# Another Dog Attack



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I really don't what too say, I only hope the little girl wil be OK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39840524


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I heard this on the news this morning. A dreadful thing to happen. I can't help feeling that something is going to have to happen with either policing the existing laws or bringing in draconian measures that will sadly affect all dog owners. After all it only took one serious gun attack to knock a lot of gun clubs on the head and for hobby shooters to lose their hobby yet dog attacks serious enough to be newsworthy are almost weekly let alone the hundreds of unreported ones.
Why on earth do people have to get unsuitable dogs and even worse keep them in large numbers.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I wish the police would stop wasting time identifying a breed.
The dogs were dangerously out of control and caused injury...so under the present law they can sieze the dogs to pts and charge the owner under DDA!
Instead time and money is wasted with kennel fees and assessments that achieve the same results and nothing else is learned!

It's about time the legal system started using the laws already in place, but as usual we will probably get a knee-jerk reaction that has no impact on the irresponsible.
I hope the little girl gets over her injuries quickly.


----------



## Michebe (Mar 28, 2017)

Poor little girl, i hope she recovers well, when my youngest was around 3 a dog got into our garden several times and barked and jumped up, he was scared of dogs for a long time and only now is willing to be by them as long as they are calm and not jumping around. In the end i had to stop him playing in our own back garden as the owners didnt seem to care about the dog escaping. Its sad that thoughtless people spoil things for the ones who care and actually train their dogs


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I heard this on the news this morning. A dreadful thing to happen. I can't help feeling that something is going to have to happen with either policing the existing laws or bringing in draconian measures that will sadly affect all dog owners. After all it only took one serious gun attack to knock a lot of gun clubs on the head and for hobby shooters to lose their hobby yet dog attacks serious enough to be newsworthy are almost weekly let alone the hundreds of unreported ones.
> Why on earth do people have to get unsuitable dogs and even worse keep them in large numbers.


I read this on the way into work very sad and I hope the little girl recovers well

Blitz - I think its more to do with unsuitable dog owners than unsuitable dogs 

Perhaps a radical idea would be dog licences like driver licences ..... all dog owners have to sit an exam to be able to own a dog......OK bonkers Idea I know


----------



## Legshand (Aug 28, 2016)

Blitz said:


> is going to have to happen with either policing


The indications are that in England the cops have adopted a no nonsense much harder line than in the past, in both the bolton & chatham incidents they had no hesitation in shooting to kill, in bolton I heard around 5 shots, it was nevel like that untill recently.
In this case the attack was over and the dogs had been put away by the owner before the cops came so the 'situation' was different.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Poor child, I hope she makes a full recovery and is young enough to not remember much of this.

I agree with @StormyThai the law against having a dog dangerously out of control applies here. I hope it is applied to the fullest extent to this owner. There need to be serious consequences for owners when their dogs do this sort of damage, that's the only way things will change. Once people start seeing criminal charges and jail time for the actions of their dogs, they will be motivated to do something about it.

I'm willing to bet good money this was not the first time these dogs have caused trouble....


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> I wish the police would stop wasting time identifying a breed.
> .


True. The article states that the owner was arrested under 'suspicion' of owning a dangerous dog. Surely a dog that has put a toddler in the hospital is by any definition dangerous, regardless of breed or type.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> by any definition dangerous, regardless of breed or type.


Exactly...all this hoo har about what breed caused the damage just furthers the publics perception that certain breeds are to blame and cute lil fluffy Fido will cause no harm!
Once the public wake up to the fact that ANY breed can be prosecuted under DDA then I think we may see a small shift in out of control dogs.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

catz4m8z said:


> True. The article states that the owner was arrested under 'suspicion' of owning a dangerous dog. Surely a dog that has put a toddler in the hospital is by any definition dangerous, regardless of breed or type.


totally agree if its attached someone then its dangerous no matter the breed (ok before I get shot down.... dependent on the situation of course )


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> *I wish the police would stop wasting time identifying a breed.*
> The dogs were dangerously out of control and caused injury...so under the present law they can sieze the dogs to pts and charge the owner under DDA!
> Instead time and money is wasted with kennel fees and assessments that achieve the same results and nothing else is learned!
> 
> ...


Because if they are a banned breed they can bring stronger charges againist him.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

catz4m8z said:


> True. The article states that the owner was arrested under 'suspicion' of owning a dangerous dog. Surely a dog that has put a toddler in the hospital is by any definition dangerous, regardless of breed or type.


The use of the word suspicion might be because there has not been a formal investigation yet. Innocent until proven guilty type thing. For example in the US people are arrested for a crime but essentially still presumed innocent until their case is heard in court.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> The dogs were dangerously out of control and caused injury...so under the present law they can sieze the dogs to pts and charge the owner under DDA!


My guess is they trying to determine what the person can be charged with. Owning a dog out of control obviously but if a banned breed surely that is also a separate offence.



> Perhaps a radical idea would be dog licences like driver licences ..... all dog owners have to sit an exam to be able to own a dog......OK bonkers Idea I know


Like https://www.thelocal.de/20120321/41463 ? No idea how effective it has been. Interestingly lower saxony is the only state not to have any breed specific leglisation. It's not simply a matter of legislation though, it's a matter of enforcement . Good owners are more likely to obey laws. The bad owners are more likely to ignore it. End result, penalising good owners.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

ouesi said:


> The use of the word suspicion might be because there has not been a formal investigation yet. Innocent until proven guilty type thing. For example in the US people are arrested for a crime but essentially still presumed innocent until their case is heard in court.


I do understand that but there is still alot of emphasis on identifying the breed or type of dog, which IMO shouldnt matter.
The 'type' of dog is one that hospitalized a child!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> Because if they are a banned breed they can bring stronger charges againist him.


Actually the penalties under DDA are stronger than BSL 

Under DDA:-

You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.

If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with 'malicious wounding'.

If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).

If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (eg a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).

And for BSL:-
If you prove this, the court will order the dog to be returned to you. If you can't prove it (or you plead guilty), you'll be convicted of a crime.

You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) for having a banned dog against the law. Your dog will also be destroyed.

So personally I'd prefer they stuck to the DDA


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Actually the penalties under DDA are stronger than BSL
> 
> Under DDA:-
> 
> ...


In that case could you not be charged with both, having dangerous dog and a banned one.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

There is literally no details other than a dog/s got into the garden. So as usual it's hard to comment further.



Blitz said:


> I heard this on the news this morning. A dreadful thing to happen. I can't help feeling that something is going to have to happen with either policing the existing laws or bringing in draconian measures that will sadly affect all dog owners. After all it only took one serious gun attack to knock a lot of gun clubs on the head and for hobby shooters to lose their hobby yet dog attacks serious enough to be newsworthy are almost weekly let alone the hundreds of unreported ones.
> Why on earth do people have to get unsuitable dogs and even worse keep them in large numbers.


Serious dog attacks are not common though. They're actually very rare, so it makes no sense draconian laws should be introduced.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> In that case could you not be charged with both, having dangerous dog and a banned one.


Yes you can. However, the sentences would most likely run concurrently so it wouldn't mean extra time in prison. It is just a waste of time and money IMO.


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

How very sad, hope the little girl makes a quick and full recovery. Same for the injured woman.

Seems he was arrested under the DDA section 3
"Officers in attendance at the scene have arrested a 35-year-old man from Toxteth on suspicion of aggravated Section 3 (under the Dangerous Dogs Act) of having a dangerous dog/dogs out of control. Five dogs and five puppies have been seized from the male's address, and specialist officers are working to establish the breed of dog."​
This particular paragraph stood out to me...
"This case highlights in the starkest terms the potential dangers of dogs and I would appeal to anyone with information about dangerous dogs in their area to contact us so that we can take pro-active action."​Sincerely hope they mean dangerous dogs behaviour-wise and not those considered of type.
​Taken from the report on Merseyside Police's website https://www.merseyside.police.uk/ne...og-attack-on-two-year-old-girl/#59102f1c17e27


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

jamat said:


> I read this on the way into work very sad and I hope the little girl recovers well
> 
> Blitz - I think its more to do with unsuitable dog owners than unsuitable dogs
> 
> Perhaps a radical idea would be dog licences like driver licences ..... all dog owners have to sit an exam to be able to own a dog......OK bonkers Idea I know


All you end up doing is penalising those people that abide by the law.

Because it's illegal to drive without a licence but scrotes that don't give a toss still drive without one, or insurance, or MOT etc.....


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

jamat said:


> I read this on the way into work very sad and I hope the little girl recovers well
> 
> Blitz - I think its more to do with unsuitable dog owners than unsuitable dogs
> 
> Perhaps a radical idea would be dog licences like driver licences ..... all dog owners have to sit an exam to be able to own a dog......OK bonkers Idea I know


People are getting dogs that are unsuitable for their life style, either on purpose because they want a 'ard dog or because they have no idea about the dog breed or type.
There has been talk about having dog licenses back and with an exam for as long as there have been no licenses. I can remember getting my license from the post office for 7s6d but it was scrapped because it was not policed and it cost more than that to administer. Only the good owners would get one whatever they cost and whatever test you had to take.



Legshand said:


> The indications are that in England the cops have adopted a no nonsense much harder line than in the past, in both the bolton & chatham incidents they had no hesitation in shooting to kill, in bolton I heard around 5 shots, it was nevel like that untill recently.
> In this case the attack was over and the dogs had been put away by the owner before the cops came so the 'situation' was different.


By policing, I do not mean after the event, I mean for less high profile and serious cases. My sister was telling me about a loose dog grabbing a friend's on lead dog (on the pavement) a few days ago and inflicting a great deal of damage. It was only saved by two men who were passing by who levered the dog's jaws open and were bitten in the process. The police were informed and said they were not interested and it was not an offence.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Blitz said:


> People are getting dogs that are unsuitable for their life style, either on purpose because they want a 'ard dog or because they have no idea about the dog breed or type.
> There has been talk about having dog licenses back and with an exam for as long as there have been no licenses. I can remember getting my license from the post office for 7s6d but it was scrapped because it was not policed and it cost more than that to administer. Only the good owners would get one whatever they cost and whatever test you had to take.


I was shooting from the hip with that suggestion like everything else cost of policing something like that would be prohibited so it wouldn't work 

But I totally agree with your comments on people getting the wrong dog for their life style and of course the dick heads that get as dog for status in their group ...but I can't personally see how to be proactive against this happening... this type of thing sadly seems to always be reactive


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> People are getting dogs that are unsuitable for their life style, either on purpose because they want a 'ard dog or because they have no idea about the dog breed or type.
> There has been talk about having dog licenses back and with an exam for as long as there have been no licenses. I can remember getting my license from the post office for 7s6d but it was scrapped because it was not policed and it cost more than that to administer. Only the good owners would get one whatever they cost and whatever test you had to take.
> 
> By policing, I do not mean after the event, I mean for less high profile and serious cases. My sister was telling me about a loose dog grabbing a friend's on lead dog (on the pavement) a few days ago and inflicting a great deal of damage. It was only saved by two men who were passing by who levered the dog's jaws open and were bitten in the process. The police were informed and said they were not interested and it was not an offence.


Then those police officers needed reminding that under the DDA it is an offence and if they are not interested then take it higher - make a complaint.

I too can remember buying my license for 37 and a half pence. Total waste of time, no questions asked, no one ever asked to see it, just a wasted piece of paper. I think dog owners really do need to make sure their property and garden is totally secure and escape proof. I do think neighbourhood officers/local councils/housing associations should be given the power to issue notices to enforce this.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Happy Paws said:


> Because if they are a banned breed they can bring stronger charges againist him.


The flip side of this though is that if the dog is deemed not of type, then you're basically saying to the victim, "hey, your injuries are not as important because, lucky you, you got bitten by a lab instead of a pitbull."

Does it really matter if someone is mauled what the breed was?
Bottom line, a child is in the hospital after a dog who had no business being in her yard attacked her. The breed is wholly irrelevant.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

jamat said:


> I can't personally see how to be proactive against this happening... this type of thing sadly seems to always be reactive


Actually there is some excellent information out there about dogs most likely to attack, and some of those indicators are definitely ones we can prevent proactively. 
For example, one of the known factors in dog attacks is chaining dogs outside in an unfenced area. So in many places in the US there have been anti-chaining laws enacted.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Then those police officers needed reminding that under the DDA it is an offence and if they are not interested then take it higher - make a complaint.
> 
> I too can remember buying my license for 37 and a half pence. Total waste of time, no questions asked, no one ever asked to see it, just a wasted piece of paper. I think dog owners really do need to make sure their property and garden is totally secure and escape proof. I do think neighbourhood officers/local councils/housing associations should be given the power to issue notices to enforce this.


I absolutely agree as does my sister but apparently the family have a lot of problems at the moment and not got the energy to pursue it. How many people are sure enough of their facts to argue with the police. I think I have said on here before about the dog I took to the police station because it was wandering and pissing up fruit and veg in the greengrocers and coming in our caravan awning and pissing up all our possessions. The second time took it in (this was when police were responsible for straying dogs) I was told not to waste their time, the dog belonged to an old man who could not walk it so it was let our for exercise. I was young and not so assertive so I walked away even though I knew the police were in the wrong.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

jamat said:


> I was shooting from the hip with that suggestion like everything else cost of policing something like that would be prohibited so it wouldn't work
> 
> But I totally agree with your comments on people getting the wrong dog for their life style and of course the dick heads that get as dog for status in their group ...but I can't personally see how to be proactive against this happening... this type of thing sadly seems to always be reactive


I know you were. I think it is a hopeless thought that anything will work. The dog press was full of such ideas with the general opinion that it was not a workable idea probably 30 or 40 years ago. You are right, if there was any way of it it working it is a really good idea.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Hit reply too soon above. 
Where I was going with that is that we need to apply what we already know about serious dog attacks and use that knowledge to prevent them - they are largely preventable. This is not a case of rogue dogs we have no control over, this is human negligence on many levels. 

In this particular case I'm willing to bet good money this was not the only time these dogs have gotten loose and caused trouble of some kind. I'm also willing to bet good money that whichever dog did most of the damage had already bitten before. Might not have been reported, but I bet if this was thoroughly investigated and the owners were truthful, you'll find a bite history there somewhere. 

So negligence starts at the first time these dogs got loose and no one reported the incident, or, if it was reported, nothing was followed up on. 

We also know that dogs used for breeding are more likely to attack. Males get territorial about "their" females, and females get protective of their puppies. Responsible breeders don't want to hear this, and I understand, but irresponsible breeding practices need to be addressed. Again, regardless of breed. 
There is absolutely NO reason for a bitch with pups to be loose running around. None. That alone should be a huge red flag that this is completely irresponsible ownership. 

There are several red flags here that can be addressed right from the get go.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

The Mirror have released a photo of one of the alleged dogs.

That is most emphatically NOT a pit bull, or any of the other banned breeds, or any recognised breed.

The scariest thing is they have bred it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-picture-enormous-evil-dog-10379256


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

simplysardonic said:


> The Mirror have released a photo of one of the alleged dogs.
> 
> That is most emphatically NOT a pit bull, or any of the other banned breeds, or any recognised breed.
> 
> ...


How the hell did that dog jump any fence?


----------



## Sairy (Nov 22, 2016)

simplysardonic said:


> The Mirror have released a photo of one of the alleged dogs.
> 
> That is most emphatically NOT a pit bull, or any of the other banned breeds, or any recognised breed.
> 
> ...


Oh dear that poor dog looks like it would suffer all manner of problems with its shape.


----------



## Sairy (Nov 22, 2016)

Poor girl. That must have been so terrifying. I hope she recovers well.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ouesi said:


> The flip side of this though is that if the dog is deemed not of type, then *you're basically saying to the victim, "hey, your injuries are not as important because, lucky you,* you got bitten by a lab instead of a pitbull."
> 
> Does it really matter if someone is mauled what the breed was?
> Bottom line, a child is in the hospital after a dog who had no business being in her yard attacked her. The breed is wholly irrelevant.


*NO I wasn't* I just thought that the charges might be stronger so punishment would be stronger, if it was a banned breed, as example to others. It still was a dangerous dog, I hope they thow the book at him.

*And I object to the fact, that you would even think, I've taken this lightly*.:Rage


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> How the hell did that dog jump any fence?


If you scroll down the page to the photo where the policeman is taking photos next to the caravan - the fence to the other side of him is really quite low, more like a decorative fence than one that would keep dogs in or out. The last photo shows gates across the drive but I guess if kids were in and out playing the gates might not have been shut although again they are not very high.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

simplysardonic said:


> The Mirror have released a photo of one of the alleged dogs.
> 
> That is most emphatically NOT a pit bull, or any of the other banned breeds, or any recognised breed.
> 
> ...


Looks like one of those grotesque Exotic Bullies.....:Grumpy

I'm with Ouesi though...how the hell did it jump the fence?? Looks barely able to stand let alone jump! Unless it escaped through a gap in the fence.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

jamat said:


> I read this on the way into work very sad and I hope the little girl recovers well
> 
> Blitz - I think its more to do with unsuitable dog owners than unsuitable dogs
> 
> Perhaps a radical idea would be dog licences like driver licences ..... all dog owners have to sit an exam to be able to own a dog......OK bonkers Idea I know


There used to be dog licences years ago I remember my parent's having one for the dogs we had many years ago! I don't think they had to go sit an exam though just went and bought a license.

