# toddler seriously injured in dog attack



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Toddler Seriously Injured In Dog Attack - Yahoo! News UK


----------



## IndyGoJones (Dec 31, 2011)

Poor toddler, and poor dog! It's awful when this sort of thing happens, it gives the breed such a bad rep!


----------



## Nancy23 (Feb 7, 2012)

poor little boy, hope will be ok!
Stupid dam owner!!!!:mad5:


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Nancy23 said:


> poor little boy, hope will be ok!
> Stupid dam owner!!!!:mad5:


stupid parents too , apparently he`d wandered into a neighbouring garden , where the hell were his parents  i hope he gets better soon though


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

This happened across the road from the house i grew up in, not good, heard he has horrific face injuries, poor boy hopefully he recovers, can't imagine what his parents are going through. 

There was a jubilee event on the park by their house yesterday, maybe a distraction for the parents/owner i don't know


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

So sorry for the poor boy hope he recovers, but seriously believed too be a staffordshire bull terrier type!!!!! ffs its ridicullus they dont even know the breed and are blaming staffords and stafford types.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

redginald said:


> This happened across the road from the house i grew up in, not good, heard he has horrific face injuries, poor boy hopefully he recovers, can't imagine what his parents are going through.
> 
> There was a jubilee event on the park by their house yesterday, maybe a distraction for the parents/owner i don't know


from what i listened to on sky news the poor lad had wandered into a neighbours garden can`t help but think partly it`s his parents fault [how on earth can you let a two year old out of sight? theres so many other things that could have happened , hit by a car; taken off by anyone]
just don`t bare thinking about
i hope the poor little soul recovers well though from the sound of it he could be on a long road to recovery


----------



## colliemerles (Nov 2, 2007)

_poor child, i do hope he recovers bless him,its so sad and upsetting when this sort of thing happens _


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

My heart goes out to the poor child and his parents,but (a big but) they have to take some of the blame for what happened and live with it for the rest of there lives.I do know if a stranger came into my back garden a couple of my dogs maybe would be the same,but as usual we have to be told the type of breed sorry but it was a dog on its own territory.


----------



## martmart (Jan 26, 2012)

This is very sad.. I hope the kid recovers.

What worries me tho is the reporting of it. The government obviously want to bring in new laws that affect everyone, they've already done the mandatory microchipping (for puppies?) .I believe, correct me if Im wrong. 

These reportings, especially against dogs such as staffys, are designed to fuel peoples emotions and basically demand something be done about it, which ofcourse, the government will do (or had probably wanted to do for sometime so they use the media for this purpose). So.....my thoughts are..this probably won't be the last report about a dog injuring a child, so get ready for more legislation against us dog owners, forcing us to do (what we might feel are) unnecessary things to "protect the public"...blah blah! 

Whatever the case, I bet it'll be something that will benefit the government financially while making dog owners so angry to the point that they/we continue to do nothing! :skep:


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

My heart goes out to the child.

If it is true that the child wondered in to someone else's garden, while the owner of the garden should have made sure that his garden was secure however a portion of the blame lies with the parents.



xshelly_stanliex said:


> So sorry for the poor boy hope he recovers, but seriously believed too be a staffordshire bull terrier type!!!!! ffs its ridicullus they dont even know the breed and are blaming staffords and stafford types.


The number of badly breed staffies (breed to be much larger then the breed standard), and the number staff of crosses, not to mention the number of APBT and APBT crosses, I can completely understand them saying that it is _believed _that it is a staffie.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

xshelly_stanliex said:


> So sorry for the poor boy hope he recovers, but seriously believed too be a staffordshire bull terrier type!!!!! ffs its ridicullus they dont even know the breed and are blaming staffords and stafford types.


Well that's because Staffies are the only dogs who bite people and other dogs...*rolls eyes*...

The media seem hell bent on condemming Staffies. It was refreshing to see on my local news (south west) that the ITV presenters defended Staffies after reporting on a little girl being attacked by one, that's it not the dog or breeds fault but the owners (The man let his dog attack the girl then run off).

xxx


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm sorry but if the dog that attacked the boy was a staffie, then they are going to mention it. If the dog was a rottweiler, they are going to mention it. It's not the media's fault that its a staffie.

I hope this boy recovers well.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I hardly think the parents can be blamed. If a child that age can wander into the garden then I assume the dog could have wandered out just as easily. A dog proof garden is also toddler proof.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Only going on what I have heard so far...I believe the parents should have been watching the child. If the dog was in its own garden then how can he be in the wrong? If the child wandered in it sounds like he was not accompanied and who know what happened to make the dog bite?
Two victims here, one dead dog and a child with a missing eye. Tragic :sad:


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I hardly think the parents can be blamed. If a child that age can wander into the garden then I assume the dog could have wandered out just as easily. A dog proof garden is also toddler proof.


of course the parents can have the finger of blame pointed at them; it were a two year old toddler , what on earth was he doing out on his own!!! anything could have happened.

this news report suggests he was unsupervised by his parents and had managed to wander off , see where it states


> *
> A witness, who did not want to be named, said: "My wife was on the computer and she heard this scream, 'where is he, where is he?'."*


BBC News - Swindon toddler mauled by dog in garden

early reports are suggesting he`s lost an eye , part of his ear and will have to have part of his nose rebuilt. i`d imagine it`s very easy for a toddler to slip through a gate , my kids could open safety gates at that age.


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I'm sorry but if the dog that attacked the boy was a staffie, then they are going to mention it. If the dog was a rottweiler, they are going to mention it. It's not the media's fault that its a staffie.
> 
> I hope this boy recovers well.


Yes they do say if its a staffy, a pit type a rotty all the so called dangerous breeds, but what when its a jrt, a spaniel the so called not so dangerous breeds what about those stories because it does happen yet that wouldn't make such good headlines would it jrt attacks!!!.

So excuse me if im not ok with the fact that these breeds are never mentioned yet so called dangerous breeds are!!!

Wheres them mentioning its not the breeds fault but the owners who insist on not being responsible owners!!!!

Ill say this till the day i die Regardless off breed they are all dogs and have the capability of doing damage so breed is not important.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

xshelly_stanliex said:


> Yes they do say if its a staffy, a pit type a rotty all the so called dangerous breeds, but what when its a jrt, a spaniel the so called not so dangerous breeds what about those stories because it does happen yet that wouldn't make such good headlines would it jrt attacks!!!.
> 
> So excuse me if im not ok with the fact that these breeds are never mentioned yet so called dangerous breeds are!!!
> 
> ...


Unfortunately nearly every dog attack lately that causes serious damage seems to be a staffie - and just going by the posts on here so do dog attacks.

To go back to whether it is the parents fault - does every parent keep their eye on their toddler at every moment of every day and night. I hardly think so! A parent can only do their best - and we dont know how the child got into the garden. It is even possible that it was a regular occurrence and the child was welcome there and known by the dog. As I said though, if the child could get in the dog could get out.
I feel very sorry for the owner, he has to live with the horror of what his dog did and it sounds like he is being very responsible about it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> To go back to whether it is the parents fault - does every parent keep their eye on their toddler at every moment of every day and night. I hardly think so!


can`t say i were ever in the habit of letting my two year olds wander around unsupervised no.


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Unfortunately nearly every dog attack lately that causes serious damage seems to be a staffie - and just going by the posts on here so do dog attacks.
> 
> To go back to whether it is the parents fault - does every parent keep their eye on their toddler at every moment of every day and night. I hardly think so! A parent can only do their best - and we dont know how the child got into the garden. It is even possible that it was a regular occurrence and the child was welcome there and known by the dog. As I said though, if the child could get in the dog could get out.
> I feel very sorry for the owner, he has to live with the horror of what his dog did and it sounds like he is being very responsible about it.


I take it you know everyone in the world and every dog then!!!!! this forum is a small minority of the world and what goes on in it. Judging simply on what papers report which is aload of rubbish is ridiculous do you always believe what you read i personally like too go on persoanl experiences. and jusging a dog not by its breed. just my opinion.

My staffys have been attacked by hungarian vizlas, yorkshire terriers, jrts, poodles etc and guess what the dont bite back!!!! but on the same hand we have met nice dogs of these breeds!!!

In my close there is another staffy owner with a douge de boux also and they have fab temps, one with a bichon frise-dog agressive and a spaniel owner which i have seen bark agressively at a neighbours child.

BREED HAS NOTHING TOO DO WITH IT !!!!


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Poor little boy.. It sounds like he had truly horrific injuries, I hope they can restore his face and his eyesight.
I just wish people would stop being so lax about controlling their dogs! Every dog has the potential to maim a child (yes, even my Chis!) and it isnt hard to take proper precautions. That child shouldnt of been able to wander into a garden with loose dogs in it. Frankly I wouldnt let mine out in a garden unsupervised that could be so easily opened from the street....totally irresponsible IMO.


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> Poor little boy.. It sounds like he had truly horrific injuries, I hope they can restore his face and his eyesight.
> I just wish people would stop being so lax about controlling their dogs! Every dog has the potential to maim a child (yes, even my Chis!) and it isnt hard to take proper precautions. That child shouldnt of been able to wander into a garden with loose dogs in it. Frankly I wouldnt let mine out in a garden unsupervised that could be so easily opened from the street....totally irresponsible IMO.


Totally agree with this.

The two innocent parties here are the child and dog.

The ones that should be held responsible are the parents and the dog owner.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> early reports are suggesting he`s lost an eye , part of his ear and will have to have part of his nose rebuilt


While I agree that the parents should have known where thier child was, this is a lot more than territorial behaviour. My dogs would certainly bark if a stranger came into the garden - but attack in this way? No. There is no place for a dog with this sort of temperament in our society IMO. I don't care what breed they are.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> While I agree that the parents should have known where thier child was, this is a lot more than territorial behaviour. My dog would certainly bark if a stranger came into the garden - but attack in this way? No. There is no place for a dog with this sort of temperament in our society IMO. I don't care what breed they are.


oh i agree , still finding it pretty unbelievable though in this day and age with all the nutters we have hanging around that a 2 year old child was left to wander. beggars belief.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

It involved 2 dogs, not one.

By the way, most dog attacks either on humans, dogs, sheep, monkeys, slugs, fleas, indeed anything do not involve Staffords.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

diablo said:


> oh i agree , still finding it pretty unbelievable though in this day and age with all the nutters we have hanging around that a 2 year old child was left to wander. beggars belief.


the thing is it is no different to years ago, there was still nutters then it just wasn't reported in as widespread a way and now people are paranoid!

poor boy, agree this behaviour was clearly not normal regardless of breed.

where was the boy though, was he in his own garden and then got into the next one as i was allowed to go in my own garden at 2.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> the thing is it is no different to years ago, there was still nutters then it just wasn't reported in as widespread a way and now people are paranoid!
> 
> poor boy, agree this behaviour was clearly not normal regardless of breed.
> 
> where was the boy though, was he in his own garden and then got into the next one as i was allowed to go in my own garden at 2.


theres different news reports , some suggesting he`d wandered off into an alleyway , other suggesting he`d wandered into a neighbouring garden. if he were being supervised it probably wouldn`t have happened


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> It involved 2 dogs, not one.
> 
> By the way, most dog attacks either on humans, dogs, sheep, monkeys, slugs, fleas, indeed anything do not involve Staffords.


From the report only one of the dogs was involved in the attack.

I don't think it is normal for any dog to injure to the point of a toddler losing their eye etc. I also think the parents will blame themselves for the rest of their lives without people doing it for them.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> From the report only one of the dogs was involved in the attack.
> 
> I don't think it is normal for any dog to injure to the point of a toddler losing their eye etc. I also think the parents will blame themselves for the rest of their lives without people doing it for them.


Not read any news reports or seen any TV footage. My 2 dogs involved comment is based on what I was told last night.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> From the report only one of the dogs was involved in the attack.
> 
> I don't think it is normal for any dog to injure to the point of a toddler losing their eye etc. I also think the parents will blame themselves for the rest of their lives without people doing it for them.


problem is though , it could be argued the dog was on it`s own property minding it`s own business [i`m not saying it`s right at all] a dog wouldn`t know the difference between a child or a possible intruder


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

This happened only half a mile from me, in an area I frequently walk though.

It's a tragedy all round IMHO, personally I don't want to pass judgement on any parties until the real facts are known (every account I read seems to be different atm). There are any number of possible scenarios where anyone nearby may or may not be at fault. 

I just wish the dog a peaceful passing, the kid a swift recovery and that everyone else involved has learned something.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

The press does report on small dog attacks but because people are so incredibly defensive of Staffies these days other reports don't rile folk up like the reporting of Staffie attacks do.
I said on a thread just last week that I blame bad breeding practices for the amount of attacks on dogs recently by Staffie's after that 17month old Bulldog was killed by one. http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/237631-devastated.html
People are just randomly breeding these dogs with no knowledge about ancestors and without pedigree's to check back on. The terrible tragedy is that 40% of Staffies born today are dead by the age of four. This is our 'nanny' dog a dog that once was the very best around kids to have gained that title. A breed that surrounded my four children when growing up, both as my own dogs and foster dogs and look at what's happened to them now! 

It's not just a lets blame the breed thing but unfortunately there have been many attacks by the breed, due to bad ownership and bad breeding. Breeding a good sound dog is not about just putting two dogs of the same breed together. It takes *an understanding of genetics and a semblance of intelligence to understand those genetics*, in order to create another generation of stable dogs who can carry on holding the title of a great, affectionate, sound dog. 
There are so many people breeding 'bad' dogs, one's who have shown how great they can be by being aggressive and the idiots who think this is a good trait in a Staff will simply carry on regardless, regardless of how their breeding is creating a bad press, regardless of how many dogs suffer at the teeth of some Staffs, regardless of how the press may have a field day reporting about such a viscous breed, regardless of the fact that one Staffie per hour is estimated to be PTS in the UK. It bothers them not!

It isn't only a knee jerk reaction about this type of dog it is unfortunately a fact that so many are now out there who have such bad breeding/in breeding within them that they will become renowned for attacks and they will continue to attack on a regular basis purely because of who own them.

An attack by a JRT left scars.
Dog scars five-year-old¿s face in savage attack in Yorkshire | Mail Online

The thing is certain breeds are more likely to cause death than others, it's not stereotyping it's just a strength and bite force factor.
Latest in line of dog attacks - Home News - UK - The Independent

Even my own adored breed is not innocent but I don't cry out it's not fair, because it is news and just like a 'type' attack it is reported on. It happens to create interest as well as hatred unfortunately and the parents of those children want the world to know of their devastation and rightly so.

*The Sun 
Crazed dog chewed on girls face
By MATT WILKINSON

Published: 26 Dec 2011

A GIRL aged four was left with horrific face injuries when a family pet dog savaged her.
Jorja Caze-Ramscar was dragged off a chair by the crazed Alaskan malamute called Luna.
The husky-type beast locked its jaws around the little girls head and chewed her face.
Her mum Karine, 36, said: They were just about to have dinner and the dog was next to Jorja.
It dragged her on to the floor and attacked her face. The dog had a big mouth. It was chewing on her face.
She thought it was going to kill her. There was blood everywhere.
Jorja had 20 stitches after the terrifying attack on Friday in Dunstable, Beds, and needed specialist eye treatment.
The 15-month-old dog belongs to her father Clive Ramscar, 42, and the mauling took place at his house.
He and Karine split two years ago and their daughter divides her time between them. The dog was not put down but has been sent to stay with another family.*

Difference is it's the only one I could find in the UK involving a Mal but there are many involving SBT or 'types'. Seek and you will find!


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

totally different report suggesting the dog was loose Toddler suffers severe facial injuries in horrific dog attack (From Swindon Advertiser) 
how on earth is anyone supposed to know what happened with so many different places reporting so many different stories on the same attack


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

The right authorities will investigate and find out the truth. That's what's important, along with the recovery of the poor lil' lad. It's him we need to be worrying about and praying for.


----------



## martmart (Jan 26, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Unfortunately nearly every dog attack lately that causes serious damage seems to be a staffie - and just going by the posts on here so do dog attacks.


No, it seems that way because thats what the media report. As I said in an earlier post (and another thread some months back actually), I believe there is a government agenda behind the reporting of these Staffy attacks like there is pretty much a government agenda behind almost everything thats reported. They want reactions from the people so that the government can be seen to be doing something, and introduce legislation (thats probably already been planned long before). All I can say is remember this post, I can almost guarentee something is on the cards from our lovely caring protective government and I bet its something that we as dog owners won't like, will be laregely pointless and/or will cost us more money making them in power ever more rich.

btw, My chihuahua is more dangerous than my staffy.. that might sound funny to some, but believe me, he's only a small dog, but he can hurt you...ok he wouldn't be capable of ripping a kids face off, but he could certainly do some damage! (ask my fingers, lol)


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

xshelly_stanliex said:


> I take it you know everyone in the world and every dog then!!!!! this forum is a small minority of the world and what goes on in it. Judging simply on what papers report which is aload of rubbish is ridiculous do you always believe what you read i personally like too go on persoanl experiences. and jusging a dog not by its breed. just my opinion.
> 
> My staffys have been attacked by hungarian vizlas, yorkshire terriers, jrts, poodles etc and guess what the dont bite back!!!! but on the same hand we have met nice dogs of these breeds!!!
> 
> ...


of course any breed can attack and I am sure this forum is a small minority of the world but it does not alter the fact that nearly every time someone on here says there dog has been attacked it is a staffie. My dog was attacked by a staffie a few weeks ago. It was not even the staffie's fault as my dog approached it but it does not alter the fact that it attacked.

Dog attacks in the home are common and certainly a few years ago labs and golden retrievers were the main culprits simply because they were the most commonly kept pet dog. Nowadays the most common dog in a lot of areas is staffies or staffie crosses plus they are often wandering loose or out of control with their owners as they tend to attract the worst sort of owners - so stands to reason they are doing most of the attacking. A well looked after and well trained staffie is no more likely to attack than a well looked after and well trained lab - so no need for owners of these dogs to get all defensive every time there is an incident.



diablo said:


> oh i agree , still finding it pretty unbelievable though in this day and age with all the nutters we have hanging around that a 2 year old child was left to wander. beggars belief.


We have no more 'nutters' than there were 50 years ago and probably a lot less than before that when children were frequently stolen for financial gain. I would challenge any parent to say they know precisely where their child is at any given moment. Is he upstairs in his bedroom, is he watching tv while you cook the meal - or has he slipped out of the door when you were in the bathroom or had your back turned in the kitchen. Or is it a nice day and he is out playing on his swing in the garden, are you really watching him all the time. Be realistic.



diablo said:


> problem is though , it could be argued the dog was on it`s own property minding it`s own business [i`m not saying it`s right at all] a dog wouldn`t know the difference between a child or a possible intruder


The dog would come to the same end it if attacked an intruder and inflicted that sort of damage. It is not a quick nip is it!


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

What a horrible story - No matter the full story a toddler is injured for life and the dog im guessing will most likely pay the ultimate cost. Which I believe if a dog has shown these tendencies (And obviously owned by people to thick to keep an eye on it then its safest not in society full stop- There is no place in society for dogs who has proven able to do this to a young child.) 

I think whilst there are so many poorly bred staffies in society and staffy crosses than any medium short coated bull breed looking dog according to Joe Bloggs and certainly any news reporters will be described as 'Staffy Type'.

For goodness sake an lady told me outside our local Co-Op my dog was quite good looking for 'one of those dogs' and went on telling me how dangerous staffies are. After a long day at work I just walked away but seriously how can Millie look like a staffy? ?

There was a thread on PF a few months back where people were comparing weights of their Staffies - as an estimate 80% of them were over breed standard. What does this tell us?

Whilst the number of staffies continues to increase and bad breeders breed taller largers 'Staffies' then sadly the majority of the public I dare say dont really have a clue what a true 'Stafford' looks like. 

Its the sad reality of a breed having become so popular


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Muze said:


> This happened only half a mile from me, in an area I frequently walk though.
> 
> It's a tragedy all round IMHO, personally I don't want to pass judgement on any parties until the real facts are known (every account I read seems to be different atm). There are any number of possible scenarios where anyone nearby may or may not be at fault.
> 
> I just wish the dog a peaceful passing, the kid a swift recovery and that everyone else involved has learned something.


Are you from Moredon ?


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> We have no more 'nutters' than there were 50 years ago and probably a lot less than before that when children were frequently stolen for financial gain. I would challenge any parent to say they know precisely where their child is at any given moment. Is he upstairs in his bedroom, is he watching tv while you cook the meal - or has he slipped out of the door when you were in the bathroom or had your back turned in the kitchen. Or is it a nice day and he is out playing on his swing in the garden, are you really watching him all the time. Be realistic.


i can honestly say swearing down on all my kids lives that at 2 years old , i knew exactly where they were.



> The dog would come to the same end it if attacked an intruder and inflicted that sort of damage. It is not a quick nip is it!


if i had my property broken into and my dogs bit someone , i`d fight them all the way in court if they had the cheek to challenge that. matter of fact is , i have been broken into was just before christmas 2011 my dogs did nothing and were still asleep where i left them that morning

either way , the news report i just posted still suggests the toddler were attacked in a garden that story certainly don`t add up at all if you re-read it.


----------



## Mysterious (May 12, 2012)

Oh dear sad news... Just again wonder where was the child parents? It amazes me that the dogs are blamed first without even analyzing situation.

Some parents let their children out of sight and let them do whatever, seen so many specially in the parks and shopping malls and then blaming another parties for being irresponsible when things happen:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

diablo said:


> i can honestly say swearing down on all my kids lives that at 2 years old , i knew exactly where they were.


I find that impossible to believe. Did you lock them in a room, did you tether them. Did you take them in the bathroom with you. Did you drag them along with you and hold on to them when you answered the phone. Did you keep your eye on them at all times regardless of what else you were doing.
It only takes a toddler a moment to slip out of the house and unless you check them every 2 minutes (would not give you a chance to do much else in a day) they can get a fair distance if they run off.
My daughter went walkabout with one of the dogs when she was about that age and ended up at the neighbouring farm. The neighbours daughter got out of bed and sneaked out of the house and ended up half a mile down the road when someone picked her up and took her home - obviously no one had missed her as you do not generally check your child every few minutes after they have gone to bed.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Think most peoples concerns should be with the child, they are the ONLY innocent party in this and unfortunately appear to have injuries that could affect the rest of their life.

I used to play on that park as a kid and the only dog that ever gave me any trouble was our own family Samoyed that chased me and pulled me off my bike despite the amount of staffs in the area. I have no doubt staffs are victimized to a point in the media, that said there does seem to be a high number of incidents involving this breed, perhaps this is more to do with the sheer number of them around, many in the wrong hands?? There are alot of them in this particular area, if there was going to be a serious dog incident in the area it was more than likely going to be a staff.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I find that impossible to believe. Did you lock them in a room, did you tether them. Did you take them in the bathroom with you. Did you drag them along with you and hold on to them when you answered the phone. Did you keep your eye on them at all times regardless of what else you were doing.
> It only takes a toddler a moment to slip out of the house and unless you check them every 2 minutes (would not give you a chance to do much else in a day) they can get a fair distance if they run off.
> My daughter went walkabout with one of the dogs when she was about that age and ended up at the neighbouring farm. The neighbours daughter got out of bed and sneaked out of the house and ended up half a mile down the road when someone picked her up and took her home - obviously no one had missed her as you do not generally check your child every few minutes after they have gone to bed.


it`s your choice whether you believe that or not but yes i can honestly say i knew where my kids were at two years old , it isn`t hard to fit extra locks on outside gates and deadbolt your front and back doors
my kids certainly were NOT wandering the streets at two years old.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Just to add the dogs fate was decided by the owner, he authorised the dog to be PTS asap.

Plus the dog (and its housemate) both have a history that involves use of a Taser and a police officer getting bitten last year.


----------



## GoldTibetan (Mar 2, 2012)

Xxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Last week I decided that I would keep dog attacks posted on here while I am on line in a document folder on my computer. These are just ones that I actually see, there could be some I miss and I have left out ones like the attack on Bingo which happened some time ago. I am not on all the time so will miss some that may be posted. I am doing this as research purely because so many times on here and the Mal forum there have been posts of attacks on members or members friends dogs.

The reason I am doing this is because I want to show my daughters that although our Staffies were wonderful dogs there are many about today that are not. Blame the owners, blame the breeding but there are many attacks and one dead Malamute adolescent around here too, dead from a Staff attack. So far in seven days I have two attacks, both by Staffs, one dog dead because of it and so far no other attack.

The reason they have bad press is because of what I said earlier. I feel sorry for those good owners on here and out in the public domain but it *is* a breed thing and it *is* becoming worse.

So when I have gathered my info from here over a one year period I will post my results and no doubt get badgered for it, accused of breed prejudice but I don't care because I know what breed will be prevalent in attacks, I have already seen it on here. I am not the press, I am not dramatising but I will be stating fact as posted on PF.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> Just to add the dogs fate was decided by the owner, he authorised the dog to be PTS asap.
> 
> Plus the dog (and its housemate) both have a history that involves use of a Taser and a police officer getting bitten last year.


as the days move on...we will find out more things...most times the dog that has been involved in these affairs it is not the normal family dog like we have on PF

also i can honestly say when my daughter was two...i Knew her every move..she would have not got out the garden because i would have made sure she couldn't...

hope the little kid is going to be ok..because it is so not his fault


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Malmum said:


> Last week I decided that I would keep dog attacks posted on here while I am on line in a document folder on my computer. These are just ones that I actually see, there could be some I miss and I have left out ones like the attack on Bingo which happened some time ago. I am not on all the time so will miss some that may be posted. I am doing this as research purely because so many times on here and the Mal forum there have been posts of attacks on members or members friends dogs.
> 
> The reason I am doing this is because I want to show my daughters that although our Staffies were wonderful dogs there are many about today that are not. Blame the owners, blame the breeding but there are many attacks and one dead Malamute adolescent around here too, dead from a Staff attack. So far in seven days I have two attacks, both by Staffs, one dog dead because of it and so far no other attack.
> 
> ...


Sadly many attacks don't make the papers. In recent months Mals, Huskies, Rotties, Labs and Collies, to name a few have either injured or killed someone.

Yes some of the above have killed. Yet you will struggle to find them mentioned in the papers.

And that is just humans. If you include dog on dog attacks then the whole field opens with regards killer breeds.

I am of course including all the worlds events in the above naming of breeds. But that is only right that I do. The UK's dogs are not more dangerous than the same breed overseas, (nor are they safer of course).

You will find that the same papers who drum up the Anti Stafford stories are mostly the ones who pushed the Tory government into passing the DDA. The same ones who have not reported on the serious attacks here in the UK that don't involve Staffies in the last 48 hours. 

So with all the above in mind, you can't take posts on PF or reports in the Mail/Sun etc to get your stats from.

Try working in the field, either via researching, law, writing books etc and you will soon see that many many don't make the papers let alone PF.

You will soon see that Staffords are a tiny percentage of attackers compared to Mals and JRT's for instance.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

GoldTibetan said:


> Truly horrific description here Toddler suffers horrific facial injuries as two hell hounds go berserk | Mail Online
> 
> Frankly as a newcomer to this forum I am incredulous that some people appear to care more about the wellbeing of this dog or the reputation of a breed than the suffering of this poor child.
> 
> I realise that I am in the minority on this forum but if more regulation stops even one more of these horror stories then I for one am all for it.


i feel for the child of course i do , wouldn`t be human if you didn`t , so far every single news report is suggesting that POOR child was unsupervised without a responsible adult in sight. the attack could have been totally preventable
maybe we should all start suggesting folks let their toddlers wonder around towns / streets unsupervised , of course they are perfectly safe aren`t they ?! we life in a society according to some that is perfectly safe to let them do exactly that.
and folks wonder why we live in a f**ked up society


----------



## Mysterious (May 12, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> Sadly many attacks don't make the papers. In recent months Mals, Huskies, Rotties, Labs and Collies, to name a few have either injured or killed someone.
> 
> Yes some of the above have killed. Yet you will struggle to find them mentioned in the papers.
> 
> ...


Well said - 100% agree with you!


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Sadly many attacks don't make the papers. In recent months Mals, Huskies, Rotties, Labs and Collies, to name a few have either injured or killed someone.
> 
> Yes some of the above have killed. Yet you will struggle to find them mentioned in the papers.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately world figures include dogs with Rabbies, we as a nation are free (thankfully) so it would be worth factoring this into any figures


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

The day my dogs stop getting slated for the way the look is the day i will stop being so bloody defensive about these types of stories. live a day in the life of a staffy owner see the looks comments you get then tell me too stop being so defensive. 

I do not excuse what this dog has done its a sad story i really hope the little lad makes a full recovery, but how is an animal that was domesticated by humans breed by humans and taken into a humans home by humans at fault!!!!!

So i take it my stan should be a killing machine cos he aint very well bred, hes not kc registered, parents wernt health tested and the breeder was pretty much a byb tbh, so please someone explain why he hasnt turned around and attacked because hes not bred very well!!!!

Bacause hes been trained and brought up correctly thats why.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> Unfortunately world figures include dogs with Rabbies, we as a nation are free (thankfully) so it would be worth factoring this into any figures


The figures do.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

A few collection pots have been scattered around which is nice, unfortunately that won't undo what this poor kid has been through or fix the damage that can't be fixed. 

The fact the dogs been tasered before and bitten a police officer speaks volumes on how it was raised. It also makes you wonder especially with the dogs history, how and why was 2yr year old stood, in garden, with an asbo staff ????


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GoldTibetan said:


> Truly horrific description here Toddler suffers horrific facial injuries as two hell hounds go berserk | Mail Online
> 
> Frankly as a newcomer to this forum I am incredulous that some people appear to care more about the wellbeing of this dog or the reputation of a breed than the suffering of this poor child.
> 
> *I realise that I am in the minority on this forum but if more regulation stops even one more of these horror stories then I for one am all for it.*


There is no form of regulation I know that can be adequately policed to keep a check on irresponsible owners, which is the only thing that would stop dog attacks from happening at such an alarming rate. Dogs are a commodity, and people expect to be able to own one, even when they can't give them correct training and socialisation to prevent them from being a nuisance, or dangerous. And what about rescue dogs that have been mucked up by their owners, and taken on by others with all their baggage? It might seem like some are leaping to the defence of staffies, it certainly isn't because they don't care about the little boy in this case, but it's a sad old tune about bull breeds that the papers churn out time and time again, the second there's an *incident* certain sectors clamour for more regulation and control of dogs, when it's not their fault. They don't choose to be bred, bought, then mucked up. It's sad all round unfortunately


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

redginald said:


> A few collection pots have been scattered around which is nice, unfortunately that won't undo what this poor kid has been through or fix the damage that can't be fixed.
> 
> The fact the dogs been tasered before and bitten a police officer speaks volumes on how it was raised. It also makes you wonder especially with the dogs history, how and why was 2yr year old stood, in garden, with an asbo staff ????


Plus I have heard the dog that attacked out of the pair who lived there, was owned by the 15 yr old son. No disrespect to teens, but I doubt he carried out much training with the dog.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> Plus I have heard the dog that attacked out of the pair who lived there, was owned by the 15 yr old son. No disrespect to teens, but I doubt he carried out much training with the dog.


What a load of crap for the dog, sounds like just the sort of up brining you *don't* want in a Staff - or any powerful breed for that matter! Afraid the breed will continue to suffer at this rate!


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There is no form of regulation I know that can be adequately policed to keep a check on irresponsible owners, which is the only thing that would stop dog attacks from happening at such an alarming rate. Dogs are a commodity, and people expect to be able to own one, even when they can't give them correct training and socialisation to prevent them from being a nuisance, or dangerous. And what about rescue dogs that have been mucked up by their owners, and taken on by others with all their baggage? It might seem like some are leaping to the defence of staffies, it certainly isn't because they don't care about the little boy in this case, but it's a sad old tune about bull breeds that the papers churn out time and time again, the second there's an *incident* certain sectors clamour for more regulation and control of dogs, when it's not their fault. They don't choose to be bred, bought, then mucked up. It's sad all round unfortunately


Very Well said


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

redginald said:


> It also makes you wonder especially with the dogs history, how and why was 2yr year old stood, in garden, with an asbo staff ????


only probable reported fact is , he weren`t being watched [whether that being he were in an alleyway or a garden] could have been totally and utterly avoidable , two parents and two grandfathers reportedly around and not ONE pair of eyes watching him!!! :mad2::mad2:


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Plus I have heard the dog that attacked out of the pair who lived there, was owned by the 15 yr old son. No disrespect to teens, but I doubt he carried out much training with the dog.


Don't like to stereo type but as im tarring myself with the brush ill crack on, the dog was probably socialized well, it probably spent most its days stood outside the shops whilst its owner bummed **** and alcohol of passers by. I Didn't read the article on the tazer but it didnt surprise me in all honesty.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Last week I decided that I would keep dog attacks posted on here while I am on line in a document folder on my computer. These are just ones that I actually see, there could be some I miss and I have left out ones like the attack on Bingo which happened some time ago. I am not on all the time so will miss some that may be posted. I am doing this as research purely because so many times on here and the Mal forum there have been posts of attacks on members or members friends dogs.
> 
> The reason I am doing this is because I want to show my daughters that although our Staffies were wonderful dogs there are many about today that are not. Blame the owners, blame the breeding but there are many attacks and one dead Malamute adolescent around here too, dead from a Staff attack. So far in seven days I have two attacks, both by Staffs, one dog dead because of it and so far no other attack.
> 
> ...


The only thing you will achieve by this is making it even harder for our staffies in rescue to be homed. Got a couple who have been with us for well over a year. Day after day sitting in a kennel though no fault of their own.

If you want to help then find out who the owners are behind these staffies. You know it's these who are the problem and not the breed.

Ask yourself what you want to achieve by doing this and then ask whether this is the best way of doing it.

Persecuting the breed instead of the idiots behind them is not the way to go


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

If nothing can be done about the dogs, what *can* be done about the idiot owners?


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Staffies are never going to be seen as a 'good' dog breed while they are the choice of irresponsible idiots, and while people belive media hype.
I hate the fact Staffies get a bad press but I do understand why and I strive to make sure Lexi is a credit to the breed. Although having her does help as dog owners avoid us which help with Bosley (patterdale) socialisation.
We had a 5 year old little boy living next door who likes to let himself in your house and/or garden. Lexi would NEVER hurt him intentionally, she loves him but she is a powerful dog and would never want her to hurt him unintentionally, so we got a padlock for our already bolted garden gate and a chain for our front door, it is our responsability to make sure that our dogs are safe on our property and are never put in a position where they feel the need to have to protect our property.
I do think that at 2 years old the parents should know where their son is, but that said toddlers toddle and the dog owner had a responsability to his dog and his neighbours to ensure his garden was secure.
My heart goes out to this little boy but my heart goes out to the dog they have both been let down, as contrary to popular belief dogs are not born aggressive, they are made aggressive by been let down by the people who are supposed to show them the correct way in life and don't bother.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I am not convinced it is always the owners although I have to agree that it mostly is. The owners on that 'Devestated' thread were not bad, neither is Sid on here with Deisel who attacked her own dog. 

I like many dog owners do not particularly trust bully breeds any longer as far as when I am out with my own dogs. Some dogs are naturally predisposed to dog aggression, Malamutes are such a breed and Staffies are too - whether we like it or not. Of course not all Mals are, the same goes for Staffs but they both can be where many other breeds are not. 

What I hope to achieve is to be proved wrong in my assumptions of the majority of attacks being instigated by Staffs but if I am not then at least people who deny the statistics and blame the press etc for scare mongering should be able to see why so many other dog owners tend to be very cautious of the breed. 

I think rehoming any breed that is bred in excess will be difficult and if people keep allowing their dogs to gain notoriety by being out of control and aggressive then the general public will make their own assumptions. I don't read newspapers - ever - but I do read threads on here by fellow dog lovers and that's where my info is coming from. Other dog lovers and not judgemental media coverage.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Last week I decided that I would keep dog attacks posted on here while I am on line in a document folder on my computer. These are just ones that I actually see, there could be some I miss and I have left out ones like the attack on Bingo which happened some time ago. I am not on all the time so will miss some that may be posted. I am doing this as research purely because so many times on here and the Mal forum there have been posts of attacks on members or members friends dogs.
> 
> The reason I am doing this is because I want to show my daughters that although our Staffies were wonderful dogs there are many about today that are not. Blame the owners, blame the breeding but there are many attacks and one dead Malamute adolescent around here too, dead from a Staff attack. So far in seven days I have two attacks, both by Staffs, one dog dead because of it and so far no other attack.
> 
> ...


