# How safe are staffies (due to DDA)?



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

On the back of the thread 'Dangerous dogs and Proud' and as someone who is interesting in adopting a deaf dog in the future I'd like to ask how safe do you think/feel your staffies are under these rules? 

Before you jump down my throat I DON'T mean do YOU see your staffie as a dangerous dog now...I mean if you have one, do you now constantly worry about being stopped by police/dog warden and the dog seized/house raided, even though you know it's a loving family pet whose never put a paw wrong? 

Do you wish you hadn't chosen that breed? Would you still get another that breed even if these rules don't get changed? ..

Does it make you feel paranoid when taking dog out that any person who sees him/her could 'see' a dangerous dog and report it even if its done nothing wrong...or it was their dog barked/ran at yours? ..or scared to visit the vet..what if you had to change vets ..do you now worry a new vet might consider him/her 'of type' when your old vet didn't? 

I'm just wondering about the impact on daily life for those owning staffies or staffy crosses (on smaller end) in particular as that's mostly what I've seen that was deaf that I would have considered giving an home? 

Thanks


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> On the back of the thread 'Dangerous dogs and Proud' and as someone who is interesting in adopting a deaf dog in the future I'd like to ask how safe do you think/feel your staffies are under these rules?
> 
> Before you jump down my throat I DON'T mean do YOU see your staffie as a dangerous dog now...I mean if you have one, do you now constantly worry about being stopped by police/dog warden and the dog seized/house raided, even though you know it's a loving family pet whose never put a paw wrong?
> 
> ...


Bull breeds are the "devil dogs" at the moment, it will change... Different breeds come under the spot light at different times, I'm never concerned about the dogs, just the owner.....


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I dont mind admitting, that after having two, im not sure id have another, due to the law and media bias and portrayal.

I dont like the show SBT, and much prefer a cross or a pet bred type, which seem to fall under the type category more.

I do get a knot in my stomach when a police car goes past these days, and i once thought that was it when one went past, turned around, then drove past again really slowly. Thankfully, they didnt stop.

I find myself going through the rescue pages and websites, discounting dogs that look good on paper, as half the time the first thing i think is 'pit bull type' and id hate to get a dog, only to have it taken away due to how it looks.

Ive emailed a few rescues and asked if they have the dogs assessed before rehoming, but not one has ever got back to me.

Choosing my next dog is proving very difficult.

Im glad ive had my boys, as i know now first hand, how stupid BSL is (if i can own and raise two bull breeds to a decent standard without a single incident, then tbh, most people can) and how its the dogs that suffer because of human ignorance.


----------



## LOLcats (Jun 21, 2014)

When I was very young it was GSD's that were vilified, pre teen it was Dobes, teenager it was Rotties. Couple with poor breeding due to popularity and you have tabloid fodder for a couple of years.

The Bull breeds will get their well earned reprieve and then it will be some other poor breeds turn to be demonized and exploited


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Interesting post and a very relevant query.

I love staffies - I think they are the best house dog you can possibly get and they are incredibly loving, but no - when Grace goes, I will not get another just because of the attitude of many people towards her.

She was the sweetest natured pup you could imagine until she was attacked THREE times in a single walk at the age of seven months. The third attack - when a fox terrier bit her just in front of her stifle as she walked past it, and opened up the thin skin there was the last straw as far as she was concerned - she had run from the others, but with this one (and actually, it was a narrow path - she had nowhere to run) she turned round and knocked seven bells out of it!

The owner of the foxie kicked and punched my poor little pup, and wouldn't let me get near to get her to let go - and of course, that made her hang o even more. This idiot screamed abuse at me even when the dogs were apart - "those things are bloody vicious"etc, and did so for several months afterwards, no matter where I encountered him, with or without the dog - he also shouted abusive remarks at my daughter when she walked the dog. She has a social anxiety disorder, and this made her worse again.

We now never walk her off leash, but many people allow their dogs to bounce and bark up to her. SHe is fine with quiet dogs, and will muzzle kiss if she is approached gently, but obviously regards "in-your-face" dogs as a threat and responds. Twice, although she is leashed, other dogs have grabbed through my legs and she has got a hold of them and rattled them - and of course, you can guess which dog gets the blame! never mind that the others are out of control and aggressive - she has responded and she is a "devil dog" breed.

I feel so sorry for her - she longs for a good free run, just fro the joy of living, and we can't allow it. She is so loving, gentle with small animals e.g. neighbours rabbit in our garden - cats, ours and others, but is very unpredictable with bouncy and/or aggressive dogs.

I get sick of snide comments from people who don't know us or her, and who feel they have a right to let me know how they feel about "vicious" breeds like her (!). 

I can tell you now - no matter how gentle and reliable your staffie is, you will come in for flak. If there is a fight and your dog is involved, it will automatically be considered the aggressor. You will also meet idiots who think it is great fun to let their jack russel/yorkshire terrier/whatever snap and snarl at your dog, no matter how many times you ask them to call their dog back - they think it shows that their little titchy dog has bottle - but the minute yours has had enough and even curls a lip, they are there with abuse and often blows.

I love the breed. I love Grace (she is our fourth staffie). But I doubt I will ever get another, though it breaks my heart to say that, as her are so many in rescues, and I would love to give one of them a chance.

People's opinions are getting more and more determined against the breed, and its heartbreaking.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

LOLcats said:


> When I was very young it was GSD's that were vilified, pre teen it was Dobes, teenager it was Rotties. Couple with poor breeding due to popularity and you have tabloid fodder for a couple of years.
> 
> The Bull breeds will get their well earned reprieve and then it will be some other poor breeds turn to be demonized and exploited


I disagree to a point.

The bull breed (im including the SBT, mastiff, American bulldog, although not 100% sure the latter two fall under bull breed or mollosar or both) is vilified, because of all the attacks and deaths, not because its the latest fad, and latest breed to bash.

All the time there are these horrific incidents, then the hate and the bias will continue, and not without good reason in a way. There isnt of course, smoke without fire.

These breeds are a problem, but not for the reasons many would have the general public think. Until the route cause is tackled, i fear it will only get worse, and things will reach a tipping point.

I would not be at all surprised if further BSL was introduced in the coming years. Maybe not outright bans, but certain restrictions.


----------



## LOLcats (Jun 21, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Interesting post and a very relevant query.
> 
> I love staffies - I think they are the best house dog you can possibly get and they are incredibly loving, but no - when Grace goes, I will not get another just because of the attitude of many people towards her.
> 
> ...


:crying: :crying: so unbelievably sad  poor Grace


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

staffies tick all the boxes for me but because of everything now I wouldn't want one.

such a shame cos I think they are great little dogs.

Too many of them and x bred about from bad breeders coupled with the bad new owners of some of them.

I wouldn't want a dog where I wondering if every knock at the door was the police wanting to take the dog away cos some nasty neighbor complained.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> I disagree to a point.
> 
> The bull breed (im including the SBT, mastiff, American bulldog, although not 100% sure the latter two fall under bull breed or mollosar or both) is vilified, because of all the attacks and deaths, not because its the latest fad, and latest breed to bash.
> 
> ...


Rottweilers and GSD's etc were vilified because of attacks. The knee jerk reaction of the government to ban certain breeds came about after a death of a child caused by Rottweilers. So I'm sorry to say the deaths and attacks come about because a breed is the latest fab that then becomes the latest breed to bash. As their popularity increase so do the incidents..


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

lostbear said:


> People's opinions are getting more and more determined against the breed, and its heartbreaking.


And when things start between 2 dogs, its the staffie type that will get the blame.
My border collie was being posessive with a ball, but it was the other cockapoo that pinned her to the ground; no harm done, just a little sqabble. But had that been a bulldog type, it would have been blamed.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lostbear said:


> I get sick of snide comments from people who don't know us or her, and who feel they have a right to let me know how they feel about "vicious" breeds like her (!).
> 
> I can tell you now - no matter how gentle and reliable your staffie is, you will come in for flak. If there is a fight and your dog is involved, it will automatically be considered the aggressor. You will also meet idiots who think it is great fun to let their jack russel/yorkshire terrier/whatever snap and snarl at your dog, no matter how many times you ask them to call their dog back - they think it shows that their little titchy dog has bottle - but the minute yours has had enough and even curls a lip, they are there with abuse and often blows.
> 
> ...


We had this with Rottweilers and still do, it's taken some time to change people perception of the breed, people still consider them dangerous. I'm sad to say I am happy that the Rottweiler is now not the " in" breed to own, I'm happy that our breed numbers are dropping, because it means the numpties don't want them any more, and that saves them from becoming the devil dog again, unfortunately for now Bull breeds have picked up that title, but that will change, given how popular some other breed are becoming with certain part of society I worry for their long term well being too..

I will always have Rottweilers even if we go back to the keek bull breeds have now.... God willing we won't...


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Rottweilers and GSD's etc were vilified because of attacks. The knee jerk reaction of the government to ban certain breeds came about after a death of a child caused by Rottweilers. So I'm sorry to say the deaths and attacks come about because a breed is the latest fab that then becomes the latest breed to bash. As their popularity increase so do the incidents..


I had a rottie at the time the little girl was killed by 2 of them and I remember it well...late 80s.

We didn't have internet etc then so news travelled more slowly. Now, any attack anywhere in the country and then the world is more readily available. You would think there were more attacks, maybe this isn't really the case. now sure.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Guess in the long run you have to decide if you can live with the stigma attached to your chosen breed. Me I have thick skin, I know how people will react to my dogs, I know what they think of them, I chose to ignore it and not let it upset me or bother me, it's their loss not mine, I'm used to people crossing the street, glaring and me and my dogs, the snide comments the down right rude comments, I love the breed enough to live with all that because I know my breeds true nature, you have to decide do you love the breed enough to put up with it?


