog' (when referring to SBTs) only came about in the 70's. Then again in the 80's. It is a term that has also been used to describe vintage photos of children with bull terriers. And the SBT is not just one of the few breeds the KC says is good with children. They recommend A LOT of other breeds including the Bernese Mountain Dog, the Pyrenean Mountain Dog, the Estrela Mountain Dog, the Wheaton Terrier, the Finnish Lapphund, the Newfoundland and the Keeshond. There are countless others that they recommend for families in general.
> 
> Saying that any breed is a 'nanny dog' or that they are 'ridiculously safe' is dangerous and fool hardy at best.
> 
> I wonder how many people have gotten a Labrador thinking they are going to be safe since they are the Andrex dog *only for them not to train the dog or socialise it properly* and for that dog to go and bite/attack somebidy. I wonder how many APBTs and SBTs have mauled people because they were thought to be 'nannies'. It's about time that breed labelling like this stops. If you want to reduce bites and attacks then you should come to realise that too.


And therein lies the problem. People getting dogs and not training them. It's not about breeds. Just numpty owners.

I'll catch up with the rest of the thread after work.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Ok so if the dog is conditioned to wear a muzzle so they don't care, why does it matter if they are used for a "quick fix" or any reason?
> Owners not being "cool" about it is exactly the attitude I wish to stamp out. 1. what business of theirs is it if I wish to muzzle my dog? 2. If the dog is properly conditioned what is there not to be "cool" about?
> 
> A muzzle is not a badge of shame, nor should they be treated as such


I don't make any quick judgements on people muzzling their dogs. If I think about it I would say it is preferable to enable a dog to run off leash with a muzzle on than have to have it constantly on leash (in the instance of scavenging for example).
However Thai is YOUR dog and that is completely different to me muzzling a customer's dog imo. And I can sympathise with an owner who feels that they should at least be consulted about this. Sorry but the public will judge ME and my ability to handle the dogs as a groomer and everyone has different thresholds of what is acceptable.
When I muzzle a dog I have to be as sure as possible in my own mind a) it is in the dogs best interest as well as my own (not just doing it to get the job done quicker) b) it is not going to be counterproductive in the long run because the next appointment the dog will over -react. You see I only have limited access to work with the dog and acclimatise it to the muzzle. And there may be other ruses that will get the job done and cause less upset.
I am not responsible for my customers' attitudes I just try and work with them and educate can them if I am in a position to do so. That's why I like coming on this forum, I learn about so many different situations and how people manage them.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And what I am getting at is that I want some of you to realise and admit to the fact that when your breed (not your personal dog) does attack it's going to be a lot more devastating than the kind of attack some other breeds would inflict. What I was also getting at on the other thread was that aggression is something that can be hereditary. Idiopathic aggression (AKA Rage Syndrome) is thought to be hereditary and in many cases breed specific. And the point I am trying to make is that many Pit Bull advocates take things way too far while defending the breed.


We know what you are trying to get at, we are not idiots...our point is you are wrong (and it's not often I say that about opinions), so far wrong you are in the next city 
Well apart from some aggression being hereditary, some aggression is hereditary, some aggression is learned, but then you know this as it was explained in great detail in the other thread...the fact you wish to ignore that is your issue, on one elses :Shifty

You can shout your head off that SBT's & APBT's don't have an inherent love for children all you like, you can scream it from the rooftops - that does not make it true, all it does is show your lack of understanding about dogs.
*Ignoring *breed traits is when things go wrong for people...*ignoring *breed traits is when things like this happen http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/lo...s-cat-is-killed-by-rescued-greyhound-1.151771

I repeat, go spend some time with the breeds you are trying to claim you know about, that way when you recount experience you won't sound like a Daily Fail sheepale :Vomit


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Ahhh gotta love it certain people fight for dogs to have same rights as people to be treated as people to want dogs as equals........... Unless they are bull breeds or Rottweilers or Akita's and the likes those dogs shouldn't be equal in fact those dogs should all be PTS! God forbid a perfect pointy nosed hunting dog be so much as looked at the wrong way, pointy dogs cute dogs and fluffy dogs should be given the right to vote in these elections, they should be given council houses, given benefits rights to the NHS! Those other dogs should be sent to hell in a handbag.. Ahhh PF at its best! Gotta love the reasoning.. Not sure fluffy critters would have the same love but hey who cares those none bull breed Rottweiler dog will have seats in Parliament soon and will outlaw flurries...


I promise you it upsets me every bit as much to see any of the breeds you mention maligned, esp staffies who I have more experience of and I know to be fantastic dogs in the right hands.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

Lord of the Rings, anyone?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> I don't make any quick judgements on people muzzling their dogs. If I think about it I would say it is preferable to enable a dog to run off leash with a muzzle on than have to have it constantly on leash (in the instance of scavenging for example).
> However Thai is YOUR dog and that is completely different to me muzzling a customer's dog imo. And I can sympathise with an owner who feels that they should at least be consulted about this. Sorry but the public will judge ME and my ability to handle the dogs as a groomer and everyone has different thresholds of what is acceptable.
> When I muzzle a dog I have to be as sure as possible in my own mind a) it is in the dogs best interest as well as my own (not just doing it to get the job done quicker) b) it is not going to be counterproductive in the long run because the next appointment the dog will over -react. You see I only have limited access to work with the dog and acclimatise it to the muzzle. And there may be other ruses that will get the job done and cause less upset.
> I am not responsible for my customers' attitudes I just try and work with them and educate can them if I am in a position to do so. That's why I like coming on this forum, I learn about so many different situations and how people manage them.


Muzzling someone elses dog is different, of course you need to get their permission before putting a muzzle on, I'm not sure what part of my post said otherwise...no, you are not responsible for you customers attitudes, you are in a perfect place to help change those attitudes tho


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

pogo said:


> What the hell is wrong with muzzles, Chance has to wear one and knows when it comes out good things are coming, but would you rather he killed another dog should it run up and start some thing as he's restricted to his lead, or he mauled a child if they were to run up and grab him by the neck?
> You are not a dog they are and with conditioning they couldn't care less about having to wear one


Can we keep this in context?
A dog has been accused of attacking a child. No one witnessed what happened or can say whether there were any mitigating circumstances. This dog may be destined to wear a muzzle every time it walks out the front door through no fault of its own but due to the crass ignorance of all human parties concerned. That bothers me because regardless of whether the muzzle 'hurts' the dog unfortunately it will affect the attitudes of others toward it, probably completely unnecessarily.
I don't know you or your dog. I am not judging you because I have no idea of your circumstances.
I am not responsible for how everyone else thinks I just know it is how people generally react and I think it is sad for this dog to be in this position.
Also when I said its card is marked I meant in other ways too. From now on it will be permitted far less liberty in all sorts of ways. You will probably say better safe than sorry and unfortunately I can't argue with that but heck, you must see this dog is just as likely a victim not an aggressor?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And what I am getting at is that I want some of you to realise and admit to the fact that when your breed (not your personal dog) does attack it's going to be a lot more devastating than the kind of attack some other breeds would inflict. What I was also getting at on the other thread was that aggression is something that can be hereditary. Idiopathic aggression (AKA Rage Syndrome) is thought to be hereditary and in many cases breed specific. And the point I am trying to make is that many Pit Bull advocates take things way too far while defending the breed.


Okay.. you do realise we aren't talking about pitbulls here as the "type" is banned in the UK..

So according to you and your argument, human nannies no longer exist as we have reports of things like: http://nypost.com/2014/11/15/killer-nanny-says-she-is-sorry-for-butchering-kids/

Still waiting for the debunking evidence.

Dragging in Rage Syndrome... really :Banghead. Please provide links where rage syndrome has been linked with staffies. It's known to be far more rare with cockers than reported as most cases are due to poor socialisation not the medical condition.

You can't have it both ways.. denying positive breed traits exist because it doesn't suit you, insisting that aggressiveness is a breed trait that exists in this instance.

Now if you are saying no breed of dog could be called "a good family breed" it could be accepted. After all we all know any dog has to be well looked after and well socialized etc as that is being part of owning a dog and being responsible for it.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Muzzling someone elses dog is different, of course you need to get their permission before putting a muzzle on, I'm not sure what part of my post said otherwise...no, you are not responsible for you customers attitudes, you are in a perfect place to help change those attitudes tho


Owners come in all shapes and sizes, same as their dogs.
I do my best to educate but lets face it, I still have so much to learn, and it's only by talking to folk _and listening _that we can work together to do what is best for the dogs. I am trying Stormy but personally I hate know it all 'experts' in my face telling me I don't know sh1t and if I am honest I have very little experience of dogs with aggression problems, so who am I to educate?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

What I find sad is that people who have no business poking their noses in think they have a right to have a judgement on how others manage their dogs...
There is nothing sad about a dog wearing a muzzle, there is nothing upsetting about a dog wearing a muzzle, there is nothing restricting for the dog (beyond being able to use their teeth) whilst wearing a muzzle...

You are not responsible for what others think, you are responsible for what you think and the more dog people continue with this muzzle = bad attitude that you display, the harder it is to get across to the gen public that a muzzle is a GOOD thing!

You are chosing to ignore what is being said just so you can continue with this muzzle = punishment stance


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

There is a general perception, muzzle = aggressive dog and dogs wearing muzzles can actually miss out on socialization experiences because of that. This is a perception that needs to change as a muzzle is just as likely, especially when not required by law, to mean muzzle = responsible owner. Aren't we all in favor of responsible dog ownership?


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

It is actually law in NI that ex racing greyhounds wear muzzles when out. The dogs are well accustomed to them, they then present no danger and won't be seized so everyone is happy IMO. I certainly don't think anything but 'well that owner is responsible' when I see a muzzled dog out and about. Dogs are often muzzled because they are scavengers and also for FA and DA dogs, muzzles offer a way for them and their owners to exercise and enjoy life without worry. 

Any road up, to get back on topic, I have showered all this week with the doors unlocked. Only because my husband took the dogs out and obviously didn't consider the raping and pillaging that could go on in his absence, ordinarily I would lock them if alone but don't bother when the dogs aren't out walking as no one can approach the house without Snadow alerting me most vocally. 

I also seem to labour under the illusion that strange people or kids wouldn't just open my door and wander in, of course I would give a child a telling off, as I would expect anyone else to tell one of my kids off if they were so rude to do it. Where has common sense gone? However, do we know that the child in question wasn't allowed to wander in and out of the neighbours? It was a pretty common thing to do when I was growing up. 

Whilst breed traits are always important, I think it's easy to forget that a dog is a dog is a dog. I HAVE to be able to leave the room when my 9 year old son is in situ, should I I take him or the three dogs with me every time I need the loo instead? That said, all bets are off if it isn't a family members child as most are very silly around dogs, in fact they are very silly in general, my son never fails to amaze me with what moronic stunt he will pull next, why? Because he's a kid and don't think I don't try to educate, scold etc, children, like dogs are bloody unpredictable. 

I should add that the only two 'bad' things that ever happened to my children happened right in front of adults, my daughter rolled off her bed and cracked her collar bone, whilst wrestling herself into her pyjamas and my son, in full view of both myself and my husband ran up the hall, tripped and landed on his eyebrow on the edge of the phone table. My point being that all you can do is TRY and supervise, educate but that you can't pre empt everything in life. Not a one of us was there when the dog bit that child's face, maybe the girl startled it, hurt it, maybe she was goading it or trying to cuddle it. How many dog owners out in the real world know about signs of stress in dogs or their body language? Maybe the dog had been seemingly fine before with children but had been throwing off signals that were ignored? We just don't know.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Did you not read that other link I provided? Bad Rap DID dismiss the whole 'nanny dog' thing as being false. I have also read accounts of other people putting their dogs through ATTS tests and they have said that any fearful dog scored poorly. With the way things are for dogs and the law I would rather have a dog who didn't show much or any aggression at all when presented with a threat as I would not want the dog getting into trouble with authorities.
> 
> As for Greyhounds. While I have heard of some Greys biting people I have not been able to find a single account of a Greyhound mauling someone to death. What does that tell you?
> 
> ...


But there are plenty of articles on Greyhounds killing small furries, such as pet cats, other dogs etc - yet you seem to think its not a trait.
Also fairly horrific Greyhound attacks DO happen- if the below had been a kid or a baby it would have probably been fatal no? Also unprovoked
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...--I-love-new-face-says-model-savaged-dog.html


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I thought I lived in a fairly nice place until this conversation...Pretty sure I'm from the scummiest place ever now LOL. Everyone else seems to be able to leave their homes unsecured without worrying about people coming in and stealing or messing the place up.
> 
> Maybe I'll buy an island. I'd like to be able to accidentally shut my door without being locked out.


Lol, I wish! I've lived in some really rough areas and still wouldn't think to lock my door when I'm at home awake. Going to bed or going out definitely but not when I'm right here. I slept with windows open though. I hated the fact my door in Germany locked automatically behind me, way too easy to get locked out just taking the rubbish out!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I do live in a fairly rough area and don't lock the door while I'm in the house awake. At night or if we're out yes


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> But there are plenty of articles on Greyhounds killing small furries, such as pet cats, other dogs etc - yet you seem to think its not a trait.
> Also fairly horrific Greyhound attacks DO happen- if the below had been a kid or a baby it would have probably been fatal no? Also unprovoked
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...--I-love-new-face-says-model-savaged-dog.html


There are no dangerous BREEDS. There are dangerous individual dogs, but there are no breeds that are inherently dangerous.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> What I find sad is that people who have no business poking their noses in think they have a right to have a judgement on how others manage their dogs...
> There is nothing sad about a dog wearing a muzzle, there is nothing upsetting about a dog wearing a muzzle, there is nothing restricting for the dog (beyond being able to use their teeth) whilst wearing a muzzle...
> 
> You are not responsible for what others think, you are responsible for what you think and the more dog people continue with this muzzle = bad attitude that you display, the harder it is to get across to the gen public that a muzzle is a GOOD thing!
> ...


That's unfair Stormy I am not ignoring you, just putting another point of view.
The whole Dangerous Breed farce is just the governments way of putting a sticking plaster over the real issue imo, that far too many people own dogs they can't/won't/don't control (of all breeds/cross breeds/shapes & sizes). And this is the one size fits all attitude that I was referring to. Let's not sort it out, just victimise a few folk to make it look like we're doing something.
It really worries me that eventually it will boil down to all dogs having to be muzzled & leashed in public, regardless of whether it's really necessary. And it isn't necessary, it's just one option.
If you are so sure you are doing the right thing for Thai who gives a fiddlers what everyone else thinks?


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Holding my head in shame.........
A couple of weeks ago we were out walking with Isla and a couple of dogs came over to say hello to her and one of them was muzzled. Didn't panic overly, but watched the dogs body language carefully in the knowledge that if things turned nasty my young, fast dog could easily escape from this much older dog. It was very relaxed and after sniffing at Isla,lost interest and wandered off. As it was a Lab, we presumed the muzzle was to prevent scavenging so that the dog could be safely offlead. 
Seeing a muzzle on a dog, most people including me it seems, would presume it's because the dog bites, but perhaps less so with Greys as they are seen racing with muzzles and most people appreciate why they are muzzled. It is a public perception with muzzles and one that will be difficult to alter as non dog people don't appreciate the trouble a scavenging dog can get itself into.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> There are no dangerous BREEDS. There are dangerous individual dogs, but there are no breeds that are inherently dangerous.


Yup - exactly.......


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Siskin said:


> Holding my head in shame.........
> A couple of weeks ago we were out walking with Isla and a couple of dogs came over to say hello to her and one of them was muzzled. Didn't panic overly, but watched the dogs body language carefully in the knowledge that if things turned nasty my young, fast dog could easily escape from this much older dog. It was very relaxed and after sniffing at Isla,lost interest and wandered off. As it was a Lab, we presumed the muzzle was to prevent scavenging so that the dog could be safely offlead.
> Seeing a muzzle on a dog, most people including me it seems, would presume it's because the dog bites, but perhaps less so with Greys as they are seen racing with muzzles and most people appreciate why they are muzzled. It is a public perception with muzzles and one that will be difficult to alter as non dog people don't appreciate the trouble a scavenging dog can get itself into.


I've had similar experiences and acted the same way and I think it's totally understandable. You don't know why the dog is muzzled but at least you gave it the benefit of the doubt. What's interesting is that you assume because it wasn't one of those breeds labelled as dangerous, then it was less likely to be for aggression issues.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Siskin said:


> but perhaps less so with Greys as they are seen racing with muzzles and most people appreciate why they are muzzled. It is a public perception with muzzles and one that will be difficult to alter as non dog people don't appreciate the trouble a scavenging dog can get itself into.


idk...I usually think that a muzzled grey is coz it isnt dog safe, but then again I do have dogs that resemble rabbits so it makes me abit more nervous!!LOL
A muzzle to me means a responsible owner. Ive often toyed with the idea of one for Hannah seeing as how she cant pass anything even remotely edible without trying to stuff it in her gob!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> That's unfair Stormy I am not ignoring you, just putting another point of view.
> The whole Dangerous Breed farce is just the governments way of putting a sticking plaster over the real issue imo, that far too many people own dogs they can't/won't/don't control (of all breeds/cross breeds/shapes & sizes). And this is the one size fits all attitude that I was referring to. Let's not sort it out, just victimise a few folk to make it look like we're doing something.
> It really worries me that eventually it will boil down to all dogs having to be muzzled & leashed in public, regardless of whether it's really necessary. And it isn't necessary, it's just one option.
> If you are so sure you are doing the right thing for Thai who gives a fiddlers what everyone else thinks?


Do you never muzzle train?
What if your dog is seriously injured and distressed, and requires a muzzle to be examined? In this situation a muzzle trained dog will not have the added stress and trauma of having something totally unfamiliar stuck on its face whilst in pain. Those that are muzzle trained wont bat an eyelid - I know which i'd prefer.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> It really worries me that eventually it will boil down to all dogs having to be muzzled & leashed in public, regardless of whether it's really necessary.


Tut don't be silly like the lot of country that already have this rule in place it will only be certain types of dogs who have to be on the lead and muzzled in public. Hardly going to happen because some owners chose to be responsible....

Ireland have 11 breeds

France has a dangerous breed license

Italy have the same shall I go on. Lets not pretend it will ever encompass all breeds.....


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Delilahdog said:


> What's interesting is that you assume because it wasn't one of those breeds labelled as dangerous, then it was less likely to be for aggression issues.


I know, horribly breeding aren't I, although the assumption that the muzzle wasn't because of aggression issues came afterwards rather then during, if you see what I mean.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

But is it not human nature to assume the worst for your own and loved ones (dogs) safety? I would I'm afraid give a dog a wide berth if it had a muzzle on. Why? Because I don't know WHY it has one on, so I safely assume it is for the fact it is aggressive, worst case scenario.
I have a muzzle for Muttly, if people want to give me a wide berth because they assume he's aggressive, great! I may finally get some peace!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Tut don't be silly like the lot of country that already have this rule in place it will only be certain types of dogs who have to be on the lead and muzzled in public. Hardly going to happen because some owners chose to be responsible....
> 
> Ireland have 11 breeds
> 
> ...


I'm not pretending that certain breeds aren't unfairly targeted over & over but yes, I do see it going down that route, it's just the way society in general is going. I could give examples in other areas of society of what I mean but this forum is contentious enough at the moment!!!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> That's unfair Stormy I am not ignoring you, just putting another point of view.
> The whole Dangerous Breed farce is just the governments way of putting a sticking plaster over the real issue imo, that far too many people own dogs they can't/won't/don't control (of all breeds/cross breeds/shapes & sizes). And this is the one size fits all attitude that I was referring to. Let's not sort it out, just victimise a few folk to make it look like we're doing something.
> It really worries me that eventually it will boil down to all dogs having to be muzzled & leashed in public, regardless of whether it's really necessary. And it isn't necessary, it's just one option.
> If you are so sure you are doing the right thing for Thai who gives a fiddlers what everyone else thinks?


But your posts show that you haven't listened to anything I have said, I am sorry that you feel I was unfair but I'm a bit fed up of saying the same thing over and over again....

I will ask you again, WHY is it a worry if people want to muzzle a dog that has been conditioned to wear a muzzle? Regardless of the reason, regardless of people agreeing for the reason the muzzle has been used...
What is the big issue you have with any dog being muzzled?


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Do you never muzzle train?
> What if your dog is seriously injured and distressed, and requires a muzzle to be examined? In this situation a muzzle trained dog will not have the added stress and trauma of having something totally unfamiliar stuck on its face whilst in pain. Those that are muzzle trained wont bat an eyelid - I know which i'd prefer.


Honestly, no. Unless you count the fact that I have tried a muzzle on her without adverse reaction.
I can see why it would be a good idea but it just never occurred to me.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> But your posts show that you haven't listened to anything I have said, I am sorry that you feel I was unfair but I'm a bit fed up of saying the same thing over and over again....
> 
> I will ask you again, WHY is it a worry if people want to muzzle a dog that has been conditioned to wear a muzzle? Regardless of the reason, regardless of people agreeing for the reason the muzzle has been used...
> What is the big issue you have with any dog being muzzled?


It is a worry because it may be totally unnecessary, like insisting a child wear a crash helmet to walk down the street! The child may be totally comfortable in the crash helmet but for me it is still shows an unhealthy aversion to risk and insistence on control.
I also seriously doubt that everyone WOULD go to lengths to condition their dog to wearing a muzzle. Or to size it properly and ensure it is actually doing the required job, thus offering a completely false sense of security to all concerned.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Delilahdog said:


> It is a worry because it may be totally unnecessary, like insisting a child wear a crash helmet to walk down the street! The child may be totally comfortable in the crash helmet but for me it is still shows an unhealthy aversion to risk and insistence on control.
> I also seriously doubt that everyone WOULD go to lengths to condition their dog to wearing a muzzle.


Why not? Even the nicest dog might be so in pain they have to be muzzled for the vet to carry out necessary procedures. And it lessens the stress if they're already used to the muzzle


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> Honestly, no. Unless you count the fact that I have tried a muzzle on her without adverse reaction.
> I can see why it would be a good idea but it just never occurred to me.


Interesting. Mine was initially muzzle trained for a "socialsieation class" which did naff all for him - but i keep it up as a "just in case" its ever needed...... I think you will find a whole lot of folk DO condition their dogs to a muzzle for "just in case" purposes......


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> It is a worry because it may be totally unnecessary, like insisting a child wear a crash helmet to walk down the street! The child may be totally comfortable in the crash helmet but for me it is still shows an unhealthy aversion to risk and insistence on control.
> I also seriously doubt that everyone WOULD go to lengths to condition their dog to wearing a muzzle.


Of course not everyone will, same as not everyone does everything that they really should...The minority should not rule the masses tho 

I'm still not getting your aversion...a better analogy would be getting kids to wear glasses...some wear them happily and some would rather rip them from their face...the ones that want to rip them from their face does not govern how the rest feel about their glasses as they have been conditioned to think glasses = good.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Why not? Even the nicest dog might be so in pain they have to be muzzled for the vet to carry out necessary procedures. And it lessens the stress if they're already used to the muzzle


That's a different scenario.
I have never in any of my posts suggested dogs should not be muzzled under any circumstances or that conditioning them 'in case' is not a good idea.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> What is the big issue you have with any dog being muzzled?


I can't speak for Delilahdog, but for me, the issue isn't with muzzles as I use them or Sophie and we used to muzzle our Saluki and Greyhound/Saluki. The latter to protect local wildlife and small furries and Sophie has been trained for 'just in case' scenarios and the vets, but also, after reading this thread I will take her out with a muzzle more often because she is a relentless scavenger.

The issue I found with the dog in question having to be muzzled is because the muzzle in this case is seen as a punishment and an acknowledgement that this is a 'dangerous dog'. And I don't think that it gives a fair view of other dogs who wear muzzles for all sorts of different reasons. Instead, it feeds into the myth that dogs who wear muzzles are dangerous.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

shirleystarr said:


> found the icons the dog ones but how do you download it to the pc and how do you then put it on here I am a numpty at all of this


Me too,,


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Of course not everyone will, same as not everyone does everything that they really should...The minority should not rule the masses tho
> 
> I'm still not getting your aversion...a better analogy would be getting kids to wear glasses...some wear them happily and some would rather rip them from their face...the ones that want to rip them from their face does not govern how the rest feel about their glasses as they have been conditioned to think glasses = good.


OK can I clarify we are talking about the same thing?
I don't want to be a dog owner in a situation where muzzling my dog to take her off my property is standard issue given we have never had any issues with her that would require one. She is not aggressive and although she used to eat poo I have mainly trained that out of her, I'll turn a blind eye to the odd experimental lick or when she thinks I'm not looking.
I fully get there are instances where wearing a muzzle is the best option for both the dog and everyone else and that acclimatising a dog to a muzzle for emergencies is a good idea too.
But if we get into a situation where they start to become required by law for all dogs then it really isn't helping anything. You will still get the slack idiots who don't go about it properly but they will be immune to punishment because they have, in the laws eyes complied.
And if I had a dog which needed muzzling, then I would probably be grateful if other folk took that as a sign to give the dog a bit of a wide berth to help avoid problems. I see enough posts on here from frustrated owners trying to train their reactive dogs who wish others would keep their dogs away while they are doing it!


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

silvi said:


> I can't speak for Delilahdog, but for me, the issue isn't with muzzles as I use them or Sophie and we used to muzzle our Saluki and Greyhound/Saluki. The latter to protect local wildlife and small furries and Sophie has been trained for 'just in case' scenarios and the vets, but also, after reading this thread I will take her out with a muzzle more often because she is a relentless scavenger.
> 
> The issue I found with the dog in question having to be muzzled is because the muzzle in this case is seen as a punishment and an acknowledgement that this is a 'dangerous dog'. And I don't think that it gives a fair view of other dogs who wear muzzles for all sorts of different reasons. Instead, it feeds into the myth that dogs who wear muzzles are dangerous.


That makes total sense.
(just picturing tiny Sophie in a muzzle!, bless her) Muttly's muzzle is so tiny and that was the smallest!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Of course not everyone will, same as not everyone does everything that they really should...The minority should not rule the masses tho
> 
> I'm still not getting your aversion...a better analogy would be getting kids to wear glasses...some wear them happily and some would rather rip them from their face...the ones that want to rip them from their face does not govern how the rest feel about their glasses as they have been conditioned to think glasses = good.


Re your analogy - would you insist ALL kids wear glasses, regardless of whether their sight needed correction? Probably not.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Glasses aren't going to protect a kid legally if someone says "he bit me".


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't agree with muzzles for all dogs but I do think they're useful either to stop a scavenger eating things it shouldn't or as part of the controls for an aggressive dog. I was just saying that it makes sense to make all dogs think muzzles are good things for an emergency


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> Re your analogy - would you insist ALL kids wear glasses, regardless of whether their sight needed correction? Probably not.


No I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't judge the people that wear glasses for nothing more than fashion


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

silvi said:


> I can't speak for Delilahdog, but for me, the issue isn't with muzzles as I use them or Sophie and we used to muzzle our Saluki and Greyhound/Saluki. The latter to protect local wildlife and small furries and Sophie has been trained for 'just in case' scenarios and the vets, but also, after reading this thread I will take her out with a muzzle more often because she is a relentless scavenger.
> 
> The issue I found with the dog in question having to be muzzled is because the muzzle in this case is seen as a punishment and an acknowledgement that this is a 'dangerous dog'. And I don't think that it gives a fair view of other dogs who wear muzzles for all sorts of different reasons. Instead, it feeds into the myth that dogs who wear muzzles are dangerous.


To be honest as a dog owner- if my dog had bitten a childs face- kinda regardless of circumstance, would i then muzzle it in public? YUP


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> To be honest as a dog owner- if my dog had bitten a childs face- kinda regardless of circumstance, would i then muzzle it in public? YUP


Of course you would, as any responsible owner would do too.
What I was saying is that this situation gives us another example of how muzzles are seen as punishment and appropriate mainly for so-called 'dangerous dogs'.
Perhaps what we could do with are more examples in the media of how muzzles are often a good thing for dogs (re: scavenging for example), but that wouldn't make such a good headline.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> To be honest as a dog owner- if my dog had bitten a childs face- kinda regardless of circumstance, would i then muzzle it in public? YUP


But this is really my point. No one really knows what happened because both dog & child were unsupervised. There is just a very overblown statement by the Father which is belied by the photo of the little girl's wounds which compared to his assertions look superficial. No one really knows what might have occurred to result in the dog biting the little girl. Was she teasing it? Hurting it? Invading it's space? We don't know.
But the dog will not be given the benefit of the doubt.
All because a stupid man, who says he already had his doubts about the dog, could not teach his child boundaries.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

We used to muzzle our old family dog at times through some reactivity issues, and looking back he was no where near as bad as Missy! But the public perception of him with his muzzle on was completely different. We got comments from people calling him 'Hannibal Lector', 'killer', 'psycho dog' and people would cross the street to avoid us. When he didn't have his muzzle on no one batted an eyelid. 

I used to muzzle Missy for a very short period, but like I said, I don't anymore. My reasoning being that I've already taken sensible precautions by keeping her on lead around other dogs. If someone allows their dog to approach us, I can't be responsible for their dog also.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> But this is really my point. No one really knows what happened because both dog & child were unsupervised. There is just a very overblown statement by the Father which is belied by the photo of the little girl's wounds which compared to his assertions look superficial. No one really knows what might have occurred to result in the dog biting the little girl. Was she teasing it? Hurting it? Invading it's space? We don't know.
> But the dog will not be given the benefit of the doubt.
> All because a stupid man, who says he already had his doubts about the dog, could not teach his child boundaries.


TBH, the reason for the bite doesn't matter (beyond gaining an understanding of the behaviour so that you can work on it not happening again), the dog has shown that they are willing to use their teeth. The fact that the circumstances of the bite are unknown shows a greater need to muzzle this dog in public.



Dogloverlou said:


> I used to muzzle Missy for a very short period, but like I said, I don't anymore. My reasoning being that I've already taken sensible precautions by keeping her on lead around other dogs. If someone allows their dog to approach us, *I can't be responsible for their dog also.*


Unfortunately in the eyes of the law if your dog attacks another you are responsible. Even if your dog is on lead, if she attacks another then she is deemed out of control. And the fact that you know she is DA and don't muzzle her could be used against you.

I am not saying I agree with that stance, but the law is what it is...


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Half of the reason a muzzle works for me is that it makes people cautious about letting dogs approach him, yes it stops him being able to use his teeth, but really I don't want to be in the position where it's doing that anyway.

He's not at the point where he can socialise with unknown dogs, when/if he is, well I'd still rather have control over which dogs he gets to interact with and which he doesn't.

So I think it's a plus that it makes people assume there's an issue unless told otherwise.

If a dog wears one for scavenging and you still want it to mix with strange dogs, it's not hard to say to someone, he's fine with dogs, just eats a load of rubbish.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> TBH, the reason for the bite doesn't matter (beyond gaining an understanding of the behaviour so that you can work on it not happening again), the dog has shown that they are willing to use their teeth. The fact that the circumstances of the bite are unknown shows a greater need to muzzle this dog in public.
> 
> Unfortunately in the eyes of the law if your dog attacks another you are responsible. Even if your dog is on lead, if she attacks another then she is deemed out of control. And the fact that you know she is DA and don't muzzle her could be used against you.
> 
> I am not saying I agree with that stance, but the law is what it is...


Is that since the recent changes to the law? Still, I'd find it hard to believe any police officer taking it seriously if that was the case.

If it ever got to the stage I thought there was going to be a fight I'd simply pick Missy up. The benefits of having a small dog


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> But this is really my point. No one really knows what happened because both dog & child were unsupervised. There is just a very overblown statement by the Father which is belied by the photo of the little girl's wounds which compared to his assertions look superficial. No one really knows what might have occurred to result in the dog biting the little girl. Was she teasing it? Hurting it? Invading it's space? We don't know.
> But the dog will not be given the benefit of the doubt.
> All because a stupid man, who says he already had his doubts about the dog, could not teach his child boundaries.


To me like I said circumstance kinda does not matter- the dog bit a kid, for my peace of mind, so I could ensure it never ever happened again I would muzzle. "we/you/the kids father" can only go by what the kid said she did- which was bend down to pick up the dogs lead - this is a fairly dog savvy kid.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

silvi said:


> Of course you would, as any responsible owner would do too.
> What I was saying is that this situation gives us another example of how muzzles are seen as punishment and appropriate mainly for so-called 'dangerous dogs'.
> Perhaps what we could do with are more examples in the media of how muzzles are often a good thing for dogs (re: scavenging for example), but that wouldn't make such a good headline.


To me muzzles are there for all sorts of reasons...... a dog being aggressive is one of them..... to me I see a muzzled dog and its a "shoulder shrug" kinda thing......... I dont see them as punishment, just responsible- for many reasons.....


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> To me like I said circumstance kinda does not matter- the dog bit a kid, for my peace of mind, so I could ensure it never ever happened again I would muzzle. "we/you/the kids father" can only go by what the kid said she did- which was bend down to pick up the dogs lead - this is a fairly dog savvy kid.


I know how the law stands but I just don't believe biting is unjustified no matter what.
And knowing your belief that we cannot give the dog the benefit of the doubt is how the majority feel is what upsets me.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Is that since the recent changes to the law? Still, I'd find it hard to believe any police officer taking it seriously if that was the case.
> 
> If it ever got to the stage I thought there was going to be a fight I'd simply pick Missy up. The benefits of having a small dog


No, it's been the case since DDA was introduced.
Although an on leash dog is under control (so long as the handler is capable), if the dog attacks another it is then deemed that the dog is dangerously out of control (leash or not).

If you can manage the situation by just picking Missy up so that she doesn't cause harm without using a muzzle then you are still in control


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> To me like I said circumstance kinda does not matter- the dog bit a kid, for my peace of mind, so I could ensure it never ever happened again I would muzzle. "we/you/the kids father" can only go by what the kid said she did- which was bend down to pick up the dogs lead - *this is a fairly dog savvy kid*.


Really? How do we know that? I wouldn't have said she was all that savvy, the way she's hugging her staffy in the pic.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Unfortunately in the eyes of the law if your dog attacks another you are responsible. Even if your dog is on lead, if she attacks another then she is deemed out of control. And the fact that you know she is DA and don't muzzle her could be used against you.
> 
> I am not saying I agree with that stance, but the law is what it is...


This. Plus having been in a situation where my dog caused serious damage to a dog who simply approached to say hello...well there's no way I'd want to be in that situation again regardless of who was in the right legally.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I can understand why staffie owners want to demonstrate that their dogs are 'good with kids', hence the picture of the small girl hugging the staffie.
But those same owners need to ensure that their kids know that other dogs may not be as friendly as theirs and that it doesn't matter what breed the dog is or what size it is.
I would also like to know that they have taught the child that, however much their dog puts up with being hugged, that it might actually prefer its own space.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sarah1983 said:


> This. Plus having been in a situation where my dog caused serious damage to a dog who simply approached to say hello...well there's no way I'd want to be in that situation again regardless of who was in the right legally.


I just wish that all owners of dogs who have harmed other dogs took that attitude.
Sadly, the owners of the dogs who attacked Sophie simply laughed it off, or blamed her.

Now I'm not saying that Sophie wasn't to blame (if that's the right word...) for being attacked. Sadly her fear reactivity brings out the worst in many dogs. But some acknowledgement that their dogs were capable of harming a smaller dog would have been helpful.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I know how the law stands but I just don't believe biting is unjustified no matter what.
> And knowing your belief that we cannot give the dog the benefit of the doubt is how the majority feel is what upsets me.


Its not my belief that dogs can not be given the benefit of the doubt. Its the fact the dog did damage to the kid regardless of circumstance, circumstance in this case we will never know. the dog can still lead a full and happy life muzzled- it has not been PTS


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Really? How do we know that? I wouldn't have said she was all that savvy, the way she's hugging her staffy in the pic.


"fairly" i said- she lived with a dog, so more dog savvy than one who had never had interactions with dogs at all no? - some dogs like to be hugged by their people


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> "fairly" i said- she lived with a dog, so more dog savvy than one who had never had interactions with dogs at all no? - some dogs like to be hugged by their people


That depends on how the parents have taught her to interact with the dog surely. A child raised by people who think a dog should take everything a child does to them and not even raise a lip is not going to be very dog savvy


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

silvi said:


> I just wish that all owners of dogs who have harmed other dogs took that attitude.
> Sadly, the owners of the dogs who attacked Sophie simply laughed it off, or blamed her.
> 
> Now I'm not saying that Sophie wasn't to blame (if that's the right word...) for being attacked. Sadly her fear reactivity brings out the worst in many dogs. But some acknowledgement that their dogs were capable of harming a smaller dog would have been helpful.