If your intention is to gather media reports in an attempt to illustrate which breeds attack the most, then my advice would be not to bother as it's already been done before in the Meritt Clifton report. The Clifton report spans 25 years of recording media reported dog attacks and today is regarded as an inaccurate, misleading failure. The CDC in America eventually stopped using media reports on dog attacks as they found them flawed for the reasons of misidentification and media bias, additionally in his 25 years of recording, Clifton had only recorded 1.6% of all dog attacks by hospital admission so was completely unrepresentative.

Misidentification is a huge problem, especially with bull breeds. I've lost count of the amount of times that SBTs are referred to as large and powerful and have to assume that they don't know what one actually should look like. The last time I had a KC standard SBT on a lead, in comparison to my DDBs at least, I would describe it as small and most certainly not powerful.

Media bias is blighted by two things. Firstly their desire to sell papers to turn a profit and please shareholders by selecting the news that people want to read the most. Devil dog stories are always going to sell better than lab attack etc so it's an editorial choice. Secondly, there's a phenomena in journalism is called "man bites dog" where uncommon events automatically become newsworthy. The problem with this is that these uncommon events start to become perceived as common as they are reported in preference and the whole public opinion becomes skewed. A good example is fatal dog attacks of which we have about 2 each all of which have massive coverage and public outcry. In comparison, a child is murdered by their parents or carer on average every week, I've looked at the figures and it's usually between 50-75 a year total but you rarely see this in the papers.

A link to a more detailed article on the failings of media derived attack information Scientific Studies | Stop BSL


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Malmum said:


> I am not convinced it is always the owners although I have to agree that it mostly is. The owners on that 'Devestated' thread were not bad, neither is Sid on here with Deisel who attacked her own dog.
> 
> I like many dog owners do not particularly trust bully breeds any longer as far as when I am out with my own dogs. Some dogs are naturally predisposed to dog aggression, Malamutes are such a breed and Staffies are too - whether we like it or not. Of course not all Mals are, the same goes for Staffs but they both can be where many other breeds are not.
> 
> ...


An extremely small percentage of dog owners mind. Plus ones who no doubt don't go posting every dog attack they have experienced.

Nor are any of my posts regarding stats based on the media, nor PF threads for that matter. My stats that Staffies are behind a smaller percentage than many other breeds are based on facts, from EVERY dog attack recorded worldwide, whether on livestock, other dogs or humans.

Much of this information is available online and indeed has even been posted throughout this forum by other members. So you are better off using records/stats etc of nationwide as well as worldwide attacks, than relying on PF threads that can easily be manipulated.

You will soon see that Staffies are low down in the table compared to some breeds which may surprise you.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Malmum said:


> I am not convinced it is always the owners although I have to agree that it mostly is. The owners on that 'Devestated' thread were not bad, neither is Sid on here with Deisel who attacked her own dog.
> 
> I like many dog owners do not particularly trust bully breeds any longer as far as when I am out with my own dogs. Some dogs are naturally predisposed to dog aggression, Malamutes are such a breed and Staffies are too - whether we like it or not. Of course not all Mals are, the same goes for Staffs but they both can be where many other breeds are not.
> 
> ...


We all know that most attacks on here r from staffies. We all read the posts. But as one of the most popular dogs it's not surprising.

Bull breeds were bred for fighting and that is why early socialisation is key.

But all you are going to do is put decent people on here off of rescuing a staffy when in fact anyone who comes on here I would deem as responsible.

There are some areas I work in that I wouldn't walk my dogs in because of the idiotic chavs with their dogs and yes they are mainly staffies.

When I'm out walking I look at the owner not the dog. This is the message you should be spreading if you feel that strongly. But pls don't make our job harder in rescue than it already is ...


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

And what about all the people that don't post about their dog being attacked. Lexi has been by 2 labs and 3 boxers (and Bosley) but I didn't make a thread about them so therefore they wouldn't count.
And some dogs like you say have good owners and are still aggressive, but Sid didn't have Diesel from a pup, same way I didn't have Bosley from a pup, god knows what happened to them in their younger days to make them they way they are, I think alot of what makes a dog they way they are is what happens to them when they are puppies.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

bearcub said:


> If nothing can be done about the dogs, what *can* be done about the idiot owners?


I can think of some things I'd like to do to the idiot owners. Sadly none of them are legal & all go against their basic 'yuman rights'


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

I think naming breeds in these things can distract from the responsibilities of ALL dog owners irrespective of breed and of ALL parents regarding supervising and teaching their children respect for animals. All dogs have teeth that they can use if in a situation they cannot escape. no child is naturally born with respect for animals.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> We all know that most attacks on here r from staffies. We all read the posts. But as one of the most popular dogs it's not surprising.
> 
> *Bull breeds were bred for fighting and that is why early socialisation is key. *
> 
> ...


The bit I have highlighted is so true and is the thing that so many on here who are being defensive of their breed forget to mention. When they start on about other breeds being just as likely to fight - it just is not true. If you get a dog that is bred to fight it will have a propensity to fight, if you get one that is bred to herd it will have a propensity to herd, if you get one that is bred to guard it will have a propensity to guard. None of those traits are ideal for the average pet dog so you have to make sure you train out and control those traits that will make it an antisocial dog to keep in a normal pet environment. Unfortunately staffies are being bred by certain morons to retain their fighting instincts and they belong to the morons that encourage them to fight so surely it is logical that in the areas where the morons and their dogs abound there will be a lot of dog aggressive staffies.

As for rescue - I feel very strongly that if a dog is not easily rehomeable it should not be made to suffer in kennels - it should be pts rather than a rehomeable dog going that route because there is not space for it.

Someone said that dogs are being misidentified as staffies. The problem is - how many dogs do you see that actually conform to the breed standard. I saw a proper staffie the other day and did a double take. They are fairly small dogs, nothing scary or 'devil dog' about them at all. Sweet temperaments with a lot of the fighting instinct bred out of them. But the huge number of staffie 'types' that are seen about are still going to be described as staffies and most of their owners will call them that too.

I left the more populated parts  before staffies were anything other than nice little dogs but I was amazed when on holiday a few weeks ago to see so many staffie types - but not one that I would actually think was a pure staffie.


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

If the child had somehow managed to get into it's neighbor's garden, then a lot of the blame must fall with the parents for not supervising the child.

I feel sorry for the child (and dog) but I think Social Services and the Police shold be investigating why a two year old child was allowed to wander away from it's home unsupervised. 

People often blame irresponsible dog owners/breeders - but in most cases involving children it's also irresponsible parents who should take their share of the blame. 

The probem is that there are too many ignorant people out there breeding too often from animals with health and temperament problems. Peope often say this about dogs, but it also applies to humans


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Blitz said:


> The bit I have highlighted is so true and is the thing that so many on here who are being defensive of their breed forget to mention. When they start on about other breeds being just as likely to fight - it just is not true. If you get a dog that is bred to fight it will have a propensity to fight, if you get one that is bred to herd it will have a propensity to herd, if you get one that is bred to guard it will have a propensity to guard. None of those traits are ideal for the average pet dog so you have to make sure you train out and control those traits that will make it an antisocial dog to keep in a normal pet environment. Unfortunately staffies are being bred by certain morons to retain their fighting instincts and they belong to the morons that encourage them to fight so surely it is logical that in the areas where the morons and their dogs abound there will be a lot of dog aggressive staffies.
> 
> As for rescue - I feel very strongly that if a dog is not easily rehomeable it should not be made to suffer in kennels - it should be pts rather than a rehomeable dog going that route because there is not space for it.
> 
> ...


It's not true at all. There are plenty of bull breeds that were never bred to fight. It's all about ancestry.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

I just feel awful for the child and dog. IMO they are the ONLY 2 that are innocent in all of this.

The parents of the child have to take part of the responsibility too, that may not be what people want to hear but if they were supervising their child like they should be then this would have been prevented.

Some of the most aggressive dogs I have met have been little lap dogs, 4 belonging to my dad, don't get me wrong, they can't cause as much damage as a larger dog but the lack of training by their idiotic owners are the cause of this, the same applies for ANY breed. 

Going by attacks I have witnessed or heard about in my area then Yorkies would be on the dangerous dog list, I bet if they were you'd start hearing more and more horrific stories about them.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't think you can blame any dog for attacking anyone who wanders into their own garden and how this was allowed to happen is beyond me. My dogs too would have reacted the same, difference is if Britches, Bruce or Teebs had attacked they wouldn't have done a great deal of damage, coupled with the fact that they would most likely run a mile from a stranger. On the other hand one of the Mals could easily kill an adult let alone a child. Surely that's why we do everything we can to make our gardens safe for our dogs as well as other people.

What astounds me is how many people with bull breeds who have no idea how to release a 'latch on' and if only people knew how to do this many dogs who have died may have been saved, as with children. The 'Devastated' thread shows two owners of bull breeds, both who had no idea about 'wheel barrowing' break sticks or the use of an ammonia rag (Pitbull site info) easiest form is McKenzie smelling salts. If the dogs were released from their grip asap the damage done would possibly not be as bad, but instead they are beaten, pulled and yelled at which would only serve to make a latching dog hold on more. When I worked for Staff rescue this is something that was always addressed when re homing but now it doesn't seem to exist.

My own research is being done not to say 'see I told you' to my kids, all of whom are very defensive towards Staffies because they grew up with them but to see other aspects of all dog attacks posted on here. I am not going to go running to the Sun and it will not be something that anyone other than doggie people will be able to read should they want. It will take into account ALL dog attacks, the owners reactions and the out come for the dogs involved.
It seems that because a bull attack is wrongly handed the bully has to die as well as sometimes the dog it has attacked, which could be prevented if only people who owned them researched a little about how to actually handle their dog to begin with. Surely we are all supposed to research our breeds before owning them aren't we? I knew Mals had bad recall and high prey drive as soon as I owned them and also their possible potential to dislike other dogs. I also knew that some just will not conform to liking dogs regardless of training - as with my Kali and my own dogs, the reason why I have two packs.

I have seen reports on here of BC's attacking dogs, not a great deal of damage and because of that the owners seem to just shrug it off - irresponsible dog ownership IMO and no reason why they are any less at fault than a bully owner.

I am not bashing bull breeds but I am open minded enough to see who is attacking who, although I do understand that there are many Staffies and crosses about, many who for some reason are off lead which I even see on street walking my lot. I avoid parks with all my dogs, not just Flynn who is dog reactive and I do that for a reason. I see so often on here posters ranting about other dog owners and their off lead, uncontrolled dogs that I just can't be doing with that kind of walk, preferring to stick to the streets where dogs are supposed to be on lead - at least it's is a bye law in these parts all be it one that is largely ignored.

When I go out I take treats, poo bags, clicker and smelling salts because in the unlikely event that one of mine is ever latched on to I want to be able to release it before too much damage is done and I don't believe I am likely to come across an owner who will actually know what to do in such a situation.
Having had a dog of mine killed by another it's not something I wish to see again in my lifetime!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> It's not true at all. There are plenty of bull breeds that were never bred to fight. It's all about ancestry.


And Staffies were originally bred for bear and bull fighting. When these were outlawed they became used in dog fights. The gameness and tenacity has been bred into the them. The handler had to be able to handle and separate these dogs so they were bred to be good tempered around humands. This is why they are loving to their family because that has also been a trait that was required.

These are not judgements on a breed, they are simply facts and, echoing Blitz, too many people buy pet dogs on their looks and reputation rather than on the in bred character traits.

An innocent toddler has lost his eye and will, no doubt, be maimed for life and traumatised and I am shocked that people are saying it is the parents fault. Dogs that do this have no place in our society - I don't care what breed they are. Is someone wanders accidentally in someone's garden it is NOT acceptable that they get attacked.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I don't think you can blame any dog for attacking anyone who wanders into their own garden


Actually, Malmum, I really disagree with this, at least to attack at the level that has happened in this case. A warning bark, growl, posturing etc. yes, that is understandable, but attack in this way is NOT IMO. There are plenty of levels of aggression that a dog will display before it attacks and I don't think that a dog that will attack so readily has any place in our society. It worries me that people think of this is acceptable.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

First thing that comes to mind is - why the hell was he "found in a neighbours garden by his grandfather"? Who lets a 2 yr old wander off into a neighbours garden, particularly with a dog?
Dont know if this links been put up, not read all through yet...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/toddler-badly-hurt-dogs-attack-062400560.html

Stupid parents/grandparents, poor child 
And a dog in his own garden destroyed, tragic all round.

*Heidi*


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> And Staffies were originally bred for bear and bull fighting. When these were outlawed they became used in dog fights. The gameness and tenacity has been bred into the them.* The handler had to be able to handle and separate these dogs*
> 
> These are not judgements on a breed, they are simply facts and, echoing Blitz, too many people buy pet dogs on their looks and reputation rather than on the in bred character traits.


Agree totally and the owners* STILL* have to be able to handle their dogs, we all do and that includes being able to break up a fight, especially when a dog is capable of causing so much damage!

There is the internet now and with just a few clicks anyone can find out how to remove a latch on but how many owners have actually bothered to find out? Quite shameful really!


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I don't care what breed they are. Is someone wanders accidentally in someone's garden it is NOT acceptable that they get attacked.


i remember this story breaking a few years on the mastiff forum i frequent , people were laughing.
Burglar makes the mistake of choosing 22-stone mastiff's home to rob | Mail Online
at the end of the day , if someones dog is secured in their garden , then as far as i`m concerned that dog is secure , if someone wanders into that garden whether it be a strange child or adult a dog isn`t going to know the difference and i assume that most dogs would defend their territory.


----------



## xxflair (Jan 3, 2012)

Where on earth were the childs parents? It just shows they were not responsible enough to keep their child in view and away from danger. He could have easily been hit by a car, wandered so far to get lost or been taken away by a stranger. What would they have done then? Wept on the TV just because they were distracted for five minutes? A lot can happen in five minutes, especially when it comes to a children. Being a parent has many responsibilities and keeping your child in view and away from danger is one of them.

How do we not know that this toddler did something to the dog to cause it to attack? Toddlers, young children, are known to pull ears, pull tails, pull the skin on a dog if they are allowed too and have not be shown how to treat an animal. The toddler entered a garden, a territory belonging to the dog and yet the dog got the blame.

I've had a toddler slap my Kenai and pull his skin through a bl**dy fence when his mother was watching and laughing. I went mental!! It's lucky that all Kenai did was bark and back away, I'm thank full he didn't bite, growl or go for the toddler. The irresponsible behaviour of some parents really get to me :mad5:

I do feel for the parents and I truly hope that they have learn't their lesson. Their little boy could have been taken away or worse, died. They will have to live with this for the rest of their lives and Im sure as anything they feel guilty. 
I feel for the dog too. He can't give his version of the events can he. RIP you poor sod xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

And here's yet another one of 'those threads' so infuriating that dog owners are threatened on a seemingly regular basis! 

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/239692-nightmare-weekend-yes-dog-related.html


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Such a tragic event 

A sequence of accidents and events that have lead to the trauma of a 2 year old being mauled and a dog put down 

The child should of not been allowed to wander - the garden should of been more secure (no way was the dog securely in it's own garden if a 2 year old was able to walk in) - there is fault on both sides.

I understand that the household who owned the dog, had a dog (unknown if it's the same dog or a different one) previously bite a policeman.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> And Staffies were originally bred for bear and bull fighting. When these were outlawed they became used in dog fights. The gameness and tenacity has been bred into the them. The handler had to be able to handle and separate these dogs so they were bred to be good tempered around humands. This is why they are loving to their family because that has also been a trait that was required.


Thanks, I'm quite aware of that but that wasn't my point. My point was that not all bull breeds were bred to fight. Off the top of my head, the modern KC Bulldog, a show derived cross between working bulldogs, pugs and other small dogs which didn't exist until after bull baiting is abolished, French Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs, Boxers and any of the modern day old bulldog recreations are all considered to be bull breeds because of their close ancestry to our old working bulldogs were never bred to fight.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

Jobeth said:


> From the report only one of the dogs was involved in the attack.
> 
> I don't think it is normal for any dog to injure to the point of a toddler losing their eye etc. I also think the parents will blame themselves for the rest of their lives without people doing it for them.


And so they should! If the boy had been watched, he wouldnt have been attacked, because he wouldnt have wandered into the "staffys" path. 
Why on earth do some people nowadays think its fine to not watch their children?

Watched a Supernanny US the other day with a 2yr old that was opening the door and running into the street! They would totally lose him at times! The parents hadn't even considered putting a lock on higher so he couldn't  what?



diablo said:


> i remember this story breaking a few years on the mastiff forum i frequent , people were laughing.
> Burglar makes the mistake of choosing 22-stone mastiff's home to rob | Mail Online
> at the end of the day , if someones dog is secured in their garden , then as far as i`m concerned that dog is secure , if someone wanders into that garden whether it be a strange child or adult a dog isn`t going to know the difference and i assume that most dogs would defend their territory.


From that article - "If the burglar decided to make a complaint, Mr Watson could not be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act because the incident took place on his private property"

Really? Doesnt seem to be true in this case does it? Or in alot of the cases now? Because its a burgalar, not someone else tresspassing maybe, who is to decide the difference?

What a joke the DDA is, if they dont even stick to their own rules/laws!

Oh, and is it just me, or does that mastiff look grossly overweight?!

*Heidi*


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

diablo said:


> i remember this story breaking a few years on the mastiff forum i frequent , people were laughing.
> Burglar makes the mistake of choosing 22-stone mastiff's home to rob | Mail Online
> at the end of the day , if someones dog is secured in their garden , then as far as i`m concerned that dog is secure , if someone wanders into that garden whether it be a strange child or adult a dog isn`t going to know the difference and i assume that most dogs would defend their territory.


See I think a dog should be able to tell the difference between a small vulnerable child and a potential attacker/burglar/mugger. I find it totally unacceptable that this dog did this much damage to this child....it attacked to kill. I find that disturbing.
To all the owners that defend these dogs....fair play to you, you're welcome to defend them. I'm not saying they are all bad but when you have witnessed with your own eyes a Staffordshire attacking your 12 week old pup with obvious intention to kill then I have no sympathy for these dogs that attack other dogs and people whatsoever.

People are saying its not the dogs fault....Why? Are you saying it can't control its own emotions?.....so therefore is it fit to be walking the streets alongside my children?
The dog makes the choice to attack, not the owners. I was brought up by abusive parents...my stepfather regularly beat me...but I don't beat my own kids.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

hazyreality said:


> And so they should! If the boy had been watched, he wouldnt have been attacked, because he wouldnt have wandered into the "staffys" path.
> *Why on earth do some people nowadays think its fine to not watch their children?*
> Watched a Supernanny US the other day with a 2yr old that was opening the door and running into the street! They would totally lose him at times! The parents hadn't even considered putting a lock on higher so he couldn't  what?


100% agree and then when something bad happens its all someone elses fault and the parents believe they are completely innocent.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

diablo said:


> at the end of the day , if someones dog is secured in their garden , then as far as i`m concerned that dog is secure , if someone wanders into that garden whether it be a strange child or adult a dog isn`t going to know the difference and i assume that most dogs would defend their territory.


Really?! So a dog can behave however they like if in their own territory? I could understand if the parents had allowed the child to wander off in a lion enclosure at the zoo but these are pets we are talking about living in close communities. What happens to the dog that sees it's regular walking area as it's own territory (because they can do) Is that also acceptable then?

A dog has ripped out the eye of a child, has torn off their ear and nose and this is considered the parents fault?  I don't care where or what breed it is it is NOT acceptable behaviour under any circumstances. Dogs are supposed to be man's best friend, not their weapons. Even guard dogs have to have exemplerary temperaments and are trained to 'attack' and it is not to rip eyes and ears off. There are also very strict laws which require a guard dog to be with it's handler at all times.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> "If the burglar decided to make a complaint, Mr Watson could not be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act because the incident took place on his private property"
> 
> Really? Doesnt seem to be true in this case does it? Or in alot of the cases now? Because its a burgalar, not someone else tresspassing maybe, who is to decide the difference?


That's because the law has recently changed (or is about to be) to include incidents that take place on private property. When originally brought in it only applied to incidents on public property.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> See I think a dog should be able to tell the difference between a small vulnerable child and a potential attacker/burglar/mugger. I find it totally unacceptable that this dog did this much damage to this child....it attacked to kill.


see thats where i dont agree , for a dog to recognise the difference between a child and an adult your viewing them with human emotion. of course it`s totally unacceptable for a dog to attack in such a way , but where do you draw the line , do you laugh at a burglar having his clothes ripped off by a dog that probably outweighed him by 10 stone and have no sympathy for him ? or can you empathise with him in the same way you do that poor child ?
at the end of the day the circumstances are the same child / person wondering onto other peoples property and the dog attacks. yet people expect a dog not to attack when strangers wander onto property where they live.
i`m not saying it`s right but if the dog was in it`s own garden , then in my mind the dog was secure. it isn`t the property owners responsibility to keep other peoples children out of their own garden , it`s up the their parents to watch them , or tell them that kind of behaviour won`t be tolerated obviously a two year old wouldn`t understand the concept of that , so that begs the question where on earth were the 8 pairs of eyes that were supposed to be watching him ?


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Goldstar said:


> 100% agree and then when something bad happens its all someone elses fault and the parents believe they are completely innocent.


I think these days that we have to unfortunately mitigate for the stupidity of others. A small boy up the road from us (about 3-4 years old at a guess) frequently lets himself and his dog out of his house whilst his Mum is upstairs - I know because she tells you with eyes rolled heavenwards when you return him and / or the dog .

I know that he does this on a regular basis and also know that he has a habit of wandering into other peoples' houses, so I make sure that both doors at the front of our house are shut securely and I have also put a padlock onto our side gate. I have no idea what Kilo would do if he just came in by himself - hopefully just get excited and probably knock him over - but I have no intention of finding out.

I do all this to protect Kilo from the consequences of having strangers come into the house uninvited and protect the child as his own mother obviously won't .


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Really?! So a dog can behave however they like if in their own territory? I could understand if the parents had allowed the child to wander off in a lion enclosure at the zoo but these are pets we are talking about living in close communities. What happens to the dog that sees it's regular walking area as it's own territory (because they can do) Is that also acceptable then?
> 
> *A dog has ripped out the eye of a child, has torn off their ear and nose and this is considered the parents fault?*  I don't care where or what breed it is it is NOT acceptable behaviour under any circumstances. Dogs are supposed to be man's best friend, not their weapons. Even guard dogs have to have exemplerary temperaments and are trained to 'attack' and it is not to rip eyes and ears off. There are also very strict laws which require a guard dog to be with it's handler at all times.


How is it NOT the parents fault? If they had been watching their child, the child wouldnt have wandered into that dogs territory, regardless of whether the dog was aggressive or not? He could just have easily walked out into the road and hit by a car, would that be the drivers fault?
And if that dog guards his walking area's and the owner is stupid enough to let him off lead and he therefore attacks, then why would it NOT be the owners fault for not keeping his dog with him?

Dogs guard, some more than others and it is up to us, their owners to know when and keep it under control.

*Heidi*


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> That's because the law has recently changed (or is about to be) to include incidents that take place on private property. When originally brought in it only applied to incidents on public property.


the incident happened in 2007 / 2008 i remember it well and i werent laughing because it could have so easily have been a child and a dog of that size with that much power could have so easily have got loose.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

IMO the parents are partly to blame because they failed to supervise their own child, that is the reality of it. 

Yes, the dog did horrendous damage to the child and that isn't acceptable at all but it would not have happened if the child was being watched. 

I never would have thought Lucky was territorial, until one night a drunken man jumped over the wall when I was putting her out for a pee, she went mental. I was there to prevent her biting but if I weren't then she may have bitten him.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

hazyreality said:


> And so they should! If the boy had been watched, he wouldnt have been attacked, because he wouldnt have wandered into the "staffys" path.
> Why on earth do some people nowadays think its fine to not watch their children?
> 
> Watched a Supernanny US the other day with a 2yr old that was opening the door and running into the street! They would totally lose him at times! The parents hadn't even considered putting a lock on higher so he couldn't  what?
> ...


The location of this attack is a factor, hence why there have been no arrests. And of course also a factor is how the young boy and the attacking dog came into meeting.

When the attack on private property (where the dog is expected to be) involves an uninvited vistor or intruder other laws (not dog related) come into effect. Even with the upcoming DDA changes these laws will still cover any attacks on uninvited visitors or intruders. However even as it stands right now, action can be taken for attacks on private property.

So with regards this incident, they are sticking to "their own rules"/the DDA, hence why so far there have been no arrests. It is also why the dog was put down at the request of the owner and not as a direct result of attacking via the powers awarded to UK courts. So to date no action has been taken under any law as they need to discover where the dog was, why it attacked, and how the boy came face to face with the dog, as I have already said.

Arrests may come in the future once the fuller story is known etc. That action could be under DDA, Dogs Act 1871 and/or a non dog related law.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Malmum said:


> What I hope to achieve is to be proved wrong in my assumptions of the majority of attacks being instigated by Staffs


Unless you are actually there, observing the dogs before anything kicks off then how will you have proof that the Staffies instigated all the attacks? All you'll have is one side of the story. In some cases it's pretty clear that one dog started it, in other cases it's not so clear and the dog who seems to be the instigator is actually responding to the other dog instigating something. And are you just looking at the real attacks or are you looking at the handbags at dawn type incidents too?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

hazyreality said:


> How is it NOT the parents fault? If they had been watching their child, the child wouldnt have wandered into that dogs territory, regardless of whether the dog was aggressive or not? He could just have easily walked out into the road and hit by a car, would that be the drivers fault?
> And if that dog guards his walking area's and the owner is stupid enough to let him off lead and he therefore attacks, then why would it NOT be the owners fault for not keeping his dog with him?
> 
> Dogs guard, some more than others and it is up to us, their owners to know when and keep it under control.
> ...


I have never said the parents should not have to take some of the responsiblity, what I have said is that there is NO place in our society for dogs that act like this. This dog used the highest form of aggression directly. There are many stages of aggressive behaviour a dog would go through before attacking from posturing through barking to standing it's ground, and most wouldn't attack but be more likely to run away.

I would not have let my children off when they were little, but if they had momentarily, then I would not have expected the result to be having their eyes ripped out.

I do not accept that a dog can do whatever it likes in it's own territory. That way of thinking is asking for trouble.

I cannot believe that so many think it is the parent's fault. The reality is we are dog lovers, but many are not and what we think will have little impact on any future law. All the time we have dogs like this in our society it will effect us all, even the responsible owners.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

diablo said:


> see thats where i dont agree , for a dog to recognise the difference between a child and an adult your viewing them with human emotion. of course it`s totally unacceptable for a dog to attack in such a way , but where do you draw the line , do you laugh at a burglar having his clothes ripped off by a dog that probably outweighed him by 10 stone and have no sympathy for him ? or can you empathise with him in the same way you do that poor child ?
> at the end of the day the circumstances are the same child / person wondering onto other peoples property and the dog attacks. yet people expect a dog not to attack when strangers wander onto property where they live.
> i`m not saying it`s right but if the dog was in it`s own garden , then in my mind the dog was secure. it isn`t the property owners responsibility to keep other peoples children out of their own garden , it`s up the their parents to watch them , or tell them that kind of behaviour won`t be tolerated obviously a two year old wouldn`t understand the concept of that , so that begs the question where on earth were the 8 pairs of eyes that were supposed to be watching him ?


To be honest i wouldnt want my dog to attack an intruder anyway, i wouldnt want my dog to rip into any human being. as you have said how would he know the difference between a robber or a relative who has arrived in the night perhaps?

barking to warn them off, fine, but to savage anyone in any circumstance i never feel is right. this is obviously just my opinion.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> Unless you are actually there, observing the dogs before anything kicks off then how will you have proof that the Staffies instigated all the attacks? All you'll have is one side of the story. In some cases it's pretty clear that one dog started it, in other cases it's not so clear and the dog who seems to be the instigator is actually responding to the other dog instigating something. And are you just looking at the real attacks or are you looking at the handbags at dawn type incidents too?


Of course you only have one side of a story but take the story of Bingo for instance and the injuries he sustained and you clearly can't question that he *wasn't* the attacker, even without being there.
I will be looking at attacks where blood is drawn and an injury present, not just slobber from two dogs who just get a bit iffy on passing. If you look at many of the posts you will see a determination in the attack, mostly for no apparent reason, no pre warned curled lip or snarl with a run up to a fight - just an all out attack that was not foreseen.

Flynn and Marty had a scuffle, lots of noise and had to be broken up as neither would back down but there was just slobber on both necks, so not a serious fight even though it sounded like one and we knew how to part them. Kali however has drawn blood each time she has had a go at one of mine, she does it with intent and that's the difference between a meaningful fight and handbags at dawn, IMO.

Some people don't seem to realise that a dog aggressive dog should never be let off lead and by simply assuming there are no other dogs about is an outrage! The link below is very distressing, shows a dead dog so don't look if you're likely to get upset but that is exactly the type of owner I expect to hear of when I read of an attack. One who just has no idea what their dog may be capable of.
Killer dog savaged family puppy in attack at Rimrose Valley Park - Crosby Herald
To the expense of someones dearly loved family pet!


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> To be honest i wouldnt want my dog to attack an intruder anyway, i wouldnt want my dog to rip into any human being. as you have said how would he know the difference between a robber or a relative who has arrived in the night perhaps?
> 
> barking to warn them off, fine, but to savage anyone in any circumstance i never feel is right. this is obviously just my opinion.


my dogs didn`t do anything when i was burgled , they were both still asleep where i left them in the conservatory when i came home that evening [they had the run of the whole of the house] , so either they knew the person responsible [which i feel was highly unlikely as they used to `wooowooo` loudly and bark with excitement when they met people they knew] or it stands testament to their temperaments , seeing the mess that was done to my house though was gutwrenching i do wish they would have at least barked , which didn`t happen either according to my elderly neighbours who were home all day and never heard anything or a peep out either of the dogs  maybe i were probably expecting too much from my dogs , one of which was elderly at the time. that said looking back , i feel they did me proud by NOT retaliating.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> i do wish they would have at least barked


Understandable, but burglary is never nice (I've had it happen twice) but this is much more important and a demonstration of how great your dogs are 



> that said looking back , i feel they did me proud by NOT retaliating.


----------



## xxflair (Jan 3, 2012)

Still the parents should hold some, if not more responsibility. They allowed their child to roam away from their view, and the safety of their own home, and in doing so wander into someone else's garden. Anything could have happened as highlighted plenty of times before. 

Im not backing the dog all the way because, of whats reported, he showed true aggression to do what he did during the attack but still the whole blame can't rest on his shoulders. There are quiet a few people involved in this, the dogs owner and parents, and both should hold a large amount of responsibility. 

I just hope the toddler gets through this, the dog had an easy passing and all those involved re-think when it comes to the safety of their loved ones.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

diablo said:


> my dogs didn`t do anything when i was burgled , they were both still asleep where i left them in the conservatory when i came home that evening [they had the run of the whole of the house] , so either they knew the person responsible [which i feel was highly unlikely as they used to `wooowooo` loudly and bark with excitement when they met people they knew] or it stands testament to their temperaments , seeing the mess that was done to my house though was gutwrenching i do wish they would have at least barked , which didn`t happen either according to my elderly neighbours who were home all day and never heard anything or a peep out either of the dogs  maybe i were probably expecting too much from my dogs , one of which was elderly at the time. that said looking back , i feel they did me proud by NOT retaliating.


exactly my point! it is a credit to your dogs that they didnt do anything!


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Malmum said:


> Of course you only have one side of a story but take the story of Bingo for instance and the injuries he sustained and you clearly can't question that he *wasn't* the attacker, even without being there.


Just because a dog comes away with horrendous injuries doesn't mean that that dog did not start the fight though. You can't guess who instigated the fight just going by injuries sustained.



> If you look at many of the posts you will see a determination in the attack, mostly for no apparent reason, no pre warned curled lip or snarl with a run up to a fight - just an all out attack that was not foreseen.


This is something I've experienced with several different breeds, not just staffies. Rupert wasn't a staffie and he never growled, lifted his lip, raised his hackles or anything. He most certainly did NOT attack with no warning though. The warning was there, it was just much more subtle. Even the staffie that attacked him gave some warning looking back, it was just that with not being clued up I missed it and like many people believed that as the dog wasn't growling or showing teeth everything was fine.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that going by stories in the media or on forums you're going to get a true idea of whether staffies are more likely to instigate attacks (with or without warning) than other breeds.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> And Staffies were originally bred for bear and bull fighting. When these were outlawed they became used in dog fights. The gameness and tenacity has been bred into the them. The handler had to be able to handle and separate these dogs so they were bred to be good tempered around humands. This is why they are loving to their family because that has also been a trait that was required.
> 
> These are not judgements on a breed, they are simply facts and, echoing Blitz, too many people buy pet dogs on their looks and reputation rather than on the in bred character traits.
> 
> An innocent toddler has lost his eye and will, no doubt, be maimed for life and traumatised and I am shocked that people are saying it is the parents fault. Dogs that do this have no place in our society - I don't care what breed they are. Is someone wanders accidentally in someone's garden it is NOT acceptable that they get attacked.


My dogs will attack and I think many dogs will, particularly guardy breeds (unusual for a staffy)

It's my property and If someone walks in then so be it on their head. My back gate is always locked so a small child would never be unable to unlock it.

What should I do kill my dogs because some intruder "may" enter my house.

What total rubbish


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I think if a child wandered in here uninvited Spencer would be highly delighted. I can't see him tearing into one or showing any signs of aggression. Knock them down? Yup. Give them big slobbery kisses? Yup. Hurt them unintentionally? Yup. Bite them? It's possible but I seriously doubt it would happen.

I always said Rupert would likely welcome an intruder with open arms but when it came down to it he didn't. Nobody was bitten but I can't say for sure that the bloke who just walked into my house uninvited wouldn't have been if I hadn't been there.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> *Just because a dog comes away with horrendous injuries doesn't mean that that dog did not start the fight though. You can't guess who instigated the fight just going by injuries sustained.*
> This is something I've experienced with several different breeds, not just staffies. Rupert wasn't a staffie and he never growled, lifted his lip, raised his hackles or anything. He most certainly did NOT attack with no warning though. The warning was there, it was just much more subtle. Even the staffie that attacked him gave some warning looking back, it was just that with not being clued up I missed it and like many people believed that as the dog wasn't growling or showing teeth everything was fine.
> 
> *I'm sorry, I just don't believe that going by stories in the media or on forums you're going to get a true idea of whether staffies are more likely to instigate attacks (with or without warning) than other breeds.*




Can't agree more.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Sarah1983 said:


> Just because a dog comes away with horrendous injuries doesn't mean that that dog did not start the fight though. You can't guess who instigated the fight just going by injuries sustained.
> 
> This is something I've experienced with several different breeds, not just staffies. Rupert wasn't a staffie and he never growled, lifted his lip, raised his hackles or anything. He most certainly did NOT attack with no warning though. The warning was there, it was just much more subtle. Even the staffie that attacked him gave some warning looking back, it was just that with not being clued up I missed it and like many people believed that as the dog wasn't growling or showing teeth everything was fine.
> 
> I'm sorry, I just don't believe that going by stories in the media or on forums you're going to get a true idea of whether staffies are more likely to instigate attacks (with or without warning) than other breeds.


Well said. One of my greatest fears about dog on dog attacks being prosecutable under criminal law is that the loser is seen as the victim. As an owner of large dogs this troubles me greatly. I keep my dogs on a lead in public places, but if a small dog has a pop at my large dogs and they retaliate with full force, it's going to come off for the worse and I'll most likely be seen as the criminal as will my dog.