----------



## Micki24 (Jul 25, 2014)

I rescued a staffie mix almost a year ago now.

She is beautiful and she is incredibly intelligent, loving, quiet and in most ways the perfect pet dog.

I could never say I regret adopting her. Although, particularly as she is a taller than average staff (although still smaller than a lab, for example) BSL terrifies me.

We are considering a second dog now, if this law wasn't in place it would be one less staffie sat in rescue. As it is though, I would not get another Bull Breed. Some people already cross the road etc when they see her, we would get something that will 'soften' the image.

The thought of our gorgeous baby getting seized makes me feel sick. 

It definitely changes our day to day life - for example we are incredibly cautious when it comes to off lead time.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Guess in the long run you have to decide if you can live with the stigma attached to your chosen breed. Me I have thick skin, I know how people will react to my dogs, I know what they think of them, I chose to ignore it and not let it upset me or bother me, it's their loss not mine, I'm used to people crossing the street, glaring and me and my dogs, the snide comments the down right rude comments, I love the breed enough to live with all that because I know my breeds true nature, you have to decide do you love the breed enough to put up with it?


Its not about thick skinned for some, but about the risk of ones dog being taken away and killed due to how it looks.

If there wasnt that risk, i would stick to my 'badly bred' SBTs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> I had a rottie at the time the little girl was killed by 2 of them and I remember it well...late 80s.
> 
> We didn't have internet etc then so news travelled more slowly. Now, any attack anywhere in the country and then the world is more readily available. You would think there were more attacks, maybe this isn't really the case. now sure.


There were people poisoning Rottweilers at shows  Rottweiler owners being spat at and assaulted for owning the breed. GSD owners got it in the 70's. Bull breed owners now have to deal with it..


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Guess in the long run you have to decide if you can live with the stigma attached to your chosen breed. Me I have thick skin, I know how people will react to my dogs, I know what they think of them, I chose to ignore it and not let it upset me or bother me, it's their loss not mine, I'm used to people crossing the street, glaring and me and my dogs, the snide comments the down right rude comments, I love the breed enough to live with all that because I know my breeds true nature, you have to decide do you love the breed enough to put up with it?


My rottie was about 18 months old when the bad publicity started. I was really worried at the time cos there was talk of PTS all of them. Logically I never thought it would happen but then there is always the element of doubt etc.

I chose not to have another rottie only because I could never have replaced the one we had and changed breeds and went for a Gt dane after the rottie died.

we have a bullmastiff now, had a few odd comments but not in the same league as when we had the child killer/devil dog rottie.

When we had the rottie, youngest daughter was 12 months old and people who I knew felt they had the right to pass comments about not having that kind of dog near children. I was also a childminder for a time and the woman from the council came to see me to say that someone had reported me for having a dangerous breed and child minding so obviously I couldn't be registered. Council woman said the dog was a dog end of.

we were out at the seaside one afternoon and had 2 children in a double buggy and rottie quite happily walking by the side...some woman coming towards us screamed, picked her child up and semi ran to the other side of the road. Dog ignored it all.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Rottweilers and GSD's etc were vilified because of attacks. The knee jerk reaction of the government to ban certain breeds came about after a death of a child caused by Rottweilers. So I'm sorry to say the deaths and attacks come about because a breed is the latest fab that then becomes the latest breed to bash. As their popularity increase so do the incidents..


You're obviously much older than me.

Ive only known one fatal attack by Rotties, nearly every other attack has been a bull breed.

Never heard of one by a GSD.

I guess opinions are also guided and affected by the decade one was born in.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> Its not about thick skinned for some, but about the risk of ones dog being taken away and killed due to how it looks.
> 
> If there wasnt that risk, i would stick to my 'badly bred' SBTs.


Nonnie I'm really not trying to be rude here I'm not, but it's not just Bull breeds that have had this hanging over their head, other breed have and still do. So we can either let shitty owners destroy our breed and run it in to the ground, or we can show people just how wonderful our breed is and make it so it's never on the banned list... Rottweilers were perilously close to being on that list, to this day I will never know how they weren't as the death prompted BSL? Rottweilers are restricted in a lot of countries, Ireland included as an owner of the breed I do run the same risk as bull breed owners, but I'm not going to let BSL dictate to me, and I will fight for my breed, and bull breeds and other breeds until I'm blue in the face, and sadly it will be another breed in the spot light soon.. :crying:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> Its not about thick skinned for some, but about the risk of ones dog being taken away and killed due to how it looks.
> 
> If there wasnt that risk, i would stick to my 'badly bred' SBTs.


That's part of the problem....badly bred.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> You're obviously much older than me.
> 
> Ive only known one fatal attack by Rotties, nearly every other attack has been a bull breed.
> 
> ...


The first fatal attack that I can think of was a little girl out walking when 2 off lead rotties attacked her and killed her. She was out walking with her family and for some reason hid behind a bush. Poor little girl was about 9 I think.

After this attack, it seemed every time you put TV on there was another one.

Before Rotties got the grief it was GSDs.

My Rottie was about 18 months old when this started.

We had a GSD when I was a child and we lived in a pub. At this time..mids 60s....GSDs got the bad press.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> You're obviously much older than me.
> 
> Ive only known one fatal attack by Rotties, nearly every other attack has been a bull breed.
> 
> ...


I'm 40?

Children Killed:-
17.04.10 Zumer Ahmed (F), 18-months, Crawley, *American Bulldog*
30.11.09 John-Paul Massey (M), 4 years, Liverpool, *Pit Bull Terrier type*
07.02.09 Jaden Mack (M), 3 months, South Wales, *Staffordshire Bull Terrier & Jack Russell*
28.12.07 Archie-Lee Hirst (M), 1 year, Wakefield, *Rottweiler*
01.01.07 Ellie Lawrenson (F), 5 years, St Hellens, *Pit Bull Terrier type*
23.09.06 Cadey-Lee Deacon (F), 5 months, Leicester, *2 Rottweilers*
11.07.05 Liam Eames (M) 1 year, Leeds, *American bulldog*
20.12.89 Kelly Lynch (F) 11 years, Scotland, *2 Rottweilers*
Adults killed.
23.01.12 Leslie Trotman (M), 83, Brentford, London, *Pit Bull Terrier*
23.12.10 Barbara Williams (F), 52, Wallington, Surrey, *Belgian Mastiff*
01.05.09 Andrew Walker (M), 21, Blackpool,* 2 GSD's*
20.01.09 Stephen Hudspeth (M) 33, Bishop Auckland, *Staffordshire Bull Terrier*
27.01.08 James Redhill (M), 78, Plaistow, London, *Rottweiler*

There are some missing, just going to find them, but include Malamute, Police GSD etc


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I think Staffies are fairly distinctive, but it must be a worry if you have a cross as alot of them do look like they could come under the DDA.
I can see the law changing before too long though.....given the variety of non banned breeds that have been involved in fatal dog attacks lately.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Nonnie I'm really not trying to be rude here I'm not, but it's not just Bull breeds that have had this hanging over their head, other breed have and still do. So we can either let shitty owners destroy our breed and run it in to the ground, or we can show people just how wonderful our breed is and make it so it's never on the banned list... Rottweilers were perilously close to being on that list, to this day I will never know how they weren't as the death prompted BSL? Rottweilers are restricted in a lot of countries, Ireland included as an owner of the breed I do run the same risk as bull breed owners, but I'm not going to let BSL dictate to me, and I will fight for my breed, and bull breeds and other breeds until I'm blue in the face, and sadly it will be another breed in the spot light soon.. :crying:


Unless your dog is one of the four banned breeds, then i dont see how you can have the same threat of death hanging over your head.

Its one thing to deal with the stigma, and abuse born from ignorance, quite another to have a shining example of a well behaved dog, but have it taken away and possibly killed for how it looks.

You live in NI/Ireland (and i have no idea what your restrictions are), i do not. No breed except the four listed under the DDA are restricted in any way, so no owner of a Rottie or a GSD really has anything to be concerned about as long as they train, socialise and keep control.

I dont support BSL, but i also dont wish any dog i take on to be a victim of it.


lilythepink said:


> That's part of the problem....badly bred.


Which is why one would rescue, to get the type of dog one wants, rather than the show type, one doesnt.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Well I have never seen any of the Staffies in my area do anything that gives me cause for concern. They, and in fact all bull breeds have an unfortunate look in my opinion that doesn't appeal to me but Staffies in particular seem to be cracking little dogs. I see quite a few of them on a daily basis and they are no trouble whatsoever. 

It's unfortunate that a few attacks coupled with some very bad owners have given the breed such an undeserved reputation.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> Unless your dog is one of the four banned breeds, then i dont see how you can have the same threat of death hanging over your head.
> 
> Its one thing to deal with the stigma, and abuse born from ignorance, quite another to have a shining example of a well behaved dog, but have it taken away and possibly killed for how it looks.
> 
> ...


So you are saying you own a banned breed?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> You're obviously much older than me.
> 
> Ive only known one fatal attack by Rotties, nearly every other attack has been a bull breed.
> 
> ...


I grew up in the 60s. GSDs had a terrible reputation for attacking people. This was when it was usual to see one chained up in a scrapyard and let loose at night time. Plenty incidences of GSD attacks but I don't think GSds are as popular as they once were and SBT Xs and pit bull types were being advertised here recently for £30 a puppy.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> Unless your dog is one of the four banned breeds, then i dont see how you can have the same threat of death hanging over your head.
> 
> Its one thing to deal with the stigma, and abuse born from ignorance, quite another to have a shining example of a well behaved dog, but have it taken away and possibly killed for how it looks.
> 
> ...