They didn't seem to know which dog specifically had attacked her it said it seemed more than 1 dog was involved so how will they determine which one's of the 5 were responsible?..will they just put them all down? it said they had seized 5 dogs and 5 puppies?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

omg, it was a frog, not a dog.



ouesi said:


> Hit reply too soon above.
> Where I was going with that is that we need to apply what we already know about serious dog attacks and use that knowledge to prevent them - they are largely preventable. This is not a case of rogue dogs we have no control over, this is human negligence on many levels.
> 
> In this particular case I'm willing to bet good money this was not the only time these dogs have gotten loose and caused trouble of some kind. I'm also willing to bet good money that whichever dog did most of the damage had already bitten before. Might not have been reported, but I bet if this was thoroughly investigated and the owners were truthful, you'll find a bite history there somewhere.
> ...


Too true. There was a local facebook plea for the nth time for 2 dogs that had gone missing and this time one of them had a week old puppy.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Looks like one of those grotesque *Exotic Bullies*.....:Grumpy
> 
> I'm with Ouesi though...how the hell did it jump the fence?? Looks barely able to stand let alone jump! Unless it escaped through a gap in the fence.


That's exactly what I was thinking, or possibly an XL American Bully (or an attempt by someone to create a lookalike dog), there's been a huge increase in their numbers over here.

I also wonder if these dogs are given steroids, or other drugs.

I'd bet the farm he didn't come from anywhere nice though.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> The Mirror have released a photo of one of the alleged dogs.
> 
> That is most emphatically NOT a pit bull, or any of the other banned breeds, or any recognised breed.
> 
> ...


f*ck me it looks more like a creature created for star wars films...how grotesque and sad for the dog itself .....wonder how many health problems that has


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

ouesi said:


> How the hell did that dog jump any fence?


More likely it ploughed through it

Cant believe the size of its mouth no wonder the little girl had head injurings just doesn't bare thinking about


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

jamat said:


> f*ck me it looks more like a creature created for star wars films...how grotesque and sad for the dog itself .....wonder how many health problems that has


The inbreeding of these dogs is horrific, the breeders actually boast about it!


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> The inbreeding of these dogs is horrific, the breeders actually boast about it!


They should add animal cruelty to the list of charges brought against the scumbag


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

simplysardonic said:


> The Mirror have released a photo of one of the alleged dogs.
> 
> That is most emphatically NOT a pit bull, or any of the other banned breeds, or any recognised breed.
> 
> ...


That is clearly some kind of a bull breed cross! look at the shape of its face! I've seen staffies that were really wide at front of chest with legs like that too, usually owned by young lads who get them muscled up for dog fighting! Is the guy breeding them for dog fighting??? Using a dog like that to breed from you can only think he's wanting to produce more like it and what other purpose would have for them looking like that????


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

I know which film I saw something like that from, The John Carter of Mars movie....


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That is clearly some kind of a bull breed cross! look at the shape of its face! I've seen staffies that were really wide at front of chest with legs like that too, usually owned by young lads who get them muscled up for dog fighting! Is the guy breeding them for dog fighting??? Using a dog like that to breed from you can only think he's wanting to produce more like it and what other purpose would have for them looking like that????


The press have done a wonderful job... As for dog fighting, seriously? I hope you are joking.

It is a deformed mutt - the conformation of that dog looks like a disaster. We don't even know if it is the dog what injured the young girl and the woman.

They are more than likely ego boosters, used for bragging rights or simply as money makers. Some people will pay thousands for such deformed looking dogs.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

ShibaPup said:


> The press have done a wonderful job... As for dog fighting, seriously? I hope you are joking.
> 
> It is a deformed mutt - the conformation of that dog looks like a disaster. We don't even know if it is the dog what injured the young girl and the woman.
> 
> They are more than likely ego boosters, used for bragging rights or simply as money makers. Some people will pay thousands for such deformed looking dogs.


Sadly dog fighting is still going on, particuarly in the rougher and inner city boroughs within the UK


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Is that a blurred out child straddling that dog in the photo?


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

That is one grotesque dog IMHO there is only one reason that dog exists & that's to fight.
I know there will be a knee jerk reaction of some description.
How do these increasingly common incidents have a stop put to them??????? I don't think there's a simple answer untill the Authorities police the situation. The Americans have dedicated units to deal with this kind of crimes & as far as I can see it's strictly policed, some are civil & some are state run with proper law enforcement officers maybe that's what it needs but I am certain if a licence was introduced that money would go to some other area of Gov not the Canine unit much like our road tax.
Well done Granny for getting stuck in regardless I'm not sure many people would have I hope the young'un heals fast & has left to deep a scar on her or her trust of dogs I suspect the later will take more time if ever.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

shadowmare said:


> Is that a blurred out child straddling that dog in the photo?


Strange from looking at the boots and the grey camo trousers I assumed it was the owner posing with his mutant dog rather than a child?


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Damn I wish I hadn't scrolled down past the pic of the dog....The mirror is a disgusting news paper how could they show a wall splattered with the child's blood that is cruel beyond believe for her family ...sick media


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Can't see how the hell that dog is going to seriously fight... There are no scars on the dog...

Canine and human aggression are very different things. Just because a dog would harm another dog doesn't mean that dog would harm a human.

Dog fighting always crops up when such attacks happen. I don't understand why? 



shadowmare said:


> Is that a blurred out child straddling that dog in the photo?


Looks like a young chap crouched behind the dog.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

poor child .  That was brave of her aunt to fend off the dogs .
The dogs will lose their lives too .


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> poor child .  That was brave of her aunt to fend off the dogs .
> The dogs will lose their lives too .


Sadly those dog's fates were cast in stone the day they stepped into the house of that d**k head of an owner


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I can't see the photo of the dog on the mirror link . has it been removed?


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> I can't see the photo of the dog on the mirror link . has it been removed?


How strange...but of course they leave the blood splattered wall online .... 

You will probably find the Mirrors quality reporters put up a picture of totally the wrong dog


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

That blood splatter photo is awful , beyond the pale .


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> That blood splatter photo is awful , beyond the pale .


beauty know if you complained to them about it you'd get the "its in the public interest..." bull s**t from them....

more like its in their interest because it sells more papers.....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That is clearly some kind of a bull breed cross! look at the shape of its face! I've seen staffies that were really wide at front of chest with legs like that too, usually owned by young lads who get them muscled up for dog fighting! Is the guy breeding them for dog fighting??? Using a dog like that to breed from you can only think he's wanting to produce more like it and what other purpose would have for them looking like that????


I've never seen a Staffy that looked like this dog and, I've seen a lot.

If the dog is used for fighting, why does it not have a mark on it?


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Sweety said:


> I've never seen a Staffy that looked like this dog and, I've seen a lot.
> 
> If the dog is used for fighting, why does it not have a mark on it?


It could be the picture's come from the face book account of the owner just after he had him and he's not been used in a fight yet..or it could just be we are all wrong and he's not been used for fighting just as a status dog for his owner to look tough


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Bob Ford said:


> The Americans have dedicated units to deal with this kind of crimes & as far as I can see it's strictly policed, some are civil & some are state run with proper law enforcement officers


Not sure what you're referring to as far as "proper" law enforcement officers? 
In some states and big cities, they do have special units, under which dog fighting might fall.

Now, it is true that in the US dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states. Lots of activists worked very hard for this law to be passed, not just for dog fighting to be illegal, but for it to have a hefty enough penalty to be a deterrent. 
Police forces are also fairly motivated to bust dog fighting rings because where there is dog fighting, there is usually a lot of other illegal activity going on. Underage drinking, drug dealing, etc.

That said, dog fighting and the breeding of fighting dogs even if they're not used to fight is ubiquitous. Having a fighting dog is a status symbol, and it's not illegal to own a fighting breed, it's just illegal to fight them.

I will say, my OH is a rural police officer who deals with fighting dogs on a regular basis, they're generally not an issue at all, even the ones sitting out on chains 24/7 with minimal human contact. They're perfectly sweet, human friendly dogs. Sure, there are some outliers who are dangerous to humans, but in general, they're very forgiving, tolerant dogs.

Whatever photo was posted was not of a fighting dog. True fighting dogs need to be able to breathe and move.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

As puppies were removed from the house, it would appear that the owner of those dogs is a classic example of the worst kind of back yard breeder ....neither health nor welfare is considered so long as you can sell the puppies .....the sole purpose of the dogs is as a status symbol ...to look tough ...whether they fight or not .....this is Toxteth in Liverpool we are talking about....let's just say, no one owns a Cockepoo in Toxteth. 

The law does only seem to be there to mop up the mess afterwards ......which unfortunately seems a bit late.

I hope the child is ok. Very frightening.

J


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

I am so fed up with kids and indeed dogs suffering because of AH's like the DH that owned those dogs. 10 years in Jail with no chance of parole is the only thing that sort of cretin understands. 
Lets hope the poor kid makes a full recovery.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Regarding what can be done to prevent these incidents instead of simply reacting after the fact, this is an oldie but goodie article on the dangerous human behavior that contributes to dog attacks. This is based on numerous cases of dog attacks being analyzed and studied.
http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/drayton-michaels/predicting-dangerous-human-behavior
I don't agree with everything he suggests in the article, but the information he presents is still very much valid. From the article:
*2 - ALL lethal and fatal dog bite cases have a human behavioral criterion that repeats in total or in part.*

Dogs kept as resident dogs for breeding, protection, fighting or guarding.
Dogs un-spayed or un-neutered.
Children and dogs left unsupervised.
Dogs chained or housed or fenced in 24/7 - creates stress & fear.
Domestic violence. _Franklin County OH conducted a survey and found the zip codes with the highest domestic violence had the heist dog bite incidents._
Multiple dogs.
Dogs roaming loose.
These are ALL human behavioral decisions that can be educated towards better decisions thus preventing dangerous environments.

Interesting how many of these apply in this case even with the little information known so far.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Dillon is un-neutered and very dangerous, just ask his toys.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Happy Paws said:


> Dillon is un-neutered and very dangerous, just ask his toys.


If you wish to make this a joke, that's fine. I'm trying to present information about how to prevent dog attacks. And yes, when someone is not going to be bothered to keep their dog contained on their property, for that dog to be intact is more dangerous than for the dog to be neutered. 
Intact dogs fight over bitches and territory. Intact females can be hormonal. Breeding dogs are protective of their offspring. All of these factors are meaningful when it comes to trying to prevent these types of situations from happening.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Multiple dogs.


Especially multiple dogs in small spaces.

J


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Especially multiple dogs in small spaces.
> 
> J


Looks like they were kept in "cages" out back?
Yeah...
Dogs kept for breeding, therefore intact, in small spaces, got loose, several of them at a time... This was foreseeable and preventable.

And that's really the take-away here. If we start looking at the commonalities in these types of attacks, I think we'll see a similar pattern. And from that pattern you can enforce existing laws and hopefully prevent further incidents.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39849942


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> Dillon is un-neutered and very dangerous, just ask his toys.


oh the naughty boy !


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I see in the news article that the police are asking for information on dangerous dogs before there is a problem so that might be a good start. You hear so often of complaints about dogs and nothing is every done about it until there is an incident that goes to court. Also there seem to be a lot of people that will not complain in case of reprisals or in case of the dog being put to sleep.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Liverpool Echo have posted an informative article about dog attack prevention:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/how-tell-your-dog-threat-13004480
Unfortunately I don't think there was anything the family of the poor tot who was attacked could have done.

Absolutely dreadful that children can't play safely in their own garden, I hope the owner adequately punished.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@Blitz That's a start . perhaps some people might prefer to ring the dog warden rather than that the police , they might not want to get involved with the police themselves , also maybe the dog warden would be better art recognising if a dog has a serious problem. Some dogs bark a lot but arent a danger .


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

simplysardonic said:


> Liverpool Echo have posted an informative article about dog attack prevention:
> 
> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/how-tell-your-dog-threat-13004480
> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/how-tell-your-dog-threat-13004480
> ...


Yes, great info, but unfortunately, not anything that would apply to the family of this poor child. And agreed, insane that she can't play in her yard without worrying about a dog attack


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Similar to the idiot with the 4 or 5 "American Bullies" (whatever the hell they are) that got shot in Bolton recently. A toxic recipe for the disaster.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

American Bully Dogs?


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Sweety said:


> American Bully Dogs?


Seem to be yet another big (and ugly looking at Google images!) Bull breed cross.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sweety said:


> American Bully Dogs?


Another recently created breed, it's recognised by the UKC, but I believe there's a lot of controversy over the breeds used in its creation & incidences of 'paper hanging':

https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-bully


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

simplysardonic said:


> Another recently created breed, it's recognised by the UKC, but I believe there's a lot of controversy over the breeds used in its creation & incidences of 'paper hanging':
> 
> https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-bully


Though to be fair, from the breed standard:
Eliminating Fault: Chest so wide as to interfere with normal movement.
Eliminating Faults: Front legs so bowed as to interfere with normal movement.
Eliminating Fault: Splayed feet.

So the dog pictured might be an American Bully in name, but not much else... More like a BYB mess dog


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> There used to be dog licences years ago I remember my parent's having one for the dogs we had many years ago! I don't think they had to go sit an exam though just went and bought a license.
> 
> They didn't seem to know which dog specifically had attacked her it said it seemed more than 1 dog was involved so how will they determine which one's of the 5 were responsible?..will they just put them all down? it said they had seized 5 dogs and 5 puppies?


I'm surprised that an adult wasn't out there with a 2 year old and to know exactly what did happen tbh


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm surprised that an adult wasn't out there with a 2 year old and to know exactly what did happen tbh


There were 2 slightly older children out there too and the adults must have been watching or the child would not have been rescued. I do not see how anyone would be sure exactly how many dogs there were or which dog/s were attacking. They would only be trying to rescue the child.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Looks like they were kept in "cages" out back?
> Yeah...
> Dogs kept for breeding, therefore intact, in small spaces, got loose, several of them at a time... This was foreseeable and preventable.
> 
> And that's really the take-away here. If we start looking at the commonalities in these types of attacks, I think we'll see a similar pattern. And from that pattern you can enforce existing laws and hopefully prevent further incidents.


I find it hard to believe that the owner, his dogs and his "standards" were not well known in the area, or even that they had not become known by the authorities tbh. Sounds like an "accident" waiting to happen.

Instead of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted the authorities need to use the laws and welfare standards already in place to the full - and strengthen them if it's necessary (which I think it is) to protect children and dogs, alike.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Blitz said:


> There were 2 slightly older children out there too and the adults must have been watching or the child would not have been rescued. I do not see how anyone would be sure exactly how many dogs there were or which dog/s were attacking. They would only be trying to rescue the child.


If an adult was in attendance they would have seen what happened IMO

If they were glancing out of the window occasionally, then probably not.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Lurcherlad said:


> I find it hard to believe that the owner, his dogs and his "standards" were not well known in the area, or even that they had not become known by the authorities tbh.


Yes, yes, yes. 
This is what I'm saying. We KNOW who these dogs are that are not taken care of, who routinely get out, who routinely harass or aggress. It always turns out that these dogs are "known" in that neighborhood. Yet somehow it takes a horrific attack for the law to actually be applied. 
Just think of what could be prevented if the laws already in place were applied before tragedy struck


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> If an adult was in attendance they would have seen what happened IMO
> 
> If they were glancing out of the window occasionally, then probably not.


Children should be safe to play in the garden, they should not need an adult with them and a mature 6 year old is quite capable of keeping an eye on a 2 year old so long a the adults are within shouting distance.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

At around that age, maybe younger, my son managed to split his scalp open on the swingset while I was right there swinging his sister. I still couldn't tell you how he did it, I know he hit his head on the corner of a support beam but have no idea how he fell or hit it that hard. And like I said, I was right there.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Children should be safe to play in the garden, they should not need an adult with them and a mature 6 year old is quite capable of keeping an eye on a 2 year old so long a the adults are within shouting distance.


That particular garden was not secure from what I saw of the boundaries and the gate was on a latch, easily opened.

My 2 year old wouldn't have been out there, just supervised by a 6 year old.

Each to their own of course.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

ouesi said:


> At around that age, maybe younger, my son managed to split his scalp open on the swingset while I was right there swinging his sister. I still couldn't tell you how he did it, I know he hit his head on the corner of a support beam but have no idea how he fell or hit it that hard. And like I said, I was right there.


But you might have noticed a pack of dogs entering the garden?

Each to their own.


----------



## Legshand (Aug 28, 2016)

Lurcherlad said:


> Instead of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted the authorities need to use the laws and welfare standards already in place to the full - and strengthen them if it's necessary (which I think it is) to protect children and dogs, alike.