It honestly baffles me that people don't take that attitude. It doesn't matter how careful you are accidents can happen I'm afraid and if your dog is likely to hurt a dog or person simply for getting too close then imo it should be muzzled as a precaution. If I'd known Rupert was likely to cause harm before he actually did then he'd have been muzzled before it happened. But I had no idea he would attack with intent, he'd lunged and snapped a few times but never made contact before. Possibly down to luck rather than him not intending to looking back but I had no idea at the time. Technically I suppose you could say it was their fault, their puppy got loose and ran up to my on leash dog in the street. But it didn't make me feel any less guilty about the damage my dog had done, the pain and fear he caused, the potentially long lasting effects it had on that puppy.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> That depends on how the parents have taught her to interact with the dog surely. A child raised by people who think a dog should take everything a child does to them and not even raise a lip is not going to be very dog savvy


Very true- noone will ever know the whole story......


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> But this is really my point. No one really knows what happened because both dog & child were unsupervised. There is just a very overblown statement by the Father which is belied by the photo of the little girl's wounds which compared to his assertions look superficial. No one really knows what might have occurred to result in the dog biting the little girl. Was she teasing it? Hurting it? Invading it's space? We don't know.
> But the dog will not be given the benefit of the doubt.
> All because a stupid man, who says he already had his doubts about the dog, could not teach his child boundaries.


Nope... Sorry but if I have to leave my child and dog unsupervised for a minute or two, I would expect my dogs to not rearrange their face EVEN if the kids did something stupid (as kids will do). 
We really underestimate dogs capabilities of self-control, coping skills, bite inhibition, tolerance... Seriously, we have co-evolved with dogs since the beginning of time almost. 
A dog who will do that level of damage, and those are definite puncture wounds there, has some issues going on that IMO need to be dealt with, not just brushed off as "well, dogs bite."

The truth is, the huge majority of dogs do NOT bite humans despite ridiculous treatment. This is the part that need to be emphasized and the dog that does do this to a child needs to be presented and addressed as the anomaly it is.



StormyThai said:


> TBH, the reason for the bite doesn't matter (beyond gaining an understanding of the behaviour so that you can work on it not happening again), *the dog has shown that they are willing to use their teeth*. The fact that the circumstances of the bite are unknown shows a greater need to muzzle this dog in public..


 Yup, this right there.
This thread has gotten long and it may have been lost in the fray, so I'll repeat. I've personally witnessed enough situations where dogs did not use teeth to know we really sell them short when we take this type of injury and just brush it off. 
Old rickety grumpy dog sleeping at foot of stairs has toddler fall down the stairs landing on top of the dog. No injuries to the toddler. Dog roared in his face and scared him half to death, but no use of teeth.
I fall on great dane waking her from sleep, landing with my face literally on top of her muzzle. She looks puzzled watches me get up, goes back to sleep.
Visiting kid does a cartwheel crashing in to Bates who is eating his dinner. He checks on the kid, and goes back to eating, totally unfazed.



Delilahdog said:


> I know how the law stands but I just don't believe biting is unjustified no matter what.
> And knowing your belief that we cannot give the dog the benefit of the doubt is how the majority feel is what upsets me.


Dog lost the benefit of the doubt when he used teeth to the extent that he did. 
I've been bitten by a rescue great dane, he bit me with purpose, he was guarding and he meant business. He did not break the skin. He simply held my hand in his mouth and gave me a hard look letting me know what was what.
He got the benefit of the doubt. (And went on to be fully rehabilitated and one of the best dogs I've had the pleasure of knowing.) Were I typing this with 7 fingers instead of 10, he would have been PTS. But that's just me....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Im not saying you are pretending. What I am saying is looking at other countries it will not be all dogs ever it will


ouesi said:


> Nope... Sorry but if I have to leave my child and dog unsupervised for a minute or two, I would expect my dogs to not rearrange their face EVEN if the kids did something stupid (as kids will do).
> We really underestimate dogs capabilities of self-control, coping skills, bite inhibition, tolerance... Seriously, we have co-evolved with dogs since the beginning of time almost.
> A dog who will do that level of damage, and those are definite puncture wounds there, has some issues going on that IMO need to be dealt with, not just brushed off as "well, dogs bite."
> 
> ...


This in a nutshell.................................. says it all really..


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Nope... Sorry but if I have to leave my child and dog unsupervised for a minute or two, I would expect my dogs to not rearrange their face EVEN if the kids did something stupid (as kids will do).
> We really underestimate dogs capabilities of self-control, coping skills, bite inhibition, tolerance... Seriously, we have co-evolved with dogs since the beginning of time almost.


TBF you dont know how long the dog was left alone with the child for or what their relationship was. Yes, dogs have a lot of tolerance but it can break eventually if pushed....
Its amazing the amount of people who do push dogs by doing stupid things and think that its ok because the dog hasnt reacted...yet.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

catz4m8z said:


> TBF you dont know how long the dog was left alone with the child for or what their relationship was. Yes, dogs have a lot of tolerance but it can break eventually if pushed....
> Its amazing the amount of people who do push dogs by doing stupid things and think that its ok because the dog hasnt reacted...yet.


Yes, people do stupid things and ignore dog signals. That's why we need education. 
The point of education is not so that we take dogs who have clearly shown themselves to be a danger and ignore the signs. The point of education is to take dogs who are already stable and help them stay stable, and not push them out of stability.

Deed not breed. That means we recognize that some dogs are simply dangerous dogs. Dogs who have shown themselves to be dangerous regardless of breed, need to be dealt with. 
There are few enough cases of truly bad incidents that each one can be examined on an individual basis and we can learn from each one.

Note DOGS. Not breeds.

When we make it about breed, we miss the opportunity to learn, we miss the opportunity to put controls on a dog who truly is dangerous, we miss the whole point.

When we make it about behavior (deed), now we can do something to help keep both dogs and kids safe.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Its not my belief that dogs can not be given the benefit of the doubt. Its the fact the dog did damage to the kid regardless of circumstance, circumstance in this case we will never know. the dog can still lead a full and happy life muzzled- it has not been PTS


If you are muzzling the dog you are not giving it the benefit of the doubt. The simple fact that a dog has bitten a human should not imo condemn it to a lifetime of being doubted. I know I am in the minority but I genuinely believe I would feel the same if it were my child in this particular instance.
I would however expect there to be some kind of behaviour assessment & training put in place.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> If you are muzzling the dog you are not giving it the benefit of the doubt. The simple fact that a dog has bitten a human should not imo condemn it to a lifetime of being doubted. I know I am in the minority but I genuinely believe I would feel the same if it were my child in this particular instance.
> I would however expect there to be some kind of behaviour assessment & training put in place.


REALLY......... your own child tells you they did absolutely nothing but pick up the dogs lead, and they get their face bitten for it - and you say "ho hum, so long as you get a behaviourist all is good?" dont buy it


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Nope... Sorry but if I have to leave my child and dog unsupervised for a minute or two, I would expect my dogs to not rearrange their face EVEN if the kids did something stupid (as kids will do).
> We really underestimate dogs capabilities of self-control, coping skills, bite inhibition, tolerance... Seriously, we have co-evolved with dogs since the beginning of time almost.
> A dog who will do that level of damage, and those are definite puncture wounds there, has some issues going on that IMO need to be dealt with, not just brushed off as "well, dogs bite."
> 
> ...


Yes Ouesi you gave the dog the benefit of the doubt because you were able to rehabilitate him.
And your dogs have been trained not to bite in response to provocation.
I would love that the law insisted the dog have a behaviour assessment and was put into some kind of training programme to address this I'm not suggesting everyone just turns a blind eye. It was almost certainly because the 'responsible' adults turned a blind eye that this happened in the first place.
Shoving a mask on his face so the law is appeased but not really giving the owners any guidance about how or why it happened in the first place is no solution imo.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> REALLY......... your own child tells you they did absolutely nothing but pick up the dogs lead, and they get their face bitten for it - and you say "ho hum, so long as you get a behaviourist all is good?" dont buy it


I would do some serious interrogation into what really happened.
When ever kids stuff up the explanation inevitably starts with 'I only...'
I may not have kids but I was one and I have taught them before now.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Delilahdog said:


> I would do some serious interrogation into what really happened.
> When ever kids stuff up the explanation inevitably starts with 'I only...'
> I may not have kids but I was one and I have taught them before now.


Ive had a kid tell their parents that one of my dogs bit them when the dog in question just licked their hand after they stopped to stroke it!! (in full view of everybody).
I dont think I trust kids any more then I do dogs TBH!!


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Kids are devious little things. Ours has said 'Ow' for no reason at all when being near Muttly (not knowing that I was actually watching). Don't believe 90% of what comes out of their mouths tbh.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> If you are muzzling the dog you are not giving it the benefit of the doubt. *The simple fact that a dog has bitten a human should not imo condemn it to a lifetime of being doubted.* I know I am in the minority but I genuinely believe I would feel the same if it were my child in this particular instance.
> I would however expect there to be some kind of behaviour assessment & training put in place.


There are bites and there are bites.
I don't feel like looking up statistics right now, but in a nutshell:
- dog bites on humans are rare.
- most of those dog bites amount to a minor scratch or some bruising.
- dog bites requiring medical attention are even more rare.
- dog bites requiring surgery or something more than a tetanus shot and a pat on the back are even more rare still.

Realistically, this dog put multiple holes in a child's face. If that were my dog, he would be doubted for life. 
I don't see that as a bad thing. I have a dog who I don't trust with other dogs. Neither of my dogs are to be trusted around cats or small furries. It's being realistic about the dog and their history.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> Shoving a mask on his face so the law is appeased but not really giving the owners any guidance about how or why it happened in the first place is no solution imo.


How on earth do you know this will happen?
How do you know that the owner will "shove a mask on" without getting help from a behaviourist?

You are still holding this view that muzzles are a bad thing  They do not restrict a dog from doing anything...they can still train, they can still play, they can still be dogs...the only thing that changes is that the dog can no longer use his teeth to cause damage (a muzzle punch still hurts like hell!)

How many times does a dog need to cause harm before you think a muzzle is acceptable?
How much damage must be caused?

This dog has bitten a child, regardless of the reason, they have shown that they WILL use their teeth..it is owners ignoring these very obvious warning signs that are at the route of serious dog attacks IMO
If this dog wears a muzzle every time they are out in public they do not risk biting another child, ergo they get to continue living a happy fullfilled life with the people they love - how is that a bad thing?


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

I overheard a conversation between two dog owners outside of a school yesterday. One was lamenting their dog continually pawing at the halti harness thing stuck on it's face. The other one sympathised and said she'd been told her dog would get used to their's eventually and just persevere but 18 months on and the dog still constantly tries to remove it. 

That would be my only issue with muzzling - if it was seen as something the dog just had to put up with. If it's introduced properly, so the dog sees it as just another thing that happens prior to walkies (harness, lead, muzzle!) what's the problem? Benji bloody hated walking on the lead at first, loads of positive reinforcement and now he can't get to you fast enough once it's in your hand. I'm sure I could introduce a muzzle the same way (and am beginning to think maybe I should).

You can't put people's feelings ahead of safety for the dog and everyone/thing around the dog. People might consider the muzzle a punishment, if it's done properly though, the dog won't so what's the issue?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Just a random thought...I would actually love to see muzzle conditioning as part of puppy classes. Now I don't want people muzzling puppies willy nilly, but if these puppy owners are conditioned to think of muzzles as a useful tool rather than a "last ditch" resort we might see more dog owners muzzling up when needed...might, but I can hope lol


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I would do some serious interrogation into what really happened.
> When ever kids stuff up the explanation inevitably starts with 'I only...'
> I may not have kids but I was one and I have taught them before now.


Oh dont get me wrong, kids lie of course, they make things up- this kid did not give herself puncture wounds to her face.........


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Delilahdog said:


> If you are muzzling the dog you are not giving it the benefit of the doubt. The simple fact that a dog has bitten a human should not imo condemn it to a lifetime of being doubted. I know I am in the minority but I genuinely believe I would feel the same if it were my child in this particular instance.
> I would however expect there to be some kind of behaviour assessment & training put in place.


I don't trust my dog, I know he will try to bite in certain situations because he has tried to...he will more than likely be muzzled in public for the rest of his life, I would much rather have a dog I don't trust and handle it appropriately so that no damage is caused to anyone else than to wait until there was a serious incident.

That doesn't mean I've given up on changing his behaviour or that he's suffering in any way, it means that I keep everyone safe (including him because the repercussions of a serious bite could be him having to be PTS) and him as happy and unstressed as I can.

Part of that is that he wears a muzzle.



Muttly said:


> Kids are devious little things. Ours has said 'Ow' for no reason at all when being near Muttly (not knowing that I was actually watching). Don't believe 90% of what comes out of their mouths tbh.


My daughter as a young child accused the previous dog of nipping her ...I was in the room and he was nowhere near her, so slightly confused I asked , he bit you? She said, no , nipped and did a pincer movement with her finger and thumb...yep that seems likely, rofl.



Mulish said:


> I overheard a conversation between two dog owners outside of a school yesterday. One was lamenting their dog continually pawing at the halti harness thing stuck on it's face. The other one sympathised and said she'd been told her dog would get used to their's eventually and just persevere but 18 months on and the dog still constantly tries to remove it.
> 
> That would be my only issue with muzzling - if it was seen as something the dog just had to put up with. If it's introduced properly, so the dog sees it as just another thing that happens prior to walkies (harness, lead, muzzle!) what's the problem? Benji bloody hated walking on the lead at first, loads of positive reinforcement and now he can't get to you fast enough once it's in your hand. I'm sure I could introduce a muzzle the same way (and am beginning to think maybe I should).
> 
> You can't put people's feelings ahead of safety for the dog and everyone/thing around the dog. People might consider the muzzle a punishment, if it's done properly though, the dog won't so what's the issue?


The training is hugely important, Brock wears his happily because he was conditioned before he ever went out in it and he associates it with walks now.

I spent a week training him inside, even though he was already used to a headcollar and he's pretty quick at picking up things - and the payoff is that he's perfectly happy to wear it.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I could be wrong, but I think that some of our resistance to putting a muzzle on a dog is because we wouldn't like to wear one ourselves (or maybe a few would, lol!).
But we have found that if treated with care and _not_ rushed (as in - he must have that muzzle on now!) dogs are okay with wearing them.
The only thing we noticed with our sight hounds was that they got very hot wearing a muzzle in the summer months, so we searched until we found more suitable muzzles (the standard 'greyhound racer' type in fact). And we were also concerned about safety, so made sure that the muzzles were as well-fitted as possible.

The problem could come when an owner goes out and buys their dog a muzzle and sticks it on the dog without thought for acclimatising the dog, or for muzzle fit.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Of course a fearful dog would score poorly. :Facepalm
> A fearful temperament is not a very stable temperament now is it?!
> Confident =/= aggressive.
> Really, you're not making much sense....
> ...


Except a fearful dog isn't necessarily aggressive now is it? A fearful dog could easily cower away from an intruder or try to evade an attack on the street. A more confident dog that can be aggressive might just wind up in a whole lot of trouble when it doesn't back down from a fight or when it misinterprets a non-aggressive person for being aggressive and reacts with aggression.

Additionally a few weeks ago a Typhoon flew over the house when Brochan and Neamhnaid were out the back and their reaction to that was to run back into the house. We also have a problem here of idiots riding motorbikes on footpaths and last week a couple of them raced along a path that is near the back garden's fence. The bikes exhausts were back firing and they were making a lot of noise. Again B and N were out the back and they got a fright and ran back into the house. So on neither of those occasions did they react aggressively towards those potential threats. They did not re-direct their fearfulness onto me through biting.

Also a few years ago I had taken Brochan out for a walk in the snow and there lots of kids throwing snowballs. Some kids deliberately threw snowballs at us and that resulted in Brochan being fearful of groups of kids for months. He would tremble at the sight and sound of groups of them and his reaction to that was to avoid them. He would freeze and want to turn in the opposite direction or would pull for home. Not once did he exhibit aggressive behaviour. I am proud of the fact that my dogs have not responded to situations like that with aggression. So that is another reason why I think that those ATTS tests are inaccurate when it comes to finding the 'safest' breeds.

I wasn't going to bring this up (although I did start a thread about it at the time). When Brochan was an only dog my Mum took him out for his morning walk one day a couple of years ago. She had only just taken him out the house and was about to start walking round the corner when this SBT came flying around the corner and went straight for Brochan's throat. It was completely unprovoked and it took 5-10 minutes to get the attacking dog off Brochan. If he hadn't been wearing a thick martingale collar with its loop and tags then I shudder to think of what could have happened. While the dog didn't manage to bite Brochan she did bite clean through one of the thick metal D-rings. It turned out that dog had a long history of unprovoked attacks and it was always the same story. The dog went for the throat each and every time and she did injure several dogs. So my view of the breed changed after that as it drove home the fact that SBTs are very powerful dogs and have the potential to inflict serious injuries. On that occasion Brochan didn't even try to defend himself.

I will also tell you that I used to be one of those advocates who would defend SBTs and APBTs by saying that they were 'nanny dogs' and that all those bites and attacks were actually carried out by other dogs that looked like them. I also believed that human aggressive fighting dogs were killed. Then I started to do some research and realised that much of what I had been saying was false. I also realised how ridiculous I sounded for actually trying to pin the blame on other breeds. Couldn't possibly have been APBTs or SBTs now could it?

And yes I do think that the term 'nanny dog' should no longer be used. There are too many people that interpret things in the literal sense and I do wonder how many people have gone and gotten a 'nanny dog' only to literally let their dog 'nanny' their children and for one or more children to be attacked. That is why the 'nanny dog' label IS dangerous! Re-labelling to 'family dog' would be more apt as that does NOT imply the dog should be left alone with kids. Besides, are you really so determined to defend SBTs and APBTs that you are willing to risk kids lives by saying that there is such a thing as a 'nanny dog'? And by-the-way the words 'nanny' and 'family' are not interchangeable as they do not mean the same thing.

I have also had another look for a fatal attack on a human by a Greyhound and have found nothing. What I did find were lots of stories about Greys being attacked by other dogs and most of those attacks were carried out by Pit Bulls. And yes Greys have bitten people and they have killed small furries, but as I have said, I have done a number of searches and cannot find a single instance of a Grey killing a person. Yet Greyhounds typically score more poorly in ATTS testing.

Oh and why is it a lot of rescues will not recommend SBTs to people who have not had the breed before? If it were such an inherently safe breed then why do some rescues (such as the Dogs Trust) not recommend them for people who have not had a dog before? Why is it that I have come across so many Staffies in rescues that can only be placed in adult only homes or homes that only have older children?

There is so much denial here that it is unbelievable!


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Except a fearful dog isn't necessarily aggressive now is it? A fearful dog could easily cower away from an intruder or try to evade an attack on the street. A more confident dog that can be aggressive might just wind up in a whole lot of trouble when it doesn't back down from a fight or when it misinterprets a non-aggressive person for being aggressive and reacts with aggression.
> 
> Additionally a few weeks ago a Typhoon flew over the house when Brochan and Neamhnaid were out the back and their reaction to that was to run back into the house. We also have a problem here of idiots riding motorbikes on footpaths and last week a couple of them raced along a path that is near the back garden's fence. The bikes exhausts were back firing and they were making a lot of noise. Again B and N were out the back and they got a fright and ran back into the house. So on neither of those occasions did they react aggressively towards those potential threats. They did not re-direct their fearfulness onto me through biting.
> 
> ...


One incident changed your opinion of a whole breed?

Brock has been attacked three times while on lead minding his own business (well he did look at one of them) by a Great Dane, a patterdale and a ridgeback cross (which coincidentally I thought was a staffy cross until the owner told me otherwise when I took my vet's bill round) every single one of them had done the same to other dogs and went on to do it again ... All that proves is that some dogs have owners who don't react responsibly to issues with their dogs.

Also, people who have read the term nanny dog and somehow thinks that means they can act as done sort of nanny...shouldn't have dogs, children or possibly unsupervised access to the internet.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> Yes Ouesi you gave the dog the benefit of the doubt because you were able to rehabilitate him.


Not quite.
We were able to rehabilitate him because he showed excellent bite inhibition, his aggression was very predictable, and he had an inherently stable temperament. His behavior was a learned behavior from stupid handling, not from an inherently fearful or otherwise unstable temperament.



Delilahdog said:


> And your dogs have been trained not to bite in response to provocation.


Again, not exactly. They are not *trained* not to bite. To start, they have stable temperaments. Neither is particularly fearful or reactive or shy or reticent or under confident. They both have shown very good bite inhibition. 
From there we have conditioned them through handling to not react negatively to suprising stimuli, to trust their humans, and to defer to us when in doubt instead of taking matters in to their own hands.
Even something like startle tactics to interrupt behavior can teach a dog to react to being startled instead of noticing and moving on. 
This is where education can really shine. Simply adopting more rewards based training techniques can make a difference in the trust level of a family dog.

[QUOTE="Delilahdog, post: 1064152848, member: 1410302"


> I would love that the law insisted the dog have a behaviour assessment and was put into some kind of training programme to address this I'm not suggesting everyone just turns a blind eye. It was almost certainly because the 'responsible' adults turned a blind eye that this happened in the first place.
> Shoving a mask on his face so the law is appeased but not really giving the owners any guidance about how or why it happened in the first place is no solution imo.


Muzzling and education for the owners are not mutually exclusive. A muzzle for a dog who has shown themselves willing to use teeth is going to be part of that education anyway. Muzzle AND work with the owners to teach them to notice subtle signs of stress, how to regain their dog's trust etc.....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> There is so much denial here that it is unbelievable!


The irony in that sentence is hilarious...


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

tabulahrasa said:


> One incident changed your opinion of a whole breed?
> 
> Brock has been attacked three times while on lead minding his own business (well he did look at one of them) by a Great Dane, a patterdale and a ridgeback cross (which coincidentally I thought was a staffy cross until the owner told me otherwise when I took my vet's bill round) every single one of them had done the same to other dogs and went on to do it again ... All that proves is that some dogs have owners who don't react responsibly to issues with their dogs.
> 
> Also, people who have read the term nanny dog and somehow thinks that means they can act as done sort of nanny...shouldn't have dogs, children or possibly unsupervised access to the internet.


Well if they aren't supposed to 'nanny' kids then why call them 'nanny dogs' in the first place? And yes that attack did alter my view because of all the trouble it took to get the SBT off Brochan and the fact that the dog could bite through such a thick piece of solid metal with ease.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Except a fearful dog isn't necessarily aggressive now is it? A fearful dog could easily cower away from an intruder or try to evade an attack on the street. A more confident dog that can be aggressive might just wind up in a whole lot of trouble when it doesn't back down from a fight or when it misinterprets a non-aggressive person for being aggressive and reacts with aggression.
> 
> Additionally a few weeks ago a Typhoon flew over the house when Brochan and Neamhnaid were out the back and their reaction to that was to run back into the house. We also have a problem here of idiots riding motorbikes on footpaths and last week a couple of them raced along a path that is near the back garden's fence. The bikes exhausts were back firing and they were making a lot of noise. Again B and N were out the back and they got a fright and ran back into the house. So on neither of those occasions did they react aggressively towards those potential threats. They did not re-direct their fearfulness onto me through biting.
> 
> ...


It is unbelievable you continue to talk so much Faff.... Just because is dog is dog aggressive don't make it human aggressive. They don't place them in child homes because they haven't lived with children before or they are too lively for small children.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

So a dog bites through metal yet doesn't bite through to the dog, even though they have their mouth clamped around the throat *insert confused smilie*


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> So a dog bites through metal yet doesn't bite through to the dog, even though they have their mouth clamped around the throat *insert confused smilie*


Its them there locking jaws.....


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> It is unbelievable you continue to talk so much Faff....


It's no wonder your breeds are so often scorned upon when the very people who have them can't even be truthful about the very real capabilities of their breeds! All you do is disregard any evidence of certain breeds being more aggressive than others and even try to blame attacks on other breeds. That's real responsibility right there - not!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> How on earth do you know this will happen?
> How do you know that the owner will "shove a mask on" without getting help from a behaviourist?
> 
> You are still holding this view that muzzles are a bad thing  They do not restrict a dog from doing anything...they can still train, they can still play, they can still be dogs...the only thing that changes is that the dog can no longer use his teeth to cause damage (a muzzle punch still hurts like hell!)
> ...


Everything on this thread is conjecture. None of actually know what happened or what will happen.
I have said over and over I don't see muzzles as 'bad' full stop and that they have their place and even told you that I have used them when I felt it necessary. Are you sure it isn't you who is ignoring me?
What I am trying to express is a deep unease with the way the law deals with these situations, which is to try and placate public hysteria rather than get to the bottom of what the actual problem is. And for me the root problem is slack parenting and ownership. Not an out of control animal.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> So a dog bites through metal yet doesn't bite through to the dog, even though they have their mouth clamped around the throat *insert confused smilie*


The dog bit through the D-ring while trying to RIP OUT MY DOG'S THROAT!!! Got that??? And do STOP splitting hairs and down playing the sheer strength of SBTs!!!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> It's no wonder your breeds are so often scorned upon when the very people who have them can't even be truthful about the very real capabilities of their breeds! All you do is disregard any evidence of certain breeds being more aggressive than others and even try to blame attacks on other breeds. That's real responsibility right there - not!


You keep missing the point, I am very aware of my breed I'm very aware of their traits the difference is unlike YOU I understand that it's not about the breed, all dogs have prey drive even your lovely pretty fragile dogs with cotton wool for teeth.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> The dog bit through the D-ring while trying to RIP OUT MY DOG'S THROAT!!! Got that??? And do STOP splitting hairs and down playing the sheer strength of SBTs!!!


Sure rabbits don't find it a barrel of laughs when your chosen breed is ripping them to shreds...


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Meezey said:


> It is unbelievable you continue to talk so much Faff.... Just because is dog is dog aggressive don't make it human aggressive. They don't place them in child homes because they haven't lived with children before or they are too lively for small children.


Also, in my experience, most bigger rescues have a blanket policy of not homing *any* dog to families with young children, no matter the breed. Having spent the last 3 years living with both, I sort of see their point at times!


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Delilahdog said:


> I know how the law stands but I just don't believe biting is unjustified no matter what.


I agree with you and I think dog owners who think dogs should never bite regardless of circumstances are just ignoring millions of years of evolution and the natural instincts to preserve ones life that every creature has. If a dog fears for its safety and cannot run away it will probably bite, its called fight or flight for a reason. The idea that it has no right to protect itself is just complete and utter nonsense.

That said, it is our responsibility to make sure our dogs are not put into situations where they feel that biting is an option and that goes back to proper supervision, socialisation and teaching children how to behave around dogs and visa versa..


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> The dog bit through the D-ring while trying to RIP OUT MY DOG'S THROAT!!! Got that??? And do STOP splitting hairs and down playing the sheer strength of SBTs!!!


Yet your dog had no injuries???
No need to be rude, I am genuinely confused, because unlike you I have experience in the breed...

If that SBT meant to do harm then a leather collar would not have stopped him...I am fully aware of the power of SBT's which is why I am confused..


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well if they aren't supposed to 'nanny' kids then why call them 'nanny dogs' in the first place? And yes that attack did alter my view because of all the trouble it took to get the SBT off Brochan and the fact that the dog could bite through such a thick piece of solid metal with ease.


It's metaphorical...as in they could be nannies, except that they're dogs, so obviously they can't and that would be ludicrous, well I say obviously, but I've taught metaphors to 7 yr olds and they understood the concept - I'm not sure why dog owning parents wouldn't.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> You keep missing the point, I am very aware of my breed I'm very aware of their traits the difference is unlike YOU I understand that it's not about the breed, all dogs have prey drive even your lovely pretty fragile dogs with cotton wool for teeth.


Except it is all about the breed if that breed was originally bred to be extremely violent or if the breed happens to be large and powerful. A Pomeranian is not going to put an adult in intensive care fighting for their life. Now is it? A Jack Russell or a Cocker Spaniel isn't going to be capable of killing a half-tonne horse now is it?


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Yet your dog had no injuries???
> No need to be rude, I am genuinely confused, because unlike you I have experience in the breed...
> 
> If that SBT meant to do harm then a leather collar would not have stopped him...I am fully aware of the power of SBT's which is why I am confused..


There was a large loop on his martingale collar (that was a couple of inches wide) and there were several tags attached to one of the D-rings on the loop. If it hadn't been for those then the other dog would have been able to get at his throat. Since the dog was so hell bent on getting at his throat she didn't try to bite him anywhere else.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Except it is all about the breed if that breed was originally bred to be extremely violent or if the breed happens to be large and powerful. A Pomeranian is not going to put an adult in intensive care fighting for their life. Now is it? A Jack Russell or a Cocker Spaniel isn't going to be capable of killing a half-tonne horse now is it?


Ummm Rottweilers pulled carts? Not sure how that is violent. You see to keep totally avoiding the point you have sighthounds Lurchers what were they breed for? Oh yeah hunting... Now that more violent then pulling carts.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Not quite.
> We were able to rehabilitate him because he showed excellent bite inhibition, his aggression was very predictable, and he had an inherently stable temperament. His behavior was a learned behavior from stupid handling, not from an inherently fearful or otherwise unstable temperament.
> 
> Again, not exactly. They are not *trained* not to bite. To start, they have stable temperaments. Neither is particularly fearful or reactive or shy or reticent or under confident. They both have shown very good bite inhibition.
> ...


Muzzling and education for the owners are not mutually exclusive. A muzzle for a dog who has shown themselves willing to use teeth is going to be part of that education anyway. Muzzle AND work with the owners to teach them to notice subtle signs of stress, how to regain their dog's trust etc.....[/QUOTE]

I think we are advocating the same thing.
Education through training both owners and dogs.
If a dog has been through such a programme and it is still considered to be unreliable then muzzling is a better option than pts. I don't say it isn't acceptable under any circumstances. But I would like to see animals protected from over-reaction and the type of hysteria that can so easily be whipped up against a breed or because a child is involved etc etc.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Now Im confused...are we supposed to be terrified of all large and powerful breeds now then?? Like newfies or st bernards??
(Im pretty sure that alot of giant breeds are too lazy to rip your throat out!!).


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> Now Im confused...are we supposed to be terrified of all large and powerful breeds now then?? Like newfies or st bernards??
> (Im pretty sure that alot of giant breeds are too lazy to rip your throat out!!).


Yep cept greyhound who are large powerful hunting dogs ( seemingly hunting isn't violent and carting is....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Yep cept greyhound who are large powerful hunting dogs ( seemingly hunting isn't violent and carting is....


Oh but because they haven't heard of or can't find any mention of them killing people they are OK...come on Meezey keep up


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> Now Im confused...are we supposed to be terrified of all large and powerful breeds now then?? Like newfies or st bernards??
> (Im pretty sure that alot of giant breeds are too lazy to rip your throat out!!).


As with all dogs I think its wise to treat each animal on a case by case basis. St Bernard's are often thought of as these big lovable dogs that rescue people from mountains, that is what they were bred to do. But I know one in my town that's actual quite an aggressive and borderline nasty piece of work. It has had a go at my Shepherd on two occasions, both times totally unprovoked and I don't trust him one bit. I would not tar every Bernard with the same brush but my experience with this one animal does mean I don't naturally assume the breed is as harmless as some would lead the public to believe.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Oh but because they haven't heard of or can't find any mention of them killing people they are OK...come on Meezey keep up


Out of the dozens of dog attack fatalities that have occurred over the past few years you'd have thought that a Greyhound would have been responsible for at least one of the fatalities since they are large and powerful, but no, there hasn't been a fatal Grey attack. Why is that and why is it that certain breeds ARE responsible for the majority of fatalities? Be truthful and don't try to blame other breeds.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Out of the dozens of dog attack fatalities that have occurred over the past few years you'd have thought that a Greyhound would have been responsible for at least one of the fatalities since they are large and powerful, but no, there hasn't been a fatal Grey attack. Why is that and why is it that certain breeds ARE responsible for the majority of fatalities? Be truthful and don't try to blame other breeds.


How many greyhounds are pets? You are so brainwashed my media you sound like a writer of the Daily Fail...


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well if they aren't supposed to 'nanny' kids then why call them 'nanny dogs' in the first place? And yes that attack did alter my view because of all the trouble it took to get the SBT off Brochan and the fact that the dog could bite through such a thick piece of solid metal with ease.


And finally we get to this posters real issue with sbt's........


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Out of the dozens of dog attack fatalities that have occurred over the past few years you'd have thought that a Greyhound would have been responsible for at least one of the fatalities since they are large and powerful, but no, there hasn't been a fatal Grey attack. Why is that and why is it that certain breeds ARE responsible for the majority of fatalities? Be truthful and don't try to blame other breeds.


I don't remember a fatality, but there was one a few years ago that bit off it's owners nose while she was asleep and ate it...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

32 Greyhounds registered in 2014, ,1,639 rottweilers, 4937 Staffs 70000 GSD's soooooo "why is it that certain breeds ARE responsible for the majority of fatalities? Be truthful and don't try to blame other breeds." wanna try and make and educated guess rather than your drivel?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Out of the dozens of dog attack fatalities that have occurred over the past few years you'd have thought that a Greyhound would have been responsible for at least one of the fatalities since they are large and powerful, but no, there hasn't been a fatal Grey attack. Why is that and why is it that certain breeds ARE responsible for the majority of fatalities? Be truthful and don't try to blame other breeds.


Dog bit off nose http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...--I-love-new-face-says-model-savaged-dog.html Or is that ok because the woman didn't die?

The answer to your question is popularity or lack there of...
The more popular a dog, the more you will hear of things going wrong...Greyhounds are not a popular breed, therefore their numbers are much lower and then add to the fact that Greyhounds are not used as status dogs and BINGO your stats are answered...

I know it isn't what you wanted to hear, I know you will ignore it as it does fit with your ranting...but tough, I'm fed up of going in circles with someone that refuses to listen to experienced people so that they can blindly follow their biased opinion based on hearsay :Shifty


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Oh but because they haven't heard of or can't find any mention of them killing people they are OK...come on Meezey keep up


so they have a habit of chasing and killing small furries and really cant be trusted with your other pets...oh, and they might rip your face off but greyhounds havent actually killed anybody so they are ok!! 
Given the choice between stereotyping an entire breed and going on a dog by dog basis I think Id rather go dog by dog.... (much less chance of losing a leg coz Im a total plank that way!!LOL)


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Probably because of the massive surge of popularity that happened with Staffies, a lot of people (including a lot of young people with no clue about dogs or much else) decided it was 'cool' to have one. 
It's a numbers game, nothing more.

I'm waiting for this to happen with Huskies  They seem to be the next 'in' dog.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Talking about Staffie/Pit Bull breeds, a woman I was talking to yesterday told me that a friend of hers has bred a litter of puppies from a SBT/APB cross. I thought it was illegal to breed from anything with APB in it, am I wrong?

Anyway, this 18 month old bitch developed mastitis and they have had to hand rear the pups. Earlier this week, the bitch, for no apparent reason, so they say, suddenly turned on the woman and went to attack her. She managed to get out of the way. She claims she was playing with the dog by throwing a ball. This first attack was allowed to pass, but then the bitch went to attack her again a few days later.

They decided to try to get one of the rescue centres to take the bitch, but no-one would take her, so yesterday they had her put to sleep. The whole thing sounds really bizarre. I just don't know what to make of it all.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> "fairly" i said- she lived with a dog, so more dog savvy than one who had never had interactions with dogs at all no? - *some dogs like to be hugged by their people*


Some do. But a child isn't going to use the logic that just because their dog likes to be hugged, another dog doesn't, so there's a possibility that this little girl goes around treating all dogs as if they were her own, and not seeing anything wrong with it.



Nicky10 said:


> *That depends on how the parents have taught her to interact with the dog surely*. A child raised by people who think a dog should take everything a child does to them and not even raise a lip is not going to be very dog savvy


Took the words out of my mouth, there, Nicky!

Lexie, if you want to know how un-dog-savvy children can be even around their own dogs, just check out YouTube.

Even kids brought up with dogs don't necessarily know anything more about canine BL than a child brought up in a no-pets household.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Sacremist said:


> Talking about Staffie/Pit Bull breeds, a woman I was talking to yesterday told me that a friend of hers has bred a litter of puppies from a SBT/APB cross. I thought it was illegal to breed from anything with APB in it, am I wrong?
> 
> Anyway, this 18 month old bitch developed mastitis and they have had to hand rear the pups. Earlier this week, the bitch, for no apparent reason, so they say, suddenly turned on the woman and went to attack her. She managed to get out of the way. She claims she was playing with the dog by throwing a ball. This first attack was allowed to pass, but then the bitch went to attack her again a few days later.
> 
> They decided to tried to get one of the rescue centres to take the bitch, but no-one would take her, so yesterday they had her put to sleep. The whole thing sounds really bizarre. I just don't know what to make of it all.