Meezey showed the stats for the little girl killed...she was aged 11 and not 9 as I thought. This was the start. It was announced on TV every day that legislation may be brought up where people would have to surrender their
rotties to PTS. discussions went on all the time. I for one was very worried that this may happen to my dog.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> The first fatal attack that I can think of was a little girl out walking when 2 off lead rotties attacked her and killed her. She was out walking with her family and for some reason hid behind a bush. Poor little girl was about 9 I think.
> 
> After this attack, it seemed every time you put TV on there was another one.
> 
> ...


Oh im not denying in any way, shape or form that other breeds havent caused fatalities. I tend not to search the news, or be involved in anything in the dog world, so im sure much passes me by as it doesnt interest me.

I have merely stated my opinion as i see it and as i have experienced, and it seems a bit of a competition now as to who has the most hated breed.

The op asked a question, i answered it from my perspective. I was unaware there was a wrong or a right answer.

I guess im lucky. I havent had to deal much with the ignorant masses. In 15 years i can count of one hand, and have fingers to spare, the amount of abuse ive taken due to my dogs.

That does not stop me being reluctant to take on another rescue bull breed, due to the media and the law and the over reaction they both have caused.

I want to enjoy a long and happy life with any dog i have, and not have to spend time looking over my shoulder, or worrying about being reported for having an illegal animal.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> Unless your dog is one of the four banned breeds, then i dont see how you can have the same threat of death hanging over your head.
> 
> Its one thing to deal with the stigma, and abuse born from ignorance, quite another to have a shining example of a well behaved dog, but have it taken away and possibly killed for how it looks.
> 
> ...


I was told by the manager of a local dog rescue that a pit bull type was any SBT crossed with any other breed larger than itself.

so SBT x boxer, lab, mutt etc.


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

Nonnie said:


> Unless your dog is one of the four banned breeds, then i dont see how you can have the same threat of death hanging over your head.
> 
> .


I believe the concern is that the banned dog is a pit bull type and staffies can be mistaken for a pit bull type.

Personally I am not a fan of the bullies but dont believe a dog should be banned because of its breed especially when there are other breeds which could be more volatile and are not banned.

Maybe more effort should be put into training people who have dogs rather than focussing on trying to find banned dogs.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Meezey said:


> So you are saying you own a banned breed?


No. I have a Staffie.

Of course whether the law would see him as an illegal type or not is another matter, as he is not to breed standard and was neutered early, which has resulted in his appearance being vastly different to the rest of his litter.

Maybe im not explaining myself properly, or maybe you are just being obstinate or are just missing the point or not understanding.

Who knows.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> I have merely stated my opinion as i see it and as i have experienced, and it seems a bit of a competition now as to who has the most hated breed.
> 
> The op asked a question, i answered it from my perspective. I was unaware there was a wrong or a right answer.
> .


It's not that at all, the stats came about because you said no other breed had been involved in fatalities and that it had nothing to do with popularity of the breed. The information was point out that the popularity of a breed does have impacted on the incidents and that a lot of other breeds have also got/had the reputation that bull breed have, and that hopefully it will pass, and sadly another breed will fall victim of it.. Just not having a breed isn't the solution nor will it help breeds who have the stigma attached or those who will in future, getting ride of BSL will........


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Bull breeds are the "devil dogs" at the moment, it will change... Different breeds come under the spot light at different times, I'm never concerned about the dogs, just the owner.....


I agree - I've lived through GSDs being labelled as "the untrustworthy dogs that will suddenly turn on their owners", rotties being "evil" and now any bully-type being "an evil pit-bull". There's no doubt in my mind that in the future other breeds will become popular, will attract the wrong sort of owners and breeders, will be badly bred and raised, and will bite someone because of that and then the whole breed will be villified as a result.

The only difference between then and now is that when GSDs were being villified, there was no breed specific legislation as there is now. For you to be prosecuted, your GSD would have had to injure someone. No-one would come and take your GSD away because someone saw you walking it and thought it looked like a GSD, as has been done with the numerous staffies and staffie crosses who have been seized and euthanised because some idiot in authority thought they looked like a "pit bull type".

So, in reply to the OP, I love staffies and staffie crosses; we had three at different times when I was a child and my first dog when I left home was a staffie cross. However, if I had one now, then yes I would be worried that some unknowledgable person or some over-zealous policeman would see it out walking and it would be reported and siezed as as a "pit bull type".


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> No. I have a Staffie.
> 
> Of course whether the law would see him as an illegal type or not is another matter, as he is not to breed standard and was neutered early, which has resulted in his appearance being vastly different to the rest of his litter.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm not understanding..


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

lilythepink said:


> The first fatal attack that I can think of was a little girl out walking when 2 off lead rotties attacked her and killed her. She was out walking with her family and for some reason hid behind a bush. Poor little girl was about 9 I think.


I believe that most dog attacks are on children, usually on the dogs own territory.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't worry about Diz particularly, most people ask if she's JRT lol 

She looks enough like a mutt to not get too much negative attention but still has that sweet staffy nature


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree - I've lived through GSDs being labelled as "the untrustworthy dogs that will suddenly turn on their owners", rotties being "evil" and now any bully-type being "an evil pit-bull". There's no doubt in my mind that in the future other breeds will become popular, will attract the wrong sort of owners and breeders, will be badly bred and raised, and will bite someone because of that and then the whole breed will be villified as a result.
> 
> The only difference between then and now is that when GSDs were being villified, there was no breed specific legislation as there is now. For you to be prosecuted, your GSD would have had to injure someone. No-one would come and take your GSD away because someone saw you walking it and thought it looked like a GSD, as has been done with the numerous staffies and staffie crosses who have been seized and euthanised because some idiot in authority thought they looked like a "pit bull type".
> 
> So, in reply to the OP, I love staffies and staffie crosses; we had three at different times when I was a child and my first dog when I left home was a staffie cross. However, if I had one now, then yes I would be worried that some unknowledgable person or some over-zealous policeman would see it out walking and it would be reported and siezed as as a "pit bull type".


"Just not having a breed isn't the solution nor will it help breeds who have the stigma attached or those who will in future, getting ride of BSL will........"


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> "Just not having a breed isn't the solution nor will it help breeds who have the stigma attached or those who will in future, getting ride of BSL will........"


I don't think BSL will go anywhere anytime soon. The Media did quite a lot to stir the politicians into bringing this ludicrous law into existence and they are not about to reverse it unless the Media have a change of heart.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Muze said:


> I don't worry about Diz particularly, most people ask if she's JRT lol
> 
> She looks enough like a mutt to not get too much negative attention but still has that sweet staffy nature


Have you got a bigger pic of her?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> "Just not having a breed isn't the solution nor will it help breeds who have the stigma attached or those who will in future, getting ride of BSL will........"


I absolutely agree. If my post came across as saying that I thought the answer was not to have staffies - or any other breed - then I apologise. I merely meant to say that I would be worried about walking a staffy today in a way that I wouldn't have been worried about walking a GSD all those years ago, and that is purely because of BSL.

BSL is wrong and the whole act should be revoked.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> When we had the rottie, youngest daughter was 12 months old and people who I knew felt they had the right to pass comments about not having that kind of dog near children. I was also a childminder for a time and the woman from the council came to see me to say that someone had reported me for having a dangerous breed and child minding so obviously I couldn't be registered. Council woman said the dog was a dog end of.
> 
> we were out at the seaside one afternoon and had 2 children in a double buggy and rottie quite happily walking by the side...some woman coming towards us screamed, picked her child up and semi ran to the other side of the road. Dog ignored it all.


When I was pregnant we had two staffs - and almost the first words out of everyone' s mouth was "Well, you'll have to get rid of the dogs".

We didn't get rid of the dogs, and I can honestly say we didn't have a moment's anxiety.

Anti-staffie fervour was not infecting the country then. We let our dogs run off lead - the bitch didn't like boxers for some reason, and we leashed her if there was one about, but other than that we never had trouble with other dogs, with children or with our neighbours umpteen cats and kittens. They are a good dog


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I sort of agree with what Nonnie is saying, I'm in my 50's and have had german shepherd or rotties for the past 30 yrs (along with various other breeds) so have been on the receiving end of much ignorance and stigma - being a thick skinned old crow that doesn't bother me, I don't mind if people turn round and walk the other way or grab their kiddies when they see us coming. Thats fine. As long as I know my dogs are well socialised and trained and under control thats all I'm concerned with. Over the years its always been my other breed of dog that has caused issues - my last male GSP was a real handful around other large male dogs yet people always blamed or commented on my rotties not him. 

Whilst I can accept living with that I don't think I could accept living with the fear that my dog could be seized not because of its behaviour but because it might fit a list of measurements. Therefore unless BSL changes when we look to down size to a smaller breed in the future (getting too old for these big dogs) much as I love staffies I won't be considering one as that is not a fear I would want to live with every day.

Meezey can I ask what restrictions you face in NI with your rotties please?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I sort of agree with what Nonnie is saying, I'm in my 50's and have had german shepherd or rotties for the past 30 yrs (along with various other breeds) so have been on the receiving end of much ignorance and stigma - being a thick skinned old crow that doesn't bother me, I don't mind if people turn round and walk the other way or grab their kiddies when they see us coming. Thats fine. As long as I know my dogs are well socialised and trained and under control thats all I'm concerned with. Over the years its always been my other breed of dog that has caused issues - my last male GSP was a real handful around other large male dogs yet people always blamed or commented on my rotties not him.
> 
> Whilst I can accept living with that I don't think I could accept living with the fear that my dog could be seized not because of its behaviour but because it might fit a list of measurements. Therefore unless BSL changes when we look to down size to a smaller breed in the future (getting too old for these big dogs) much as I love staffies I won't be considering one as that is not a fear I would want to live with every day.
> 
> Meezey can I ask what restrictions you face in NI with your rotties please?