"Where are all the extra resources coming from?" do you think a councillor could get themselves elected by running their campaigns on what they are going to do for dogs? likewise with the police, good heavens.
You usually put some good posts with good points on here, why start writeing nonsense posts instead?


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

Legshand said:


> "Where are all the extra resources coming from?" do you think a councillor could get themselves elected by running their campaigns on what they are going to do for dogs? likewise with the police, good heavens.
> You usually put some good posts with good points on here, why start writeing nonsense posts instead?


Did you read what LL posted..the laws and protocols are already there...

She's saying people should use them as they should be used not as a last resort. As most likely the dogs have ran amok in the neighbourhood but just not been reported.

If you know nothing about dogs and the law why comment...although am sure google will tell you.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Legshand said:


> why start writeing nonsense posts instead?


Another one in need of a mirror.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Is there something in the water? A lot of squabbling in threads atm. :Bag


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2017)

Lurcherlad said:


> But you might have noticed a pack of dogs entering the garden?


You know, honestly, when I first read this story, it made me grateful that we do have dogs, and that the kids are rarely in the yard without them.

The last time a pack of dogs entered our property, our dogs saw them off before I even knew much of what was going on. 
They're also useful coyote deterrents


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> Not sure what you're referring to as far as "proper" law enforcement officers?
> In some states and big cities, they do have special units, under which dog fighting might fall.
> 
> Now, it is true that in the US dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states. Lots of activists worked very hard for this law to be passed, not just for dog fighting to be illegal, but for it to have a hefty enough penalty to be a deterrent.
> ...


I noticed that some Animal investigators have to call the police where as the others made arrests & served legal notices from that I guess some are civilian & some are police officers ?????


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Bob Ford said:


> I noticed that some Animal investigators have to call the police where as the others made arrests & served legal notices from that I guess some are civilian & some are police officers ?????


Do you mean in the US or the UK?

In the US some divisions of the police are "plain clothes" or even officers who are on "call" but not working may be in plain clothes. 
For example an officer who is certified for say meth ID might be on call, and show up to a scene in plain clothes if they're not working that day.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> Do you mean in the US or the UK?
> 
> In the US some divisions of the police are "plain clothes" or even officers who are on "call" but not working may be in plain clothes.
> For example an officer who is certified for say meth ID might be on call, and show up to a scene in plain clothes if they're not working that day.


The tv programs I watched were in the US, Houston, Detroit, LA & so on they all seemed to have uniforms with the police shield patch on the shoulders & others had same colour uniform but only Animal Welfare badge & a name badge on the shirt pocket.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Bob Ford said:


> The tv programs I watched were US Houston, Detroit, LA & so on they all seemed to have uniforms with the police shield patch on the shoulders & others had same colour but only Animal Welfare badge & a name badge on the shirt pocket


That would probably be Animal Control. Most (all?) counties have their own division of animal control. They deal with anything animal related. In the US that can be a rather extensive selection of animals. From mountain lions to alligators to your basic family pet


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Legshand said:


> "Where are all the extra resources coming from?" do you think a councillor could get themselves elected by running their campaigns on what they are going to do for dogs? likewise with the police, good heavens.
> You usually put some good posts with good points on here, why start writeing nonsense posts instead?


But you wouldn't be running a campaign about what youd do for dogs....you run a campaign about how youd protect everyone's children from being attacked by visous out of controlled dogs.....s sure fired way to be re-elected .....


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

ouesi said:


> You know, honestly, when I first read this story, it made me grateful that we do have dogs, and that the kids are rarely in the yard without them.
> 
> The last time a pack of dogs entered our property, our dogs saw them off before I even knew much of what was going on.
> They're also useful coyote deterrents


In your environment I would agree 

Here though, we don't have packs of dogs or predators roaming around.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

The common theme in most of these cases are the dogs often don't get walked or get mental stimulation and as someone said a breeder with multiple dogs may keep them in cages or runs outdoors. I doubt they get even basic training? 

Just watching programs like 'It's Me or the Dog' where the dogs are pets and usually living in a house, the common theme causing the behavioural problems are that they aren't walked enough or at all and get little or no mental stimulation in the way of the owner playing with or training them. 

With 5 adult dogs and 5 puppies where are they going to find time to give them all individual time (fuss, attention, play, training) these types of owners tend to keep them living as a pack and if they take them out at all it would be to walk them all together so they only had to go out once. The dogs often don't have a clue how to behave as they get out so little so get really over excited at seeing other dogs, anything that moves or squeaks (such as toddler squealing whilst playing?) and just go for it! 

There was another incident mentioned in papers about a staffie attacking 2 yorkshire terriers in a park and one little dog having to be rushed to the vets cos there was blood everywhere (they think the dog punctured a vein or something) and at one point it didn't look like the Yorkie would make it. .Not sure if it did in the end. Really if you're going to own big powerful breeds you should focus on making sure you have control of one before adding any more! (this owner also had several dogs at once and one had slipped its lead/collar after spotting the Yorkies). I certainly think there should be licenses and background checks for people wanting to buy bigger more powerful dogs to check they have the experience to handle them, just because of the damage they can potentially do to other small dogs and children when untrained and out of control.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> I find it hard to believe that the owner, his dogs and his "standards" were not well known in the area, or even that they had not become known by the authorities tbh. Sounds like an "accident" waiting to happen.


I expect it was.

But I am not sure under what 'law' he could have been charged and that's the problem. Having 5 ugly, unhealthy dogs is not against the law. Neither is keeping them or breeding them in basic conditions. Or keeping them in cages (unless he breached welfare regulations ...ie; water and shelter.) Have they 'attacked' before? Maybe a few snarly episodes but probably not enough to bring them to the attention of the police ...... and anyway, Toxteth is the kind of neighbourhood where you don't complain to the police about your neighbours dogs.

Whilst we do have the right to complain about 'out of control' dogs or 'being in fear' that we may get bitten ....that's a long way from ringing the police to say my neighbour has 5 dogs and I don't trust them. Whilst the police are upping their game a little there are still far too many incidences of the police not taking any interest in reports of dogs showing anti social behaviour....until that dog *has *bitten. That has to be the area that needs looking at ....and giving the police powers to remove dogs *before* an incident or make a request that a dog can be temperament tested.

J


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I expect it was.
> 
> But I am not sure under what 'law' he could have been charged and that's the problem. Having 5 ugly, unhealthy dogs is not against the law. Neither is keeping them or breeding them in basic conditions. Or keeping them in cages (unless he breached welfare regulations ...ie; water and shelter.) Have they 'attacked' before? Maybe a few snarly episodes but probably not enough to bring them to the attention of the police ...... and anyway, Toxteth is the kind of neighbourhood where you don't complain to the police about your neighbours dogs.
> 
> ...


Who would perform such assessments fairly? I sincerely hope the Police have learnt from this so-called behavioural assessment by a dog legislation officer at Merseyside Police... I found it quite shocking - not sure many dogs would pass that.





The same dog... with an independent expert.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Really if you're going to own big powerful breeds you should focus on making sure you have control of one before adding any more!


That should be the case no matter what size, breed or temperament...
These dogs were breeding dogs that escaped with their pups so my guess is hormones had a huge play in what happened, I'm also going to make a guess and say the temperament of the dogs wouldn't have been stellar either


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I expect it was.
> 
> But I am not sure under what 'law' he could have been charged and that's the problem. Having 5 ugly, unhealthy dogs is not against the law. Neither is keeping them or breeding them in basic conditions. Or keeping them in cages (unless he breached welfare regulations ...ie; water and shelter.) Have they 'attacked' before? Maybe a few snarly episodes but probably not enough to bring them to the attention of the police ...... and anyway, Toxteth is the kind of neighbourhood where you don't complain to the police about your neighbours dogs.
> 
> ...


If they have history of threatening and scary behaviour towards people or other dogs (not how they look ), if they are being kept below standards, etc. are both grounds for intervention as far as I know.

Like I said, IF the law needs to be strengthened (I think it does because these tragedies are happening too often), then so be it.

None of us know the back story for these dogs.

If individuals and communities are terrified to report such owners/dogs then even more reason for the authorities to be quicker to step in and the penalties much harsher.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Legshand said:


> "Where are all the extra resources coming from?" do you think a councillor could get themselves elected by running their campaigns on what they are going to do for dogs? likewise with the police, good heavens.
> You usually put some good posts with good points on here, why start writeing nonsense posts instead?


It wouldn't cost that much to beef up the already existing dog warden services so that they can be more involved in monitoring/education/prevention, its all about priorities. I think if you live in an area with a lot of anti social/problem dogs that make people afraid to go about their business then lobbying the local council or the police commissioner for that area is a perfectly good idea - you might think its nonsense but clearly lots of other people don't.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I expect it was.
> 
> But I am not sure under what 'law' he could have been charged and that's the problem. Having 5 ugly, unhealthy dogs is not against the law. Neither is keeping them or breeding them in basic conditions. Or keeping them in cages (unless he breached welfare regulations ...ie; water and shelter.) Have they 'attacked' before? Maybe a few snarly episodes but probably not enough to bring them to the attention of the police ...... and anyway, Toxteth is the kind of neighbourhood where you don't complain to the police about your neighbours dogs.
> 
> ...


I am not sure how it works in England but in Scotland we have animal welfare officers in the council. Our one doubles up as a dog warden so not sure where the cross over is but if there is a complaint about a dog he can go and see the owner and issue a notice that the dog has to be muzzled, on lead, or whatever else he thinks is appropriate. Again though it will be down to individuals as to how they do their job but without complaints they can't do it. A local dog had attacked a lot of dogs and killed small pets and finally the vet reported the injury to a dog that was badly injured. The animal welfare officer told the owner to keep the dog on a lead and muzzled which does not happen. He does not feel it necessary to enforce it though because there had only been one report so as far as he is concerned it was a one off.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I am not sure how it works in England but in Scotland we have animal welfare officers in the council. Our one doubles up as a dog warden so not sure where the cross over is but if there is a complaint about a dog he can go and see the owner and issue a notice that the dog has to be muzzled, on lead, or whatever else he thinks is appropriate. Again though it will be down to individuals as to how they do their job but without complaints they can't do it. A local dog had attacked a lot of dogs and killed small pets and finally the vet reported the injury to a dog that was badly injured. The animal welfare officer told the owner to keep the dog on a lead and muzzled which does not happen. He does not feel it necessary to enforce it though because there had only been one report so as far as he is concerned it was a one off.


That's the trouble - even if the Law is used, if it's not followed up it will not work.

The dog that attacked Jack has to be leashed in public and every time it's been seen since it has been on a leash. If I ever see or hear about it being off in public I will be calling the Police officer who issued the Notice, to escalate it.

I know for a fact the Dog Warden has done nothing about this case, and definitely won't be checking up on the owner/dog.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Blitz said:


> but if there is a complaint about a dog he can go and see the owner and issue a notice that the dog has to be muzzled, on lead, or whatever else he thinks is appropriate.


The same exists here in England I believe ...doggy asbo's. But most of these attacks are happening within home boundaries ....or escaping out of ....maybe the guy did walk with the dog(s) muzzled and on a lead when out.



Lurcherlad said:


> if they are being kept below standards, etc. .


Indeed ...but as I said wheras keeping dogs caged and untrained, with small gardens and poor fencing, plus being a byb all waves red flags to us ...it isn't against the law. I don't even think there is a minimum space allowance for keeping domestic dogs.

J


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Really if you're going to own big powerful breeds you should focus on making sure you have control of one before adding any more! (this owner also had several dogs at once and one had slipped its lead/collar after spotting the Yorkies). I certainly think there should be licenses and background checks for people wanting to buy bigger more powerful dogs to check they have the experience to handle them, just because of the damage they can potentially do to other small dogs and children when untrained and out of control.


License and background check for anyone wanting a dog bigger than a chihuahua then? 
Or would it be based on a certain size/weight. So if my lab is fat I'm under scrutiny but if I keep him skinny I'm okay? 
Where would you draw the line as far as size?

Did you read the list I posted about indicators of future danger? Did you see size or breed anywhere on that list? It's not there, because we know it's not a factor.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> The common theme in most of these cases are the dogs often don't get walked or get mental stimulation and as someone said a breeder with multiple dogs may keep them in cages or runs outdoors. I doubt they get even basic training?
> 
> Just watching programs like 'It's Me or the Dog' where the dogs are pets and usually living in a house, the common theme causing the behavioural problems are that they aren't walked enough or at all and get little or no mental stimulation in the way of the owner playing with or training them.
> 
> ...


Ummm yeah right. Do you know comments like this wind me up no end. Why should I a responsible owner of so called large breeds have to jump through hoops because of Muppets? Licenses and background checks won't stop these attacks? Why? Becauze these types of owners wouldn't have got a license or back ground check law or not, but responsible me would have and like the last 20+ years my dogs would continue to be no issue to anyone. Rather like knee jerk banning of certain types of dogs it will do nothing.

What do you consider large breed? Height? Weight?


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

I thought Butch/Buster did fairly well my dog faced with all those barking dogs would have gone nuts barking & hyper but she would not bite as loves any attention she can get. That Copper was almost provoking the dog to bite although I would not trust Butch/Buster not to bite if pushed by strangers.


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Bob Ford said:


> I thought Butch/Buster did fairly well my dog faced with all those barking dogs would have gone nuts barking & hyper but she would not bite as loves any attention she can get. That Copper was almost provoking the dog to bite although I would not trust Butch/Buster not to bite if pushed by strangers.


I don't think many dogs would be ok with having their skin grabbed then being pulled onto their side and held down.

The dog gave clear warnings he wasn't happy but they were ignored. Same for when he was picked up.

I would expect a dog legislation officer to be more knowledgeable about canine behaviour and body language without the independent expert's assessment that dog would have been PTS...


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> I really don't what too say, I only hope the little girl wil be OK.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39840524


seems to be happening more and more!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ShibaPup said:


> I don't think many dogs would be ok with having their skin grabbed then being pulled onto their side and held down.
> 
> The dog gave clear warnings he wasn't happy but they were ignored. Same for when he was picked up.
> 
> I would expect a dog legislation officer to be more knowledgeable about canine behaviour and body language without the independent expert's assessment that dog would have been PTS...


I absolutely agree and he was a sweet dog with the independent assessor BUT he did bite when pushed by the policeman and so in the wrong home he could be a danger. What happens if he is rehomed, a child (or an adult) picks him up or pushes him around and gets a bad bite. Any dog might growl and air snap when treated like that but that dog was ready to inflict damage. I wonder what happened to him and why the independent assessor was called in when the police assessor had written him off or were they actually the other way round.


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Blitz said:


> I absolutely agree and he was a sweet dog with the independent assessor BUT he did bite when pushed by the policeman and so in the wrong home he could be a danger. What happens if he is rehomed, a child (or an adult) picks him up or pushes him around and gets a bad bite. Any dog might growl and air snap when treated like that but that dog was ready to inflict damage. I wonder what happened to him and why the independent assessor was called in when the police assessor had written him off or were they actually the other way round.


Seems he belonged to an elderly person who was in the process of signing the dog over to the senior staffy club - the dog was 9 years old but tragically before this happened his owner passed away, several days passed before the owner was discovered and as a result the dog had consumed part of his owner.

Police then seized the dog and considered him a dangerous dog. After the dog legislation officer's assessment the court ordered a destruction order which was appealed against by the Senior Staffy Club and their solicitor. They brought in the independent expert to assess the dog.

Sadly the dog was PTS in Police custody February this year after becoming ill while the case was awaiting to go to the high court. He had been in Police custody since September 2015!!

You can read his story here http://www.totalgiving.co.uk/appeal/butch


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

This report claims it was the aunt that saved her not the Granny and there was 11 XXL American Bulldog types!

http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

ShibaPup said:


> Seems he belonged to an elderly person who was in the process of signing the dog over to the senior staffy club - the dog was 9 years old but tragically before this happened his owner passed away, several days passed before the owner was discovered and as a result the dog had consumed part of his owner.
> 
> Police then seized the dog and considered him a dangerous dog. After the dog legislation officer's assessment the court ordered a destruction order which was appealed against by the Senior Staffy Club and their solicitor. They brought in the independent expert to assess the dog.
> 
> ...


Unless you have seen it in action, dogs or my dog did; she was consistently clawing my.mouth and nipping my mouth and licking when I had sepsis...pre to being hospitalised. If I covered my face she was relentless and was digging motions at arm to move it. It was utterly consistent for 10 hours till the ambulance arrived, and she definitely knew I was really ill..even though I had just left hospital that morning. She didn't eat her dinner that evening either as she stayed with me. I have always said this is how I can understand it when dogs have attacked the faces of owners when they have passed away...we have never seen that behaviour since and she's only a Chihuahua....my other dogs didn't care one bit though!