I think people generally have no idea of warning singles or how dogs provoke each other. When my dogs are about to get their handbags out I can see it straight away from a stare or body language. My non dog owning visiting relatives can't see a thing when I go to diffuse it.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> My dogs will attack and I think many dogs will, particularly guardy breeds (unusual for a staffy)
> 
> It's my property and If someone walks in then so be it on their head. My back gate is always locked so a small child would never be unable to unlock it.
> 
> ...


Your dogs will rip someone's eyes out??? If there are a lot of dogs that will attack as a first line of defence, then no we should not be breeding or owning such dogs. I never said you should pts your dogs. Hopefully, you are responsible enough to keep them under control. Also, hopefully you are responsible enough to never breed them nor encourage breeding from dogs with such temperaments. It is not the dogs I have a problem with, it is the owners who think this is acceptable behaviour from a dog, and do not take care to ensure their dogs are not able to cause problems whether that be out or in their own garden.

It is man that causes this problem, and I only wish it were total rubbish. Because be warned, the general public and the law makers won't see it from your or any other dogs lovers point of view and that will effect us all.

Until people open their eyes and see where we are headed instead of saying 'poor doggie', then all of us are in danger of even more draconian changes in dog law


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I think people generally have no idea of warning singles or how dogs provoke each other. When my dogs are about to get their handbags out I can see it straight away from a stare or body language. My non dog owning visiting relatives can't see a thing when I go to diffuse it.


I think this is a huge problem - and not just dog owners not recognising canine body language, but other dogs not recognising canine body language. In my experience it is often more the case with single dogs that, while they may have been socialised, they have not grown up with other dogs around. More often than not, I see other dogs completely ignoring (or more likely not recognising) my dog's body language.

Unfortunately, it comes from too many pet owners anthropomorphising our dogs instead of understanding they are dogs.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Well said. *One of my greatest fears about dog on dog attacks being prosecutable under criminal law is that the loser is seen as the victim.* As an owner of large dogs this troubles me greatly. I keep my dogs on a lead in public places, but if a small dog has a pop at my large dogs and they retaliate with full force, it's going to come off for the worse and I'll most likely be seen as the criminal as will my dog.
> 
> I think people generally have no idea of warning singles or how dogs provoke each other. When my dogs are about to get their handbags out I can see it straight away from a stare or body language. My non dog owning visiting relatives can't see a thing when I go to diffuse it.


My dads chi x yorkie is very DA, he has tried to attack Lucky and my sisters JRT. I am always saying that one day he will try it on the wrong dog and that dog WILL retaliate and he will come off worse. It would be disgusting for him to been seen as the poor victim and the poor dog that he had a go at gets PTS.

Lucky has snapped back at him in the past and dads gf has been so defensive over him, this is what causes his behaviour in the first place.

I totally understand your fears surrounding this.


----------



## lynne9999 (Jun 5, 2012)

i really hope the child makes a good as recoverery as he can, but the parents are really to blame, when my kids were young whenever we went anywhere that was outside the front door, they had a reign on, a bit like a dog lead, it was attached to my hand and my sons hand. If the parents had got one of them this would not have happened.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Goldstar said:


> My dads chi x yorkie is very DA, he has tried to attack Lucky and my sisters JRT. I am always saying that one day he will try it on the wrong dog and that dog WILL retaliate and he will come off worse. It would be disgusting for him to been seen as the poor victim and the poor dog that he had a go at gets PTS.
> 
> Lucky has snapped back at him in the past and dads gf has been so defensive over him, this is what causes his behaviour in the first place.
> 
> I totally understand your fears surrounding this.


but there have also been quite a few young pups out on a walk, one time their first walk and savaged to death without giving any of the wrong signals and minding their own business.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> Well said. One of my greatest fears about dog on dog attacks being prosecutable under criminal law is that the loser is seen as the victim. As an owner of large dogs this troubles me greatly. I keep my dogs on a lead in public places, but if a small dog has a pop at my large dogs and they retaliate with full force, it's going to come off for the worse and I'll most likely be seen as the criminal as will my dog.
> 
> I think people generally have no idea of warning singles or how dogs provoke each other. When my dogs are about to get their handbags out I can see it straight away from a stare or body language. My non dog owning visiting relatives can't see a thing when I go to diffuse it.


One of my fears too, especially given the amount of tiny dogs who are allowed to act with aggression towards larger dogs with the owners thinking it is cute or amusing until you see the larger dog reach the end of it's patience.

So far, Kilo has never retaliated and I hope he never does, but I do worry at times. Yesterday I was talking to a man who's Yorkie started to snap and snarl, so I walked away, dog chasing us with the man unable to recall. Kilo got more and more worried, hackles went up, deep rumbling growl started, dog finally went back to owner who said "Silly little doggie, you'll get eaten one day" . I know that it would be my fault had anything happened to that dog - one of the reasons that Kilo is always onlead in busy public areas; he has enough time offlead in quieter areas and it's not worth the risk.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I think this is a huge problem - and not just dog owners not recognising canine body language, but other dogs not recognising canine body language. In my experience it is often more the case with single dogs that, while they may have been socialised, they have not grown up with other dogs around. More often than not, I see other dogs completely ignoring (or more likely not recognising) my dog's body language.
> 
> Unfortunately, it comes from too many pet owners anthropomorphising our dogs instead of understanding they are dogs.


I've only seen it the other way round, with a dog that was incapabale of producing correct body language. It was a DDB I saw and met in the park. Every dog it came across wanted to attack it. Having seen that, I can believe it's the same the other way. This dog couldn't give the right signals and couldn't read the wrong ones.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> but there have also been quite a few young pups out on a walk, one time their first walk and savaged to death without giving any of the wrong signals and minding their own business.


My point was missed, I don't think it's right for every dog that comes off worse in a fight to automatically be seen as the victim. It isn't *always* the case.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> And Staffies were originally bred for bear and bull fighting. When these were outlawed they became used in dog fights. The gameness and tenacity has been bred into the them. The handler had to be able to handle and separate these dogs so they were bred to be good tempered around humands. This is why they are loving to their family because that has also been a trait that was required.


Actually that is not 100% true. originally there were two different breeds used for bull baiting bulldogs and terriers. The terriers were used to terrorise the bull until it was exhausted and then the bulldogs were used to drag the bull down by its muzzle. When bull baiting was banned dog fighting became popular. However the bulldogs made for boring dog fighting dogs, as they tended to be to slow and tended to bight and hold on, which did not make a good spectator sport. So bulldogs and terriers were crossed to produce dogs that had the strength of a bulldog with the speed and tenacity of a terrier. Eventually out of this kind of breeding (with a few twists and turns along the way) we got the modern bull terrier breeds.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I think this is a huge problem - and not just dog owners not recognising canine body language, but other dogs not recognising canine body language. In my experience it is often more the case with single dogs that, while they may have been socialised, they have not grown up with other dogs around. More often than not, I see other dogs completely ignoring (or more likely not recognising) my dog's body language.
> 
> Unfortunately, it comes from too many pet owners anthropomorphising our dogs instead of understanding they are dogs.


THis is exactly Spudley's problem, he was an only puppy (just him in the litter) and now despite being well socilised with other dogs he does not know how to react to new dogs.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

Dogless said:


> One of my fears too, especially given the amount of tiny dogs who are allowed to act with aggression towards larger dogs with the owners thinking it is cute or amusing until you see the larger dog reach the end of it's patience.
> 
> So far, Kilo has never retaliated and I hope he never does, but I do worry at times. Yesterday I was talking to a man who's Yorkie started to snap and snarl, so I walked away, dog chasing us with the man unable to recall. Kilo got more and more worried, hackles went up, deep rumbling growl started, dog finally went back to owner who said "Silly little doggie, you'll get eaten one day" . I know that it would be my fault had anything happened to that dog - one of the reasons that Kilo is always onlead in busy public areas; he has enough time offlead in quieter areas and it's not worth the risk.


I think this is a fear of all dog owners with either large dogs or dogs that are perceived as "dangerous", its not helped by some small dog owners who think its alright to let their dogs run out to other dogs barking.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Spud the Bull Terrier said:


> I think this is a fear of all dog owners with either large dogs or dogs that are perceived as "dangerous", its not helped by some small dog owners who think its alright to let their dogs run out to other dogs barking.


Some just don't think. To give a woman near me credit, she let her chi barrel out of the house at us barking and nipping and I had to redirect it with the toe of my shoe whilst she laughed - although she also said sorry. I didn't speak to her then as I wanted to get away, but did see her later - she asked whether it had been me with the 'big brown dog' and said her dog thinks it's a big dog - I said that she'd be frightened if she was walking her tiny dog past and my dog came pelting down the road after them with intent. She did apologise and said she'd never seen it like that, so perhaps she now will.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I think a big part of this is what the hell were the parents doing letting a two year old wonder off on his own and do we know if he touched or startled the dog.

I hope the little boy recovers but it does sound like it's going to be a long road for him.

Again another dog to suffer because of stupid people.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> My dads chi x yorkie is very DA, he has tried to attack Lucky and my sisters JRT. I am always saying that one day he will try it on the wrong dog and that dog WILL retaliate and he will come off worse. It would be disgusting for him to been seen as the poor victim and the poor dog that he had a go at gets PTS.
> 
> Lucky has snapped back at him in the past and dads gf has been so defensive over him, this is what causes his behaviour in the first place.
> 
> I totally understand your fears surrounding this.


I think it's all about management. I don't care how aggressive someone's dog is as long as it's not given the opportunity to do damage. I don't complain about someones dog being aggressive because you don't know the provenance of that dog. While some cretins pride themselves on their dog being aggressive, there are plenty of others that exhibit that behaviour for no reason of their owners fault. They may have had a bad experience or been attacked and developed that behaviour. I saw a border collie brought to a lesson that was a complete basket case. Hugely aggressive to anything but was also completely fearful of everything. No idea what had happened to that dog, but some kind people had decided to take her on and rehabilitate her. I hope they can take care of that dog and keep them out of trouble


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Battle to save face of boy, 2, mauled by dog

According to this report, the dog escaped from its garden..............................................................


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Battle to save face of boy, 2, mauled by dog
> 
> According to this report, the dog escaped from its garden..............................................................


If the dog escaped the garden and was on property it was not permitted to be albeit private then it's an offence under the DDA.


----------



## colliemerles (Nov 2, 2007)

Lavenderb said:


> Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Battle to save face of boy, 2, mauled by dog
> 
> According to this report, the dog escaped from its garden..............................................................


_thank goodness his grandad acted quickly and got to him, its heartbreaking, and reading that it does sound like the dog escaped from its garden,_


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

colliemerles said:


> _thank goodness his grandad acted quickly and got to him, its heartbreaking, and reading that it does sound like the dog escaped from its garden,_


It says a dog escaped it's garden from nearby.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> but there have also been quite a few young pups out on a walk, one time their first walk and savaged to death without giving any of the wrong signals and minding their own business.


The issue is we put a lot of emphasis on what is written by the 'victim' we get someone on here my dog has been attacked and did nothing wrong, but how many people REALLY know that, see the subtle change in body language between the two dogs, a waggy tail can still be 'posturing' if held a certain way. I aren't brilliant at reading every dogs language, but I can read my two, Lexi especially, and can see how she is going to react to a dog before letting her great, Lexi spends alot of her life ill so can be grumpy with bouncy dogs, and even then her grumpy is all noise, she has never got hold of anyother dog, so I judge every situation as it arises, I see what she is telling me as she is by far a better judge than I am, I look at things on a very simplistic human scale, where as she sees the bigger picture.

So how do we know that all these attacks were as simple as they are made to sound. Don't get me wrong no dog should be in a position where it can be killed by another dog, but I honestly don't think you can view everything as black and white as we don't see the whole grey scale in the middle the dogs see.


----------



## GoldTibetan (Mar 2, 2012)

Xxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

GoldTibetan said:


> Another report in The Telegraph suggesting the dog had escaped from it's garden Dog in attack on toddler 'had bitten officer in drugs raid' - Telegraph It hardly sounds as if the dog was kept securely if it could escape or if a small toddler could wander in, whichever scenario turns out to be the case.
> 
> *I still find it astounding that some people are more concerned with pointing fingers at the parents, *accusing the toddler of annoying the dog and worrying about the welfare of this rogue dog who has been or will be humanely be PTS than showing any real compassion for a small child who has likely partially lost his sight, will have to endure painful grafting and will spend the rest of his life disfigured. I seriously think some individual's perspectives are worryingly skewed.


The fact is, if they were watching their child like they should be then he would not have wandered off into someone elses garden, this should be of some importance regarding the whole incident. It is a big deal to allow a 2 year old to wander off.

It is awful what has happened to the child, I agree, but the parents ARE partly to blame as well.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Goldstar said:


> The fact is, if they were watching their child like they should be then he would not have wandered off into someone elses garden, this should be of some importance regarding the whole incident. It is a big deal to allow a 2 year old to wander off.
> 
> It is awful what has happened to the child, I agree, but the parents ARE partly to blame as well.


How do you know the dog didn't drag the child into its garden?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

GoldTibetan said:


> I still find it astounding that some people are more concerned with pointing fingers at the parents, accusing the toddler of annoying the dog and worrying about the welfare of this rogue dog who has been or will be humanely be PTS than showing any real compassion for a small child who has likely partially lost his sight, will have to endure painful grafting and will spend the rest of his life disfigured. I seriously think some individual's perspectives are worryingly skewed.


Couldn't have put it better.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

GoldTibetan said:


> Another report in The Telegraph suggesting the dog had escaped from it's garden Dog in attack on toddler 'had bitten officer in drugs raid' - Telegraph It hardly sounds as if the dog was kept securely if it could escape or if a small toddler could wander in, whichever scenario turns out to be the case.
> 
> I still find it astounding that some people are more concerned with pointing fingers at the parents, accusing the toddler of annoying the dog and worrying about the welfare of this rogue dog who has been or will be humanely be PTS than showing any real compassion for a small child who has likely partially lost his sight, will have to endure painful grafting and will spend the rest of his life disfigured. I seriously think some individual's perspectives are worryingly skewed.


I don't think anyone on here doesn't feel for that little boy, however it is seen so many times that everyone (the media) points the finger at the dog and the story gets skewed, when so many good dog owners know that a dog attack is very rarely that straight forward and on the off chance someone comes across this thread and realises that maybe it isn't as straight forward as dog attacks child and maybe theres more to it than that, then peopel will continue to discuss it.
And yes I feel for the little boy but if his parents had been keeping watch then the likelyhood of this happening would have been greatly redcued so they have to take some blame as does the dog owner for not having a secure enviroment for his dog.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> How do you know the dog didn't drag the child into its garden?


How do you?


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Couldn't have put it better.


oh but come on, the poor doggy didnt know what it was doing...did it 

My main concern is for this poor child...he did not deserve this and he is the one that has to live with it.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> How do you know the dog didn't drag the child into its garden?


No one here knows the exact details do they?

There are so many different accounts on the incident it's difficult to know what to believe.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> How do you?


Seems to be conflicting reports everywhere tbh....some saying the dog escaped, some saying the child was in an alleyway...seems like the only one's who really know are the child and the dog.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

The more I read the more it seems irrisponsible dog owners are once again endangering the people and the dogs around them 

I feel for the poor child who has been permentantly damaged both physically and mentally because of an idiot owner who needs to use dogs to inflate his own ego


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

GoldTibetan said:


> Another report in The Telegraph suggesting the dog had escaped from it's garden Dog in attack on toddler 'had bitten officer in drugs raid' - Telegraph It hardly sounds as if the dog was kept securely if it could escape or if a small toddler could wander in, whichever scenario turns out to be the case.
> 
> I still find it astounding that some people are more concerned with pointing fingers at the parents, accusing the toddler of annoying the dog and worrying about the welfare of this rogue dog who has been or will be humanely be PTS than showing any real compassion for a small child who has likely partially lost his sight, will have to endure painful grafting and will spend the rest of his life disfigured. I seriously think some individual's perspectives are worryingly skewed.


I don't think anyone has a lack of compassion, I certainly dont.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

LexiLou2 said:


> I don't think anyone on here doesn't feel for that little boy, however it is seen so many times that everyone (the media) points the finger at the dog and the story gets skewed, when so many good dog owners know that a dog attack is very rarely that straight forward and on the off chance someone comes across this thread and realises that maybe it isn't as straight forward as dog attacks child and maybe theres more to it than that, then peopel will continue to discuss it.
> And yes I feel for the little boy but if his parents had been keeping watch then the likelyhood of this happening would have been greatly redcued so they have to take some blame as does the dog owner for not having a secure enviroment for his dog.


The bottom line is that is irrelevant what the parents did or didn't do or why the dog attacked. That a dog with such a temperament existed and was allowed to do this is what is wrong. Our relationship with dogs and dog ownership has completely changed and yes, it is the dogs that are ultimately suffering. But if this sort of thing continues we will all be at serious risk of actually being able to own dogs with the freedoms we now enjoy. Unless people wake up to this instead of jumping to the dog's defence, then we are just on a slippery slope.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

A dog with such a temperement exists because of the f**ked up owners that encourage/allow that behaviour. 

The dogs just end up paying for this with their lives, thats ok though isn't it, as long as every child can wander around on their own at 2 years old it doesn't matter. The parents have no responsibilities do they, they should be able to allow their babies to wander off, if they get run over don't worry, the driver can take the blame. 

Why is this acceptable? A dangerous dog is created by man, why shouldn't man take the blame when things go horribly wrong??

A parent that allows a baby to wander off is an irresponsible parent, they should take part of the blame. 

I'm not saying that this is definitely the case with this incident but all too often it is.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> A dog with such a temperement exists because of the f**ked up owners that encourage/allow that behaviour.
> 
> The dogs just end up paying for this with their lives, thats ok though isn't it,


No, of course it's not alright - and this is where it needs to be dealt with.



> as long as every child can wander around on their own at 2 years old it doesn't matter. The parents have no responsibilities do they, they should be able to allow their babies to wander off, if they get run over don't worry, the driver can take the blame.


Everyone has the right to not be attacked by a dog. End of story!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Everyone has the right to not be attacked by a dog. End of story!


Yes, and every child should expect to be kept safe BY HIS PARENTS!

I have a child of a similar age and it's my worst nightmare that something bad should happen to him. But I try my damned hardest to make sure he is kept safe and out of harm's way. If I let him run around like crazy and he runs into the road and gets hit by a car then that is partly my fault because I neglected my duty of care. I can shout about how everybody has the right not to be hit by a car all I want. It is still partly my fault.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> The bottom line is that is irrelevant what the parents did or didn't do or why the dog attacked. That a dog with such a temperament existed and was allowed to do this is what is wrong. Our relationship with dogs and dog ownership has completely changed and yes, it is the dogs that are ultimately suffering. But if this sort of thing continues we will all be at serious risk of actually being able to own dogs with the freedoms we now enjoy. Unless people wake up to this instead of jumping to the dog's defence, then we are just on a slippery slope.


Don't get me wrong I am not jumping to the defence of the dog, and what the dog did regardless of the circumstances is wrong but my arguement is that dog did not wake up one day and make the decision to be agressive, the blame can not lie soley with the dog as it did not make that concious decision. I would hope if we ever had an intruder that my two would simply bark, Lexi tends to bark and hide in her crate, but we have spent a lot of time with strange people (workmen) in the house with the dogs in their crates so I would hope they would be ok. I agree we can not jump to the defence of the dog and blame the child or his parents for the whole thing, but I personally think that the blame should not be shouldered by the dog but by the dog owner, who if he had seen dog ownership as the privledge and honour the majority of this forum see it as and not a god given right, would have done better by that poor dog and prevented this whole horrible affair.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> No, of course it's not alright - and this is where it needs to be dealt with.
> 
> Everyone has the right to not be attacked by a dog. End of story!


Of course they do, I'm not disputing that, but the responsibility lies with everyone involved.

A dog can't be blamed for attacking someone when they have had no training or have been encouraged to attack, only the owners can be blamed for that.

If I tried to break into someones house and I got attacked by their dog then that would be my fault because I put myself in that situation.

If a child gets attacked because they have wandered into someones garden then the parents as well as the dogs owners are to blame. The parents because they weren't supervising their child and the dogs owners for not being able to gain control over the situation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

the BBC news website is pretty up to date; BBC news have spoken to the boys grandparents; who confirmed the little boy was found in a neighbours garden.
underneath the little boys photo it says 


> Keiron Guess was mauled by the dog in a neighbour's garden on Saturday


then underneath in the news story it says;


> Wiltshire Police said Keiron was found in a neighbour's garden in Swanage Walk after the attack.


BBC News - Swindon dog maul boy&#039;s injuries &#039;horrendous&#039;

 which was it ?
which suggests either way a 2 year old was left to fend for himself:frown5:

police also confirming


> The force confirmed it had attended the address last year and an officer had been bitten by a dog there. A police spokeswoman said: "This animal was appropriately assessed at the time and was found not to be a dangerous dog breed. No further action was taken.
> *Officers cannot confirm at this stage if the same dog that bit a police officer was the same as the one that has been destroyed after attacking the two-year-old boy*.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Poor boy but tbh wouldnt of happened if the boy hadnt been in someone elses garden... Really do not agree with dog being put to sleep.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

diablo said:


> the BBC news website is pretty up to date; BBC news have spoken to the boys grandparents; who confirmed the little boy was found in a neighbours garden.
> underneath the little boys photo it says
> 
> then underneath in the news story it says;
> ...


My word, the poor little mite.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

diablo said:


> the BBC news website is pretty up to date; BBC news have spoken to the boys grandparents; who confirmed the little boy was found in a neighbours garden.
> underneath the little boys photo it says
> 
> then underneath in the news story it says;
> ...


So the police visited last year after the dog bit another officer but because it wasn't deemed to be a dangerous dog BREED then it was ok?!? That is the most stupid thing I have heard, so if the dog had been deemed type at that time further action would have been taken but because it wasn't deemed type it was ok even though it had bitten someone?! How stupid....sorry.

ETA - I don't agree with BSL but this just seems so stupid, a dog that bites a police officer would only have action taken against it IF it ws deemed to be type....why don't all the idiots with staffies go out and get GSD's these can't be deemed type so if their dog bites someone no action can be taken as its not a dangerous dog BREED!!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> Poor boy but tbh wouldnt of happened if the boy hadnt been in someone elses garden... Really do not agree with dog being put to sleep.


I'm afraid I completely agree with the decision to put the dog to sleep. I don't know why the dog attacked but it reacted inappropriately and in a completely out of control way. I wouldn't trust a dog that hurt a child that badly. 
Let's the hope the stricter new rules mean that the owner gets a severe enough punishment for letting his dog behave like that. :nonod:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> No, of course it's not alright - and this is where it needs to be


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Goldstar said:


> A dog with such a temperement exists because of the f**ked up owners that encourage/allow that behaviour.
> 
> The dogs just end up paying for this with their lives, thats ok though isn't it, as long as every child can wander around on their own at 2 years old it doesn't matter. The parents have no responsibilities do they, they should be able to allow their babies to wander off, if they get run over don't worry, the driver can take the blame.
> 
> ...


Can I just ask you.....do you believe a human being can be born evil/dangerous?


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

*Not on my property which I've paid for. Have a look at the law, any human or animal which comes on is fair game - end of story.*

I am in no way doubting this , but can I ask which law would allow this?
I have a genuine interest in law relating to dog ownership


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Poor boy but tbh wouldnt of happened if the boy hadnt been in someone elses garden... Really do not agree with dog being put to sleep.


if any dog of mine attacked a child with that kind of ferocity , i`m not sure whether i could have it on my concience i certainly wouldn`t sleep with ease at night , i would probably choose to pts.
if it were a grown intruder on my property , tough! i`d fight tooth and nail for my dogs.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> *Not on my property which I've paid for. Have a look at the law, any human or animal which comes on is fair game - end of story.*
> 
> I am in no way doubting this , but can I ask which law would allow this?
> I have a genuine interest in law relating to dog ownership


It is not a dog related law.

Under UK law you have the right to defend yourself and your property using "reasonable force".

There are no set rules of what is "reasonable force". But you are permitted to use anything you wish legs, fists, knives, baseball bats, dogs and etc

....................as long as you can justify that your actions where the minimum needed to end the incident.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Can I just ask you.....do you believe a human being can be born evil/dangerous?


No i don't, I think we are all born as pretty much a blank canvas and our life experiences mould us into what we become. That said I think some people have more of a pre-disposition to become dangerous same way I think some puppies do, but I think with the correct structured upbrining these issues can be prevented. The difference between human and dog is we are capable of much deeper thought, a person that killed of maimed a child will have probably planned it, thought about it, imagined it, the dog 2 mniutes before that child toddled into his garden may have never thought about attacking anyone ever. The story could be a lot more complex, for example, what is the dog was deaf, what if the child walked up behind it and grabbed it making it jump? I am not fogiving the dog, or defending the dog, however the use of evil/dangerous without knowing the full story just doesn't seem right.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

diablo said:


> if any dog of mine attacked a child with that kind of ferocity , i`m not sure whether i could have it on my concience i certainly wouldn`t sleep with ease at night , i would probably choose to pts.
> if it were a grown intruder on my property , tough! i`d fight tooth and nail for my dogs.


I wounder how your dog is to know the differnence? In one scenario it attaks an intruder and is PTS, in the other scenario it attacks an intruder and lives.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

LexiLou2 said:


> No i don't, I think we are all born as pretty much a blank canvas and our life experiences mould us into what we become. That said I think some people have more of a pre-disposition to become dangerous same way I think some puppies do, but I think with the correct structured upbrining these issues can be prevented. The difference between human and dog is *we are capable of much deeper thought*, a person that killed of maimed a child will have probably planned it, thought about it, imagined it, the dog 2 mniutes before that child toddled into his garden may have never thought about attacking anyone ever. The story could be a lot more complex, for example, what is the dog was deaf, what if the child walked up behind it and grabbed it making it jump? I am not fogiving the dog, or defending the dog, however the use of evil/dangerous without knowing the full story just doesn't seem right.


Could you explain how you know that for sure. The whole thing is fascinating tbh, that we pertain to understand how a species unlike ourselves, thinks.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Spud the Bull Terrier said:


> I wounder how your dog is to know the differnence? In one scenario it attaks an intruder and is PTS, in the other scenario it attacks an intruder and lives.


what i were merely pointing out was , if any dog i owned attacked a child and caused those kinds of injuries , i would probably choose to pts.

if my dogs attacked a grown up person; entering my property without permission i would fight tooth and nail for them; grown ups know the difference between right and wrong; children of two years old simply do not.


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> It is not a dog related law.
> 
> Under UK law you have the right to defend yourself and your property using "reasonable force".
> 
> ...


That would suggest that they in some way the other person would have to be proved to be the aggressor, trepass would not require reasonable force as you are not defending your property. As it is not under threat.

I now note that this orginal post has been editted to remove the bold that I quoted, maybe there has been a rethink?


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Could you explain how you know that for sure. The whole thing is fascinating tbh, that we pertain to understand how a species unlike ourselves, thinks.


I don't understand how they think but I know they don't 'plan' like we do, in this situation, that dog is not going to have known that child was going to walk into his garden so how could he have planned an attack.
I am not a scientist but I know there have been scientific experiements done to show dogs are not capable of thought processes as complex as ours.
My dogs think on a much deeper scale than I thought, but it is easy to 'catch them out' by changing their routine, therefore they are more governed by routine that spontanious thought


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

After thinking about this for a while this is my take.

The parents are partially to blame for allowing a two year old to wonder out of sight. 

The dog owner is responsible not necessarily for having a aggressive dog (dogs can be aggressive for all sorts of reasons not just because the dog owner is irresponsible) , but because he let his dog out unsupervised in an unsecured garden. IMHO every dog owner needs to take reasonable steps to protect people from their dogs. If someone comes in to a properly secured garden then, they are to blame but how secure is the garden if a two year old could get in?

The two beings not responsible are the dog and the child.


----------



## Spud the Bull Terrier (Jun 19, 2011)

diablo said:


> what i were merely pointing out was , if any dog i owned attacked a child and caused those kinds of injuries , i would probably choose to pts.
> 
> if my dogs attacked a grown up person; entering my property without permission i would fight tooth and nail for them; grown ups know the difference between right and wrong; children of two years old simply do not.


But what if it was a child that entered your property? are you saying that you would condemn your dog based on the innocences of the intruder?

just playing devils advocate


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> That would suggest that they in some way the other person would have to be proved to be the aggressor, trepass would not require reasonable force as you are not defending your property. As it is not under threat.
> 
> I now note that this orginal post has been editted to remove the bold that I quoted, maybe there has been a rethink?


Trespass could involve "reasonable force" being used. However with trespass there is a greater chance that the first level of minimum force needed, will be lesser than say for a burglar.

But going back to dog attacks/law on private property, there are 2 laws that cover attacks on private property. They are DDA and Dogs Act 1871.One covers all private property, the other (currently) only covers private property where the dog is not expected to be.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't find the why irrelevant when it comes to dog attacks. I think maybe if more thought were put into WHY this sort of thing keeps on happening we'd go a long way towards stopping it happening. Of course that would mean responsibility on both sides, dog owners and parents and god knows there's enough of each who want to take no responsibility for anything so chances are it would just carry on anyway.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

LexiLou2 said:


> No i don't, I think we are all born as pretty much a blank canvas and our life experiences mould us into what we become. That said I think some people have more of a pre-disposition to become dangerous same way I think some puppies do, but I think with the correct structured upbrining these issues can be prevented. The difference between human and dog is we are capable of much deeper thought, a person that killed of maimed a child will have probably planned it, thought about it, imagined it, the dog 2 mniutes before that child toddled into his garden may have never thought about attacking anyone ever. The story could be a lot more complex, for example, what is the dog was deaf, what if the child walked up behind it and grabbed it making it jump? I am not fogiving the dog, or defending the dog, however the use of evil/dangerous without knowing the full story just doesn't seem right.


I do agree that mental illness is not something that you learn as a human being and many many serial killers have mental illness which has stemmed from when they were children, born with the disease. Schizophrenia runs in families, it is an inherited disease so it hasn't been created in someone by someone else during their life and life experiences. That is a FACT as far as this disease is concerned and although some murders have become sociopaths through childhood experience there are many who are born evil.

I do believe that can be the same with any animal, you see rogue tigers who sometimes are killed due to being man eaters, grizzly bears the same. So I strongly do believe that animals too, including dogs since they are animals, can be born predisposed to attack to kill, be it another animal or human being. That's why dog rings keep their most aggressive breeders protected so as to win fights with the following generation - or so I have seen on TV, that way they are more likely to raise aggressive pups


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Spud the Bull Terrier said:


> But what if it was a child that entered your property? are you saying that you would condemn your dog based on the innocence's of the intruder?
> 
> just playing devils advocate


i wouldn`t expect my dogs to know the difference between a child or an adult entering my property , all i am saying is; i as a mother would probably choose to pts if any dog of mine attacked a child in such a way i would be beside myself; at the end of the day no one can honestly say how they`d react can they ? i`ve been burgled and my dogs did absolutely zilch as previously pointed out; so the likelyhood of my dogs attacking anyone on my property is probably less than zero. now my dogs aren`t small defenseless dogs by any means; they are one of the largest breeds in the world , known for their guard instincts , yet my two at the time [one has since passed away] were hands down two of the most useless guard dogs in the country which makes it even more laughable


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

diablo said:


> i wouldn`t expect my dogs to know the difference between a child or an adult entering my property , all i am saying is; i as a mother would probably choose to pts if any dog of mine attacked a child in such a way i would be beside myself; at the end of the day no one can honestly say how they`d react can they ? i`ve been burgled and my dogs did absoluetly zilch as previously pointed out; so the likelyhood of my dogs attacking anyone on my property is probably less than zero. now my dogs aren`t small defenseless dogs by any means; they are one of the largest breeds in the world , known for their guard instincts , yet my two at the time [one has since passed away] were hands down two of the most useless guard dogs in the country which makes it even more laughable


You wouldnt expect your dogs to know the difference between a child or an adult???? You would 'probably' choose to pts


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Can I just ask you.....do you believe a human being can be born evil/dangerous?


No I don't believe they can but a dog isn't a human.

I don't think a dog has evil thoughts or actually plans on attacking someone.

I think a dogs behaviour is reflected in the way they have been brought up. Different with a child, a child can be dragged up but still grow to be a lovely, kind person, that is the difference, humans have the ability to know right from wrong. They can break the cycle, dogs cannot.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> You wouldnt expect your dogs to know the difference between a child or an adult???? You would 'probably' choose to pts


i`m not coming across very well; i suppose it all boils down to whether or not you could actually live with your dog attacking a child in such a way and after thinking about it i don`t think i honestly could , could you ?
as i posted before i don`t expect my dogs to know the difference between children / adults , to do that i`d be placing them with `human` emotions and dogs just don`t think that way.
at the end of the day a child wandering into your garden is a hell of a lot different to someone choosing to force entry to your property to which i have been the victim of.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Goldstar said:


> I don't think a dog has evil thoughts or actually plans on attacking someone.


I wouldn't think a dog has 'evil thoughts' but I do believe they can have aggressive instincts, much the same as any wild animal has but as dogs are domesticated it's not something we would naturally think they wouldn't have. At the end of the day they are animals and quite capable of acting as if they were wild, regardless of upbringing and animals do plan attacks, wolves, lions, in fact any predator actively plans attacks in order to survive. Wolves are quite remarkable when watched from and aerial view - stunningly cunning!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> It's not true at all. There are plenty of bull breeds that were never bred to fight. It's all about ancestry.


So, what is not true. I did not mention any other bull breeds.



diablo said:


> i remember this story breaking a few years on the mastiff forum i frequent , people were laughing.
> Burglar makes the mistake of choosing 22-stone mastiff's home to rob | Mail Online
> at the end of the day , if someones dog is secured in their garden , then as far as i`m concerned that dog is secure , if someone wanders into that garden whether it be a strange child or adult a dog isn`t going to know the difference and i assume that most dogs would defend their territory.


There is a defending their territory and there is ripping a child apart.



LexiLou2 said:


> The issue is we put a lot of emphasis on what is written by the 'victim' we get someone on here my dog has been attacked and did nothing wrong, but how many people REALLY know that, see the subtle change in body language between the two dogs, a waggy tail can still be 'posturing' if held a certain way. I aren't brilliant at reading every dogs language, but I can read my two, Lexi especially, and can see how she is going to react to a dog before letting her great, Lexi spends alot of her life ill so can be grumpy with bouncy dogs, and even then her grumpy is all noise, she has never got hold of anyother dog, so I judge every situation as it arises, I see what she is telling me as she is by far a better judge than I am, I look at things on a very simplistic human scale, where as she sees the bigger picture.
> 
> So how do we know that all these attacks were as simple as they are made to sound. Don't get me wrong no dog should be in a position where it can be killed by another dog, but I honestly don't think you can view everything as black and white as we don't see the whole grey scale in the middle the dogs see.


Of course there is a reason for many attacks. When my dog was attacked by a staffie I did not blame the dog or the owner, I blamed my own dog for being stupid enough to approach a pack of dogs - she was oblivious to her danger and she was lucky that the owners reacted very quickly and that only one of their dogs attacked.



Spud the Bull Terrier said:


> But what if it was a child that entered your property? are you saying that you would condemn your dog based on the innocences of the intruder?
> 
> just playing devils advocate


I think the majority of normal dog owners would pts a dog that attacked a child, even just a nip - and very many owners would pts a dog that was likely to even before it ever got the chance to inflict damage. I have done so and I know many others that have too.
For some odd reason the majority of the human population think human life more important than dog life.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Goldstar said:


> No I don't believe they can but a dog isn't a human.
> 
> I don't think a dog has evil thoughts or actually plans on attacking someone.
> 
> I think a dogs behaviour is reflected in the way they have been brought up. Different with a child, a child can be dragged up but still grow to be a lovely, kind person, that is the difference, humans have the ability to know right from wrong. They can break the cycle, dogs cannot.


Baloney.

Dogs who had rough starts are rehabilitated all the time. Even those with bite histories.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I adore both my dogs, but whilst I could cope if they bit someone who got into the garden (especially as they are never left alone outside) I'm afraid that if they ever did that much damage to a child under any circumstance I would choose to have them PTS.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Malmum said:


> I wouldn't think a dog has 'evil thoughts' but I do believe they can have aggressive instincts, much the same as any wild animal has but as dogs are domesticated it's not something we would naturally think they wouldn't have. At the end of the day they are animals and quite capable of acting as if they were wild, regardless of upbringing and animals do plan attacks, wolves, lions, in fact any predator actively plans attacks in order to survive. Wolves are quite remarkable when watched from and aerial view - stunningly cunning!