Down South, have restrictions not NI  We have UK ruling, although We do have dog shows in the North were Am Staff's ( Pitt Bulls) are shown

S.I. No. 123/1991:

CONTROL OF DOGS (RESTRICTION OF CERTAIN DOGS) REGULATIONS, 1991.

CONTROL OF DOGS (RESTRICTION OF CERTAIN DOGS) REGULATIONS, 1991.

The Minister for the Environment, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 19 and 31 of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986 (No. 32 of 1986), hereby makes the following Regulations:

Citation.
1. These Regulations may be cited as the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991.

Commencement.
2. (1) These Regulations, with the exception of articles 6 and 7, shall come into operation on the 1st day of June, 1991.

(2) Articles 6 and 7 shall come into operation on the 14th day of June, 1991.

Interpretation.
3. (1) In these Regulations, any reference to an article which is not otherwise identified is a reference to an article of these Regulations.

(2) In these Regulations, any reference to a sub-article which is not otherwise identified is a reference to the sub-article of the provision in which the reference occurs.

(3) In these Regulations, a reference to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended or adapted by any subsequent enactment.

Dogs to which Regulations apply.
4. (1) Subject to sub-article (2), these Regulations shall apply to every:

( a ) American Pit Bull Terrier,
( b ) Bulldog,
( c ) Bull Mastiff,
( d ) Dobermann Pinscher,
( e ) English Bull Terrier,
( f ) German Shepherd (Alsatian),
( g ) Japanese Akita,
( h ) Japanese Tosa,
( i ) Rhodesian Ridgeback,
( j ) Rottweiler and
( k ) Staffordshire Bull Terrier and
to every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog) and to every other strain or cross of every breed or type of dog described in this article.

(2) These Regulations shall not apply to a dog which is kept by the Garda Síochána and wholly used by a member of the Garda Síochána in the execution of his duty.

Control of dog.
5. A person shall not permit a dog to which these Regulations apply to be in a public place unless such dog is being led by means of a sufficiently strong chain or leash, not exceeding one metre in length, by a person over the age of sixteen years who is capable of controlling the said dog.

Muzzling.
6. A person shall not permit a dog to which these Regulations apply to be in a public place unless such dog is securely muzzled.

Identification of dog.
7. The owner or other person in charge of a dog to which these Regulations apply shall ensure that such dog shall at all times wear a collar bearing the name and address of the owner inscribed thereon or on a plate, badge or disc attached thereto.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

It's not so much of neighbours saying stuff or people on street or having to go to isolated places early in mornings etc, I'm deaf so probably wouldn't hear them if I hadn't seen them. 

It's more a case of if I'd adopted a deaf staffie ..could rescue guarantee it wouldn't be seen as 'type' when I took it out and stopped by police? If they want people to rescue them shouldn't the dogs come with an exemption certificate if its likely to be considered a pit-bull type? .. should the rescue's have police in to look at their dogs to see which maybe considered type before putting the dogs up for adoption?

I also have agoraphobia and anxiety about communicating with strangers in public, partly cos I'm deaf and it's often difficult when having to try and understand them (passing traffic, sun directly in my face for lip-reading) my speech isn't always clear especially when trying to explain lots at once in a panic! 

I'd worry they would take it even if I tried to explain it was deaf and I was told by rescue it was not 'of type'. Even if they say you can go through court for exemption, sign language interpreters (I'd never follow proceedings without one) are considered a breech of privacy and because the interpreter could be mis-translating replies either way (either deliberately or by accident). The courts didn't used to allow sign language interpreters in court, (in the UK) whether that's changed now I don't know? 

If they find its 'of type' do the rescues give you your money back or allow you to choose another dog? If your paying for it (adoption free) the same as any other breed in the rescue you'd want equal measure of security no-one's gonna come and snatch it off you the next day, month, year and have it PTS cos they think it 'looks dangerous!' 

so I guess it's more a fear of the stress that I know would be coming if someone reported the dog I had adopted as dangerous just because it was staffy (even if it had done nothing and was always on lead), a new neighbour could move into area who was terrified of them and determined to report every single one or something! 

Though we do have people with staffies on the estate and around the village, both owners on this street are a family, one with grown up kids and one with toddlers and a baby. I'm sure there will be a 'hoodie-thug' somewhere that has one!! right now the only other one I can think of is the disabled man I see with his little staffy and 2 spaniels, but I don't hang out at night when the teens and thugs are on the streets!!!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> It's more a case of if I'd adopted a deaf staffie ..could rescue guarantee it wouldn't be seen as 'type' when I took it out and stopped by police? If they want people to rescue them shouldn't the dogs come with an exemption certificate if its likely to be considered a pit-bull type? .. should the rescue's have police in to look at their dogs to see which maybe considered type before putting the dogs up for adoption?


Police forced to put down their own sniffer dog because it was an illegal breed - Telegraph


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Down South, have restrictions not NI  We have UK ruling, although We do have dog shows in the North were Am Staff's ( Pitt Bulls) are shown
> 
> S.I. No. 123/1991:
> 
> ...


Interesting - thanks - I assume this is the sort of thing they have in other countries in Europe too. Bit surprised to see Bulldogs, English Bull Terriers and Ridgebacks on it but hey ho who am I to question the judgement of politicians and law makers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

I cant answer the OP since I dont live in the UK, but I can comment on BSL.

First off, Ill say what I always say on these threads. BSL does not work. It is expensive to implement and there is no evidence that banning a certain breed or breeds reduces the number of dog bites in a community. BSL does not do what it purports to do in terms of safety. 
Breed bans do not result in fewer dog bites nor do they result in fewer dog bite fatalities. 
To me this is such a hugely important point that is often overlooked. As legislators insist on implementing these laws, we the voters need to be making sure they can justify the cost of implementing these laws with real, tangible benefits, and if they cant show those benefits, then the laws need to be repealed. IMHO 

Secondly, though I completely empathize with the hardships of living with a banned breed or potential banned breed, I dont think the answer lies in avoiding ownership of said breed. These breeds need ambassador owners. 
IF you choose to own one of these breeds, I think you also choose to take on the added responsibility of being an advocate for the breed and for dog ownership in general. 
True, this is easy for me to say since I can opt to not live somewhere like Denver or Miami where a dog who looks like our Bates would likely be banned. Not everyone has that luxury, and you have to keep that in mind in fairness to the dog. Like military families could be moved to a base or town where pitbulls are banned, and if the family dog happens to be a pitbull, then what? 

Which circles back to the ban needs to be repealed....


----------



## Suek (Apr 1, 2008)

One way of showing how good and well trained our dogs are, those of us that have dogs that have had negative media coverage IMHO is to get them out in to the community as service dogs (I have a friend who's Rottie is trained to do almost everything for him), and PAT dogs, my own dog is a PAT dog and once people get over the initial shock of 'what dog is he?' 

'A Rottweiler' 

'OMG I thought they were vicious' 

the people in the home that we visit absolutely adore Jaffa :001_tt1::001_tt1:

You should see his Christmas presents he gets (four bags full of stuff  )


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Nonnie said:


> The bull breed (im including the SBT, mastiff, American bulldog, although not 100% sure the latter two fall under bull breed or mollosar or both) is vilified, because of all the attacks and deaths, not because its the latest fad, and latest breed to bash.


Have you considered the fact that media bias may be to blame for people's perceptions. How often and well publicised are "attacks" by other breeds? Have a look at National Canine Research Council Reveals Biased Media Reporting About Pit Bulls - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

If you want to listen to something similar : http://www.cbc.ca/onthecoast/episodes/2012/08/29/is-there-a-media-bias-against-pit-bulls/

Interesting point in the second is not just different reporting levels but the language is different. Pit bulls maul whereas other breeds "act in confusion".


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Interesting - thanks - I assume this is the sort of thing they have in other countries in Europe too. Bit surprised to see Bulldogs, English Bull Terriers and Ridgebacks on it but hey ho who am I to question the judgement of politicians and law makers.


Yeah some breeds on there utterly confuse me, certain councils had banned their tenants from owning any of the 11 breeds  I've met lovely Am Staff's, and an amazing Dogo at the IKC shows beautiful dogs, just like most powerful breeds though they fall victim of stupid owners


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Interesting - thanks - I assume this is the sort of thing they have in other countries in Europe too. Bit surprised to see Bulldogs, English Bull Terriers and Ridgebacks on it but hey ho who am I to question the judgement of politicians and law makers.


Where you are in Germany can make a huge difference as different parts have different regulations. Travel from Hanover to Berlin for example and your dog may have gone from an accepted breed to one needing an exemption and to be always muzzled etc. Cross the border into Denmark, that dog could potentially be seized and killed.


----------



## Micki24 (Jul 25, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> It's more a case of if I'd adopted a deaf staffie ..could rescue guarantee it wouldn't be seen as 'type' when I took it out and stopped by police? If they want people to rescue them shouldn't the dogs come with an exemption certificate if its likely to be considered a pit-bull type? .. should the rescue's have police in to look at their dogs to see which maybe considered type before putting the dogs up for adoption?


From my understanding... The larger rescues, such as Battersea and Blue Cross, receive a weekly visit from the authorities. These guys pick out the dogs they think are potentially 'type' and carry out the assessment. If deemed not 'type' then they can be rehomed and you would get a cert to say it has been assessed as not type.