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Meezey said:


> Ummm yeah right. Do you know comments like this wind me up no end. Why should I a responsible owner of so called large breeds have to jump through hoops because of Muppets? Licenses and background checks won't stop these attacks? Why? Becauze these types of owners wouldn't have got a license or back ground check law or not, but responsible me would have and like the last 20+ years my dogs would continue to be no issue to anyone. Rather like knee jerk banning of certain types of dogs it will do nothing.
> 
> What do you consider large breed? Height? Weight?


well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!

http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509

Must be american bulldog crossed with mastiff or something to get that kind of size! ... and those breeds on their own are both what I'd call big dogs and not really breeds for first time owners...or chavs just wanting them for show to make them feel big!

Anything with the potential to seriously injure or kill another dog or child.. I doubt a chihuahua could cause that much damage? ..but GSD's rotties etc and certainly these giant bull breeds (and crosses). Why do you think the police and prison services use certain breeds and people who want status dogs and dogs for fighting pick certain breeds and types over all the others?


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


Basically any dog with a set of teeth then...

A dog harming another dog is irrelevant...

A JRT killed a baby... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/09/baby-died-bitten-jack-russell

There are already enough laws in place to deal with such owners, people need to report owners with dangerously out of control dogs - they need to be dealt with and taken seriously. If people don't report the authorities have no idea what is going on.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


Wow...
You know all healthy adult men have the potential to rape right? Does that mean all healthy adult men are rapists?


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

Ni


Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


A Chihuahua or any toy breed might not cause damage to an adult but a few in a pack can certainly do damage and be very frightening I would say...if not socialised, and allowed to go stir crazy..

The photo of those dogs 'fighting' in the link of the American bully dogs look tame when my chi and Yorkie play!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


Oh wait, so all of use that own Rotties, GSD's and Bull breeds have status dogs?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


What you're spouting here is Breed Specific Legislation, with a good dollop of wild speculation.

You're not too clever at disguising the fact that you're anti Bull Breed.

Will Greyhounds and Irish Setters be included in your Grand Plan? They're both large Breeds.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

......and all giant breeds. Which are a hell of a lot bigger than all Bull breeds, GSD's and Rottie's. Or is that completely different because [some of them] are big fluffy teddybears?

It does make me chuckle how some will try (badly!) to cover up their breed prejudices.

Honestly, you could ban all dogs that are no bigger than a Jack Russell. You'd still get people getting bitten, dogs attacking each other, and children very tragically getting killed. They are still dogs after all and anything with teeth can cause damage.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Hey, at least the breed bashing didn't start until p. 7 this time...

Does anyone know how the little girl is doing?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


Oh you really are showing your pure ignorance here.

So you think people who have GSD 's and Rottweilers have them as status dogs?

So do you think people who own poodles and Airedales should be licensed and back ground checked?

What size do you think staffy and Pitbulls are?

What about Newfies, St Bernard, Irish Wolfhounds, Deerhound, Borzio? All large breeds....


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ShibaPup said:


> Seems he belonged to an elderly person who was in the process of signing the dog over to the senior staffy club - the dog was 9 years old but tragically before this happened his owner passed away, several days passed before the owner was discovered and as a result the dog had consumed part of his owner.
> 
> Police then seized the dog and considered him a dangerous dog. After the dog legislation officer's assessment the court ordered a destruction order which was appealed against by the Senior Staffy Club and their solicitor. They brought in the independent expert to assess the dog.
> 
> ...


that is horrible, the poor dog should have just been pts and not kept locked up for so long. The staffy club should have had more common sense


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

labradrk said:


> ......and all giant breeds. Which are a hell of a lot bigger than all Bull breeds, GSD's and Rottie's. Or is that completely different because [some of them] are big fluffy teddybears?


Wait. My giant breed isn't fluffy. Does that mean she's dangerous. Oh dear... this is new information. Do I need to reevaluate allowing her to sleep in the bed with the children?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Hey, at least the breed bashing didn't start until p. 7 this time...
> 
> Does anyone know how the little girl is doing?


Haven't been able to find an update


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Wait. My giant breed isn't fluffy. Does that mean she's dangerous. Oh dear... this is new information. Do I need to reevaluate allowing her to sleep in the bed with the children?


She's potentially a lot more terrifying and dangerous because she's not fluffy, yes.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm screwed :Nailbiting


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

labradrk said:


> She's potentially a lot more terrifying and dangerous because she's not fluffy, yes.


I'll definitely keep that in mind as I allow her to terrorize the neighborhood.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> I'm screwed :Nailbiting


Nah, join the status dog club and embrace it.

I feel really hard when I'm walking the mean streets with my status dog. Power trippin' innit.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I have a large, black & tan dog, but he seems to have escaped the 'status dog' symbol


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Dogloverlou said:


> I have a large, black & tan dog, but he seems to have escaped the 'status dog' symbol


Is he fluffy? That seems to help


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Wait. My giant breed isn't fluffy. Does that mean she's dangerous. Oh dear... this is new information. Do I need to reevaluate allowing her to sleep in the bed with the children?


Wot, no fluff? 

Lethal for sure.

Do you have a license? Have you been background checked?

Hope you don't got no skeletons in your cupboard.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


Have you ever owned a GSD, Rottie etc whatever etc means? I've had 5 rotties now and I can honestly say hand on heart they are ten times easier than any pointer to own/train/control. If I come across little dogs on our walks which of my 3 do you think I would be most worried about? Clue it isn't Indie. If I had children or workmen in my house or garden which of my 3 do you think I would be most worried about? Clue it isn't Indie. If I have to walk my 3 down the road which of my 3 do you think will be the hardest work to control? Clue it isn't Indie.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I have a large, black & tan dog, but he seems to have escaped the 'status dog' symbol


He's fluffy...


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> I have a large, black & tan dog, but he seems to have escaped the 'status dog' symbol


You'd have shave all his floof off, make him fat, stick a spiked collar on and sling a tow chain lead around your neck. Put your hood up, pull yer trackies down, stick yer K-Swiss trainers on and have a can of Special Brew in your hand. Viola, status dog....


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Is he fluffy? That seems to help


Of course! I'd be asking for trouble if he was short haired! :Nailbiting


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

labradrk said:


> You'd have shave all his floof off, make him fat, stick a spiked collar on and sling a tow chain lead around your neck. Put your hood up, pull yer trackies down, stick yer K-Swiss trainers on and have a can of Special Brew in your hand. Viola, status dog....


Hey you calling my black and tans fat?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I've scrutinised her from nose to tail and there just ain't no fluff!










The damned Jack Russell isn't fluffy either.

They must both be savage and I just haven't noticed.

I feel so stupid now.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Hey you calling my black and tans fat?


Haha no......

Most so called 'status' dogs appear to be morbidly obese, no wait, muscled innit......with shocking conformation to boot!


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Are puppies excluded from this status dog thing? Or am I screwed?!!

Best not turn my back on her, y'know just in case... actually that's rather difficult since I am usually tripping up over her!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

ShibaPup said:


> Are puppies excluded from this status dog thing? Or am I screwed?!!
> 
> Best not turn my back on her, y'know just in case... actually that's rather difficult since I am usually tripping up over her!


She does have a little fluff on her ears, so all may not be lost.

Still, don't get complacent. I made that mistake.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Nah, join the status dog club and embrace it.
> 
> I feel really hard when I'm walking the mean streets with my status dog. Power trippin' innit.


via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

ShibaPup said:


> I don't think many dogs would be ok with having their skin grabbed then being pulled onto their side and held down.
> 
> The dog gave clear warnings he wasn't happy but they were ignored. Same for when he was picked up.
> 
> I would expect a dog legislation officer to be more knowledgeable about canine behaviour and body language without the independent expert's assessment that dog would have been PTS...


Yes - also the dog seemed to be limping a bit on the back legs (back right?), and at his age could be arthritic or poor hips. Hauling an arthritic dog about is not kind or sensible.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Oh no tiny brains will explode!!!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> via Imgflip Meme Generator


He's well scary. I want one. I'll ignore the fact he's half Collie, cos the other terrifying half makes up for it. If you breaded him with a Pit Bull you'd be minted.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Oh no tiny brains will explode!!!
> View attachment 310164


Gorgeous. There was a fluffy, curly coated Rottie in my agility club; Angus. He died young from cancer, but was a lovely chap.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Oh no tiny brains will explode!!!
> View attachment 310164


I actually used to see a long coated Rottie where I used to live. It stumped me at first because I'd never seen one before or even knew they could be long coated. I asked the bloke whether he ran into any issues with the breed given the long coat, and if I remember correctly his answer was no. I thought that was really interesting. It goes to show how image obsessed people are.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

And them bull breeds!!!


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

Meezey said:


> And them bull breeds!!!


 Please please put a warning up before posting such terrifying images  .....I remember when Pip was a puppy (about 6 months) a neighbors boyfriend and dog walked past as we were leaving the garden, he was the status dog type owner with his muscular dog, Pip (first time) took a disliking to him (the dog) and growled, the dog ran behind its owner and cried, i had a secret smile as i secretly thought "Hard dog my ar5e"


----------



## Lurch-er (Apr 6, 2017)

Just wait till my lurchers are unleashed in public the're deadly ...... if your a rat or bunny


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Candy has ripped a lot of her tail hair out so there are bald bits, does this make her back end lethal I wonder (and she never farts)


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Big.
Not fluffy.
Black & tan.
The epitome of a vicious status dog.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

labradrk said:


> Oh wait, so all of use that own Rotties, GSD's and Bull breeds have status dogs?


No not all, it depends on the persons intentions when choosing the dog breed they want and why, but you can't deny that GSD's and Rotties are specifically chosen for police and prison work because of their temperament and what they were bred for and that an high proportion of young men own staffies and other bull breeds or that all the men involved with dog fighting own bull breeds. I've never heard of any other breed types been specifically chosen by the types that would secretly train their dogs for fighting rings!

In fact when we got our Sasha many years ago there was no 'stigma' attached to staffies or bull breeds, the rescue wasn't full of them, she was the only one there that was a pedigree staffy. People didn't drag their dogs away when they saw us coming incase she attacked them. It's a real shame cos it's people that's ruined the breeds reputations by using them for such purposes, not the fault of the dogs, who don't get any choice which family/owner they end up with!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> but you can't deny that GSD's and Rotties are specifically chosen for police and prison work because of their temperament and what they were bred


Highly trainable, intelligent and loyal are great reasons to choose a dog


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Sweety said:


> What you're spouting here is Breed Specific Legislation, with a good dollop of wild speculation.
> 
> *You're not too clever at disguising the fact that you're anti Bull Breed.*
> 
> Will Greyhounds and Irish Setters be included in your Grand Plan? They're both large Breeds.


That's hilariously ironic considering we had a staffy for 16 yrs!  I don't remember there been all this stigma when we got her and reports in the papers every other week about some staffie attack (or other bull breed). The fact that the type of people who like status dogs and want to fight them chose them as their favourite breeds and social media meaning you see it more all over the place, sadly hasn't done them any favours unfortunately 

I loved Sasha dearly but I wouldn't get another staffie with all the negative press. I wouldn't be surprised if they did end up on a banned or dangerous dog breed list, at this rate.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Highly trainable, intelligent and loyal are great reasons to choose a dog


This.

This a hundred times.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That's hilariously ironic considering we had a staffy for 16 yrs!  I don't remember there been all this stigma when we got her and reports in the papers every other week about some staffie attack (or other bull breed). The fact that the type of people who like status dogs and want to fight them chose them as their favourite breeds and social media meaning you see it more all over the place, sadly hasn't done them any favours unfortunately
> 
> I loved Sasha dearly but I wouldn't get another staffie with all the negative press. I wouldn't be surprised if they did end up on a banned or dangerous dog breed list, at this rate.


So what do you think about poodles and airedales?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> So what do you think about poodles and airedales?


Come on, there's way too much fluff there for them to be dangerous.


----------



## Lurch-er (Apr 6, 2017)

One of my step daughters has a Staffie which is a wonderful little dog,she's been bought up with kids and has the kindest nature you could wish for also really loyal having said that not my type of dog but then the step daughter probably wouldn't be struck on lurchers


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Phoenix Rising said:


> No not all, it depends on the persons intentions when choosing the dog breed they want and why, but you can't deny that GSD's and Rotties are specifically chosen for police and prison work because of their temperament and what they were bred for and that an high proportion of young men own staffies and other bull breeds or that all the men involved with dog fighting own bull breeds. I've never heard of any other breed types been specifically chosen by the types that would secretly train their dogs for fighting rings!
> 
> In fact when we got our Sasha many years ago there was no 'stigma' attached to staffies or bull breeds, the rescue wasn't full of them, she was the only one there that was a pedigree staffy. People didn't drag their dogs away when they saw us coming incase she attacked them. It's a real shame cos it's people that's ruined the breeds reputations by using them for such purposes, not the fault of the dogs, who don't get any choice which family/owner they end up with!


Sorry, but what have breeds used for work in police and prison work dog to do with a thread about dogs attacking children? Rottie's as far as I am aware are rarely if ever used for police or prison work in this country, the majority are GSD's and Malinois and of course Labs, Spaniels etc.

What about their temperament? a well bred Rottie or GSD should be very much socially stable with people, so again I'm not sure what your point is?

Most so called 'scary' breeds have been slandered and victimised at some point throughout history. It was Dobermann's, then GSD's, then Rottie's (in no particular order) and now it's Bull breeds turns. I blame the media more than the tiny minority involved in dog fighting, especially the hysterical tabloids who take everything out of proportions. It makes headlines which fuel the hysteria.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I see ignorance is still well and truly rife.

Hope the poor little girl makes a recovery.

Shame the media doesnt bother to update us on the conditions of the kids involved.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> No not all, it depends on the persons intentions when choosing the dog breed they want and why, but you can't deny that GSD's and Rotties are specifically chosen for police and prison work because of their temperament and what they were bred for and that an high proportion of young men own staffies and other bull breeds or that all the men involved with dog fighting own bull breeds. I've never heard of any other breed types been specifically chosen by the types that would secretly train their dogs for fighting rings!
> 
> !


Yeah so going to have to disagree with on many points
GSD's and Rottweilers weren't bred for prison or police work . The S in GSD might give you a clue what they were bred for!!!

Well given they do it in secret I doubt you would have heard what dogs are used, being a secret and all that.

The reason these breeds are chosen for fighting is because they tend not to be human aggressive, a lot of other breeds are less forgiving and these "men" while inflicting pain and suffering they don't like being on the receiving end of pain.


----------



## Chellie (Jul 30, 2015)

I've owned GSDs and Akitas all of my dog owning life and got used to people avoiding me when out on walks. I no longer have either and people are now always coming up to me to coo over Molly and smile as I walk by. She's okay with people and never shown any aggression but I would have trusted my Akita before I would trust her, especially with other dogs, far more self control, but people just see small and fluffy and think teddy! Size does not dictate aggressive tendencies.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

ShibaPup said:


> I don't think many dogs would be ok with having their skin grabbed then being pulled onto their side and held down.
> 
> The dog gave clear warnings he wasn't happy but they were ignored. Same for when he was picked up.
> 
> I would expect a dog legislation officer to be more knowledgeable about canine behaviour and body language without the independent expert's assessment that dog would have been PTS...


I did my apprenticeship with the Hants Police although many years ago back then they no idea on dog welfare they believed the way to train was to beat the dog into submission I hope things are different now.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

So what do you think about poodles and airedales?


simplysardonic said:


> Come on, there's way too much fluff there for them to be dangerous.


I ve been bitten by several Poodles they are vicious little sods mostly spoilt rotten.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2017)

Bob Ford said:


> I ve been bitten by several Poodles they are vicious little sods mostly spoilt rotten.


Hang on now...
Arguing against breed bashing with more breed bashing isn't the way forward either. 
Poodles are lovely dogs, so are GSDs, rotties, dobies, and bull breeds. It's not about one breed = good, one breed = bad.* It's not about breed at all. *


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Bob Ford said:


> So what do you think about poodles and airedales?
> 
> I ve been bitten by several Poodles they are vicious little sods mostly spoilt rotten.


what an absolute load of rubbish


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Bob Ford said:


> So what do you think about poodles and airedales?
> 
> I ve been bitten by several Poodles they are vicious little sods mostly spoilt rotten.


Why the actual fla? Really thread is about breed bashing and all that's wrong with it!!! My point about these breeds were they were the original "war" dogs i.e. highly intelligent and trainable, not to give someone an opportunity to give another breed a bashing!


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Why the actual fla? Really thread is about breed bashing and all that's wrong with it!!! My point about these breeds were they were the original "war" dogs i.e. highly intelligent and trainable, not to give someone an opportunity to give another breed a bashing!


Maybe I shouldn't have quoted you, but that's the second time a breed has been bashed by the OP..using the terminology..they are spoilt rotten.

What does that mean? Thought you could shed light on it...because its confused me. Am not being funny, I use praise and treats to reward behaviours...i give my dog treats...the minibeasts sleep upstairs...they get walked, sleep on sofas...pay over the odds for a food that they thrive on...have few collars each, harnesses, equafleeces...i would class mine as spoilt too...or rather others do.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I always find it amusing in breed groups where people will bash small dogs (for example) yet anyone criticising their breed is the spawn of the devil. The irony!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I've been bitten by a Border Collie and a Belgian Shepherd X. One was my fault, the other wasn't, both involved human error at some point along the line, neither breed should be banned and I've nothing against other individuals of the same breeds. Phew!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I've been bitten by a Border Collie and a Belgian Shepherd X. One was my fault, the other wasn't, both involved human error at some point along the line, neither breed should be banned and I've nothing against other individuals of the same breeds. Phew!