That was the point I was trying to make I think, yes dogs can 'plan' an attack but only when presented with the 'prey' like you say wolves have to see the prey to plan the attack, unlike a human who could have planned an attack without seeing the 'prey' a human can spot its 'victim' and spend weeks, months, years, planning an attack, where as a wolf or a dog will see its prey and plan the attack there an then, dogs don't hold grudges, they don't attack for revenge, they don't attack just because it feels good.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Baloney.
> 
> Dogs who had rough starts are rehabilitated all the time. Even those with bite histories.


I think she means if a dog has a rough start and is still with the same owner who doesn't give a damn they are more likely to bite than a dog that has a good start.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Baloney.
> 
> Dogs who had rough starts are rehabilitated all the time. Even those with bite histories.


A dog that isn't taken away from a pig of an owner will not be one of those rehabilitated will it?

I am talking about dogs with idiotic owners!!


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Unfortunately nearly every dog attack lately that causes serious damage seems to be a staffie - and just going by the posts on here so do dog attacks.
> 
> To go back to whether it is the parents fault - does every parent keep their eye on their toddler at every moment of every day and night. I hardly think so! A parent can only do their best - and we dont know how the child got into the garden. It is even possible that it was a regular occurrence and the child was welcome there and known by the dog. *As I said though, if the child could get in the dog could get out.*I feel very sorry for the owner, he has to live with the horror of what his dog did and it sounds like he is being very responsible about it.


Not necessarily. The latch on my garden gate can be operated from the outside by a person, but not from the inside by a dog as they lack opposable thumbs. Unless I'm coming and going, it's also locked with a yale-type lock before anyone suggests my security arrangements are inadequate.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

xshelly_stanliex said:


> Yes they do say if its a staffy, a pit type a rotty all the so called dangerous breeds, but what when its a jrt, a spaniel the so called not so dangerous breeds what about those stories because it does happen yet that wouldn't make such good headlines would it jrt attacks!!!.
> 
> So excuse me if im not ok with the fact that these breeds are never mentioned yet so called dangerous breeds are!!!
> 
> ...


If a JRT or yorkie or whatever had taken a toddler's eye out, it would have made the news and the breed would have been mentioned. Maybe news stories about serious maulings by spaniels etc are in short supply is because they are so very rare. Maybe the 'so called dangerous' breeds are called dangerous because they are so - because they have stronger jaws and don't let go readily. Obviously all dogs have the capability of doing damage but strong jawed breeds that hang on are clearly going to do more damage than those that go in for a quick nip (as the herding breeds tend to do). Bull breeds were bred to bite and hold on, whilst the animal they held was slaughtered, this later made them suitable for fighting - and by the way they bite and hold on, they are more dangerous when they bite.

I really think the idea that the breed is unimportant shows a lack of engagement with the reality of the situation.

I've only ever been bitten once, by a cocker spaniel.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Blitz said:


> So, what is not true. I did not mention any other bull breeds.


You didn't mention any at all, if you had there might be some validity to your comment, as some were bred to fight. As it stands it's just a generalism made by someone who knows nothing about bull breeds.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Not necessarily. The latch on my garden gate can be operated from the outside by a person, but not from the inside by a dog as they lack opposable thumbs. Unless I'm coming and going, it's also locked with a yale-type lock before anyone suggests my security arrangements are inadequate.


same here! there is also a latch bolt kind of thing on my back gate that can be opened from the other side; from the inside there is a bolt that goes straight across the top of the gate and a yale lock a little bit lower down. my back gate was specially made with my children and dogs in mind , so it couldn`t be forced , chewed or broken. so anyone trying to gain entry would have to climb over the top of it which a young child wouldn`t be able to do without the aid of a trampoline:001_rolleyes: it would be virtually impossible for someone to just `wander` into my garden without either having to climb the fencing or gate.
i hardly use the back gate now , so locked and bolted all the time.
when i were broken into , someone had climbed over the fencing , onto the extention roof and manipulated / forced open [not smashed] the window on the landing , really was that easy; windows were supposed to be anti thief proof


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

There is a padlock on my six foot side gate - never mind people wandering in or the dogs wandering out, I don't want b*stards nicking my dogs! Too many unsavoury people round here at certain times of the year offering to sharpen my garden tools,(if you know who I mean), for me to risk them clocking my dogs and coming back later. It does happen and have seen it on Dog Lost for which I am a 'helper'.


----------



## fogy (Jun 26, 2011)

Very sad and also worrying as more stories like this are happening. I blame the owners, no matter what dog you have I think with appropriate training and good discipline it can be controlled.
Although saying that some dogs just don't like kids like my little cocker, shell bark and bark at them.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I wouldn't think a dog has 'evil thoughts' but I do believe they can have aggressive instincts, much the same as any wild animal has but as dogs are domesticated it's not something we would naturally think they wouldn't have. At the end of the day they are animals and quite capable of acting as if they were wild, regardless of upbringing and animals do plan attacks, wolves, lions, in fact any predator actively plans attacks in order to survive. Wolves are quite remarkable when watched from and aerial view - stunningly cunning!


Do you think its 'aggressive ' instincts, or 'survival' instincts kicking in. I agree, wolves do plan and therefore why should not dogs?

I think we underestimate our canine companions and although we like to think we 'know' a lot about them...in fact we still have 'a lot' to learn.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Could you explain how you know that for sure. The whole thing is fascinating tbh, that we pertain to understand how a species unlike ourselves, thinks.


Dogs don't rationalise like we do. They do have consciousness but not on the same level as we do, theirs is only on their current environment. I'm pretty sure there have been studies to prove it.

And I don't think people are born evil, I'm not a catholic 



Malmum said:


> I do agree that mental illness is not something that you learn as a human being and many many serial killers have mental illness which has stemmed from when they were children, born with the disease. Schizophrenia runs in families, it is an inherited disease so it hasn't been created in someone by someone else during their life and life experiences. That is a FACT as far as this disease is concerned and although some murders have become sociopaths through childhood experience there are many who are born evil.
> 
> I do believe that can be the same with any animal, you see rogue tigers who sometimes are killed due to being man eaters, grizzly bears the same. So I strongly do believe that animals too, including dogs since they are animals, can be born predisposed to attack to kill, be it another animal or human being. That's why dog rings keep their most aggressive breeders protected so as to win fights with the following generation - or so I have seen on TV, that way they are more likely to raise aggressive pups


Actually schizophrenia is poorly understood. There maybe a genetic component but last time I checked, it's believed that there has to be a trigger within the environment.

Every dog or human has the ability to be agressive or to kill, it's part of our built in survival instinct, fight or flight. Yes genetics may mean some are more likely to fight than flight or vice versa but IMO nurture plays the bigger part in both species.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Lavenderb said:


> Do you think its 'aggressive ' instincts, or 'survival' instincts kicking in. I agree, wolves do plan and therefore why should not dogs?
> 
> I think we underestimate our canine companions and although we like to think we 'know' a lot about them...in fact we still have 'a lot' to learn.


Hmmm......that's a difficult one because if it were survival then why would it go out of it's way to attack? the very last thing an animal wants in order to survive is a fight that could maim it and lessen it's chances of doing so. I think I'd go with out and out aggression for the sake of it. Why some dogs choose to attack and go for the throat to me shows a real aggressive tenancy and not due to survival at all.

Just my concept from what I've seen of animals on Sir David's programmes.

ETA- I worked in a doctors surgery in London some years ago and one entire family had Schizophrenia, the father had it and two of his daughters but not his sons and when I left there were thought's that one of his grandchildren were showing signs.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

That's rare. Most people with schizophrenia don't have an immediate family member that has it too.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> You didn't mention any at all, if you had there might be some validity to your comment, as some were bred to fight. As it stands it's just a generalism made by someone who knows nothing about bull breeds.


How do you know what I know about bull breeds. I will hold up my hands and say that I should have put fighting breeds rather than bull breeds but I think you are being very nitpicking.


----------



## BullyMolly (Sep 26, 2011)

Haven't read all replies to this thread, but the story is a complicated one. The child should NEVER have been left un-supervised at any point. I never left my children's side once when they were younger. The only time i did was when my husband was watching them, and if he was elsewhere and i wanted to have a bath, I would bring them into the bathroom with me with toys to play with on the floor. Yes there is always a way to be with your children to make sure they are safe!! 
As for the dog, Well that garden should have been secure! A child of two should not have been able to gain access to that garden. My garden is not yet completed and doesn't have a fence on some parts of the back garden. Therefore, my dogs do not go out into the back garden without a lead on and supervised. 
I love my dogs, but they are never trusted 100% ever! And yes I own a Bull breed so take this very seriously. I have stickers on my windows warning visitors of what breed I own, and remove my dogs when un-known visitors turn up. My kids and my dogs are my life so take their welfare very serious.

I really hope this little boy recovers well, my heart goes out to him xx


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> That's rare. Most people with schizophrenia don't have an immediate family member that has it too.


Do you have a source?
Its my understanding from many sources that there is a strong genetic component to schizophrenia and many other mental illnesses.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I think it's all about management. I don't care how aggressive someone's dog is as long as it's not given the opportunity to do damage. I don't complain about someones dog being aggressive because you don't know the provenance of that dog. While some cretins pride themselves on their dog being aggressive, there are plenty of others that exhibit that behaviour for no reason of their owners fault. They may have had a bad experience or been attacked and developed that behaviour. I saw a border collie brought to a lesson that was a complete basket case. Hugely aggressive to anything but was also completely fearful of everything. No idea what had happened to that dog, but some kind people had decided to take her on and rehabilitate her. I hope they can take care of that dog and keep them out of trouble


Thats what happened to Sabre, he was absolutely fine with other dogs until two Westies attacked him when we were caravaning, they were biting at his legs and his belly  When they came back for a 2nd go (after the owner had grabbed them once!) he started to growl and snarl but didnt bite back. But from that day on, he would bark and growl with his hackles up if he saw any small white dogs, and then that turned into pretty much any dog(unless it was bigger than him) I took him to training to socialise him and he did get much better (other than hating a dalmation called Milo!) but in the street it was so embarassing when people would point and say "hmm, another aggressive GSD!" when as far as he was concerned, he was protecting himself.

*Heidi*


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I don't read newspapers - ever - but I do read threads on here by fellow dog lovers and that's where my info is coming from. Other dog lovers and not judgemental media coverage.


I am only on page 7 of reading through this, so forgive me if this has been said, but Malmum's posts remind me of another stat...

Do you know what the most dangerous part of the road to cross is?... At a zebra crossing. Most accidents happen there. Is this because the strippy lines make it inherently dangerous?? Or is it because proportionately so many more people cross at them than they do anywhere else on the street?

Staffies are massively over breed, so even if it were true that most dog attacks are from them (which as doggie has pointed out, is not the case), it's not about the actual number of attacks but proportionately how many in relation to the number of the breed.

Somehow I suspect there are more attacks by staffie than clumber spaniel


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Since there is the usual hooha about if bullies are more prone to aggression than other breeds, I thought this link by the RSPCA might be of interest. It cites a wide variety of studies:
RSPCA Manchester and Salford Branch: Bull Breeds are dangerous - fact?

I will also look for a link that Ceearot posted ages ago about an in depth analysis about the amount of deaths caused by dogs in the US by their agricultural ministry. They found that a large proportion of those deaths were accredited to pitbull types by the media but found that only a minority were actually caused by one. Makes you think, doesn't it?
Here's the link to some very interesting research:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Do you have a source?
> Its my understanding from many sources that there is a strong genetic component to schizophrenia and many other mental illnesses.


Yes, many. Here are a few.

Considering the Genetic Risks of Schizophrenia - Schizophrenia Center - EveryDayHealth.com

Schizophrenia - Causes - NHS Choices

Schizophrenia | Mind

I'm not saying it doesn't run in families because you do have a higher chance of developing schizophrenia if a member of your family has it but it's not common for someone suffering with schizophrenia to have a close family member that suffers with it too.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Galadriel17 said:


> I'm not saying it doesn't run in families because you do have a higher chance of developing schizophrenia if a member of your family has it but it's not common for someone suffering with schizophrenia to have a close family member that suffers with it too.


The family I spoke of while working for a doctor in London where not from the UK and in their country inter breeding is very common, in fact most marriages are welcome if there is some family link. Something that we in the UK condemn. It isn't surprising that there would be more likelihood of it passing from generation to generation under the circumstances.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Alice Childress said:


> Staffies are massively over breed, so even if it were true that most dog attacks are from them (which as doggie has pointed out, is not the case), it's not about the actual number of attacks but proportionately how many in relation to the number of the breed.


Agreed and I have stated the same but if their owners were just a little more responsible, kept them on leads around other dogs like I do with my non dog friendly Mals, perhaps attacks may slow down a little. Whether there are more of them or not it still doesn't excuse the owners flouting certain bye laws and having them off lead on a street, or where they may be a threat to other dogs. How often do I see Labs, GSD's, Boxers off lead on the street in this neck of the woods, I'll tell you - I don't! They are no exception to the rule and shouldn't be roaming free when other dogs are not. If there are more of them, then all the more reason to keep them under control if they are likely to be a threat (at all) to other dog walkers dogs.

If I can do it with my dogs why excuse Staffie owners just because there are a lot of them? It's just being responsible - that's all!!!


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I do agree that mental illness is not something that you learn as a human being and many many serial killers have mental illness which has stemmed from when they were children, born with the disease. Schizophrenia runs in families, it is an inherited disease so it hasn't been created in someone by someone else during their life and life experiences. *That is a FACT as far as this disease is concerned and although some murders have become sociopaths through childhood experience there are many who are born evil.*


I find this comment misleading and saddening. For starters even if schizophrenia was a 100% inherited illness, it would not make that person 'born evil' in my opinion. I take offense at the implication that people with this disease, or other mental illnesses, are evil. Regardless though, it is not a purely inherited disease. There is a strong genetic component, however there are environmental triggers needed as well. If one identical twin has schizoprenia there is a 50% (not 100%) chance that the other will develop it as well - and that is assuming that the results are in fact accurate as with everything, we don't know what we don't know.

Living creatures are extremely complex. We are neither simply products of our environment nor genetically predisposed to every characteristic. Take our height for example. One aspect that most people think of as being entirely down to genetics, yet in reality your genetic 'blue print' interacts with the world around you, with your diet, with your emotional well being (ie stress), with the amount of sunlight you receive and so on and as a result of all these factors we each will grow to the height we are as adults. That is something as "simple" as height. When taking about the brain and mental illnesses it is far more complex and therefore to make any sweeping statement about the exact origins of aggression in humans or dogs is pointless.

I would also suggest that anyone capable of committing serial killings (off their own back and not in self defense) will have some metal illness, opposed to 'many many' - but I guess that's semantics for ya


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Lavenderb said:


> Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Battle to save face of boy, 2, mauled by dog
> 
> According to this report, the dog escaped from its garden..............................................................


And according to other reports, the child went into the dog owner's garden. A possible scenario is that the child opened the gate into the dog owner's garden, the dogs attacked, the child tried to run away and the dog followed him out into the alleyway where he was found. Photos of the alleyway in one report shows what appears to be decent quality fencing and gates.

As the child and the dogs had been living in close proximity previous to the attack, and the parents were likely to have been aware that a policeman had been bitten by one of the dogs in an incident, it seems extraordinary to me that they had a garden their child could exit from, that was not properly secured. Aside from not watching him.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Just watched this on Sky News. Apparently the child was in the dog's garden and a neighbour also states that the dog was too big to be a an SBT.

Dog Attack: Toddler Mauled By Staffordshire Bull Terrier In Swindon | UK News | Sky News


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I will be totally honest here. I have always been and rightly so, very protective of my children. My youngest is almost 6 and I don't even allow him out of my sight unless he's indoors or at school.
If he's out in my garden then I can watch him 2 ways. Either by going out with him, or watching from my lounge window as its a huge window. My kitchen windows also cover the back garden so he's easily watched.

My garden is fully enclosed by fencing. My next door neighbours have a dog and because of the fact they have a dog , I always check the fencing is in good condition. 
If that 2 year old had been mine he wouldnt have been outside on his own full stop.

So while he should not have been outside on his own....I would also not expect a child aged 2 to be almost mauled to death by next doors dog if they were to accidentally meet. This dog had previously bitten and should not have been able to do this.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> Just watched this on Sky News. Apparently the child was in the dog's garden and a neighbour also states that the dog was too big to be a an SBT.
> 
> Dog Attack: Toddler Mauled By Staffordshire Bull Terrier In Swindon | UK News | Sky News


look like staffies to me . they don`t look overly massive.









providing of course that photo is of one of the dogs responsible for the attack , it`s supposed to be.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

diablo said:


> look like staffies to me . they don`t look overly massive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do they have a picture of the dogs both at their home when one of them was seized according to the news?
Would it not make more sense (for the news/media) to post a picture of the dog being held in custody? ie: the ACTUAL dog the grandpa took off the kid?

Here in the US on *many* occasions the media has reported a dog bite, posted a "file photo" of a caged or otherwise menacing-looking "pit bull" only come to find out the dog that actually bit was say a lab or retriever or something with lots of long fluffy hair that was very clearly NOT a pit bull...

Edit: the above picture is from SWNS.com an agency that provides images for the newsmedia... Hrm...
http://images.swns.com/about-us


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

ouesi said:


> How do they have a picture of the dogs both at their home when one of them was seized according to the news?
> Would it not make more sense (for the news/media) to post a picture of the dog being held in custody? ie: the ACTUAL dog the grandpa took off the kid?
> 
> Here in the US on *many* occasions the media has reported a dog bite, posted a file photo of a caged or otherwise menacing-looking pit bull only come to find out the dog that actually bit was say a lab or retriever or something with lots of long fluffy hair that was very clearly NOT a pit bull...


apparently was a photo taken last year when the owners house was raided.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

diablo said:


> look like staffies to me . they don`t look overly massive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They don't look like they meet the breed standard to me. Too long in the leg.

Here's a pic of a Staff that meets the breed standard off the Wikipedia page











diablo said:


> apparently was a photo taken last year when the owners house was raided.


Yes, and it's not known if it's one of those dogs that was involved in the attack.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> They don't look like they meet the breed standard to me. Too long in the leg.
> 
> Here's a pic of a Staff that meets the breed standard off the Wikipedia page
> 
> ...


well they aren`t pit bulls either , far too chunky. look like badly bred staffs to me , plenty of those walking round that don`t meet the breed standard.

it`s been confirmed that it is one of the dogs from the raid last year that bit a police officer.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

diablo said:


> apparently was a photo taken last year when the owners house was raided.


Oh...
Is it a common practice then for the police to announce to the news media that theyre going to raid a house so a professional photographer can be on hand to take pictures of the dogs?

Im not saying these arent the dogs, not saying it wasnt a staffy that attacked the poor kiddo, just saying Im not going to believe everything the media presents to me.

Those dogs are in good shape. Looks like a nice house. Not exactly what I would expect from someone who looks like this:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/04/article-2154397-1371BFA2000005DC-408_306x449.jpg

Not to mention the actual article says:


> During the raid a local newspaper photographer took a photograph of two dogs jumping at the glass door. *It is not known if the picture features the dog which attacked Keiron*.


But hey, its a picture of two staffys looking out of control and menacing, so it will do.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

The breed of those 2 dogs in the photo is of no importance, they were both assessed in Sept 2011 and were deemed not of type.

There are plenty of Staffords who are taller than the breed standard.

And that photo from my knowledge is of the property concerned.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Oh...
> Is it a common practice then for the police to announce to the news media that they're going to raid a house so a professional photographer can be on hand to take pictures of the dogs?


the photo was taken last year by a swindon reporter as the raid was taking place at the property.



> Those dogs are in good shape. Looks like a nice house. Not exactly what I would expect from someone who looks like this:
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/04/article-2154397-1371BFA2000005DC-408_306x449.jpg


the gardens can be viewed here








looks like the same back yards to me. you can`t judge a persons house just because of what they happen to look like.

different news reports are saying police are confirming it`s the same dog , others are saying differently , depends where your looking.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Though I will add that the Daily Mail have gone with their usual tactic of using photos to scare people etc.

Notice how the photo is cropped in tight, you can make out some legs through the window.

Now lets see the full photo. I wonder if the police carrying out the raid look scared of the jumping Staffords................


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Oh...
> Is it a common practice then for the police to announce to the news media that theyre going to raid a house so a professional photographer can be on hand to take pictures of the dogs?
> 
> Im not saying these arent the dogs, not saying it wasnt a staffy that attacked the poor kiddo, just saying Im not going to believe everything the media presents to me.
> ...


Shouldn't really judge a book by it's cover, he may "like" to be a bit untidy in the way he presents himself, doesn't mean he can't live in a nice house


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

Goldstar said:


> Shouldn't really judge a book by it's cover, he may "like" to be a bit untidy in the way he presents himself, doesn't mean he can't live in a nice house


Exactly.
Just as we shouldnt judge a dog who has short hair, lots of muscle, and is jumping up at a door so menacingly that the police look utterly terrified 

Dont you all see? All sorts of judging is happening about pit bulls and staffys. Posting of pictures of dogs who may or may not be involved in the attack. Yet none of us know exactly what happened or what dog was involved.


----------



## lindr76 (May 6, 2012)

as a mother to 8 children AND an owner of staffie/staffie x's i can appreciate both arguements here and for that reason I will not be drawn into the arguements ensuing on this thread. 
IMO The child cannot be blamed as at 2yrs old should not of been left unattended for ANY length of time (my youngest are 3yr old twins and I manage easily to supervise them at all times to keep them safe so I know there is no excuse for it) and the dog being blamed is equally harsh and uncalled for,it is the owners you should be asking questions of.
The breed of the dog involved is completely irrelevant,it just so happens the media love to 'big up' these stories of so called 'dangerous dogs' attacking,yet rarely ever report on attacks by other breeds. The media is very much to blame for this mentality that staffies are 'bad dogs' as they hype up the bad reputation and NEXT TO NEVER report on the thousands of lovely staffies out there  
I personally hope the child makes a full recovery and am saddened to know yet another staffie has suffered due to irresponsible ownership and has paid the ultimate price,may the dog now rest in peace.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Exactly.
> Just as we shouldnt judge a dog who has short hair, lots of muscle, and is jumping up at a door so menacingly that the police look utterly terrified
> 
> Dont you all see? All sorts of judging is happening about pit bulls and staffys. Posting of pictures of dogs who may or may not be involved in the attack. Yet none of us know exactly what happened or what dog was involved.


but the dog did attack a child, also by reports it attacked a police officer.

they may not seem scared but things happen.

i am never afraid of dogs, so i would never have a scared expression, doesnt mean i can't get bitten!


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Exactly.
> Just as we shouldnt judge a dog who has short hair, lots of muscle, and is jumping up at a door so menacingly that the police look utterly terrified
> 
> Dont you all see? All sorts of judging is happening about pit bulls and staffys. Posting of pictures of dogs who may or may not be involved in the attack. Yet none of us know exactly what happened or what dog was involved.


I never mentioned any breed! I was simply trying to state that whatever dog that did attack cannot be held responsible for it's actions. I believe there is no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

I also believe that if the child did enter the garden then the blame lies with the childs parents as well as the owner of the dog.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Dont you all see? All sorts of judging is happening about pit bulls and staffys. Posting of pictures of dogs who may or may not be involved in the attack. Yet none of us know exactly what happened or what dog was involved.


i have no reason not to believe that photo isn`t one of the dogs that was involved in the attack on little kieron. that is the property and those are the two dogs that reside at the property being described everywhere you read as `staffies` and they look like staffs to me , albeit badly bred ones.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

All we know for sure is that a dog bit a child. We don't know what led up to the dog and child being alone together, we don't know what caused the dog to bite, we don't know what breed the dog was.

A friend of mine worked at a shelter where a dog was brought in, had bitten the a child in the family. Since the dog had a bite history the shelter took him to the back to be euthanized. After the dog was PTS, someone noticed he had a crayon lodged in his ear.

Yet all that will come of this "story" in the media is that pit bulls, staffies, and any dog with a slick coat and muscular build is dangerous.

Edit:
*An excellent example of how these stories are portrayed in the media:
The actual dog pictured in this story:*










*EXACT same event reported, look at what picture is used. THIS is the story that got all the FB shares and comments:*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

I havent read the whole thread..but dont understand why a 2yo was left unsupervised outside, we dont know what the child did to the dog to make it attack.
The owner of the dog is at fault for not supervising the dog in a garden that wsnt secure and the parent is at fault for not watching their child imo.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Would this conversation be going massively differently if this kid had wandered into the road and been knocked down by a car? Should the parents then take some responsibility for not adequately supervising their child? or is it SOLELY the drivers fault for using a road, as it was designed to be used? as this dog was using its OWN garden?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Would this conversation be going massively differently if this kid had wandered into the road and been knocked down by a car? Should the parents then take some responsibility for not adequately supervising their child? or is it SOLELY the drivers fault for using a road, as it was designed to be used? as this dog was using its OWN garden?


tbh it is completely different, to knock over a child you dont see is different to what this dog did.

even then you cannot see a child all day, everyday. was no one here never in the garden for a minute on their own, running around and chasing things, i know i was.

maddie mcann's parents left her and 2 babies alone in an apartment so they could have a meal and drink yet people always have sympathy for them, they would still have their child had they not left her alone in a strange place on purpose! this child was in a garden and a dog acted out of control.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Would this conversation be going massively differently if this kid had wandered into the road and been knocked down by a car? Should the parents then take some responsibility for not adequately supervising their child? or is it SOLELY the drivers fault for using a road, as it was designed to be used? as this dog was using its OWN garden?


Obviously depends if that car had a Staffie inside it. Or if that child was running away from a killer Staffie. 

Or even this......................

[youtube_browser]AO9OwOuZO8U[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> tbh it is completely different, to knock over a child you dont see is different to what this dog did.
> 
> even then you cannot see a child all day, everyday. was no one here never in the garden for a minute on their own, running around and chasing things, i know i was.
> 
> maddie mcann's parents left her and 2 babies alone in an apartment so they could have a meal and drink yet people always have sympathy for them, they would still have their child had they not left her alone in a strange place on purpose! this child was in a garden and a dog acted out of control.


Its not a lack of sympathy for the kid. What happened was horrendous- as it goes I think the outcome (dog being PTS was the right one) Same as with the Mcanns- but at some point the parents have to step up to the plate and say "I was an idiot for letting that child out of my sight, leaving it in an apartment alone so I can go for a meal" I am not saying the dog it blameless, but that the blame is shared.

The dog was not out of control it was in its own garden, if anything the kid was out of control- it is a tragic ACCIDENT (same as a RTA would be) but both sides are to blame.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Bottom line is kid should have been supervised, how do you know he didn't stick his finger in the dogs eye?. I have a 2yr old boy and he would stick his finger in my eye without thinking anything of it, hence needs supervision. The kid was in SOMEBODY ELSE'S GARDEN!! He's 2 

i lived across the road from this incident, there is a busy main road nearby, the parents didn't know the whereabouts he could just as easily stepped out in a main road, who would have stopped him?

Should the dog have done what it did??, of course not but we don't know what happened there, we do know however that the parents didn't know the whereabouts of their 2yr old child


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Would this conversation be going massively differently if this kid had wandered into the road and been knocked down by a car? Should the parents then take some responsibility for not adequately supervising their child? or is it SOLELY the drivers fault for using a road, as it was designed to be used? as this dog was using its OWN garden?


I am certain that everyday when they look at their child, they will feel responsible for not keeping a good enough watch on their toddler. I am certain that use of the garden is subjective, are you trying to say that the dog is someway allowed to do this in it's own yard???


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

redginald said:


> Bottom line is kid should have been supervised, how do you know he didn't stick his finger in the dogs eye?. I have a 2yr old boy and he would stick his finger in my eye without thinking anything of it, hence needs supervision. The kid was in SOMEBODY ELSE'S GARDEN!! He's 2
> 
> i lived across the road from this incident, there is a busy main road nearby, the parents didn't know the whereabouts he could just as easily stepped out in a main road, who would have stopped him?
> 
> Should the dog have done what it did??, of course not but we don't know what happened there, we do know however that the parents didn't know the whereabouts of their 2yr old child


I completely agree with this! I wouldn't trust my 19-month old as far as I can throw him. He LOVES Terence and Terence loves him but I wouldn't put it past Max to do something silly. So they are ALWAYS supervised. Max is ALWAYS supervised. And if I or my husband can't do it, we PAY somebody else to supervise him for us. 
By the same token, though, I wouldn't leave Terence unsupervised. Goes both ways, this.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> I am certain that everyday when they look at their child, they will feel responsible for not keeping a good enough watch on their toddler. I am certain that use of the garden is subjective, are you trying to say that the dog is someway allowed to do this in it's own yard???


Dont be ridiculous- of course it is not acceptable- if you continue to read my posts you will see I think it was a terrible ACCIDENT, and that the decision to PTS the dog was the correct one.

Kid was in the WRONG place at the wrong time- parents could have avoided that.


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

I wasn't trying to be ridiculous, it is very difficult to make fair or relevant comparrisons with a dog 'attack' to a road accident.
I just was pointing out that a dog use of the garden wasn't at all similar to a driver using a road.

I have read everyones posts and I think we all agree that this was a terrible thing for anyone involved.

In emotive subjects people will always feel strongly about the way or wording of others posts, due to the lack of emotional expression in the text. I was simply trying to point out the difference in use (honestly not trying to say you condone it in anyway  )


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

keiron wasn`t just in the care of his parents but TWO grandfathers too. what on earth were they all doing when a 2 year old child managed to wonder out of sight; that STILL baffles me.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

diablo said:


> keiron wasn`t just in the care of his parents but TWO grandfathers too. what on earth were they all doing when a 2 year old child managed to wonder out of sight; that STILL baffles me.


They live by a big open park, i believe there was a jubilee event there on the day, possibly people in and out to this i don't know. Its all over my Facebook, I've seen a few comments that suggest there may be more info to come out I'll say no more.

Unfortunately the young boy appears to have paid the price for others mistakes.

I do feel sorry for everybody involved, although i feel the parents should have kept a closer eye on the boy, they still obviously didn't intend for this to happen and must be going through hell.

I would like to think i always know where my kids are and what they are upto especially in regards to what address they are currently at, of course I've been caught offguard occassionly, we are not robots but unfortunately when something like this happens fingers get pointed.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> Though I will add that the Daily Mail have gone with their usual tactic of using photos to scare people etc.
> 
> Notice how the photo is cropped in tight, you can make out some legs through the window.
> 
> Now lets see the full photo. I wonder if the police carrying out the raid look scared of the jumping Staffords................


If these are the same 2 dogs, then the one who attacked the boy is the one in the air.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> If these are the same 2 dogs, then the one who attacked the boy is the one in the air.


Well of course! Everyone knows that airborne dogs are far more vicious than ground-level ones!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Well of course! Everyone knows that airborne dogs are far more vicious than ground-level ones!


I don't think Doggiebag was implying that at all. 
Merely pointing out which one was the perpetrator.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> I don't think Doggiebag was implying that at all.
> Merely pointing out which one was the perpetrator.


I figured doggiebag was being facetious, so was I


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I figured doggiebag was being facetious, so was I


Ah, the joys of the tinternet.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Well of course! Everyone knows that airborne dogs are far more vicious than ground-level ones!


Nothing to do with that. All about it being female. Everyone knows how bad females can get. 

In all seriousness, the attacking dog was female. The one on the ground (weighed down with a lamp on his head  ) looks to be male.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> Nothing to do with that. All about it being female. Everyone knows how bad females can get.
> 
> In all seriousness, the attacking dog was female. The one on the ground (weighed down with a lamp on his head  ) looks to be male.


See I didnt know the attacker had been identified as female. Though to be perfectly honest, the jumping one could be a neutered male. Cant tell on my computer if thats a shadow or a vulva. (Theres a sentence one doesnt hear every day.)

Though its also true that and dogs with lamps on their heads have much more trouble attacking people. What with the weight of the iron lamp and all...


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> See I didnt know the attacker had been identified as female. Though to be perfectly honest, the jumping one could be a neutered male. Cant tell on my computer if thats a shadow or a vulva. (Theres a sentence one doesnt hear every day.)
> 
> Though its also true that and dogs with lamps on their heads have much more trouble attacking people. What with the weight of the iron lamp and all...


The attacking dog was female, I have that confirmed.

But like you say it is hard to see 100% if that airbourne dog is female or male.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I think the whole ACCIDENT is extremely sad... 

I feel for the child, and I hope he makes a good recovery. 

I am one of those though, who are wondering where on earth the parents were... I know you can't watch them every second, but for a child as young to end up in a neighbours garden, just should not happen. 

I have also found (in general, not just on here) that some people will automatically jump to blame the dog owner. Now, we don't know ALL the facts of what happened, but if the child did enter a neighbours garden (like has been reported) then I don't think the blame necessarily lies with him. People should be able to let their dogs out in the garden, without fear of something like this happening. 

Neither of my dogs will bite someone (or at least I am confident they won't but you never do know!) but no one should be in my garden. If someone does, and were to get bitten, I wouldn't think it fair if I were blamed. Of course, in some cases, access is needed for workers (postmen etc) but, in my case, they should only need to go through the front garden, which the dogs don't go in because their isn't a gate. 

As for cases like Madeleine McCann, well I offer them no sympathy... I don't think anyone should leave their children in such circumstances. I also doubt that they would have got anywhere near the same amount of sympathy had they had blue collar jobs, or be a single mum etc. I feel sad for Maddie, but not them.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lozzibear said:


> As for cases like Madeleine McCann, well I offer them no sympathy... I don't think anyone should leave their children in such circumstances. I also doubt that they would have got anywhere near the same amount of sympathy had they had blue collar jobs, or be a single mum etc. I feel sad for Maddie, but not them.


Actually this is where i stand on it too. If they were with her it never would have happened and agree if it was a single mother who had left her children alone she would not have the same amount of sympathy!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Galadriel17 said:


> They don't look like they meet the breed standard to me. Too long in the leg.
> 
> Here's a pic of a Staff that meets the breed standard off the Wikipedia page
> 
> ...


I cant believe the nitpicking over the breed. If those are the dogs they are undoubtedly staffies. How many pet dogs meet their breed standard - very few I would say, but it does not change their breed.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

If lassie was lead in a garden and a kid unsupervised came and stuck his finger into her eye with nobody there to stop it, there is nothing to say said dog wouldn't retaliate. If the poor kid was being watched and wasnt free to wonder the neighborhood, he wouldn't have received these horrific injuries.

What if a young child walks into a back garden and falls into a pond ? Is it the pond owners fault? Or goes and cuts themselves on a unattended lawnmower or tools? 

Nobody can guarantee their dog would put up with abuse from an unrestrained toddler, it could of course be a case where the child did nothing, we don't know, and never will as a responsible adult wasn't there to witness it, and if there was it wouldnt have happened .


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Neither of my dogs will bite someone (or at least I am confident they won't but you never do know!) but no one should be in my garden. If someone does, and were to get bitten


But this was not a simply a bite. My problem is that people are keeping dogs (as so called pets) with temperaments that react like this if someone came in their territory. I don't care what the breed is, there is NO place in society for dogs like this.



> If lassie was lead in a garden and a kid unsupervised came and stuck his finger into her eye with nobody there to stop it, there is nothing to say said dog wouldn't retaliate.


There are no guarantees in life, but the chances are, a good tempered dog would firstly get away from the situation, if they can't get away they would issue warning growls, bark etc. They would not launch straight into an attack that would remove half the child's face! I am shocked that people seem to think this dog's reaction was natural and acceptable.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> But this was not a simply a bite. My problem is that people are keeping dogs (as so called pets) with temperaments that react like this if someone came in their territory. I don't care what the breed is, there is NO place in society for dogs like this.


What do you think would be the outcome if a st Bernard took hold of an abusive toddler?