However, I'm pretty sure this does not mean that your dog cannot be seized and considered a potential banned breed at any time in the future....it also doesn't mean a future assessment would come to the same conclusion as the first.

I'm sure if you contact a rescue they can confirm for you.

The more you learn about BSL the more absurd it seems.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Micki24 said:


> From my understanding... The larger rescues, such as Battersea and Blue Cross, receive a weekly visit from the authorities. These guys pick out the dogs they think are potentially 'type' and carry out the assessment. If deemed not 'type' then they can be rehomed and you would get a cert to say it has been assessed as not type.
> 
> However, I'm pretty sure this does not mean that your dog cannot be seized and considered a potential banned breed at any time in the future....it also doesn't mean a future assessment would come to the same conclusion as the first.
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ffer-dog-because-it-was-an-illegal-breed.html

An RSPCA dog...


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Police forced to put down their own sniffer dog because it was an illegal breed - Telegraph


 This is what I don't understand too it says:
*
"Unable to legally rehome him under the Government's breed standard laws*, the centre had no choice but to put him to sleep"

Surely this should mean that ANY staffy or cross of, that they DO have up for adoption should already have been cleared as not 'of type' so the new owners do not have to go through that uncertainty?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely this should mean that ANY staffy or cross of, that they DO have up for adoption should already have been cleared as not 'of type' so the new owners do not have to go through that uncertainty?


That assumes it's not a personal opinion which is making the opinion. What passes one day, may not another. Different "experts" may have slightly different parameters and having been judged once, as far as I am aware, does not clear you for the future. Think of it as showing.. you have the breed standard of what a dog look likes. The judges judge what dog best matches that "standard". Yet these judges don't always pick the same dog. Now instead of breed standard replace guidelines for identifying pit bull type and "judge" for "expert" and instead of winning a dog is seized.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Micki24 said:


> From my understanding... The larger rescues, such as Battersea and Blue Cross, receive a weekly visit from the authorities. These guys pick out the dogs they think are potentially 'type' and carry out the assessment. If deemed not 'type' then they can be rehomed and you would get a cert to say it has been assessed as not type.
> 
> *However, I'm pretty sure this does not mean that your dog cannot be seized and considered a potential banned breed at any time in the future....it also doesn't mean a future assessment would come to the same conclusion as the first.*
> 
> ...


Then that is a totally useless assessment and certificate! If someone has said the dog is not 'of type' then what is going to change in future to make it 'of type'? ....if it was a puppy when they assessed and didn't know how big it would get?

If it's an older or disabled dog with no aggression issues or anything like that and had been deemed NOT 'of type' and suitable for rehoming then that status should last it's lifetime so it cannot be seized by the police if it continues to have done nothing wrong.


----------



## malihunt (Jun 22, 2011)

The rescue I have is a bull breed, and yes I do worry about him.

As he has behavioural problems, I worry that someone may see him as a danger to them.

The only thing I can do is try and be the best owner I can to him, he doesn't go off lead, I muzzle him when out. He is booked in next month to be neutered and micro chipped . 
And I hope if it ever came to it that I have proved myself enough for the courts to decide that I am responsible enough to carry on with him .

My malinois has had a scrap with a staff, the obnoxious git went and jumped all over the staff, trying to pull his ears, off poor thing. People around swore the staff had started it. 
His owner looked quite relieved when I pointed out MY dog had started it.


----------



## Micki24 (Jul 25, 2014)

Exactly, Tyson was deemed type and so could not be rehomed. Even to the cops.

Any dog assessed as type in these rescues would be PTS.

IF he had been assessed as not of type he would gotten a cert. But this wouldn't stop someone in say 5years from deciding he was banned and having him reassessed. And this second assessment may well have decided he was a banned breed after all.


----------



## Micki24 (Jul 25, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> Then that is a totally useless assessment and certificate! If someone has said the dog is not 'of type' then what is going to change in future to make it 'of type'? ....if it was a puppy when they assessed and didn't know how big it would get?
> 
> If it's an older or disabled dog with no aggression issues or anything like that and had been deemed NOT 'of type' and suitable for rehoming then that status should last it's lifetime so it cannot be seized by the police if it continues to have done nothing wrong.


I agree with you completely. The cert is pointless.
The difference would be the assessors. I think there are a few points for temperament and I guess that could change....
Though how temperament determines the breed type I do not understand!


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Having a staffy and American bulldog I probably have the two biggest 'devil' breeds of the current times.

Do I regret getting them? Hell no. Do I constantly worry? Hell no. I enjoy everyday with my misunderstood boys, yeah we get people scream and grab their kids, or run in the opposite direction, but meh more fool them, all they are doing is missing out on one of Harvey's legendary ear washes  But why shouldn't I be allowed the breeds I love like everyone else, I don't want a Labrador or JR - nothing wrong with them, they just aren't for me! 

So in short knowing the state of the world now would I get both my boys again? Damn right I would!


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

pogo said:


> Having a staffy and American bulldog I probably have the two biggest 'devil' breeds of the current times.
> 
> Do I regret getting them? Hell no. Do I constantly worry? Hell no. I enjoy everyday with my misunderstood boys, yeah we get people scream and grab their kids, or run in the opposite direction, but meh more fool them, all they are doing is missing out on one of *Harvey's legendary ear washes * But why shouldn't I be allowed the breeds I love like everyone else, I don't want a Labrador or JR - nothing wrong with them, they just aren't for me!
> 
> So in short knowing the state of the world now would I get both my boys again? Damn right I would!


Io gives ear washes too! :001_tt1:


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Micki24 said:


> Exactly, Tyson was deemed type and so could not be rehomed. Even to the cops.
> 
> Any dog assessed as type in these rescues would be PTS.
> 
> IF he had been assessed as not of type he would gotten a cert. But this wouldn't stop someone in say 5years from deciding he was banned and having him reassessed. And this second assessment may well have decided he was a banned breed after all.


would be interesting to know how many type are PTS by rescues and RSPCA etc when they arrive at the centres.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Hanwombat said:


> Io gives ear washes too! :001_tt1:


lol. I hate being licked.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> lol. I hate being licked.


Io is a VERY licky dog! My OH hates it too!


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

The last post reminds me of the Licky Licky song on This Is Jinsy, lol!


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Hanwombat said:


> Io is a VERY licky dog! My OH hates it too!


Harvey takes licking to the extreme :smilewinkgrin: good job I don't mind it!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Micki24 said:


> Exactly, Tyson was deemed type and so could not be rehomed. Even to the cops.
> 
> Any dog assessed as type in these rescues would be PTS.
> 
> IF he had been assessed as not of type he would gotten a cert. But this wouldn't stop someone in say 5years from deciding he was banned and having him reassessed. And this second assessment may well have decided he was a banned breed after all.


Tyson was rehomed, Tyson trained as a Police Dog, he was rehomed because he was deemed not to be of type, Police "experts" them deemed him to be of type and despite being a great sniffer dog they had to return him to rescue to be PTS?


----------



## Micki24 (Jul 25, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Tyson was rehomed, Tyson trained as a Police Dog, he was rehomed because he was deemed not to be of type, Police "experts" them deemed him to be of type and despite being a great sniffer dog they had to return him to rescue to be PTS?


https://www.avonandsomerset.police....atement-following-the-dog-rescuers-channel-5/

Says here he still belonged to the RSPCA.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Micki24 said:


> https://www.avonandsomerset.police....atement-following-the-dog-rescuers-channel-5/
> 
> Says here he still belonged to the RSPCA.


I find it interesting and rather sad that the Police say they are unable to Comment on the Law. I understand that they have to enforce the law, that is their job but as experts in the field who deal with the reality of Law day in and Day out I cannot think of an organisation more qualified to judge and speak out about when a law does or does not work, is or is not unfair than the Police force themselves.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Micki24 said:


> https://www.avonandsomerset.police....atement-following-the-dog-rescuers-channel-5/
> 
> Says here he still belonged to the RSPCA.


He still went out to a police force with the intent of working for them, he had been under assessment and assigned a handler who he had bonded with so must have been there some time, and the RSPCA hadn't deemed him as type when they sent him out...


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Isn't the biggest problem with Staffies that people think they, unlike other breeds, have "lockjaw"? Aka that should a kerfuffle/fight occur between a Staffie and another dog, the Staffie won't, or rather can't, let go once latched on.

Never had a Staffie, don't know that much about the breed, and I have no idea whether this "lockjaw" is utter tosh and a myth or accurate.

What I do know though is that Staffies have a big image problem issue here where I live. A great many people won't let their pup or adult play with a Staffie even if the Staffie is still a pup itself. And -what surprise! -as a result of limited positive social interaction by giving them a wide berth, a great many of them you now really would want to give a wide berth to.

I can't lie, due to the real or fabled lockjaw issue, I was always way more careful with unknown Staffies than ANY other breed. Even though some of my dogs BFFs included several of them.

If it is a myth, the breed needs a good PR officer. I like them a lot - they generally look so happy - but wouldn't want to deal with the stigma and resign myself to solitary walks.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Lockjaw is a myth. All Bull type dogs have very strong jaws simply because they were bred to cling on but they cannot lock them.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Micki24 said:


> https://www.avonandsomerset.police....atement-following-the-dog-rescuers-channel-5/
> 
> Says here he still belonged to the RSPCA.


Maybe in terms of legal ownership, but he was certainly taken on board by the police and trained for a while.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Tyson was rehomed, Tyson trained as a Police Dog, he was rehomed because he was deemed not to be of type, Police "experts" them deemed him to be of type and despite being a great sniffer dog they had to return him to rescue to be PTS?