Most bites from vet folk I know have been from Border Collies, Dachshunds, and show/pet type Cockers.....and let's not forget cats by the bucket load. 

Those wicked evil Bull breeds IME are among the best to treat, very handling tolerant and stoical generally speaking.....


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> well these for a start have you seen the size of them!!
> 
> http://www.ladbible.com/more/uk-xxl-american-bully-dogs-attack-two-year-girl-in-garden-20170509
> 
> ...


Presumably the Staffies which are police dogs are dual purpose? 

They provide both protection and status?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

labradrk said:


> Oh wait, so all of use that own Rotties, GSD's and Bull breeds have status dogs?


Yeah, now I have graduated to a Malinois so that I can say "I own a Maligator" because that is the sort of person I am................ a GSD was not enough for me!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Yeah, now I have graduated to a Malinois so that I can say "I own a Maligator" because that is the sort of person I am................ a GSD was not enough for me!


Can't imagine them catching on as a status dog luckily for Maligators, too much hard work!!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> No not all, it depends on the persons intentions when choosing the dog breed they want and why, but you can't deny that GSD's and Rotties are specifically chosen for police and prison work because of their temperament and what they were bred for and that an high proportion of young men own staffies and other bull breeds or that all the men involved with dog fighting own bull breeds. I've never heard of any other breed types been specifically chosen by the types that would secretly train their dogs for fighting rings!
> 
> In fact when we got our Sasha many years ago there was no 'stigma' attached to staffies or bull breeds, the rescue wasn't full of them, she was the only one there that was a pedigree staffy. People didn't drag their dogs away when they saw us coming incase she attacked them. It's a real shame cos it's people that's ruined the breeds reputations by using them for such purposes, not the fault of the dogs, who don't get any choice which family/owner they end up with!


Hmm the GSD was bred for shepherding/tending sheep; the Rottweiler was bred as a drover of livestock...................... not for the specific use of the police or prison officers;

Rotties in any case are little used by them because they are so unreactive and thus appear less intimidating for certain situation. More likely to use Malinois than Rotties. (another shepherding breed)


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Bob Ford said:


> I did my apprenticeship with the Hants Police although many years ago back then they no idea on dog welfare they believed the way to train was to beat the dog into submission I hope things are different now.


Vastly different and they still have a civvie in charge of training I think.................


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

labradrk said:


> Can't imagine them catching on as a status dog luckily for Maligators, too much hard work!!


Unfortunately some nutters were breeding bull breeds with Malis, but I think the experiment died a death (in more ways than one)


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

labradrk said:


> Most bites from vet folk I know have been from Border Collies, Dachshunds, and show/pet type Cockers.....and let's not forget cats by the bucket load.
> 
> Those wicked evil Bull breeds IME are among the best to treat, very handling tolerant and stoical generally speaking.....


Only one cat so far, touch wood! Feral kitten and 100% my fault!


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> Hang on now...
> Arguing against breed bashing with more breed bashing isn't the way forward either.
> Poodles are lovely dogs, so are GSDs, rotties, dobies, and bull breeds. It's not about one breed = good, one breed = bad.* It's not about breed at all. *


That was a reply to the comment that Poodles are lovely & fluffy well not all are, as with any other breed there are exceptions Any breed can bite if not taught good manors or treated like the Copper did


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Bob Ford said:


> That was a reply to the comment that Poodles are lovely & fluffy well not all are, as with any other breed there are exceptions Any breed can bite if not taught good manors or treated like the Copper did


It was nothing to do with Poodles being lovely and fluffy, it was Poodles being the original war dogs and being Police dogs....!!


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

Bob Ford said:


> That was a reply to the comment that Poodles are lovely & fluffy well not all are, as with any other breed there are exceptions Any breed can bite if not taught good manors or treated like the Copper did


You said its because they are 'spoilt rotten' now with the comment not taught good manners...it sounds like you bang the drum of Caesar Milan...but you question the police handling!

It doesn't make sense...its cognitive dissonance at its best.

Most dogs bite due to human error on treatment...as in ignorant to warnings, or when in pain, or complete fear. Its mainly human error in sequence that leads to it...as Ouesi has pointed out with this dog attack.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Yeah, now I have graduated to a Malinois so that I can say "I own a Maligator" because that is the sort of person I am................ a GSD was not enough for me!


Street cred must be massive , bet you walk with a strut with one of them on the end of a lead!!!  In fact bet you don't even have a lead!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

ouesi said:


> And that's really the take-away here. If we start looking at the commonalities in these types of attacks, I think we'll see a similar pattern. And from that pattern you can enforce existing laws and hopefully prevent further incidents.


What is needed more is education. Media loves pushing the breed but rarely inform about the triggers and causes. Education, backed by law is far better long term than the other way around. All the time the focus is on breed the problem will only get worse as, I believe statistics show.



jamat said:


> But you wouldn't be running a campaign about what youd do for dogs....you run a campaign about how youd protect everyone's children from being attacked by visous out of controlled dogs.....s sure fired way to be re-elected .....


Ah, but blaming a breed is an easier than doing something effective. Look at the recent montreal fiasco. Woman killed by "pitbull". The so called pitbull according to records was actually a boxer. DNA tests were performed but I don't know the result. Most likely in my opinion, "crossbreed". Still it does sound like positive action by those in power.



Phoenix Rising said:


> There was another incident mentioned in papers about a staffie attacking 2 yorkshire terriers in a park and one little dog having to be rushed to the vets cos there was blood everywhere (they think the dog punctured a vein or something) and at one point it didn't look like the Yorkie would make it.


So the papers said.. I speak from experience around town here that the aggressive dogs aren't something like our American bulldog. Aggression frequently starts from the smaller dog. "It's cute and can't do any harm" is no excuse. Now, this is obviously a generalisation. Cooper regularly meets other smaller dogs who he meets fine. Who would get the blame however if things escalted between him and a smaller dog, many of which are walking with no effective controller?



ShibaPup said:


> A JRT killed a baby... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/09/baby-died-bitten-jack-russell


JRT's are responsible for several deaths since 2005. Rarely reach the papers though. Saying that:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/n...cops-list-of-dogs-most-likely-to-bite-humans/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-terriers-terrorising-liverpool-a6797711.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ausage-dogs-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html
and just for reference http://www.thedogplace.org/Family-Dog/0901-Most-Aggressive-Dogs.asp

Personally I don't believe it is simply the breed here either. Looking at the reference article with JRT, Dachshund and Chihuahua, they are all small dogs who "cannot hurt anyone"... However as dogs they need just as much respect and training as any bull breed. That is what is missing from a lot of education at the moment.

We need to treat all breeds the same, educate and have enforceable laws if we are to cut down on tragic incidents like this. I wish the girl all the best both physically and mentally for the future.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

labradrk said:


> Most bites from vet folk I know have been from Border Collies, Dachshunds, and show/pet type Cockers.....and let's not forget cats by the bucket load.
> 
> Those wicked evil Bull breeds IME are among the best to treat, very handling tolerant and stoical generally speaking.....


When I worked for a vet I was forever being scratched by cats. my hands were a permanent mess. I was going away for a weekend in Paris so was ultra careful for the week before and my hands were scratch free. The other nurse was looking after my dog for me but I took her for a last walk in the park. She was bowled over and hurt her toe and while I was looking at it she snapped with the pain and caught my hand - so I went away with a marked hand after all.

I have only been actually properly bitten twice. Once was with a dog I was giving a tablet to in kennels and it clamped down on my thumb, still got the scar. The other one was my own dog who had just been run over and was dying and she clamped on my thumb with a dying gasp and did considerable damage. As my thumb was near their mouths in both cases it has to have been my fault. Neither were big dogs.
I have once been attacked, again in kennels and a very nice dog was being obnoxious so I told it off and it panicked and launched itself in the air at me. A very scary moment but I knew it was my fault and changed my tone and it dropped back to the ground. It made me realise how quickly a dog can be turned into a dangerous beast by our actions though of course you hope that not many dogs are that extreme.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

Yep sorry I didn't mean to breed bash that was rude of me. All breeds are capable of bitting. I was thinking of a particular dog & owner (My Mother in law god rest her & the dog) which I didn't explain doh!


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> it depends on the persons intentions when choosing the dog breed they want and why,


This is an interesting comment. 
What would you consider appropriate reasons for choosing a breed?


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

lullabydream said:


> You said its because they are 'spoilt rotten' now with the comment not taught good manners...it sounds like you bang the drum of Caesar Milan...but you question the police handling!
> 
> It doesn't make sense...its cognitive dissonance at its best.
> 
> Most dogs bite due to human error on treatment...as in ignorant to warnings, or when in pain, or complete fear. Its mainly human error in sequence that leads to it...as Ouesi has pointed out with this dog attack.


Quite the opposite Caesar Milan is old school & out of touch IMHO.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> This is an interesting comment.
> What would you consider appropriate reasons for choosing a breed?


I actually think it is a relevant comment. Status dog owners tend to be looking for the traits that normal owners would not be trying to bring out. If you are doing obedience or agility seriously you would be going for a different type of dog than if you were looking for a couch potato. If you want a sheep dog you would be looking for different lines than someone wanting a pet border collie. And so on with many many breeds.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

ouesi said:


> This is an interesting comment.
> What would you consider appropriate reasons for choosing a breed?


You can't deny there are people who will choose those types of breeds because they think it will make them look 'big' or 'tough', because they mistake respect for fear! (not particuarly fear of the dog breed but knowing the idiot on the end of the lead hasn't trained it!..and your dog could get attacked!) However people like this see people avoiding their dog and giving them a wide berth and mistake this for people respecting that their dog is a powerful breed, not to be messed with, which makes them feel even more 'macho'!

This is hardly the same as a responsible person choosing a breed because they want a loyal family member who will excel in obedience or tracking (or whatever they want to do with the dog)..and choosing a breed they have either have experience of, or have researched and know they can meet their needs.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I shall be sharing a house with a Pit Bull next week - I'll say goodbye now then


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

So I look for traits that "normal" owners would not bring out...interesting!

IME The majority of bull breed owners are looking for a family pet. I also find that the people that get a dog for the wrong reasons is not breed dependent


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> You can't deny there are people who will choose those types of breeds because they think it will make them look 'big' or 'tough', because they mistake respect for fear! (not particuarly fear of the dog breed but knowing the idiot on the end of the lead hasn't trained it!..and your dog could get attacked!) However people like this see people avoiding their dog and giving them a wide berth and mistake this for people respecting that their dog is a powerful breed, not to be messed with, which makes them feel even more 'macho'!
> 
> This is hardly the same as a responsible person choosing a breed because they want a loyal family member who will excel in obedience or tracking (or whatever they want to do with the dog)..and choosing a breed they have either have experience of, or have researched and know they can meet their needs.


Then stop trying to make it about certain breeds and owners who chose to own them and consider what can be done about those who own any dog for the wrong reason and what should be done to those people, or thr breeders who bred and allow their dogs to go to this type of person, it's not the dogs or type of dog that are the issue so stop making it about a breed or type.

Also educate yourself rather than making incorrect statements about dogs..


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Meezey said:


> Then stop trying to make it about certain breeds and owners who chose to own them and consider what can be done about those who own any dog for the wrong reason and what should be done to those people, or thr breeders who bred and allow their dogs to go to this type of person, it's not the dogs or type of dog that are the issue so stop making it about a breed or type.
> 
> Also educate yourself rather than making incorrect statements about dogs..


Sadly i honestly don't think most breeders (ethical ones that is) would allow their puppies to go to these types of owners.

Its breeders - like the one arrested in the article that need to be held accountable for selling their dogs to other people like them... how this can be done I don't know but something has to be done as the types of people are no better than puppy farms .....in some respects they are worse in that puppy farms mistreat the animals yes but there is a chance the dogs will at least go to good homes ....where as people like the one arrested sell dogs into cruelty and unhappy ...and probably...short lives


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I really hate the term 'status dog'.

Surely people buy a myriad of breeds because of how the outside world might perceive them if they own one.

Hence 'rare' colours, teacups etc.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> You can't deny there are people who will choose those types of breeds because they think it will make them look 'big' or 'tough', because they mistake respect for fear!


There are stupid people like that. The use of "dangerous dogs" as a label and attaching it to breeds and looks is encouraging it, not discouraging it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

jamat said:


> Sadly i honestly don't think most breeders (ethical ones that is) would allow their puppies to go to these types of owners.
> 
> Its breeders - like the one arrested in the article that need to be held accountable for selling their dogs to other people like them... how this can be done I don't know but something has to be done as the types of people are no better than puppy farms .....in some respects they are worse in that puppy farms mistreat the animals yes but there is a chance the dogs will at least go to good homes ....where as people like the one arrested sell dogs into cruelty and unhappy ...and probably...short lives


This is my point though, BSL was a knee jerk reaction that never addressed the real issue.

This is why certain posters make me angry, they blame breeds and want blanket laws for the owners. This does nothing to address the issue of the types who breed these dogs or the types who own them, because like now responsible breeders and responsible owners don't make the head lines. Like before BSL and during BSL it'll be the greeders and irresponsible dog owners that do. Sure license owners make them have back ground checks keep dogs on leads always and muzzle them make it law, you will still have the same stories hitting the headlines because it'll change nothing. I'll be licensed to the eyeballs background checked to Fla, dogs never off lead for a second, but guess what even without that my dogs wouldn't have made any headlines, because a lot of people will ignore the law and it'll just keep happening and the "law " will mop it up after the fact and people will still be shouting about laws and certain breeds and types and while they do this kind of tragedy will keep happening!


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I dont agree with breed prejudice at all but I do understand it. Alot of these bully breeds are huge dogs made up of solid muscle and teeth! The difference between a chihuahua and a bully seriously biting someone is like the difference between getting run over by a car or a childs scooter. Maybe the smaller dog is more likely to bite but the bigger dog is more likely to create life changing injuries, which is why it makes the papers.
(again, I dont agree with it and think they do make lovely family dogs if owned responsibly).

Finally seen pictures of the dogs in this attack though and frankly they should go in an urban dictionary as the definition of 'status dogs'. They look deformed and the cropped ears are just cruel. Nobody who cared about the betterment of the breed would want to breed those dogs!


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

Blitz said:


> I actually think it is a relevant comment. Status dog owners tend to be looking for the traits that normal owners would not be trying to bring out. If you are doing obedience or agility seriously you would be going for a different type of dog than if you were looking for a couch potato. If you want a sheep dog you would be looking for different lines than someone wanting a pet border collie. And so on with many many breeds.


I didn't say it wasn't relevant, just interesting. 
Whenever these threads come up, there are those comments like "who would want a dog like that?" in reference to bull-breeds.
Well, I would be one of those who wants a bull breed. Our bull breed mutt is a bit of an badass dog and I'm happy for him to be, especially when he's out with the kids wandering about where they might encounter another animal that needs to be deterred from checking out my kids. 
I like my great danes for the exact same reason. When my female dane goes out and just has to bark at the coyotes singing and they stop. I'm good with that.

IOW, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why one would want a dog who's going to be 'ard or act as a deterrent, and those reasons don't have to be nefarious. And those dogs don't have to be dangerous either. These are the same dogs who are 100% fine with visitors, young and old, to our house.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> You can't deny there are people who will choose those types of breeds because they think it will make them look 'big' or 'tough', because they mistake respect for fear! (not particuarly fear of the dog breed but knowing the idiot on the end of the lead hasn't trained it!..and your dog could get attacked!) However people like this see people avoiding their dog and giving them a wide berth and mistake this for people respecting that their dog is a powerful breed, not to be messed with, which makes them feel even more 'macho'!
> 
> This is hardly the same as a responsible person choosing a breed because they want a loyal family member who will excel in obedience or tracking (or whatever they want to do with the dog)..and choosing a breed they have either have experience of, or have researched and know they can meet their needs.


That's not what I asked. I asked what YOU would consider appropriate reasons to choose a breed.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Ive owned 3 bull breeds. 

I really cant see how they are so different to other breeds tbh.