I think a hell of a lot more info is needed in this post before more people jump on their high horse about Bull Breeds. Can we move on.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> Talking about Staffie/Pit Bull breeds, a woman I was talking to yesterday told me that a friend of hers has bred a litter of puppies from a SBT/APB cross. I thought it was illegal to breed from anything with APB in it, am I wrong?
> 
> Anyway, this 18 month old bitch developed mastitis and they have had to hand rear the pups. Earlier this week, the bitch, for no apparent reason, so they say, suddenly turned on the woman and went to attack her. She managed to get out of the way. She claims she was playing with the dog by throwing a ball. This first attack was allowed to pass, but then the bitch went to attack her again a few days later.
> 
> They decided to try to get one of the rescue centres to take the bitch, but no-one would take her, so yesterday they had her put to sleep. The whole thing sounds really bizarre. I just don't know what to make of it all.


Umm not sure what this is meant to reflect about the breeds being discussed,we can all tell stories from 3rd 4th 5th parties.. and add any dog breed. This is mere Jackanory... I was talking to a lady the other day who had friend who had a greyhound cross who did the same


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well if they aren't supposed to 'nanny' kids then why call them 'nanny dogs' in the first place? And yes that attack did alter my view because of all the trouble it took to get the SBT off Brochan and the fact that the dog could bite through such a thick piece of solid metal with ease.


So your another one who maligns a whole breed because of the one incident you experienced?

Where I used to live there was an extremely DA Greyhound. She had bitten at least two dogs I knew of and the dog warden had been involved on both occasions. Her owners did eventually keep her on lead, after the damage had been done. However, point being, should I now except that all Greyhounds are nasty beasts that can and do cause real harm?

Let me guess, you're gonna say no. That that is not characteristic of the breed..


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

:Bookworm


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Except a fearful dog isn't necessarily aggressive now is it? A fearful dog could easily cower away from an intruder or try to evade an attack on the street. A more confident dog that can be aggressive might just wind up in a whole lot of trouble when it doesn't back down from a fight or when it misinterprets a non-aggressive person for being aggressive and reacts with aggression.
> 
> Additionally a few weeks ago a Typhoon flew over the house when Brochan and Neamhnaid were out the back and their reaction to that was to run back into the house. We also have a problem here of idiots riding motorbikes on footpaths and last week a couple of them raced along a path that is near the back garden's fence. The bikes exhausts were back firing and they were making a lot of noise. Again B and N were out the back and they got a fright and ran back into the house. So on neither of those occasions did they react aggressively towards those potential threats. They did not re-direct their fearfulness onto me through biting.
> 
> Also a few years ago I had taken Brochan out for a walk in the snow and there lots of kids throwing snowballs. Some kids deliberately threw snowballs at us and that resulted in Brochan being fearful of groups of kids for months. He would tremble at the sight and sound of groups of them and his reaction to that was to avoid them. He would freeze and want to turn in the opposite direction or would pull for home. Not once did he exhibit aggressive behaviour. I am proud of the fact that my dogs have not responded to situations like that with aggression. So that is another reason why I think that those ATTS tests are inaccurate when it comes to finding the 'safest' breeds.


When a dog is fearful, he/she has a choice of fight, flight, or freeze. Take away flight and you often get fight. A dog who freezes is still subject to duration and a freeze might develp in to fight with enough exposure or long enough exposure. 
A dog who is not fearful at all is not going to be subject to any of the above. 
Thus a fearful dog is less stable than a dog who is not fearful. I can't believe this is even being contested!
Give me a confident dog ANY day over a fearful dog in a family situation.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I wasn't going to bring this up (although I did start a thread about it at the time). When Brochan was an only dog my Mum took him out for his morning walk one day a couple of years ago. She had only just taken him out the house and was about to start walking round the corner when this SBT came flying around the corner and went straight for Brochan's throat. It was completely unprovoked and it took 5-10 minutes to get the attacking dog off Brochan. If he hadn't been wearing a thick martingale collar with its loop and tags then I shudder to think of what could have happened. While the dog didn't manage to bite Brochan she did bite clean through one of the thick metal D-rings. It turned out that dog had a long history of unprovoked attacks and it was always the same story. The dog went for the throat each and every time and she did injure several dogs. So my view of the breed changed after that as it drove home the fact that SBTs are very powerful dogs and have the potential to inflict serious injuries. On that occasion Brochan didn't even try to defend himself.
> 
> I will also tell you that I used to be one of those advocates who would defend SBTs and APBTs by saying that they were 'nanny dogs' and that all those bites and attacks were actually carried out by other dogs that looked like them. I also believed that human aggressive fighting dogs were killed. Then I started to do some research and realised that much of what I had been saying was false. I also realised how ridiculous I sounded for actually trying to pin the blame on other breeds. Couldn't possibly have been APBTs or SBTs now could it?
> 
> ...


Okay, lets talk those pesky breed traits again.
Knowing your dog's breed traits means when your bully breed matures and starts being pushy and intolerant with other dogs, you're not caught off guard, you take steps to minimize the impact. 
When your GSD shows play police tendencies, you're not caught off guard and you take steps to mitigate these tendencies. 
No one with any bull&terrier breed experience would deny that these dogs can be tricky with other dogs. That's called being cognizant of breed traits and not being caught off guard.

How a dog deals with humans is entirely different. A dog intolerant dog or even DA dog can be perfectly safe with humans. Again, breed traits are going to play an important role. Some breeds are more aloof, were bred to guard or even as war dogs. These dogs are not going to be your go-to breeds for easy going family friendly dogs (though some can be). Other breeds are what are classed independent, as in they don't need a handler t encourage or defer to. Other breeds are very handler dependent and biddable. Staffies and pitbulls fall under this latter category. So a DA staffie who is strongly bonded to his handler and well trained to defer to him is not in the same class as a DA independent breed who's not as interested in defering to his handler.

There is a lot more I could write here to discuss the differences in breeds and individual dog traits, what makes them dangerous or safe etc., but yeah....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I've not read all this thread - but surely the fact that a cockerpoo bit a child is, in itself, indicative that it is not just dogs from breeds villified by the media that are liable to bite if pestered by kids, but dogs of any breed? In other words, blame the deed, not the breed.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Give me a confident dog ANY day over a fearful dog in a family situation.


Absolutely agree with that. This is precisely why many rescues don't like homing larger nervous dogs in family environments, particularly those with young children.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> The dog bit through the D-ring while trying to RIP OUT MY DOG'S THROAT!!! Got that??? And do STOP splitting hairs and down playing the sheer strength of SBTs!!!


That must have been terrifying for you and your poor dog. There was an article in the Northern Echo on Wednesday about a 'pitbull' attacking and killing a young autistic boys pet whippet. The mother put the lad over a 2 foot wall incase he was going to be attacked so poor boy would have heard it all..Apparently the 'pitbull' had hold of it's throat for 15 minutes and it wouldn't let go even when men were hitting it with shovels and metal posts. It mentioned that it only stopped when someone ran it over with a car. Poor whippet died and the 'pitbull' was confined to a garden and then destroyed. There is a £1000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the owner of the 'pitbull'.
I feel sick thinking what that poor whippet must have gone through in the last 15 minutes of it's young life. They'd recently had a birthday party for it's 1st birthday and there were pics of it on facebook with a party hat on. It was a much loved pet and God knows what effect it will have on the young lad.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> The dog bit through the D-ring while trying to RIP OUT MY DOG'S THROAT!!! Got that??? And do STOP splitting hairs and down playing the sheer strength of SBTs!!!


 We have no evidence of that, and it could be exaggerated to tie in with your argument. However, regardless of whether it did happen or not, the dog did NOT make contact. Hardly what I would consider aggressive. A dog that wants to cause injury will, and no matter what you do the dog is likely to persevere in it's attack. It's very telling IMO that the dog in your story didn't actually cause any damage whatsoever.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> The dog bit through the D-ring while trying to RIP OUT MY DOG'S THROAT!!! Got that??? And do STOP splitting hairs and down playing the sheer strength of SBTs!!!


 So its all becomes clearer now  on the basis of one attack you seem to have made it your life mission to denigrate one breed of dog. My last rottie was walked in a muzzle and was "attacked" a few times by a JRT that would see her in the distance and come racing towards her and immediately leap up and attach himself to her throat. I couldn't get him off neither could his owner and my poor girl couldn't defend herself. Do I go around slating all JRTs as a result? No. Why? because its owner was a knob who would not take responsibility for his dog. I also know of several cats who have been killed by greyhounds and one that chased and tried to shake small dogs. Doesn't make all greyhounds bad but I think you will find just as many grey owners have their heads up their own arses as those of other breeds.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> We have no evidence of that, and it could be exaggerated to tie in with your argument. However, regardless of whether it did happen or not, the dog did NOT make contact. Hardly what I would consider aggressive. A dog that wants to cause injury will, and no matter what you do the dog is likely to persevere in it's attack. It's very telling IMO that the dog in your story didn't actually cause any damage whatsoever.


Especially when the dog being attacked is a thin skinned breed!
I am not playing down the attack, it must have been terrifying, but the fact the Greyhound walked away without injury is very telling IMO
Not that I find any dog holding another by the throat acceptable, just that the dog did not intend to cause harm...


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Meezey said:


> 32 Greyhounds registered in 2014, ,1,639 rottweilers, 4937 Staffs 70000 GSD's soooooo "why is it that certain breeds ARE responsible for the majority of fatalities? Be truthful and don't try to blame other breeds." wanna try and make and educated guess rather than your drivel?


Basic stats......


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I really do have to wonder about so called dog lovers sometimes.

I really think you're clutching at straws LurcherGreyhoundGirl to find reasons why Bull breeds are 'more' aggressive than any other breed. You do dogs in general no favour with your blatant stereotyping and misinformation. Such a shame.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> Some do. But a child isn't going to use the logic that just because their dog likes to be hugged, another dog doesn't, so there's a possibility that this little girl goes around treating all dogs as if they were her own, and not seeing anything wrong with it.
> 
> Took the words out of my mouth, there, Nicky!
> 
> ...


Yup you ate probably right, benefit of the doubt and all that. I mean to me, for a dog to put holes in a kids face the kid must have done something abhorrent, more than a hug, then again I suppose a hug IS abhorrent to some dogs


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yup you ate probably right, benefit of the doubt and all that. I mean to me, for a dog to put holes in a kids face the kid must have done something abhorrent, more than a hug, then again I suppose a hug IS abhorrent to some dogs


Some dogs not used to being hugged would find being held, particularly around the neck and head totally threatening. We would hope the dogs reaction to that would be to pull away but if the child held on tightly and that wasn't a possibility its not difficult to see why a bite may follow from a nervous dog.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Umm not sure what this is meant to reflect about the breeds being discussed,we can all tell stories from 3rd 4th 5th parties.. and add any dog breed. This is mere Jackanory... I was talking to a lady the other day who had friend who had a greyhound cross who did the same


I'm asking a question that is the purpose of the post or did you miss that? The rest is just a little history behind what I've been told. Don't be so bloody sensitive!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LynnM said:


> That must have been terrifying for you and your poor dog. There was an article in the Northern Echo on Wednesday about a 'pitbull' attacking and killing a young autistic boys pet whippet. The mother put the lad over a 2 foot wall incase he was going to be attacked so poor boy would have heard it all..Apparently the 'pitbull' had hold of it's throat for 15 minutes and it wouldn't let go even when men were hitting it with shovels and metal posts. It mentioned that it only stopped when someone ran it over with a car. Poor whippet died and the 'pitbull' was confined to a garden and then destroyed. There is a £1000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the owner of the 'pitbull'.
> I feel sick thinking what that poor whippet must have gone through in the last 15 minutes of it's young life. They'd recently had a birthday party for it's 1st birthday and there were pics of it on facebook with a party hat on. It was a much loved pet and God knows what effect it will have on the young lad.


http://m.derbytelegraph.co.uk/BREAK...on-frise-dog/story-20785874-detail/story.html

Maybe the same effect as this child who's dog was killed by a greyhound... Again you will find stories in the press of many breeds....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> I'm asking a question that is the purpose of the post or did you miss that? The rest is just a little history behind what I've been told. Don't be so bloody sensitive!


Pot kettle black me thinks


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well if they aren't supposed to 'nanny' kids then why call them 'nanny dogs' in the first place? And yes that attack did alter my view because of all the trouble it took to get the SBT off Brochan and the fact that the dog could bite through such a thick piece of solid metal with ease.


The term 'Nanny Dogs' comes from the fact that the Staffy, in the main, is a breed which loves to nurture. They tend to make wonderful mothers.

The description doesn't mean that the Kennel Club wholeheartedly recommend them as unpaid Childminders. That would be just as ridiculous as it sounds, or looks when written down by somebody like you.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well if they aren't supposed to 'nanny' kids then why call them 'nanny dogs' in the first place? And yes that attack did alter my view because of all the trouble it took to get the SBT off Brochan and the fact that the dog could bite through such a thick piece of solid metal with ease.


Calling a dog a nanny dog is no different than calling a dog biddable, affable, handler dependent, handler independent, play police, drivey dog, etc., etc. It's a description of a personality type. Some dogs really like kids, they seek them out, enjoy interacting with them, and it just so happens that these dogs tend to be staffies and pit bulls. And boxers, boxers love kids too, if they don't squash them or trample them first. 



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Except it is all about the breed if that breed was originally bred to be extremely violent or if the breed happens to be large and powerful. A Pomeranian is not going to put an adult in intensive care fighting for their life. Now is it? A Jack Russell or a Cocker Spaniel isn't going to be capable of killing a half-tonne horse now is it?


 I have had great danes for many years, they are large, powerful dogs. Our bitch kills rabbits with one bite, she also has a gentle enough mouth to gently remove a bandaid off a child. Which she does because she's a nurse dog (another one of those descriptive terms) who takes it upon herself to tend to any wounds any dog or human in the family has). 
Calling a dog dangerous because of their power makes as much sense as calling a human dangerous because of their power. Temperament matters too.
Pit bulls were never bred to be violent. By those standards, you would have to say greyhounds were also bred to be violent, as they were bred to hunt and kill as opposed to breeds who were bred to point, herd, retrieve....



Spellweaver said:


> I've not read all this thread - but surely the fact that a cockerpoo bit a child is, in itself, indicative that it is not just dogs from breeds villified by the media that are liable to bite if pestered by kids, but dogs of any breed? In other words, blame the deed, not the breed.


Ah so much sense in just 3 lines. Here I am typing novels and all that really needs to be said is right here


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Pot kettle black me thinks


Yeah you would


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Sorry it posted on the wrong topic for some reason


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LynnM said:


> That must have been terrifying for you and your poor dog. There was an article in the Northern Echo on Wednesday about a 'pitbull' attacking and killing a young autistic boys pet whippet. The mother put the lad over a 2 foot wall incase he was going to be attacked so poor boy would have heard it all..Apparently the 'pitbull' had hold of it's throat for 15 minutes and it wouldn't let go even when men were hitting it with shovels and metal posts. It mentioned that it only stopped when someone ran it over with a car. Poor whippet died and the 'pitbull' was confined to a garden and then destroyed. There is a £1000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the owner of the 'pitbull'.
> I feel sick thinking what that poor whippet must have gone through in the last 15 minutes of it's young life. They'd recently had a birthday party for it's 1st birthday and there were pics of it on facebook with a party hat on. It was a much loved pet and God knows what effect it will have on the young lad.


I wonder where this idea that to get a dog to let go you have to beat them over the head comes from?
In the many dog fights I've broken up, I always prefer to break up fights where one dog has latched on to another. So much easier than trying to separate two 'knife fighters'. Just hold both dogs still, if you have a break stick or a plastic tent stake, use it, if not, just wait for the re-grip (it will come) and get the dog off with the re-grip. Hitting a dog just makes them grip harder.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> It's no wonder your breeds are so often scorned upon when the very people who have them can't even be truthful about the very real capabilities of their breeds! All you do is disregard any evidence of certain breeds being more aggressive than others and even try to blame attacks on other breeds. That's real responsibility right there - not!


I've lost count of the amount of times I've asked for this evidence to be provided. You seem unable to do so. Your opinion is not evidence.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I wonder where this idea that to get a dog to let go you have to beat them over the head .


I think its called sheer blinding panic...


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I wonder where this idea that to get a dog to let go you have to beat them over the head comes from?
> In the many dog fights I've broken up, I always prefer to break up fights where one dog has latched on to another. So much easier than trying to separate two 'knife fighters'. Just hold both dogs still, if you have a break stick or a plastic tent stake, use it, if not, just wait for the re-grip (it will come) and get the dog off with the re-grip. Hitting a dog just makes them grip harder.


Yes, you might know this but that poor terrified woman was running round knocking on doors for someone to help her dog. Not sure I'd want to be at the sharp end of a 'pitbull' who was hell bent on killing another dog. The men probably didn't know what to do either but were trying their damn hardest to save the poor whippet and probably kill the pitbull. Anyone who isn't in to dogs probably wouldn't know this and they were caught up in the heat of the moment and did what they could to help.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I wonder where this idea that to get a dog to let go you have to beat them over the head comes from?
> In the many dog fights I've broken up, I always prefer to break up fights where one dog has latched on to another. So much easier than trying to separate two 'knife fighters'. Just hold both dogs still, if you have a break stick or a plastic tent stake, use it, if not, just wait for the re-grip (it will come) and get the dog off with the re-grip. Hitting a dog just makes them grip harder.


There is an old wives' tale that to make a bull terrier let go you have to erm, insert a digit up the anus 
Wouldn't like to try it myself :Finger


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LynnM said:


> Yes, you might know this but that poor terrified woman was running round knocking on doors for someone to help her dog. Not sure I'd want to be at the sharp end of a 'pitbull' who was hell bent on killing another dog. The men probably didn't know what to do either but were trying their damn hardest to save the poor whippet and probably kill the pitbull. Anyone who isn't in to dogs probably wouldn't know this and they were caught up in the heat of the moment and did what they could to help.


Which is where education comes in. I'm of the mind that part of being a responsible pit bull owner is knowing how to use a breakstick, many would disagree with me thinking it makes the breed look bad. It's like the muzzle discussion. I don't see anything wrong with teaching owners how to safely muzzle their dogs and introduce it pleasantly. Others think it makes the dog look bad...
As for the 'sharp end' of a pit bull *sigh*. All dogs have sharp ends. Many breeds were bred to kill. Sighthounds were bred to kill prey, terriers were bred to kill rats (ever been on the sharp end of a JRT bent on getting at prey?), there are even breeds bred to attack humans *gasp*


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Which is where education comes in. I'm of the mind that part of being a responsible pit bull owner is knowing how to use a breakstick, many would disagree with me thinking it makes the breed look bad. It's like the muzzle discussion. I don't see anything wrong with teaching owners how to safely muzzle their dogs and introduce it pleasantly. Others think it makes the dog look bad...
> As for the 'sharp end' of a pit bull *sigh*. All dogs have sharp ends. Many breeds were bred to kill. Sighthounds were bred to kill prey, terriers were bred to kill rats (ever been on the sharp end of a JRT bent on getting at prey?), there are even breeds bred to attack humans *gasp*


I'd rather be on the wrong side of a pitbull than a fila that's for sure. The difference is the good jrt owners know they're reactive and can be more likely to bite than many, the good pitbull people admit that yes they have powerful dogs who CAN bite. The my breed would never do any harm people are the ones that do more damage.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

People also don't take into account that by pulling an attacking dog off another can cause even more serious harm as the attacking dog has it's grip firmly in place and is then likely to tear the skin. The best approach is as Ouesi said, either holding and waiting for the dog to loosen it's grip which it will do eventually, or another good method I've heard of ( although not had to use ) is to twist the attacking dog's collar so it's forced to let go to gasp for a breath. That of course is if you're brave enough to intervene and get that close. Granted, both options are not as easy as it's made to sound with a panicked and struggling victim dog underneath. And panic does play a huge part in how people instinctively act too. I'm a very laid back person and have never hesitated to get involved in a scrap myself while remaining very level headed and rational about the whole situation. But it's understandable why people do panic and feel unable to help at the time.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Dogloverlou said:


> The best approach is as Ouesi said, either holding and waiting for the dog to loosen it's grip which it will do eventually.


Thats what I did with my boys when they were fighting. But seeing as how they were tiny and I was alone I actually grabbed a handful of dog and held them both up in the air whilst I waited for someone to release!:Jawdrop
I certainly wouldnt want to try and seperate big dogs though, Im too chicken for that!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LynnM said:


> Not sure I'd want to be at the sharp end of a 'pitbull' who was hell bent on killing another dog.


I utterly love how the greyhound killing the dog in front of its young owner is completely ignored.

I see pitbulls most weekends a fair few if of them in quite a small space rarely a grumble, 1000's of these bull types converge most weekends along with the other devil dog types and have rarely seen any of these "dangerous dogs" have pops at each other certainly never seen any "hell bent " on killing other dogs...nor are the 1000's of people there ever savaged!! Have Dogo's there too.. Fair few breeds that are banned in the UK and strangely there isn't an apocalypse each week!!


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Which is where education comes in. I'm of the mind that part of being a responsible pit bull owner is knowing how to use a breakstick, many would disagree with me thinking it makes the breed look bad. It's like the muzzle discussion. I don't see anything wrong with teaching owners how to safely muzzle their dogs and introduce it pleasantly. Others think it makes the dog look bad...
> As for the 'sharp end' of a pit bull *sigh*. All dogs have sharp ends. Many breeds were bred to kill. Sighthounds were bred to kill prey, terriers were bred to kill rats (ever been on the sharp end of a JRT bent on getting at prey?), there are even breeds bred to attack humans *gasp*


Yes I am well aware that all dogs have sharp ends but in this instance I was talking about the pitbull which had the poor whippet by the throat, not pitbulls in general and not any other dog *sigh*. As for the owner, well the cowardly b*****d did a runner. And yes I am also aware that there are breeds bred to attack humans *gasp*.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> Can we keep this in context?
> A dog has been accused of attacking a child. No one witnessed what happened or can say whether there were any mitigating circumstances. This dog may be destined to wear a muzzle every time it walks out the front door through no fault of its own but due to the crass ignorance of all human parties concerned. That bothers me because regardless of whether the muzzle 'hurts' the dog unfortunately it will affect the attitudes of others toward it, probably completely unnecessarily.
> I don't know you or your dog. I am not judging you because I have no idea of your circumstances.
> I am not responsible for how everyone else thinks I just know it is how people generally react and I think it is sad for this dog to be in this position.
> Also when I said its card is marked I meant in other ways too. From now on it will be permitted far less liberty in all sorts of ways. You will probably say better safe than sorry and unfortunately I can't argue with that but heck, you must see this dog is just as likely a victim not an aggressor?


Dogs when conditioned to wear a muzzle do NOT care about them, the muzzle means good things so no the dog is not a victim, there is such a stigma against muzzles which needs to stop, ALL my dogs are and will be trained to wear a muzzle whether they have shown the need to wear one or not, it's not a bloody death sentence stop being so dramatic


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LynnM said:


> Yes I am well aware that all dogs have sharp ends but in this instance I was talking about the pitbull which had the poor whippet by the throat, not pitbulls in general and not any other dog *sigh*. As for the owner, well the cowardly b*****d did a runner. And yes I am also aware that there are breeds bred to attack humans *gasp*.


Your words:


LynnM said:


> Not sure I'd want to be at the sharp end of a 'pitbull' who was hell bent on killing another dog.


Sounds pretty general to me...

In any case, sounds like a case of an irresponsible owner. I'm all for prosecuting irresponsible owners and stripping them of their rights to own dogs. Don't see how demonizing an entire breed does anything useful. Deal with each individual case. There are few enough of them that they can be dealt with individually. And owners who fail to control their dogs should be held responsible for their behavior.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I used to own male PRTs who loathed the sight of each other. They could not be in the same room, ever. They didn't need a reason to fight, there were no 'flashpoints' or triggers, if they saw each other, they would attack and they meant business. They were out to kill each other. They only managed to get into a fight on a few occasions, human error, but the injuries they could inflict were awful. 

The only way to split them up was to twist their collars until they had to let go and then split them up immediately. If you try and pull fighting dogs apart, it's going to cause tear wounds and, if you try hitting one or both, it spurs them on.

I do think a breakstick is the best way to make a bigger dog let go, but could cause damage in the jaw of a smaller one.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Meezey said:


> I utterly love how the greyhound killing the dog in front of its young owner is completely ignored.
> 
> I see pitbulls most weekends a fair few if of them in quite a small space rarely a grumble, 1000's of these bull types converge most weekends along with the other devil dog types and have rarely seen any of these "dangerous dogs" have pops at each other certainly never seen any "hell bent " on killing other dogs...


Yes but this particular one was, probably owned by some idiot who needed it for a penis extension. Police said it had been starved but don't think that can be used as an excuse. I used to know one years ago, just before they became a banned breed, she was called Kim and was a beautiful gentle dog and was good friends with the Cavalier I had at the time. She wasn't hell bent on killing another dog but the one I mentioned earlier obviously was. I am not attacking the breed anymore than I am attacking Rottweillers, When I used to live in Norwich I met a fella who was moving to the area and he was having a wander round and he stopped to talk to me, he said he had a Rottie and I laughed and said "My dog Ben(the same Cavalier) would probably hate her as he was a bit frightened of big dogs". About 2 weeks later I met him again, this time he had his dog with him and it was love at first sight for Ben. They adored each other and she had the sweetest nature although she would insist on sitting on your feet and then leaning against your legs and knocking you off balance.
Years later she got glaucoma and became blind but she was still walked off lead in the field and Ben would see her in the distance and race up to say hello so then she knew I was there too and I used to call her and she'd run with her head on one side, listening to where my voice was coming from. She always found me in seconds.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> How many greyhounds are pets? You are so brainwashed my media you sound like a writer of the Daily Fail...


I have not been brainwashed by the media. I was, however, gulled into believing a lot of the stuff spouted by SBT and APBT advocates who simply would not have a single negative thing said about their breeds. I even came across a behaviourist's site that claimed that it must be Staffie mixes that are to blame for all the attacks. That it must be the other breeds in the mixes that made them attack. How incredibly ignorant and narrow minded is that? You say that journalists, animal control officers, etc cannot correctly identify the breeds involved in attacks. Well that may be true for attacks on the street, but when it comes to attacks in the home (where the majority of attacks take place) then don't you think the people who have the dogs know what breed of dogs they have got or are you going to try and say that they are ignorant too?

Additionally, Greyhounds are becoming more and more popular as pets. I recently found out that they are the most popular breed in several parts of the UK and Greyhound adoption figures are quite high.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

pogo said:


> Dogs when conditioned to wear a muzzle do NOT care about them, the muzzle means good things so no the dog is not a victim, there is such a stigma against muzzles which needs to stop, ALL my dogs are and will be trained to wear a muzzle whether they have shown the need to wear one or not, it's not a bloody death sentence stop being so dramatic


Did you even read my post? Or any of the others I've put up?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> It's no wonder your breeds are so often scorned upon when the very people who have them can't even be truthful about the very real capabilities of their breeds! All you do is disregard any evidence of certain breeds being more aggressive than others and even try to blame attacks on other breeds. That's real responsibility right there - not!





Goblin said:


> I've lost count of the amount of times I've asked for this evidence to be provided. You seem unable to do so. Your opinion is not evidence.


Goblin, I hope you're not holding your breath 
The evidence you're asking for would require a definition of aggression, an understanding of what aggression is, a thorough understanding of breeds, breed traits, heritable traits vs. learned behavior etc., etc. Ain't gonna happen 

Our great danes are giant dogs, big, powerful, bred to hunt and guard. I have no delusions about what they are capable of. Nor am I deluded enough to think they're going to go Cujo on us just because they can....


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> Did you even read my post? Or any of the others I've put up?


Yep I did and I still think you are being bloody dramatic, muzzling a dog isn't the end of the world.

Chance has shown he will use his teeth and bite people and will so very quickly, he's bitten in the past and he damn well means it, so why shouldn't the dog in the op be muzzled the same?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have not been brainwashed by the media. I was, however, gulled into believing a lot of the stuff spouted by SBT and APBT advocates who simply would not have a single negative thing said about their breeds. I even came across a behaviourist's site that claimed that it must be Staffie mixes that are to blame for all the attacks. That it must be the other breeds in the mixes that made them attack. How incredibly ignorant and narrow minded is that? You say that journalists, animal control officers, etc cannot correctly identify the breeds involved in attacks. Well that may be true for attacks on the street, but when it comes to attacks in the home (where the majority of attacks take place) then don't you think the people who have the dogs know what breed of dogs they have got or are you going to try and say that they are ignorant too?
> 
> Additionally, Greyhounds are becoming more and more popular as pets. I recently found out that they are the most popular breed in several parts of the UK and Greyhound adoption figures are quite high.


Assuming that your breed would never attack be it staffy, greyhound or chihuahua is wrong. Those pitbull advocates do a lot of damage to the breed. But pitbulls and staffies as a general rule adore people and children.

There was one story where a dog escaped while it was in the cabin of a plane and bit. It was initially reported as a pitbull it was a manchester terrier.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have not been brainwashed by the media. I was, however, gulled into believing a lot of the stuff spouted by SBT and APBT advocates who simply would not have a single negative thing said about their breeds. I even came across a behaviourist's site that claimed that it must be Staffie mixes that are to blame for all the attacks. That it must be the other breeds in the mixes that made them attack. How incredibly ignorant and narrow minded is that? You say that journalists, animal control officers, etc cannot correctly identify the breeds involved in attacks. Well that may be true for attacks on the street, but when it comes to attacks in the home (where the majority of attacks take place) then don't you think the people who have the dogs know what breed of dogs they have got or are you going to try and say that they are ignorant too?
> 
> Additionally, Greyhounds are becoming more and more popular as pets. I recently found out that they are the most popular breed in several parts of the UK and Greyhound adoption figures are quite high.


But no one is denying a Bull breed can be aggressive. We just have the common sense and understanding that it's not because the breed as a whole is dangerous and anymore aggressive than any other breeds. Sadly idiot owners, as with any breed of dog, cause these stigmas that attach to certain breeds. Sadly people like you can't see that


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Dog bit off nose http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...--I-love-new-face-says-model-savaged-dog.html Or is that ok because the woman didn't die?
> 
> The answer to your question is popularity or lack there of...
> The more popular a dog, the more you will hear of things going wrong...Greyhounds are not a popular breed, therefore their numbers are much lower and then add to the fact that Greyhounds are not used as status dogs and BINGO your stats are answered...
> ...


Well they are becoming very popular as pets and that does not negate the fact that there are thousands of Greys in the country and all of them require daily handling. Yet you don't hear about kennel hands, trainers and adopters being mauled to death by them. Do you?


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well they are becoming very popular as pets and that does not negate the fact that there are thousands of Greys in the country and all of them require daily handling. Yet you don't hear about kennel hands, trainers and adopters being mauled to death by them. Do you?


Oh for god sake if the sbt meant damage he bloody well would have done, you don't see me going round spouting off that no lab should be trusted when one ripped a huge whole in Harvey's head now do you?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well they are becoming very popular as pets and that does not negate the fact that there are thousands of Greys in the country and all of them require daily handling. Yet you don't hear about kennel hands, trainers and adopters being mauled to death by them. Do you?


So that means they're incapable of doing so, or that it's never happened? If you believe that then you're as deluded as all these bull breed advocates you accuse of the very same thing


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Some do. But a child isn't going to use the logic that just because their dog likes to be hugged, another dog doesn't, so there's a possibility that this little girl goes around treating all dogs as if they were her own, and not seeing anything wrong with it.
> 
> Took the words out of my mouth, there, Nicky!
> 
> ...


I actually think they can be worse because they have (possibly misplaced) confidence in their dog handling abilities.

Whilst we're generalizing based on personal experience, the only time I've had to intervene with Benji was when a couple of kids appeared out of nowhere and lunged at him. He backed off behind my legs and they tried to follow. I said he didn't want to say hello so they should leave him be but then their dad piped up, "it's okay, we've got a GSD at home. That little thing won't bovver 'em!" I said it was more a case of them bothering him and moved on. If the adults have that kind of attitude, though, it's no wonder the kids don't know any better.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

pogo said:


> Yep I did and I still think you are being bloody dramatic, muzzling a dog isn't the end of the world.
> 
> Chance has shown he will use his teeth and bite people and will so very quickly, he's bitten in the past and he damn well means it, so why shouldn't the dog in the op be muzzled the same?


I may be dramatic but you are boring. I have covered this ground and if you had read all my posts you would know what my response to this is. Bye bye


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I may be dramatic but you are boring. I have covered this ground and if you had read all my posts you would know what my response to this is. Bye bye


And you are a dramatic little child, I read your response and its utter shit. Bye.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

pogo said:


> And you are a dramatic little child, I read your response and its utter shit. Bye.


:Mooning


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Your words:
> 
> Sounds pretty general to me...
> 
> In any case, sounds like a case of an irresponsible owner. I'm all for prosecuting irresponsible owners and stripping them of their rights to own dogs. Don't see how demonizing an entire breed does anything useful. Deal with each individual case. There are few enough of them that they can be dealt with individually. And owners who fail to control their dogs should be held responsible for their behavior.


.[/QUOTE]

No it's not pretty general, I mentioned about the pitbull attacking the whippet (happened about 10 miles from where I live) and the men hitting it with shovels and you replied that they should have used a breakstick so I then replied that like me they probably didn't want to be at the sharp end of a pitbull who was hell bent on killing another dog. I don't know the pitbulls name so I can hardly refer to it as George or whatever can I?

And I am NOT demonizing a whole breed just this particular bleedin' pitbull. Aarrgghh!! Where's the emoticon for pulling my hair out.

Anyway it's no different to people generalising that little dogs are snappy and yappy. I take offence to that as my dogs have never snapped even when provoked by unruly dogs and they do not yap either, in fact they have never so much as growled at another dog so I can see where owners of bull breeds are coming from when they get defensive when their breed is generalised.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have not been brainwashed by the media. I was, however, gulled into believing a lot of the stuff spouted by SBT and APBT advocates who simply would not have a single negative thing said about their breeds. I even came across a behaviourist's site that claimed that it must be Staffie mixes that are to blame for all the attacks. That it must be the other breeds in the mixes that made them attack. How incredibly ignorant and narrow minded is that? You say that journalists, animal control officers, etc cannot correctly identify the breeds involved in attacks. Well that may be true for attacks on the street, but when it comes to attacks in the home (where the majority of attacks take place) then don't you think the people who have the dogs know what breed of dogs they have got or are you going to try and say that they are ignorant too?
> 
> Additionally, Greyhounds are becoming more and more popular as pets. I recently found out that they are the most popular breed in several parts of the UK and Greyhound adoption figures are quite high.


What people don't like is people like you putting a death wish on an entire breed because of a bad experience you had! You argued black was blue on here not to long ago about a biter being PTS you argued about how we as humans thought we were so much better than dogs and why should we have more rights than them, but it seems that was all bullshit... Equal right unless YOU deem them dangerous! You constantly ignore anything said about your chosen breed you are a narrow minded hypocrite! Thirty two greyhounds registered opposed to over 4000 SBT the breed is the 3rd most popular breed in the UK.

Now when YOUR wonderful breed becomes more popular and start killing more small dogs, cats and furries and the press latch on something to sell more copy I hope you personally are on the receiving end or the pure ignorance you are showing! You are not a dog lover! Your also the only one here showing their ignorance and lack of knowledge about breed traits you seem to want to ignore what your chosen breed is capable of, I am not, nor are most of the owners of dogs you judge...


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> :Mooning


:Yawn


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well they are becoming very popular as pets and that does not negate the fact that there are thousands of Greys in the country and all of them require daily handling. Yet you don't hear about kennel hands, trainers and adopters being mauled to death by them. Do you?


Did you know that twice as many people die from falling in the bath tub as from dog bites?? Does this mean that you never get in the bath again or you realiese that a bath is a safe thing as long as you are sensible and take precautions againest injuring yourself??


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> Did you know that twice as many people die from falling in the bath tub as from dog bites?? Does this mean that you never get in the bath again or you realiese that a bath is a safe thing as long as you are sensible and take precautions againest injuring yourself??