Did you read the story about the French woman who had i believe the 1st face transplant ? I believe do correct me if im wrong she had induced herself into a accidental coma by overdosing, her pet Labrador then proceeded to claw and eat her face off in her own bed to wake her up.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

redginald said:


> What do you think would be the outcome if a st Bernard took hold of an abusive toddler?


i wouldn`t think a great deal judging by the fruit loopy ones i`ve seen


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

redginald said:


> What do you think would be the outcome if a st Bernard took hold of an abusive toddler?





diablo said:


> i wouldn`t think a great deal judging by the fruit loopy ones i`ve seen


No joke.

But St Bernards are considered one of the worlds most "dangerous breeds". They are behind a huge amount of hospital admittances.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Did you read the story about the French woman who had i believe the 1st face transplant ? I believe do correct me if im wrong she had induced herself into a accidental coma by overdosing, her pet Labrador then proceeded to claw and eat her face off in her own bed to wake her up.


And what relevance does that have to do with this attack? Unless you are suggesting the dog licked the nose, ear aand eye off the toddler


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> And what relevance does that have to do with this attack? Unless you are suggesting the dog licked the nose, ear aand eye off the toddler


How do you know this dog didn't issue growls etc?? Nobody was there. Nobody was there to say get away from the dog, its growling. 2yr olds don't understand English at 2 and certainly can't read a dog


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> No joke.
> 
> But St Bernards are considered one of the worlds most "dangerous breeds". They are behind a huge amount of hospital admittances.


i can honestly say , over recent months , i`ve met a few [viewing litters] they`ve been the most laid back placid dogs i`ve ever met , second litter i went to view i had my 4 year old niece with me , got to be said the dam of the pups was very gentle with her , even as my niece sat amusing her 6 week old pups i was sold after seeing that


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

diablo said:


> i can honestly say , over recent months , i`ve met a few [viewing litters] they`ve been the most laid back placid dogs i`ve ever met , second litter i went to view i had my 4 year old niece with me , got to be said the dam of the pups was very gentle with her , even as my niece sat amusing her 6 week old pups i was sold after seeing that


Hence why I hinted much earlier in this thread that people may be surprised at some breeds that cause more hospital admittances (including both injury and death) than Staffs.

Chi's
JRT's
St Bernards
Maltese
Dachshunds
Chow Chow
Malamutes
Huskies

To name a few that are all more "dangerous".


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> But this was not a simply a bite. My problem is that people are keeping dogs (as so called pets) with temperaments that react like this if someone came in their territory. I don't care what the breed is, there is NO place in society for dogs like this.


But how do you know that that is why the owner kept dogs like that?

I don't think dogs should randomly go about attacking people, but dogs are territorial and some dogs WILL act aggressively (even if they don't necessarily bite) if unwelcome people go on to their property.

People should be able to have their dogs in their garden without strangers going in uninvited, it wasn't like the dog (as far as we know) was running about out of control. If she was, then my opinion would be different because dogs like that running loose are a danger but on someones OWN property, they aren't (or shouldn't be!).


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

i`ve just caught part of an interview on the tv , the dog owner was being interviewed , confirming it was the same dog that bit a police officer last year and it`s him actually saying he managed to get to the lad to save death / further injuries to him , which is also confirmed by the lads grandparent here 
I pulled my grandson from devil dog's jaws | The Sun |News



> The dog owner was holding Keiron up but the dog was just jumping up and biting him.
> 
> "I took Keiron off him, put him on my shoulders and ran into an alleyway


it still appears little keiron HAD managed to wander off into the neighbours garden


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Sounds like his injured eye is reacting to light - good sign.

BBC News - Swindon maul dog owner feels &#039;terrible&#039; about attack


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The dog owner was holding Keiron up but the dog was just jumping up and biting him.


Not exactly a defensive reaction from a dog then!


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

As i said earlier if a toddler fell victim to a pond in somebody's garden would we be arguing over the depth of ponds??

If a toddler walked off out the house whilst parents playing farmville on Facebook and into the road would we blame the car manufacturer? 

Judging by some of the posts on here we would


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

redginald said:


> As i said earlier if a toddler fell victim to a pond in somebody's garden would we be arguing over the depth of ponds??
> 
> If a toddler walked off out the house whilst parents playing farmville on Facebook and into the road would we blame the car manufacturer?
> 
> Judging by some of the posts on here we would


If I'm driving in a residential area I do take great care and am aware that in spite of it being wrong, there may be children playing around who lack road awareness. Equally, while I do not expect people to wander into my garden, I would not expect my dogs to do more than bark and warn them off.

Judging by some of the posts on here it would seem that people think it is perfectly acceptable for a dog to react like this if someone enters it's 'territory'. No wonder we have the ridiculous dog laws we have and all the while people think this is perfectly acceptable behaviour, the laws will continue to get harsher.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> Equally, while I do not expect people to wander into my garden, I would not expect my dogs to do more than bark and warn them off.
> 
> Judging by some of the posts on here it would seem that people think it is perfectly acceptable for a dog to react like this if someone enters it's 'territory'.


i can`t say my own dogs ever reacted to strange people being in their surroundings i do realize not all dogs are the same , for instance if i wandered into another dog owners garden i do realize i`m probably taking a 50 / 50 chance on whether or not that dog is going to react or not. obviously a toddler wouldn`t know or realize that
i`m not saying it`s acceptable just that not all dogs are the same are they ? don`t mean they aren`t owned by responsible people!

also it` s been updated here and confirmed by police.


> "We can confirm that this incident happened in a privately owned garden in Swanage Walk in the Moredon area of the town.''


Police still investigating dog attack (From Swindon Advertiser)

in the circumstance i think the dog owner did all he possibly could seeing as there wasn`t one responsible relative looking out for that poor lad.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> If I'm driving in a residential area I do take great care and am aware that in spite of it being wrong, there may be children playing around who lack road awareness. Equally, while I do not expect people to wander into my garden, I would not expect my dogs to do more than bark and warn them off.
> 
> Judging by some of the posts on here it would seem that people think it is perfectly acceptable for a dog to react like this if someone enters it's 'territory'. No wonder we have the ridiculous dog laws we have and all the while people think this is perfectly acceptable behaviour, the laws will continue to get harsher.


Except this has nothing to do with dog laws, nor do trespassers. Hence why there have been no arrests nor will there be any arrests under DDA.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Its funny, im not particularly pro staffie, i have no reason to be. My dog is no saint, in past 2 weeks of walking him in dog populated park space to step up his socialization he has had a few encounters. He has successfully played off lead with 2 staffs no problems, he's met a few labs , few growls but no probs, we met 2 doberman yesterday that were so well behaved we couldn't get close as they just walked alongside their owner. He was however attacked by 2 border collies, to an extent he was trying to get away but they wouldn't stop and the owners had to pull them off before one of them got my size 12 up its backside. He was also attacked by a jrt full whack. 

As a 7 yr old my parents left me in with my older brother and our pointer who was ill and i was told not to go in her room as she was ill. I decided to enter the room once they were gone, she stood up from her basket, run the length of the room at me and totally out of character and jumped up and bit my face hard, i was taken to casualty covered in blood and still have the scars on my nose. MY FAULT, if not my brothers, who i will add has a scar on his face left by our Chiuahua. 

I hold no prejudice against the dogs i have mentioned, but dogs shouldn't be left unsupervised with kids, regardless of breed the toddler shouldn't have left his house let alone entered another, yes a jrt wouldn't have done the damage but any medium size dog could cause damage, if it had been another breed we may not just be talking of an injury


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> i do realize i`m probably taking a 50 / 50 chance on whether or not that dog is going to react or not.


I think almost all dogs would react - that is not the issue - it is the level or reaction that is of concern.



> in the circumstance i think the dog owner did all he possibly could seeing as there wasn`t one responsible relative looking out for that poor lad.


It would appear he did all he possible could to own a dog that was likely to react like this. Already killed a pensioner's dog! Bitten a policeman? The problem is the way people are using dogs and think it acceptable to have a dog behave like this. I did think we lived in a reasonable civilised society - clearly I appear to be wrong and live in some parallel universe.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Except this has nothing to do with dog laws, nor do trespassers. Hence why there have been no arrests nor will there be any arrests under DDA.


No, of course it doesn't, it has to do with responsiblity, awareness of others and living as a part of society.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I think almost all dogs would react - that is not the issue - it is the level or reaction that is of concern.
> 
> It would appear he did all he possible could to own a dog that was likely to react like this. Already killed a pensioner's dog! Bitten a policeman? The problem is the way people are using dogs and think it acceptable to have a dog behave like this. I did think we lived in a reasonable civilised society - clearly I appear to be wrong and live in some parallel universe.


the dog was assessed at the time and considered not to be dangerous; taking into consideration the dog was also TAZERED i`m not really surprised a police officer got bitten.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

Okay, Ill admit, Ive not followed the story, not really followed the thread that well, but heres my take.

It seems this dog also bit a police officer a year ago yes? So we know this dog has a bit history already.
I dont know about anyone else, but if I had a dog who had shown that he would bite, that dog would NEVER be in a situation where I was not 100% sure he could not get to anyone, AND I would be doing serious rehabilitation work.
I dont guess the owners did any specific training with the dog after the dog bit the police? Why was the aggressive dog not seized the FIRST time?

I dont care about the breed. Any dog who has lost the inhibition to bite humans is a danger IMO. The larger the dog, the larger the potential damage. I dont care if dogs like newfies and saints are supposedly saints (pun intended). My sister as an adult ended up with 17 staples in her scalp from a St. Bernard. Big dog = big teeth = big damage if they decide to use them. Not all dogs decide to use their teeth.

That said, if I lived in a neighborhood where homes across the street from me were being raided by the police, I would keep an even CLOSER eye on my kids than I already do. I had toddler twins, and I can tell you, if I went to pee, they came with me! Do you know the kind of trouble twins can get in to in the time it takes you to squat, wipe, and flush? 

Its not hard people. Be responsible for your kids, be responsible for your dogs.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> the dog was assessed at the time and considered not to be dangerous


I don't know what the report actually said, but it was reported that the dog had been assessed at the time and not considered a dangerous breed, nothing to do with not being dangerous. Besides, it doesn't mean a lot. There are plenty of pit bull types that walk around without the police doing anything.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

ouesi said:


> It seems this dog also bit a police officer a year ago yes? So we know this dog has a bit history already.
> I dont know about anyone else, but if I had a dog who had shown that he would bite, that dog would NEVER be in a situation where I was not 100% sure he could not get to anyone, AND I would be doing serious rehabilitation work.
> I dont guess the owners did any specific training with the dog after the dog bit the police? Why was the aggressive dog not seized the FIRST time?


it`s been confirmed by police that the dog was tazered by one of their officers; it got up and bit him.
wouldn`t you be royally pee`d off if you`d just been hit with however many volts ? how do we know the dog hadn`t been made nervous by that incident ? we don`t.
the dog was assessed after the incident and deemed not to be of type or dangerous.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

We live in a society today in which dogs are the least of your worries if you will let a 2 year old walk around off your property unattended. Im sorry but that very scenario could have resulted in endless amounts of grim situations, the dog did appear to be out of control, look at its history. Which shocks me even more to think that someone could allow their child to wonder into that situation


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2012)

diablo said:


> it`s been confirmed by police that the dog was tazered by one of their officers; it got up and bit him.
> wouldn`t you be royally pee`d off if you`d just been hit with however many volts ? how do we know the dog hadn`t been made nervous by that incident ? we don`t.
> the dog was assessed after the incident and deemed not to be of type or dangerous.


Well someone dropped the ball somewhere.

How does a dog go from not dangerous to biting a child?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Okay, I'll admit, I've not followed the story, not really followed the thread that well, but here's my take.
> 
> It seems this dog also bit a police officer a year ago yes? So we know this dog has a bit history already.
> I don't know about anyone else, but if I had a dog who had shown that he would bite, that dog would NEVER be in a situation where I was not 100% sure he could not get to anyone, AND I would be doing serious rehabilitation work.
> I don't guess the owners did any specific training with the dog after the dog bit the police? Why was the aggressive dog not seized the FIRST time?


Absolutely, the problem is that these kinds keep dogs like this deliberately - they would not think there is any rehabilitation needed. That is the problem.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Irresponsible owners, irresponsible parents, useless police (last time the latter statement cost me £80 to air my freedom of speech) has resulted in 1 innocent child getting injured. 

its clear as i stated to start with this story doesn't represent the staffs that are Kept by genuine owners, as few as these may be....... DEED


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Absolutely, the problem is that these kinds keep dogs like this deliberately - they would not think there is any rehabilitation needed. That is the problem.


A little unfair, the link between the staff and a particular kind of owner is proving to be the staffs downfall. Unfortunately for the staffie a chav walking down the street with a taught lead and a Golden retriever doesn't have the desired image


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I still don't exactly know what actually happened - child in dogs garden - child taken into dogs garden - or even if it was a front garden the dog was in, I just don't understand.

What I do know is that beyond the age of at least 16 I knew where all four of my kids were, much as it embarrassed them as they got older and at two they were quite honestly never out of mine or their fathers sight, didn't even let anyone else look after them. How flimsy must a gate be if a two year old child can open it? I assume it must have been closed otherwise the dog would have been out, unless the dog was out and attacked the child which then ran away from the dog and into it's garden.

Either way when you own a dog that has the potential to do possibly life threatening damage to any other living creature, be it animal or human, you have a responsibility to keep it in a secure enclosure and out of the public's domain when you are not beside it and when you are beside it you need to have it under proper control. 

As someone said earlier there are incidents with certain breeds due to there being many more of that breed but to me that is no excuse. There are even more of us drivers but we don't drive our cars on the pavement because we take proper care and people who own dogs of any breed should do the same.
There is no excuse for owning an animal and pleading ignorance because you don't keep it properly and this case seems to be one where ignorance prevails. Ignorance and carelessness on the part of the dog owner and the parents of the poor innocent child who is now paying the highest price of all.

Such a terrible shame as it really isn't hard keeping a dog in a secure garden that even an adult can't gain access to let alone a child.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

redginald said:


> A little unfair, the link between the staff and a particular kind of owner is proving to be the staffs downfall. Unfortunately for the staffie a chav walking down the street with a taught lead and a Golden retriever doesn't have the desired image


Not unfair at all, although your comment could be. I haven't mentioned breed and wasn't referring to any particular breed - it could be any breed - the same thing applies.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

More people are killed in ford mondeos than ferraris, you're far more likely to stick a ferrari into a tree though.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Not unfair at all, although your comment could be. I haven't mentioned breed and wasn't referring to any particular breed - it could be any breed - the same thing applies.


My bad, mis read it, i do apologize


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

redginald said:


> More people are killed in ford mondeos than ferraris, you're far more likely to stick a ferrari into a tree though.


Of course there are idiots in all walks and lets face it dogs don't just stroll down the road off lead because they've told their owners that's how they want to walk. People make a choice about leashing or not leashing a dog and those that don't in public places do not get my 'dog owner of the year' award. Too many people don't like or are scared of dogs for owners to let them wander where ever they like and there are certain types of owners in these parts that do just that constantly and they always and I mean *always* have a certain breed.

What's the need?


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I cant believe the nitpicking over the breed. If those are the dogs they are undoubtedly staffies. How many pet dogs meet their breed standard - very few I would say, but it does not change their breed.


Maybe I am nitpicking but like I said, they don't look like they meet the breed standard to me.

With all the bad breeding that goes on maybe you're right and not a lot of pet dogs do meet their breed standard but when you have a small section of society breeding Staffies with all kinds of different breeds to try and make them bigger or more threatening or to look more like a certain banned type and it's those dogs that, more often than not, aren't being raised properly and are giving the breed a bad name then forgive me for wanting to differentiate.

They look more like the product of a staffy, staffy cross mating to me. That's all I'm saying. They were probably bought as 'Irish Staffies' or 'Old Tyme Staffies' or whatever these idiots are calling them...

Was it you that was saying you'd forgotten what a proper staffy looked like just the other week?


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Malmum said:


> Of course there are idiots in all walks and lets face it dogs don't just stroll down the road off lead because they've told their owners that's how they want to walk. People make a choice about leashing or not leashing a dog and those that don't in public places do not get my 'dog owner of the year' award. Too many people don't like or are scared of dogs for owners to let them wander where ever they like and there are certain types of owners in these parts that do just that constantly and they always and I mean *always* have a certain breed.
> 
> What's the need?


But that's it, they always have a certain breed, my friend has a staffie and he's not a bottom feeding degenerate piece of scum, funny enough his dog has never been tazered, or attacked ANY other dog, and is one of the only dogs i trust around my kids. The breed itself is not the problem imo its alot (not all) of the type that buy them that is.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

redginald said:


> But that's it, they always have a certain breed, my friend has a staffie and he's not a bottom feeding degenerate piece of scum, funny enough his dog has never been tazered, or attacked ANY other dog, and is one of the only dogs i trust around my kids. The breed itself is not the problem imo its alot (not all) of the type that buy them that is.


Of course not all staffies are like that and yes, it's the idiot's that own and breed them. I wouldn't own any other breed than my own, but I hate seeing uncontrollable, boisterous labradors out - why do people think it is perfectly acceptable for dogs to behave like this? I'm not talking about a dog that is a work in progress, but where it is considered acceptable behaviour because of the breed.

Unfortunately, the problem with these staffies/staffy crosses is that these idiots do not consider them in the way we consider our pets. And the bybs that breed them breed them with poor temperaments too. Just look at the increase in crosses with a guarding breed - done deliberately to produce a dog that will act in these ways.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

redginald said:


> As i said earlier if a toddler fell victim to a pond in somebody's garden would we be arguing over the depth of ponds??
> 
> If a toddler walked off out the house whilst parents playing farmville on Facebook and into the road would we blame the car manufacturer?
> 
> Judging by some of the posts on here we would


Actually cars seem to be the exception. There must be more deaths caused by cars than anything else yet nothing is ever done about it. Any other risk is legislated against. Garden ponds very often have mesh over them - and there have been tragedies when they dont. As farmers we have to put a warning sign on our cattle shed roof in case some idiot climbs on it and falls through it. We have to put a sign up on electric fences in case some idiot gets a shock. The electricity poles near us have a sign say danger of death, which really cracks me up. It seems the law is very strict on warning of danger of everything except cars. Even cigarette packets have a warning on them!


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Malmum said:


> Either way when you own a dog that has the potential to do possibly life threatening damage to any other living creature, be it animal or human, you have a responsibility to keep it in a secure enclosure and out of the public's domain when you are not beside it and when you are beside it you need to have it under proper control.


So basically anyone with a dog then  Coz let's face it, all dogs have the potential to do life threatening damage.



> Was it you that was saying you'd forgotten what a proper staffy looked like just the other week?


I think I must have forgotten because the 2 in the picture look like your normal staffie to me while the one that apparently meets breed standard doesn't.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I should imagine the only way my small yorkie could cause me life threatening damage was if I tripped over her on the stairs! 
I don't think you can judge by the owner either. It was the staffy owned by a nicely dressed lady that launched an unprovoked attack on my dog that was onlead.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> *I should imagine the only way my small yorkie could cause me life threatening damage was if I tripped over her on the stairs! *I don't think you can judge by the owner either. It was the staffy owned by a nicely dressed lady that launched an unprovoked attack on my dog that was onlead.


What a foolish thing to say. Bet the people who have been on the verge of bleeding to death, or in some cases died from small dog attacks thought the same.

Small dogs have ripped peoples noses off, killed people as well as other dogs.

Never ever think a small dog can not cause life threatening injuries.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> I think I must have forgotten because the 2 in the picture look like your normal staffie to me while the one that apparently meets breed standard doesn't.


Here are a few more then


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> I think I must have forgotten because the 2 in the picture look like your normal staffie to me while the one that apparently meets breed standard doesn't.


Me too, they look like my neighbours one who she claims is a 'long legged' staffie!


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> I should imagine the only way my small yorkie could cause me life threatening damage was if I tripped over her on the stairs!
> I don't think you can judge by the owner either. It was the staffy owned by a nicely dressed lady that launched an unprovoked attack on my dog that was onlead.


A dog having a pop at your dog is a little different to a dog that rips a child up. lots of dogs have a pop at my dog, can't recall any staffs trying it though, doesn't mean they don't do it, other breeds do aswell.

A Yorkie may not do too much damage to an adult but could a baby or toddler, all dogs should be supervised around kids, even yorkies.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Me too, they look like my neighbours one who she claims is a 'long legged' staffie!


Yes, they are seemingly fast becoming a type as well as a breed IMO, I think down to BSL and so many trying to breed APBT lookalikes from Staffies.

Some of the 'Staffies' where my mum lives are about 22 inches at the shoulder that's about 50% more than the breed standard median. A few eyebrows would be raised if people were breeding Labradors that stood at around 36 inches!!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Galadriel17 said:


> Yes, they are seemingly fast becoming a type aswell as a breed IMO, I think down to BSL and so many trying to breed APBT lookalikes from Staffies.
> 
> Some of the 'Staffies' where my mum lives are about 22 inches at the shoulder that's about 50% more than the breed standard median. A few eyebrows would be raised if people were breeding Labradors that stood at around 36 inches!!


Yes she is a female but so tall, nothing like how a staff is 'meant' to look, but apparently it is kc reg as she was boasting about it!


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Galadriel17 said:


> Here are a few more then


Nope, not one of them look anything like the staffies I'm used to seeing. They look a lot like the staffies I knew as a kid though.



> I should imagine the only way my small yorkie could cause me life threatening damage was if I tripped over her on the stairs!


You might be surprised actually. I know a groomer whose career was ended by a toy breed thanks to its bites causing nerve damage to her hands. Okay, not life threatening but it was serious damage that needed months of care and that she will never fully recover from. A Pomeranian killed a baby. A Dachshund chewed off a toddlers genitals. So while it's unlikely that a toy breed is going to kill a healthy adult human they can certainly cause serious damage to one and can kill children.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Yes she is a female but so tall, nothing like how a staff is 'meant' to look, but apparently it is kc reg as she was boasting about it!


I bet she probably looks like one of these 'old tyme' or 'Irish Staffies':




























Often bred to look more like an APBT or to take part in things like this - staffordshire bull terrier Chester weight pull sprint - YouTube

ETA: To be fair, the height, when the breed standard was first written in 1935, was between 15 and 18 inches but that was changed in 1948 to 14 to 16 inches...


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Now they look much more like the ones I'm used to seeing. That type weren't the ones that got passed off as pit bulls or irish staffies where I was though, it was the huge, heavy, ponderous ones that got those labels.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> Now they look much more like the ones I'm used to seeing. That type weren't the ones that got passed off as pit bulls or irish staffies where I was though, it was the huge, heavy, ponderous ones that got those labels.


The huge, heavy, mastiff cross type dogs get called Staffies where I live so it's no wonder so many people don't know what a 'proper' staffy looks like...


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> I bet she probably looks like one of these 'old tyme' or 'Irish Staffies':
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is my idea of a staff and what in my mind a stafford should look like . it`s a well conditioned dog that`s been stripped of all it`s body fat. nice looking dog!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

yes, more like that, but even longer legs if you can imagine!

also it was said it was a blue one but now looks more of a brown colour, much darker then it used to be.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

diablo said:


> this is my idea of a staff and what in my mind a stafford should look like . it`s a well conditioned dog that`s been stripped of all it`s body fat. nice looking dog!


Don't like being able to see the ribs of a dog.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

diablo said:


> this is my idea of a staff and what in my mind a stafford should look like . it`s a well conditioned dog that`s been stripped of all it`s body fat. nice looking dog!


I don't deny she's a nice looking dog, it's just these dogs tend to be bred for gameness over anything else, little attention is paid to ensuring a reliable temperament (which is also in SBT breed standard).



emmaviolet said:


> yes, more like that, but even longer legs if you can imagine!
> 
> also it was said it was a blue one but now looks more of a brown colour, much darker then it used to be.


Blues tend to be a law unto themselves! They very rarely meet the standard even if both parents do. What I would consider to be a good breeder wouldn't try to breed blues. If a blue came along from a black/black brindle mating then fine but people who breed blue to blue are only after the overinflated prices they can get for them :nonod:


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> I don't deny she's a nice looking dog, it's just these dogs tend to be bred for gameness over anything else, little attention is paid to ensuring a reliable temperament (which is also in SBT breed standard).


that stafford is actually a kennel club registered dog and probably fits the breed standard more than most. the dog is probably no more `game` than any other kennel club registered stafford.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Why are people arguing over whether they are 'proper' Staffords or not?

Afterall, how often is the phrase 'Deed Not Breed' spouted out on here? Or does that only apply to Staffords bred to standard? Are pit bull types and SBT crosses now exempt from the statement? It seems so many people desperately want it to be an illegal type, as if in some way, that makes a difference to the whole ordeal.

Unless deep down people do believe that some breeds are inherently more aggressive than others, and just like to follow the herd and repeat the same mantra to be part of the in crowd.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> It seems so many people desperately want it to be an illegal type, as if in some way, that makes a difference to the whole ordeal.


Nothing to do with breed or wanting a breed to be illegal. It's about the type and temperament of dog that is the problem and the way people see them as some sort of protection/status symbol. It could be any breed, but there are certain breeds that fulfil this function more than others - a gundog breed or a toy breed never will. The main problem is the reason people own this type of dog (and I mean 'sort' not 'breed') and the acceptance that his is acceptable. There is another thread where someone mentions their young dog barks if a stranger touches them. I don't want to single this out, and don't know if they meant it like this, but it comes across as it is a good thing for them to be protective. It is not. Until people's reasons for dog ownership and attitudes change, this sort of thing will always be a problem - the breed favoured may change, but the problem will still be there. And the result will be even more draconian laws than those that currently exist.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Nonnie said:


> Unless deep down people do believe that some breeds are inherently more aggressive than others, and just like to follow the herd and repeat the same mantra to be part of the in crowd.


But some breeds ARE more predisposed to aggression and it even states in on their standard.

Certain breeds are more aggressive to other dogs etc like others have a predisposition to hunt game. It doesn't mean every dog in that breed IS.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Nothing to do with breed or wanting a breed to be illegal. It's about the type and temperament of dog that is the problem and the way people see them as some sort of protection/status symbol. It could be any breed, but there are certain breeds that fulfil this function more than others - a gundog breed or a toy breed never will. The main problem is the reason people own this type of dog (and I mean 'sort' not 'breed') and the acceptance that his is acceptable. There is another thread where someone mentions their young dog barks if a stranger touches them. I don't want to single this out, and don't know if they meant it like this, but it comes across as it is a good thing for them to be protective. It is not.


If its nothing to do with breed, why the debate over how well bred, or not well bred the dog was, if it doesnt make any difference?

It does come across from many users, that they want to be able to say "well it wasn't a Stafford, it was an illegal pit bull type" so that the blame is taken away from a breed whose reputation is already in the gutter, and placed on one that in many eyes, should not exist at all. If we are to believe the Deed Not Breed mantra, then surely this does not matter, and only how the dog was raised, kept and treated is relevant?

I agree, i don't think a dog being protective without specific training is a good thing. I wouldn't tolerate such behaviour from my dogs, and it always suprises me when people are proud of how theirs act.

Im having a bad day, so might not make much sense.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> But some breeds ARE more predisposed to aggression and it even states in on their standard.
> 
> Certain breeds are more aggressive to other dogs etc like others have a predisposition to hunt game. It doesn't mean every dog in that breed IS.


I guess thats my point. People seem to deny that some breeds DO have temperament issues within them.

Everytime an SBT attacks another dog, or attacks a child/person, there is a barrage of posts about how it's probably owned by an idiot/chav, or hasnt been socialised or trained etc, or is from a BYBer. The blame is always placed on the owner, and if anyone suggest the breed has an issue, they are shouted down.

Maybe there just needs to be an acceptance of the fact that some SBT's do have a streak in them, especially with other dogs.


----------



## Sherb (Jun 7, 2012)

It makes me shudder every time I see one of these reports, and it seems to be happening more and more. I agree that whole breeds should not be condemned to a certain extent, however I also agree that if it's a staffie who has done this, the media are not to blame for saying so. If anything it should serve as a warning for parents and dog owners that whilst these dogs can be lovely pets, if mishandled they also have the power to do a lot of damage, and also that children should be protected from being left unsupervised with any dog, to prevent these types of tragedies. 

I own a rottie who is the softest fella, but he's also big and powerful, meaning I would never turn him out and leave him in an unsecure garden, or leave him unsupervised with children, not in a million years.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> If its nothing to do with breed, why the debate over how well bred, or not well bred the dog was, if it doesnt make any difference?
> 
> It does come across from many users, that they want to be able to say "well it wasn't a Stafford, it was an illegal pit bull type" so that the blame is taken away from a breed whose reputation is already in the gutter, and placed on one that in many eyes, should not exist at all. If we are to believe the Deed Not Breed mantra, then surely this does not matter, and only how the dog was raised, kept and treated is relevant?
> 
> ...


No, you do make sense. I did gloss over the photos which I think promted the breed standard bit. However, as you say, the breed is irrelevant, so too is the fact that the parents should have been looking after their child (which they should have). Both take away from the fact that dogs (irrespective of breed) that react like this are being kept and it is deemed acceptable. It is IMO NEVER acceptable to have a dog like this (unless it is undergoing rehabilitation and is kept secure). It is NEVER right to aspire to have a dog like this to act as protection or to boost someone's ego.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Nonnie said:


> I guess thats my point. People seem to deny that some breeds DO have temperament issues within them.
> 
> Everytime an SBT attacks another dog, or attacks a child/person, there is a barrage of posts about how it's probably owned by an idiot/chav, or hasnt been socialised or trained etc, or is from a BYBer. The blame is always placed on the owner, and if anyone suggest the breed has an issue, they are shouted down.
> 
> Maybe there just needs to be an acceptance of the fact that some SBT's do have a streak in them, especially with other dogs.


I really agree with this. I have said the same often only to be shot down.

I don't think breed traits can just be pushed aside all the time. Alfie has no working stock in his lines that i can make out, however his herding is something to see! I'm sure he could become a sheepdog if we wanted him to be.

Melissa was just telling me how one of her dogs breed had a high prey drive but she had cats and came back to find the dog had killed them.

To overlook a breed trait is sometimes the worst thing you can do, yes any DOG can be aggressive but certain breeds have more of a predisposition to be like others have it to herd sheep or hunt game etc, we do not deny the fluffier breed traits so why deny the more controversial ones?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> No, you do make sense. I did gloss over the photos which I think promted the breed standard bit. However, as you say, the breed is irrelevant, so too is the fact that the parents should have been looking after their child (which they should have). Both take away from the fact that dogs (irrespective of breed) that react like this are being kept and it is deemed acceptable. It is IMO NEVER acceptable to have a dog like this (unless it is undergoing rehabilitation and is kept secure). It is NEVER right to aspire to have a dog like this to act as protection or to boost someone's ego.


Despite owning two SBT types, it saddens me that people are so quick to jump to the dogs defense, and try to lay blame somewhere, be it ownership or breeding, or in this case, parenting.

If someone came into my house, uninvited or not, and my dogs reacted aggressively, id come down on them like a tonne of bricks.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Sherb said:


> It makes me shudder every time I see one of these reports, and it seems to be happening more and more. I agree that whole breeds should not be condemned to a certain extent, *however I also agree that if it's a staffie who has done this, the media are not to blame for saying so.* If anything it should serve as a warning for parents and dog owners that whilst these dogs can be lovely pets, if mishandled they also have the power to do a lot of damage, and also that children should be protected from being left unsupervised with any dog, to prevent these types of tragedies.
> 
> I own a rottie who is the softest fella, but he's also big and powerful, meaning I would never turn him out and leave him in an unsecure garden, or leave him unsupervised with children, not in a million years.


Though they often get the breed wrong. They have labelled Rottie Crosses as being "large SBT's", they have labelled EBT's as SBT's. They have labelled GSD's as being "Pit Bull Type".

However the main thing is you will rarely see mention on Sky News, BBC News, or in the papers about the other breeds who have fatally attacked a human.

These are all breeds considered "dangerous". Now think how many have you seen in the Mail, Sun, or on the news etc?

Dachshund
Pom
Yorkie
Malamute
Husky
St Bernard
JRT
Newfoundland
Lab
Boxer
Cocker Spaniel

I could go on and on.

* "dangerous" includes serious injury and death caused by the breeds.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

thing is also , you can`t go posting photo`s of dogs and not expect others to know what they are looking at; i quoted a photo of a dog that that had been posted up which were in fact a very nice kennel club registered stafford; which had been bred for type and temperament. a dog owned by a breeder that has bred MANY champions. yet , apparently.



Galadriel17 said:


> I bet she probably looks like one of these 'old tyme' or 'Irish Staffies':





Galadriel17 said:


> Often bred to look more like an APBT





Galadriel17 said:


> I don't deny she's a nice looking dog, it's just these dogs tend to be bred for gameness over anything else, little attention is paid to ensuring a reliable temperament


i`m sorry , but this just demonstrates how little you know about staffords and what they should look like , rather than the dogs you have posted that apparently `fit` the written breed standard.

if you wish to take a look at the dogs yourself , it clearly states on the website they have and breed kennel club registered staffords , so you may wish to amend your previous post i`d hate anyone to get into legal problems should the breeder find their way here
Riskys Staffords


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm a strong believer in deed not breed. Any dog, whatever the breed can be the most gentle, loving dog in the right hands.

I think all I was trying to demonstrate is that there are many badly bred Staffies or Staffy types/crosses that get into the wrong hands, aren't trained or socialised properly and are giving Staffies as a whole a bad name.

Some dogs that aren't even Staffy crosses get called Staffies and if they do something like attack a person/dog then more people start going round talking about those 'evil Staffies'.

Good breeders of Staffies go to great lengths to try and breed for temperament, health and type and will do their utmost to ensure their pups only go the right people. A lot of the breeders who show this breed and who's dogs meet the breed standard (that I've been looking at) place a lot of emphasis on temperament.

The pictures I showed of the taller, leaner Staffies may not come under the category of 'badly bred', I don't know, I just did a quick google for 'old tyme staffy' and linked the first few pics that came up. They maybe involved in the weightpulling, lure racing, long/high jump, speedpulling scene, which I'm not into so know very little about and/or have responsible owners and are not likely to have behavioural problems, languishing in someone's back yard waiting for a toddler to walk in. It just so happens that the more badly bred types I see owned by 'undesirables' tend to be longer in the leg and look more like those 'old tyme' than than the small/medium dogs that meet the breed standard.

They probably are KC registered but just because a dog is KC registered, doesn't mean it meets the breed standard, is well bred, health tested etc. Even a dog bred by someone registered with the KC ABS won't necessarily be a well and/or ethically bred dog.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

diablo said:


> thing is also , you can`t go posting photo`s of dogs and not expect others to know what they are looking at; i quoted a photo of a dog that that had been posted up which were in fact a very nice kennel club registered stafford; which had been bred for type and temperament. a dog owned by a breeder that has bred MANY champions. yet , apparently.
> 
> i`m sorry , but this just demonstrates how little you know about staffords and what they should look like , rather than the dogs you have posted that apparently `fit` the written breed standard.
> 
> ...


Didn't see this before writing my post but I think I've addressed your points...

ETA: I didn't see their website, as mentioned, I got the pictures from google images and just picked some leggy Staffies. Their website says "we breed and promote old time KC Staffordshire Bull Terriers" lovely as their dogs are and I'm sure they don't fall into the catagory of 'undesirables' but I doubt their dogs would qualify for Crufts as they look too tall to me...


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> They probably are KC registered but just because a dog is KC registered, doesn't mean it meets the breed standard, is well bred, health tested etc. Even a dog bred by someone registered with the KC ABS won't necessarily be a well and/or ethically bred dog.


and just because a pup happens to come from parents that `fit` the breed standard in looks and temperament , does not mean that pup will go onto meet that standard. oh i know they are kc registered because i know of the dog! which is why i quickly picked upon the photo


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> Good breeders of Staffies go to great lengths to try and breed for temperament, health and type and will do their utmost to ensure their pups only go the right people. A lot of the breeders who show this breed and who's dogs meet the breed standard (that I've been looking at) place a lot of emphasis on temperament.