The police hadn't taken full custody of him at this point. He was under assessment for becoming a K9, but then a DLO pointed the finger at him 

Basically lots of red tape killed this dog, if the police had owned him at that point then I guess the exemption process could have been a possibility (although not sure the force would want to bother) but as it stood, the rescue would have had to apply for exemption and then when/if he passed then the rescue would not be able to home him anywhere..

Lets hope that now the police have had a taste of this ludicrous law that they can help to put pressure for change...I can dream can't I?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> The police hadn't taken full custody of him at this point. He was under assessment for becoming a K9, but then a DLO pointed the finger at him
> 
> Basically lots of red tape killed this dog, if the police had owned him at that point then I guess the exemption process could have been a possibility (although not sure the force would want to bother) but as it stood, the rescue would have had to apply for exemption and then when/if he passed then the rescue would not be able to home him anywhere..
> 
> Lets hope that now the police have had a taste of this ludicrous law that they can help to put pressure for change...I can dream can't I?


Yep got all that maybe it was a bad choice of words saying he was rehomed, but the point I was making was he did leave the rescue and wasn't deemed as type whether he was re-homed or not he made it out of rescue as a staff cross under assessment by the police, the rescue didn't consider him of type.....


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Yep got all that maybe it was a bad choice of words saying he was rehomed, but the point I was making was he did leave the rescue and wasn't deemed as type whether he was re-homed or not he made it out of rescue as a staff cross under assessment by the police, the rescue didn't consider him of type.....


I agree with you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..
It's not like he turned into some rabid beast the moment a DLO had checked a few boxes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Never had a Staffie, don't know that much about the breed, and I have no idea whether this "lockjaw" is utter tosh and a myth or accurate.


Utter tosh. 
There is no anatomical difference in the workings of a staffie jaw than any other breed. They cannot lock their jaw and their bite force is no different than any other breed of similar size.

What bull breeds do tend to do is bite and grip. Different breeds have different bite styles depending on what we humans select for. Watch cattle dogs work and you can see how their bite style affects where they work best (headers and heelers for example). Many breeds are bred for a strong bite and hold - a quick perusal of bite sport pics will show you the type of bite prized in those circles, but nobody seems to mind when GSDs are bred for a certain bite type...

Bull breeds were bred to bite, hold, and not let go. In some ways this bite style does far less damage than the knife fighter breeds who bite and slash. It also makes them a lot easier to separate when in a fight as you are far less likely to get redirected on with a bully breed than other breeds. Traditionally fighting dogs were culled if they were man biters so the tendency to redirect has been selectively bred out over the years.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> I agree with you.
> I've said it before and I'll say it again..
> It's not like he turned into some rabid beast the moment a DLO had checked a few boxes.


Agree it is BS and I hate all the BSL stands for.. All the Pitt's I've met are lovely...

The Police have to stay neutral  No less gutting for the handler than Joe Public losing their dog though


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

I can not legally own;

An American pitbull terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire bull terrier

Due to these being banned in Denver (If you don't know about Denver's bsl, i'd recommend looking it up they are the worst)

I would not own one here either but the thing is I see pitts/am staffs and their mixes here all the time like there wasn't a ban so I could likely own one and be fine but I would never risk it. At Least with DDA you get the chance to get the dog back, here they will destroy the dog asap sometimes there and then.


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> I was told by the manager of a local dog rescue that a pit bull type was any SBT crossed with any other breed larger than itself.
> 
> so SBT x boxer, lab, mutt etc.


Its done on set criteria to determine if it fits type not just that it looks like a large staffy x. I wouldn't think my greyhound x staffy would fit type due to extreme sighthound shape.

Nonnie on a program about staffies at battersea dogs home the dogs were assessed for BSL type and it seemed like any that weren't dog friendly were also PTS. I can't imagine there's the resources to check every rescue so they perhaps just target area's.

It is a worry though how many bully types get taken under BSL, as % of population it must be low, so I think I would possibly take the risk with a staffy x as that dog will likely get pts anyway if not adopted. I can imagine how disheartening it must be to have to deal with others misconceptions, though it would be sad if there are fewer good ambassadors left to challenge people's views too.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Interesting points thanks. 

I wondered what Staffies were originally bred for too as dogs in general can still carry traits strongly of their breeding even if their environment never gives them opportunity to practice those skills.

JJ is a good example of that. He's a Border Collie whose never seen or worked any sheep. Yet since the tender age of 4 months old when he first started to do the famous 'collie crouch' and then a fixation on stalking cars that went fast by us he has shown these behaviours that I have neither taught him or encouraged him to do. My other dog has never done any of those behaviours and she was 11yr old when he came anyway. 

The only behaviour from her I was worried about him developing was aggression to another dog as she originally used to snap at him and even pounce on him when he was young. Despite this he's never been aggressive towards other dogs or appeared frightened of them.

Is a small staffy X (eg chihuahua or shih tzu kind of breeds) or a small pedigree one then LESS likely to be deemed of 'type' than a staffy crossed with something larger that may make it much bigger, more muscular and more pitbull type? what about..say a staffy x border collie if it's coat was longer as a result of the cross but face still a little shorter than a collie's nose but not as flat faced or broad at shoulders as a staffy? 

Can we see some photo's of any that definitely wouldn't be considered 'of type' (cos maybe they had more of the other breed(s) in) and some what definitely would be deemed of 'type'?


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Here's a example..this little cutey is 3/4 patterdale, 1/4 staffy and the type I'd go for










It's likely to be not as square in the head and shoulders as a pedigree one. 
Is one more likely to be 'typed' than the other?










Their both mostly black so only difference would be the build and how many points that would give the dog? Lets say temperament wise they are both big softies, totally non aggressive brought up with other dogs, cats and kids.

only difference say is the top dog will stay around that size and looking cute even as an adult?

alot of deaf ones seem to be predominantly white..this is Patch at Birmingham Dogs Home, still looking for a home I believe.










Would he be of equal risk (to the black full staffy shown above) as being deemed 'of type'?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> Interesting points thanks.
> 
> I wondered what Staffies were originally bred for too as dogs in general can still carry traits strongly of their breeding even if their environment never gives them opportunity to practice those skills.
> 
> JJ is a good example of that. He's a Border Collie whose never seen or worked any sheep. Yet since the tender age of 4 months old when he first started to do the famous 'collie crouch' and then a fixation on stalking cars that went fast by us he has shown these behaviours that I have neither taught him or encouraged him to do. My other dog has never done any of those behaviours and she was 11yr old when he came anyway.


Yes, many of the fighting breeds will become dog intolerant as they mature and its important when you own one of these breeds to always keep this in mind.

But your herding breed example is a good one. Just because collies have been bred to herd sheep doesnt mean every collie everywhere is frantically running around looking for a sheep to herd. For one, drives express differently in different dogs. Some collies are more driven than others, same with bully breeds. And as with breeds like collies, savvy owners know how to direct those drives in to something useful. Bully breeds who were bred to fight tend to be like adrenaline junkies and like anything that gives them that rush so they excel in a lot high energy sports and activities. 
Savvy owners and breeders also know how to keep their dog out potentially bad situations. A DA bully breed is not necessarily dangerous in responsible hands.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> Here's a example..this little cutey is 3/4 patterdale, 1/4 staffy and the type I'd go for
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you really are over thinking about this, if you are going to be this paranoid over owning a staffy/x then you aren't going to enjoy them to their full potential I wouldn't recommend you getting one. It's isn't going to be fair on you OR them.

I once received a letter from the council saying someone had reported us for having a dangerous dog, naturally i assumed they meant Chance for how he can react in public, but i was fuming. I did ring them to get all the details and it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity and the dog actually lived on the street behind us and it was proven the boys were innocent. But do i now worry over them being reported again? No i couldn't care less. I adore my boys I don't hide them away from the world, they go everywhere and anywhere, they regularly have playdates with other dogs and owners, we do have others dogs stay with us and the dogs survive 

No bullsh** legislation is going to stop me and them enjoying life to the full.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Utter tosh.
> In some ways this bite style does far less damage than the knife fighter breeds who bite and slash. It also makes them a lot easier to separate when in a fight as you are far less likely to get redirected on with a bully breed than other breed.....


Hmmm.

In all my years of owning dogs I have never had a single unpleasant encounter with a Staffie. And there are a lot of them about.

But, I have witnessed repeatedly, from afar, Staffies going for another dog and all I can say is that I felt VERY lucky that the victims weren't mine. The Staffies did not let go. I recall one incidence where one chap was flailing the Staffie with a golf club. And it still didn't release. No idea whether it was his dog or the victims's owners dog, I legged it with mine.

In all those cases it may not have been the Staffies fault. They may have just defended themselves. But breaking off a fight involving a dog which won't let go whilst its opponent still moves isn't a good thing. Never mind often compounded by the fact that the owner/walker is either a kid/teenager walking the family pet, or a frail looking woman wringing her hands whilst sobbing "OMG , OMG, OMG" without intervening.

HOW does one even do it?


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> In all my years of owning dogs I have never had a single unpleasant encounter with a Staffie. And there are a lot of them about.
> 
> ...


It's said the easiest way to 'release' a dog like a staffy is to use a break stick which is placed in where the back teeth are and it's twisted in the right spot opening the jaw. But it's very easy to get wrong and a break stick is not something you'd really want to be carrying around!


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> In all my years of owning dogs I have never had a single unpleasant encounter with a Staffie. And there are a lot of them about.
> 
> ...


Break stick. 
Unfortunately break stick are considered dog fighting paraphernalia in many states and are therefore illegal. A plastic tent stake works well too.