I wonder if a particular make of bath is more prevalent in these accidents than others?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

If you've done some "research", you've probably read that Greyhounds make wonderful family pets. *That's true, but not all Greyhounds react equally well to specific home situations such as cats, other small animals, or small children. *More often than not, a *Greyhound, due to its natural instinct to hunt and chase, won't peacefully co-exist with cats, rabbits, ferrets, hamsters and such (although there are always exceptions!) That's why we cat-test every Greyhound that enters our adoption program.
It is important that when introducing any canine into a home, where small children and babies are present, that special care is taken - there is no exception with a greyhound. Both children and dog should be taught to be calm and gentle and to learn to respect one and other. *

Dogs offer wonderful companionship for children and often give them a sense of responsibility and security, however children can sometimes tease and be cruel to dogs and encourage the types of behaviour you want to avoid (e.g. jumping up, nipping and begging). If certain dog behaviour is treated inconsistently by individual family members, it will be difficult for your dog to understand what the desired behaviour should be. Likewise, dogs which have had negative or cruel experiences with children can grow up to treat children with caution. Consequently, it is important for dogs to have as many positive experiences with children as possible and that children, as well as adults, are educated in good training
and behavioural practices.

*You should always exercise caution during initial introductions with children*. The best way to introduce dogs to children is to ask the children to put a dog treat on the palm of their hand with their fingers close together and let the dog approach them to retrieve the titbit. Children should hold their hand beneath the dog's mouth level and keep it still. They should
be encouraged to stroke or scratch a dog under the chin, around the throat or chest rather than patting them on the head. Patting on the head obstructs a dogs sense organs and can be misconstrued as an act of aggression.

Another important introduction is if you become pregnant and will be bringing a new baby home. Before your new born baby is due to come home, take home a piece of the babies clothing for the dog to sniff, do not just stick it under his nose but ask him to smell from a distance and then come closer. This will allow the dog to find the new scent acceptable, the
dog should be outside when the baby comes and then invited into the home to meet the baby from a distance then little by little allow the dog to come closer. This way the dog will know that this is the babies house, not the dogs.

For children in the house it is a good idea to set up some house rules and, if they are old enough, get the children involved in coming up with some new rules themselves. The rules don't just have to be for the children to follow as you maybe have some rules that you wish your new dog to follow too. If there are rules that the new dog has to follow it is important that everyone in the family knows and keeps to the rules in order for the dog to understand what is expected of it. For example, you should make up a rule that the children are not allowed near or in the dogs bed, and maybe you could apply this rule vice versa too and say that your new dog is now allowed in the children's bedrooms. This helps the child understand that the dog needs its space and that the dog should also respect their space. Making up rules together as a family help the children understand how important looking after their new pet is, and because they have been involved in the process they will be more likely to follow them! If you're children are too young to understand and help make up rules, it is still important to follow through with the rules so the child grows up knowing what is expected of them and what the correct way to treat a dog is.

Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary believes the following is very important to remember when
introducing dogs and children:
- Children should not hug or cuddle dogs that have not been fully socialised and we ask for you to please ensure children and dog interactions are closely monitored.
*
- Greyhounds are extremely tolerant, however when a child mistreats a dog, either the dog will become fed up and will defend itself, or he/she will become afraid of the child. *

- NEVER let a young child walk your hound alone without adult supervision.

- Your greyhound is not a toy - it deserves respect.

- LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE! No one - human or canine - enjoys being pestered or pounced on while they are sleeping, and the greyhound is no exception. Your greyhound will let you know when he/she wants to wake up and play.

- *teach the children to call on the greyhound instead of approaching him/her. it is less threatening for the greyhound if he/she approaches for cuddles instead of being ambushed!thout being followed by anyone.*

- Hugging or clinging to the greyhound can be scary. Teach your children how to gently pet your dog while talking to it.

- Tails and ears are private things, not play things.

- If a child is persistent in pestering the dog, remove either the dog or the child from the area for a while. Give your new pet a chance to be quiet and rest, away from disturbances.

- *Most children approach dogs head-on with all good intentions of hugging the dog. Such intense body language and direct eye contact are very threatening to all dogs. *

- Teach your children the importance of closing doors and outside gates - you do not want your greyhound to escape!

Just remember these rules should work both ways! If your child is being unwillingly pestered by your dog, to play or be petted, your dog should be given the 'bed' command so he/she knows that it is not welcome to play at the moment. If you make up some house rules for children, dogs and adults and these rules are consistently followed, they will become second nature for everyone. You will have a much happier household where everyone will know their place, what is expected of them and how to treat and respect each other.

If you have any problems, or concerns please do not hesitate to contact Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary as we are always happy to help.

*Babies and Children*
It is essential that when introducing a canin*e into a home where babies and small children are present, special care is taken. There is no exception with a greyhound. Children and babies should never be left unattended with the dog.*
Children must be educated to be calm and gentle with the dog and have respect for its needs and its bed. An escape place is an excellent idea, so that when the dog has had enough, it can retreat to its own space.

*Greyhounds are people-orientated, gentle, placid and docile, but all breeds have a breaking point when taunted by children.*

Please teach children respect for your dog and soon they will be the best of friends. Never let a child disturb a greyhound when it is asleep.

Strange Greyhound rescue think care should be taken with greyhounds like every other breed..


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

cbcdesign said:


> I wonder if a particular make of bath is more prevalent in these accidents than others?


 beware the 'devil bath' with its viscious claw feet and locking faucets!! :Hilarious


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Just for comparison, sharks kill maybe a handful of people a year, the species that bites the most is a placid bottom dweller that people annoy while it's asleep. But the reports almost always show great whites which make up a tiny percentage of attacks. Cows kill far more people every year. But when do you hear about that happening? Because one makes for more sensational headlines than the other.

Same with dogs you rarely hear of a savage lab mauling but if it's the demon dog of the week, look at all the reports they suddenly did on every injury done by an akita, they're all over it.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have not been brainwashed by the media. I was, however, gulled into believing a lot of the stuff spouted by SBT and APBT advocates who simply would not have a single negative thing said about their breeds. I even came across a behaviourist's site that claimed that it must be Staffie mixes that are to blame for all the attacks. That it must be the other breeds in the mixes that made them attack. How incredibly ignorant and narrow minded is that? You say that journalists, animal control officers, etc cannot correctly identify the breeds involved in attacks. Well that may be true for attacks on the street, but when it comes to attacks in the home (where the majority of attacks take place) then don't you think the people who have the dogs know what breed of dogs they have got or are you going to try and say that they are ignorant too?
> 
> *Dear god woman...you are either being intentionally obstinate, or you need to take a step back and actually read objectively what has been posted...you are sounding as crazy!!*
> 
> Additionally, Greyhounds are becoming more and more popular as pets. I recently found out that they are the most popular breed in several parts of the UK and Greyhound adoption figures are quite high.


Yes they are, as are the reported cases of them killing small dogs and cats...You don't think there could be a link do you? :Wideyed


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

catz4m8z said:


> beware the 'devil bath' with its viscious claw feet and locking faucets!! :Hilarious


LOL! Posts like this make me miss the rep function. This one is worthy


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Nice article I read earlier

http://raythevicktorydog.com/2015/04/30/dear-pit-bull-haters/


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I think the thing that makes this conversation a battle field is the fact that there is *miscommunication*...Users pointing out the ability of a bully breed are seeing users pointing out typical people-oriented traits of the same breed as "denying the ability", and users talking about the "friendly" breed trait are seeing the opposing views as denying the breed trait all together (guilty)...That's what it seems like to me from reading back over this thread, anyway. I don't think anybody is denying that a SBT can kill another dog, or denying that they can bite people, or saying that APBTs are unable to break through the metaphorical force field around humans with their teeth.

Just pointing out that a TYPICAL trait of the breed/s is a strong tolerance and affiliation to people/children. I don't think anybody is saying that the dog can't bite and that individual dogs won't. Just like the majority of retrievers will retrieve, the majority of Staffies will like and respond well to positive attention from people. It's just a breed trait...

Just seems to me like some people are accidentally reading what they want/expect to read instead of what's been written, so miscommunication. I had to take a seat for a second as I was starting to read posts wrong.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

[QUOTE="dogsaintdumb, post: 1064153503, member: 1423253"

Just pointing out that a TYPICAL trait of the breed/s is a strong tolerance and affiliation to people/children. I don't think anybody is saying that the dog can't bite and that individual dogs won't. Just like the majority of retrievers will retrieve, the majority of Staffies will like and respond well to positive attention from people. It's just a breed trait...
.[/QUOTE]

Myself and others have said that (in our own words) over and over again in this thread and countless others...it's not miscommunication when someone choose to blatantly ignore what is said as it doesn't fit with your agenda


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> Nice article I read earlier
> 
> http://raythevicktorydog.com/2015/04/30/dear-pit-bull-haters/


Just wonderful....


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

I’m just gonna throw this one out there.

Greyhounds are wonderful dogs. A good friend of mine is one of the top GH breeders in this country, my vet is one of the top GH vets in the country and works closely with one of the more recognized GH rescues. I have more than a passing familiarity with the breed. 
They are very gentle, sweet dogs, who bond closely with their humans. The ones I know are full of personality, funny, fun dogs. 

Pit bull types, APBTs, AmStaffs and staffies are also great dogs. I have a lot of familiarity with these breeds too 
The all American pitbull type was bred to be a Jack of all trades. Yes they fought (sometimes), but they also helped around the farm (as in expected not to snack on the livestock), they carted, they kept predators away, they played with the kids, kept the family company at night... They were bred to be adaptable and incredibly biddable. And still are one of the most biddable breeds you’ll find out there. 

There really isn’t much to compare between the two breeds. Where pit bulls and similar dogs are a very biddable, all purpose dog who is designed both in structure and temperament to do just about anything, a GH is much more specific in what they’re bred to do. You can just look at a GH and see they’re bred to run, and run fast. Not at all an all-purpose dog. 

It’s not a one is better and one is worse, they’re just very different. 

And that’s really the whole point here. Knowing your breed, having realistic expectation for that breed and not being caught off guard by common breed traits, respecting the breed for what it is, and picking the right breed for what your purposes are, and what you are realistically able to handle.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I could just smush Ray's face between my hands and kiss his little nose forever.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Snoringbear said:


> Nice article I read earlier
> 
> http://raythevicktorydog.com/2015/04/30/dear-pit-bull-haters/


Love it. 
As the Vicktory dogs age it's really becoming clear what this breed really is all about. I really urge people who are on the fence about these "fighting dogs" to look up the multiple stories and reports about these dogs. They really did change the nature of rescue, taught us so much about behavior and rehabilitation, and the amazing resilience of this breed.
BadRap (that LurcherGreyoundGirl keeps bringing up) was one of the rescues that were hugely instrumental in working with these dogs, they deserve a ton of credit for what they accomplished.



dogsaintdumb said:


> Just seems to me like some people are accidentally reading what they want/expect to read instead of what's been written, so miscommunication. I had to take a seat for a second as I was starting to read posts wrong.


That's a kind way of putting it...
I think *some* people (one person) is just a troll who only shows up in these discussions to push an unsubstantiated, off the wall, unhelpful agenda that doesn't do dogs or dog lovers any good.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> That's a kind way of putting it...


Yeah, it took a while for me to word. 

An opinion can't be wrong or right, but when people try to bring facts into their opinions and the facts aren't corresponding with their opinions, it kind of ruins the whole "free speech" thing that I, and most people, want everybody to be entitled to. It's like, "why are we allowing free speech if it's all crap" kind of thing...For me, anyway. When I see someone trying to give their opinion and then basing it on "fact" that isn't fact, it just kind of makes me smile.

It's not a myth that breed traits exist, it's not a myth that the majority of bully-breeds have a "family oriented" breed trait, and it's not a myth that if it has teeth, it can bite regardless of what traits the dog should be exhibiting.

I don't get why that's trying to be argued.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Love it.
> As the Vicktory dogs age it's really becoming clear what this breed really is all about. I really urge people who are on the fence about these "fighting dogs" to look up the multiple stories and reports about these dogs. They really did change the nature of rescue, taught us so much about behavior and rehabilitation, and the amazing resilience of this breed.
> BadRap (that LurcherGreyoundGirl keeps bringing up) was one of the rescues that were hugely instrumental in working with these dogs, they deserve a ton of credit for what they accomplished.
> 
> ...


Not a troll......sadly, spouts these enormous cut and paste posts on several forums........


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Not a troll......sadly, spouts these enormous cut and paste posts on several forums........


good god, that makes her sound even more like a troll! :Troll:Troll


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Just someone with a not-so-thought out opinion hopefully. Plenty of people like that. I'M like that sometimes. My opinion on head collars is that they're dangerous for dogs with slender/slim necks due to the subtle jerks that typically occur (why use a head collar if your dog doesn't A: pull on the lead or B: require stronger handling due to something like negative reactivity? Both would result in a jerk/pull) despite the fact that I haven't read or heard any evidence to prove that. I'd still never use one for my Dobermans.

Not making this isn't a head collar discussion BTW. :Hilarious Just using an example.

Difference is most people don't go around spreading their personal opinion and linking to articles that actually disprove the logic behind it, LOL.

I don't know really. I'm just hoping that a member whose posts (relating to other topics) I've enjoyed reading isn't an insincere member trying to stir up trouble now that the can of worms has been opened by spammers.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

The Bad Rap comment regarding nanny dogs is generally used out of context. Generally by foamers who strangely leave anything else they say out of their comments. The comment they made was actually universal to all dogs, which was simply never to leave a child unattended with a dog of any breed. It's just been skewed for other people's use.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> We have no evidence of that, and it could be exaggerated to tie in with your argument. However, regardless of whether it did happen or not, the dog did NOT make contact. Hardly what I would consider aggressive. A dog that wants to cause injury will, and no matter what you do the dog is likely to persevere in it's attack. It's very telling IMO that the dog in your story didn't actually cause any damage whatsoever.


That dog tried her very best to get to Brochan's throat and it was his collar that save him from being injured and like I said it took almost 10 minutes to get her off him. My Mum and I later found out that the dog had attacked one of our neighbour's dogs and I spoke to a guy who lives down the street and he told me the dog tried to attack one of his Mastiffs. He also told me that the same dog sent a Springer Spaniel and a Retriever mix to the vets with severe injuries. So are you still going to say the dog wasn't aggressive?

And none of that was fabricated or exaggerated. You are simply trying to defend a very aggressive dog and I am appalled that you are doing so.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I really do have to wonder about so called dog lovers sometimes.
> 
> I really think you're clutching at straws LurcherGreyhoundGirl to find reasons why Bull breeds are 'more' aggressive than any other breed. You do dogs in general no favour with your blatant stereotyping and misinformation. Such a shame.


And you are doing yourself no favours by defending aggressive dogs and by having the audacity to say that I fabricated/exaggerated the attack on Brochan.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Especially when the dog being attacked is a thin skinned breed!
> I am not playing down the attack, it must have been terrifying, but the fact the Greyhound walked away without injury is very telling IMO
> Not that I find any dog holding another by the throat acceptable, just that the dog did not intend to cause harm...


It was actually Brochan who got attacked and he is a Lurcher. He is stockier and has thicker skin and a heavier coat than Neamhnaid (my Greyhound) does.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

LynnM said:


> That must have been terrifying for you and your poor dog. There was an article in the Northern Echo on Wednesday about a 'pitbull' attacking and killing a young autistic boys pet whippet. The mother put the lad over a 2 foot wall incase he was going to be attacked so poor boy would have heard it all..Apparently the 'pitbull' had hold of it's throat for 15 minutes and it wouldn't let go even when men were hitting it with shovels and metal posts. It mentioned that it only stopped when someone ran it over with a car. Poor whippet died and the 'pitbull' was confined to a garden and then destroyed. There is a £1000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the owner of the 'pitbull'.
> I feel sick thinking what that poor whippet must have gone through in the last 15 minutes of it's young life. They'd recently had a birthday party for it's 1st birthday and there were pics of it on facebook with a party hat on. It was a much loved pet and God knows what effect it will have on the young lad.


Thank you very much for being the only one on this thread to show sympathy for what happened to my boy. That story is extremely sad and I do hope they find whoever it was that had the attacking dog.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I wonder where this idea that to get a dog to let go you have to beat them over the head comes from?
> In the many dog fights I've broken up, I always prefer to break up fights where one dog has latched on to another. So much easier than trying to separate two 'knife fighters'. Just hold both dogs still, if you have a break stick or a plastic tent stake, use it, if not, just wait for the re-grip (it will come) and get the dog off with the re-grip. Hitting a dog just makes them grip harder.


And in the meantime (while you are waiting for the 're-grip') the attacking dog sinks its teeth even further into its victim and only adds even more time until the dog that is being attacked can be taken to the vet. I would much rather break up a bite and release attack.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> What people don't like is people like you putting a death wish on an entire breed because of a bad experience you had! You argued black was blue on here not to long ago about a biter being PTS you argued about how we as humans thought we were so much better than dogs and why should we have more rights than them, but it seems that was all bullshit... Equal right unless YOU deem them dangerous! You constantly ignore anything said about your chosen breed you are a narrow minded hypocrite! Thirty two greyhounds registered opposed to over 4000 SBT the breed is the 3rd most popular breed in the UK.
> 
> Now when YOUR wonderful breed becomes more popular and start killing more small dogs, cats and furries and the press latch on something to sell more copy I hope you personally are on the receiving end or the pure ignorance you are showing! You are not a dog lover! Your also the only one here showing their ignorance and lack of knowledge about breed traits you seem to want to ignore what your chosen breed is capable of, I am not, nor are most of the owners of dogs you judge...


Excuse me? What I have said on here does NOT change my opinions on human and non-human rights. Not once have I said that I wanted SBTs or APBTs to be killed. You put those words in my mouth and how dare you tell me that I am ignorant!!

Oh and those dogs are registered with the Kennel Club and did you not know that not every person registers their dogs with the KC?? I have seen more than 32 Greys in West Lothian over the past few years!!


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Not a troll......sadly, spouts these enormous cut and paste posts on several forums........


And which forums would those be?


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And in the meantime (while you are waiting for the 're-grip') the attacking dog sinks its teeth even further into its victim and only adds even more time until the dog that is being attacked can be taken to the vet. I would much rather break up a bite and release attack.


The more you post the more you advertise your lack of knowledge and experience.

Sinks it's teeth even further in to its victim? How many dog fights have you dealt with LOL?


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Are we talking about dogs or vampires? :Hurting


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> That dog tried her very best to get to Brochan's throat and it was his collar that save him from being injured and like I said it took almost 10 minutes to get her off him. My Mum and I later found out that the dog had attacked one of our neighbour's dogs and I spoke to a guy who lives down the street and he told me the dog tried to attack one of his Mastiffs. He also told me that the same dog sent a Springer Spaniel and a Retriever mix to the vets with severe injuries. So are you still going to say the dog wasn't aggressive?
> 
> And none of that was fabricated or exaggerated. You are simply trying to defend a very aggressive dog and I am appalled that you are doing so.





LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> That dog tried her very best to get to Brochan's throat and it was his collar that save him from being injured and like I said it took almost 10 minutes to get her off him. My Mum and I later found out that the dog had attacked one of our neighbour's dogs and I spoke to a guy who lives down the street and he told me the dog tried to attack one of his Mastiffs. He also told me that the same dog sent a Springer Spaniel and a Retriever mix to the vets with severe injuries. So are you still going to say the dog wasn't aggressive?
> 
> And none of that was fabricated or exaggerated. You are simply trying to defend a very aggressive dog and I am appalled that you are doing so.


That dog is aggressive, towards dogs. No one is denying that. 3 things tho
1. One individual being very da does not make the whole breed da, although everyone accepts sbts can lean towards this
2. This individual being da does not make it any less good with people da does not = ha did the sbt redirect onto any humans whilst the fights were being split up? Being dog aggressive does not make a dog a child killer
3. This dog clearly has a moron for an owner if it is not managed well enough to avoid these fights


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> It was actually Brochan who got attacked and he is a Lurcher. He is stockier and has thicker skin and a heavier coat than Neamhnaid (my Greyhound) does.


And Lurchers also have thin skin that rips easier that most other breeds...it is a sighthound thing as you "should" know...

No one is saying that particular dog wasn't acting aggressively, no one has said that individual dogs can't be aggressive, no one has said that ALL "devil dogs" are perfect and never show aggression...
The point of my post was that if that particular dog had meant your particular dog harm then a poxy leather collar would not have saved the dog from injury ESPECIALLY a thin skinned sighthound.

The more you say the more ignorant you sound...if you wish to stop sounding ignorant then I suggest you start actually listening to facts rather than idol gossip...
It is attitudes such as yours that keep BSL in place!!

Now run along with your perfect sighthounds that wouldn't put a foot wrong anywhere, well, unless their prey drive kicks in...oh but that is ok cos it's just small furries and not people right??

Just ridiculous -shakes head sadly-


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Excuse me? What I have said on here does NOT change my opinions on human and non-human rights. Not once have I said that I wanted SBTs or APBTs to be killed.


StormyThai pretty much sums it up:


StormyThai said:


> It is attitudes such as yours that keep BSL in place!!


Here's the thing @LurcherGreyoundGirl, you continually talk about pit bulls and staffies in these threads like they are a huge threat to society, link articles describing pit bulls as having brain abnormalities, impulsively aggressive, with a propensity to kill, saying there is no place in modern society for these breeds today. What exactly do you think is going to happen to a breed that is presented this way? 
They get dumped in shelters and then euthanized because no one wants a "killer dog". 
They get reported and seized by authorities and then euthanized because people like you support BSL and keep it in place.

This is the reason people like me and others on this thread who own dogs who look a certain way are so frustrated with these conversations. No other dog owner has the very real worry of their dog one day being taken and killed for no other reason than what the dog looks like. Please take a minute and think about that. Let it sink in, and then read back over what you have written on here and the other thread, and tell me you haven't said you want pit bulls and their types to be killed.

For the record, I personally fully support euthanasia for dogs who have shown themselves to be dangerous and who's owners are not willing or able to manage them. I don't have a problem with euthanizing dogs of ANY breed who are dangerous dogs. I also think owners need to be held responsible regardless of what breed of dog. If they repeatedly allow their dog to behave out of control, whether that dog is a chihuahua or a great dane, there should be repercussions.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And you are doing yourself no favours by defending aggressive dogs and by having the audacity to say that I fabricated/exaggerated the attack on Brochan.


I havent heard anybody defending aggressive dogs merely defending breeds or types of dog. You can no more say that all bullies are aggressive then you can say all greyhound are cuddly little care bears! Its very dangerous to assume that only dogs of a certain type will attack yours, any dog can be a risk if not properly trained.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And in the meantime (while you are waiting for the 're-grip') the attacking dog sinks its teeth even further into its victim and only adds even more time until the dog that is being attacked can be taken to the vet. I would much rather break up a bite and release attack.


Have you ever tried to seperate 2 dogs that have a 'deathgrip' on each other?? It is much easier and safer for everybody to just hang on to the dogs and pull them apart when they break to get a better grip! This is as true for the big breeds Ouesi is talking about as it is for my little Chihuahuas!


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

The way some people have conducted themselves on this thread in the so-called defence of SBT's and APBT's reputations, it's no wonder some people think badly of the breeds because it makes you think: are these the kind of people that own them. Is it a case of like owner like dog. Some of you are not a good advertisement for these breeds and I feel sorry for the breeds having some of you representing them. Some have provided useful informative discussion but others: you are a disgrace to these breeds.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And you are doing yourself no favours by defending aggressive dogs and by having the audacity to say that I fabricated/exaggerated the attack on Brochan.


Your dog wasn't attacked though as no damage was caused. That's not the definition of an aggressive dog.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Sacremist said:


> The way some people have conducted themselves on this thread in the so-called defence of SBT's and APBT's reputations, it's no wonder some people think baldly of the breeds because it makes you think: are these the kind of people that own them. Is it a case of like owner like dog. Some of you are not a good advertisement for these breeds and I feel sorry for the breeds having some of you representing them. Some have provided useful informative discussion but others: you are a disgrace to these breeds.


Dog owners are individuals just as dogs are 

Obviously the best route is non-personal discussion and education.

I just have to reiterate though, that in the current climate and laws in place that make it possible for authorities to come to your home, seize your dog for absolutely no reason other than what the dog looks like, and then euthanize that dog, yup, you're going to get emotions running high.

I can't begin to tell you how devastated my children would be if something were to happen to Bates. How devastated *I* would be.

I am confident in my ability to protect him from cars and hunters and disease, but I feel helpless in my ability to protect him from asinine laws being enacted that would make him illegal to own. That he is a certified therapy dog wouldn't matter, that he has multiple obedience and rally titles wouldn't matter, that he has a whole team of experts who would vouch for his temperament wouldn't matter. That he is actually a foundling mutt of unknown origin wouldn't matter. BSL doesn't care about any of that. They only care about what the dog looks like. And Bates has the "look". We get BSL in my state, and my dog would be a target for seizure and euthanasia. That's going to lead to some high emotions.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> That dog tried her very best to get to Brochan's throat and it was his collar that save him from being injured and like I said it took almost 10 minutes to get her off him. My Mum and I later found out that the dog had attacked one of our neighbour's dogs and I spoke to a guy who lives down the street and he told me the dog tried to attack one of his Mastiffs. He also told me that the same dog sent a Springer Spaniel and a Retriever mix to the vets with severe injuries. So are you still going to say the dog wasn't aggressive?
> 
> And none of that was fabricated or exaggerated. You are simply trying to defend a very aggressive dog and I am appalled that you are doing so.


What about the story of the aggressive Greyhound I mentioned? Or does that not tie in nicely with your stereotyping?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sacremist said:


> The way some people have conducted themselves on this thread in the so-called defence of SBT's and APBT's reputations, it's no wonder some people think baldly of the breeds because it makes you think: are these the kind of people that own them. Is it a case of like owner like dog. Some of you are not a good advertisement for these breeds and I feel sorry for the breeds having some of you representing them. Some have provided useful informative discussion but others: you are a disgrace to these breeds.


Really? Again wait until you have to defend something you love over and over again in the face of utter ignorance. You have no idea utterly none what it feels like to have so called dog lovers want to see your beloved pets eradicate. So you can judge people when you have experienced pure ignorance and the fear of losing your beloved pet for no other reason than how it looks and people's ignorance. People who judge breeds with no known are a disgrace to all breeds and have no place calling themselves dog or animal lovers. Those people are a disgrace to all those who understand and truly love ALL dogs and animals based on knowledge. Deed not breed seems right over some people's heads .


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Your dog wasn't attacked though as no damage was caused. That's not the definition of an aggressive dog.


To be fair, it doesn't take physical damage for an attack to be an attack (JMO).
If nothing else the dog was out of control. ANY dog of any breed who is out of control is a danger. We need to hold owners accountable for allowing their dogs (of any breed) to be out of control. This is the answer to "dog attacks", as opposed to stupid BSL laws.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> To be fair, it doesn't take physical damage for an attack to be an attack (JMO).
> If nothing else the dog was out of control. ANY dog of any breed who is out of control is a danger. We need to hold owners accountable for allowing their dogs (of any breed) to be out of control. This is the answer to "dog attacks", as opposed to stupid BSL laws.


Out of control yes, but to define an attack IMO it needs to be an attack. What I would consider LurcherGreyhoundGirl's encounter would be what I call a scuffle.....and they very much look the real deal, but are not. If it took 10 mins to get the dog off it says a lot the dog caused no injury. So no, not what I would call a mind altering attack that would have me forever judging the breed.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Dogloverlou said:


> What I would consider LurcherGreyhoundGirl's encounter would be what I call a scuffle.....and they very much look the real deal, but are not.


Thats true. I can still remember when I turned a corner with my 3 and walked smack into an off lead Staffie!
All 4 dogs were snarling, biting and spinning around. I couldnt grab the Staff coz it had no collar and they are all muscle and I really thought that I would lose at least one of my dogs as teeth were flying everywhere.
As bad as it looked and as much as it scared me though nobody was injured and it just left us all very shaken (esp the other owners who thought I was going to smack them...and I nearly did!unch). However it could have been any breed that it happened with and it has happened with terriers and a Husky too but I dont think that those breeds in particular are going to cause me trouble!


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

i can't be bothered reading through 47 pages of a topic as i don't have time right now , what i do find very strange is the very same breeds LGG is persecuting is one of the very breeds they were looking at rehoming quite a while ago so i really don't understand where all the vitriol for those breeds comes from


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Nagini said:


> i can't be bothered reading through 47 pages of a topic as i don't have time right now , what i do find very strange is the very same breeds LGG is persecuting is one of the very breeds they were looking at rehoming quite a while ago so i really don't understand where all the vitriol for those breeds comes from


Probably the usual. Media hype, breed history hype...

What confuses me is when people get freaked out by pit bulls and staffies having been bred to fight. There are TONS of breeds that were bred to fight, hunt, kill that we keep as pets today and no one freaks out about their history. I mean, take the greyhounds this owner has. They are a dog bred to hunt and kill prey, designed to run down a hare for as long as it takes, not give up, and finish to the final kill. Why then is it such a problem when a pit bull shows equal drive? *shrug* I don't get it....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Probably the usual. Media hype, breed history hype...
> 
> What confuses me is when people get freaked out by pit bulls and staffies having been bred to fight. There are TONS of breeds that were bred to fight, hunt, kill that we keep as pets today and no one freaks out about their history. I mean, take the greyhounds this owner has. They are a dog bred to hunt and kill prey, designed to run down a hare for as long as it takes, not give up, and finish to the final kill. Why then is it such a problem when a pit bull shows equal drive? *shrug* I don't get it....


Because while those of us with the breeds under fire are accused of ignoring our breeds traits, those who are pointing the finger seem to think their chosen breed has no teeth nor drive of any kind... They seem to be the ones in denial, they have ignored every reference to the history and drive of their breed and are doing exactly what they accuse others of. Wonder if it gives they any insight or compassion for how they make others feel when they are attacking their beloved pets?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> What about the story of the aggressive Greyhound I mentioned? Or does that not tie in nicely with your stereotyping?


She didn't comment about my rottie receiving the same treatment as her greyhound on more than one occasion from a JRT either.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I've lost count of the amount of times I've asked for this evidence to be provided. You seem unable to do so. Your opinion is not evidence.


Plenty of anecdotal evidence, unfortunately, if you use Google. Not sure about any Scientific studies.

LGG, the attack on your dog sounds horrific, but could a dog - any dog - really bite through a solid metal D-ring?  I doubt it. My dogs have been attacked by various breeds - JRTs, Spingers, GSDs, but I don't go around breed-bashing, or saying how those are dangerous breeds. ANY dog has the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands, if owned by numpty-nuggets, idiots, or overgrown _kids_ playing at being all growed up (I'm talking about those who use dogs as status symbols, in case that's not clear).

I've asked this of a breed-basher before, but I will again: How would you like if it someone stereotyped you based on skin colour/age/gender/ability or disability etc/hair colour? How would you like it if someone said all greyhound owners are irresponsible? Or all lurchers are dangerous small-furry killers who shouldn't be out without a muzzle on, and anyone who does walk their lurcher/greyhound/sighthound without a muzzle is irresponsible? How would you feel?

I'm afraid I've been rather busy today and this is as far as I've gotten with the replies.


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Probably the usual. Media hype, breed history hype...
> 
> What confuses me is when people get freaked out by pit bulls and staffies having been bred to fight. There are TONS of breeds that were bred to fight, hunt, kill that we keep as pets today and no one freaks out about their history. I mean, take the greyhounds this owner has. They are a dog bred to hunt and kill prey, designed to run down a hare for as long as it takes, not give up, and finish to the final kill. Why then is it such a problem when a pit bull shows equal drive? *shrug* I don't get it....


i agree , i love pit bulls and i wish the laws were different as i would have one. as i guess would many people , i honestly do not get the hysteria regarding these breeds , or any breed like them. my corso and and akita get on so well , both are stupidly soft , well adjusted dogs , it all boils down to how these dogs are raised , treated and respected.
neither of my dogs has had much to do with kids , yet they both love them , and both tolerate other dogs pretty well considering their breeds. only thing i haven't done with my akita that i do with my corso is let her off lead as she'd just run a 100 miles in the opposite direction it's not that i don't trust her with anyone or anything i just don't trust her to come back when called haha:Woot


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Until we set up our small Spanish rescue, sight hounds had been our dogs of choice - greyhounds, salukis and lurchers (although my OH would have loved to own a Borzoi), so we learned a great deal about them, partly through research and partly through our own experience.

Sight hounds are lovely dogs, usually calm, often a little aloof (but in the 'I like my own company' sense, rather than in the 'come near me at your peril' sense). They are usually good with children in that they are not that interested in them . They are not keen though on being cuddled or having small children climb all over them. Despite their size, they are quite fragile-built dogs who probably have an inbuilt instinct to move away from rough contact, rather than put up with it. But they will give plenty of warning before giving a further warning 'air nip' if cornered.
And because of their size, those warnings are not to be taken lightly.

Like with any other dog, children should be taught to respect their space and to recognise when the dog is feeling overwhelmed. It really isn't rocket science.

But, despite being usually okay with children (and certainly okay if the child respects their space), sight hounds are killers.

I have never seen a sight hound turn on a human (and they are much more likely to flee than turn to fight), but I have seen the damage that a sight hound can do to small (and sometimes fairly large) wild creatures. I must say that I have never seen a sight hound go after another dog, however small, but I have seen a sight hound give a small 'troublemaker' a warning 'air nip' so I would always be aware that they might take this further if pushed to the limit of their patience.

Yes, you can train a sight hound to ignore their prey drive....to a degree. You can also learn to recognise the signs that a sight hound is about to take flight (and make a quick grab for the lead). In my experience, it is fairly difficult to learn 'recall' to a sight hound, but not impossible with patience and a great deal of time. But I would never, ever, trust a sight hound to ignore a small furry running at speed in the distance.

So, sight hounds are not loveable balls of fluff or however some may like to describe them (although, to give them their due, I have never found a sight hound rescue describing them thus). They are dogs, most of whom still follow their breed traits, much more I would say than some other breeds.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> I've asked this of a breed-basher before, but I will again: How would you like if it someone stereotyped you based on skin colour/age/gender/ability or disability etc/hair colour? How would you like it if someone said all greyhound owners are irresponsible? Or all lurchers are dangerous small-furry killers who shouldn't be out without a muzzle on, and anyone who does walk their lurcher/greyhound/sighthound without a muzzle is irresponsible? How would you feel?


Not a breed basher, but I'll answer that anyway .
I think in some instances, particularly before you know your dog and their reactions and before you have managed to give them at least an element of training to help decrease their prey drive, it _is_ irresponsible to walk a sight hound without a muzzle on.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Nagini said:


> i agree , i love pit bulls and i wish the laws were different as i would have one. as i guess would many people , i honestly do not get the hysteria regarding these breeds , or any breed like them. my corso and and akita get on so well , both are stupidly soft , well adjusted dogs , it all boils down to how these dogs are raised , treated and respected.
> neither of my dogs has had much to do with kids , yet they both love them , and both tolerate other dogs pretty well considering their breeds. only thing i haven't done with my akita that i do with my corso is let her off lead as she'd just run a 100 miles in the opposite direction it's not that i don't trust her with anyone or anything i just don't trust her to come back when called haha:Woot


Agreed except for the "how they're raised" part. 
Dog intolerance and DA are very real APBT traits (here we go again ). It's not all about how they're raised. You can do everything "right" as far as socialization and training and still end up with an APBT who matures in to being dog intolerant. I might agree with you that dog intolerant turning in to full on DA can boil down to the human factor. Allow a dog intolerant dog to get in to enough fights, and allow that dog to figure out they like the adrenaline rush of a fight, and you will get a full-on DA dog. 
There are plenty of other reasons why you might end up with a DA dog that don't necessarily boil down to the human factor.

In any case, DA is real, it does happen, and it is common in pit bull and similar breeds.

The thing is, DA is not necessarily a "bad" thing. It just *is*. Properly managed it's not even a big deal. And it's *really* easy to manage in a breed as biddable as APBTs. So your dog can't be loose around other dogs. Big whoop dee do. That's the extent of living with a DA dog. You don't do dog/dog greetings, you don't go to the local dog park and turn your dog loose. Done.

I'm happy to discuss DA in bull breeds, how to identify if you're dealing with DA or dog selective, or dog intolerant... How best to manage it. And I'm also happy for idiot owners who refuse to properly train and manage their DA dogs to loose the right to keep those dogs. But again, that's in ALL breeds (shocker: pit bulls are not the only breed prone to DA).


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> In any case, DA is real, it does happen, and it is common in pit bull and similar breeds.