Do you know the proper temperament for a staffy/apbt? (They can be dual registered in the US - which makes the APBT ban in the UK pretty ridiculous to me).
These are dogs who are supposed to be prey driven, who are supposed to be tenacious, where DA is NOT considered a fault and is not actively avoided.

Im not trying to say that they are more dangerous than other dogs, Im just saying that a proper temperament staffie would not be a dog Id leave unsupervised in an unsecured yard where someone could wander in. Same as I wouldnt leave a JRT in the same room as a hamster because the terrier WILL figure out a way to get in to the hamster cage and will kill the hamster. Doesnt make it a vicious dog, makes it a temperamentally sound JRT.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> Didn't see this before writing my post but I think I've addressed your points...
> 
> ETA: I didn't see their website, as mentioned, I got the pictures from google images and just picked some leggy Staffies. Their website says "we breed and promote old time KC Staffordshire Bull Terriers" lovely as their dogs are and I'm sure they don't fall into the catagory of 'undesirables' but I doubt their dogs would qualify for Crufts as they look too tall to me...


an old time stafford , isn`t what you think , it`s just a kennel club registered dog meant to resemble a `stafford` from old.









thats CH gentleman jim , a kennel club registered stafford , that`s all those dogs are meant to resemble it`s nothing sinister.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Do you know the proper temperament for a staffy/apbt? (They can be dual registered in the US - which makes the APBT ban in the UK pretty ridiculous to me).
> These are dogs who are supposed to be prey driven, who are supposed to be tenacious, where DA is NOT considered a fault and is not actively avoided.
> 
> I'm not trying to say that they are more dangerous than other dogs, I'm just saying that a proper temperament staffie would not be a dog I'd leave unsupervised in an unsecured yard where someone could wander in. Same as I wouldn't leave a JRT in the same room as a hamster because the terrier WILL figure out a way to get in to the hamster cage and will kill the hamster. Doesn't make it a vicious dog, makes it a temperamentally sound JRT.


American Staffordshire Terriers, some of which are dual registered as APBT are not the same as a KC (UK) SBTs.

ETA:

2: CHARACTERISTICS
Traditionally of indomitable courage and tenacity. Highly intelligent and affectionate, especially with children.

"This has to be the most important clause of the Standard, and this is the only breed standard, with the exception of the Chesapeake Bay Retriever, that specifically states affectionate with children, so reliability and affection must be number one in breeders' and judges' approach to this breed. A dog that is not totally reliable should never be bred from, regardless." - Alec Waters

3: TEMPERAMENT
Bold, fearless and totally reliable.

"Again, we have another reference to the dog's attitude towards human beings - his reliability, making him the foremost of dependable companion and family dogs. Clauses 2 and 3 are the Staffirdshire Bull Terrier's most endearing features or virtues, and breeders and judges must guard it at all cost. It's a pity that the media does not take the trouble to present the breed in its true light" - Alec Waters

Most of the breeders I've been speaking to also place great emphasis on breeding from dogs that are sound with other dogs too.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Do you know the proper temperament for a staffy/apbt? (They can be dual registered in the US - which makes the APBT ban in the UK pretty ridiculous to me).


I thought that was the American Staffordshire Terrier not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. 2 different breeds if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> *Do you know the proper temperament for a staffy/apbt? (They can be dual registered in the US - which makes the APBT ban in the UK pretty ridiculous to me).*These are dogs who are supposed to be prey driven, who are supposed to be tenacious, where DA is NOT considered a fault and is not actively avoided.
> 
> Im not trying to say that they are more dangerous than other dogs, *Im just saying that a proper temperament staffie would not be a dog Id leave unsupervised in an unsecured yard where someone could wander in. * Same as I wouldnt leave a JRT in the same room as a hamster because the terrier WILL figure out a way to get in to the hamster cage and will kill the hamster. Doesnt make it a vicious dog, makes it a temperamentally sound JRT.


The UK ban states American Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Irish Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Irish Blue or Red Nose as well as some Am Bulls can be deemed of type.

The SBT is not of type (despite the same sort of name), as it is a different breed than the Am Staff etc.

So apologies if I am mistaken, but I get the impression you are mistaking the UK SBT as being the same as an Am Staff.

A proper bred (going by the breed standard) SBT is not aggressive. If I remember rightly the wording states it is "affectionate especially to children". And again if I remember rightly the Am Staff breed standard makes mention of the fact they have a high guard instinct. So 2 different breed standards - for 2 different breeds.

Again apologies if I misunderstood your point.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> I doubt their dogs would qualify for Crufts as they look too tall to me...


some of their dogs are crufts qualified and had excellent write ups from the people that judged them,,,,,,


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

diablo said:


> some of their dogs are crufts qualified and had excellent write ups from the people that judged them,,,,,,


And some of them do well in weight pulling etc.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> And some of them do well in weight pulling etc.


oh they do , i think they are excellent examples of what in my mind a stafford should be and should look like , i love those dogs and i think they as breeders have done exceptionally well with them they`ve not only campaigned their dogs in the show ring AND done well with them , but work them too i think they are excellent all round solid dogs.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Incase you didn't see it on the last page...



Galadriel17 said:


> American Staffordshire Terriers, some of which are dual registered as APBT are not the same as a KC (UK) SBTs.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> ...


ETA: They are two of the (English) Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard clauses.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

diablo said:


> some of their dogs are crufts qualified and had excellent write ups from the people that judged them,,,,,,


Some maybe, probably the shorter ones...


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> Some maybe, probably the shorter ones...


do you honestly believe that a dog that goes over breed standard don`t win shows , or is able to enter crufts ? VERY few staffords actually stand at the desired 16'' but go onto crufts qualify.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> The UK ban states American Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Irish Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Irish Blue or Red Nose as well as some Am Bulls can be deemed of type.
> 
> The SBT is not of type (despite the same sort of name), as it is a different breed than the Am Staff etc. That is the "sillyness" of the UK's DDA, it rests on a look.
> 
> ...


Yes, I am confusing the amstaff with the SBT, however, the pics posted of a well bred SBT, looks exactly like a proper APBT/AmStaff. I would post pictures of what I mean, but I have to get permission from the owner first 

As for temperament, APBT/AmStaffs are not supposed to be aggressive either, they are mean to be ridiculously friendly towards humans. They were once called the nanny dog in the US because of their friendliness towards humans coupled with a high pain tolerance and low reactivity made them ideal kid dogs. The kind of dog who could have his eye poked and ears pulled and only lick the kid in return. It was not unheard of at all for a dog to fight in the pit at night and play with the kids during the day.
These were dogs who were bred to tolerate being handled in the middle of a fight, being stitched up after a fight - without anesthesia - and were expected to never protest towards the humans. 
How that has turned in to a dog supposedly responsible for all these attacks on humans is something I will never understand.

As an aside, I wonder if the UK is keeping any kind of statistics on whether or not the breed ban is working as far as keeping people safer from these killer beasts . If anything, it seems to have made things worse has it not?
This is an interesting article about the pit bull ban in parts of Canada:
Van Veen: Where


> All reports from all municipalities do show similar patterns. The number of reported bites have not substantially dropped since Pit Bulls were banned.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I am confusing the amstaff with the SBT, however, the pics posted of a well bred SBT, looks exactly like a proper APBT/AmStaff. I would post pictures of what I mean, but I have to get permission from the owner first
> 
> As for temperament, APBT/AmStaffs are not supposed to be aggressive either, they are mean to be ridiculously friendly towards humans. *They were once called the "nanny dog" in the US because of their friendliness towards humans coupled with a high pain tolerance and low reactivity made them ideal kid dogs. The kind of dog who could have his eye poked and ears pulled and only lick the kid in return. It was not unheard of at all for a dog to fight in the pit at night and play with the kids during the day.
> These were dogs who were bred to tolerate being handled in the middle of a fight, being stitched up after a fight - without anesthesia - and were expected to never protest towards the humans. *
> ...


This is true of SBTs too. Or at least of the common ancestor shared by Am Staffs, APBTs, SBTs etc. after all, the SBT breed (and Am Staff and APBT I think) was created after dig fighting was outlawed.

I thought it was OK to share/link to images in the public domain?  People on here seem to do it quite frequently...

ETA: That should be dog not dig


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

diablo said:


> do you honestly believe that a dog that goes over breed standard don`t win shows , or is able to enter crufts ? VERY few staffords actually stand at the desired 16'' but go onto crufts qualify.


Well I'm obviously stupid for believing judges award dogs that most closely resemble their breed standard...

Have I read that wrong or are you saying hardly any/VERY few dogs over 16" qualify? If you are then we're in agreement 

ETA: Sorry, I have read that wrong. I'm not too good today and my brain isn't working properly!! Most of the Staffies I've met that have qualified for crufts (although not vast numbers) are between 14 and 16 inches...


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I am confusing the amstaff with the SBT, however, the pics posted of a well bred SBT, looks exactly like a proper APBT/AmStaff. I would post pictures of what I mean, but I have to get permission from the owner first
> 
> As for temperament, APBT/AmStaffs are not supposed to be aggressive either, they are mean to be ridiculously friendly towards humans. They were once called the nanny dog in the US because of their friendliness towards humans coupled with a high pain tolerance and low reactivity made them ideal kid dogs. The kind of dog who could have his eye poked and ears pulled and only lick the kid in return. It was not unheard of at all for a dog to fight in the pit at night and play with the kids during the day.
> These were dogs who were bred to tolerate being handled in the middle of a fight, being stitched up after a fight - without anesthesia - and were expected to never protest towards the humans.
> ...


The ban has now been in force for over 20 years, and has not had any impact on making dog attacks decrease.

It is the biggest failure in dog law in my books.

We often hear of dogs who are "Pit Bull Type". Never of dogs who are "Tosa Type", "Dogo Argentino Type" or "Fila Braziliero Type".

The law hinges too much on the word "type". In fact I doubt there were many of some of those breeds in the UK at the time.

You can get pure APBT's who are not deemed of "type" using the checklist used. Likewise you can get dogs with no Pit, (or any other banned breed) in their DNA who are deemed of type.

The other downside to the law, is it has increased the ownership of dogs who look like a banned breed.

I meant to make it clearer in my earlier post that Am Staff's are of course affectionate to their family. But my quick point was based on the following:



> Although friendly, this breed is loyal to his family and will protect them from any threat.


So not quite the guard instinct term I may of came across as stating, going from memory. But does make mention of the Am Staff's trait to protect their family.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> Well I'm obviously stupid for believing judges award dogs that most closely resemble their breed standard...
> 
> Have I read that wrong or are you saying hardly any/VERY few dogs over 16" qualify? If you are then we're in agreement


no very few stand at 16'' and qualify.

take for instance.

Ch War Cloud Of Ironstone stood *17.5 inches.*

SBT Pedigree

k.c champion.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Nothing to do with breed or wanting a breed to be illegal. It's about the type and temperament of dog that is the problem and the way people see them as some sort of protection/status symbol. It could be any breed, but there are certain breeds that fulfil this function more than others - a gundog breed or a toy breed never will. * The main problem is the reason people own this type of dog (and I mean 'sort' not 'breed') and the acceptance that his is acceptable.* There is another thread where someone mentions their young dog barks if a stranger touches them. I don't want to single this out, and don't know if they meant it like this, but it comes across as it is a good thing for them to be protective. It is not. Until people's reasons for dog ownership and attitudes change, this sort of thing will always be a problem - the breed favoured may change, but the problem will still be there. And the result will be even more draconian laws than those that currently exist.


I would like to point out that there are people who like SBTs for the way they look and for their LOVELY temperaments and not as some sort of penis extension!



Nonnie said:


> I guess thats my point. People seem to deny that *some breeds DO have temperament issues within them*.
> 
> Everytime an SBT attacks another dog, or attacks a child/person, there is a barrage of posts about how it's probably owned by an idiot/chav, or hasnt been socialised or trained etc, or is from a BYBer. The blame is always placed on the owner, and if anyone suggest the breed has an issue, they are shouted down.
> 
> Maybe there just needs to be an acceptance of the fact that some SBT's do have a streak in them, especially with other dogs.


I think this should read "lines" and not "breeds".
I know there are lines in Flatcoated Retrievers that have temperament issues (DA and some even HA), but nobody would go about describing Flatcoats as aggressive or temperamental. 
I think there are certain dogs that have some "issue" (for want of a better word) right from the word go. I met a SBT puppy a while back who at 4 months concerned me. He was barking and lunging at other dogs and not in a friendly, playful way. Add into that owners who are a really bad character match and you have a recipe for disaster. However, this does not make me think all SBTs are like this.
But I wholeheartedly reject that we should only think that SBTs have "a streak in them".


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> ETA: Sorry, I have read that wrong. I'm not too good today and my brain isn't working properly!! Most of the Staffies I've met that have qualified for crufts (although not vast numbers) are between 14 and 16 inches...


on the same hand you`ve got to realize that there are also plenty of over sized staffords [taller than 16''] that qualify for crufts and go onto make champions.
i really do think your placing way too much emphasis on the size and whats written within the standard , it is only a guide it`s nothing that`s set in stone. there are plenty of staffords out there , that don`t meet the breed standard , that are crufts qualified or champions in their own right.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I would like to point out that there are people who like SBTs for the way they look and for their LOVELY temperaments and not as some sort of penis extension!


Geez  I know that, I've never said otherwise and I specifically said 'type' as in 'sort'not 'type 'as in 'breed'.

Not all staffy owners are the same, just the same as not all greyhound owners are the same or all westie owners or all labrador owners. The 'type' of dog that I was referring to was one that is kept in part (possibly) as a pet, but is also kept for status reasons, for protection reasons or just for kicks. That encompasses many breeds, but typically staffies and staffie x, rotties and rottie x and many of the other guarding breeds.

I give up.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Geez  I know that, I've never said otherwise and I specifically said 'type' as in 'sort'not 'type 'as in 'breed'.
> 
> Not all staffy owners are the same, just the same as not all greyhound owners are the same or all westie owners or all labrador owners. The 'type' of dog that I was referring to was one that is kept in part (possibly) as a pet, but is also kept for status reasons, for protection reasons or just for kicks. That encompasses many breeds, but typically staffies and staffie x, rotties and rottie x and many of the other guarding breeds.
> 
> I give up.


I knew that was what you meant but I felt it needed pointing out that there are people who have these dogs for completely legitimate reasons.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

just an update; as predicted.
Owners of dog which attacked Keiron can't be charged, say police (From This Is Wiltshire)

so does look like the dog were enclosed on it`s own property.


----------



## johnjsmith (Jun 6, 2012)

Poor lad. It's a real shame when things like this happen.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> I thought it was OK to share/link to images in the public domain?  People on here seem to do it quite frequently...


Sure its okay to do. I just think its common courtesy to the owner to ask if he minds me including pictures of his dogs in a discussion about a staffie attack.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> However the main thing is you will rarely see mention on Sky News, BBC News, or in the papers about the other breeds who have fatally attacked a human.


How do the media get to know in the first place? I just wondered do you feel the press think no won't bother to report say a golden retreiver killing a human/mauling a child (if such a thing has ever happened, have no idea) or do the people involved contact the media themselves and thats why some cases are not reported?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> How do the media get to know in the first place? I just wondered do you feel the press think no won't bother to report say a golden retreiver killing a human/mauling a child (if such a thing has ever happened, have no idea) or do the people involved contact the media themselves and thats why some cases are not reported?


Because it's not what the readers want to read. In their minds, those breeds are "evil" and a Goldie mauling a child just doesn't fit.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> Because it's not what the readers want to read. In their minds, those breeds are "evil" and a Goldie mauling a child just doesn't fit.


agree , a picture of `old yeller`in the press is hardly going to make headlines after a dog of that breed has attacked a child.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Yet i once read that in the US a labrador was the dog most likely to attack.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Bjt said:


> Yet i once read that in the US a labrador was the dog most likely to attack.


In our area labX are the single most common dog out there. So just by sheer numbers, the likelihood of getting bitten by one is higher. Interestingly a good many of them get labeled pitX

Amazingly then, stats show that pitX cause the most bites. Not that anyone can properly ID a breed, if its a mix with short hair, its a pitX.

My own 80 pound 26 inch tall boxerXlab often gets called a pit mix


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> Because it's not what the readers want to read. In their minds, those breeds are "evil" and a Goldie mauling a child just doesn't fit.





diablo said:


> agree , a picture of `old yeller`in the press is hardly going to make headlines after a dog of that breed has attacked a child.


Is that fact though or just what you suspect - I did read last year about a lab attacking a child in a park by the way.

Not sure I worded previous post properly, I can understand an item getting into the press once something gets to a prosecution stage but how before - journalists are not roaming the streets for stories I would have thought. Some people would never willingly want something about them in the media others do so the cases reported is that because someone has contacted them with the story?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

ouesi said:


> In our area labX are the single most common dog out there. So just by sheer numbers, the likelihood of getting bitten by one is higher. Interestingly a good many of them get labeled pitX
> 
> Amazingly then, stats show that pitX cause the most bites. Not that anyone can properly ID a breed, if its a mix with short hair, its a pitX.
> 
> My own 80 pound 26 inch tall boxerXlab often gets called a pit mix


This links back to one of my earlier posts. I posted a link to the National Canine Research facility and they found that hardly any of the dogs that are reported as pits or pit crosses in the media, actually are.

Unfortunately, by then, it's too late. The damage to the reputation is done and the papers aren't exactly going to print a correction.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> *Is that fact though or just what you suspect - I did read last year about a lab attacking a child in a park by the way. *
> 
> Not sure I worded previous post properly, I can understand an item getting into the press once something gets to a prosecution stage but how before - journalists are not roaming the streets for stories I would have thought. Some people would never willingly want something about them in the media others do so the cases reported is that because someone has contacted them with the story?


This is what I know. 
Stories get placed where they are likely to be read. This works for all writing, not just dog attacks. You won't find a cookery recipe in a car magazine, say.
Again, this is substantiated by the National Canine Research links from earlier.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> How do the media get to know in the first place? I just wondered do you feel the press think no won't bother to report say a golden retreiver killing a human/mauling a child (if such a thing has ever happened, have no idea) or do the people involved contact the media themselves and thats why some cases are not reported?


Most cases nowadays are picked up the same way regardless of breeds involved.

The media have what is known as SMS (Social Media Strategy). they trawl twitter, facebook, forums etc looking for stories. So hi to all the journo's reading this.  This is a fairly popular way of getting news and quoutes.

Then of course there is press releases from police forces, people contacting a media outlet, and "pooling". Pooling is when one media outlet will get given a story and then they share it with others.

And as already said some stories will not get published at all, or if they are, then they are given minimal coverage due to the breed involved.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Is that fact though or just what you suspect - I did read last year about a lab attacking a child in a park by the way.


it`s not often it makes national and worldwide headlines though is it ?



DoodlesRule said:


> Not sure I worded previous post properly, I can understand an item getting into the press once something gets to a prosecution stage but how before - journalists are not roaming the streets for stories I would have thought. Some people would never willingly want something about them in the media others do so the cases reported is that because someone has contacted them with the story?


i think most of the time when they are fatal / really bad i assume it`s the police that notify the press; to help gather witness information


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Most cases nowadays are picked up the same way regardless of breeds involved.
> 
> The media have what is known as SMS (Social Media Strategy). they trawl twitter, facebook, forums etc looking for stories. So hi to all the journo's reading this.  This is a fairly popular way of getting news and quoutes.
> 
> ...


Am not doubting you DoggieBag as have no idea personally, but if not reported how do we know they have happened just a bit baffled. I would have thought the press would have reported this particular case whatever the breed involved?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Am not doubting you DoggieBag as have no idea personally, but if not reported how do we know they have happened just a bit baffled. I would have thought the press would have reported this particular case whatever the breed involved?


There are thousands and thousands of dog bites every year. If they reported everything that happened, the papers would look more like editions of Harry Potter. 
They just pick what they consider to be most "interesting", whatever that may be.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> There are thousands and thousands of dog bites every year. If they reported everything that happened, the papers would look more like editions of Harry Potter.
> They just pick what they consider to be most "interesting", whatever that may be.


Bites agree, but this one wasn't really just a bite


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Bites agree, but this one wasn't really just a bite


Yeah, maybe you're right. In the local press not that long ago, there was a story about a little girl who had been mauled by a JRT.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> !
> 
> I think this should read "lines" and not "breeds".
> I know there are lines in Flatcoated Retrievers that have temperament issues (DA and some even HA), but nobody would go about describing Flatcoats as aggressive or temperamental.
> ...


In that case, does the problem lie within some pedigree/kc registered SBT's?

So rather than people constantly talking about BYB and pet breeders, where there are no lines (lets face it, its dog + bitch = puppies in most cases), when there is an attack, maybe we should focus on the more 'responsible/ethical' breeders, who are not taking temperament into account.

I dont know what the answer is, i dont even know if there is a problem. But there has to be a reason for a certain breed to be more prevelant in attack situations, and it cant all be down to piss poor ownership, although in the cases against people, there always seems to be a few common denominators.

I'm just kinda thinking 'outloud' as i dont have an opinion one way or another.

There is an awful lot of opinion out there, but very little fact, very little research and a crap load of bias.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

This is an oldie but goodie article. Well worth reading the whole thing along with links.

Advocacy Overdrive: Addressing the Opposition - Facts Trump Feelings | Dog Star Daily

Excerpt:


> What troubles me and others that work so tirelessly to defend, protect and educate dogs and their owners is that the media is NOT helping to educate the public, they just keep the fear alive. When was the last time you saw or read any news reporter talk about these truths?
> It is estimated that 1 out of 600 pit bulls are adopted out of shelters.
> 2 million pit bulls a year are euthanized, 5,479 dogs a day.
> On average 20, 25 or 30 people die from dog bite related injuries each year; this includes all breeds of dog. Most fatalities are small children left alone unsupervised.
> ...


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Am not doubting you DoggieBag as have no idea personally, but if not reported how do we know they have happened just a bit baffled. I would have thought the press would have reported this particular case whatever the breed involved?


End of last week there was one just as serious. About a week or so ago another serious one. Same as this story, they involved a young child.

However they did not involve a Stafford so have not made the papers, TV or indeed gone around the worlds media unlike this story.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Nonnie said:


> In that case, does the problem lie within some pedigree/kc registered SBT's?
> 
> So rather than people constantly talking about BYB and pet breeders, where there are no lines (lets face it, its dog + bitch = puppies in most cases), when there is an attack, maybe we should focus on the more 'responsible/ethical' breeders, who are not taking temperament into account.
> 
> ...


I disagree completely. There is plenty of research and plenty of facts all pointing to the same thing: There is NO breed prevalence at all.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> although in the cases against people, there always seems to be a few common denominators.


Well in the serious cases i've read (not talking about bites), some sort of involvement in drugs seems to crop up frequently.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> This is an oldie but goodie article. Well worth reading the whole thing along with links.
> 
> Advocacy Overdrive: Addressing the Opposition - Facts Trump Feelings | Dog Star Daily
> 
> Excerpt:


You forgot the 150 people killed by coconuts each year. 

LOL I love that stat.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Well in the serious cases i've read (not talking about bites), some sort of involvement in drugs seems to crop up frequently.


Yes, I have noticed that, too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> You forgot the 150 people killed by coconuts each year.
> 
> LOL I love that stat.












Clearly coconuts should be banned.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> I disagree completely. There is plenty of research and plenty of facts all pointing to the same thing: There is NO breed prevalence at all.


So everytime an SBT attacks another dog do we know its lines? Do we even know if its KC registered or pedigree? I doubt it.

I guess thats the sort of thing i mean. If there was some way of collecting such data, then maybe if there were issues with certain lines or not they could be dealt with, or we could see whether it were down to socialisation and trainer, or handler error. I don't like to believe a dog attacks with no reason, i think we just need to look a little harder into finding out why.

Rocco, thats the sort of thing i mean. Drugs and being kennelled outside seem to be common factors. Makes you wonder how much human contact, exercise and stimulation those animals recieved.

We accept zoo/wild animals showing behavioural problem due to a bad environment, why not a domestic one? Why shouldnt a dog be driven beyond its threshold due to neglect and boredom? Solitary confinement will drive any living thing mad.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Nonnie said:


> So everytime an SBT attacks another dog do we know its lines? Do we even know if its KC registered or pedigree? I doubt it.
> 
> No,we don't know the lines, you're right, and I can only speak for the breed I know most about, Flatcoats. There ARE lines that are a bit dodgy and people still breed from them. It's up to the individual puppy buyer to do the research, unfortunately.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, this message doesn't seem to have sunk in with many people.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> Unfortunately, this message doesn't seem to have sunk in with many people.


Reminds me of this site i read a few years ago: Mothers Against Dog Chaining: Attacks on Children


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> What a foolish thing to say. Bet the people who have been on the verge of bleeding to death, or in some cases died from small dog attacks thought the same.
> 
> Small dogs have ripped peoples noses off, killed people as well as other dogs.
> 
> Never ever think a small dog can not cause life threatening injuries.


I did a search and as far as I can find only one person has ever been killed by a yorkie, so I think it is ok to say my yorkie is unlikely to cause life threatening injuries. I'm not sure how that covers every single small dog. There was no need to be quite so rude in your response.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> I did a search and as far as I can find only one person has ever been killed by a yorkie, so I think it is ok to say my yorkie is unlikely to cause life threating injuries. There was no need to be quite so rude in your response.


I don't think Doggiebag was rude in the slightest, merely pointing out that a Yorkie is more than capable of causing serious damage. One bite to the jugular is all it takes and even a Yorkie can manage that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> I did a search and as far as I can find only one person has ever been killed by a yorkie, so I think it is ok to say my yorkie is unlikely to cause life threating injuries. There was no need to be quite so rude in your response.


Pomeranian kills baby
Pomeranian Kills Baby | Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog - Los Angeles Times


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> End of last week there was one just as serious. About a week or so ago another serious one. Same as this story, they involved a young child.
> 
> However they did not involve a Stafford so have not made the papers, TV or indeed gone around the worlds media unlike this story.


How do you know about them if not reported, or can't you say (no idea if its knowledge to do with your job for example) Am intrigued though to know whether media really did not report because of the breed or is it possible the people involved have to agree to press coverage?

I am just thinking of my own family for example if something awful like that happened amongst us last thing we would think of is going to the press, if you see where I am coming from?


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Jobeth said:


> I did a search and as far as I can find only one person has ever been killed by a yorkie, so I think it is ok to say my yorkie is unlikely to cause life threatening injuries. I'm not sure how that covers every single small dog. There was no need to be quite so rude in your response.


I was not being rude. I was just stating fact.

Nor am I being rude now, but more than one person has been killed by a Yorkie.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> How do you know about them if not reported, or can't you say (no idea if its knowledge to do with your job for example) Am intrigued though to know whether media really did not report because of the breed or is it possible the people involved have to agree to press coverage?
> 
> I am just thinking of my own family for example if something awful like that happened amongst us last thing we would think of is going to the press, if you see where I am coming from?


I have experience with the media as part of giving interviews for various news outlets. So know how the big players in the industry work.

You may not want to talk to the media if you were to become a victim. But a neighbour, or the other party could make the media aware of the incident via something as simple as a tweet or fb status.

As well as SMS (Social Media Strategy) the media have another term that escapes me at the moment, that involves using the public providing news.

Journo's ring up people such as Air Ambulances etc and ask if they have had any interesting "shouts". The response could set off a story, i.e "We currently have 2 aircraft on a job for a boy who has been attacked by a dog".

Eventually they will have gathered bits and pieces (which may not be the truth) and publish it. You then (if you were the victim or close to the victim) may feel pressured into giving your side of the story.

They are crafty when it comes to news stories, especially now with the growth of social media.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> There are thousands and thousands of dog bites every year. If they reported everything that happened, the papers would look more like editions of Harry Potter.
> They just pick what they consider to be most "interesting", whatever that may be.


This wasn't a 'bite' , this was an attempted killing.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> This wasn't a 'bite' , this was an attempted killing.


As are others that never make the papers.

Ideal timing for this.

In the last few hours there has been a serious dog attack. Lets see if it makes the papers or TV.

My money is on it will not.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> I don't think Doggiebag was rude in the slightest, merely pointing out that a Yorkie is more than capable of causing serious damage. One bite to the jugular is all it takes and even a Yorkie can manage that.


But hundreds of people and dogs havent been killed or seriously injured by Yorkies unlike the breed that is the subject of this Thread.

You google 'yorkie attacks' and literally a handful come up.....you google 'staffy' and you run out of web page before the lists end.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Thought I'd re-post the link I posted much earlier regarding the failings of dog bite statistics and the innacuracies of media recroded events in judging breed related statistics.

Scientific Studies | Stop BSL


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> But hundreds of people and dogs havent been killed or seriously injured by Yorkies unlike the breed that is the subject of this Thread.
> 
> You google 'yorkie attacks' and literally a handful come up.....you google 'staffy' and you run out of web page before the lists end.


Far more humans have been injured by Yorkies and other small dogs than by Staffies.

And I am not on about minor injuries either.

I am on about loss of body parts, severe blood loss, and in some cases death.

Google is not a reliable source for gaining reports on dog attacks. Try using data supplied by the worlds health services, research, police records, court papers and etc.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> But hundreds of people and dogs havent been killed or seriously injured by Yorkies unlike the breed that is the subject of this Thread.
> 
> You google 'yorkie attacks' and literally a handful come up.....you google 'staffy' and you run out of web page before the lists end.


I see we are back to breed bashing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> But hundreds of people and dogs havent been killed or seriously injured by Yorkies unlike the breed that is the subject of this Thread.
> 
> You google 'yorkie attacks' and literally a handful come up.....you google 'staffy' and you run out of web page before the lists end.


Hrm... Ever attended an earth dog trial?


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> As are others that never make the papers.
> 
> Ideal timing for this.
> 
> ...


i know there was another young lad attacked by a dog on tuesday though his injuries weren`t life threatening , they look pretty serious


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

diablo said:


> no very few stand at 16'' and qualify.
> 
> take for instance.
> 
> ...





diablo said:


> on the same hand you`ve got to realize that there are also plenty of over sized staffords [taller than 16''] that qualify for crufts and go onto make champions.
> i really do think your placing way too much emphasis on the size and whats written within the standard , it is only a guide it`s nothing that`s set in stone. there are plenty of staffords out there , that don`t meet the breed standard , that are crufts qualified or champions in their own right.


I stand corrected; after speaking to someone who shows, it would seem that quite a few oversized dogs are placed. Apparently not so many bitches get away with it though. A lot depends on the judge too although generally size is taken into consideration hence why when you read critiques, you will often see comments on size. For example, I've seen quite a few say 'top size' (which most consider is a polite way of saying oversized apparently) and that results in the dog being placed lower than another with similar attributes but of 'standard size'.

Here's one I've found quickly and at random so they can't be that rare 

SBT Pedigree



ouesi said:


> Sure its okay to do. I just think its common courtesy to the owner to ask if he minds me including pictures of his dogs in a discussion about a staffie attack.


You're probably right  Oh well, I've gone and done it now, apologies, if anyone who's picture I've used would like me to remove it from my post then please let me know


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> I stand corrected; *after speaking to someone who shows, it would seem that quite a few oversized dogs are placed*. Apparently not so many bitches get away with it though. A lot depends on the judge too although generally size is taken into consideration hence why when you read critiques, you will often see comments on size. For example, I've seen quite a few say 'top size' (which most consider is a polite way of saying oversized apparently) and that results in the dog being placed lower than another with similar attributes but of 'standard size'.


that would be because there are far more `top sized` staffords than there are of those that meet the breed standard. i actually do like the taller leaner staffs for quite a few reasons; to me they do look like a dog that were bred for a `purpose` and not just a dog bred specifically for the show ring. just because a stafford does not meet within the confines of the breed standard; does not make it any less of a stafford.
if i were looking for a pup , a stafford pup , i would have no problem at all going to the folks whose link i posted earlier


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

diablo said:


> that would be because there are far more `top sized` staffords than there are of those that meet the breed standard. i actually do like the taller leaner staffs for quite a few reasons; to me they do look like a dog that were bred for a `purpose` and not just a dog bred specifically for the show ring. just because a stafford does not meet within the confines of the breed standard; does not make it any less of a stafford.
> if i were looking for a pup , a stafford pup , i would have no problem at all going to the folks whose link i posted earlier


I quite like the look of some of their dogs. I do prefer the more athletic look, rather than a squat barrel, but then i do prefer badly bred SBT's and crosses.

If i could find a dog built like this in the future, i'd be a happy bunny:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Lavenderb said:


> This wasn't a 'bite' , this was an attempted killing.


Absolutely agree and it not only bit a copper it also killed a pensioners small dog in the past. Should have been PTS long ago. As the grandfather lifted the child above his shoulders the dog was jumping up trying to get it, biting the grandfather at the same time, leaving deep injuries.

I believe any dog that deliberately kills another as though it were prey is of no use as a pet, especially around other dog owners. Too many good dogs are destroyed every day to make exceptions for those with such viscous streaks. The less of them around the better!

As for Staff breed standards - I go back far enough to know how they looked in the 60's & 70's. They were a lovely short legged, broad dog with a wonderful wide neck. Built like a little brick sh*t house. Some of the poor examples you see around today look like they've been crossed with a whippet - awful leggy look, puny head - bred by folk who have absolutely no idea what a true Staff should look like. They should be short and stocky not lean and leggy.

The above dog is not what I see as a true Stafford.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

diablo said:


> that would be because there are far more `top sized` staffords than there are of those that meet the breed standard. i actually do like the taller leaner staffs for quite a few reasons; to me they do look like a dog that were bred for a `purpose` and not just a dog bred specifically for the show ring. just because a stafford does not meet within the confines of the breed standard; does not make it any less of a stafford.
> if i were looking for a pup , a stafford pup , i would have no problem at all going to the folks whose link i posted earlier


Have to agree, I much prefer the leaner, longer legged ones regardless of whether they meet breed standard or not. And although I've met countless dog aggressive ones I can honestly say I have never met a staffie who was human aggressive.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Malmum said:


> Absolutely agree and it not only bit a copper it also killed a pensioners small dog in the past. Should have been PTS long ago


i`ve read nothing which stated it killed dogs previously; maybe the dog had.
as for biting the police officer , the dog chose to bite AFTER the taser gun had been discharged upon her hitting her in the mouth , police have confirmed that.
if i were a dog that had just had thousands of volts shot through me , i`d probably choose to bite too , she must have been terrified.


----------



## Sherb (Jun 7, 2012)

We seem to come across lots of timid frightened staffs, which in itself is always a bit worrying.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Malmum said:


> I believe any dog that deliberately kills another as though it were prey is of no use as a pet, especially around other dog owners. Too many good dogs are destroyed every day to make exceptions for those with such viscous streaks. The less of them around the better!


I think that's a very easy decision to make when it's not your dog.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Each to their own, I think they're all gorgeous!


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Sherb said:


> We seem to come across lots of timid frightened staffs, which in itself is always a bit worrying.


That definitely is a fault...


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Malmum said:


> I believe any dog that deliberately kills another as though it were prey is of no use as a pet, especially around other dog owners.


Im certainly not one who is against euthanasia for behavior reasons, and I have fairly low tolerance for true human aggression, but I think this is a bit extreme. Do you know how many breeds are highly prey driven and can easily kill a small dog?

My female dane is about as prey driven as danes come. She regularly hunts and easily catches and dispatches of smaller prey. She could easily confuse a chihuahua with a squirrel, does this mean she is no use as a pet?

What about all the little Napoleons out there with owners who think its cute to let them growl and lunge and NIP at my giant dogs? If my dog retaliates does that make mine no use as a pet?

I just dont think you can make all encompassing statements like dogs that would kill another are no use as pets. There are FAR too many variables.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Obviously from reading through the posts on here I can see that there are some very knowledgeable people, certainly on the staffordshire bull terrier breed.
What happened to make some people suddenly think it was ok to breed these dogs with so little thought to their temperament?. Why did they pick on this particular breed.

For anyone who thinks I'm breed bashing...I'm not. I grew up with my father's bull terrier cross. There was not a hint of the problems that are arising now when my dads dog was growing up with us.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Love the fact people are repeating the "pensioners dog killed by this dog" quote from the Sun.

Despite the dates etc not adding up to the dog involved in Sundays attack matching.