To add though, most dogs will let go, but most humans are too freaked out by the whole scenario to wait them out though (completely understandable). 30 seconds of a dog holding another dog can feel like 30 minutes. 
But if you can just hold both dogs still, usually the biting dog will re-grip at some point and if you have a good hold on him, the dog being bitten can make his escape at this point.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

pogo said:


> It's said the easiest way to 'release' a dog like a staffy is to use a break stick which is placed in where the back teeth are and it's twisted in the right spot opening the jaw. But it's very easy to get wrong and a break stick is not something you'd really want to be carrying around!


Is this a way of saying that IF you /your dog get embroiled with a Staffie you are essentially snookered? 

Since I never seen anyone walking with a break stick ( an item I must google).


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

People can report me all they like it doesn't really bother me at all. I like to make sure both my dogs are well mannered and don't cause any trouble.

If the police turn up and take Mitzie I would be upset and very very angry that she would be taken and shoved in a kennel (she likes her home comforts ), but I would apply to the courts to get her added to the exempt register and follow the rules put in place for exempt dogs.

No one takes my dog and gets away with it! If I have to do it get her back nothing will stop me.

I would even take on an exempt dog that needed a home. (Yes its possible DDA watch are appealing for people to adopt exempt dogs and be their registered keeper)


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Is this a way of saying that IF you /your dog get embroiled with a Staffie you are essentially snookered?
> 
> Since I never seen anyone walking with a break stick ( an item I must google).


nope as said above all you have to do is wait the biting dog out, which yes will feel like forever for the re-grip.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> But if you can just hold both dogs still, usually the biting dog will re-grip at some point and if you have a good hold on him, the dog being bitten can make his escape at this point.


Christ-on-a-bike.....I think I stick with my patented method of legging it BEFOREHAND 

I'm no wuss, but holding on calmly to a latched-on, royally miffed Staffie? Ayayay...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Is a small staffy X (eg chihuahua or shih tzu kind of breeds) or a small pedigree one then LESS likely to be deemed of 'type' than a staffy crossed with something larger that may make it much bigger, more muscular and more pitbull type? what about..say a *staffy x border collie* if it's coat was longer as a result of the cross but face still a little shorter than a collie's nose but not as flat faced or broad at shoulders as a staffy?


American Bulldog x Border collie


You need to stop over thinking this so much.
I actually agree with Pogo that you probably would be better looking at other breeds as you just wouldn't be able to enjoy your dog.

BSL is a crappy law, innocent dogs have been seized and killed. I just make sure I am a responsible owner by keeping my dog under control reducing the risk.
Thai has actually met a couple of police officers, they even gave him some biscuits.

Would I take him to one of these amnesty type events? No
But I won't hide him away when he has done nothing wrong.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Just to add...After my old dog was attacked by a staffie, I carried a breaking stick, but was warned by a police officer that is could be considered an offensive weapon (it looked a bit like a door stop, wedge of wood) and was advised not to.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

LouLatch said:


> People can report me all they like it doesn't really bother me at all. I like to make sure both my dogs are well mannered and don't cause any trouble.
> 
> *If the police turn up and take Mitzie I would be upset and very very angry that she would be taken and shoved in a kennel (she likes her home comforts ), but I would apply to the courts to get her added to the exempt register and follow the rules put in place for exempt dogs.
> *
> ...


So they do give you chance to do that? They wouldn't just come and take it to put straight down? Some of the horror stories on the other site seemed to suggest police were taking dogs off people in the street or raiding houses, taking them away and having them PTS before the owners had chance to do anything! ..or the dogs are in kennels for years whilst owners go through courts trying to get them exempt...if the certificate would stop them putting the dog down why didn't the police or the rescue just get one for Tyson? surely the police could have arranged a court date for the RSPCA to go with them and get him a certificate?

so if you had it on a lead and muzzled when near a road, any passing police car or dog warden would assume it had already been exempted (without getting out of car to inspect every staffie they pass) if thats what you have to do when you get an exemption certificate?

There are some small one's I think are cute and would consider, I can't see how they can be seen as dangerous or looking like pitbulls, so I was just wondering how many of the staffy owners on here have had to go through the exemption process? and what your dog looked like? I thought one that stayed small, cute and puppyish (cos maybe it was crossed with much smaller dog) would not have problems but someone else mentioned them taking puppies of 5 months old to be put down cos they would be 'pitbull types'! 

I would like to give a deaf dog a home in future and if I'd applied to do this and someone says we have one but its a staffie (or staffie X) I don't want to have to turn it away in fear of possibly getting stopped by the police one day when I could do alot of good for the dog by teaching it to sign and it having companionship from JJ too. (especially given a lot of strangers may not let their dogs play with him/her as others have said on here) The only reason I SHOULD have to say it wouldn't work, would be if JJ and the deaf dog didn't get on AT ALL...but usually, especially if you have dogs already they like to introduce them first to make sure they get on before you sign any adoption papers.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Well....now I now what a breaking stick is. Doesn't look overly "weapon like".

Just watched this youtube video on breaking up a bulldog fight. Very helpful, actually (and fear not, nothing bad befalls the dog)

Break Stick: making a Pit Bull release when it attacks - YouTube


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> So they do give you chance to do that. They wouldn't just come and take it to put straight down? Some of the horror stories on the other site seemed to suggest police were taking dogs off people in the street and having them PTS before the owners had chance to do anything!
> 
> Some people sign the dog over, thinking this is what they have to do. As soon as they do this then the dog can be destroyed.
> If you don't sign the dog over then although he will be kept in kennels in a secret location you can go through the exemption process so long as you have the funds to do so.
> ...


No, having a dog onlead and muzzled will not save you from BSL. If they thought your dog was exempt then they would stop you and check that all your paper work is in order and that the dog was chipped and tattooed.

BUT, that would only happen if someone thought the dog was a banned breed.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Christ-on-a-bike.....I think I stick with my patented method of legging it BEFOREHAND
> 
> I'm no wuss, but holding on calmly to a latched-on, royally miffed Staffie? Ayayay...


Well, Id rather hold on to a staffie in fight mode than many other breeds.


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> So they do give you chance to do that. They wouldn't just come and take it to put straight down? Some of the horror stories on the other site seemed to suggest police were taking dogs off people in the street and having them PTS before the owners had chance to do anything!
> 
> so if you had it on a lead and muzzled when near a road, any passing police car or dog warden would assume (without stopping the car to get and out inspect the dog for tattoo, chips etc) it had already been exempted if thats what you have to do when you get an exemption certificate?


The most important thing to remember is if your dog is taken DO NOT sign anything!!!!! What ever they tell u it is don't sign. A lot of police say its a receipt to say we have taken her when actually its a declaration to give the police custody of the animal so they can legally PTS. Not everyone Is aware of this, im sure some police take matters into their own hands with or without a signature but that's not on!

Have a look here it will explain things better.  http://www.ddawatch.co.uk/

No they wouldn't. There are many dogs out there muzzled and on a lead for many reasons. They would stop if they were concerned about its breed, but you cant live in fear of that.

We have had police round to us as there was allegations of domestic abuse with our neighbours and we were asked if we heard what was happing. 2 different officers came round at separate times, one ignored the dogs that other loved Mitzie.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Well....now I now what a breaking stick is. Doesn't look overly "weapon like".
> 
> Just watched this youtube video on breaking up a bulldog fight. Very helpful, actually (and fear not, nothing bad befalls the dog)
> 
> Break Stick: making a Pit Bull release when it attacks - YouTube


Ive watched that video before, yes, good demo but ugh... If that doesnt tell you something about the true nature of pitbulls and how good they are with humans, how tolerant they are of handling, and what generally awesome dogs they are, I dont know what will...


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> So they do give you chance to do that. They wouldn't just come and take it to put straight down? Some of the horror stories on the other site seemed to suggest police were taking dogs off people in the street and having them PTS before the owners had chance to do anything!
> 
> so if you had it on a lead and muzzled when near a road, any passing police car or dog warden would assume (without stopping the car to get and out inspect the dog for tattoo, chips etc) it had already been exempted if thats what you have to do when you get an exemption certificate?


My chance in onlead and muzzled, and no it won't save him from the police assuming he is of type, neither will harvey being offlead and care free.

As loulatch said never sign ANYTHING no matter what they say, that is something to remember.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Ive watched that video before, yes, good demo but ugh... If that doesnt tell you something about the true nature of pitbulls and how good they are with humans, how tolerant they are of handling, and what generally awesome dogs they are, I dont know what will...


Quite.

But likely not much consolation during the time when such a dog is firmly latched on to yours who is screaming in agony...with a breaking stick or a plastic tent hook nowhere in sight.

Perhaps the relevant BC should encourage bull type owners to carry one and teach them how to use it.

Except, over here, there is this "carrying a weapon" issue. Tricky.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Muze said:


> Just to add...After my old dog was attacked by a staffie, I carried a breaking stick, but was warned by a police officer that is could be considered an offensive weapon (it looked a bit like a door stop, wedge of wood) and was advised not to.


anything can be seen as an offensive weapon...including a pocketful of pennies or even a coke can.


----------



## LouLatch (Jul 2, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> There are some small one's I think are cute and would consider, I can't see how they can be seen as dangerous or looking like pitbulls, so I was just wondering how many of the staffy owners on here have had to go through the exemption process? and what your dog looked like? I thought one that stayed small, cute and puppyish (cos maybe it was crossed with much smaller dog) would not have problems but someone else mentioned them taking puppies of 5 months old to be put down cos they would be 'pitbull types'!
> 
> I would like to give a deaf dog a home in future and if I'd applied to do this and someone says we have one but its a staffie (or staffie X) I don't want to have to turn it away in fear of possibly getting stopped by the police one day when I could do alot of good for the dog by teaching it to sign and it having companionship from JJ too. (especially given a lot of strangers may not let their dogs play with him/her as others have said on here) The only reason I SHOULD have to say it wouldn't work, would be if JJ and the deaf dog didn't get on AT ALL...but usually, especially if you have dogs already they like to introduce them first to make sure they get on before you sign any adoption papers.