I think your statement goes some way to explaining why some people are wary of bit bull type dogs and are inclined to single them out when discussing attacks and incidents. You take DA and couple that with a dog with a very powerful jaw and you have a potentially dangerous dog on your hands as far as some members of the public are concerned.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Dogloverlou said:


> Out of control yes, but to define an attack IMO it needs to be an attack. What I would consider LurcherGreyhoundGirl's encounter would be what I call a scuffle.....and they very much look the real deal, but are not. If it took 10 mins to get the dog off it says a lot the dog caused no injury. So no, not what I would call a mind altering attack that would have me forever judging the breed.


Injury isn't what makes an attack imo, intent does. When Rupert was attacked he came away with quite minor injuries while the other dog needed a lot of vet care. I can say with absolute certainty that this was in no way a scuffle and that the attacking dog meant business. As did mine when he felt the need to defend himself against the attack. And, luckily for me and Rupe, he came away better off than the other dog. Physically at least. Mentally on the other hand was another matter. This was the turning point for him when it came to other dogs. Found out later that the dog in question had previously killed one dog and seriously injured several other dogs and was meant to be leashed and muzzled at all times in public.

Personally I find a scuffle and a real fight or attack look and sound very, very different. The few genuine attacks I've witnessed have been pretty much silent, no energy wasted on the growling, snarling and over the top displaying of teeth type stuff there is in a scuffle.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Nagini said:


> i can't be bothered reading through 47 pages of a topic as i don't have time right now , what i do find very strange is the very same breeds LGG is persecuting is one of the very breeds they were looking at rehoming quite a while ago so i really don't understand where all the vitriol for those breeds comes from


What bothers me a lot is that the narrow minded advocates of the breeds are flat out refusing to believe that some of the things they have been saying to promote the breeds are false.

I have asked this question several times now and it has hardly been addressed. Why is it that Greyhounds score more poorly in ATTS tests yet they have not been responsible for a fatal attack on a human. Yes they have bitten people and have killed small furries (I am not denying that and I most certainly will not go to the extreme of blaming other breeds for those bites and fatalities), but have they killed a human? I (and many others) have not been able to find a single instance of them doing so. Yet this is a breed that is supposed to be less safe than APBTs and SBTs. Bite and fatality statistics prove otherwise. Then one member even comes up with an absurd excuse for that and tries to say that there are only 32 Greys registered with the Kennel Club. Is every single Grey in the country registered with the KC? I think not. Like I said I have seen more Greys than that in my county alone.

What I want advocates to actually admit to is that their breeds are more dangerous when they attack. We're not talking about light framed, thin skinned dogs with long slender necks that were bred to chase down prey. We are talking about dogs that were bred to be as strong and as muscular as possible with short thick necks and to have powerful gripping jaws. How you can compare the two I will never know. I find it extremely irresponsible of some advocates to keep on perpetuating myths (and YES they are myths)!! As for my evidence (or lack thereof). How is it that extensive searches of historical publications from the UK, America and Canada that have not been able to prove that APBTs or SBTs were always popular family dogs let alone 'nannies' not proof enough that this whole 'nanny dog' thing is a more modern fabrication. As for Bad Rap's statement being taken out of context. Just what part of::

"It's Dog Bite Prevention Week. Did you know that there was never such thing as a 'Nanny's Dog'? This term was a recent invention created to describe the myriad of vintage photos of children enjoying their family pit bulls. While the intention behind the term was innocent, using it may mislead parents into being careless with their children around their family dog - A recipe for dog bites!"

.... can be taken out of context?? Are some advocates so blinded by loyalty to their breeds that they cannot admit to the fact that painting such rosy pictures of their breeds is potentially dangerous?

As for my Mum and I wanting to adopt a SBT. We had considered a SBT and when we went to the Dogs Trust we did in fact fall in love with an older male SBT called Abe. We were refused because we had never had the breed before and because Abe had been a stray with an unknown history. It was not long after we got Brochan that we got a call from the DT to say that Abe had been in a foster home and he would have been suitable for us after all. Now the reason we had considered a SBT in the first place was that we wanted a medium sized short haired dog with enough energy to go on longer walks. The SBT seemed to be good choice.

However, after what happened to Brochan and after doing lots of research (don't any of you try and call me ignorant) I have come to realise that SBTs and APBTs have the potential to be a lot more dangerous due to the fact that they are as powerful and their strong roots in fighting.

Some of you have even proven the likes of DogsBite and Craven Desires right. When anyone dares to say something negative about APBTs and SBTs they are met with hostility and abuse. That is exactly what has happened in the latter half of this thread. Try and deny it if you will, but it is the truth.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

cbcdesign said:


> I think your statement goes some way to explaining why some people are wary of bit bull type dogs and are inclined to single them out when discussing attacks and incidents. You take DA and couple that with a dog with a very powerful jaw and you have a potentially dangerous dog on your hands as far as some members of the public are concerned.


DA isn't what makes a dog potentially dangerous. 
DA not properly managed (human factor) is what makes a dog dangerous.

But if people want to be cautious, great. I wish more people were more cautious about dog/dog interactions. I'm incredibly cautious of many dogs based on their body language and their owner's apparent competence. Cautious is good. Cautious based on breed is fine, but might not be as helpful as cautious based on more sensible factors.

What's not okay is trying to rid your community of one type of dog based on the actions of irresponsible owners. Deal with the owners. Deal with the individual dogs. Deed not breed 'n all that....


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> The more you post the more you advertise your lack of knowledge and experience.
> 
> Sinks it's teeth even further in to its victim? How many dog fights have you dealt with LOL?


So does a dog not sink its teeth into its victim when its biting?? When they take the strongest grip possible do they not sink their teeth in further??


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> DA isn't what makes a dog potentially dangerous.
> DA not properly managed (human factor) is what makes a dog dangerous.


I agree but it doesn't appear that way to everybody ouesi and to people who don't like dogs or have no experience of owning one that see reports in news papers or on TV of attacks, I think its not hard to understand why certain breeds appear more dangerous than you and I know they actually are.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> However, after what happened to Brochan and after doing lots of research (don't any of you try and call me ignorant) I have come to realise that SBTs and APBTs have the potential to be a lot more dangerous due to the fact that they are as powerful and their strong roots in fighting.


Dangerous to dogs because of their high prey drive and breeding, not dangerous to people because of their breeding...

Why's this so difficult to grasp.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> And Lurchers also have thin skin that rips easier that most other breeds...it is a sighthound thing as you "should" know...
> 
> No one is saying that particular dog wasn't acting aggressively, no one has said that individual dogs can't be aggressive, no one has said that ALL "devil dogs" are perfect and never show aggression...
> The point of my post was that if that particular dog had meant your particular dog harm then a poxy leather collar would not have saved the dog from injury ESPECIALLY a thin skinned sighthound.
> ...


You do not know my dogs personally. I do and have seen the difference in their skin thickness when they have been injured. Brochan once managed to get his skin torn into and it was obvious that he has thicker skin that Neamhnaid as it was obvious that she has thinner skin when she got bitten by another dog.

Oh and does the collar in the attached picture look 'poxy' and does Brochan look as fragile as a pure Grey??


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)




----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> What bothers me a lot is that the narrow minded advocates of the breeds are flat out refusing to believe that some of the things they have been saying to promote the breeds are false.
> 
> I have asked this question several times now and it has hardly been addressed. Why is it that Greyhounds score more poorly in ATTS tests yet they have not been responsible for a fatal attack on a human. Yes they have bitten people and have killed small furries (I am not denying that and I most certainly will not go to the extreme of blaming other breeds for those bites and fatalities), but have they killed a human? I (and many others) have not been able to find a single instance of them doing so. Yet this is a breed that is supposed to be less safe than APBTs and SBTs. Bite and fatality statistics prove otherwise. Then one member even comes up with an absurd excuse for that and tries to say that there are only 32 Greys registered with the Kennel Club. Is every single Grey in the country registered with the KC? I think not. Like I said I have seen more Greys than that in my county alone.
> 
> ...


any breed given a chance could kill a human being , greyhounds included.

as to the 'nanny dog' i'm not entirely sure where this phrase come from , all i can tell you as long as i have been alive ( and i'm by no means a young woman) it is a term and has always been a term to describe staffordshire bull terriers.

would it surprise you to learn that akitas in japan once upon a time ago watched over children while their mothers went to work the rice fields? yet this is yet another breed that is often persecuted and misunderstood.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

That's some serious facepalm.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Probably the usual. Media hype, breed history hype...
> 
> What confuses me is when people get freaked out by pit bulls and staffies having been bred to fight. There are TONS of breeds that were bred to fight, hunt, kill that we keep as pets today and no one freaks out about their history. I mean, take the greyhounds this owner has. They are a dog bred to hunt and kill prey, designed to run down a hare for as long as it takes, not give up, and finish to the final kill. Why then is it such a problem when a pit bull shows equal drive? *shrug* I don't get it....


Breed history hype? So they don't have a history in dog fighting then??


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

dogsaintdumb said:


> That's some serious facepalm.


Isn't it just, lol!


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

So your argument is now that they are dangerous to dogs? GREAT, on the same page. Dogs with a high prey drive tend to be more inclined to fight with other dogs, yes. As ouesi has been pointing out since the dawn of time it seems.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> That's some serious facepalm.


It is saved for special occasions...You can only say the same thing in different ways so many times...it becomes quite irritating when someone is this obstinate!

I normally opt for a softer facepalm and then build up, but I was beyond the softer approach 10 pages back :Banghead


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> So your argument is now that they are dangerous to dogs? GREAT, on the same page. Dogs with a high prey drive tend to be more inclined to fight with other dogs, yes. As ouesi has been pointing out since the dawn of time it seems.


More dangerous because of their sheer strength and the way they were bred? Yes.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Not sure I understand where LGG is coming from TBH. Surely if bully breeds were as dangerous as she says (given how popular they are) they would be mowing down and 'savaging' people every day of the week! I see loads around my way and I havent yet read a local newspaper report where they have been killing cats, dogs or people! 
You may as well say that nobody has been killed by a hippo in this country therefore hippos are safer then dogs!


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

The way they were bred...To fight dogs...And chase wild pigs...Makes them dangerous to people. A'ight.

Human aggression is not a breed trait and that's a simple fact. In GUARDING breeds you're likely to encounter "genetic" human aggression more so than in terriers. As per the purpose of breeding the dogs. To guard against people.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> It is saved for special occasions...You can only say the same thing in different ways so many times...it becomes quite irritating when someone is this obstinate!
> 
> I normally opt for a softer facepalm and then build up, but I was beyond the softer approach 10 pages back :Banghead


Me, obstinate? Who are the ones STILL trying to make out that a SBT is no less dangerous than a Pomeranian?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

If you were saying this about Dobermans I would be more inclined to agree.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> The way they were bred...To fight dogs...And chase wild pigs...Makes them dangerous to people. A'ight.
> 
> Human aggression is not a breed trait and that's a simple fact. In GUARDING breeds you're likely to encounter "genetic" human aggression more so than in terriers. As per the purpose of breeding the dogs. To guard against people.


So in one breath you are saying that human aggression is not a breed trait (as in not hereditary, right?) and then in the next breath you are saying that human aggression is hereditary.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

...Is not a breed trait in TERRIERS. My apologies, I thought that it was fairly obvious I was speaking of the breed we've been talking about for 99% of this thread.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Me, obstinate? Who are the ones STILL trying to make out that a SBT is no less dangerous than a Pomeranian?


well, it is kinda obvious that if a SBT bites you hard it will cause more damage then a Pom! Like if you get hit with a bicycle you will be better off then if you get hit with a car...we dont all ride bicycles though do we?? no, we educate ourselves to ensure that we are being safe and responsible.

Personally as the owner of small rabbit sized dogs who will squeel and run if scared Im way more nervous of an off lead sighthound then I am of a SBT! Those things have huge predatory instincts where small furries are concerned and I dont think I would ever trust one off lead near my dogs.
(also...50 pages!! woo hoo!:Woot)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Me, obstinate? Who are the ones STILL trying to make out that a SBT is no less dangerous than a Pomeranian?


I refer you back to my facepalm...it is clear that you haven't read a thing I have said...I'm sorry but conversing with someone that cherry picks from posts to find something to get all mighty about gets boring after a while so I shall go back to hugging my so called danger dog


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Human aggression is at least partially inherited, it was specifically bred for in breeds like filas, but not in staffies.

Just like greyhounds were bred solely to chase down and kill.


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

here's blog post written by a person that was viciously attacked by a greyhound.
http://opdogblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/reader-recalls-being-attacked-by.html


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Me, obstinate? Who are the ones STILL trying to make out that a SBT is no less dangerous than a Pomeranian?


Nobody said that except you.

Obviously size and strength make a difference when it comes to bites, I'd rather be bitten by a staffy than a lab though, even allowing for their strength and bigger proportional jaws, it's still a smaller bite size than a lab.

I've seen first hand the mess a Great Dane makes with one bite, that is pretty terrifying.

What people are arguing with is the assertion that dogs are dangerous because of their breed, rather than that dogs are dangerous because they are dogs.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> The way they were bred...To fight dogs...And chase wild pigs...Makes them dangerous to people. A'ight.
> 
> Human aggression is not a breed trait and that's a simple fact. In GUARDING breeds you're likely to encounter "genetic" human aggression more so than in terriers. As per the purpose of breeding the dogs. To guard against people.


But it's the way they were bred to be (very strong and muscular and game) that makes them more dangerous to people when they do attack as they have the potential to do a lot more damage. When they attack they will often go for the throat which is what they would do in the ring when trying to kill another dog. Are you going to try and deny that or have another 'face palm' moment?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> I refer you back to my facepalm...it is clear that you haven't read a thing I have said...I'm sorry but conversing with someone that cherry picks from posts to find something to get all mighty about gets boring after a while so I shall go back to hugging my so called danger dog


Careful you don't get ate.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Careful you don't get ate.


It's ok, I have protection:


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> But it's the way they were bred to be (very strong and muscular and game) that makes them more dangerous to people when they do attack as they have the potential to do a lot more damage. When they attack they will often go for the throat which is what they would do in the ring when trying to kill another dog. Are you going to try and deny that or have another 'face palm' moment?


I-I personally haven't had any facepalm moments. So I may have an initial facepalm moment but not another one, no. You are safe from my second facepalm.

Stronger =/= more dangerous.
Stronger = more dangerous.

Seeing as the dogs we've been talking about are unlikely to attack a person, I would say they aren't as dangerous as a weaker dog of a guarding breed. A Labrador isn't as dangerous to a rabbit as a JRT. A dog bred to guard flock isn't as dangerous to a cow as a Corgi.

If you want to view it as stronger = more dangerous then I can't argue with that. I can just say I would feel more comfortable greeting a Staffie I had never met than I would greeting a Doberman I had never met.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Nagini said:


> here's blog post written by a person that was viciously attacked by a greyhound.
> http://opdogblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/reader-recalls-being-attacked-by.html


And in that instance the dog was easier to get off. There was no mention of it being hit repeatedly over the head with metal pipes or baseball bats or having to be run over by a car. And yes that was a horrible attack.

And that is quite an old story. Care to find lots more stories where the same thing has happened over and over and over again?


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And in that instance the dog was easier to get off. There was no mention of it being hit repeatedly over the head with metal pipes or baseball bats or having to be run over by a car. And yes that was a horrible attack.
> 
> And that is quite an old story. Care to find lots more stories where the same thing has happened over and over and over again?


plenty of instances of them attacking and killing other dogs , cats and small furries. i daresay if i could be bothered to look i'd find one - in fact there's a thread running elsewhere about someone being attacked by their own greyhound so if you can be bothered , go look for it yourself.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I can just say I would feel more comfortable greeting a Staffie I had never met than I would greeting a Doberman I had never met.


or a Daxie on stilts...just imagine if one of those suckers could reach your throat!!:Nailbiting:Hurting


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I think you know what I'm going to respond with, catz4m8z...










Newspaper articles and reports aren't proof of the breed being more dangerous. We all know that Greyhounds are dangerous to small animals as it's a breed trait. Being aggressive to people is not a breed trait in Greyhounds just like it isn't a breed trait in the dog's we've been talking about. A well bred SBT/APBT is no more dangerous to people than a well bred Greyhound.

It's disconcerting that it has taken 52 pages of constant arguing to reach that conclusion.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

dogsaintdumb said:


> *Dogs with a high prey drive tend to be more inclined to fight with other dogs, yes.* As ouesi has been pointing out since the dawn of time it seems.


This bit confuses me .
Sight hounds have a very high prey drive, but in my experience this does not make them more likely to attack other dogs. Even if they have both been chasing the same prey, they will usually share the spoils (and even help each other kill the prey ).

But when approached by another dog, if that dog is aggressive, given the chance a sight hound is much more likely to flee than stand and fight. Because, as well as their speed making them excellent hunters, it also gives them the 'flight' advantage when in danger of attack.

Don't know about other breeds though....


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

silvi said:


> This bit confuses me .
> Sight hounds have a very high prey drive, but in my experience this does not make them more likely to attack other dogs. Even if they have both been chasing the same prey, they will usually share the spoils (and even help each other kill the prey ).
> 
> But when approached by another dog, if that dog is aggressive, given the chance a sight hound is much more likely to flee than stand and fight. Because, as well as their speed making them excellent hunters, it also gives them the 'flight' advantage when in danger of attack.
> ...


There are loads of articles about greyhounds killing small dogs to be fair and I know a few ex-racers that will only tolerate other greyhounds.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

tabulahrasa said:


> There are loads of articles about greyhounds killing small dogs to be fair and I know a few ex-racers that will only tolerate other greyhounds.


But that could just be a case of having never met any other breed surely.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

catz4m8z,

I'm not very experienced with Sighthounds myself and can't give you a definite answer. I have several breeds of terrier and if they think they can get away with it, they'll fight with another dog. All of the terriers (minus 1 JRT/Westie) that I've met who weren't affected by learned nervous/fearful/defensive behaviours, were similar to my own dogs. A friend's SBT is friendly as anything and excitable as they come, and if another dog she is trying to play with gets annoyed she is the type of dog who will fight. The same friend has another SBT who is calm as anything and doesn't give a stuff about other dogs getting sassy with him! He just walks off. I have had two Lurchers...One was very gentle, if she was a person she'd had been soft spoken, avoided confrontation, etc. The other was DA to small dogs and occasionally medium, but not large.

I think Sighthounds being less inclined to fight other dogs as, say, JRTs, comes from the fact that JRTs are highly strung, opinionated, typically "small-dog syndrome" affected dogs whereas Sighthounds are more laid back and calm until it comes to the actual chase. JRT's storm rabbit burrows and undergrowth, whereas Sighthounds look and listen and then go. As I said I'm not very experienced with the breed so don't take my words to heart. Hopefully someone else can clear it up *accurately* for you...

With facts and not just speculation.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't think that's so much prey drive as just looking for trouble and tenacity that was bred into the hunting terriers. 

Sighthounds tend to be better with others, borzois are particularly fun to watch on lure course they'll each take a section of the field and chase it down when it comes near them. But that's a breed specifically bred to work in pairs.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

tabulahrasa said:


> There are loads of articles about greyhounds killing small dogs to be fair and I know a few ex-racers that will only tolerate other greyhounds.


Yes there are.
And although our sight hounds were okay with smaller dogs (dogs living with us and dogs we met on our walks), I was always aware that this could be a problem, if only because the smaller dog would be so much smaller and not as fast as our sight hounds.

But my argument was that a high prey drive, in a sight hounds case, does not necessarily lead to aggression towards other dogs. I would say that is is more likely to be the case that certain small, furry dogs are not recognised as dogs by sight hounds, especially if they are scurrying along in the distance. They are more likely to be viewed as 'indeterminate prey'.

Doesn't make it right - no way does it make it right!

But it doesn't mean that high prey drive makes a sight hound have a tendency towards aggression to other _dogs_. Because I still hold the view that in dog on dog aggression the sight hound is much more likely to flee than fight.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> But that could just be a case of having never met any other breed surely.


Yep, they pretty much don't recognise other shapes of dog as being the same species, lol...but it can show itself as aggression.

I don't think any breed is immune from environmentally created issues.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

tabulahrasa said:


> Yep, they pretty much don't recognise other shapes of dog as being the same species, lol...but it can show itself as aggression.
> 
> I don't think any breed is immune from environmentally created issues.


^ This.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

tabulahrasa said:


> Yep, they pretty much don't recognise other shapes of dog as being the same species, lol...but it can show itself as aggression.
> 
> I don't think any breed is immune from environmentally created issues.


Absolutely not and to claim that the advocates for one breed ignore the bad side of the breed while doing exactly the same as LGG is is just hypocrisy. That ex-racers may be da is no fault of their own, nor is it often the fault of the bull breeds that attack. It's often ones not used to children or that have been badly treated.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Prey drive and dog aggression are two very, very different things. You can have a dog friendly dog with huge prey drive and a dog aggressive dog with none, the two don't go hand in hand. Where prey drive MAY be a factor in a dog on dog attack is if it's triggered by another dog running or squealing or something. Prey drive does not necessarily make a dog a danger to other dogs. Or to humans. With a lot of the ex racing greyhounds I'd think lack of socialisation would play a huge part in it, they don't see other breeds, they're taught to chase after something small running away from them...no real leap to think they could easily see a chihuahua as prey. My high prey drive dog could tell the difference between even a tiny dog and prey animals although I was still very careful with him.

And I didn't have to run a staffie over with a car or go to any of these extremes to make it let go of my dog, the techniques that work with "less dangerous"  breeds worked just as well. Just sayin'.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Well they are becoming very popular as pets and that does not negate the fact that there are thousands of Greys in the country and all of them require daily handling. Yet you don't hear about kennel hands, trainers and adopters being mauled to death by them. Do you?


Do you hear about SBTs "mauling" kennel hands, trainers and adopters? Again - where is your evidence?



silvi said:


> Until we set up our small Spanish rescue, sight hounds had been our dogs of choice - greyhounds, salukis and *lurchers *(although my OH would have loved to own a Borzoi), so we learned a great deal about them, partly through research and partly through our own experience.
> 
> Sight hounds are lovely dogs, *usually calm, often a little aloof (but in the 'I like my own company' sense*, rather than in the 'come near me at your peril' sense). They are usually good with children in that they are not that interested in them . They *are not keen though on being cuddled* or having small children climb all over them. Despite their size, they are quite fragile-built dogs who probably have an inbuilt instinct to move away from rough contact, rather than put up with it. *But they will give plenty of warning before giving a further warning 'air nip' if cornered*.
> And because of their size, those warnings are not to be taken lightly.


You're generalising.  These bits in bold are the exact opposite of Milly Lurcher. They sound more like Max, tbh.

Or are you saying Max who looks nothing like a lurcher, is, and Milly who looks very much like a lurcher, isn't? 



> *Yes, you can train a sight hound to ignore their prey drive....to a degree*.


Or you can redirect to something more suitable - like a ball.



> You can also learn to recognise the signs that a sight hound is about to take flight (and make a quick grab for the lead). In my experience, it is fairly difficult to learn 'recall' to a sight hound, but not impossible with patience and a great deal of time. But I would never, ever, trust a sight hound to ignore a small furry running at speed in the distance.
> 
> So, sight hounds are not loveable balls of fluff or however some may like to describe them (although, to give them their due, I have never found a sight hound rescue describing them thus). They are dogs, most of whom still follow their breed traits, much more I would say than some other breeds.


This is true. Milly is kept on lead around here, unless I have her ball with her, because she is very-ball focussed.

However, her prey drive isn't the only reason I keep her on lead. It also boils down to her love of food (and I use that term loosely) and tendency to take off into the distance to any garden that is catering for birds or cats.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

silvi said:


> Yes there are.
> And although our sight hounds were okay with smaller dogs (dogs living with us and dogs we met on our walks), I was always aware that this could be a problem, if only because the smaller dog would be so much smaller and not as fast as our sight hounds.
> 
> But my argument was that a high prey drive, in a sight hounds case, does not necessarily lead to aggression towards other dogs. I would say that is is more likely to be the case that certain small, furry dogs are not recognised as dogs by sight hounds, especially if they are scurrying along in the distance. They are more likely to be viewed as 'indeterminate prey'.
> ...


Some do, some don't...the ones that don't are potentially pretty dangerous to other dogs because they're big - and fast.

Greyhounds are pretty popular where I am (there's a fairly local rescue) and I can't say I notice much difference proportionally between dog aggressive greys and other breeds (except chis, but that's skewed because I only ever meet the same two owners of them, lol).


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I think Sighthounds being less inclined to fight other dogs as, say, JRTs, comes from the fact that JRTs are highly strung, opinionated, typically "small-dog syndrome" affected dogs.


I think alot of small dog syndrome is once again based in breed traits and what the dog was originally used for. terriers had to be 'game' because alot of the vermin they were sent after have teeth of their own and are viscious little b***ers!! They have to basically be like the drunk guy in the pub, "hold me back someone!!"unch .....
Not sure why Chihuahuas can be mouthy seeing as they were possibly bred for food! (Ive never yet had one of mine dress itself in a bap and attempt to fling itself into my gob!!):Hilarious


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have asked this question several times now and it has hardly been addressed. Why is it that Greyhounds score more poorly in ATTS tests yet they have not been responsible for a fatal attack on a human.


ATTS tests dogs for soundness of temperament. How stable the dog's temperament is, how reactive the dog is, and how well they recover if they do react (by react I mean react both fearfully and/or protectively). 
In general, an average pit bull is going to score better than an average greyhound mainly because greyhounds (most sighthounds) are far less resilient than your average bull&terrier breed.

Like I said, I have more than a passing familiarity with both bull&terrier breeds and sighthounds, and sighthounds being delicate little flowers when it comes to handling is no surprise to anyone with a passing familiarity with the breed. While bull&terrier breeds being total doofy oafs about rough handling is also not a surprise to anyone with a passing familiarity with the breed.
Not meaning one is better or worse, it's just different breeds, different traits selected for, there's no comparison really. 
I regularly thump Bates about the head, smack him on the butt, grab his jowls and in general beat him up and he loves it. Our sighthound friend would be horrified at that treatment and would probably never speak to me again. Both are great dogs, who happen to be pretty typical of their breed temperaments.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Breed history hype? So they don't have a history in dog fighting then??


Oh my dear god.... 
Please read what I'm writing carefully, because it really would help ameliorate the argumentative tone that's going on here if you would actually read what I'm saying about dogs.

"Game" APBT were bred to be good fighters. Not one person will deny that. (Disclaimer though: not all dogs classed as "pit bulls" are from fighting lines, or even remotely related to fighting lines. And even with dogs from fighting lines, not all of them were good at it. Just as you get collies who suck at herding, and retrievers who suck at retrieving.)

I'm not sure why the dog fighting thing bothers people so much though. Let's look at some other dog breed histories shall we?
Great danes: Bred to hunt wild boar (no minor prey), bred to guard estates from intruders, descendants of an older breed (mollossers) who were bred as war dogs.
Rhodesian ridgebacks: bred to hunt and hold lions at bay. Think for a minute what kind of temperament you're selecting for when you're breeding a dog who's going to hold a cornered lion at bay.
Coonhounds: bred to tree raccoons or hold them at bay. Not sure how familiar you are with raccoons, or if you've ever accidentally cornered one, but again we're not talking an easy prey here. 
Rat terriers: bred to find and kill rats.
Sighthounds: bred to chase and kill prey.
LGDs: bred to protect livestock from predators including bears and wolves. Think about the temperament needed to engage a bear or pack of wolves. 
I haven't even gotten in to the human guarding breeds like dobermans, GSDs, or even more fun like Filas 

The truth is, many breeds have a history of being used to fight, hunt, guard, protect. 
And ALL dogs are predators who have the instinct to hunt, chase, and yes, kill. All dogs have teeth, all dogs are capable of using them.

So, if we're going to take what a dog was bred to do as a reason to worry about that breed, I'd say take a number, because the line is gonna be pretty long.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Nagini said:


> plenty of instances of them attacking and killing other dogs , cats and small furries. i daresay if i could be bothered to look i'd find one - in fact there's a thread running elsewhere about someone being attacked by their own greyhound so if you can be bothered , go look for it yourself.


I take it that is a recent thread and I did have a look for it and couldn't find it. I used Google with the search words 'Greyhound' and 'attack' and with a time period of the past month. Here are the results. I also did the same time scale search for 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' 'attack' and here are the results of that. What does that tell you?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> While bull&terrier breeds being total doofy oafs about rough handling is also not a surprise to anyone with a passing familiarity with the breed.
> .


Thai resents that you called him a doofy oaf


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I take it that is a recent thread and I did have a look for it and couldn't find it. I used Google with the search words 'Greyhound' and 'attack' and with a time period of the past month. Here are the results. I also did the same time scale search for 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' 'attack' and here are the results of that. What does that tell you?


That papers like the word attack more for staffies...

http://m.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Man-bitten-dog-Hertford/story-26395274-detail/story.html

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/n...9055-mums-anger-as-son11-bitten-twice-by-dog/

http://m.worcesternews.co.uk/news/12888548.UPDATE__Large_dog_causes_chaos_on_M5_in_Worcestershire/


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

There are plenty of links regarding greyhounds attacking other dogs:-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Greyhound+attacks+its+owner
and how about these:-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=greyhound+attacks+child


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I take it that is a recent thread and I did have a look for it and couldn't find it. I used Google with the search words 'Greyhound' and 'attack' and with a time period of the past month. Here are the results. I also did the same time scale search for 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' 'attack' and here are the results of that. What does that tell you?


nothing apart from the press love sensationalism. using a greyhound as a headline in an attack don't exactly have the same public reaction.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Nagini said:


> nothing apart from the press love sensationalism. using a greyhound as a headline in an attack don't exactly have the same reaction.


Sensationalism sells newspapers and vilifying a breed of dog is a good way to do that. It used to be German Shepherds then Rotties and Dobermans were the enemy, now its Bully breeds. If dogs has phones the press would be hacking into their voicemail too no doubt to sell yet more papers.


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> Sensationalism sells newspapers and vilifying a breed of dog is a good way to do that. It used to be German Shepherds then Rotties and Dobermans were the enemy, now its Bully breeds. If dogs has phones the press would be hacking into their voicemail too no doubt to sell yet more papers.


agree , they always seem to use the same sneezing dog photo , over and over again. it's boring.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Could someone explain the =/= sign?

Seen it a lot in quite a few threads and struggling to figure out what it means.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LinznMilly said:


> Could someone explain the =/= sign?
> 
> Seen it a lot in quite a few threads and struggling to figure out what it means.


Does not equal


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I'm amazed this thread has gone on so long. LurcherGreyhoundGirl, you're an idiot. If I could count what you know about dogs on my fingers it would only take two. One would say Jack, the other would say Shit. That's because that's all you know, Jack and Shit. Of course that's forgetting Jack left town. Why don't you do yourself a favour and stop posting crap?


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

silvi said:


> This bit confuses me .
> Sight hounds have a very high prey drive, but in my experience this does not make them more likely to attack other dogs. Even if they have both been chasing the same prey, they will usually share the spoils (and even help each other kill the prey ).
> 
> But when approached by another dog, if that dog is aggressive, given the chance a sight hound is much more likely to flee than stand and fight. *Because, as well as their speed making them excellent hunters, it also gives them the 'flight' advantage when in danger of attack.*
> ...


Comes in handy when you have a ball launcher and a pest of a badly-controlled dog wants to "say hello" too.  :Smug



Nicky10 said:


> Does not equal


Mucho appreciated!


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Google hits as statistical tools is probably not the most accurate tool. Just sayin’....
I mean, you can google “flat earth” and get plenty of hits “proving” that the earth is flat. 

I’m not really sure what we’re trying to prove here by googling killer greyhound vs. killer pit bull. 
As I’ve said already there’s not much comparison between the two breeds.

But yeah, let’s look at fatal incidents. Let’s for sure look at each of those incidents and see what we can learn from them. 
And what we learn from them is that breed is not a predictor of fatal attacks. Human factors however are. Dogs who are kept as loved, indoor family pets, who are properly socialized, trained and managed, don’t factor in here.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Thai resents that you called him a doofy oaf


Thai is a goober LOL <3


----------



## Moquette (Feb 15, 2014)

[Edited] Whoops, wrong thread!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Could the fact that Staffies and Staffy types are more popular with 'macho' types and those after status dogs than are Greyhounds have a bearing on the statistics?

It's like saying more Ford Fiestas were involved in accidents last year than were Ferraris, so Fiestas must be dangerous cars.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Dexter says remains of a small child clearly.....


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

Moquette said:


> [Edited] Whoops, wrong thread!


i liked looking at your photo's anyway


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sweety said:


> Could the fact that Staffies and Staffy types are more popular with 'macho' types and those after status dogs than are Greyhounds have a bearing on the statistics?
> 
> It's like saying more Ford Fiestas were involved in accidents last year than were Ferraris, so Fiestas must be dangerous cars.


This so much, they're one of the most common breeds plus the fact that anything remotely bullbreed like is classed as a staffy/pitbull. Of course there are going to be more reported attacks than most other breeds. Plus greyhounds are more often than not kept onlead and controlled.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sweety said:


> Could the fact that Staffies and Staffy types are more popular with 'macho' types and those after status dogs than are Greyhounds have a bearing on the statistics?
> 
> It's like saying more Ford Fiestas were involved in accidents last year than were Ferraris, so Fiestas must be dangerous cars.


She has already been told that but there is no changing bigots minds really! I do find it very interesting she is so set on her adgenda she doing exactly what she is accusing other of! I do hope when her chosen breed becomes more popular ( something she seems to think is wonderful) that she finally understand the impact popularity has on breeds reputation and how it also impacts on how many incidents happen! I'm done with this thread, little point trying to make zealots think outside their narrow minded blinkered view!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Meezey said:


> She has already been told that but there is no changing bigots minds really! I do find it very interesting she is so set on her adgenda she doing exactly what she is accusing other of! I do hope when her chosen breed becomes more popular ( something she seems to think is wonderful) that she finally understand the impact popularity has on breeds reputation and how it also impacts on how many incidents happen! I'm done with this thread, little point trying to make zealots think outside their narrow minded blinkered view!


I wouldn't wish demon dog status on any dog but I do think we'll hear more as ex-racer rescues become more popular. The majority of whom, like the majority of staffies make great pets, but there will always be some that don't.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

In 2001 Diane Whipple was killed by two presa canario dogs. These dogs were originally owned by a criminal who’s lawyers took them on after he was convicted. The new owners could not control the dogs, who had already bitten and terrorized other people in the apartment building they lived in. Diane herself had repeatedly complained about the dogs and was very fearful of them. On that fatal day, they got away from the owners and mauled Diane to death. 

When this happened in 2001, no one in San Francisco thought of banning any breeds.

Four years later, 12 year old Nicholas Faibish was killed by his family pit bull. The mother was concerned enough about leaving her child alone with the intact male and bitch in heat that she locked her son in the basement with a shovel on the door and told him to stay in there, leaving the two intact dogs loose in the rest of the house. The boy managed to get out of the basement and interrupted the dogs mating, was attacked and killed. The mom excused it as the male getting possessive of the bitch when they were mating.

After this incident, San Francisco decided pit bulls were dangerous dogs and banned them as of January 2006. Subsequently killing hundreds of innocent, perfectly safe dogs.

I know not everyone is a dog person, and I know some things about dogs aren’t as obvious to non-dog people as they are to dog people, but surely we can see that the issue here is not the breed? 
It seems so simple to me to deal with individual cases, the irresponsible owners, and individual dogs as the incidents happen. I really don’t know why we keep trying to make it about breed.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Killer Bulldog to squish....


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 229447
> 
> 
> Killer Bulldog to squish....


LOL lovely little puppy.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 229447
> 
> 
> Killer Bulldog to squish....


GET a fricken muzzle on it.......


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 229447
> 
> 
> Killer Bulldog to squish....


He's already been banned from somewhere and you're still trusting him .


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

This awful having to keep prising the Rottweilers from his sharp end when he's intent on killing them..


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Injury isn't what makes an attack imo, intent does. When Rupert was attacked he came away with quite minor injuries while the other dog needed a lot of vet care. I can say with absolute certainty that this was in no way a scuffle and that the attacking dog meant business. As did mine when he felt the need to defend himself against the attack. And, luckily for me and Rupe, he came away better off than the other dog. Physically at least. Mentally on the other hand was another matter. This was the turning point for him when it came to other dogs. Found out later that the dog in question had previously killed one dog and seriously injured several other dogs and was meant to be leashed and muzzled at all times in public.
> 
> Personally I find a scuffle and a real fight or attack look and sound very, very different. The few genuine attacks I've witnessed have been pretty much silent, no energy wasted on the growling, snarling and over the top displaying of teeth type stuff there is in a scuffle.