They've all looked and acted just like all other dogs. No harder or easier to own, train, exercise or feed.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

We come across bull breeds just about every day on our walks and don't have any trouble with any of them.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> So I look for traits that "normal" owners would not bring out...interesting!
> 
> IME The majority of bull breed owners are looking for a family pet. I also find that the people that get a dog for the wrong reasons is not breed dependent


I should hope not unless you are very good at covering up that you are a 'yob'. But I take it you do not wind your dog up constantly to make sure it is turns aggressive. The hard status dog is doubtless a perfectly good pet with the right owner, I was not being anti bull breeds but anti the wrong sort of owner and seeing the relevance of the statement that it depends what you are looking for in a dog. It would be much harder for the status owner to get the same attitude from a lab or a poodle. Also a lot easier for an inexperienced owner to mess up a bull breed so that it became a problem than to mess up a lab or poodle. I think you are jumping to conclusions, I did mention other breeds and say the same applied to many more breeds. Why do you think poodles gained a poor reputation. They became the little old lady's lap dog and consequently those treated like that became very possessive and nasty things as they are in fact very sporty and energetic dogs.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

catz4m8z said:


> I dont agree with breed prejudice at all but I do understand it. Alot of these bully breeds are huge dogs made up of solid muscle and teeth! The difference between a chihuahua and a bully seriously biting someone is like the difference between getting run over by a car or a childs scooter. Maybe the smaller dog is more likely to bite but the bigger dog is more likely to create life changing injuries, which is why it makes the papers.
> (again, I dont agree with it and think they do make lovely family dogs if owned responsibly).


The size/power thing always comes up in these conversations and it's a frustrating point because of all the ignorance that surrounds it.

All things being equal, yes, a larger dog will do more damage than a smaller dog.

But all things are never equal are they?

What goes in to a damaging bite is far more than the dog's capability to injure. 
Dogs have bite thresholds. What will cause a dog to bite will vary widely. I have yet to find my great dane's bite threshold. She has never bitten any human despite having painful procedures done, or accidental surprises like me falling on her, or being caught in the middle of play battles with hoards of kids. She has never been pushed to the point of a bite. 
Meanwhile there are other dogs who will much more easily offer to bite.

Dogs have bite inhibition. Even when pushed to bite, dogs have incredible control over the force of the bite. As a kid a great dane dam bit me when I went to reach for one of her puppies. She bit me hard enough to leave an indentation in my skin, but she did not break the skin. She was being protective of her pups but she had no intention of hurting me, just letting me know I wasn't going to take a pup out of the whelping box. Also as a kid my terrier bit me and poked a good hole straight through my lip. He practiced far less bite inhibition than the dane dam did.

Temperament, socialization, training, inherent traits and tendencies are all also factors in what will lead up to a bite and how serious that bite will be. It's not really about size. 
My very large muttdog who is well socialized to kids, used to them, mellow temperament about being handled and messed with, and excellent bite inhibition is far less of a danger than a much smaller dog who might be quicker to bite and less inhibited about it.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am not sure that bite inhibition is very relevant. There can be little doubt that most dogs, large and small, have good bite inhibition and are highly unlikely to damage a person ever. But if a large dog does bite with intent it is most definitely going to inflict more damage than a small dog doing the same thing. Its jaws are stronger, its teeth are bigger and it weighs more so cannot be dislodged so easily. That does not mean that a small dog cannot badly damage a person and even possibly kill someone but it is far far less likely to inflict life changing or ending injuries.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

It's so interesting how people think. 
There's a house near me with a Labradoodle. The owners put a bed for the dog by an upstairs window, which they leave open all day and night for him to look and lean out of - it's a side window so it could easily get/fall out...actually, it has dropped some toys out of it before.
While the dog is mostly hyper friendly, it does bark aggressively at strangers, the postman, delivery drivers, anyone who approaches the house, etc.

Some people look a bit miffed, the postman looks pretty angry, others actually smile at it and someone even blew it a kiss :Bored, but no one has said anything about it and mostly they ignore it.

Now imagine if Bradley was hanging out of a window barking at people all day...I don't think that would be well recieved! Even though the Labradoodle is absolutely massive in comparison to him, and has a much bigger mouth, with bigger teeth.

We do everything possible to make sure Bradley is well rounded, and that he won't ever be in a situation where he felt like attacking was an option (like we do with all our dogs), yet he's the dog people cross the road to avoid.
On paper the Doodle owners sound harmless, but they're the ones I would avoid because they're seriously out of their depth with the dog and have absolutely no control over it. 
It seems inevitable that someone will be injured by their dog, even if it's just through him being too "friendly"

I find it amazing that people are willing to ignore dangerous behaviour just because it's fluffy or cute.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Gemmaa said:


> I find it amazing that people are willing to ignore dangerous behaviour just because it's fluffy or cute.


That is def true (and its never cute!).
However size does also play a part in how people risk assess a dog. There used to be a lady round my way who had barely any control over her dog and frankly terrified me. It pulled at its lead and she literally walked it by hanging onto lamp-posts and getting dragged from one to another. The dog was a Rottie and Im pretty sure it wouldnt of worried me half as much if it had been a JRT!


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

Blitz said:


> I am not sure that bite inhibition is very relevant. There can be little doubt that most dogs, large and small, have good bite inhibition and are highly unlikely to damage a person ever. But if a large dog does bite with intent it is most definitely going to inflict more damage than a small dog doing the same thing. Its jaws are stronger, its teeth are bigger and it weighs more so cannot be dislodged so easily. That does not mean that a small dog cannot badly damage a person and even possibly kill someone but it is far far less likely to inflict life changing or ending injuries.


Of course bite inhibition is relevant. 
For the same reason we don't go around assuming all men over 6 foot are more dangerous than those in the 5 foot range.

There is more to what makes a dog dangerous than their size or potential for damage. I have a great dane who has gone all 9 years of her life in all sorts of environments around all sorts of people and situations who has never been a danger to anyone, going everywhere, doing all sorts of things.

Meanwhile there is a samoyedXchow I know who has lived most of his life in a pen because he can't be trusted around anyone. He has already maimed one woman who he was previously fine with - she took care of him when the owners were away. He ripped her arm open to the bone, she had to be air lifted to the hospital and years later she still hasn't regained full use of that arm. He should have been PTS but he wasn't.

This dog is less than half the size of my great dane. Yes, bite inhibition matters. Temperament matters, thresholds matter. I have never allowed my children around this dog, and even before the major incident wouldn't even let my kids out of the car unless the dog was locked up. Meanwhile I have zero worries about leaving my children alone with the great dane and have done for years now.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Of course bite inhibition is relevant.
> For the same reason we don't go around assuming all men over 6 foot are more dangerous than those in the 5 foot range.
> 
> There is more to what makes a dog dangerous than their size or potential for damage. I have a great dane who has gone all 9 years of her life in all sorts of environments around all sorts of people and situations who has never been a danger to anyone, going everywhere, doing all sorts of things.
> ...


But where is anyone saying a large dog is more dangerous than a small dog if they are neither going to bite anyone. It is only when they go to owners that either want them to bite or have accidentally built them up to biting that the problem arises and in that case a large dog is more of a risk than a small one. I have never owned a dog that would dream of biting anyone apart from a sheltie who was very nervous of men and would snap if pushed. I also owned a GSD who was terrified when we first got him and would make a lot of noise but never consider biting - because I backed off and reassured him. If he had been confronted and had bitten surely he would have done more damage than the sheltie would when confronted. She actually only ever bit one person who was stupid enough to ignore my warnings and said all dogs loved him. What a fuss he made over a little bite on his hand.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> But where is anyone saying a large dog is more dangerous than a small dog if they are neither going to bite anyone. It is only when they go to owners that either want them to bite or have accidentally built them up to biting that the problem arises and in that case a large dog is more of a risk than a small one. I have never owned a dog that would dream of biting anyone apart from a sheltie who was very nervous of men and would snap if pushed. I also owned a GSD who was terrified when we first got him and would make a lot of noise but never consider biting - because I backed off and reassured him. If he had been confronted and had bitten surely he would have done more damage than the sheltie would when confronted. She actually only ever bit one person who was stupid enough to ignore my warnings and said all dogs loved him. What a fuss he made over a little bite on his hand.


The thread kicked off because people who own "large " breeds should be licensed and back ground checked. No other dog owner just those with bull breeds, Rottweilers and GSD's or large dogs, although they were not sure what was large and what was of type. Although GSD's and Rottweilers were included coz they were only bred to do Police work seemingly, but Poodles and Airedales where not included because although they were the original police and war dogs they seemingly are okay, maybe not large enough or too fluffy?????
Confused? Yep me too!


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Meezey said:


> The thread kicked off because people who own "large " breeds should be licensed and back ground checked. No other dog owner just those with bull breeds, Rottweilers and GSD's or large dogs, although they were not sure what was large and what was of type. Although GSD's and Rottweilers were included coz they were only bred to do Police work seemingly, but Poodles and Airedales where not included because although they were the original police and war dogs they seemingly are okay, maybe not large enough or too fluffy?????
> Confused? Yep me too!


Personally I've never heard of a poodle or an Airedale attacking anyone! Never even seen an Airedale so their not exactly a common breed and highly unlikely to be owned by the types that wanted a 'status dog', neither is a cute fluffy poodle!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Personally I've never heard of a poodle or an Airedale attacking anyone! Never even seen an Airedale so their not exactly a common breed and highly unlikely to be owned by the types that wanted a 'status dog', neither is a cute fluffy poodle!


Because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Airedales can be a very demanding Breed and certainly not for the novice owner.

Remember, they're a terrier and a large one at that.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Personally I've never heard of a poodle or an Airedale attacking anyone! Never even seen an Airedale so their not exactly a common breed and highly unlikely to be owned by the types that wanted a 'status dog', neither is a cute fluffy poodle!


Actually, I've heard both poodles & working bred Airedales make good IPO dogs.

There you go, a poodle attacking someone.


----------



## Lurch-er (Apr 6, 2017)

Airdales there's one near here who isn't people friendly but neither are his owners it's clearly not the dogs fault


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Personally I've never heard of a poodle or an Airedale attacking anyone! Never even seen an Airedale so their not exactly a common breed and highly unlikely to be owned by the types that wanted a 'status dog', neither is a cute fluffy poodle!


You are missing the point you said the Police used Rottweiler and GSD's for a reason although you did wrongly assume this is what they are bred for. As I have said on numerous post Airedales and Poodles were the original dogs, like GSD's they were used because they are intelligent and easy to train.

Airedales are a fairly popular large terrier!

Let's not back peddle your statement was large breeds like GSD's snd Rottweilers ( which btw are rarely used by the police) were used by the Police for a reason, seemingly Poodles and Airedales weren't used for the same reason.

You seem to base things on your very limited knowledge, ie if you haven't personally seen it it's not true!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Poodles and airedales are definitely large dogs. I had a litter of standards and one dog pup grew to 27 inches. My bitch was taller than most GSD bitches. She ran up to an insurance salesman once and held his hand, he looked terrified, does that count as a status dog I wonder.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Poodles and airedales are definitely large dogs. I had a litter of standards and one dog pup grew to 27 inches. My bitch was taller than most GSD bitches. She ran up to an insurance salesman once and held his hand, he looked terrified, does that count as a status dog I wonder.


Yet @Phoenix Rising seems to think they are cute and fluffy. Seemingly the fact they are a highly intelligent versatile working breed means nothing, because only GSDs, Rottweilers and Bull breeds and their crosses are big...


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

Nonnie said:


> Ive owned 3 bull breeds.
> 
> I really cant see how they are so different to other breeds tbh.


 They aren't as far as i know, the problem is 100% with the humans, there are dozens of folks around here with Staffys and about half are status dogs, its as plain as the nose on your face, the hard man type in his tracksuit, the dog dressed up in the leather studded harness or collar and rarely on a lead coz there dog is great even next to main road, AND it looks left and right before it runs across to greet my dog, or it gets a belt because it ran across the road. Then you get the other half who love there dogs and treat them well (and sometimes dress them in leather too) but end up with the bad reputation because of the other bad dog owners. Of course you do get the odd exception, there is a guy who looks the part of the druggy hard man staffy in leather owner but is actually a very nice man LOL


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> 
> Airedales can be a very demanding Breed and certainly not for the novice owner.
> 
> Remember, they're a terrier and a large one at that.


And the original police dog in the UK!


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

I think Standard Poodles were bred as a hunting dog many hundreds of years ago Rotties & GSD's I think were working farm dogs for live stock protection. IMHO regardless of size or breed the dogs owner should be held to account some heavy fines with long prison sentence's perhaps making the owners or person in charge responsible for the dogs & then should be done for attempted or straight up murder as the severity of the injury's dictates, make the people responsible & perhaps some parents need similar incentives to control their kids but that's a whole different discussion & forum. One thing is certain unless something changes discussion/arguments like this will prove nothing.


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

I heard the same about Poodles and the dense coat made them good for retrieving through dense undergrowth like Brambles and the like.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Bob Ford said:


> I think Standard Poodles were bred as a hunting dog many hundreds of years ago Rotties & GSD's I think were working farm dogs for live stock protection. IMHO regardless of size or breed the dogs owner should be held to account some heavy fines with long prison sentence's perhaps making the owners or person in charge responsible for the dogs & then should be done for attempted or straight up murder as the severity of the injury's dictates, make the people responsible & perhaps some parents need similar incentives to control their kids but that's a whole different discussion & forum. One thing is certain unless something changes discussion/arguments like this will prove nothing.


Poodles originate in Germany and were a gundog.

Neither GSD nor Rotties were bred to "protect" stock per se but to herd/tend/drive them.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Bob Ford said:


> I think Standard Poodles were bred as a hunting dog many hundreds of years ago Rotties & GSD's I think were working farm dogs for live stock protection. IMHO regardless of size or breed the dogs owner should be held to account some heavy fines with long prison sentence's perhaps making the owners or person in charge responsible for the dogs & then should be done for attempted.





steveshanks said:


> I heard the same about Poodles and the dense coat made them good for retrieving through dense undergrowth like Brambles and the like.


I know what Poodles twere bred for lol They were also the original US Army War dog.

GSDs and Rottweilers were droving dogs not protection dogs.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

That was it the clue was in the GSD name I thought Rotties wee for protection I stand corrected.


----------



## Lurch-er (Apr 6, 2017)

I used to go beating on a shoot and one of the guns had a standard poodle it was as good as any springer or lab at retrieving shot game


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Bob Ford said:


> That was it the clue was in the GSD name I thought Rotties wee for protection I stand corrected.


No they weren't they were cattle dogs then draught dogs.


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Stubby


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

steveshanks said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Stubby


PAT dog of 2016 is a gorgeous Staffy. :Happy


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I know what Poodles twere bred for lol They were also the original US Army War dog.
> 
> GSDs and Rottweilers were droving dogs not protection dogs.


GSD are tending dogs not droving dogs..............


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> GSD are tending dogs not droving dogs..............


The GSD should not have been mentioned in the comment I purely meant to talk about Rottweilers....... my error including it.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> GSD are tending dogs not droving dogs..............


Just as an aside, were they used more to keep sheep within a certain area?

I read it in some old shepherding dog book that described the pastoral breeds & their differences in herding styles but not sure if it's a credible source.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Just as an aside, were they used more to keep sheep within a certain area?
> 
> I read it in some old shepherding dog book that described the pastoral breeds & their differences in herding styles but not sure if it's a credible source.


There are three main styles of moving livestock around with dogs.

· Gathering or mustering - where the livestock is moved between dog and shepherd usually by a Border Collie (_or similar_)

· Droving or driving - where the livestock are driven ahead of the dog and drover, usually by a "heeler" of some sort

· Tending or Shepherding - where the livestock follow the shepherd and dog breeds such as GSD

On the continent sheep tending is used to manage environmentally sensitive areas demonstrating how this can be used to control and protect local flora and fauna.

The use of sheep tending dogs (GSD) can replace the need for both temporary/permanent fencing and/or hedges where they may be impractical because they have an innate attraction to borders, whether man made or natural. In effect the dogs become "_living fences_" as they have the ability to work independently of and at a distance from the shepherd.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

In Germany there are sheep tending evaluation trials where dogs can gain a working title Herdengebrauchshund (HGH) Two dogs are usually used -- a "_main dog_" (haupthund) and a "helper dog,"(_beihund_) working a flock of 300 sheep as a minimum

http://schaeferhund-verein.deviantart.com/journal/Herdengebrauchshund-Trial-412753067


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> There are three main styles of moving livestock around with dogs.
> 
> · Gathering or mustering - where the livestock is moved between dog and shepherd usually by a Border Collie (_or similar_)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

Meezey said:


> No they weren't they were cattle dogs then draught dogs.


I've learnt something new today.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I think what @Phoenix Rising was meaning that certain breeds are more popular with certain 'types'. We know that's the case as the vast majority of these fatal and serious attacks we hear about come about due to irresponsible ownership, lack of knowledge, experience, etc etc. They just want the dog to look good, perhaps to brag about it's abilities at 'protecting' them and that's it.

That said, I do think it's ridiculous to lump certain breeds together. As mentioned above GSD's, Rotties, Staffies etc were not even bred with guarding as their primary role. It's a shame they're so readily & easily available to every Tom, Dick & Harry.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I think what @Phoenix Rising was meaning that certain breeds are more popular with certain 'types'. We know that's the case as the vast majority of these fatal and serious attacks we hear about come about due to irresponsible ownership, lack of knowledge, experience, etc etc. They just want the dog to look good, perhaps to brag about it's abilities at 'protecting' them and that's it.
> 
> That said, I do think it's ridiculous to lump certain breeds together. As mentioned above GSD's, Rotties, Staffies etc were not even bred with guarding as their primary role. It's a shame they're so readily & easily available to every Tom, Dick & Harry.