Then again guess libel cases keep those courts busy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> What happened to make some people suddenly think it was ok to breed these dogs with so little thought to their temperament?. Why did they pick on this particular breed.


whose to say some of these dogs haven`t come from caring considerate breeders ? who put lots of thought into breeding their dogs ? an awful lot is to do with the way a dog is raised and socialized. 
leave a dog without any kind socialization and don`t rear it with care and love i`d imagine any breed could attack just as easy , so maybe it`s because most staffords we are seeing in the news are owned by total asswipes who have had very little socialization themselves.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

diablo said:


> whose to say some of these dogs haven`t come from caring considerate breeders ? who put lots of thought into breeding their dogs ? an awful lot is to do with the way a dog is raised and socialized.


So why are some owners raising them to be so aggressive? what is it about the breed that makes them fall victim to this treatment.

Jack russells are just as capable of killing things, they kill rats etc, so why arent these being paraded in leather body belts and studded collars. Why pick on the staffy?


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> Love the fact people are repeating the "pensioners dog killed by this dog" quote from the Sun.
> 
> Despite the dates etc not adding up to the dog involved in Sundays attack matching.
> 
> Then again guess libel cases keep those courts busy.


And then we have the papers printing "the grandfather is a hero for rescuing the young boy". Only for the Grandfather to confirm himself the owner Mr King actually rescued the boy from the dog, and was holding him up high when he (the grandfather) arrived on scene. He (the grandfather) then took him off Mr King and then left with the boy while the dog was jumping up.

That is why I hate the media despite having dealings with them via work.

Even worse are the "eyewitnesses", they talk absolute trash. You only have to see how stories differ between 2 people who were supposed to be within touching distance of each other.

Rant over.

DoggieBag
Media and Eyewitness Hater.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> So why are some owners raising them to be so aggressive? what is it about the breed that makes them fall victim to this treatment.
> 
> Jack russells are just as capable of killing things, they kill rats etc, so why arent these being paraded in leather body belts and studded collars. Why pick on the staffy?


It's look. Pure and simple.

But thankfully for the Stafford their view of being the dog of choice is decreasing with some.

Bad news for the Akita, Malamute and Husky. Not to mention some of the weird crosses involving these breeds to make them look "well 'ard".


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> So why are some owners raising them to be so aggressive? what is it about the breed that makes them fall victim to this treatment.
> 
> Jack russells are just as capable of killing things, they kill rats etc, so why arent these being paraded in leather body belts and studded collars. Why pick on the staffy?


the stafford is a victim of it`s own success , thats all. look deep into their history you`ll see exactly why they are owned by complete and utter morons who have little interest in socializing them or training them; i suppose not doing all those things gets the `desired` effect , folks who own the stafford simply because of their history , probably shouldn`t own dogs full stop at all.
jack russells simply don`t have the same kind of history; which is probably why they aren`t flavour of the month all year round year in year out.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Malmum said:


> I believe any dog that deliberately kills another as though it were prey is of no use as a pet, especially around other dog owners. Too many good dogs are destroyed every day to make exceptions for those with such viscous streaks. The less of them around the better!
> 
> As for Staff breed standards - I go back far enough to know how they looked in the 60's & 70's. They were a lovely short legged, broad dog with a wonderful wide neck. Built like a little brick sh*t house. Some of the poor examples you see around today look like they've been crossed with a whippet - awful leggy look, puny head - bred by folk who have absolutely no idea what a true Staff should look like. They should be short and stocky not lean and leggy.
> 
> The above dog is not what I see as a true Stafford.


If a dog kills another as if prey then it's most likely down to predatory drift and nothing to do with aggression. What is Predatory Drift? | Go Dog Training | Blogs on DogTime.com

If you go much further back into the history of the SBT than the comparatively recent 1960s you will see that the pre kennel club dog was a leggy less barrel like dog in comparison to the stock ideal of today's breed standard.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> whose to say some of these dogs haven`t come from caring considerate breeders ? who put lots of thought into breeding their dogs ?


The chances of these dogs coming from good breeders are remote for a number of reasons. Firstly, no reputable breeder would sell them a puppy. Neither are they likely to be prepared to pay the prices for a health tested well bred puppy and the ready availability of staffies and staffy crosses that are bred by these sorts of people anyway mean there is no need. They will prefer the feisty, sharp dogs anyway.


----------



## Coffee (Jul 31, 2011)

Has anyone else seen this? 

Schoolboy, 5, scarred for life in face mauling attack by Staffordshire bull terrier his neighbours adopted from animal shelter | Mail Online

Loving the usual trotted out photo


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Malmum said:


> The above dog is not what I see as a true Stafford.


Well you wouldn't as he isnt one. He's a cross. Well a rescue, his parentage is entirely unknown.

I dislike the 'built like a brick shithouse' look and would probably search out a cross or badly bred type in the future. Rescue of course.

Seems there isnt a pedigree breed to suit everyone.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> If a dog kills another as if prey then it's most likely down to predatory drift and nothing to do with aggression. What is Predatory Drift? | Go Dog Training | Blogs on DogTime.com
> 
> If you go much further back into the history of the SBT than the comparatively recent 1960s you will see that the pre kennel club dog was a leggy less barrel like dog in comparison to the stock ideal of today's breed standard.[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> The chances of these dogs coming from good breeders are remote for a number of reasons. *Firstly, no reputable breeder would sell them a puppy.* Neither are they likely to be prepared to pay the prices for a health tested well bred puppy and the ready availability of staffies and staffy crosses that are bred by these sorts of people anyway mean there is no need. They will prefer the feisty, sharp dogs anyway.


thats simply wrong; you can be whoever you want to be , even when approaching breeders , it`s been posted here SO many times , breeders selling their pups to less than desirable people. not all people are who they portray themselves to be when meeting breeders as lets face it EVERYONE is the best owner in the world when speaking to them


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Coffee said:


> Has anyone else seen this?
> 
> Schoolboy, 5, scarred for life in face mauling attack by Staffordshire bull terrier his neighbours adopted from animal shelter | Mail Online
> 
> Loving the usual trotted out photo


good to see they`ve ammended his age as i were just about to post he`s actually 8 years old. oh the joys of the media


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

diablo said:


> good to see they`ve ammended his age as i were just about to post he`s actually 8 years old. oh the joys of the media


They haven't bothered to change the photo, though, and used the sneezy dog one again.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Coffee said:


> Has anyone else seen this?
> 
> Schoolboy, 5, scarred for life in face mauling attack by Staffordshire bull terrier his neighbours adopted from animal shelter | Mail Online
> 
> Loving the usual trotted out photo


An image I'm sure will scar that boys mind for life...Stupidly, I believe that dog is sneezing so not a good depiction of aggression.

oops beaten by above poster.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> Snoringbear said:
> 
> 
> > If a dog kills another as if prey then it's most likely down to predatory drift and nothing to do with aggression. What is Predatory Drift? | Go Dog Training | Blogs on DogTime.com
> ...


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

diablo said:


> thats simply wrong; you can be whoever you want to be , even when approaching breeders , it`s been posted here SO many times , breeders selling their pups to less than desirable people. not all people are who they portray themselves to be when meeting breeders as lets face it EVERYONE is the best owner in the world when speaking to them


Well, it depends on what you consider a good breeder - clearly our standard of what is a good breeder is different.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> Well, it depends on what you consider a good breeder - clearly our standard of what is a good breeder is different.


my standards when looking for breeders are rather high; merely pointing out several people on here have sold puppies to people who have turned out to be the complete opposite of what they originally portrayed , so maybe take it up with those breeders on here if you must.:001_rolleyes:


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> So why are some owners raising them to be so aggressive? what is it about the breed that makes them fall victim to this treatment.
> 
> Jack russells are just as capable of killing things, they kill rats etc, so why arent these being paraded in leather body belts and studded collars. Why pick on the staffy?


I think a contributing factor is BSL and the fact that the Staffy is the most similar looking legal dog to the APBT...



Snoringbear said:


> If a dog kills another as if prey then it's most likely down to predatory drift and nothing to do with aggression. What is Predatory Drift? | Go Dog Training | Blogs on DogTime.com
> 
> If you go much further back into the history of the SBT than the comparatively recent 1960s you will see that the pre kennel club dog was a leggy less barrel like dog in comparison to the stock ideal of today's breed standard.


In 1935 the breed standard was first written and the dogs were called SBTs, since then it has been changed twice, once in 1948 (when the height was changed to what it is now) and again in 1987 so the leggier, leaner types were 'correct' for just 13 years whereas the shorter, stockier type has been 'correct' for 64 years now.

Pre Kennel Club wasn't it just know as a bull and terrier or pit dog or am I wrong?



rocco33 said:


> The chances of these dogs coming from good breeders are remote for a number of reasons. *Firstly, no reputable breeder would sell them a puppy. Neither are they likely to be prepared to pay the prices for a health tested well bred puppy and the ready availability of staffies and staffy crosses that are bred by these sorts of people anyway mean there is no need*. They will prefer the feisty, sharp dogs anyway.


I agree with this. The breeders I would call good go to great lengths to try and ensure their dogs are homed with responsible people. Of course some people are good at smoke and mirrors but why would a scally who wants a fighting dog or someone who knows very little about dogs or how they should be raised/socialised for example pay £600 for a dog that's been bred for health, temperament and type when he can get a staffy/staffy cross from down the road for £150 or less?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> merely pointing out several people on here have sold puppies to people who have turned out to be the complete opposite of what they originally portrayed


Doesn't make them good breeders just because they're on here 



> so maybe take it up with those breeders on here if you must.


Why would I do that?  you're the one using them as an example of a good breeder selling puppies to the wrong home, not me.

Besides, this thread has lost it's appeal. What started out as a thread about a boy savaged has turned out to be yet another 'defend staffies' thread which sadly misses the point completely.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Galadriel17 said:


> In 1935 the breed standard was first written and the dogs were called SBTs, since then it has been changed twice, once in 1948 (when the height was changed to what it is now) and again in 1987 so the leggier, leaner types were 'correct' for just 13 years whereas the shorter, stockier type has been 'correct' for 64 years now.


They started to be called that in the 1920s. Other names prior to that also included Pit-dog, Pit Bull-terrier, pit bulldog, bull and terrier, patched fighting dog, Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire pit dog, black country fighting dog, old-new bull terrier (whatever that's meant to mean). A dog called Como 2 was registered by the KC by that name in 1888, apparently he was more of a Dane cross though. In 1904 these dogs were permmitted to be shown at Crufts in Bull Terrier classes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> Doesn't make them good breeders just because they're on here
> 
> Why would I do that?  you're the one using them as an example of a good breeder selling puppies to the wrong home, not me.


where did i say they were GOOD breeders?  and just because they post on here doesn`t mean to say that they aren`t either , i`ve seen many good breeders posting away on here a lot of whom are held in high regard that have made the exact same mistake.


----------



## leighhawkes89 (Jun 1, 2012)

I completely agree with most comments on here where were the parents i mean come on.. a toddler going into someones garden you just wouldnt take your eyes off the child ( i wouldnt anyway) same as a dog i always watch my dog when his in garden 1 to see what plants he is ruining and what his picking up in case he eats somthing not good for him.

If i had a child and it was around a dog be it in a house the park on the street i would take all precausions because at the end of the day a dog is a dog and wouldnt let it be around the dog alone even if the dog is brilliant with children and very friendly.

i do hope the toddler is ok though


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> I agree with this. The breeders I would call good go to great lengths to try and ensure their dogs are homed with responsible people. Of course some people are good at smoke and mirrors but why would a scally who wants a fighting dog or someone who knows very little about dogs or how they should be raised/socialised for example pay £600 for a dog that's been bred for health, temperament and type when he can get a staffy/staffy cross from down the road for £150 or less?


whose to say most of these dogs are purchased anyway; some scallywags would think nothing of lifting your prized litter from underneath your very nose.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

I hold my hands up and say I have a badly bred staffie.

However at 15.5" to the shoulder and about 15kg she does fit breed standard (her head is FAR too small though) anyway I have been asked on numerous occasions where I got my miniture staffie from and even got asked once if she was a ......................are you ready for this..........................................................a teacup staffie!!!
Because so many people think my breed standard size dog is too small.

Lexi can be iffy with other dogs......and so may people put that down the her being a staffie......honestly??? My dog (bless her) is so badly bred she is plauged with allergies, she spends a lot of her life with blistered feet, ear infections and stomach upsets and when her feet are blistered and sore she doesn't want to be bounced all over, as a few on her will know Lexi will play nicely with polite dogs, but unpolite dogs she will tell off......and its just noise always noise she has never ever hurt another dog, and I always put her on the lead to greet dogs she doesn't know, but as soon as your staffie makes one noise its classed as an 'attack' a lab, a spaniel, a JRT they are all allowed to 'tell other dogs off' but in the staffie world a telling off its classed as an attack. So I do wonder how many of the attacks reported on other dogs are full on attacks or just hand bag a dawn scraps that are blown out of proportion because the dog making noise is a staffie?

And yes lesson learnt on my part about badly bred dogs although I adore my little girl.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Malmum said:


> Absolutely agree and it not only bit a copper it also killed a pensioners small dog in the past. Should have been PTS long ago. As the grandfather lifted the child above his shoulders the dog was jumping up trying to get it, biting the grandfather at the same time, leaving deep injuries.
> 
> I believe any dog that deliberately kills another as though it were prey is of no use as a pet, especially around other dog owners. Too many good dogs are destroyed every day to make exceptions for those with such viscous streaks. The less of them around the better!
> 
> ...


Im not 100% on how true it is this dog killed a pensioners dog, I am however 100% sure on the very park outside Kierons house our dog was killed by a Malamute!! Ok it wasn't an attack, the Malamute "T-boned" our pointer, My dad had to carry her home and she died a couple of days later I'm not sure where i'm going with this, but if the history of that Staffie is true, then somebody needs their arse kicked, it's killed AND bitten a police officer


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

redginald said:


> II'm not sure where i'm going with this, but if the history of that Staffie is true, then somebody needs their arse kicked, it's killed AND bitten a police officer


as i`ve previously posted before; police tasered the dog discharging it into her mouth , she bit the officer AFTER that happened , the police ADMITTED that.

say for instance you had your house raided and your dog was tasered in the mouth ; could you honestly say for sure he wouldn`t bite the officer that discharged that weapon ?
i don`t think many people could.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

diablo said:


> as i`ve previously posted before; police tasered the dog discharging it into her mouth , she bit the officer AFTER that happened , the police ADMITTED that.
> 
> say for instance you had your house raided and your dog was tasered in the mouth ; could you honestly say for sure he wouldn`t bite the officer that discharged that weapon ?
> i don`t think many people could.


Ah fair one, and no i couldn't be sure, goes to show how info is twisted to fit the needs of the story, I wasn't aware of the details of the taser incident, just it happened and the officer was bitten


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2012)

redginald said:


> Ah fair one, and no i couldn't be sure, goes to show how info is twisted to fit the needs of the story, I wasn't aware of the details of the taser incident, just it happened and the officer was bitten


all those circumstances were more than likely taken into consideration which is why no action was taken at that time.
i don`t know anyone who could actually state hand on heart their dog wouldn`t bite in those circumstances , the dog could have bitten completely by accident as the officer were trying to remove the prongs that belonged to the weapon from the dog.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

diablo said:


> all those circumstances were more than likely taken into consideration which is why no action was taken at that time.
> i don`t know anyone who could actually state hand on heart their dog wouldn`t bite in those circumstances , the dog could have bitten completely by accident as the officer were trying to remove the prongs that belonged to the weapon from the dog.


Very true, it's clear this was never a dog treated with respect, i shouldn't imagine being tasered by a "visitor" would do alot for his nerves around new "visitors".

I'm not saying this dogs actions are acceptable as have been implied, but i also can't get my head around the attitude of people speaking along the lines of "You should be able to let you're 2 year old toddler wonder the neighborhood with out this happening, what is this world coming to?"

Has there been any news on how the boy is doing?


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

A SBT was tasered in Shrewsbury while fighting with another dog on Tuesday.

Not connected to this story, but the above post reminded me.

The SBT died after being tasered. Police are unsure what caused its death.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

redginald said:


> Very true, it's clear this was never a dog treated with respect, i shouldn't imagine being tasered by a "visitor" would do alot for his nerves around new "visitors".
> 
> I'm not saying this dogs actions are acceptable as have been implied, but i also can't get my head around the attitude of people speaking along the lines of "You should be able to let you're 2 year old toddler wonder the neighborhood with out this happening, what is this world coming to?"
> 
> Has there been any news on how the boy is doing?


I read somewhere today that he's improving and things are looking more positive for him which is something 



DoggieBag said:


> A SBT was tasered in Shrewsbury while fighting with another dog on Tuesday.
> 
> Not connected to this story, but the above post reminded me.
> 
> The SBT died after being tasered. Police are unsure what caused its death.


:nonod:


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Galadriel17 said:


> I read somewhere today that he's improving and things are looking more positive for him which is something
> 
> :nonod:


That's good, it looks as though they may save his eye which is brilliant if true


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

The 15 year old dog owner expresses his views on the attack. 

Keiron Guess: A devil dog called Ratty, a maimed boy of two and an owner who 'can't give a toss' | Mail Online

Though the whole article is ruined by the Daily Fail's misinformation with regards Staffords and dog attacks. :mad2:


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

The two  dog and owner  enjoyed a fearsome reputation in Swindon. - DM

I don't think a dog would enjoy having a fearsome reputation, the owner obviously did, but not the dog. What a stupid thing to say.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Pupcakes said:


> The two  dog and owner  enjoyed a fearsome reputation in Swindon. - DM
> 
> I don't think a dog would enjoy having a fearsome reputation, the owner obviously did, but not the dog. What a stupid thing to say.


I think you are reading that wrong, in that context 'enjoy' does not mean they actively enjoyed it, it means that they had the reputation.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I think you are reading that wrong, in that context 'enjoy' does not mean they actively enjoyed it, it means that they had the reputation.


I agree, now having re-read that bit.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Oooooh, I get you.

Thanks for clearing that up!

xxx


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> The 15 year old dog owner expresses his views on the attack.
> 
> Keiron Guess: A devil dog called Ratty, a maimed boy of two and an owner who 'can't give a toss' | Mail Online
> 
> Though the whole article is ruined by the Daily Fail's misinformation with regards Staffords and dog attacks. :mad2:


At least there is a sentence about how the owners 'brutalise' their dogs, that's something I suppose. I'm speechless at this pathetic boy child's attitude to the incident & if the article is to believed he sounds like a thug who should never own an animal


----------



## poppiesowner (Jun 6, 2012)

I am seriously appalled at the defense of the dog breed in this case. You should hold your head in shame. 
A small defenseless child was seriously maimed by a savage animal irrespective of the circumstances. 
Dog lovers we all may be - but, this should not be tolerated within a civilised society. 
To have a pet is because there is love and respect between dog and human. Just now my daughter is sleeping with poppy sleeping on her - two hearts beat as one. No dog should be breed as a threat to human life. 
Oh how I wish that same toddler had wandered into out not entirely toddler proof garden - she would have had a lick and a cuddle from our poppy and nothing more !! 
Disgraceful to read all the comments that defend this dogs actions !!


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

poppiesowner said:


> I am seriously appalled at the defense of the dog breed in this case. You should hold your head in shame.
> A small defenseless child was seriously maimed by a savage animal irrespective of the circumstances.
> Dog lovers we all may be - but, this should not be tolerated within a civilised society.
> To have a pet is because there is love and respect between dog and human. Just now my daughter is sleeping with poppy sleeping on her - two hearts beat as one. No dog should be breed as a threat to human life.
> ...


It's lovely that your dog is experiencing such love....A lot of these dogs that attack in this way have not..they just feel pain, by being burnt by cigarettes or beaten with a stick to an inch of their life 

For some of these dogs that attack and are then pts because of their actions it is a blessing as their living nightmare has then ended
and yes i feel very sorry for this poor child ...it should never have happened and could have quite easily have been prevented


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

> I am seriously appalled at the defense of the dog *breed *in this case.


I don't see what the breed of the dog involved has to do with it.

Given what I have read in local papers, on the internet, heard on the news and the local grapevine, this dog could have been a meek little spaniel but her 'family' made her into a danger to a small child, maybe through training (or lack of), poor breeding and/or neglect.

Plus, IMHO, it is no coincidence that the SBT, being one of the most abused, neglected, overbred and abandoned breeds in the UK, is often involved in attacks. You can't carry on treating a dog like **** and assume that they will just take it :mad2:

It's a terrible situation all round, the little lad was badly hurt and a dog has had to die. I'd like to say lessons have been learned but, in all honesty, it doesn't sound like they have 

And what a nasty, ignorant, hate-filled article from the Daily Mail, I suggest the writer visits a rescue to see all the sweet natured bull-breeds desperate for homes *I don't think there's an emoticon for despair* 

I hope this post is not offensive to anyone


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

poppiesowner said:


> I am seriously appalled at the defense of the dog breed in this case. You should hold your head in shame.
> A small defenseless child was seriously maimed by a savage animal irrespective of the circumstances.
> Dog lovers we all may be - but, this should not be tolerated within a civilised society.
> To have a pet is because there is love and respect between dog and human. Just now my daughter is sleeping with poppy sleeping on her - two hearts beat as one. No dog should be breed as a threat to human life.
> ...


I don't think anyone's defended the dog's actions on here, I think what the dog did was terrible but is the result of a combination of poor breeding practices & a rubbish, irresponsible owner, not breed.
A dog, at the end of the day, is amoral. Many humans (such as this boy playing at being a man & his obviously useless father) are immoral, very few are amoral.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> At least there is a sentence about how the owners 'brutalise' their dogs, that's something I suppose. I'm speechless at this pathetic boy child's attitude to the incident & if the article is to believed he sounds like a thug who should never own an animal


They also said that this dog's attitude was not traditional Staffie! Every little counts, I suppose. 
What an absolute scumbag! And 15 years old! What were HIS parents doing? Makes you so sad. :nonod:


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

i managed to have a sneaky peek at the boys facebook page amazingly it`s all completely public  makes horrendous reading , flipping no wonder the dog turned out the way she did with his attitude , absolutely stank!!


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

diablo said:


> i managed to have a sneaky peek at the boys facebook page amazingly it`s all completely public  makes horrendous reading , flipping no wonder the dog turned out the way she did with his attitude , absolutely stank!!


:mad2: :mad2:

I may be wrong but( just the impression I am getting)...most of the time...but not all I will add, a 'staffi type' is in the papers which has attacked a poor little child or person..the family who own the staffi are ..how can I say it without offending erm...are known to the police  for one thing or another


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

diablo said:


> i managed to have a sneaky peek at the boys facebook page amazingly it`s all completely public  makes horrendous reading , flipping no wonder the dog turned out the way she did with his attitude , absolutely stank!!


I'm glad I'm not the only one who's done that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

paddyjulie said:


> :mad2: :mad2:
> 
> I may be wrong but( just the impression I am getting)...most of the time...but not all I will add, a 'staffi type' is in the papers which has attacked a poor little child or person..the family who own the staffi are ..how can I say it without offending erm...are known to the police  for one thing or another


know what your saying completely  
thing is , if i had a 15 yr old that spoke the way this *thing* did on there [call him a thing because there really is no other way to describe him] they`d have more than a flaming clip round the earholes  i honestly don`t think i`d beable to keep my hands off them


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

diablo said:


> i managed to have a sneaky peek at the boys facebook page amazingly it`s all completely public  makes horrendous reading , flipping no wonder the dog turned out the way she did with his attitude , absolutely stank!!


I saw it too, he sounds a right piece of work, he has a lot of nasty sounding friends as well.
Most of what they were posting was virtually indecipherable due to the spellings


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> I saw it too, he sounds a right piece of work, he has a lot of nasty sounding friends as well.
> Most of what they were posting was virtually indecipherable due to the spellings


terrible isn`t it , there he is , 15 years old , completely admitting in public he`d trained his dogs to `guard` their territory


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

diablo said:


> know what your saying completely
> thing is , if i had a 15 yr old that spoke the way this *thing* did on there [call him a thing because there really is no other way to describe him] they`d have more than a flaming clip round the earholes  i honestly don`t think i`d beable to keep my hands off them


thing is he probably will see nothing wrong in it..as his parents are most likely the same ..

Poor Poor dogs


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

diablo said:


> terrible isn`t it , there he is , 15 years old , completely admitting in public he`d trained his dogs to `guard` their territory


And he'll do it to the next dog he owns, too. Because he hasn't learned anything at all from this. Really makes me shudder! What would it take to make him realise what an utter tool he is!


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

paddyjulie said:


> thing is he probably will see nothing wrong in it..as his parents are most likely the same ..
> 
> Poor Poor dogs


i agree , though it`s got to be said , apparently his father feels terrible and according to everything i`ve read he was the first one on the scene to try and help little keiron shame his son couldn`t show the baby the same compassion , reading all i have he shows no remorse at all.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> And he'll do it to the next dog he owns, too. Because he hasn't learned anything at all from this. Really makes me shudder! What would it take to make him realise what an utter tool he is!


lets hope his father puts his foot down! though i am wondering whats happening with the other dog ? 
at the end of the day , he`s 15 and lets face it at that age they are know all bugger alls i hope he looks back one day and reflects on what actually happened and realizes the way he`s gone about everything so publicly was so , so wrong reading all i have across there he`s nothing but the lowest of the low , i cant even describe him as an animal because to do that is an insult to animals


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

diablo said:


> i agree , though it`s got to be said , apparently his father feels terrible and according to everything i`ve read he was the first one on the scene to try and help little keiron shame his son couldn`t show the baby the same compassion , reading all i have he shows no remorse at all.


  I didn't know that..i didn't know the owner was only 15 either tbh...what a mess

read his Fb page now *shakes head* yet again..its definitely the owner


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

diablo said:


> i agree , though it`s got to be said , apparently his father feels terrible and according to everything i`ve read he was the first one on the scene to try and help little keiron shame his son couldn`t show the baby the same compassion , reading all i have he shows no remorse at all.


I read that the dad did try & help, but I have to wonder what sort of father would allow his child to own 2 dogs that he obviously couldn't control. As a mum of a 15 year old myself, I find his behaviour shocking, & if I were his parent, my first course of action (amongst quite a list) would be depriving him of his internet & other means of communication.
The saddest thing is the fact that there is now a horribly injured little baby, a dead dog & it seems nothing can be done about the real criminal in all this:frown:


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

I cant get the story up.
Personally from what i have read is awfull
I do believe new rules should be bought in to own a staff or pitt type dog
As a mum of a 2 year old and a staff x i no the.staff makes a fantastic dog for children.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> I cant get the story up.
> Personally from what i have read is awfull
> I do believe new rules should be bought in to own a staff or pitt type dog
> As a mum of a 2 year old and a staff x i no the.staff makes a fantastic dog for children.


What rules would you suggest seeing as you own a Staff X? Taking into account these rules would effect you.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

paddyjulie said:


> :mad2: :mad2:
> 
> I may be wrong but( just the impression I am getting)...most of the time...but not all I will add, a 'staffi type' is in the papers which has attacked a poor little child or person..the family who own the staffi are ..how can I say it without offending erm...are known to the police  for one thing or another


I agree, and tbh, the owner is exactly what I expected so cannot understand any surprise over this.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Personally an age restriction. 
I see so many young kids ie in there teens that use a dog for status and can not controle them. 
Yes i do allow my children to hold my staffs lead but they r accompanied by a adult. 
I no not all teenagers r like this but if not a restriction maybe make them take a behavior class. 
I no its not just teen age boys neither as most adults r as bad.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> Personally an age restriction.
> I see so many young kids ie in there teens that use a dog for status and can not controle them.
> Yes i do allow my children to hold my staffs lead but they r accompanied by a adult.
> I no not all teenagers r like this but if not a restriction maybe make them take a behavior class.
> I no its not just teen age boys neither as most adults r as bad.


There is already a minimum age for owning a pet of any kind. One that is easy to get around.

And like you have highlighted even if you could weed out the younger bad owners with an age limit, you would still be left with the bad adult owners.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't think any new rules should be brought in, especially not just for one or two breeds.

Status dogs are part of a wider social problem and should be treated as such. Why do people want to own a threatening looking dog for protection? Probably for the same reason kids get involved in gangs or carry knives. They're scared, insecure, probably because they've had a crap upbringing...

As usual, the Fail have used the NHS bites and strikes stats and forgotten to mention the strikes bit. HESonline

I wonder why it is that we all accept the huge numbers of deaths and injuries on our roads as par for the course yet the comparatively insignificant numbers of bites and strikes caused by dogs create such a stir with irrational calls by some commenters on newspaper articles to 'ban all dogs' or 'make all dogs wear muzzles'?


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

And like you have highlighted even if you could weed out the younger bad owners with an age limit, you would still be left with the bad adult owners.[/QUOTE]

This is correct but even if it.only stopped one child being bitten it would be a start.

Also the media do not help. In my town a little girl was salvaged by a staff wich personally wasnt the dogs fault it was her parents and new about this made meridian new wich it should have only reported true facts.
Yet wen a puppy staff was stonned to death on our beach the media hardly did nothing 
Facebook was what made it known


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

I think that would make the problem worse.

Just over 20 years ago, a ban was introduced on 4 breeds/types. So a restriction of sorts - nobody is allowed them. Look at how that has made the problem worse.

We now have a "status dog" problem far greater than pre-1991. So if you brought in an age restriction for a certain breed then that will only worsen the current problem.

Lets say the minimum age for owning a Staff or Staff X was 18. Imagine how many people would rush out to get one when they turn 18. Or would police be expected to stop and ID check every dog walker with a Staff?

Then if you have a minimum age just for one breed and it's crosses, then aren't you adding to the already bad image Staffords have? "Oh look Staffords are so dangerous that you need to be a certain age to own them".

Most people are aware that Staffords are no dangerous than any breed of dog. They all have teeth in the end. And as I have already said a hell of alot of breeds cause more injuries than Staffies. So unfair to single out what is not even the most dangerous dog breed. Like wise it would be unfair to introduce age restrictions etc with them.

And then when you look at the bigger picture. The amount of people injured or killed by dogs is far far lower than:


People killed by horses.
People killed by coconuts.
People killed by nuts.
People killed by cars.
People killed by diarrhea.

Those are just some examples. Only one of those has a restriction on age and a test attached to it- driving. So if you wish for an age limit to be introduced to cut down on deaths, write to your MP asking that the minimum age is raised to 18 for buying coconuts and nuts, or owning a horse.

And we need to cut down on 1.7 million people who die from diarrhea every year. So lets bring in a "No Runs Until You're over 21 Law". 

So why single out a dogs?

In fact as you're a mother:

Figures say that the biggest threat to your children is you, not your dog.

Stats taken from the NSPCC:


On average, every week in England and Wales at least one child is killed at the hands of another person.

On average, in England and Wales, one baby is killed every 20 days.

Most of them are by their parents.

Compare that to the amount of children killed by dogs in the UK. Figures are nowhere near 1 child a week, or 1 baby every 20 days. 

So maybe it would be more justified bringing in an age restriction, a requirement to do a course and so on, to be a parent.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Actually i so believe a lot of parents out there SHOULD have parenting classes and i.also believe that social services r a load of poooo. But as this is an animal forum i.didnt want to bring this up. 
I dont believe it should be one dog rule out all dogs have teeth as u stated.
Maybe they should bring the dog licence back and make it mandatory that every dog is micro chipped. 
Im not this will work its just ideas im putting out there.

And yes some people out there do have vicious dogs and if u no ur dog is vicious u should have something in place even wen there in the garden as dog excape and children do wonder 
I believe being a parent and a dog owner share a lot of qualities like behavior 
The diffrence is ur never gona one day let ur dog out in the big wide world and hope they make the right choices


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> Actually i so believe a lot of parents out there SHOULD have parenting classes and i.also believe that social services r a load of poooo. But as this is an animal forum i.didnt want to bring this up.
> I dont believe it should be one dog rule out all dogs have teeth as u stated.
> Maybe they should bring the dog licence back and make it mandatory that every dog is micro chipped.
> Im not this will work its just ideas im putting out there.
> ...


The microchipping thing is in the pipeline. As of yet it is undecided at what level to bring it in. However this is just in England.

Wales have a requirement that all puppies are microchipped before being sold by licenced breeders. Wales is looking into extending this later this year to all dogs.

However Scotland have no plans to bring in such requirements.

Then Ireland already has requirements in place.

That aside, and going back to the requirements of having to do a set of classes/buy a licence etc. Microchipping is really cheap compared to paying for classes or a licence.

So say someone has had a dog for 30+ years(so should in theory be an experienced dog owner), but can not afford the licence fee or classes. Would they then have to give up that dog? Surely that would cause more overcrowding of the rescues centres.

It was for this very reason that the plan to bring in compulsory insurance for all dogs was not taken forward.

But this whole debate on compulsory microchipping etc, already has at least 3 other threads dedicated to it. So for that reason I will leave it there, as there is no need to turn this thread into yet another one.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Natzzhixon said:


> Actually i so believe a lot of parents out there SHOULD have parenting classes and i.also believe that social services r a load of poooo. But as this is an animal forum i.didnt want to bring this up.
> I dont believe it should be one dog rule out all dogs have teeth as u stated.
> *Maybe they should bring the dog licence back and make it mandatory that every dog is micro chipped. *
> Im not this will work its just ideas im putting out there.
> ...


Where I live (NI) this is the case already - the problem is that those who are responsible comply and those who don't give a stuff don't seem to. I haven't ever seen any kind of enforcement I must admit and a huge number of dogs don't even wear collars and leads never mind an ID tag and license tag . I do like the idea in principle though.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Not saying my ideas are brilliant but its something
And classes shouldnt have to be paid for as a country we pay tax and they spend it.on.rediculous things like war and linning politisions pockets investing it into dog training would take a huge relief off shelters rspca.
In the long run would save money.
And pets r costly it would make people re think about going out and gettimg them on a whim and 6 months.later realising u cant afford it or dont have the time.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Natzzhixon said:


> Not saying my ideas are brilliant but its something
> And classes shouldnt have to be paid for as a country we pay tax and they spend it.on.rediculous things like war and linning politisions pockets investing it into dog training would take a huge relief off shelters rspca.
> In the long run would save money.
> And pets r costly it would make people re think about going out and gettimg them on a whim and 6 months.later realising u cant afford it or dont have the time.


The problem with all these ideas is that only the responsible will comply even though licensing, chipping, training are great in principle. There are multiple problems with being 'required' to do anything - off the top of my head I would imagine I'd be hacked off at being made to attend training if I had a lifetime of dog experience and was more competent than the trainer (that's not me BTW ) or didn't like the training methods. Then there is the travel there - the club I go to is a 20 minute drive away - and some people go very much further than that, the requirement to be motivated enough to train outside classes to see any benefits etc etc.

I'll not say what I'd like to about your statement about the 'ridiculous things like war and lining politician's pockets' as I have some fairly strong views and would totally derial the thread, I'll just say I think that we'd disagree .


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> Not saying my ideas are brilliant but its something
> And classes shouldnt have to be paid for as a country we pay tax and they spend it.on.rediculous things like war and linning politisions pockets investing it into dog training would take a huge relief off shelters rspca.
> In the long run would save money.
> And pets r costly it would make people re think about going out and gettimg them on a whim and 6 months.later realising u cant afford it or dont have the time.


Then share your views here by the 15th - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership « Consultations

You will see they are increasing some costs etc. It will be more expensive to have a dog of type put on the Index of Exempted Dogs.

So things like that will on its own make people think "Is it worth getting a dog that looks "of type? There is no way I can afford that increased fee to have him/her put on the I of E.D?" So that will make it harder to keep a dog of type regardless if it is muzzled, tattooed, neutered etc etc. It is quite a hefty jump in price that they have planned.

And free classes? That will not do anything for cutting down on status dogs.

"Whoop whoop blud, I did a course for free. Now off I to get my status dog. Thanks Mr Cameron".

"Oh no now I have to pay for a licence???? I ain't buying that bruv!!!! I will try to lay low innit. If the po-po come I will just leave the dog outside Bargain Booze, or may b use this hammer on it instead."