I'd agree that that would be what I define as an attack. Any injury, however small, would indicate intent to injure IMO and would be indicative of a dog who is putting on more than just a display.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Do not be fooled by the cheeky grin - this evil pit bull type munched kittens for breakfast, and picked his teeth with their bones.










I've managed to own two BADLY bred SBT's and neither of them have ever attacked anyone or anything. I wonder why that is....


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Oh no, i am mistaken...no pond net was safe 

 it could have been a child next!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone so ignorant.....

LGG, why do you think it is that we hear of SBT and bull breed attacks? I'll tell you why. It's because of people like yourself who foam at the mouth for some kind of hysteria surrounding these 'dangerous' breeds. You only serve to reinforce BSL and dangerous dog laws, because you blindly believe the sensationalist headlines persecuting these breeds. While people like you continue to swallow the BS spin the media portray these breeds, the more the media will continue.

You say a Greyhound has never killed a person? And you know this as fact because?? Could it be that maybe a Greyhound just doesn't generate the same interest as these 'deadly' bull breed? I can bet you Greyhounds are more responsible for dog deaths than bull breeds. A quick Google search throws up quite a few results.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Meezey said:


> She has already been told that but there is no changing bigots minds really! I do find it very interesting she is so set on her adgenda she doing exactly what she is accusing other of! I do hope when her chosen breed becomes more popular ( something she seems to think is wonderful) that she finally understand the impact popularity has on breeds reputation and how it also impacts on how many incidents happen! I'm done with this thread, little point trying to make zealots think outside their narrow minded blinkered view!


Couldn't agree more. She's very foolish and very close minded.

My Mum always used to say, "You can only expect grunts from pigs".

Let's hope she's done grunting!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Our old Staffy girl, Leah, once accidentally caught a mole when she was in the wood with my Son, Gary.

When Gary realised she was 'up to no good', he went running over, expecting the worst. It was a terrible scene to behold. Leah had given the mole a thorough wash and was in the process of making a nest for it between her front legs.

Had that been my Jack Russell, she would have killed it in a heartbeat. Leah wanted to keep it.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

This here vicious bullbreed got so bored of this thread he nodded off


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> This here vicious bullbreed got so bored of this thread he nodded off


I would muzzle him immediately, he's obviously on the verge of exploding into violence.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I would muzzle him immediately, he's obviously on the verge of exploding into violence.


I know I know, takes some managing in the house I can tell ya, (specific sofa cushions required, just so) my life is probably at risk........


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Well I think staffies are nasty and mean.......







Because those big brown eyes looking at me makes me melt and when they smile it uncovers my hard exterior...........and I ust have to give them a treat


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> LGG, why do you think it is that we hear of SBT and bull breed attacks? I'll tell you why. It's because of people like yourself who foam at the mouth for some kind of hysteria surrounding these 'dangerous' breeds. You only serve to reinforce BSL and dangerous dog laws, because you blindly believe the sensationalist headlines persecuting these breeds. While people like you continue to swallow the BS spin the media portray these breeds, the more the media will continue.
> /QUOTE]


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I mean it....look how frightened this baby is...he's terrorizing her....whilst she feeds him her biscuit....(the room was being decorated BTW I'm not a tramp haha)


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

No containing the marauding hounds of Satan rarrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> I don't think I've ever encountered anyone so ignorant.....
> 
> LGG, *why do you think it is that we hear of SBT and bull breed attacks? I'll tell you why. It's because of people like yourself who foam at the mouth for some kind of hysteria surrounding these 'dangerous' breeds. You only serve to reinforce BSL and dangerous dog laws, because you blindly believe the sensationalist headlines persecuting these breeds. While people like you continue to swallow the BS spin the media portray these breeds, the more the media will continue.*
> 
> You say a Greyhound has never killed a person? And you know this as fact because?? Could it be that maybe a Greyhound just doesn't generate the same interest as these 'deadly' bull breed? I can bet you Greyhounds are more responsible for dog deaths than bull breeds. A quick Google search throws up quite a few results.


For a while I helped out a rescue shelter where at least half the dogs were staffies or staffie x's. Why? because their reputation meant the wrong type of people were breeding them, for the wrong reason, to sell to the wrong people who eventually abandoned them. But the same reputation made it almost impossible to home them to anyone looking for a regular family pet - even some of the volunteers wouldn't walk them because they were too afraid. Most of them were lovely dogs with a lot to give. It's a damn shame


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 229459
> View attachment 229460
> 
> 
> No containing the marauding hounds of Satan rarrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!


THAT is a typical blokes pose haha...so cute picis


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Clare7435 said:


> THAT is a typical blokes pose haha...so cute picis


 The teeny tiny female Siamese rules that big lad lol


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 229459
> View attachment 229460
> 
> 
> No containing the marauding hounds of Satan rarrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!


Clearly, that boy is dreaming of his Masterplan for World Domination. Don't be fooled, sleep with one eye open.

We used to keep a bowl of ice cream handy for when Leah became unruly, calmed her down no end.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> The teeny tiny female Siamese rules that big lad lol
> View attachment 229461


What a beautiful boy


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Clearly, that boy is dreaming of his Masterplan for World Domination. Don't be fooled, sleep with one eye open.
> 
> We used to keep a bowl of ice cream handy for when Leah became unruly, calmed her down no end.


I'm not the only one who's dogs like icecream then ...Mine get one a month from the icecream van...how sad am I lol


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Dexter knows the sound of the ice cream van.....after one very successful group walk, where he'd been amaze balls, and interestingly attacked no one or another dog.... So I took him to get an ice cream...... In a queue of kids- oh the horror!


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Dexter knows the sound of the ice cream van.....after one very successful group walk, where he'd been amaze balls, and interestingly attacked no one or another dog.... So I took him to get an ice cream...... In a queue of kids- oh the horror!


riddick does too , queue with the kids , oh the shame of it!
even had to cut a panel out my front gates so the kids can stroke him on their way to school of a morning , he knows the times and goes running out onto the drive to sit in wait for them!


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> Dexter knows the sound of the ice cream van.....after one very successful group walk, where he'd been amaze balls, and interestingly attacked no one or another dog.... So I took him to get an ice cream...... In a queue of kids- oh the horror!


PMSL I get that when I look after my dads dog (the staff in the pic) it amazes me how many people either cross the road or hold back till I've passed


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Meezey's Cian is very dangerous *nods* I met him for a few minutes and went away soaked in drool. Imagine the cost of all the clothes washing


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Meezey's Cian is very dangerous *nods* I met him for a few minutes and went away soaked in drool. Imagine the cost of all the clothes washing


OMG you could have drowned or anything....I hope she's got good insurance...and the cleaning bills


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Meezey's Cian is very dangerous *nods* I met him for a few minutes and went away soaked in drool. Imagine the cost of all the clothes washing


You really do take ya life in ya hands with these powerful breeds......


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> You really do take ya life in ya hands with these powerful breeds......


You just make sure you control that beast


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

In all seriousness I met staffies and pitbull types on almost a daily basis. Most are happy wriggly dogs utterly devoted to their people, usually young chavs


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Meezey's Cian is very dangerous *nods* I met him for a few minutes and went away soaked in drool. Imagine the cost of all the clothes washing


slipping in the drool is the most dangerous thing , forget getting it all over your clothes


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Nagini said:


> slipping in the drool is the most dangerous thing , forget getting it all over your clothes


lol you're not wrong, I have 3 girls and 2 are in season....I see my Dad every day and the drool because my girls are in season is about 10 times what it usually is ....I keep calling him slug because of the slime haha


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Clare7435 said:


> lol you're not wrong, I have 3 girls and 2 are in season....I see my Dad every day and the drool because my girls are in season is about 10 times what it usually is ....I keep calling him slug because of the slime haha


They're separated when he's here though....I think staff x cavachon and lachon would be a disaster


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Clare7435 said:


> lol you're not wrong, I have 3 girls and 2 are in season....I see my Dad every day and the drool because my girls are in season is about 10 times what it usually is ....I keep calling him slug because of the slime haha


Wait a minute, your Dad drools over your bitches and you call him slug - sorry have not worked out how to do emoticons but there must be a suitable one


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Wait a minute, your Dad drools over your bitches and you call him slug - sorry have not worked out how to do emoticons but there must be a suitable one


PMSL ... Dad and the staff are indeed very much alike but Mac does the drooling ....The emotes are 14 along on the line above the reply box...click it and they all appear below


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Just so everyone is aware, this is bullbreed full on attack mode, when you accidentally wake them up by touching a paw.....


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I think we need to let this thread die now. There's only so many times everybody can repeat themselves. Maybe a thread for "dangerous dog" photos should be contributed to the forum... The photos are great. I fear for my life just viewing them.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Right. Enough with the arguments. I'm going to settle this debate right here, right now.

I am, in actual fact, raging. I'm furious! And yes, it involves a staffy. No, I'm not breed bashing.

Just took the dogs for their toilet break walks. Many of you will by now, know that Max is a DINOS, occasionally, he can be reactive on lead, and for some unknown reason, staffies are one of his triggers. We've had a great few days where he hasn't reacted at all - to any dogs. Even managed to walk past an exuberant, young Springer this afternoon with not so much as a lip lift from Max.

Tonight, we were walking towards a garden. Being in a street, they were both on lead. Milly had paused to have a pee (I really wish she wouldn't pee on the streets, but it's something she's started doing and I can't seem to stop), Suddenly a dog comes hurtling from the garden, turning right at the gateway, which doesn't have a gate at all, let alone a closed one, and straight into our personal space, setting Max off with the growling and lunging. :Rage:Rage The dog has the sense to retreat back to the relative safety of his garden, probably wondering what on Earth just happened, but meanwhile, we aren't so lucky. Max redirects on to Milly, who starts screaming blue murder. I'm holding them apart by their leads, trying to locate the owner. Of course, he's nowhere to be bloody seen, is he? Probably in the house, having let the dog out. I'm calling him for all the morons in Tyne and Wear, and dragging my 2 away. It wouldn't be the first time I've warned this particular owner, but he still keeps his dog off the lead. A few weeks ago, I was in the car and couldn't believe my eyes when I seen him cross the road with the staffy on the kerb, waiting to cross too.  

The moronic imbecile that owns him never even came to the window and once we were out of the street, my dogs calmed down and we continued our walk as if nothing happened. Milly's OK - I've checked her over and she's fine. At least physically. Max is snoozing under my legs as I type. Meanwhile, thanks to that idiot's stupidity, I'm typing this during an eczema flair up, brought on by the stress, typing in between scratching and applying creams while I wait for the antihistamines to kick in.

Morons like the one I've just talked about here are the reason staffies have the undeserved reputation as devil dogs, or dangerous dog. It isn't the Staffie's fault that his imbecile of an owner hasn't taught it not to fly through door the second it's opened. It's not his fault that the imbecile doesn't leash his dog in public spaces, and, being where I am, I'd be hard-pressed to get the warden to do anything except "advise the owner". :Grumpy


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Ouch, sorry to hear that Linz...

I don't have any advice or words of wisdom for you, just wanted to say "I feel you, bro!" I get crap like that on a regular basis with only one of my dogs. It used to be a biiiig problem, but she's stable as anything now and not much phases her so it's not a problem unless the other dog actually attacks her. Thankfully there aren't too many aggressive dogs who are owned by irresponsible owners in my area.

I hope Milly isn't affected by Max redirecting and I hope the owner of the other dog doesn't have to learn the importance of abiding by leash laws through having his dog seized, hit by a car, mauled by another dog, hurt by a scared person or stolen. Some people don't learn easily.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I hope they're both ok. It's those sorts of owners that could give any breed a bad name


----------



## Angiex1 (Mar 23, 2015)

I hope they are both ok, its idiot owners like that that cause so many problems


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Oops


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Right. Enough with the arguments. I'm going to settle this debate right here, right now.
> 
> I am, in actual fact, raging. I'm furious! And yes, it involves a staffy. No, I'm not breed bashing.
> 
> ...


I know that feeling all to well. Where I last lived the bloke above me had a NUTS JRT, and I mean in the sense it was totally hyper and full on. Would approach your dogs in that stiff as a board manner and would spring into growling and barking if your dog so much made a move  This neighbour KNEW Missy was DA. We'd had run ins before. But did he leash up the dog? No chance! For years it remained off lead and would come charging down the stairs and out into the garden and fields....we became very good at avoiding each other as we could hear when each other was heading out. But obviously we still had the odd run in, and it got so close up in Missy's face she often reacted and a couple of times it jumped her and they started to 'fight' with me pulling Missy out by her lead.

Did I report him? Nope. I wish I had the balls to have done so. But a previous run in with this idiot had resulted in myself feeling very threatened by him and I was worried to report him if I'm honest. I had to live under him and I was on my own. But it really does make things difficult doesn't it?


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Hope you're okay @LinznMilly 

Since we're talking idiot owners, just wanted to qualify that a bit further, specifically when it comes to those fighting dogs.

All breeds can have idiot owners and suffer because of it.
Fighting breeds have the extra burden of having psychopath owners - dogfighters.

Any dog lover who has some knowledge of what a fighting dog goes through can only end up admiring the temperament these dogs have even more. What these dogs go through and still remain for the most part as human friendly as they are simply blows my mind.

I hate that pitbulls and their types are implicated in so many horrific attacks, but there is a small part of me that wished they retaliated more. There are other breeds who would make good fighting dogs, but there is a reason they don't gain much momentum. That reason has to do with temperament. There is no other breed that I know of that will take the lot in life these dogs have been dealt, and still come out wiggly butt happy, sweet dogs. It's both incredibly sad but also just incredible the resilience and loyalty these dogs have.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Savage pitbull type 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/01/libby-pit-bull_n_7180470.html

Actually a very cool story, rescue pup becomes police dog


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Someone who lives close to me owns a little yorkie bitch. This little dog has a habit of hiding behind the hedge and flying out to 'have a go' at any passing dog. She did it once with Rosie. Rosie nipped her in the neck and she's never done it again to her, but she still does it with other dogs.

Her owner appears to think the whole thing is absolutely charming and laughs like a girl when she sees her do it. In the main, the little dog gets away with it, because she has the element of surprise, but, one day, when she does it to the wrong dog, you can bet the other dog, particularly if it's a bigger breed or, God Forbid, a Bull Breed, will get the blame.

I can see it now. "Staffy mauls tiny Yorkshire Terrier". No mention that the horrible little yorkie flew out and nailed the Staffy first. Not the dog's fault, I know, just the stupid owner who thinks it's cute because the dog is only eight inches tall.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> What people don't like is people like you putting a death wish on an entire breed because of a bad experience you had! You argued black was blue on here not to long ago about a biter being PTS you argued about how we as humans thought we were so much better than dogs and why should we have more rights than them, but it seems that was all bullshit... Equal right unless YOU deem them dangerous! You constantly ignore anything said about your chosen breed you are a narrow minded hypocrite! Thirty two greyhounds registered opposed to over 4000 SBT the breed is the 3rd most popular breed in the UK.
> 
> Now when YOUR wonderful breed becomes more popular and start killing more small dogs, cats and furries and the press latch on something to sell more copy I hope you personally are on the receiving end or the pure ignorance you are showing! You are not a dog lover! Your also the only one here showing their ignorance and lack of knowledge about breed traits you seem to want to ignore what your chosen breed is capable of, I am not, nor are most of the owners of dogs you judge...


Just having another look through the thread and noticed this.

So you hope that animals (including dogs, cats and humans) are attacked/killed just so the bite/fatality statistics of one breed go up? Is this correct? If so then you are sick!!


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I don't think I've ever encountered anyone so ignorant.....
> 
> LGG, why do you think it is that we hear of SBT and bull breed attacks? I'll tell you why. It's because of people like yourself who foam at the mouth for some kind of hysteria surrounding these 'dangerous' breeds. You only serve to reinforce BSL and dangerous dog laws, because you blindly believe the sensationalist headlines persecuting these breeds. While people like you continue to swallow the BS spin the media portray these breeds, the more the media will continue.
> 
> You say a Greyhound has never killed a person? And you know this as fact because?? Could it be that maybe a Greyhound just doesn't generate the same interest as these 'deadly' bull breed? I can bet you Greyhounds are more responsible for dog deaths than bull breeds. A quick Google search throws up quite a few results.


I think you've forgotten the history of the SBT and APBT and the FACT that they are STILL used for fighting!! I do wonder how many THOUSANDS of dogs have died in the ring or that have been killed because they were used as bait!!

And after more than a year's worth of searching the internet and reading books about Greyhounds I have NOT found a single human fatality caused by a Grey!!

You lot are just peeved that someone has pointed out the FACT that APBTs and SBTs are responsible for numerous human fatalities and are going to any length to defend the breeds.

In fact many of you disgust me as when presented with FACTS all you can do is dish out abuse and make sick jokes. It's no wonder haters won't change their minds. Not when the people who have those breeds have as repugnant attitudes as yours!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I think you've forgotten the history of the SBT and APBT and the FACT that they are STILL used for fighting!! I do wonder how many THOUSANDS of dogs have died in the ring or that have been killed because they were used as bait!!
> 
> And after more than a year's worth of searching the internet and reading books about Greyhounds I have NOT found a single human fatality caused by a Grey!!
> 
> ...


Again, I can find numerous stories of Greyhound attacks on other dogs. And they've all done far more damage than the SBT in your example. Why do YOU keep ignoring the facts of your own breed?


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

I’m not sure why it matters if we find incidents of greyhounds or staffies attacks? Why does the breed matter at all? 
Dogs owned by responsible owners are not a danger, regardless of breed. 

Why not look up the circumstances surrounding each attack, the human behavior involved, and learn from that?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I'm not sure why it matters if we find incidents of greyhounds or staffies attacks? Why does the breed matter at all?
> Dogs owned by responsible owners are not a danger, regardless of breed.
> 
> Why not look up the circumstances surrounding each attack, the human behavior involved, and learn from that?


You really think LGG is going to think that rationally?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I'm not sure why it matters if we find incidents of greyhounds or staffies attacks? Why does the breed matter at all?
> Dogs owned by responsible owners are not a danger, regardless of breed.
> 
> Why not look up the circumstances surrounding each attack, the human behavior involved, and learn from that?


Doesn't make as good headlines for the tabloids.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> I'm amazed this thread has gone on so long. LurcherGreyhoundGirl, you're an idiot. If I could count what you know about dogs on my fingers it would only take two. One would say Jack, the other would say Shit. That's because that's all you know, Jack and Shit. Of course that's forgetting Jack left town. Why don't you do yourself a favour and stop posting crap?


:Woot Love this post!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

@ouesi When I get my next dog (sorry poodles :Joyful), which I'm more and more sure will be a staffy, please will you be my mentor?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> @ouesi When I get my next dog (sorry poodles :Joyful), which I'm more and more sure will be a staffy, please will you be my mentor?


Noooooooo,. You cannot desert poodles! Why on earth would you want a staffy, they are friendly, easy to train and very handler oriented - but they shed hair :Greedy


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Ha ha @Blitz

I guess I've been unfortunate with mine, in that they have been in and out of the vet all their lives. Then there is the cost: because they are poodles the groomer costs a lot, and their sensitive stomachs mean that food is expensive too. However the real reason is one I've stated when we have threads discussing 'next dogs' - I can't bring myself to repeat a breed for fear of comparing with the dog(s) which has gone before.

Of course the temperament of the standard poodle is amazing; I really recommend them as a breed (although mine are too clever for their own good!).


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> In fact many of you disgust me as when presented with FACTS all you can do is dish out abuse and make sick jokes. It's no wonder haters won't change their minds. Not when the people who have those breeds have as repugnant attitudes as yours!


Yeah well your attitude sickens me...you are no dog lover, you are a breedist that refuses to listen to experience (you know that thing you should have before spouting your mouth off)...

Animal lover my arse :Vomit


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I think you've forgotten the history of the SBT and APBT and the FACT that they are STILL used for fighting!! I do wonder how many THOUSANDS of dogs have died in the ring or that have been killed because they were used as bait!!
> 
> And after more than a year's worth of searching the internet and reading books about Greyhounds I have NOT found a single human fatality caused by a Grey!!
> 
> ...


That dogs are dying in dog fighting rings is the fault of sadistic humans, not the animals they use. Do you fault hounds for killing foxes? Do you condemn them as vicious dogs, not to be trusted?

If you actually knew what you think you know about dog fighting, you would not be saying the things you are about pit bulls. You would be defending them as the amazingly resilient, stable, and loyal dogs that they are.

I've posted this video a couple times on this forum. Anyone who thinks fighting dogs are inherently vicious needs to watch this in it's entirety:


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> @ouesi When I get my next dog (sorry poodles :Joyful), which I'm more and more sure will be a staffy, please will you be my mentor?


IDK about me, but I can hook you up with some great people


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Just having another look through the thread and noticed this.
> 
> So you hope that animals (including dogs, cats and humans) are attacked/killed just so the bite/fatality statistics of one breed go up? Is this correct? If so then you are sick!!


No you are not correct you haven't been correct at any point in this thread. What you have done each and every time this being a prime example is ignore the facts and twist things to suit your zealot agenda. I was merely point out the FACT that you keep skipping over. popularity of the breed tends has a direct correlation with number of incidents. Go educate yourself on the true FACT rather than hysteria driven BS.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Ouch, sorry to hear that Linz...
> 
> I don't have any advice or words of wisdom for you, just wanted to say "I feel you, bro!" I get crap like that on a regular basis with only one of my dogs. It used to be a biiiig problem, but she's stable as anything now and not much phases her so it's not a problem unless the other dog actually attacks her. Thankfully there aren't too many aggressive dogs who are owned by irresponsible owners in my area.
> 
> I hope Milly isn't affected by Max redirecting and I hope the owner of the other dog doesn't have to learn the importance of abiding by leash laws through having his dog seized, hit by a car, mauled by another dog, hurt by a scared person or stolen. Some people don't learn easily.





Nicky10 said:


> I hope they're both ok. It's those sorts of owners that could give any breed a bad name





Angiex1 said:


> I hope they are both ok, its idiot owners like that that cause so many problems


Thanks, everyone. 

Milly's Ok-ish. A little more wary on the walk this morning (we changed route but still had to go round the houses to get to the field), often looking behind her and I caught her looking sidelong at Max at times to start with, but once we left the houses behind, she was back to her usual self and happy enough to do obedience and trick training.  She's fairly stoic for a lurcher - not sure if that's because of her cross (whippet x JRT) or because she was a stray in her previous life, before she came home with me, or a bit of both, but she's not one for showing if she's hurt and usually bounces back very quickly from an upset (Max is a proper drama llama ).



Dogloverlou said:


> I know that feeling all to well. Where I last lived the bloke above me had a NUTS JRT, and I mean in the sense it was totally hyper and full on. Would approach your dogs in that stiff as a board manner and would spring into growling and barking if your dog so much made a move  This neighbour KNEW Missy was DA. We'd had run ins before. But did he leash up the dog? No chance! For years it remained off lead and would come charging down the stairs and out into the garden and fields....we became very good at avoiding each other as we could hear when each other was heading out. But obviously we still had the odd run in, and it got so close up in Missy's face she often reacted and a couple of times it jumped her and they started to 'fight' with me pulling Missy out by her lead.
> 
> Did I report him? Nope. I wish I had the balls to have done so. But a previous run in with this idiot had resulted in myself feeling very threatened by him and I was worried to report him if I'm honest. I had to live under him and I was on my own. But it really does make things difficult doesn't it?


Sounds very much like the local JRT and his owner. He's even worse than the moron I was talking about yesterday, because the Staff usually stays in the one street, while the JRT will take himself off round the neighbourhood, which makes it difficult to know which way to go if you know he's going to be out. 



ouesi said:


> Hope you're okay @LinznMilly
> 
> Since we're talking idiot owners, just wanted to qualify that a bit further, specifically when it comes to those fighting dogs.
> 
> ...


I don't think I went far enough with the rant yesterday, so I'm glad you did clarify. 

I understand that any dog breed can be a victim of idiot owners  I wasn't specifically targeting bull breeds or Devil Dogs.  

You're stronger than I am, Ouesi. I couldn't get involved in any way with dog fighting, even if it was only through research. I admire that you know so much about it to feel as strongly about the dogs involved as you do. Maybe that makes me sound like an ostrich - sticking my head in the sand (I know they don't really do that ), but that's something about which I couldn't bring myself to find out more. It's enough for me to know that it happens.

I hope that doesn't come across as implying that you're actually involved in dog fighting  because I certainly don't mean it to.  :Shy We need dog lovers who aren't afraid, or too reviled to tackle the issue head-on, but not something I could do myself.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

LinznMilly said:


> I understand that any dog breed can be a victim of idiot owners  I wasn't specifically targeting bull breeds or Devil Dogs.
> 
> You're stronger than I am, Ouesi. I couldn't get involved in any way with dog fighting, even if it was only through research. I admire that you know so much about it to feel as strongly about the dogs involved as you do. Maybe that makes me sound like an ostrich - sticking my head in the sand (I know they don't really do that ), but that's something about which I couldn't bring myself to find out more. It's enough for me to know that it happens.
> 
> I hope that doesn't come across as implying that you're actually involved in dog fighting  because I certainly don't mean it to.  :Shy


Oh, I know you weren't targeting a certain breed, just highlighting the damage irresponsible owners can do.

And no, I know you're not implying I'm involved in dog fighting. It's just much more ubiquitous that people realize, (well, it is here), and between OH being a police officer and me working with children (who don't know not to mention the 11 pit bulls dad has chained up outside), plus work in rescue, I end up finding out way more that I would ever want to. 
But then I'm all about education and the more we know, the more we can affect change.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

ouesi said:


> That dogs are dying in dog fighting rings is the fault of sadistic humans, not the animals they use. Do you fault hounds for killing foxes? Do you condemn them as vicious dogs, not to be trusted?
> 
> If you actually knew what you think you know about dog fighting, you would not be saying the things you are about pit bulls. You would be defending them as the amazingly resilient, stable, and loyal dogs that they are.
> 
> I've posted this video a couple times on this forum. Anyone who thinks fighting dogs are inherently vicious needs to watch this in it's entirety:


Shame on Peta and The Humane Society!


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

Pupcakes said:


> Shame on Peta and The Humane Society!


Oh LOL! Don't get me started again on PeTA's stance on pit bulls :Rage

ETA: I wonder how much of LGG's "research" is from AR agenda sites that want to see these dogs eradicated


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> No you are not correct you haven't been correct at any point in this thread. What you have done each and every time this being a prime example is ignore the facts and twist things to suit your zealot agenda. I was merely point out the FACT that you keep skipping over. popularity of the breed tends has a direct correlation with number of incidents. Go educate yourself on the true FACT rather than hysteria driven BS.


So what exactly did you mean?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

PETA's stance on anything is pretty laughable TBH.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> So what exactly did you mean?


What do YOU mean by your posts on this thread?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> So what exactly did you mean?


Meezey meant that the more dogs of a certain breed, the more likely there are to be records of attacks....or records of anything come to that. Simply because there are many more of them to get data from.

So if there are far fewer dogs recorded for another breed, just because there are also fewer attacks recorded for this breed does not mean that proportionately they attack less; just that there are less dogs of this breed to get data from.

It really is simple statistics.

I do take your point (mentioned earlier on) that many greyhounds are not on KC records. But you must realise that this same argument also applies to staffies and any other breed.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> IDK about me, but I can hook you up with some great people


@ouesi Thank you


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Which US president was least guilty?...Abraham Lincoln...He was _in a cent_.

This thread is about as funny as that joke. We're never going to come to a mutual understanding with the people on the opposing team. I can see this thread stretching to 100 pages and about 90 of those pages will be people just repeating themselves. :Meh


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Which US president was least guilty?...Abraham Lincoln...He was _in a cent_.
> 
> This thread is about as funny as that joke. We're never going to come to a mutual understanding with the people on the opposing team. I can see this thread stretching to 100 pages and about 90 of those pages will be people just repeating themselves. :Meh


Yeah, I never know whether to keep posting or just quit. 
I hold out hope that there are people reading threads like these who are totally ignorant (in an innocent way) and hopefully the information posted will help them gain knowledge and a more informed opinion.

And like I said earlier, I will always fight BSL and the thinking that leads to it every chance I get. I've seen what saying/doing nothing does. It results in literally millions of innocent, good, stable, family dogs being killed. So I won't go that route ever.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

silvi said:


> Meezey meant that the more dogs of a certain breed, the more likely there are to be records of attacks....or records of anything come to that. Simply because there are many more of them to get data from.
> 
> So if there are far fewer dogs recorded for another breed, just because there are also fewer attacks recorded for this breed does not mean that proportionately they attack less; just that there are less dogs of this breed to get data from.
> 
> ...


Spot on , KC registration can be an indicator of a breeds popularity as a whole, more registered dogs the more unregulated dogs also! In 2005 there were nearly 7000 Rottweilers register 2014 just over a 1000, the breeds mostly seen from bite stats in A&E also happen to be some of the largest in terms of breed registration numbers and just popularity outside KC registration also.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27690167

356,000 compared to 49,400 is a HUGE difference in popularity guess which number belongs to which breeds?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Spot on , KC registration can be an indicator of a breeds popularity as a whole, more registered dogs the more unregulated dogs also! In 2005 there were nearly 7000 Rottweilers register 2014 just over a 1000, the breeds mostly seen from bite stats in A&E also happen to be some of the largest in terms of breed registration numbers and just popularity outside KC registration also.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27690167
> 
> 356,000 compared to 49,400 is a HUGE difference in popularity guess which number belongs to which breeds?


Erm........


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Which US president was least guilty?...Abraham Lincoln...He was _in a cent_.
> 
> This thread is about as funny as that joke. We're never going to come to a mutual understanding with the people on the opposing team. I can see this thread stretching to 100 pages and about 90 of those pages will be people just repeating themselves. :Meh


Although there is never likely to be understanding from teams of people with completely opposing views, I would take a bet that many people reading this thread are undecided as to which 'team' they are on, or whether they perhaps need to change their view.

Although I am not 'breedist', it would be silly for me to deny that many people who would not call themselves breedist either are still very wary of certain breeds of dogs (even including greyhounds in some cases); some because of the way 'dog attacks' are portrayed in the media and others because of personal experience of a dog who was owned by someone who really had no clue.

So, anything that demonstrates that it is not the actual breed that is important, but the person handling them (or people who have handled that breed in the past), I see as a good thing and something which needs to be said again and again.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I think the last 50 pages of people defending the breed might be enough for anybody who is likely to be swayed to accept that the breed is rarely to blame for the dangerous behaviours.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Oh LOL! Don't get me started again on PeTA's stance on pit bulls :Rage
> 
> ETA: I wonder how much of LGG's "research" is from AR agenda sites that want to see these dogs eradicated


I do dread to think!

Just yesterday my OHs friend said "Oh yeah so-and-so is a Vegan and into PeTA, that's the thing, they're all like that" without knowing I'm a Vegan. Most people assume you run around with buckets of blood chucking it over people with fur coats. I thought I liked them because I thought they were fighting for a good cause, but after a few things I am not a fan anymore. I prefer to support local AR/animal groups/rescues.

You do find among 'dog lovers' not everyone loves dogs.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I think the last 50 pages of people defending the breed might be enough for anybody who is likely to be swayed to accept that the breed is rarely to blame for the dangerous behaviours.


I would certainly like to think so.....


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I've been following it and think most people go by personal experience. I understand that the breed that went for mine isn't representative of all of them. I'm afraid it's now the one that if they came running off lead towards mine I'd pick my Yorkie up without hesitation. She would have been killed if the same dog had of done what they did to my older dog. I wouldn't pick her up though in other situations. 

No amount of knowing it was just that one dog will stop how I feel and the guilt that I didn't realise when it ran down the hill what he was going to do to my older dog-especially as they had walked past fine earlier. I refuse to 'breed bash' though as I've met miles more that are perfectly fine.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

dogsaintdumb said:


> This thread is about as funny as that joke.


Its esp funny coz you are all just arguing with the same single person! :Hilarious I think its pretty telling that after 63 pages they havent found anybody to back up their viewpoint!


----------



## magpie (Jan 3, 2009)

This thread makes me sad. There are enough people out there who hate all dogs and think they are all potentially dangerous killers, that it makes no sense for dog lovers to be arguing that breed 'a' is more or less aggressive or dangerous than breed 'b'. To many non-dog people there is no difference between a greyhound and a staffie, they are just two big dogs with big teeth.

From my own personal experience of working with dogs, staffies are one of the more friendly and less-likely to bite breeds that I tend to encounter. Breeds that have bitten or attempted to bite members of staff that I know of include: dacshund, westie, chihuahua, shih tzu, bearded collie, cocker spaniel, border collie, german shepherd, miniature poodle, pomeranian, bichon frise, shar pei, bulldog, basset hound, labrador, rottweiler, jrt, probably a few others and several mongrels/mixed breeds too. Not that it matters or means anything, because none of these dogs are intrinsically dangerous just because of their breed. Breed is an aside. The point is that any dog can bite and any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

As is so often the case, people are usually the problem


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Again, I can find numerous stories of Greyhound attacks on other dogs. And they've all done far more damage than the SBT in your example. Why do YOU keep ignoring the facts of your own breed?


I have NOT ignored them! I HAVE acknowledged them! You lot on the other hand are so blinkered that you are NOT acknowledging ALL the fatal attacks on people that YOUR breeds ARE responsible for! Somebody posted a link to a story about a woman being attacked by her Grey yet it seems that all it took was another person showing up to stop the dog attacking. If only the presence of another person is enough to stop an attack by a SBT or APBT. The dog that LynnM spoke about had to be run over by a CAR to stop it attacking that whippet. So don't you tell me that Greyhounds are more dangerous!

And I have not visited the likes of DogsBite that often. What I have done is read books, used more reputable sources like Time and regional non-tabloid newspapers, watched numerous attack videos (in order to see the behaviour and bite patterns during attacks), have spoken to other people with dogs and read studies about genetics and aggression.

You keep harping on about all dogs being equal and breed traits. But when it comes to SBTs and APBTs they ARE different! When dog fighting was rife the dogs that were more highly prized were the ones that were super aggressive and dogs that showed little or no warning before attacking won more fights than the ones that put on a big display before attacking. So don't you think that selectively breeding for those traits and allowing the breeding of human aggressive dogs over numerous generations might just have an impact?

You also say that hatred stems from 'media hysteria'. If that were true then how is it that I have come across stories about other breeds attacking and that I have also come across some positive stories about SBTs and APBTs? If the media had an 'agenda' then surely that would not be the case. It should also be noted that Huffington Post (one of the biggest online news outlets) has a section devoted to Pit Bulls and the Daily Mail has actually run positive stories about SBTs. If the media was out to demonize the breeds then please explain to me why they have covered stories about other breeds attacking. Surely if the media was so prejudiced then those attacks would not have been covered.

It should also be noted that the woman who had the dog that attacked Brochan is not your stereotypical irresponsible chav who keeps a status dog. She'd had the dog since she was a puppy and was well socialised with other dogs and people. She had been fine with other dogs until she hit maturity. The woman also has an immaculate garden and the odd time I have seen into her house through the window it has been perfect too. She never wears tracksuits, Burberry, etc. So like I said not your stereotypical chav. Anytime my Mum and/or I would walk past the house with our dogs the woman's dog would bark at ours. However we have not heard or seen the dog for a good number of months so we can only guess what happened to her. As for the dog not managing to injure mine. Well she damned near killed a couple of other dogs!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)




----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have NOT ignored them! I HAVE acknowledged them! You lot on the other hand are so blinkered that you are NOT acknowledging ALL the fatal attacks on people that YOUR breeds ARE responsible for! Somebody posted a link to a story about a woman being attacked by her Grey yet it seems that all it took was another person showing up to stop the dog attacking. If only the presence of another person is enough to stop an attack by a SBT or APBT. The dog that LynnM spoke about had to be run over by a CAR to stop it attacking that whippet. So don't you tell me that Greyhounds are more dangerous!
> 
> And I have not visited the likes of DogsBite that often. What I have done is read books, used more reputable sources like Time and regional non-tabloid newspapers, watched numerous attack videos (in order to see the behaviour and bite patterns during attacks), have spoken to other people with dogs and read studies about genetics and aggression.
> 
> ...


You really are true Zealot aren't you? And a stalker too?? Looking in peoples windows? Knowing their WHOLE wardrobe. You really need to get a grip of yourself?