What they said was anyone who wanted a large breed needed to have a license and have a back ground checks. No consideration to what breeds just large.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Dogloverlou said:


> I think what @Phoenix Rising was meaning that certain breeds are more popular with certain 'types'. We know that's the case as the vast majority of these fatal and serious attacks we hear about come about due to irresponsible ownership, lack of knowledge, experience, etc etc. They just want the dog to look good, perhaps to brag about it's abilities at 'protecting' them and that's it.


That's exactly what I meant. I obviously didn't put it as well! But what I was trying to say too was maybe if these breeds had to be licensed and owners background checked (to make sure they hadn't been involved with incidents with their dogs in the past etc) before they could get another, the 'types' of people that just wanted them to make them look good (with no intention of training/proper care etc) could be weeded out? Then the breeds reputation could be improved with responsible owners. It probably would be impossible to police or check though.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That's exactly what I meant. I obviously didn't put it as well! But what I was trying to say too was maybe if these breeds had to be licensed and owners background checked (to make sure they hadn't been involved with incidents with their dogs in the past etc) before they could get another, the 'types' of people that just wanted them to make them look good (with no intention of training/proper care etc) could be weeded out? Then the breeds reputation could be improved with responsible owners. It probably would be impossible to police or check though.


Oh for goodness sake. 
I am the owner of one of those "types" of dogs. I am a middle aged soccer mom who drives a minivan. Are you seriously saying I need a licence and a background check while the fellow middle aged soccer mom with the dog who mutilated that woman's arm doesn't need a licence because it's not one of "those" dogs? Come on....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That's exactly what I meant. I obviously didn't put it as well! But what I was trying to say too was maybe if these breeds had to be licensed and owners background checked (to make sure they hadn't been involved with incidents with their dogs in the past etc) before they could get another, the 'types' of people that just wanted them to make them look good (with no intention of training/proper care etc) could be weeded out? Then the breeds reputation could be improved with responsible owners. It probably would be impossible to police or check though.


So I need a license? 
People need a license to drive a car legally...yet thousands are caught driving without a license


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That's exactly what I meant. I obviously didn't put it as well! But what I was trying to say too was maybe if these breeds had to be licensed and owners background checked (to make sure they hadn't been involved with incidents with their dogs in the past etc) before they could get another, the 'types' of people that just wanted them to make them look good (with no intention of training/proper care etc) could be weeded out? Then the breeds reputation could be improved with responsible owners. It probably would be impossible to police or check though.


That's crazy if a licence is needed then it should be for all dogs not just certain breeds as already said all dogs have the potential to badly humans.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

StormyThai said:


> So I need a license?
> People need a license to drive a car legally...yet thousands are caught driving without a license


But remember @Phoenix Rising is suggestion only certain drivers need a license. Depending on the kind of car they prefer.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I, apparently, need a licence too.

Some of us who have owned dogs for decades, who dedicate ourselves to ensuring our dogs are sociable, amiable creatures really are very misguided.

We need background checks, as we're obviously dubious characters who just want to look good.

Who knew?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> But remember @Phoenix Rising is suggestion only certain drivers need a license. Depending on the kind of car they prefer.


Would it go by what model you like or would it be certain "types"?


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2017)

StormyThai said:


> Would it go by what model you like or would it be certain "types"?


Hrm... what about "rare" colors?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Well if only 'large' breeds are being licensed then that's the deadly Staffie nicely overlooked. Smaller than Labradors and Golden Retrievers in most cases...


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Well if only 'large' breeds are being licensed then that's the deadly Staffie nicely overlooked. Smaller than Labradors and Golden Retrievers in most cases...


By Type and history (how many incidents of attack that breed had been involved in), which surely is what would qualify them as a dangerous dog? so no sadly due to the inner city chav type wanting them and the numerous attacks reported on other dogs etc they wouldn't be exempt.

Maybe a points system to how suitable a breed is for the novice? I mean you're not going to be qualified to drive a F1 racing car or tank in the army just cos you have your provisional license are you! Maybe then they'd stop breeding them for aggression and intimidating size if it meant they wouldn't be considered experienced enough to own one! .. though as people have said many innocent owners who would put in the effort to ensure the dog came out a well rounded inidividual would also miss out.

Though people have mentioned before on here on threads saying what breeds they'd like in the future or in their dreams, that there are certain breeds they'd love but don't feel they have the experience to own.. well bull breeds would be one of those breeds for the 'types' that would love one just to make them look 'hard' but have no experience or intention to train them beyond encouraging aggression. They would have to prove that they'd intend to socialise it, not to breed it, not to teach it to be aggressive, that it would live inside not in a filthy cage in the garden with no stimulation or walks, It's very idealistic I admit and probably not at all enforceable but would target only the types (of people) who had an history of doing that type of thing with their dog.

Maybe if RSPCA changed the guidelines of what was considered as cruelty and neglect so they could seize a dog being obviously bought up in those circumstances BEFORE it had attacked anyone and rehome it into a better environment? At least then the dog had chance for a happy home life and less chance of being PTS just because it had been encouraged to be aggressive and had got out and attacked someone/something.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> Though people have mentioned before on here on threads saying what breeds they'd like in the future or in their dreams, that there are certain breeds they'd love but don't feel they have the experience to own.. well bull breeds would be one of those breeds for the 'types' that would love one just to make them look 'hard' but have no experience or intention to train them beyond encouraging aggression. They would have to prove that they'd intend to socialise it, not to breed it, not to teach it to be aggressive, that it would live inside not in a filthy cage in the garden with no stimulation or walks, It's very idealistic I admit and probably not at all enforceable but would target only the types (of people) who had an history of doing that type of thing with their dog.


Errrr shouldnt this apply to ALL breeds then?

Its ok to teach a jack russell to be aggressive, have it live outside in a filthy cage 24/7, and breed it non stop? okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Well let's see there is a dog license in NI and all mine are licensed. Yet the pita dog a few doors up isn't. It's what I would consider a small dog. My eldery neighbours are scared of it, I've reported it twice.Its snapped at me twice getting bins in.. So that works doesn't it. She has been warned but that didn't work. It's not a Rottweiler, GSD or a bull breed, yet the house with two Rottweilers and two bull breeds is complying by the law and is full aware of the DDA and I've never had a complaint against my dogs past or present . She's a nurse and ex forces so would pass a back ground check with flying colours. Her dog is dangerous and breaking all types of laws, it's well fed, walked often but it's also left to free roam in our gated backs, but then again her dog isn't large or a bull breed so guess we just waits until it bites one if my elderly neighbours. See what wrong with your idea @Phoenix Rising , it reminds me of the other ill thought out idea that did nothing in fact bites and attacks have risen in the time that idea became law....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Right...so let me get this straight!
I would need a license due to the breed that my dog is. My dog is well trained and kept under control at all times, and has not caused anyone a single problem whilst in my care.

But the bloke down the road with the extremely aggressive jrt can carry on without a care in the world?

This is like reading straight from the daily rag...lets just ban all dogs bigger than a MT shall we?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> I shall be sharing a house with a Pit Bull next week - I'll say goodbye now then


We'll miss you........


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But remember @Phoenix Rising is suggestion only certain drivers need a license. Depending on the kind of car they prefer.


Insurance does price out the more 'dangerous' cars for most people and the more 'dangerous' drivers find it pretty hard to get insurance.

I am a bit lost as to what all the argument is about. Surely everyone would have to agree that certain types of dogs are more of a risk in certain hands. And no risk in the right hands. There are just being too many attacks by these combinations and I am sure at some stage draconian laws are going to come in which will do no good at all as only the problem free owners will comply. Whether these laws will affect all dog owners or just the owners of dogs seen as contributing to the problem is debatable but why are the owners of lovely bull breeds getting on their high horse because someone thinks that laws will have to come in to stop the irresponsible owners from owning unsuitable dogs. Not that I think any law is going to help, in the same way that our gun laws have not stopped gun crime, only made life difficult for the responsible gun owner.

It seems to me like bull breed owners have a chip on their shoulder and think that just because someone is criticising status dogs and their owners they are against all bull breeds and their owners.


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

There is Breed-specific legislation (BSL) - if your dog _looks _a certain way it can be considered a "dangerous dog" therefore illegal.

Police can seize the dog purely based on it's appearance! If you sign your dog over to them - it will be PTS. If you don't sign your dog over, the dog is often kept in police kennels - you can't visit or see your dog.
The dog is assessed by an expert and there is a court hearing, if the expert considers the dog to be "of type" a court often issues a destruction order - the dog must be PTS and the owner faces criminal charges.

If you have the money and legal support you can appeal - have an independent expert assess the dog but if they consider it to be "of type" but not a danger to the public - the best you can hope for is for the dog to be placed on the exemption register.
You are assessed if you are a suitable person, can provide a secure home, pay a £90 something fee, get public liability insurance, the dog must be microchipped, neutered, leashed and muzzled whenever in a public place.

Dog hasn't done anything wrong - never attacked anyone, never attacked another dog or ever been reported yet could lose it's life because of the way it looks?

I think that is unfair.

BSL was introduced in1991, 26 years ago but dog attacks have actually increased by 76%... Clearly it isn't working.

Suitable laws are already in place to deal with irresponsible owners! People need to report these people with dangerously out of control dogs - regardless of the breed. The authorities need to act upon this information. The more information they have the stronger case for prosecution but most people let these things ride or think someone else will do it. If the authorities don't know - what are they suppose to do? All they can do is attempt to clean up the mess afterwards.


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> By Type and history (how many incidents of attack that breed had been involved in), which surely is what would qualify them as a dangerous dog? so no sadly due to the inner city chav type wanting them and the numerous attacks reported on other dogs etc they wouldn't be exempt.
> 
> Maybe a points system to how suitable a breed is for the novice? I mean you're not going to be qualified to drive a F1 racing car or tank in the army just cos you have your provisional license are you! Maybe then they'd stop breeding them for aggression and intimidating size if it meant they wouldn't be considered experienced enough to own one! .. though as people have said many innocent owners who would put in the effort to ensure the dog came out a well rounded inidividual would also miss out.
> 
> ...


Depends how statistics are worked out...we all know staffies are full to the brim in rescue centres and I would take an educated guess that, not just using Kc data as less face it many people don't understand the importance of that...that if there was a true survey of dog owners and dog breeds staffy must be pretty high...but there is no data...

Just going on that it would make incidents occurring of a staffy involved in anything high...compared to a dog that is less popular buy still may look fierce to others such as a Tibetan Mastiff.

Now I have spoken to my dog warden a great deal recently involving an incident... She told me that in my area the most common cases dealt with are...border collies being aggressive to both human and dogs alike. Like anything its not treating the dog as a dog, understimulated etc...now obviously this dog does not tick your boxes...However our local paper loves staffy/bull breed stories. How do they hear about these stories...if you have a story please ring...When there has been a prosecution for dog related problems, quite often no breed mentioned a few lines in the court news. Since the owner is at fault.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Surely everyone would have to agree that certain types of dogs are more of a risk in certain hands. And no risk in the right hands.


No...All dogs are a risk when in the wrong hands.
I have been around bull breeds for the best part of 30 years, and many of them had unknown histories...the only bite I have had to have hospital treatment with was a springer.

BSL proves without a shadow of a doubt that basing judgments on breed alone does not work in fact it has made things worse...it is not about the frigging dogs, it is about who owns them...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If we banned or controlled specific breeds so that chavs and drug dealers couldn't get one to intimidate people, there'd not be many breeds left. At the moment it tends to be bull breeds, but they'd just switch to gsds and rotties and an ill treated angry, fit labrador looks pretty intimidating. A pack of those could do as much damage to a garden of children. There is nothing other than banning chavs altogether that would work and sadly that's impossible. They need to get rid of Bsl because it's distracting from the real problems, improve the laws on neglect and ill treatment and apply them. 

Not even that would work perfectly though. They banned dog fighting years ago, but scum still breed for it and use their dogs for fighting. We're told they steal pet dogs as bait and that's beside any other illegal activities they are involved in. Gun licensing is very strict, but people still slip through that particular net, even though there are nowhere near as many people who go shooting as there are dogs. It's an impossible task, but given the number of dogs, there actually aren't that many dog attacks tbh.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2017)

Blitz said:


> I am a bit lost as to what all the argument is about. Surely everyone would have to agree that certain types of dogs are more of a risk in certain hands. And no risk in the right hands. There are just being too many attacks by these combinations and I am sure at some stage draconian laws are going to come in which will do no good at all as only the problem free owners will comply. Whether these laws will affect all dog owners or just the owners of dogs seen as contributing to the problem is debatable but why are the owners of lovely bull breeds getting on their high horse because someone thinks that laws will have to come in to stop the irresponsible owners from owning unsuitable dogs. Not that I think any law is going to help, in the same way that our gun laws have not stopped gun crime, only made life difficult for the responsible gun owner.


That IS the argument. These laws that target only certain dogs, certain types, certain whatever you want to put in there do not work. 
All these years of specific breed bans in the UK and if anything there are more serious bite incidents now more than ever. 
We have seen the exact same thing in the US in cities where BSL has been implemented. Breed specific laws do not work to keep the public safer, if anything, they make the public LESS safe because dog bite incidents increase.

Laws that target dangerous human behavior do work.
Dog fighting is a felony now in all 50 states. We still have dog fighting, but less, and it has continued to decline over the years. 
Laws that prohibit chaining a dog, penning dogs etc. regardless of breed. Those laws improve the lives of dogs and prevent tragedies.

And enforcement of those laws. 
As I said earlier in this thread, I am willing to bet good money that this was not the first time these dogs got loose. Are there not laws in the UK against dogs being loose and out of the owner's control? Then act on those laws. 
Who's to say that if the authorities had intervened the first time these dogs got loose that the owners wouldn't have tried harder to keep them contained?

Around here you can be fined over $500 for having a dog "running at large" as a repeat offender. Yup, that means a lot of people simply give the dog up to the authorities rather than pay the fine, but at least that gives the dog a chance at a home who will hopefully be more responsible. Or at the very least a more humane death than dying slowly on the side of the road from being hit by a car, predated, or shot.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Phoenix Rising said:


> By Type and history (how many incidents of attack that breed had been involved in), which surely is what would qualify them as a dangerous dog? so no sadly due to the inner city chav type wanting them and the numerous attacks reported on other dogs etc they wouldn't be exempt.
> 
> .


I understand what you are getting at but you cant generalise breeds like that....perhaps more incidents happen involving a certain breed but you need to look at the situation that dog lives in....its already agreed i think that certain breeds are used for fighting and status symbols but i don't think that makes it a dangerous breed just that they were unlucky to have dangerous owners.....

There are far more responsible owners out there that own these so called dangerous breeds and have stable well socialised dogs.....to just licence anyone with such a breed is penalising these responsible owners and taring them with the same brush which is totally unfair.

Either you set it up properly and fund and police it properly then licence all dog owners or not at all.....you cant really puck and choose......

Alternatively anyone wanting a dog gets background checked to a certain set of criteria and if you don't comply you don't get a licence to have a dog.....similar to background checks you have when you work with children and the vulnerable....

Peoples mind sets need to change....rather than grouping dogs as dangerous breeds and non dangerous breeds (after all any dog can be dangerous) how about grouping dog owners as dangerous and non dangerous....now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons and get the human rights lawyers out enforce


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

jamat said:


> f*ck me it looks more like a creature created for star wars films


I've tried six times, but no pictures of any dogs, despite scrolling all the way down.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Calvine said:


> I've tried six times, but no pictures of any dogs, despite scrolling all the way down.


I know for some reason its been taken down 

But believe me when I say it was an ugly mother massive wide mouth and so bow legged I down if it could have jumped off a high curb let alone over a fence


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

jamat said:


> I know for some reason its been taken down


Thank you for that.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Calvine said:


> Thank you for that.


Sent you am PM


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

jamat said:


> I know for some reason its been taken down


Maybe it turned out that wasn't one of the dogs involved after all?


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Maybe it turned out that wasn't one of the dogs involved after all?


That was my thought to


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Photographs are in the news articles.

Too many dogs. Too little space (and poor conditions). Too little knowledge. Breeding for money.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4487152/Dogs-garden-house-girl-mauled.html

The little girl is still in hospital so I understand.

J


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But remember @Phoenix Rising is suggestion only certain drivers need a license. Depending on the kind of car they prefer.


We had a Fiesta almost crash into us yesterday, because it didn't stop at the roundabout when we had right of way.
It's fine that I probably would have had my legs destroyed, because it's a cute and fluffy Fiesta. The big van behind it, who did stop, is the real danger!

Maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder about Bull breeds, but it's infuriating when people suggest that there are dogs who apparently don't pose a threat to anyone!
Do some breeds not have teeth? Bones & muscles? Nails?

I knew someone with "friendly" breeds - the first one was PTS because it tried to bite their daughters throat, and the other one was so aggressive they had to use a broom to move it away from the fence, and it attacked the broom!
But we shouldn't be concerned, because they have fluffy, floppy ears!