And no way am I paying even more tax for anyone to get free training. The only dog I am paying to be trained is mine. And even then it will only be via a class if I decide to.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> Then share your views here by the 15th - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership « Consultations
> 
> You will see they are increasing some costs etc. It will be more expensive to have a dog of type put on the Index of Exempted Dogs.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more; and I'm even more certain that I don't want money taken from the defence budget to pay for people to have free classes.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> Then share your views here by the 15th - Tackling irresponsible dog ownership « Consultations
> 
> You will see they are increasing some costs etc. It will be more expensive to have a dog of type put on the Index of Exempted Dogs.
> 
> ...


Just to add to the increase in fees to have your dog of type registered:

It is currently £20.................it will be £77 plus VAT soon. (maybe.)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

The RSPCA have designs to take over national registration of dogs, and they have friends in high places unfortunately. I am totally against the idea, and I hope it never happens.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Again dint say my ideas were great...... Its just some thing im putting out there.
As a man who deals with sort of stuff what do u sugest.
And your being rather prejudice just because sum1 says blud init popo doesnt mean they neglect there dogs or will beat it with a hammer.
Infact most people who deal in lets say dog fighting r politically correct and people u would never guess.
Yes u do get alot of trailer trash that do but they tend to talk more inbread than gangster


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I honestly don't think there is an answer to this one, not from government or responsible dog owners.My dogs are trained, micro chipped and insured but how does any of that stop them biting (not that they do)and if they had a licence how would that stop biting.I may be sounding a bit thick but cant see how it would solve a thing in fact I am beginning to think this problem is unsolvable:scared:


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> Again dint say my ideas were great...... Its just some thing im putting out there.
> As a man who deals with sort of stuff what do u sugest.
> And your being rather prejudice just because sum1 says blud init popo doesnt mean they neglect there dogs or will beat it with a hammer.
> Infact most people who deal in lets say dog fighting r politically correct and people u would never guess.
> Yes u do get alot of trailer trash that do but they tend to talk more inbread than gangster


I have given you the link for the very people who want to hear your views. So that is my suggestion. If you can not get your points across in the survey, then instead just share your views via the e-mail address given.

My comments via the use of street talk, were aimed at you're earlier comment that makes it sound like you assume all status dog owners are young. And with that in mind we should have a minimum age.

I thank you for the attempt and trying to educate me on what type of people do dog fighting. :thumbup:

Here is some for you. Most people who own a dog for status don't do dog fighting. They purely use the look of a dog to try and boost their own image.

Some of these status dog owners are people such as an everyday mother of 3. No history of dog fighting at all.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

DoggieBag said:


> I have given you the link for the very people who want to hear your views. So that is my suggestion. If you can not get your points across in the survey, then instead just share your views via the e-mail address given.
> 
> My comments via the use of street talk, were aimed at you're earlier comment that makes it sound like you assume all status dog owners are young. And with that in mind we should have a minimum age.
> 
> ...


To expand on that status dog owner stereotype.

Many everyday looking people get a dog based on "status". They don't admit this reason for going with a certain breed/crossbreed in most places.

However you would be surprised at what difference there is in their comments when they are on facebook talking to their "fb friends". The truth comes out then about why they have a certain breed or crossbreed.

It's quite shocking actually when they come across as "good as gold" on other websites or forums etc.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

suewhite said:


> I honestly don't think there is an answer to this one, not from government or responsible dog owners.My dogs are trained, micro chipped and insured but how does any of that stop them biting (not that they do)and if they had a licence how would that stop biting.I may be sounding a bit thick but cant see how it would solve a thing in fact I am beginning to think this problem is unsolvable:scared:


I think you're right Sue, people having a dog for status is just one of many symptoms of a much bigger social problem that will probably not (bar an apocalypse) be sorted out in our lifetimes & it raises massive issues of human rights. I do think as a species some of us are slowly devolving back towards the primordial soup


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Anyway this thread is now going way of course. I said it earlier but there are other threads for the things now being discussed.

Nattzhixon - I have given you the link to share your views with Defra. Ensure you get them in before the 15th.

Now lets get this thread back on to track, back to the Swindon incident etc.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> Anyway this thread is now going way of course. I said it earlier but there are other threads for the things now being discussed.
> 
> Nattzhixon - I have given you the link to share your views with Defra. Ensure you get them in before the 15th.
> 
> Now lets get this thread back on to track, back to the Swindon incident etc.


I haven't looked at the papers today but is there any more news?


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> I haven't looked at the papers today but is there any more news?


Do not know since I last checked a few days ago now.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> Do not know since I last checked a few days ago now.


I read that the little boy's breathing on his own now, it'll be a long slow road to recovery for him


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

I do hope that wasnt a personall attach or a dig to suggest i got Roxi as a status dog as this is far from the truth. Im unsure of the tone
But the statement i make is there goes a well mannered dog.
This accident is awful.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

poppiesowner said:


> I am seriously appalled at the defense of the dog breed in this case. You should hold your head in shame.
> A small defenseless child was seriously maimed by a savage animal irrespective of the circumstances.
> Dog lovers we all may be - but, this should not be tolerated within a civilised society.
> To have a pet is because there is love and respect between dog and human. Just now my daughter is sleeping with poppy sleeping on her - two hearts beat as one. No dog should be breed as a threat to human life.
> ...


What's breed got to do with it? My friends staff sleeps on the sofa with his 5yr old sister, 2 hearts beating as 1 as you put it. Can you guarantee your poppy wouldn't lash out if the toddler came and stuck their finger in poppys eye?.

I agree with you this poor boy should be everybody's priority, its not his fault this happened and he's the one suffering. Unfortunately he didn't seem to be his parents highest priority at the time, thus straying into a garden he shouldn't have been in, and even more unfortunately the garden he strayed into was occupied by a dog that has clearly been raised inappropriately and for all we know was triggered by inappropriate behavior from the child (Not his fault i will add, 2yr olds don't know right from wrong, his parents should though)


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> I do hope that wasnt a personall attach or a dig to suggest i got Roxi as a status dog as this is far from the truth. Im unsure of the tone
> But the statement i make is there goes a well mannered dog.
> This accident is awful.


Not sure if this is aimed at me or not. But nobody has said anything aimed at you here. If they have, I missed it. But that is unacceptable if someone has.



redginald said:


> What's breed got to do with it? My friends staff sleeps on the sofa with his 5yr old sister, 2 hearts beating as 1 as you put it. Can you guarantee your poppy wouldn't lash out if the toddler came and stuck their finger in poppys eye?.
> 
> I agree with you this poor boy should be everybody's priority, its not his fault this happened and he's the one suffering. Unfortunately he didn't seem to be his parents highest priority at the time, thus straying into a garden he shouldn't have been in, and even more unfortunately the garden he strayed into was occupied by a dog that has clearly been raised inappropriately and for all we know was triggered by inappropriate behavior from the child (Not his fault i will add, 2yr olds don't know right from wrong, his parents should though)


His parents left his Grandfather to look after him I believe.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Now lets get this thread back on to track, back to the Swindon incident etc.


Yes, I hope the little chap is on the mend - whatever the rights and wrongs / failings by who ever - its not his fault. Get better soon little man


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Some of these status dog owners are people such as an everyday mother of 3. No history of dog fighting at all.[/QUOTE]

i did wonder if this is a dig.

And i disagree at 2 yrs old a child does no how to behave around a dog......im not saying.it.was the childs fault but i disagree to that statement.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

How the hell would I know how many children you have???? Even if you do have 3, many people do you're not the only one. It was just a random example. 

God if I had said "Some of these status dog owners are people such as a bald man with glasses. No history of dog fighting at all." Would that be taken to be aimed at just one person as well?

:mad2:

Now stop making me break my aim to allow this thread to return to topic.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

As for the grandfather i do not blame him.
At this age u have to be on them.24-7 and as much as we wouls love to.spend 24-7 with them its not possible and he was straight there to help getting.injured in the.process
Its an accident he will never forget and.blame himself for. 
I think his been punished enough.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Natzzhixon said:


> Some of these status dog owners are people such as an everyday mother of 3. No history of dog fighting at all.


 i did wonder if this is a dig.

*And i disagree at 2 yrs old a child does no how to behave around a dog*......im not saying.it.was the childs fault but i disagree to that statement.[/QUOTE]

They really don't:frown: it's too much to expect of a little child that's still pretty much a baby to know how to behave around a dog, even with the best guidance. Some may be better than others but 2 years olds are reknown for being unpredictable and volatile, that's why it's often call it the 'terrible twos'.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

And a 2 year old who has not grown up around dogs will be even less "dog wise".


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> So things like that will on its own make people think "Is it worth getting a dog that looks "of type? There is no way I can afford that increased fee to have him/her put on the I of E.D?" So that will make it harder to keep a dog of type regardless if it is muzzled, tattooed, neutered etc etc. It is quite a hefty jump in price that they have planned.


The problem is that people think the register for exempt dogs allows them to own one. It was never intended for this, but should have only applied to those exempt dogs already alive. The DDA was brought in in 1991 which means that it should contain only dogs over 23 years old. It is the people who bred them illegally that are to blame.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2012)

2 year olds simply don`t know how to behave , getting them to understand at that age is something that is hard and impossible , if a two year old did understand how to behave around a dog i`d say that child had been terribly suppressed.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> The problem is that people think the register for exempt dogs allows them to own one. It was never intended for this, but should have only applied to those exempt dogs already alive. The DDA was brought in in 1991 which means that it should contain only dogs over 23 years old. It is the people who bred them illegally that are to blame.


The 1997 amendment to the DDA reopened the Index to dogs deemed not a danger to public safety.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Im not for publicly stoning the grandparents, of course what's happened to their grandson is punishment enough for their mistake, however someone's got to take the heat for this and imo they are 80% responsible here for what's happened.

The owners attitude sickens me, even though i feel the responsibility is with the carers of the child, i would have thought any human being who owned a dog that carried out this attack would feel devastated regardless of blame.

As for the 2 yr old knowing how to behave around a dog we will have to agree to disagree im afraid, some adults don't how to behave around dogs. Any body who Trusts their toddler to behave without supervision around a dog is asking for trouble, this is exactly the attitude that causes half these problems. Toddlers like to push toys into cd players etc, how does a dog tell a kid to stop pushing stickle bricks up his bum?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The 1997 amendment to the DDA reopened the Index to dogs deemed not a danger to public safety.


But it did not make it legal to breed them again. My point is that there should be not banned breeds alive now. Unfortunately, it is those irresponsible people who break the law that make it worse for the rest of us.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Put that way i completely agree. But that child was gone for seconds 
I have not read alot about the owners only they agreed to put the dog to sleep.
I also agree no child should be left alone with ne dog may it be a small terrier or a large rottie for example.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

redginald said:


> Im not for publicly stoning the grandparents, of course what's happened to their grandson is punishment enough for their mistake, however someone's got to take the heat for this and imo they are 80% responsible here for what's happened.
> 
> The owners attitude sickens me, even though i feel the responsibility is with the carers of the child, i would have thought any human being who owned a dog that carried out this attack would feel devastated regardless of blame.
> 
> As for the 2 yr old knowing how to behave around a dog we will have to agree to disagree im afraid, some adults don't how to behave around dogs. Any body who Trusts their toddler to behave without supervision around a dog is asking for trouble, this is exactly the attitude that causes half these problems. Toddlers like to push toys into cd players etc, how does a dog tell a kid to stop pushing stickle bricks up his bum?


80% responsible? How do you come up with that.

For me, the biggest issue is not that a dog attacked, but that a dog was kept and trained for this purpose and kept as a pet in a residential area. THAT is what is wrong. And until that kind of situation is addressed and until people stop thinking it is acceptable we are all in danger of huge restrictions to the way we own dogs.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Any dog can be dangerous if guidelines r not followed and not taught correctly 
Banning various dogs has made it worse as its taking breeding these dogs to ground


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Natzzhixon said:


> Put that way i completely agree. *But that child was gone for seconds *
> I have not read alot about the owners only they agreed to put the dog to sleep.
> I also agree no child should be left alone with ne dog may it be a small terrier or a large rottie for example.


Doesn't really matter how long he was gone for does it? if a toddler was knocked over after running straight into a busy road would we blame the driver because the Toddler had "only popped out off of the property" for a few seconds, sorry if you are looking after a Toddler it's *YOU* who is responsible, and yes we are not robots, mistakes happen, and we know how hard it can be to watch kids, but it's still youre responsibility, that's life.

I will also add this wasn't a in house mishap, parents distracted, kid hurts themself, these things happen. This kid had left the garden , If my kids are in the garden i'm out their with them, or watching them and i live in a back to back mid terrace. If i am too busy to watch them in the garden, they come in with me.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> ]80% responsible? [/B] How do you come up with that.
> 
> For me, the biggest issue is not that a dog attacked, but that a dog was kept and trained for this purpose and kept as a pet in a residential area. THAT is what is wrong. And until that kind of situation is addressed and until people stop thinking it is acceptable we are all in danger of huge restrictions to the way we own dogs.


I put in my opinion 80% responsible, im not going to draw you a pie chart. I feel the GPs are mostly to blame, but i also feel some of the blame lies with the owners who appear to have raised a dangerous dog through poor up bringing.

The one thing that could have been changed that would have prevented this is THE KID BEING WATCHED. you could remove the dogs completely from the equation, the kid could have fell in a pond, been hit by a car, been abducted THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IS THE GRANDPARENTS


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

The one thing that could have been changed that would have prevented this is THE KID BEING WATCHED. you could remove the dogs completely from the equation, the kid could have fell in a pond, been hit by a car, been abducted THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IS THE GRANDPARENTS[/QUOTE]

The only diffrence is if it was a car it wouldnt b so high profile

We all may have diffrent opinions to who.is to blame but.lets.all just agree
This child makes a full recovery and doesnt end up hateing dogs.

Quick.question if the dog was inside its garden how did the toddler get inside.
I this dog was knows vicious shouldnt the owners have safety protical to.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> Quick.question if the dog was inside its garden how did the toddler get inside.
> I this dog was knows vicious shouldnt the owners have safety protical to.


no one knows how the poor baby ended up the in garden , he just did. at the end of the day whose to say whether those dogs were securely contained or not BUT lets just say those dogs had a reputation where they resided , so would you let a 2 year old out of your sight , knowing that ?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> you could remove the dogs completely from the equation, the kid could have fell in a pond, been hit by a car, been abducted


True, but any of those things are irrelevant to dog ownership and how the fact that dogs like this are being kept as 'pets' and used in this way WILL have an impact on all of us dog owners. And any blame put on parents/grandparents carers does not excuse the fact that dogs are being kept like this.

It is naive at best, to assume that any future laws/restriction made will take into account the fact that victims of dog attacks could be victims of traffic or any other hazards.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> But it did not make it legal to breed them again. My point is that there should be not banned breeds alive now. Unfortunately, it is those irresponsible people who break the law that make it worse for the rest of us.


But the ban covers types more than actual breeds. And the Index has no direct result with any breeding done post the application.

Any dog on the Index can not be bred from as they are neutered. If they are not neutered within a set time, the dog is destroyed.

As of right now there are dogs on the Index of 3 of the 4 named banned breeds (or their type) in the UK. The only type/breed which has no registered entries is the Fila Braziliero.

None of these registered dogs can not be bred from. So right now there are 1000+ dogs that have been taken out of the "breeding cycle".

The DDA only names 4 breeds and their types. But the wording of the DDA in effect classes some of the following as "of type" i.e a banned breed/type:

Am Bulls
Am Staffs
Irish Staffs
Irish Blue or Red Nose
Lab x Staff
Staff x Mastiff
Am Bull x Lab
and many more

That is what is wrong with the DDA, and it's nothing to do with the Index. It's all about that whether if its a pure Am Bull or a Lab/staff cross, if it has a certain look it may be PTS.

If you owned a Lab/Staff or Am Bull I am sure you would be glad that there could be that 1 lifeline of the Index/1997 amendment, if your dog had no history of attacking.

Granted there are dogs of type roaming the streets. That is the fault of the rushed manner and the wording of the DDA 1991. It classes many crossbreeds as being worthy of labelled as type.

The number of dogs of type, has no connection with the Index itself.

Then you have to take into consideration that alot of people aid people to hide their dog "of type". They suggest "If anyone asks what your dog is, say it's a Staffy cross".

I am against the DDA and its suggesting certain breeds etc are more dangerous than others. As well as the fact they base things on a look and not on pedigree.

That however does not justify the views of some here on PF to suggest to owners of dogs "of type" to lie about breeds.

Obviously this latter part is not aimed at you rocco33. But I gained momentum and went into auto pilot and ranted.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

diablo said:


> no one knows how the poor baby ended up the in garden , he just did. at the end of the day whose to say whether those dogs were securely contained or not BUT lets just say those dogs had a reputation where they resided , so would you let a 2 year old out of your sight , knowing that ?


Personally i wouldnt let my 7 year old out on her own in a safe inviroment.
I blame owner and grandparents equally.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Although i blame the grandparents i do feel for them, they obviously care for their grandchild, i don't feel for the owner, their attitude stinks, their 1st thoughts should be with the kid, let others stick up for the breed if justified, he should not of posted on Facebook what he did, especially when the poor kids laying in hospital .


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Doggiebag may i ask ur occupation as u seam very.dog knoledgeable


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Natzzhixon said:


> Doggiebag may i ask ur occupation as u seam very.dog knoledgeable


It says on my profile. Unless I removed it.


----------



## Natzzhixon (Jun 8, 2012)

Porn star and stunt co ordernater lol


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> But it did not make it legal to breed them again. My point is that there should be not banned breeds alive now. Unfortunately, it is those irresponsible people who break the law that make it worse for the rest of us.


The thing is, it is impossible to totally eradicate type dogs. Purposeful and illegal breeding aside. Type dogs can be unintentionally created from perfectly legal breeds. Someone may cross a boxer and Labrador, both quite legal easily identifiable breeds quite unassuming of the possible outcome, which can then sold to new owners who may be equally unassuming but ultimately end up with an illegal dog.


----------



## rotties4eva (Nov 26, 2011)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I'm sorry but if the dog that attacked the boy was a staffie, then they are going to mention it. If the dog was a rottweiler, they are going to mention it. It's not the media's fault that its a staffie.
> 
> I hope this boy recovers well.


But the problem is if a Springer Spaniel attacked the boy that WOULD NOT be in the news!!!!


----------



## rotties4eva (Nov 26, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Unfortunately nearly every dog attack lately that causes serious damage seems to be a staffie - and just going by the posts on here so do dog attacks.
> 
> To go back to whether it is the parents fault - does every parent keep their eye on their toddler at every moment of every day and night. I hardly think so! A parent can only do their best - and we dont know how the child got into the garden. It is even possible that it was a regular occurrence and the child was welcome there and known by the dog. As I said though, if the child could get in the dog could get out.
> I feel very sorry for the owner, he has to live with the horror of what his dog did and it sounds like he is being very responsible about it.


NO you are lead to believe that only staffies attack because they are the only attacks mentioned!! And yes I think parents SHOULD be watching their children 24 hours a day !!


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

rotties4eva said:


> But the problem is if a Springer Spaniel attacked the boy that WOULD NOT be in the news!!!!


If a Springer caused this much damage to a child I'm sure it would be in the news.


----------



## shamans (Jun 15, 2012)

I hope the child recovers as soon as possible.


----------



## rotties4eva (Nov 26, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> The only thing you will achieve by this is making it even harder for our staffies in rescue to be homed. Got a couple who have been with us for well over a year. Day after day sitting in a kennel though no fault of their own.
> 
> If you want to help then find out who the owners are behind these staffies. You know it's these who are the problem and not the breed.
> 
> ...


Very well said


----------



## rotties4eva (Nov 26, 2011)

kat&molly said:


> If a Springer caused this much damage to a child I'm sure it would be in the news.


There have been plenty of springer attacks that have not been in the news. No dog attack is nice but it is the fact that the media only reports staffy and rottie attacks that make these breeds look like they are aggressive.


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

rotties4eva said:


> There have been plenty of springer attacks that have not been in the news. No dog attack is nice but it is the fact that the media only reports staffy and rottie attacks that make these breeds look like they are aggressive.


I'd better keep a close eye on my killer then 
It seems a lot of people who spout off about BSL just happen to be the same people who think its ok to have a pop at other breeds. Not everyone, I know. We're all judged no matter what breed we own.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

kat&molly said:


> I'd better keep a close eye on my killer then
> It seems a lot of people who spout off about BSL just happen to be the same people who think its ok to have a pop at other breeds. Not everyone, I know. We're all judged no matter what breed we own.


I think it's defensiveness - a bit like the reaction Pedigree Dogs Exposed caused to the show fraternity. There IS a problem which is caused by a large number of certain breeds (as in larger than one would expect from isolated instances), but obviously not all dogs of that breed are a problem, just like there are certain breeds that have suffered because of breeding for exaggerations, but only a very small number of breeds of all those who show. There are also breeds that by their very nature are naturally guarding/prone to aggression that are being kept as pets by owners who either don't know how to bring them up or use them for the wrong purpose. Denying those things and blaming the public / parents etc gives just the same impression as those who show these exaggerated breeds claiming they are breeding healthy dogs - it comes across as denial of a problem.


----------



## Lola71 (Feb 23, 2011)

Using data from an internet forum is not going to give you a valid outcome to any research to dog attacks. You have personal opinion rather than investigated fact so any research would be seriously flawed. You only have one version of the story, you only have one persons version of events and only one persons description of the injury. You have no idea if what they are saying is 100% honest and therefore any research would be completely invalid. There are probably numerous dog attacks that haven't been mentioned on here, personally i know of a lab that attacked a pointer from my training class a couple of months ago that had to have surgery to repair the damage and a man and his cocker spaniel were attacked by a JRT last year and both required stitches and the police were involved. I didn't post any info on those on here until now. I have to say that i think your on dodgy ground trying to use such an unreliable source for any research.

As a SBT owner i try to ensure that my dog is an ambassador for the breed, she has been socialised well from puppy hood, i have attended weekly training with her and she is currently doing her good citizen gold award but im also aware that no dog can be trusted 100%, there are factors (sometimes in our control, sometimes out of our control) that can contribute to attacks, unpredictable behaviour etc.

As for the poor child in Swindon,there is obvious blame on the dogs teenage owner, the dog has previous history of biting and we can only presume that he hadn't had the best training, there is obvious blame on the parents of a 2 yr old who had chance to wander away unsupervised, anything could have happened to that child in those minutes. A tragic outcome all round.

Part of being a responsible dog owner is providing leadership, a dog will only know what is acceptable and unacceptable from what we, as their owner, teach them which is why i believe that people look at the wrong end of the lead when it comes to the way a dog behaves, and i know there are exceptions to this, hence my 'unpredictable' comment earlier.


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I don't believe staffies are more inclined to bite than any other breed. Anyone who read my posts since joining will know i love analogies, but the ones I use are rubbish, but here goes. 

The news is like a soap opera

Staffies are 16stone rugby players, and labradors(any other breed) are petite 8 stone women. 

A woman giving someone a slap as part of an argument is just part of the argument. 

The rugby player slapping someone becomes an entire domestic abuse plot. 

The intent is ultimately the same, the level of aggression is the same. But it's not seen as dramatic or significant when it's the woman because she can't do as much damage in the attack. 

Even I don't think that makes any sense but hopefully you get the jist.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I don't believe staffies are more inclined to bite than any other breed. Anyone who read my posts since joining will know i love analogies, but the ones I use are rubbish, but here goes.
> 
> The news is like a soap opera
> 
> ...


But a lab can do as much damage .


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Dogless said:


> But a lab can do as much damage .


Agree, my labs could do just as much damage as any other dog...


----------



## mushymouth (Jan 9, 2011)

i think the OP means that typically men usually get blamed for abuse to women and not as common as woment to men

and staffies are more likely to be reported as having attacked someone than that say of a labrador etc

if you get me
as in staffies an men get the blame but sometimes women and labs can be
so your right when you say labs can do as much damage but you see far more reports on staffs attacking than labrador
and can be unfair on the breed as im sure other bredds have and can attack but its just not reported in the news as much as the staff breed
i hate the young louts that have staffs and dont bother keeping them under control like any other breed and dog ownerand im sure they are lovely dogs but its the owners 
my friend has a lovely staffy who is so gentle
so its deffo the owners
such a shame that staffs are far too readily available for most people


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

mushymouth said:


> i think the OP means that typically men usually get blamed for abuse to women and not as common as woment to men
> 
> and staffies are more likely to be reported as having attacked someone than that say of a labrador etc
> 
> ...


I agree, this is such a huge factor


----------



## Monkeyshoes (Apr 7, 2012)

I wasn't saying labs have marshmallow teeth. 

I'll try again, the daily mail demonise chavs. 

Staffies = chavs
Labs (or any other breed) = middle aged middle class couples. 

They want to sell papers and whipping up a media frenzy is easier when you are committed to a specific agenda. 

If i could explain myself properly id be dangerous.

I know what i mean.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

You gotta love Labradors!!! 

*Sorry... as you were!*


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Monkeyshoes said:


> I wasn't saying labs have marshmallow teeth.
> 
> I'll try again, the daily mail demonise chavs.
> 
> ...


I know what you mean.

Staffs attract the wrong type of owner and because of that they get penalised . I firmly believe in the saying "blame the deed not the breed"


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Goldstar said:


> I know what you mean.
> 
> Staffs attract the wrong type of owner and because of that they get penalised .


How are staffies penalised? They are not an illegal breed. If you are referring to opinions, then you will always find assumptions and prejudice. There's one here



> Labs (or any other breed) = middle aged middle class couples


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Pro staff or not its clear the breed ARE involved in a high number of attacks that cause significant damage, But in my opinion this is mostly due to the sheer number of staffs about, alot in the wrong hands. Labs are another massively common dog and surprisingly enough also responsible for a high amount of attacks. 

I do however believe a p*ssed off staff is a bigger danger than a p*ssed off beagle , i really shouldnt have to explain my reasons for thinking this, and i don't mean the Beagle won't attack(or defend itself however you look at it) if pushed to extremities but the breed just wouldn't cause as much damage, And argue until you're blue in about the staffs background but staffs are built to be able to fight, regardless of temperament.

But this isn't a reason to persacute the breed, there are countless breeds that could cause far more damage than a staff, but due to fewer numbers, lack of chav appeal, carry out fewer attacks. 

In regards to the media, they clearly treat staffs unfairly, i am pro staff but some do pump out some right guff when defending the breed. If a sausage dog ripped off half a toddlers face it WOULD be in the papers. The sad truth is when staffs do attack the damage caused is serious enough to make newspapers.

"when labs bite people it doesn't make the papers" thats because nobody wants to read about somebody being nipped, when labs are involved in maulings it DOES make the papers, its just not as common an occurance.

"not all dog bites are reported" true, i would imagine all maulings are though. 

Staff numbers are out of control, and are owned by too many wrong doers, as a breed i think it shows what a fantastic breed they are not to be involved in more attacks considering there are probably as many staffs where i live as all other breeds added together, they can cost less than a pair of trainers and unfortunately are nearly as compulsory to the modern chav as a pair of trainers.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Staff numbers are out of control, and are owned by too many wrong doers,


And driving around certain areas where these sort of owners live, I have yet to see one that hasn't clearly had at least one litter. Far too many have boobs hanging down suggesting they have been bred and bred


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> And driving around certain areas where these sort of owners live, I have yet to see one that hasn't clearly had at least one litter. Far too many have boobs hanging down suggesting they have been bred and bred


True  and far too many are running way in front of their owners who in the event of an 'anti social' meeting with another dog would be in the position to do f**k all about it!

I agree with Reginald in as much as the potential damage a Staff can do. I would rather a scrap with a Lab or Dobe than one with a Staff and my boys. If it latches onto the throat you have big trouble on your hands!


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

It's a difficult one, but i really believe the sheer numbers really are the reason behind so many reported staff attacks, an argument against this would be the Labrador, Labs are very common but population v mauling ratio is less (although bites in general still high for labs) But labs attract a different type of owner (in general I know some very posh Staff owners  ) Labs are not involved in dog fights so don't incur the Mauling figures of dogs treated badly.

If Labs,Huskies,Basset Hounds, Dalmatians, Springers, etc etc were bred in such high volume, and the chosen dog of the modern chav, I believe their Mauling figures would sky rocket, of course a staff could cause more damage than a springer, but then a Malamute or a DDB can cause a lot more damage than a springer and were not calling for their heads are we ?? 

If everybody drove Volvo estates im sure death rates on roads would dive, yet some prefer to drive high performance cars, some drive older cars with inferior brakes to modern cars, some drive 4x4s when not required which are far more dangerous to the pedestrian in a collision But we don't look down our noses at these drivers and brand them potential killers (I don't drive a Volvo estate by the way)

Some would say "but cars are a necessity dogs are not" Yes for myself and many cars are a necessity, go and buy a volvo then, don't be such an inconsiderate potential killer and buy a sports car 

Staffs can't be singled out, yes they are capable of causing serious harm. A lab can cause more damage than a JRT-Ban them. A St bernard could probably eat a Staff in one sitting, and could probably cause loss of limbs let alone missing ears-ban them. A rough collie is capable of mauling a child, a Chihuahua would struggle, on this logic the rough collie is not a necessity, buy the Chihuahua. 

Sometimes i think you have got to be sensible, i wonder if in my life time i will ever see our ocean being pumped into outer space to reduce drowning incidents in the sea


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> How are staffies penalised? They are not an illegal breed. If you are referring to opinions, then you will always find assumptions and prejudice. There's one here


Don't have to be an illegal breed to be penalised  I am saying that they do not have it easy with the likes of idiot owners using them as a status dog. That is a big penalty for them in itself. They don't choose to be bought/adopted by pr*cks.

IMO idiot, scumbag owners are the reason behind the bad rep


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

redginald said:


> Pro staff or not its clear the breed ARE involved in a high number of attacks that cause significant damage, But in my opinion this is mostly due to the sheer number of staffs about, alot in the wrong hands. Labs are another massively common dog and surprisingly enough also responsible for a high amount of attacks.
> 
> I do however believe a p*ssed off staff is a bigger danger than a p*ssed off beagle , i really shouldnt have to explain my reasons for thinking this, and i don't mean the Beagle won't attack(or defend itself however you look at it) if pushed to extremities but the breed just wouldn't cause as much damage, And argue until you're blue in about the staffs background but staffs are built to be able to fight, regardless of temperament.
> 
> ...


Not all maulings get reported in the media...........far from it actually.

There have been 3 in the last 48 hours that I am aware of, which don't involve Staffies but involve children.........................none of which as of yet have been in the news.

And there is 2 serious attacks that have happened recently that do involve Staffords, but don't involve children. So again not in the papers.

Does not aid to the medias wishes, to paint certain breeds as "Kiddy Killers".

In fact some media outlets like to dig up old stories to coincide with the "big dog attack story of the moment".

The Daily Mail and The Sun are big users of this tactic.

In the days since the attack on Keiron they have printed stories of two attacks in the North East, one that happened in Nottinghamshire, and one that happened in South London. But all of which happened prior to the Swindon attack.

So there was no press interest prior to the attack on Keiron, but "hey lets dig up old stories to add to the current fear of dogs."


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> Not all maulings get reported in the media...........far from it actually.
> 
> There have been 3 in the last 48 hours that I am aware of, which don't involve Staffies but involve children.........................none of which as of yet have been in the news.
> 
> ...


I would assume the maulings would be reported though, i can't imagine somebody saying "that dog bit my nose off but i won't report it, it was a lab and i like labs".

I understand staffs are targeted by the media, at the same time I've read of maulings by other "friendly faced" breeds in papers, that in itself would sell papers.

Are you telling me "lassie ripped my face off" wouldn't sale papers?

Did they drag up any "week old" stories involving labs?? No, is this because labs are not devil dog of the year? Probably has something to do with it, but there may also be the fact that there has not been a mauling by a lab in the past fortnight, just sayin


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

redginald said:


> I would assume the maulings would be reported though,* i can't imagine somebody saying "that dog bit my nose off but i won't report it, it was a lab and i like labs"*.
> 
> I understand staffs are targeted by the media, at the same time I've read of maulings by other "friendly faced" breeds in papers, that in itself would sell papers.
> 
> Are you telling me "lassie ripped my face off" wouldn't sale papers?


Do you really think that's how it works?? 
The individuals have very little to do with what gets reported in the media (as mentioned earlier in this thread).


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I wonder how the little boy is doing? Has anyone read or heard any updates on him?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> I wonder how the little boy is doing? Has anyone read or heard any updates on him?


Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> Do you really think that's how it works??
> The individuals have very little to do with what gets reported in the media (as mentioned earlier in this thread).


Im talking about bite statistics based on hospital treatment, i know the media give staffs a kicking


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Scaffolders help raise £1,000 for mauled boy (From Swindon Advertiser)


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

redginald said:


> I would assume the maulings would be reported though, i can't imagine somebody saying "that dog bit my nose off but i won't report it, it was a lab and i like labs".
> 
> I understand staffs are targeted by the media, at the same time I've read of maulings by other "friendly faced" breeds in papers, that in itself would sell papers.
> 
> ...


The 3 involving children were a Lab, a Border Collie and a Shih Tzu. The old stories dug up involved Staffs, a Rottie, and an Akita (so like I said, to add to current fears about certain breeds).

There are many Level 5 (on the Dunbar Bite Scale) bites daily that do not involve Bull breeds. Yet you will rarely see these in the papers or on the news.

And as for all types of dog injuries, Labs are extremely high as one of the UK's most popular breeds.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

redginald said:


> Scaffolders help raise £1,000 for mauled boy (From Swindon Advertiser)


Thankyou for that. To be honest I am dreading the pics of his little face which will undoubtly be covered by the press if they are given the chance.

I hope he recovers mentally from this horrifying thing.


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

DoggieBag said:


> The 3 involving children were a Lab, a Border Collie and a Shih Tzu. The old stories dug up involved Staffs, a Rottie, and an Akita (so like I said, to add to current fears about certain breeds).
> 
> There are many Level 5 (on the Dunbar Bite Scale) bites daily that do not involve Bull breeds. Yet you will rarely see these in the papers or on the news.
> 
> And as for all types of dog injuries, Labs are extremely high as one of the UK's most popular breeds.


I knew labs were high, which is not surprising considering their popularity. Same can be said for staffs.

you're far more likely to be knocked over by a ford than a ferrari, doesn't make the ford more dangerous, arguably quite the opposite


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Thankyou for that. To be honest I am dreading the pics of his little face which will undoubtly be covered by the press if they are given the chance.
> 
> I hope he recovers mentally from this horrifying thing.


Hopefully they get him home and settled soon, not a nice thing for anybody to go through let alone a 2 year old


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

redginald said:


> Im talking about bite statistics based on hospital treatment, i know the media give staffs a kicking


Dangerous Dog Breeds « Dog Bite Claims


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rona said:


> Dangerous Dog Breeds « Dog Bite Claims


Does that not confirm what i said? It states sometimes only bites that require hospilitisation are reported, thus distorting figures, my point that not all dog bites are reported but Significant attacks will be


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

redginald said:


> Does that not confirm what i said? It states sometimes only bites that require hospilitisation are reported, thus distorting figures, my point that not all dog bites are reported but Significant attacks will be


Yes, it was more to show where the Lab came on the scale


----------



## redginald (Aug 18, 2011)

rona said:


> Yes, it was more to show where the Lab came on the scale


Ah yes!! I looked into loads of articles like this before getting Cooper as i was over cautious about having him around the kids, they are flawed by i took comfort in seeing the DDB accounted for 0 fatalities, but it doesn't mean alot really as i reckon staffs outnumber DDBs about 1000 to 1 where i live (without exaggeration) still worth a read though.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2012)

photo`s published of keiron 

Family of Keiron Guess back The Sun's Safer Dogs Campaign | The Sun |News


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I actually saw the little lad in my local shop, despite the scars, he was a cheerful little chap.

And the police could persue a civil case (under the ancient 1871 Dogs act) if they could be bothered to cough up the cash and time so at least get the ***** owner banned from owning dogs. I know it can be done if the fuzz bother to read up on the law!
I'm surpirsed money is not being raised so the family can do this.

And yet again a stock pic of a barking bullbreed


----------