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Irresponsible owners can have all sorts of breeds. The majority of attacks are caused by irresponsible owners, and most repeat attacks are the result of an irresponsible owner. Breed has nothing to do with dogs attacking people or other dogs. Breed only has to do with the dog being more *inclined* to cause damage to another dog/person. If a new dog breed emerged today called the Maneater that was bred purposely to eat people, a responsible owner could still prevent that dog from eating people.

Breed has nothing to do with irresponsible owners. Staffies are a status symbol to some people and are more likely to be snatched up by irresponsible owners who want an aggressive dog, so will encourage aggression or provoke it. They're also more popular than a lot of other breeds for that reason. They are the reasons that Staffies are in the news for attacks more often than other breeds. If Labradors were seen as a status symbol, they would also suffer the same fate as Staffies for the same reasons.

This has all been said repeatedly in different ways before. I'm actually going to bow out of this thread as, in some cases, trying is redundant. Some people are too callow.

It does not take a brain surgeon to pop a zit.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

Meezey said:


> You really are true Zealot aren't you? And a stalker too?? Looking in peoples windows? Knowing their WHOLE wardrobe. You really need to get a grip of yourself?


So you have NEVER inadvertently looked in somebody's else's window? And you really are grasping at straws in order to be abusive towards me. It's no wonder there are lots of people who dislike certain breeds when the people that have them are like you!


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Die custard cream! DIE!


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> The dog that LynnM spoke about had to be run over by a CAR to stop it attacking that whippet.


Um...no. Just because no one around knew how to break up a dog fight doesn't mean the dog had to be run over in order to stop him.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> And I have not visited the likes of DogsBite that often. What I have done is read books, used more reputable sources like Time and regional non-tabloid newspapers, *watched numerous attack videos* (in order to see the behaviour and bite patterns during attacks), have spoken to other people with dogs and read studies about genetics and aggression.


 The bolded just makes you sound kind of creepy actually.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> You keep harping on about all dogs being equal and breed traits. But when it comes to SBTs and APBTs they ARE different! When dog fighting was rife the dogs that were more highly prized were the ones that were super aggressive and dogs that showed little or no warning before attacking won more fights than the ones that put on a big display before attacking. So don't you think that selectively breeding for those traits and allowing the breeding of human aggressive dogs over numerous generations might just have an impact?


a) dog fighting is still rife. b) showing little or no warning has nothing to do with how a dog fight (either street or pit) is fought. What is most prized is will (gameness), tenacity, endurance and stamina. All of which translate quite safely in to other pursuits.



LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> It should also be noted that the woman who had the dog that attacked Brochan is not your stereotypical irresponsible chav who keeps a status dog. She'd had the dog since she was a puppy and was well socialised with other dogs and people. She had been fine with other dogs until she hit maturity. The woman also has an immaculate garden and the odd time I have seen into her house through the window it has been perfect too. She never wears tracksuits, Burberry, etc. So like I said not your stereotypical chav. Anytime my Mum and/or I would walk past the house with our dogs the woman's dog would bark at ours. However we have not heard or seen the dog for a good number of months so we can only guess what happened to her. As for the dog not managing to injure mine. Well she damned near killed a couple of other dogs!


OMG :Hilarious you are very good at stereotyping 
Listen, I know that was a traumatic experience for you and I'm sorry for you and your dog that you went though that. But that kind of incident is fairly common with many breeds.

Incidents where there are devastating injuries to humans and/or death are really, really rare. And upon examining them there have always been human factors that directly contribute to the dog attacking.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Die custard cream! DIE!


OMFG Do I send you the bill if my laptop stops working because I just spat coffee all over the screen haha


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Um...no. Just because no one around knew how to break up a dog fight doesn't mean the dog had to be run over in order to stop him.
> 
> The bolded just makes you sound kind of creepy actually.
> 
> ...


I never thought of this before but are they called pit bull terriers because they fight in pits.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I never thought of this before but are they called pit bull terriers because they fight in pits.


Yup. Bull baiting breeds crossed with terriers that fought in a pit. Pit bull terriers.

Ever heard of the expression "off the chain" as in something is really, really good? That's a dog fighting expression. When dogs are good enough, as in they know they will go in to a fight instead of try to avoid one, they're let "off the chain".


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

@LurcherGreyhoundGirl

No one should try to minimise the horror you felt when another dog attached your beloved lurcher, or the trauma your dog must have experienced.
Whether or not the damage done could have been more serious shouldn't be an issue either. Dog on dog attacks are horrible and traumatising for all concerned.

As someone whose own dog has been attacked, I do understand your pain. And I also admit that those attacks have made me wary too.

When Sophie was attacked by three staffies, I was fearful and angry too - in that the staffie owners just laughed at first, until one of them reluctantly came over and took charge of the dogs.
However, in hindsight, I know that those dogs, if they had had the mind to do so, could have killed Sophie long before the owner waded in to stop it. But they didn't.

As to Sophie's second attack - by a pair of boxers, they _were_ going in for the kill and probably would have done so had I not managed to block the more dominant dog of the pair while calling to the owner to ffs get a hold of her dogs.

And I will admit that in both cases, my anger at those dogs was on a level with my anger at their owners, because I was upset. And in the second case because Sophie was hurt and bleeding.

But once sanity prevailed, I was able to look at things more rationally. and I realised that, in the first case, the staffie owners were just inconsiderate idiots and that their dogs were certainly not the 'swift killers' I had thought they could be.
And I realised that the owner of the boxers really wasn't in control of her dogs at all (I have seen her since, but now she always walks them with her partner and the dogs are never let off leash as far as I am aware).

But what I also realised was that Sophie herself is her own worst enemy. Not that she should be attacked for this, but she definitely sends off the wrong signals to other dogs which (so far) no socialisation techniques have helped.

I'm not saying that your dogs are like this, by the way, just that this was another thing I had to learn about Sophie - that I have to watch her for signals and try to control them....somehow....

What this also taught me is that, even though I have had dogs for all my life, I still have much to learn about them.

And that's why I would never blame a breed or group of breeds, because while learning about dogs I also learned that, despite them all having certain 'traits', it is owners, environment and sometimes history that usually define the dog's behaviour.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I get really arsed off when people bash the bull breeds because it appears that those people are going on the attacks which end up in the papers and we all know the ones who end up in the papers are bull breeds....that really boils my piss because there are loads of others which just aren't reported. I've seen a few over the years...even been a 'victim' of one myself as a child and hey...not one was a bull breed. The worst one I have ever seen is a JRT bite the face of a 2 year old.....and before the bashing starts it wasn't the dogs fault either....can't even be arsed to tell the full story to be honest because there will be judgement but it was HUMAN responsible....Bull breeds are big and strong so when they bite it ends up in the papers...when a little dog bites it doesn't ...It's a little like car crashes....no one takes notice of them....but plane crashes....EVERYONE focuses on don't they....but there are more car crashes than plane crashes...but we focus on them because the media are on them like a tramp on a sandwich...and its the same as so called dog attacks....little ones get left....big bull breeds get the attention even though there are probably less involving big dogs than small ones......


----------



## Angiex1 (Mar 23, 2015)

I used to have a Staffy x Rottie, he came from the kennels that strays are taken to, we didn't actually get him first, we got a Flat Coat Retriever, no there is no history on these dogs but they still all need good homes, we brought the Retriever home and he went to bite my daughter, he had been fine at the kennels, now I know he was settling in still, but her being bitten was not something I was prepared to let happen, we rang the kennels and they said to return him, which we did the next day after he yet again went to bite her, all she did was walk past him, never touched him, looked at him or did anything, I NEVER blamed the dog I blamed the previous owners, I would take a guess that a small child had played rough with it or hurt it more than once for it to react like that, as he was fine with me and my partner and my teenage son. But at least then he could be rehomed and the new owners warned to keep small children away from him, and not home him with small children.
They told us to see if there was another dog that was suitable for us, and we saw a Staffy x Rottie, who we had seen previously, we took him home with us, and he was lovely, all he wanted to do was sit next to us and have a fuss, we took him for a walk, and kept him on lead, as didn't know how good his recall was, and I was sat with him when someone let their Retriever come bounding upto him at full pelt and get in his face, he snarled I moved him away, but he did give a warning with the snarl first, the Retrievers owner said he shouldn't be there if he is nasty, my answer to her was, " my dog is on lead under my control, YOUR dog is off lead out of control and getting into other dogs faces, maybe you should control your dog better" she couldn't answer me then. After that it was safer not only for my dog but for others to be kept apart, after that while we had him, he never once growled or snarled at another dog, he never attacked another animal. I will say this, I don't know how he ever trusted a human being, he was never socialised, he was left to stray, and I KNOW he was beaten by a previous owner and also shouted at, How do I know, if I went to brush my hair, he would be on the floor cowering and shaking, if I shouted upstairs to someone he would run to the furthest part of the house again cowering and shaking. Over a short period of time, he came to realise that we would not ever hurt him and he came to trust us completely, he had every reason not to trust anyone but he never once ever showed so much as a tooth at a human being whether adult or child.
Regardless of breed, it is bad owners and irresponsible owners that cause the problems, just sadly right now bull breeds are used as status symbols by idiots who want to look tough, there is a JRT round the corner from me, who I have seen numerous times go to bite its owner, snapping and snarling and going for her, and just missing biting her.
Sorry for the essay have read every post on this thread and held my tongue upto now, yes I did have a dog agressive dog, but while I owned him he never did put a foot wrong, it was someone elses dog that caused him to bare his teeth and snarl and that dog was out of its owners control, mine was under my control.

Irresponsible owners should be the ones permanantly banned from owning any breed of dog.

Here is my dog that I had


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I have NOT ignored them! I HAVE acknowledged them! You lot on the other hand are so blinkered that you are NOT acknowledging ALL the fatal attacks on people that YOUR breeds ARE responsible for! Somebody posted a link to a story about a woman being attacked by her Grey yet it seems that all it took was another person showing up to stop the dog attacking. If only the presence of another person is enough to stop an attack by a SBT or APBT. The dog that LynnM spoke about had to be run over by a CAR to stop it attacking that whippet. So don't you tell me that Greyhounds are more dangerous!
> 
> And I have not visited the likes of DogsBite that often. What I have done is read books, used more reputable sources like Time and regional non-tabloid newspapers, watched numerous attack videos (in order to see the behaviour and bite patterns during attacks), have spoken to other people with dogs and read studies about genetics and aggression.
> 
> ...


I'm really not sure whether you're deliberately playing dumb now or what. But quote me anyone in this thread that's said SBT and APBT's have NOT caused injuries or can't be dangerous in the wrong hands. The only point anyone in this thread has been trying to make is that it's NOT the breed as a whole that is responsible for these attacks and irresponsible owners are the root cause. That is all. You OTOH seem to skim over those points and keep maligning the breed as a whole. It appears you have one agenda and that is clearly to keep stereotyping and ignoring facts and points raised by those who know more than you do regarding the breeds. How can you be an expert on a breed you don't even own?

I can only pity you that you judge the breed as a whole through one incident you had. Thankfully the rest of us have more sense.

As a result I won't continue to respond to you now as you've continually proved you're not interested in rational discussion.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Media being the main resource says all I need to know. Wonder why the CDC actually no longer lists breeds.. that's right, they have stated that breed identifications are not trustworthy. 

The focus on breeds is one of the main contributing factors to the lack of education and prevention of many tragic attacks.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I think you've forgotten the history of the SBT and APBT and the FACT that they are STILL used for fighting!! I do wonder how many THOUSANDS of dogs have died in the ring or that have been killed because they were used as bait!!
> 
> And after more than a year's worth of searching the internet and reading books about Greyhounds I have NOT found a single human fatality caused by a Grey!!
> 
> ...


@LurcherGreyoundGirl I'm still waiting for an answer. How would you feel if sighthounds were demonised as Devil dogs and you (and I) faced the same stereotypical hysteria that bull-breed owners do? How would you feel if sighthounds could be seized from their homes and owners and destroyed purely because of their looks? How would you feel if someone on this forum then spouted the same vitriol that you are about bull-breeds?

I've had a tiny taste of what bull breed owners go through. Not because Max looks "of type" but because the owner of a GSD who attacked Max and bit him clean through to the bone, had a vendetta against us and "reported" us to the Dog Warden, saying that we were letting Max out in the street when kids were going to and coming from school. The GSD owner even went so far as to say that Max was "terrorizing" the kids. In reality, at the time when Max was allegedly outside, barking at and "terrifying" the kids, we were all at work and Max was securely locked in the house. He didn't get out until I came home from work an hour later and took him for a walk but instead of doing their job properly and investigating the allegations, the DW simply issued us with warnings. Second one being, "any more reports, and the dog will be seized".

Even now, I'm still reluctant to walk the Mutts between 2 and 4pm, and we now live in a different area away from the GSD owner who started all this.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> @LurcherGreyoundGirl with warnings. Second one being, "any more reports, and the dog will be seized".
> 
> Even now, I'm still reluctant to walk the Mutts between 2 and 4pm, and we now live in a different area away from the GSD owner who started all this.


I would have told the Dog warden where to go if he issued threats like that to me without any actual evidence to support his or her position other than a report from a neighbour who may have ulterior motives in making the allegation. This isn't a police state, dog wardens cant simply decide to cease a dog on hearsay.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Whoops, double post! Where is the delete post option?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> @LurcherGreyoundGirl I'm still waiting for an answer. How would you feel if sighthounds were demonised as Devil dogs and you (and I) faced the same stereotypical hysteria that bull-breed owners do? How would you feel if sighthounds could be seized from their homes and owners and destroyed purely because of their looks? How would you feel if someone on this forum then spouted the same vitriol that you are about bull-breeds?
> 
> I've had a tiny taste of what bull breed owners go through. Not because Max looks "of type" but because the owner of a GSD who attacked Max and bit him clean through to the bone, had a vendetta against us and "reported" us to the Dog Warden, saying that we were letting Max out in the street when kids were going to and coming from school. The GSD owner even went so far as to say that Max was "terrorizing" the kids. In reality, at the time when Max was allegedly outside, barking at and "terrifying" the kids, we were all at work and Max was securely locked in the house. He didn't get out until I came home from work an hour later and took him for a walk but instead of doing their job properly and investigating the allegations, the DW simply issued us with warnings. Second one being, "any more reports, and the dog will be seized".
> 
> Even now, I'm still reluctant to walk the Mutts between 2 and 4pm, and we now live in a different area away from the GSD owner who started all this.


That's awful.
People like the GSD owner are awful and dog wardens not doing their job properly are awful too.
That must have been a nightmare for you.


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

How has this thread got to 66 pages!? I'm lucky to get 1 reply to any of my threads. 

Most people know I'm a bully lover as I own one. If someone doesn't like them then that's their loss.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

LouLatch said:


> How has this thread got to 66 pages!? I'm lucky to get 1 reply to any of my threads.
> 
> Most people know I'm a bully lover as I own one. If someone doesn't like them then that's their loss.


You need to start a thread about:

A) a dog attack.
B) hatred towards bull breeds or any breed for that matter - dont forget to argue black is blue, the sky is pink and the ocean made of custard, even if you know this not to be true.
C) dominance and/or CM.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Nonnie said:


> You need to start a thread about:
> 
> A) a dog attack.
> B) hatred towards bull breeds or any breed for that matter - dont forget to argue black is blue, the sky is pink and the ocean made of custard, even if you know this not to be true.
> C) dominance and/or CM.


or D: Malamutes and huskies off leash!


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

Nonnie said:


> You need to start a thread about:
> 
> A) a dog attack.
> B) hatred towards bull breeds or any breed for that matter - dont forget to argue black is blue, the sky is pink and the ocean made of custard, even if you know this not to be true.
> C) dominance and/or CM.





cbcdesign said:


> or D: Malamutes and huskies off leash!


So that's where I've been going wrong!


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> You need to start a thread about:
> 
> A) a dog attack.


It doesn't work if your dog gets attacked by a small breed


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

shadowmare said:


> It doesn't work if your dog gets attacked by a small breed


Lie.

Most people on the forum already do anyway.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

To be fair to LurcherGreyhoundGirl the main point she is arguing is against the term "nanny dog". Whilst I can understand this attitude, after all "no dog is 100% safe", many dog breeds have labels, "Family dog", "guard dog" etc even though it's not going to ever be 100% accurate. It's all comparative against other dog breeds. Fact is, compared to other breeds the dogs in question are called "nanny dogs" for a reason. It would also be fair to say that due to media bias people are more aware of potential issues than other dog breeds. Unfortunately the whole Media bias along with the BSL fiasco actually encourages poor ownership and poor breeding. If LurcherGreyhoundGirl wants to campaign to make walks safer she should be passionate against BSL and for owner education and responsibility.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I would have told the Dog warden where to go if he issued threats like that to me without any actual evidence to support his or her position other than a report from a neighbour who may have ulterior motives in making the allegation. This isn't a police state, dog wardens cant simply decide to cease a dog on hearsay.


Second time, the time he issued us with an ultimatum, we weren't in the house and he posted the threat through the door.  I tried phoning but they weren't answering, so I sent them a strongly worded email, (how very British of me ) basically telling them to do their job properly and investigate the claim, and invited them to come and meet Max for themselves,rather than simply believing the word of one woman who seemed like she was hell bent on causing trouble.

Of course, we didn't get an apology and they never did come and visit us in our home, but we moved away soon afterwards anyway. 



silvi said:


> That's awful.
> People like the GSD owner are awful and dog wardens not doing their job properly are awful too.
> That must have been a nightmare for you.


Yeah, the GSD owner was one of those who believes her dog can do no wrong.  Tried to dismiss the canine-shaped hole in the front of Max's wrist as a glass injury. :Wacky :Facepalm  I should have posted the vet bill through her door, but I didn't have the guts at the time. I would now, though.

As for the ultimatum, I remember posting a thread about it on the fishkeeping forum I was on at the time (in their General forum, of course) and I still remember one "internet friend" saying that they'd be taking his dog from his cold dead hands, and I guess I adopted that attitude. It was almost a relief to move away from there in the end and I've never received any complaints or threats of the kind since. 

Of course, it p!$$es me off that when I report irresponsible owners for allowing their dogs to attack mine, I get told "well, not all dogs get along" and that "we could go and advise them, but that's about it, really"   But they were willing to take mine off me without investigating the allegations properly.

Anyway, I didn't mean these posts to turn into stories about me and Max.  Just saying that I do understand just a little of what bull breed owners must go through and it makes me empathic towards them when I see threads like this.

Incathepup has been very quiet, lately - considering she started the thread.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I think you've forgotten the history of the SBT and APBT and the FACT that they are STILL used for fighting!! I do wonder how many THOUSANDS of dogs have died in the ring or that have been killed because they were used as bait!!
> 
> And after more than a year's worth of searching the internet and reading books about Greyhounds I have NOT found a single human fatality caused by a Grey!!
> 
> ...


And who's decision was it for them to fight other dogs and bait animals. The dogs or the owners?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Yup. Bull baiting breeds crossed with terriers that fought in a pit. Pit bull terriers.
> 
> Ever heard of the expression "off the chain" as in something is really, really good? That's a dog fighting expression. When dogs are good enough, as in they know they will go in to a fight instead of try to avoid one, they're let "off the chain".


I guess "comes up to scratch" probably is too.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

LouLatch said:


> How has this thread got to 66 pages!? I'm lucky to get 1 reply to any of my threads.
> 
> Most people know I'm a bully lover as I own one. If someone doesn't like them then that's their loss.


It got this long because the OP tried to blame the family's staffie for the bite instead of the neighbor's dog, then it turned in to blaming the kid for being an undisciplined brat, then some other ridiculousness, I can't keep up.
When IncaThePup sulked off because no one would joint her in mindless rants about things that didn't even happen (and found another contentious topic to make shit up about), LurcherGreyoundGirl showed up with her PeTA-esque agenda about all fighting dogs being inherently vicious and will kill your children and small dogs. Not that she wants them all killed or anything, she just wants to make sure everyone knows how evil they are, and that all of us who have actual bull breed experience are really just lying and deluded about their sweet nature with humans. Oh and that greyhounds are inherently soft as marshmallows and wouldn't hurt a fly, ever (except if you dressed the fly up as a bunny and ran it across a field - but that doesn't count). 
Yep. I think that about covers it.

FWIW, I've started 2 threads now about fighting dogs, bull breeds etc. One got highjacked by our resident troll and then died, the other one died after like 2 responses. *sigh*

If nothing else IncaThePup and LurcherGreyoundGirl know how to get responses and views. In a train-wreck kind of way.


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

Lol Ouesi - thanks for that summary!! Have to say the most unpredictable dog I knew as a child was a Cocker Spaniel - she was snappy and didn't like children ..... I don't hold it against the breed though. Still love Spaniels! 

Next-doors Staffy dogs are soft as anything. Teddy has fallen in love with the youngest girl and husband has fallen for the older one. Oh, and they have toddlers (twins) and a pair of rabbits too - none of which I have any fears for!!


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

Hanlou said:


> Lol Ouesi - thanks for that summary!! Have to say the most unpredictable dog I knew as a child was a Cocker Spaniel - she was snappy and didn't like children ..... I don't hold it against the breed though. Still love Spaniels!
> 
> Next-doors Staffy dogs are soft as anything. Teddy has fallen in love with the youngest girl and husband has fallen for the older one. Oh, and they have toddlers (twins) and a pair of rabbits too - none of which I have any fears for!!


Well, I would definitely fear for rabbits in this house, but I don't fear for my children. In fact, when they got old enough to start leaving at home by themselves, it was a comfort to me (and them) that the dogs were there too.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Conspiracy theorists and fanatical believers it does make for an interesting combination if nothing else.

The nastiest dogs I ever met were a pair of rotties kept chained in a garden as "guard" dogs. I don't assume all rotties are vicious, just that those two had really crappy owners.


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Well, I would definitely fear for rabbits in this house, but I don't fear for my children. In fact, when they got old enough to start leaving at home by themselves, it was a comfort to me (and them) that the dogs were there too.


"_Won't someone please think of the children?! Oh why won't someone please think of the children?!"

_


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Well, I would definitely fear for rabbits in this house, but I don't fear for my children. In fact, when they got old enough to start leaving at home by themselves, it was a comfort to me (and them) that the dogs were there too.


*slight brag alert*
I have 4 rabbits, 2 are outside and 2 are inside at the moment due to one thing and another.
Now they are *never *left unsupervised, and I don't encourage them to interact. I won't lie it took a lot of work, and there were times that I thought I would have to keep everyone out of sight of each other for ever but they now co-exist in the same house 

Now this doesn't extend to wild rabbits as the thrill of the chase is far too rewarding for him, but I can now proudly say that the Doofus is safe around MY rabbits 

*end of brag :Joyful


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

My terrier is scared of my rabbit  I wouldn't leave them unsupervised because Leo is grumpy and would bite if Buster was bothering him. Wild rabbits are another matter though


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

You either have an awesome rabbit or a broken terrier


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> You either have an awesome rabbit or a broken terrier


A bit of both  Leo's just very antisocial and Buster's smart enough to stay away from him after he bit him for bothering him too much.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Friend has 10 Rottweilers who mingle with their rabbit, granted he's nearly as big as them but can be out with them, supervised of course


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> A bit of both  Leo's just very antisocial and Buster's smart enough to stay away from him after he bit him for bothering him too much.


Well he is a nethie after all


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I used to have a large mixed breed rabbit called Oliver. He lived loose in my "secure" garden. I thought it was secure until the lady fox I had been feeding got cornered in my garden by the rabbit and needed assistance to escape.

Good news is she never came down to bother my chickens.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> *slight brag alert*
> I have 4 rabbits, 2 are outside and 2 are inside at the moment due to one thing and another.
> Now they are *never *left unsupervised, and I don't encourage them to interact. I won't lie it took a lot of work, and there were times that I thought I would have to keep everyone out of sight of each other for ever but they now co-exist in the same house
> 
> ...


Bates hasn't killed the rooster. Though the rooster is being enough of an ass lately that I'm starting to re-consider the "don't kill the rooster" training 

Mine are like your goober with cats. Our cats are safe (not unsupervised safe), but that has most definitely NOT generalized to all cats.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Well he is a nethie after all


I have heard interesting things about their temperament. He was a rehome and from pah originally I think so who knows what he actually is.



dogsaintdumb said:


> I used to have a large mixed breed rabbit called Oliver. He lived loose in my "secure" garden. I thought it was secure until the lady fox I had been feeding got cornered in my garden by the rabbit and needed assistance to escape.
> 
> Good news is she never came down to bother my chickens.


I love it  go Oliver


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I love the nethie "spark"
They are the marmite of the rabbit world lmao


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Who needs a Pit Bull when you've got a temperamental rabbit.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Watch out there will be calls to ban them next. I don't suppose muzzling would work when their kick is more dangerous than their bite.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

2016 is the year of compulsory "ball and chaining" of all rabbits. Spread the word.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Who needs a Pit Bull when you've got a temperamental rabbit.


Our rooster scares me way more than any dog ever has! Damn thing is evil! enguin:Wideyed


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Watch out there will be calls to ban them next. I don't suppose muzzling would work when their kick is more dangerous than their bite.


Ain't no muzzle that will hold back Rebo


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I used to have a little Bantam Pekin called Spike. He was an experience*. Used to fully attack dogs, cats, me, other chickens...Even my working JRTs wouldn't mess with him. I sold him back to the farm I got him from three times, and bought him back every single time.

He was an a$$hole* but he was my fave. </3 :Hilarious

(I did not realise they'd asterisked out the no-no words, LOL.)


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Geese scare me and Swans.... Ekkkkk...:Arghh


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Ain't no muzzle that will hold back Rebo


He is cute

Geese and swans are evil and to be avoided at all costs.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Geese terrify me, those things are mean!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Remember a private security firm years ago tell a guy who had a really expensive art collection to not bother with alarms as they would know how to disarm them. So to get geese for outside the house and wait for it ......... Siamese inside......better than any guard dogs they say????


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Those are definitely the eyes of a killer *nods* I have heard geese make the best guard animals


----------



## Angiex1 (Mar 23, 2015)

A Pub near my grandparents was by a river and Geese were always about was fun getting into the pub at times lol, they would hiss and chase people, nothing anyone could do as they were wild Geese living on the river


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Sea gulls around these parts can be very aggressive and dive bomb you. There should be BSL for some birds you know.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

There was a old lady who lived down here , she grew up on a farm and when she was a teenager her leg was broken by the wing of a swan protecting his clutch on a nearby pond....Give me a rottie any day lol


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sea gulls around these parts can be very aggressive and dive bomb you. There should be BSL for some birds you know.


I was on my bike a few weeks ago and had the misfortune of biking underneath a flock of gulls....and though I've been sh1t on plenty of times by humans for the first time in my life I was sh1t on by a bloody gull haha


----------



## cravensmum (Jun 28, 2010)

The Seagulls round here are terrible.I was in town once and was hungry so popped into Greggs for a sausage roll,stepped outside and took one bite and carried on walking,next thing a bloody seagull swept down behind me popped over my left shoulder and nicked my sausage roll.left me standing in the high street looking a right fool.

I also once took Craven into town,I had forgotten the birds were nesting and he was bombarded by gulls one at a time swooping inches above him,we got out of there as quickly as possible.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

cravensmum said:


> The Seagulls round here are terrible.I was in town once and was hungry so popped into Greggs for a sausage roll,stepped outside and took one bite and carried on walking,next thing a bloody seagull swept down behind me popped over my left shoulder and nicked my sausage roll.left me standing in the high street looking a right fool.
> 
> I also once took Craven into town,I had forgotten the birds were nesting and he was bombarded by gulls one at a time swooping inches above him,we got out of there as quickly as possible.


Aww bless him , They don't bother Penny but Molly is very nervous and she goes crackers when they come down in force. Talk about double blow....crapped on AND food pinched :Spitoutdummy  I have to say I'd be pretty p1ssed since I feed the damn things lol


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

ouesi said:


> It got this long because the OP tried to blame the family's staffie for the bite instead of the neighbor's dog, then it turned in to blaming the kid for being an undisciplined brat, then some other ridiculousness, I can't keep up.
> When IncaThePup sulked off because no one would joint her in mindless rants about things that didn't even happen (and found another contentious topic to make shit up about), LurcherGreyoundGirl showed up with her PeTA-esque agenda about all fighting dogs being inherently vicious and will kill your children and small dogs. Not that she wants them all killed or anything, she just wants to make sure everyone knows how evil they are, and that all of us who have actual bull breed experience are really just lying and deluded about their sweet nature with humans. Oh and that greyhounds are inherently soft as marshmallows and wouldn't hurt a fly, ever (except if you dressed the fly up as a bunny and ran it across a field - but that doesn't count).
> Yep. I think that about covers it.
> 
> ...


I see!!! So we are all in the wrong for defending defenceless animals. :Bored Ah the whole not every Greyhound is a rabbit killer but every bully is a child/small dog killer. The makes to total sense! Tyler must be a special kind of cocker spaniel, seen as I got him as a pup and all Mitzie wanted to be was be his mum and look after him. She should have eaten him on day one!!!   She also let a kid kiss her and cuddle her on our holiday one day!!!!!! ( it was very sweet actually he was a very polite little lad and asked me if he could say hello to the dogs first then kissed her head and pottered off )

I love it now the conversation has moved to rabbits!  (We don't have a rabbit emotion! :Arghh) I love my rabbits!


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> It got this long because the OP tried to blame the family's staffie for the bite instead of the neighbor's dog, then it turned in to blaming the kid for being an undisciplined brat, then some other ridiculousness, I can't keep up.
> When IncaThePup sulked off because no one would joint her in mindless rants about things that didn't even happen (and found another contentious topic to make shit up about), LurcherGreyoundGirl showed up with her PeTA-esque agenda about all fighting dogs being inherently vicious and will kill your children and small dogs. Not that she wants them all killed or anything, she just wants to make sure everyone knows how evil they are, and that all of us who have actual bull breed experience are really just lying and deluded about their sweet nature with humans. Oh and that greyhounds are inherently soft as marshmallows and wouldn't hurt a fly, ever (except if you dressed the fly up as a bunny and ran it across a field - but that doesn't count).
> Yep. I think that about covers it.
> 
> ...


Feel free to ignore the thread if you find our dog chat ridiculous.
Personally I've learned a few things about other people's attitudes (and rabbits) but that's me.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> Feel free to ignore the thread if you find our dog chat ridiculous.
> Personally I've learned a few things about other people's attitudes (and rabbits) but that's me.


Glad you found the thread informative... 
I will endeavor to write less ridiculous and more informative posts in the future   enguin


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Glad you found the thread informative...
> I will endeavor to write less ridiculous and more informative posts in the future   enguin


No problem here with a bit of frivolity. I'm afraid I read your post to mean that _you _found some of the angles explored ridiculous. If I misunderstood I'm sorry


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Glad you found the thread informative...
> I will endeavor to write less ridiculous and more informative posts in the future   enguin


:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> No problem here with a bit of frivolity. I'm afraid I read your post to mean that _you _found some of the angles explored ridiculous. If I misunderstood I'm sorry


Oh no, you did not misunderstand. I found many posts on this thread beyond ridiculous. Ridiculous is a kind way of putting it.
I find it ridiculous to blame an uninvolved dog for an attack based on the breed of the uninvolved dog.
I find it ridiculous to accuse parents of endangering their children just because they choose to keep a certain breed of dog.
I find it ridiculous to support of BSL.
I find it ridiculous to suggest an entire breed is inherently vicious, and dangerous.
I find it ridiculous to ignore breed traits.
I find it ridiculous to ignore the experiences of knowledgeable people. 
I find it ridiculous that a thread about a cockerXpoodle had to turn in to a staffie-bashing thread.

I could go on, but no, I'm sure you get the idea.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I find it ridiculous that a thread about a cockerXpoodle had to turn in to a staffie-bashing thread.


That's the bit that really got to me


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Oh no, you did not misunderstand. I found many posts on this thread beyond ridiculous. Ridiculous is a kind way of putting it.
> I find it ridiculous to blame an uninvolved dog for an attack based on the breed of the uninvolved dog.
> I find it ridiculous to accuse parents of endangering their children just because they choose to keep a certain breed of dog.
> I find it ridiculous to support of BSL.
> ...


I think you are aware that I assumed you were using the term ridiculous in a different context and I am trying to apologise for that.
It was really good to read so many posts in favour of the bully breeds and other maligned breeds though.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> I think you are aware that I assumed you were using the term ridiculous in a different context and I am trying to apologise for that.
> It was really good to read so many posts in favour of the bully breeds and other maligned breeds though.


No, I wasn't aware you were referring to a different context.

I have spent a lot of time on this thread trying to write informative, accurate and un-emotive posts that didn't respond in kind to some of the vitriol I and others who choose to share our lives with bully breeds were receiving.

In my post you quoted, I was very clearly referring to two specific posters, not dog chat in general. Your response to that post was out of context of the thread, and definitely caught me by surprise.
I'm not going to ignore BSL and the misinformation and outright lies that lead to it.

In any case, strange apology, but accepted nonetheless


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It turned into a staffie bashing thread because a staffie was in the vicinity and there's an injured child so tragedy to get the conspiracy theorists drooling and ammunition for the anti-staffy person. Because clearly just by being in the vicinity it influenced the poor cocker/poodle or some such /sarcasm


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> or D: Malamutes and huskies off leash!


The last one of these got shut down before I could do my joke. Shame really.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> No, I wasn't aware you were referring to a different context.
> 
> I have spent a lot of time on this thread trying to write informative, accurate and un-emotive posts that didn't respond in kind to some of the vitriol I and others who choose to share our lives with bully breeds were receiving.
> 
> ...


Yes you are un-emotive and I thought you had found those of us less capable of being so ridiculous (I try not to be but can be a bit of a drama queen where dogs are concerned.) Everything about this report was offensive imo and it was quite nice to see what others who felt equally strongly about it had to say.
I'm afraid it wasn't clear to me that you were referring to 2 specific posters :Sorry Sorrrreeeee


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> Feel free to ignore the thread if you find our dog chat ridiculous.
> Personally I've learned a few things about other people's attitudes (and rabbits) but that's me.


I'm well aware that Ouesi can stand up for herself, but I find this post a bit bizarre, if I'm honest.

The post you quoted, Deliah, was in no way about you. Ouesi named the involved members for all to see, so why did you apparently take offence at what she said? 

ETA: I am aware that you have apologised, and that it has been accepted, but .... just confused, really.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Um...no. Just because no one around knew how to break up a dog fight doesn't mean the dog had to be run over in order to stop him.
> 
> The bolded just makes you sound kind of creepy actually.
> 
> ...


1. I think the people who witnessed the attack on the Whippet were panicking so much that the very thought of them needing a specialist piece of equipment to prise the Pit Bull's jaws apart didn't enter their heads. Besides I wouldn't think that anybody (apart from a minority of dog people) would even know what a breaking stick is.

2. You would be calling me uninformed if I hadn't a clue what an attack looked like and when I say I have watched videos of attacks (in order to educate myself) you still turn it around and use it as an excuse to belittle me.

3. Yes dog fighting is still rife, but what I meant before was when it was commonplace and not scorned upon as it is now. Yes those are things that are prized in a fighting dog, but so are dogs that will go straight for the kill instead of showing warning signals. A dog that wastes time growling and barking beforehand isn't going to be as good in the ring now is it?

4. I only said that about the woman because it has been said that most attacks by APBTs and SBTs are carried out by 'status' dogs who are 'owned' by people who are irresponsible and who are chavs. I pointed out the fact that the dog who attacked Brochan was not 'owned' by an irresponsible chav. I did not make up the stereotype I described. Other people did. And yes other breeds do attack. But do all those other breeds latch on and don't let go unless their jaws have to be prised apart?



Goblin said:


> To be fair to LurcherGreyhoundGirl the main point she is arguing is against the term
> "nanny dog". Whilst I can understand this attitude, after all "no dog is 100% safe", many dog breeds have labels, "Family dog", "guard dog" etc even though it's not going to ever be 100% accurate. It's all comparative against other dog breeds. Fact is, compared to other breeds the dogs in question are called "nanny dogs" for a reason. It would also be fair to say that due to media bias people are more aware of potential issues than other dog breeds. Unfortunately the whole Media bias along with the BSL fiasco actually encourages poor ownership and poor breeding. If LurcherGreyhoundGirl wants to campaign to make walks safer she should be passionate against BSL and for owner education and responsibility.