Like the majority of the Bull breed attacks that get reported, the dogs had little to no exercise, no toys/stimulation, were badly bred, left alone all day and ignored most of the evening, and had no training.
In my eyes the breed is totally irrelevant, and I think it's stupid and dangerous to act like there's no chance of being injured by socially acceptable breeds.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

I wondered how long till the breed bashing started...

Anywho, people of PF @Phoenix Rising especially we're going to play a game...

Say you bumped into me with our boy and one of the "status dog" owners on the same day. Which breed would you be wary of and why? (PF-ers in the know hold your silence please!)










Exhibit a)

Or

The Rottie/GSD/Dobe/Staff/Pitbull etc.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Does categorising certain breeds as 'types' requiring special licences not further cement their reputation as 'status dogs', thus perpetuating the problem?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Pappychi said:


> I wondered how long till the breed bashing started...
> 
> Anywho, people of PF @Phoenix Rising especially we're going to play a game...
> 
> ...


I was thinking the same regarding Cash. He might look fluffy and appealing, but his temperament is that of a guarding breed....he's sociable enough, but interesting to hear what @Phoenix Rising would think about the fact he's an actual guarding breed...


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> That's exactly what I meant. I obviously didn't put it as well! But what I was trying to say too was maybe if these breeds had to be licensed and owners background checked (to make sure they hadn't been involved with incidents with their dogs in the past etc) before they could get another, the 'types' of people that just wanted them to make them look good (with no intention of training/proper care etc) could be weeded out? Then the breeds reputation could be improved with responsible owners. It probably would be impossible to police or check though.


Licencing certain breeds though would be very unjust. You'd either have to licence ALL dogs, or none at all. After all, every dog has the potential to cause serious injury. What if the Lab x down the road seriously maims someone. How does a licence help protect that victim and/or dog seen as the dog is not viewed as a 'dangerous' dog? Total waste of money.

No, the real issue IMO is the easy availability of some breeds.

But lets not forget that attacks by any breed are vey rare despite what the media may want you to believe. I certainly don't think any draconian or knee jerk legislations need be put in place.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Does categorising certain breeds as 'types' requiring special licences not further cement their reputation as 'status dogs', thus perpetuating the problem?


Yes...and it also lulls the general public into the dangerous belief that other dogs can't be dangerous because they are not on the list!


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2017)

Dogloverlou said:


> But lets not forget that attacks by any breed are vey rare despite what the media may want you to believe. I certainly don't think any draconian or knee jerk legislations need be put in place.


This.
In the time we have been discussing this one incident - horrible as it is, how many children have been killed in vehicle accidents, injured by their caretakers, died of SIDS because they live in a home where people smoke....?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Licensing doesn't work.... We license in NI. It makes no difference.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Photographs are in the news articles.
> 
> Too many dogs. Too little space (and poor conditions). Too little knowledge. Breeding for money.
> 
> ...


It would help if they were consistent in reporting so people could get the full story! One report says it was the grandma who rescued the child and the person owned 5 dogs. The one in the link says in the text under heading 'pack of up to 10 dogs burst through a fence' then in the first paragraph that 4 dogs went through the fence!

And I mean look at the size of those dogs! who needs so many dogs that size as pets unless they have an ulterior motive for them (ie breeding them to make money from people who want 'status dogs' or dogs to fight with or the person is involved in dog fighting themselves!) These are not your average pet or suitable for that restricted environment.

The report suggests they were used for breeding and lived outdoors so probably didn't get much in the way of training either if the bloke was only interested in breeding them. They probably won't get banned as the little girl wasn't killed only injured, so nothing will be done and someone somewhere else will continue breeding them!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> This.
> In the time we have been discussing this one incident - horrible as it is, how many children have been killed in vehicle accidents, injured by their caretakers, died of SIDS because they live in a home where people smoke....?


Around 1730 deaths per year for road accidents
Around 21 people have died due to fatal dog attacks in *10 years!

*
Quick lets ban cars...oh and cows too, they kill more people a year than dogs!!

ETA: these are numbers for the UK only.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Around 1730 deaths per year for road accidents
> Around 21 people have died due to fatal dog attacks in *10 years!
> 
> *
> Quick lets ban cars...oh and cows too, they kill more people a year than dogs!!


Prawns....Ban Prawns.....too many people choking on Prawns these days ......


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> It would help if they were consistent in reporting so people could get the full story! One report says it was the grandma who rescued the child and the person owned 5 dogs. The one in the link says in the text under heading 'pack of up to 10 dogs burst through a fence' then in the first paragraph that 4 dogs went through the fence!
> 
> And I mean look at the size of those dogs! who needs so many dogs that size as pets unless they have an ulterior motive for them (ie breeding them to make money from people who want 'status dogs' or dogs to fight with or the person is involved in dog fighting themselves!) These are not your average pet or suitable for that restricted environment.
> 
> The report suggests they were used for breeding and lived outdoors so probably didn't get much in the way of training either if the bloke was only interested in breeding them. They probably won't get banned as the little girl wasn't killed only injured, so nothing will be done and someone somewhere else will continue breeding them!


So you are implying you would like to see 'dangerous' dogs banned?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

jamat said:


> Prawns....Ban Prawns.....too many people choking on Prawns these days ......


Coconuts are pretty 'ard too...We're doomed!


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Coconuts are pretty 'ard too...We're doomed!


Just used my google fu and found out that on average 5,000 people die from choking each year and the 10 most common choking food are as follows:

hot dogs,
peanuts,
carrots,
boned chicken,
candy, meat,
popcorn,
fish with bones,
sunflower seeds
apples.

I say ban them all


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> And I mean look at the size of those dogs! who needs so many dogs that size as pets unless they have an ulterior motive for them (ie breeding them to make money from people who want 'status dogs' or dogs to fight with or the person is involved in dog fighting themselves!) These are not your average pet or suitable for that restricted environment.
> 
> The report suggests they were used for breeding and lived outdoors so probably didn't get much in the way of training either if the bloke was only interested in breeding them. They probably won't get banned as the little girl wasn't killed only injured, so nothing will be done and someone somewhere else will continue breeding them!


Will you please stop judging people on their choice of dogs or how many dogs they have. There are dogs much bigger than those dogs who are and do make fantastic pets and are just pets nothing more....

Are you also suggesting breeds ( these arent a recognised breed) that have attacked should be banned?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Phoenix Rising said:


> And I mean look at the size of those dogs! who needs so many dogs that size as pets unless they have an ulterior motive for them (ie breeding them to make money from people who want 'status dogs' or dogs to fight with or the person is involved in dog fighting themselves!) These are not your average pet or suitable for that restricted environment.
> 
> The report suggests they were used for breeding and lived outdoors so probably didn't get much in the way of training either if the bloke was only interested in breeding them. They probably won't get banned as the little girl wasn't killed only injured, so nothing will be done and someone somewhere else will continue breeding them!


There is nothing wrong with the breed! American bulldogs are perfectly nice dogs...as long as they are responsibly breed for temperament and fitness. 
The owner of those poor malformed things is clearly an example of the sort of person you 'dont' want owning or breeding dogs! If anything this case shows that there needs to be stricter laws for out of control dogs and more oversight for dog breeders.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jan 25, 2016)

I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!  

We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!
> 
> We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


Nobody is defending the individual dogs that attacked the child, we are defending breeds in general because one thing has nothing to do with the other. Any dog in the wrong hands is capable of injuring children, even small ones.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!
> 
> We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


But you can't tar an entire breed the same. As a previous Staffie owner, you must know this. Your dog wasn't just waiting to rip into a 2 year olds head was she? The issue is irresponsible ownership. This could just have easily been a pack of Labradors under socialized and under stimulated. I'm not sure why you think it's only bull breeds capable of such incidents?


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2017)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!
> 
> We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


*sigh*
@Phoenix Rising I have children and I work with children. The safety of children is something I care about deeply. 
And it's in part because of how deeply I do care about children that I will always fight against BSL and ignorant attitudes like yours about dogs and what makes them dangerous.

It's not about defending a certain breed. It's about realizing that ALL breeds can present a danger if the human behavior around that dog is dangerous.
When you say it's just one breed or one type that you have to worry about, you leave the door open for all sorts of other dogs to cause damage, and it ignores the factors that DO go in to causing dogs to become dangerous.

The factors in this case are fairly clear. Intact dogs used for breeding, kept outside, allowed to get loose in groups. Any breed of dog allowed to get loose in a group is going to be problematic. Any breed of dog kept in kennels with little time outside the kennel can become dangerous. Any breed of dog used irresponsibly for breeding can become dangerous, especially males protecting their females or females protecting their pups.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!
> 
> We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


We arent defending individual dogs, what we aren't doing is tarring every dog in a breed with the same brush.

So do clarify do you believe if a breed/ type of dog has attacked that all dogs of that breed should be banned which is what you said. Despite the fact that it's been proven that BSL doesn't work and incidents have increased since it's been introduced, and other countries have scrapped it with great results?

Your parents owned a staff, I don't believe from previous comments you have even owned your own dog?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!
> 
> We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


Wow!

After everything that has been said in this thread, I think this says more about you than those of us against BSL.

Not one person has defended the dogs involved in this or any other tragic incident.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!
> 
> We had a staffie for 16 yrs but I wouldn't want those dogs living next to me!


I like how you're determined to ignore any point about ALL dogs being potentially dangerous .

I wouldn't want ANY breed of dog, living how those dogs did, next to me!

Pretty sure I won't ever be in that situation because I'm not stupid enough to believe certain breeds are safer than others....unlike some people.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!


Actually I would be nervous of any dogs being bred by the person being discussed, even if they were chihuahuas.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Photographs are in the news articles.
> 
> Too many dogs. Too little space (and poor conditions). Too little knowledge. Breeding for money.
> 
> ...


It looks like he's got a pet marmoset on the sofa in that first photo.

I know I shouldn't judge people but he doesn't exactly look like a responsible animal owner, I feel sorry for anything that's subjected to his 'tender loving care'


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

simplysardonic said:


> It looks like he's got a pet marmoset on the sofa in that first photo.
> 
> I know I shouldn't judge people but he doesn't exactly look like a responsible animal owner, I feel sorry for anything that's subjected to his 'tender loving care'


I noticed that, poor thing living in those conditions, for why should we think its life is any better than those dogs
Not that Id want any living animal in the hands of the rspca, but, its a wonder they havent swooped to take it
although, of course, we dont know how old those pictures are.


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

You would think the people breeding the dogs for profit or fighting would keep these dogs properly & safe in the boundaries of their property to as not to be noticed.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Phoenix Rising said:


> I wonder how many of you in the 'defend bully's no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog brigade' would still be as keen to defend the dog if it was your 2yr old whose head was in the dog's jaws!


Put it another way. Widen the definition a bit.

How many of us would defend DOGS no matter how badly they injure someone/another dog?

I believe you must acknowledge that dogs of any breed are capable of injuring a person or another dog - yes, even a Chihuahua or Yorkshire Terrier - and yes, plenty are capable of killing a person or another dog.

I'm sure you are not denying this fact. In any case, it's been proven by various studies and news reports that it isn't just bull breeds that have injured or killed people.

With this fact established, there could conceivably be an argument to ban keeping dogs as pets full stop.

Would you support such a ban?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> I was thinking the same regarding Cash. He might look fluffy and appealing, but his temperament is that of a guarding breed....he's sociable enough, but interesting to hear what @Phoenix Rising would think about the fact he's an actual guarding breed...


Exactly.

@Phoenix Rising just because it's fluffy or cute looking doesn't mean it's "safe". You see the big, fluffy red and white thing in my profile picture? Cute right? Inoffensive right?

Wrong.

When he's at home his desire to guard is seriously intense. He has to be carefully managed to ensure that he is not only not a danger to visitors but that he himself is kept safe. You know why? Because he's our dog and it's our job. We chose to privately rehome him. It's our responsibility and if for one second I thought we couldn't handle that responsibility I would drive him to the vet and have him put down myself.

And whilst I'm at my mini rant you know what I am sick of? Every sodding dog being bred, no matter if it has a shoddy temperament or not because every little fido needs to be a mummy and daddy. Unstable temperament + Unstable temperament usually = unstable temperaments and we are seeing more and more of those dodgy temperaments filtering into the pet owning worlds. Now, from the little, I know of this case it seems they were other factors involved but can't help but wonder about the temperaments and genetics behind the dogs that did this.

If you want a summary of my thoughts and feelings on the whole dog attack matter here they are -


I'm sick and tired of every dog with a shitty temperament and nervous disposition being bred. Genetics matter. Gone are the days where dogs with iffy temperaments are culled from the gene pool. Now all we here is 'It's her right!' 'I want my kids to experience the miracle of birth!' etc etc. 
I'm sick and tired of the expectations placed on family pets (this is unrelated to this case but I feel I have to get it off my chest). Fido the Lab is meant to let a child ride him, pull his ears/tail/paws, little Timmy can put his hands in the dogs bowl and smush food on the dogs face. Fido bites and no one ever saw it coming.
I'm sick and tired of no one researching breeds, society as a whole seems shocked that different breeds often have different drives/characteristics. 'My Collie is herding my kids!' 'My Husky tries to kill my guinea pigs!' 'My Beagle bays too much'. People need to accept breeds for what they are and look closely at their own capabilities before choosing a breed. 
And no. Just because you have a little dog that doesn't give you a free pass. Your Chihuahua should be under as much control as my aunts Staffie x.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Pappychi said:


> wonder about the temperaments and genetics behind the dogs that did this.


Considering a lot of the dogs had cropped ears (badly done to boot) I'm going to guess that a good temp wasn't what this breeder strives for 

Although...maybe if someone had reported the illegal cropping then maybe this could have been avoided! So many red flags with these dogs and this owner, if only one complaint had been followed up then the whole tragedy could have been avoided.
But instead of looking at what could of been done differently, we just get rants about banning certain dog breeds


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Could be they were imported @StormyThai, I know an imported Cane Corso with cropped ears, stunning dog with a really calm temperament & their coats look short & harsh but are surprisingly soft, shame his beautiful ears had to be mutilated


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

simplysardonic said:


> Could be they were imported @StormyThai, I know an imported Cane Corso with cropped ears, stunning dog with a really calm temperament & their coats look short & harsh but are surprisingly soft, shame his beautiful ears had to be mutilated


Yeah...not buying the imported reason on this occasion.
Nothing about this whole situation makes me think the owner would have spent the money to get a good import...nothing!


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Yeah...not buying the imported reason on this occasion.
> Nothing about this whole situation makes me think the owner would have spent the money to get a good import...nothing!


I don't think in some cases people even look for good imports. I've noticed Bully Kuttas and their crosses being advertised online and nothing would convince me that these are from reliable and researched sources. I could be wrong but I just have a feeling we will see an influx of these big powerful breeds as people start looking for the next big thing.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Pappychi said:


> I don't think in some cases people even look for good imports. I've noticed Bully Kuttas and their crosses being advertised online and nothing would convince me that these are from reliable and researched sources. I could be wrong but I just have a feeling we will see an influx of these big powerful breeds as people start looking for the next big thing.


Don't want to like your post but I agree


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Yeah...not buying the imported reason on this occasion.
> Nothing about this whole situation makes me think the owner would have spent the money to get a good import...nothing!


I dunno, there's been an explosion of American Bullies in the last year or two, I've noticed the ads creeping onto pet selling sites.

And I found this, we both commented on it!
http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/american-bully-dog.350781/
Granted, there are apparently some OK breeders of American Bullies out there in the US, but I can't see what this 'new breed' offers that can't be found in staffies, AmBulls, Boston terriers, Frenchies, assorted mastiffs or (in countries where they're legal) Pits.

It seems to be more for the kudos of having something new & eye catching (if you find the excessive morphology & horrible inbreeding of these dogs a turn on that is).


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

There seems to be a lot of imported breeds as of late that are brought over & then re-sold. Presas, Ovcharkas etc. So it's perfectly feasible he bought the dogs from the person who originally imported them.

Someone the other day on a comment I read was like 'I don't know my dog's background, just that he came from Poland'.....


----------



## Bob Ford (Apr 17, 2017)

What's the idea behind cropping ears is it just a fighting thing aesthetic if its the latter that's rediculous


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> I shall be sharing a house with a Pit Bull next week - I'll say goodbye now then


Well, I survived my first night! 

Photos to follow 

So far the only issue is Gary likes to lay his head on my feet and it's blooming hot here - so my feet are VERY warm! 

P.S. he has gorgeous ears!


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2017)

Lurcherlad said:


> So far the only issue is Gary likes to lay his head on my feet and it's blooming hot here - so my feet are VERY warm!


Hey! You must be on my side of the pond!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Hey! You must be on my side of the pond!


Yep! 8.5 hours at 40,000 feet and across the Atlantic! 

Off to Sosua beach later!


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2017)

Oh wow the DR? You are hot right now then  Beautiful place, enjoy!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Gary: PB x ?










Lousy pic cos he was "fighting" himself! 

This is the one who is "feisty"! ....


----------