Oh but I have been very vocal about educating people on dog safety. I have left countless messages on Facebook groups and even wrote to my local council about it. I have also told people on the street not to let their kids touch a dog without asking first and I have said the same to the kids themselves. I am sick of parents not preparing their dogs for a baby and when the baby does come they will quite often shove the dog to the background and not give it half as much attention - thus resulting in an attack on the baby. I am equally as annoyed with parents who allow their kids to treat dogs like toys. I am also fed-up of people not bothering to educate themselves about canine body language and people who can't/won't keep their dogs under control. I am also fed-up of people saying that one particular breed is a 'nanny' when such a claim can be very misleading and could result in kids being attacked. However, calling a breed of dog a 'nanny' is not education.

Not once have I ever said I support BSL. I do NOT want dogs being rounded up and killed. What I do want is for people to realize that certain breeds are more dangerous and to be extra vigilant with them and for rescue shelters to screen people more rigorously before allowing them to have a powerful breed. I want them to admit to the fact that they have powerful dogs that can inflict more devastating bites than a lot of other breeds. I am at a loss to fathom why some people just can't admit to those things.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I thought the *Bull*shit Bus (ha get it) had broken down.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

I have been doing a bit more research and found out that two of history's most famous Pit Bulls (who advocates like to use as positive examples of Pit Bulls) weren't so friendly after all. It turns out that Roosevelt's Pit was responsible for at least one attempted attack and at least one actual attack. Source:

A DOG'S HISTORY OF AMERICA by Mark Derr
P 244

"Of course, Roosevelt romanticized Sailor Boy and dogs in general, forgetting Pete-variously identified as a bulldog or a bull terrier-who terrorized the White House between 1905 and 1908. He caused an international incident in 1905 when he treed the French ambassador, Jules Jusserand, who had come to play tennis with the president. Many contemporary accounts claim that Pete chewed a hole in the ambassador's pants at a reception, but that was not so. He tore the pants and flesh of a naval clerk, John T. Thomas, on May I I, 1907, just ten days after his return from an eighteen-month exile after the Jusserand affair. At the time, Pete had been assigned to help the police patrol the White House grounds at night-specifically, it was said, to hold at bay the reporters who staked the place out, observing and questioning visitors."

As for Petey from the Our Gang series. It transpires that the children (especially Tommy Bond and Carl Switzer) were scared of one of the dogs used to portray him. The dog was aggressive and a biter. It is rumoured that somebody on set got so fed-up of the dog's behaviour that they fed him broken glass which resulted in the dog's death. The source of that is an interview with Tommy Bond.

Additionally, experts from the Smithsonian Institute (where Sergeant Stubby's remains are kept) have him down as a mixed breed and they refute claims from Pit Bull advocates that he was a Pit Bull. In fact he looks more like a Boston Terrier than anything else.

It also doesn't say much when one of the founders of one of the most famous Pit Bull rescues (Villalobos) is a hardened criminal (that would be Aren Jackson) and the other founder (his wife Tia Torres) is an irresponsible mother and a would be madam. AJ is a white supremicist and was jailed for trying to kill a couple of cops. He is currently in jail again for drug and theft related offences. Torres has always exposed her daughters to violent and abusive men (her first two husbands were bad news) and now she is married to a would be cop killer who is also a member of the aryan brotherhood. Then there is the fact that they have been exposed to potentially volatile parolees. She had also planned to open a brothel in order to fund Villalobos. To top it off they even have a TV show and all those things have been glossed over as there is no mention of any of them on the show (and yes I have watched just about every episode of Pit Bulls and Parolees). They lie to viewers saying that AJ is innocent and shouldn't be in jail. They are always saying that they need more money and there is never a mention of what Torres had planned to do in order to raise money. I have also had a look at Villalobos' merchandise and was quite frankly appalled. There was clothing with pictures of Pit Bulls in big macho spiky collars. There was one shirt which had the slogan 'Get a Real Dog Get a Pit' (as if to say that only Pit Bulls are real dogs). Other designs have drawings of voodoo dogs with pins sticking out of them and some merchandise contain foul language. Then the oldest daughter (Tania) goes and posts photos of her Pit Bull chewing on a 'toy' that was shaped like a severed and bloodied human foot on her Facebook page. Is it any wonder why people won't change their minds about Pit Bulls when you have people like this representing them?

I am also pretty much done with this thead. I have been abused (even for paying the woman who had the dog that attacked Brochan a compliment) and am fed-up with some of the 'evidence' that you claim is proof that APBTs and SBTs are just like other dogs. In fact some of the things that have been said here would be laughable if the subject weren't as serious. I said that Greyhounds are safer (which they are by-the-way) and got the response of there only being 32 Greys registered. Yeah, only 32 Greys registered with the Kennel Club, so that hardly represents the actual population of Greys! Ouesi has said that she would rather break up a Pit Bull attack instead of a bite and release attack (which would not require a wooden stick, a metal crowbar or heck even a car). Ouesi has also said that fearful dogs are more likely to bite/attack. So if that were the case then how is it that as many fearful dogs go through their lives never infliciting a single bite? Why is it that some breeds that score more poorly in the ATTS tests are responsible for far fewer bites/attacks and there is no evidence to prove that some of them have ever been responsible for a fatal attack on a human? It has also been said that the media has some kind of agenda to demonise Pit Bulls and that it doesn't report attacks by other breeds. That is not true (for reasons I have previously explained). There have also been pictures posted on the tread of 'killer dogs'. I would never post a picture of either of my two with a child and caption it 'child gets attacked by dog' or words to that effect. To me that would just be in poor taste.


----------



## LurcherGreyoundGirl (Oct 13, 2013)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I thought the *Bull*shit Bus (ha get it) had broken down.


If by that you thought I had gone, then I haven't. I have just been too busy doing other things to be sitting down at the computer as often.


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

I was beginning to think this thread had died. :Yawn Obviously I was wrong.:Facepalm


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

LouLatch said:


> I was beginning to think this thread had died. :Yawn Obviously I was wrong.:Facepalm


I feel you on that facepalm emote, Lou. Gave myself a black eye and a bloody lip around page 50. #warwounds


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Why are people even bothering still retaliating to LGG?

I'd like to see the thread shut down now really.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

No one has retaliated_...yet._

It's like a psychological horror movie -- I can feel the suspense building.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

LinznMilly said:


> I'm well aware that Ouesi can stand up for herself, but I find this post a bit bizarre, if I'm honest.
> 
> The post you quoted, Deliah, was in no way about you. Ouesi named the involved members for all to see, so why did you apparently take offence at what she said?
> 
> ETA: I am aware that you have apologised, and that it has been accepted, but .... just confused, really.


This bit LinznMilly:
It got this long because the OP tried to blame the family's staffie for the bite instead of the neighbor's dog, *then it turned in to blaming the kid for being an undisciplined brat, then some other ridiculousness, *I can't keep up.
I didn't think it was aimed specifically at me but at a few of us speculating at the fate of the poo and whether the child should have been allowed to wander so freely in the first place.
I've re-read the post and see it in context now.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> It also doesn't say much when one of the founders of one of the most famous Pit Bull rescues (Villalobos) is a hardened criminal (that would be Aren Jackson) and the other founder (his wife Tia Torres) is an irresponsible mother and a would be madam. AJ is a white supremicist and was jailed for trying to kill a couple of cops. He is currently in jail again for drug and theft related offences. Torres has always exposed her daughters to violent and abusive men (her first two husbands were bad news) and now she is married to a would be cop killer who is also a member of the aryan brotherhood. Then there is the fact that they have been exposed to potentially volatile parolees. She had also planned to open a brothel in order to fund Villalobos. To top it off they even have a TV show and all those things have been glossed over as there is no mention of any of them on the show (and yes I have watched just about every episode of Pit Bulls and Parolees). They lie to viewers saying that AJ is innocent and shouldn't be in jail. They are always saying that they need more money and there is never a mention of what Torres had planned to do in order to raise money. I have also had a look at Villalobos' merchandise and was quite frankly appalled. There was clothing with pictures of Pit Bulls in big macho spiky collars. There was one shirt which had the slogan 'Get a Real Dog Get a Pit' (as if to say that only Pit Bulls are real dogs). Other designs have drawings of voodoo dogs with pins sticking out of them and some merchandise contain foul language. Then the oldest daughter (Tania) goes and posts photos of her Pit Bull chewing on a 'toy' that was shaped like a severed and bloodied human foot on her Facebook page. Is it any wonder why people won't change their minds about Pit Bulls when you have people like this representing them?


You write this as if it supports your position. In fact it does quite the opposite.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> I want them to admit to the fact that they have powerful dogs that can inflict more devastating bites than a lot of other breeds. I am at a loss to fathom why some people just can't admit to those things.


A giant breed running around biting everything is likely to cause more physical damage than a miniature breed running around biting everything. This is not something new you have discovered and nobody needs to admit to anything because of it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Christ surely her drum must have a huge hole in it by now with all the beating, if not someone steal her drum sticks please for the love of ALL dogs please..


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Why are people even bothering still retaliating to LGG?
> 
> I'd like to see the thread shut down now really.


I'm okay with it staying open if nothing else it just continues to provide opportunities to share legitimate and accurate information about all breeds. Gonna have a stout cup of coffee and tackle a new reply


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Ah, LGG....only ever appears to have a row.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

@Gemmaa that's probably one of the most appropriate responses to any thread I've ever seen.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

diefenbaker said:


> A giant breed running around biting everything is likely to cause more physical damage than a miniature breed running around biting everything. This is not something new you have discovered and nobody needs to admit to anything because of it.


I agree with you but bizarrely there seem to be many members of this forum that will argue till they are blue in the face that a pit bull or a giant breed will inflict no more damage than a toy breed.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I agree with you but bizarrely there seem to be many members of this forum that will argue till they are blue in the face that a pit bull or a giant breed will inflict no more damage than a toy breed.


This is because.. as is being done in this thread.. they are pushed into a corner to admit their dog is innately aggressive. A defensive response is not surprising in this circumstance. Also there's a big difference between "will inflict" and "could inflict". If my boy went berzerk I'm sure he could do a lot of damage. So could any large mammal including man. Don't get me started on the lizards.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I agree with you but bizarrely there seem to be many members of this forum that will argue till they are blue in the face that a pit bull or a giant breed will inflict no more damage than a toy breed.


The topic wasn't about a large breed breed inflicting more damage, this is about certain people trying to twist is so they can push their agenda of certain breeds being more aggressive, yet avoiding the fact they own a hunting breed. A greyhound will cause more damage then a chi, and a St Bernard more than a Yorkshire terrier that's common sense.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A large breed will do more damage than a small of course, not that a proper staffy or indeed pitbull is a very big dog in any case. It's the fact that these breeds are being painted as aggressive as a whole while the owner of hunting breeds claims her dogs are perfectly safe. Most greyhounds are unless you're a small furry creature and so are most staffies.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I agree with you but bizarrely there seem to be many members of this forum that will argue till they are blue in the face that a pit bull or a giant breed will inflict no more damage than a toy breed.





Blitz said:


> I agree with you but bizarrely there seem to be many members of this forum that will argue till they are blue in the face that a pit bull or a giant breed will inflict no more damage than a toy breed.


Who? Where?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I must say that I personally would much rather have to deal with a large breed with awesome bite inhibition than I would a small breed with zero bite inhibition.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I agree with you but bizarrely there seem to be many members of this forum that will argue till they are blue in the face that a pit bull or a giant breed will inflict no more damage than a toy breed.


All things being equal, yes, size does make a difference.

However, when talking about living, sentient beings, all things are never equal.
Our great dane is capable of far more damage than a toy breed dog. But she has, a stable temperament, and has been trained and socialized so that the likelihood of her ever being in a position where she has to resort to a bite is very slim. If she were to bite, she has excellent bite inhibition and the likelihood of her doing any damage are super slim as well. Added up, the chances of her ever doing anyone damage are miniscule.
Meanwhile, a smaller dog who is nervy and reactive, without good coping skills, in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing could be a major issue.

I've said it before, I've been bitten with purpose by a great dane and by a small terrier. The terrier did more damage. Actually one of the worst bites I ever had was from a scared cat who grabbed on to my ear with her whole mouth and chomped down. She demolished my ear and I ended up quite sick with cat scratch fever. Size seems like it should matter, but in the real world with real animals, it's not as big of a factor as you would think.

Now of course, there are injuries with big dogs that you just aren't going to have with a small dog. 
I bit clear through my tongue when a playful dane head met my chin, OH chipped a tooth doing the same thing. Happy great dane tails leave bruises and can floor grown men if you know what I mean.

Which is why big dogs aren't for everyone. If having to teach your kids to hug a tree so they don't get trampled by the danes having group zoomies is a deal breaker, then this is not the breed for you. 
And small dogs aren't for everyone. If having a dog who can never go outside unattended because the local coyotes and BOP pose too much of a danger, is a deal breaker (like it is for me) then small dogs are not the breed for you.

And really, that's the whole point in so many of these arguments. 
People need to respect a breed's traits and intelligently, honestly, and responsibly select a dog that is a good fit.
Breeders need to place dogs (of ALL breeds) responsibly.
Rescues need to do the same.

Pit bulls are not for everyone, neither are danes, but nor are chihuahuas for that matter, of a basset hounds. We all have different personalities and needs in our dogs and dogs have different needs from us. 
If we could manage to better match dogs and owners, I think a lot of potential problems would be taken care of.

But of course, that depends on disseminating ACCURATE information about dogs and breeds and traits. Misinformation about a breed - any breed can lead the wrong kind of person ending up with that breed. Turning a dog like a pit bull in to a devil dog not only means you get sadist who want to use them to fight, but also misguided do-gooders who think you can just love the prey drive out of a dog. Both are dangerous owners.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Why are people even bothering still retaliating to LGG?


Do you mean replying?
I'm not replying for her sake, but for anyone else reading the thread who might want information about pit bulls and pit bull types.

But speaking of which,
@LurcherGreyoundGirl , since you like watching videos so much, did you ever watch the PBS video I posted about the Michael Vick dogs?

Did you watch the longer video I posted about BSL?
You may say you don't support BSL, but what exactly are you arguing here? What DO you want to see happen to all pit bulls and pit bull types. Clearly you don't think they are suitable as pets, so... What should happen to them?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Sorry for posting this again but ......



this is a large breed, he is strong, fast and has high prey drive, he also has big teeth. Yet because he is black and white and doesn't look fierce no one is bothered. I can assure you his bite (accidental) hurts just as much as one from my rottie .


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/barbra-streisand-dog

Now.. if that had been a pitbull..


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Interestingly, this showed up in my FB feed this afternoon. I wholeheartedly agree 



> This weekend, a young, in-tact, male Pit Bull bit an 8 year old girl in Sharpsburg, PA. The girl was bit on the arm and needed medical attention. It was headline news. Hello Bully was contacted regarding the dog - asking if we could somehow save him. This is our open response.
> 
> Hello Bully will not take in a dog who has attacked a child. Please understand that there are countless Pit Bulls in need. For us to pull a dog into our program that has delivered a bite, no less to a child, would be wildly irresponsible and in direct contrast to our mission - to rescue, rehabilitate, and repair the reputation of the American Pit Bull Terrier.
> 
> ...


https://www.facebook.com/HelloBully/posts/10153247387628194:0

This is how you advocate for pit bulls and pit bull types. Well said Hello Bully.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

Goblin said:


> http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/barbra-streisand-dog
> 
> Now.. if that had been a pitbull..


WTH?!
Dog bites, requires stitches, but it's understandable, the human should have offered her hand first?! Uh... If you're bringing your dog on a plane and that dog is edgy enough that she might resort to a bite, WTH is she doing out of a crate and available for people to greet and get bitten by?!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Easy.. not a pitbull, small dog can't do any harm...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

But it's a small white fluffy dog, and cotons are so cute, so therefore it's totally different. Even if the dog bit someone to the point they needed stitches it's totally all the victim's fault


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2015)

And there it is. Demonizing one breed above all others not only hurts the demonized breed, but dogs of other breeds too.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There is a pitbull somewhere in the US that has to spend the rest of his life in a police holding cell because he did attack someone and people call him saved.

http://www.kpho.com/story/27537764/mickey-the-pit-bull-soon-to-be-a-24-hour-jail-webcam-star

Because the pitbulls can do no wrong and we can save every dog with love people do as much damage to the breed as the bsl morons.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Seemingly GSD police dogs killing OAPs is fine too just as long as its not a pit or staff!!!


LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> You are comparing a living breathing sentient being to an inanimate object! You also seem to be supporting those that KILL INNOCENT dogs! Those things do NOT sit well with me. Those that enforce BSL are no better than the Nazis during WW2. They also exterminated innocent beings based on their looks and used the excuse that they were 'only following orders'.
> 
> And I will say it again. I find it appalling that some here find it acceptable to kill a dog straight away because of a biting incident. Yes it is very sad that a lady died, but let's get ALL the facts first.
> /QUOTE]


----------



## Rosie64 (Feb 27, 2014)

many years ago when my children were young they grew up going back and for between my house and my next door neighbours we had a gate in the fence for this purpose BUT from very small they knew NOT to enter her garden if her dog was out on his own even though it was the softest loving little thing and NEVER to enter the house without knocking and waiting to be invited in even though my neighbour said they could it was a matter of manners and respect something a lot of children do not seem to be taught these days


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Then the oldest daughter (Tania) goes and posts photos of her Pit Bull chewing on a 'toy' that was shaped like a severed and bloodied human foot on her Facebook page. Is it any wonder why people won't change their minds about Pit Bulls when you have people like this representing them?


Actually people will have already made their minds up simply as the girls in question have excessive tattoos. You expect "bad looking" people not to do what they can simply due to looks. Pitbulls and parolees probably has made a positive attitude difference to many, especially when it comes to the local area. In fact your whole push in this regards speaks of your own prejudice's against multiple targets.

In the UK if you don't dress as the establishment normally expects, people are prejudiced against you. Maybe you should look at things like http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ht-for-the-men-and-women-in-black-470765.html to realize looks can be deceptive. Once again, prejudice due to appearance rather than reality, sounds a bit like pitbulls/BSL.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Seemingly GSD police dogs killing OAPs is fine too just as long as its not a pit or staff!!!


Sorry, I don't have the time (nor inclination really) to read 70+ pages, but where do you get the impression that police dogs killing OAPs is ok?!!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Moobli said:


> Sorry, I don't have the time (nor inclination really) to read 70+ pages, but where do you get the impression that police dogs killing OAPs is ok?!!


I don't think it's okay, not by a long shot, my badly made point is LLG argued black was white about this dog not being judge on one accidentally bite that kill someone and about not judging a dog on it, but now in this thread had decided all SBT and APBT are bad as one "attacked" her dog.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Meezey said:


> I don't think it's okay, not by a long shot, my badly made point is LLG argued black was white about this dog not being judge on one accidentally bite that kill someone and about not judging a dog on it, but now in this thread had decided all SBT and APBT are bad as one "attacked" her dog.


Ahh ok, thanks


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Ouesi has also said that fearful dogs are more likely to bite/attack.
> 1) So if that were the case then how is it that as many fearful dogs go through their lives never infliciting a single bite?
> 2) Why is it that some breeds that score more poorly in the ATTS tests are responsible for far fewer bites/attacks and there is no evidence to prove that some of them have ever been responsible for a fatal attack on a human?


1) Read what you wrote again, what I said. "More likely to bite" does not mean "will bite." That is how many fearful dogs go through their lives never inflicting a single bite.
Actually, the reality is that ALL dogs are pretty unlikely to bite even when we do all sorts of things to them that they don't like or that confuse/scare them. The reason bad dog bites make it in to the news is because of their rarity. Considering how many dogs there are and how few people get bitten in comparison, I think dogs put up with us pretty well.

2) Temperament is complex to make an understatement. Tomes have been written about temperament and personality. Dog temperament is multifaceted, multi factored, both innate and environmentally affected, both heritable and trainable to an extent. It is a hugely complex subject.

The American Temperament Test Society very broadly tests an individual dog's general stability. It is made up of 10 subtests, neutral stranger, friendly stranger, hidden noise, gunshots, surprising stimulus (umbrella being opened), 2 different floor surfaces, and stranger acting odd, threatening, and then approaching threateningly.

Fearful and sensitive dogs are not going to do well on the test. Fearfulness is not a stable temperament trait. Properly managed, fearful dogs might be fine their whole lives, but that doesn't make them stable dogs. 
Some dogs are bred for a very specific job in a very specific context and never had a need to deal with lots of other things, thus they can be sensitive to what they're not used to ex: greyhound has to run fast on a track or field. Collie has to herd sheep in the highlands. These dogs were never bred to handle multiple different sights and sounds of our modern lives and many have trouble coping with all the different stimuli of a "normal" human lifestyle. There is nothing "wrong" about a sensitive dog, but a sensitive dog is not gong to handle change and different stimuli as well as a less sensitive dog. They will get stressed easier, some have difficulty recovering, and thus are not as stable as a less sensitive dog who recovers readily.

Again, it's about respecting breed traits.

Looking at the story Goblin posted about the Coton de Tulear who bit the stewardess, that's very likely a classic example of a dog who's not coping well with the strange environment, is feeling vulnerable and stressed, and resorted to a bite.

Meanwhile, a dog like my Bates who can potentially do far more damage than your average Coton, copes brilliantly with all sorts of environments and stimuli, he's the polar opposite of sensitive, and the likelihood of him feeling vulnerable or stressed is pretty low. On top of that, he's ridiculously human friendly. Added up, the odds of him finding himself in a position where he's going to feel the need to bite a human are miniscule.

Yet another example of a big dog, with far more *potential* for damage, yet he is a much safer dog than the little Coton who bit badly enough to require stitches.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2015)

LurcherGreyoundGirl said:


> Not once have I ever said I support BSL. I do NOT want dogs being rounded up and killed. *What I do want is for people to realize that certain breeds are more dangerous* and to be extra vigilant with them and for rescue shelters to screen people more rigorously before allowing them to have a powerful breed. I want them to admit to the fact that they have powerful dogs that can inflict more devastating bites than a lot of other breeds. I am at a loss to fathom why some people just can't admit to those things.


This is where you do support BSL. The bolded above is the essence of breed specific legislation. Legislation that does. not. work.

Change that statement to certain DOGS are more dangerous, and I would 100% agree with you.

As I demonstrated in my post above this one, my 80 pound bull-breed looking mutt dog is LESS dangerous than Barbara Streisand's 12 pound Coton de Tulear. It's not about breed, it's about individual dog.
My 140 pound great dane bitch is LESS dangerous than the cockerXpoodle that started this thread.

Deed not breed.
Deed means we take dogs like the cockerXpoodle and Barbara Streisand's Coton and realize that these dogs have shown behavior that predicts them to be a danger, and on closer inspection, we will probably notice temperament traits in these dogs that also predict them to be a danger. 
Deed means we take known behavior coupled with observable temperament traits and determine potential danger based on that. And sure, at this point add in size and potential for damage. 
Breed means we take dogs like my mutt dog and my great dane and say these dogs look a certain way or are of a certain size that predicts them to be a danger.

Which one makes more sense? 
Which one is going to save more lives?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

I think the only issue I have with the slogan "Deed not breed" is that the emphasis is on the deed, where in an ideal world, we would like for the deed not to happen. Not always possible. Dogs are dogs and for the most part, even when they do feel so vulnerable and stressed that they feel they have to bite, they do so with incredible restraint, all things considered. No other species that shows such restraint and tolerance for humans and their odd ways. 

Perhaps it should be 'individual not breed', though that doesn't have the same ring to it. 

Society has a level of schizophrenia surrounding dogs and their behaviour. It's ok if they react or bite 'a baddie' (in fact they are celebrated! Hero dog!) but when everything is against them and they get put in a p*ss awful situation but no "baddie" was involved, it's their fault and they are a 'bad dog'. 

Disney dogs are ok. Real ones aren't.

Basic knowledge of dog behaviour and basic husbandry really does seem to be amiss.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> I must say that I personally would much rather have to deal with a large breed with awesome bite inhibition than I would a small breed with zero bite inhibition.


Sorry but I don't understand the point of this statement, why compare awesome bite inhibition in a large breed with zero bite inhibition in a small breed? It's obvious what your answer would be.
Surely you should be comparing a large breed with awesome bite inhibition to a small breed with awesome bite inhibition and a large breed with zero bite inhibition with a small breed with zero bite inhibition and then decide which you would much rather deal with.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LynnM said:


> Sorry but I don't understand the point of this statement, why compare awesome bite inhibition in a large breed with zero bite inhibition in a small breed? It's obvious what your answer would be.
> Surely you should be comparing a large breed with awesome bite inhibition to a small breed with awesome bite inhibition and a large breed with zero bite inhibition with a small breed with zero bite inhibition and then decide which you would much rather deal with.


I wasn't comparing anything tbh.
I was just making a statement in response to big dogs cause more damage - that isn't always the case!

As for which I would rather deal with when it comes down to zero bite inhibition, well, that again would depend entirely on the *individual *dogs concerned.
It should never be about breed, size, muscle mass, size of head, or any other descriptive, it should be about the dogs as an individual


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2015)

LynnM said:


> Sorry but I don't understand the point of this statement, why compare awesome bite inhibition in a large breed with zero bite inhibition in a small breed? It's obvious what your answer would be.
> Surely you should be comparing a large breed with awesome bite inhibition to a small breed with awesome bite inhibition and a large breed with zero bite inhibition with a small breed with zero bite inhibition and then decide which you would much rather deal with.


The comparison comes about for several reasons.
One, if we're calling a dog dangerous, size is not the only thing we should look at. A 300 pound man who is solid muscle and has multiple black belts is not a danger to society by virtue of being large and knowing how to fight, any more than a puny 150 pound man with no fight training is safe by virtue of being small.
Put both of them in a ring and NOW you can talk size advantage, but how often does that apply in the real world?

The other thing about size and potential is in reference to breed bans. One of the "excuses" given for banning pit bulls and pit bull types is that they are large and their potential for damage is much bigger. 
Okay, if we're going to go by size, then let's go by size and ban all dogs over a certain size. If pit bull is the litmus test, then get ready to add your labs and goldens to the banned list, and huskies and malamutes, get those newfies on there too, and saint bernards, great danes, wolfhounds, etc, etc, etc. 
They say it's about the size of the dog, but it's not, because most goldens are bigger dogs than most pit bulls (definitely most staffies) but no one is crying for goldens to be banned. And no one has a hissy fit when someone says a golden makes a good family dog (despite the rising rate of OTT resouce guarding in the breed). But say a staffie makes a good family dog and you get cries of protest and how they are big powerful dogs who can inflict a lot of damage. Why is this not a worry in goldens or even great danes? 
IOW, if you're going to make it about size, MAKE it about size, but don't pretend that the reason we're banning pit bulls is size when labs and goldens or hell even CAS aren't on the list.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

As usual you said it better than I...If I could rep I would @ouesi


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2015)

lemmsy said:


> I think the only issue I have with the slogan "Deed not breed" is that the emphasis is on the deed, where in an ideal world, we would like for the deed not to happen. Not always possible. Dogs are dogs and for the most part, even when they do feel so vulnerable and stressed that they feel they have to bite, they do so with incredible restraint, all things considered. No other species that shows such restraint and tolerance for humans and their odd ways.
> 
> Perhaps it should be 'individual not breed', though that doesn't have the same ring to it.
> 
> ...


LOL, no, individual not breed just doesn't ring quite as nicely does it?

Personally I'd like to see it be something like "qualified behavior assessment not breed" but not much of a slogan either 

And yes, I get so annoyed when people are all proud of their dog for aggressing at an "intruder" (like the delivery person) and think that's awesome, but freak out were that same dog to bite a friendly visitor.

It really would be nice if people understood and respected dogs better, and that's why I continue to post on this thread.
There are some strange and unhelpful ideas about dogs out there, even among dog lovers, and the more we can educate ourselves, the better for everyone


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> The comparison comes about for several reasons.
> One, if we're calling a dog dangerous, size is not the only thing we should look at. A 300 pound man who is solid muscle and has multiple black belts is not a danger to society by virtue of being large and knowing how to fight, any more than a puny 150 pound man with no fight training is safe by virtue of being small.
> Put both of them in a ring and NOW you can talk size advantage, but how often does that apply in the real world?
> 
> ...


But staffies are not even medium dogs really, they are pretty small - apart from all the massive ones being bred at the moment. How can it be a size thing, I have know idea why any breeds have been banned but pit bulls could not have been done on size.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

ouesi said:


> The comparison comes about for several reasons.
> One, if we're calling a dog dangerous, size is not the only thing we should look at. A 300 pound man who is solid muscle and has multiple black belts is not a danger to society by virtue of being large and knowing how to fight, any more than a puny 150 pound man with no fight training is safe by virtue of being small.
> Put both of them in a ring and NOW you can talk size advantage, but how often does that apply in the real world?
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand what you're getting at but ST said she'd much rather deal with a large breed with awesome bite inhibition than she would a small breed with zero bite inhibition. If we're factoring in size then surely we should be factoring in intention. A big dog who wants to cause serious harm to you is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than a small dog who wants to do harm. I certainly know which one I'd rather deal with.
And I know it's not about breed, my sister was bitten 4 times by the same GR when she was younger and one time it was only because she got in the back seat of a car with it, but there is absolutely no way you can compare the damage done by a dog with powerful jaws to a small/toy dog, bearing in mind the intent is the same.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> But staffies are not even medium dogs really, they are pretty small - apart from all the massive ones being bred at the moment. How can it be a size thing, I have know idea why any breeds have been banned but pit bulls could not have been done on size.


Think Ouesi is referring to the fact people keep going on about the size as a reason dogs should be banned or feared!
Not sure why the breeds that were banned were tbh! We didn't even have any of most of the breeds in the country, so they had not been involved in attacks of any kind? There are dogs banned over there that aren't banned in Ireland and I have not heard of them killing people down south?


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2015)

Blitz said:


> But staffies are not even medium dogs really, they are pretty small - apart from all the massive ones being bred at the moment. How can it be a size thing, I have know idea why any breeds have been banned but pit bulls could not have been done on size.


Totally agree, staffies, and honestly, most APBTs are medium sized dogs. Like I said, most labs are larger dogs than a proper APBT.

But seriously, read the posts on this thread saying they are more dangerous because of their size. (Granted you may have LurcherGreyoundGirl on ignore and haven't seen these posts )


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2015)

LynnM said:


> Yes, I understand what you're getting at but ST said she'd much rather deal with a large breed with awesome bite inhibition than she would a small breed with zero bite inhibition. If we're factoring in size then surely we should be factoring in intention. A big dog who wants to cause serious harm to you is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than a small dog who wants to do harm. I certainly know which one I'd rather deal with.
> And I know it's not about breed, my sister was bitten 4 times by the same GR when she was younger and one time it was only because she got in the back seat of a car with it, but there is absolutely no way you can compare the damage done by a dog with powerful jaws to a small/toy dog, bearing in mind the intent is the same.


Honestly, the dogs who truly want to do harm to a human are so few that it's not really something I think about. I think though if you look at my posts in dog training and behavior, I do take in to account a dog's size when dealing with behavioral issues. 
Responsible owners, breeders, and rescuers make tough decisions about dangerous dogs all the time, and often size does factor in.

The other thing is, (here come those breed traits again), with many of those large powerful dogs, breeders put a lot more effort in to stability of temperament than smaller lap dogs bred to be cute and cuddly.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Totally agree, staffies, and honestly, most APBTs are medium sized dogs. Like I said, most labs are larger dogs than a proper APBT.
> 
> But seriously, read the posts on this thread saying they are more dangerous because of their size. (Granted you may have LurcherGreyoundGirl on ignore and haven't seen these posts )


I do not have her on ignore but I thought you were making a general comment - as in they were banned because of size - rather than just thread. I got it wrong.



ouesi said:


> Honestly, the dogs who truly want to do harm to a human are so few that it's not really something I think about. I think though if you look at my posts in dog training and behavior, I do take in to account a dog's size when dealing with behavioral issues.
> Responsible owners, breeders, and rescuers make tough decisions about dangerous dogs all the time, and often size does factor in.
> 
> *The other thing is, (here come those breed traits again), with many of those large powerful dogs, breeders put a lot more effort in to stability of temperament than smaller lap dogs bred to be cute and cuddly*.


That is so true. I get heartily fed up with people (even experienced horse owners) telling me that shetlands are nasty things that bite and kick and try and escape all the time. Any that I have owned have been treated exactly the same as bigger ones and consequently behave in the same way. We all know that small dogs that yap and snap have probably been treated as cuddly toys but a lot of people will generalise and say all small dogs are yappy and snappy.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Blitz said:


> That is so true. I get heartily fed up with people (even experienced horse owners) telling me that shetlands are nasty things that bite and kick and try and escape all the time. Any that I have owned have been treated exactly the same as bigger ones and consequently behave in the same way. We all know that small dogs that yap and snap have probably been treated as cuddly toys but a lot of people will generalise and say all small dogs are yappy and snappy.


I totally agree, I've just got back from a walk with my two and we passed a man with a large crossbreed, he saw me pull mine over to the side of the path and said "the small one's are always the worst aren't they", thinking I was pulling them away because they were going to yap and snap at his but in reality I didn't want them to approach his dog because I had no idea if it was friendly or not. When I told him they have never snapped or yapped at any dog he seemed surprised. We then passed a lady with 2 miniature daschunds, one who barked and lunged at mine and then a couple with 2 terriers who growled and lunged at mine and Alfie and Tia just trotted passed them all without a sound. Although Tia did give a backward glance and then looked at me as if to say "Wasn't I a good girl , where's my treat?". I hate that people think all small dogs are yappy and snappy. I've gone out of my way to ensure mine are friendly and absolutely none aggressive.
In fact I know quite a lot of small dogs who aren't yappy or snappy.

As for the Shetlands, when I started riding at about 9 there was a Shetland at the riding school called Toby and he was always given the first time riders, obviously as long as they weren't too heavy, because he was a very steady, calm and friendly pony. I love Shetlands, they are such characters.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I have to hand it to the Forum here...the info on this thread is better than we got in the evening telegraph at the time and it happened not ten minuets away from me, also learned a lot about some peoples misconceptions around dogs...I have learnt that some dogs have no teeth...OBV.. because they are not capable of attacking :Hilarious and that bull breeds have rows and rows of razor sharp teeth and can't be bull breeds if they don't attack a person at least once in their lifetime...I've mostly learned that some humans can talk out of their bottoms


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Clare7435 said:


> I have to hand it to the Forum here...the info on this thread is better than we got in the evening telegraph at the time and it happened not ten minuets away from me, also learned a lot about some peoples misconceptions around dogs...I have learnt that some dogs have no teeth...OBV.. because they are not capable of attacking :Hilarious and that bull breeds have rows and rows of razor sharp teeth and can't be bull breeds if they don't attack a person at least once in their lifetime...I've mostly learned that some humans can talk out of their bottoms











Rarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr bull breed with his razor sharp teeth ( poor things teefs is falling out so has nooooooooooo teefs)


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> View attachment 230694
> 
> Rarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr bull breed with his razor sharp teeth ( poor things teefs is falling out so has nooooooooooo teefs)


Nawwww how cute...this pooch can gum me to death any time


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

But can anyone deny that Caucasian Shepherd is more dangerous than a Cavvie.... I mean breed does play some part in temperament no? 

The injustice with BSL is that they actual pick on breeds known to be very sound around people. JMHO.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2015)

Muze said:


> But can anyone deny that Caucasian Shepherd is more dangerous than a Cavvie.... I mean breed does play some part in temperament no?
> 
> The injustice with BSL is that they actual pick on breeds known to be very sound around people. JMHO.


OMG it's the thread that won't die LOL!

Fair question about a Caucasian vs. a CKCS. 
CKCS, smalll dog bred to be a pet basically.
Ovcharka, large to XL dog bred to guard and protect, not back down from a threat, and engage if the situation calls for it.

Yes, on the surface, a CKCS is a *much* more idiot-proof dog than a CO.

Now let's put it in context. 
My friend breeds and works CAS (a breed very similar to CO). She is very savvy, very careful, and knows her dogs. Her dogs are never going to be in the same position Barbara Streisand put her little Coton in where the dog felt he had no choice but to bite and bit with enough damage to require stitches.

Another friend has a mini dachshund who has repeatedly bitten her and her children. My friend's CAS have never bitten anyone nor have any of the dogs she has sold. 
My children are allowed to interact with my friend's CAS (under her supervision), they are not allowed to interact with my friend's mini dachshund.

The human factor is STILL a bigger predictor of a dog's "danger" than the breed. Yes, breed traits are a factor, and no, they should not be totally ignored. But the human factor still trumps breed as far as safety goes.

And as you rightly pointed out, if we're looking at breed traits, that affable pit bulls are banned but serious guardian breed CO are not is pretty ironic.....


----------