DDA watch are also on FB and there are many stories on there about the dogs and owners they have helped.

If you are going to live in fear of being stopped by the police then I don't really think a bully/bully x is for you as you wouldn't relax and that would upset your dogs. It wouldn't be fair to put any of you through that fear and worry.

Yes there was a story about some puppies that were taken in by a rescue and they all ended up being PTS as they were deemed of type. It was very sad and a huge effort was made to try and save them.

A dog is accessed on its looks to distinguish weather it is of 'type', I think mostly the facial features and also height. (I may be wrong)

A dog can have no staffie in it and be at risk depending on what it looks like which is why this law is bull s**t and should be scrapped.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Quite.
> 
> But likely not much consolation during the time when such a dog is firmly latched on to yours who is screaming in agony...with a breaking stick or a plastic tent hook nowhere in sight.


Im not sure what youre getting at here? 
Staffies are not the only dogs who can be DA or even damage another dog?



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Perhaps the relevant BC should encourage bull type owners to carry one and teach them how to use it.
> 
> Except, over here, there is this "carrying a weapon" issue. Tricky.


Meh... Id rather owners be encouraged to be responsible, sensible, and not allow their dogs to be in a situation where youre wishing for a break stick.
Whats a BC? All I can think of is border collie and that doesnt quite make sense


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Quite.
> 
> But likely not much consolation during the time when such a dog is firmly latched on to yours who is screaming in agony...with a breaking stick or a plastic tent hook nowhere in sight.
> 
> ...


What do you mean by that?

"All Bull Type Owners"? Why are Bullies more likely to attack than any other dog?

Exactly that sort of narrow mindedness led to BSL in the first place, in my opinion.

We had a beautiful Staffy Girl and she was the sweetest dog you could ever have met. Not a bad thought in her head, ever. Should I, in fact, have been carrying a break stick when I walked her?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Im not sure what youre getting at here?
> Staffies are not the only dogs who can be DA or even damage another dog?
> 
> No, of course not!
> ...


Dito....and "Breed Club"


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> But with a dog who darts in and out of a fight instead of taking a firm grip and not letting go, the owners have more of a chance to break it off.


Depends on the owners, depends on the dogs.

Dog fights are never good, I think we can all agree on that.

This sounds weird to say, but there are pros and cons to both fight styles and hybrids of the two. A bite and hold dog tends to leave puncture wounds and bruising. A slash and rip dog tends to leave gashes than need stitches and drains.

Neither is better, neither is a safer way of fighting, nor necessarily easier to break up. I dont think its useful to try and quantify dog fighting styles period. Its this type of mentality that starts targeting breeds instead of looking at the individual dogs. A knife fighter dog with a sharp temperament and terrible bite inhibition along with a propensity for re-directing is a far more dangerous dog than a more mellow bite and hold dog with a much longer fuse, better self-control and no tendency to re-direct.

You just cant base a dogs overall safety on one single thing like breed or bite style.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Sweety said:


> What do you mean by that?
> 
> "All Bull Type Owners"? Why are Bullies more likely to attack than any other dog?
> 
> ...


Sweety please don't wilfully extrapolate because I'm currently on your "foe" list for some odd reason.

I plainly stated that I have never once had a nasty encounter with a Staffie. 3 of my dogs favourite playmates were Staffies. Plus a Bullmastif called "Moses". Neither a Staffie or any any other bulldog has ever given me a personal reason to remotely dislike them or be prejudiced.

The SOLE point I was referring to was that due to their specific bite type, as explained by ouesi and others, IF there is an incidence of a dog fight involving them - how do you get the dog to release? I've seen such fights from afar, but I never seen a Staffie let go and totter off.

Which lead to the question - what strategy is best to break up the fight? Break Sticks were mentioned. Would I be tempted to carry one if I owned and walked an unmuzzled Staffy amongst many other unknown loose dogs? Absolutely. Not because my dog is so aggressive but because if it defends itself I have to break up the fight somehow.

You got to admit that it is a more sensible strategy than sobbing or yelling "OMG! OMG" or "stop, please stop" ....which I HAVE seen Staffie owners do.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Sweety please don't wilfully extrapolate because I'm currently on your "foe" list for some odd reason.
> 
> I plainly stated that I have never once had a nasty encounter with a Staffie. 3 of my dogs favourite playmates were Staffies. Plus a Bullmastif called "Moses". Neither a Staffie or any any other bulldog has ever given me a personal reason to remotely dislike them or be prejudiced.
> 
> ...


On my "Foe" list? I really don't concentrate on you that hard, sorry.

My post was in direct response to what you said.

I had Parson Russell Terriers for years and two of the boys hated each other with a vengeance. They had to live apart and the mere sight of each other would trigger a fight.

It was rare that ever happened, but on the odd occasion it did, they would sink their teeth in and it was virtually impossible to make them let go. The only way was to twist their collars until they couldn't breathe. Horrible, but necessary.

My point is, why single out the owners of Bull Breeds as being people who need to carry a break stick?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Sweety please don't wilfully extrapolate because I'm currently on your "foe" list for some odd reason.
> 
> I plainly stated that I have never once had a nasty encounter with a Staffie. 3 of my dogs favourite playmates were Staffies. Plus a Bullmastif called "Moses". Neither a Staffie or any any other bulldog has ever given me a personal reason to remotely dislike them or be prejudiced.
> 
> ...


Oh, and over the years, I have seen a fair number of dog owners become hysterical if their dogs get into a fight.

Not just Staffy owners.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Sweety said:


> My point is, why single out the owners of Bull Breeds as being people who need to carry a break stick?


Because the dog latches on and doesn't let go.

If you have a better method, I'm all ears.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Because the dog latches on and doesn't let go.
> 
> If you have a better method, I'm all ears.


I did say in an earlier post that my PRTs used to latch on and not let go.

I also said how I had to split them up.

Staffies are not the only breed who won't let go once they have a hold on another dog.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Sweety said:


> Oh, and over the years, I have seen a fair number of dog owners become hysterical if their dogs get into a fight.
> 
> Not just Staffy owners.


Amen to that!

My favourite - a lab cross owner who emited a sort of howl, turned on her heels and ran after her dog flew at my then pup. Lovely.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Because the dog latches on and doesn't let go.
> 
> If you have a better method, I'm all ears.


Okay, but just because you have a staffie doesnt mean your dog is going to get in to a fight, latch on to the other dog, and not let go.

Not all greyhounds are cat killers. Some are, and their owners need to be responsible about it, but not all are.

Not all collies are herders. Some are, some wouldnt know what to do with a sheep if their life depended on it (sad but true, and a whole nother conversation, I know).

Not all rotties are good guard dogs. Some are, but a lot of them are total mush balls who would hand over the family jewels for a belly rub.

Again, you have to look at the individual dog, not the breed, not the type, the dog. You know, the whole 'deed not breed' thing


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Okay, but just because you have a staffie doesnt mean your dog is going to get in to a fight, latch on to the other dog, and not let go.
> 
> Not all greyhounds are cat killers. Some are, and their owners need to be responsible about it, but not all are.
> 
> ...


Agreed to all of the above.

But who said they did?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Agreed to all of the above.
> 
> But who said they did?


You did 


Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Quite.
> 
> But likely not much consolation during the time when such a dog is firmly latched on to yours who is screaming in agony...with a breaking stick or a plastic tent hook nowhere in sight.
> 
> ...





Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> *Because the dog latches on and doesn't let go.*
> 
> If you have a better method, I'm all ears.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Agreed to all of the above.
> 
> But who said they did?


You did.

YOU said the Breed Club should encourage owners of Bull Breeds to carry a break stick.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I remember when my my girl was attacked, there was no getting that dog off and it had hold of her right around the face, he eyes were starting to bulge as she couldn't breathe.

She was a bull breed too (on a lead ) so luckily an even match and quite fit. Nothing I tried could get the dog to let go, its neck was so muscular I couldn't even choke it out!! 

I can see where the 'lockjaw' myth comes from. 

I am every inch a staffy lover, but I would always always be super cautious with one who had any history of being unreliable around other dogs, something as simple as keeping them on lead can save lives. 

if I was walking a small breed that day, it would have been minced!


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> You did


You know, I know it's sorta silly to suggest, but do you think it is possible that I could have meant in ANY different way than as a slight to Staffie owners?

Because that is possible, innit?

At one point we were talking about bite types ( you mentioned them) and that the instinct, indeed purpose, of certain breeds was to not let go when they bite.

Which lead to what best to do IF your dog is embroiled in a fight with one of those breeds. Or your dog IS one of those breeds.

A couple of people - you one of them - mentioned break sticks. I had never heard of them. But after watching the video I think they are a really good idea. Probably safer for man & beast than anything else.

How do you deduce from THAT that I said Staffies et al are MORE likely to bite ?

Now I grant you, English isn't my mother tongue nor even my second language....but I can't be that attrocious in basic communication? Seemingly so.


----------



## JunoLab (Jul 10, 2014)

This is a bit off topic but I'm a bit concerned about a comment further back in this thread about how any SBT x large dog cross could be caught by BSL. Our new pup Juno is probably - not sure - a lab x SBT. Now and then she does have a bull look to her, especially if her ears are pricked, but generally she looks very Labrador. What exactly are the characteristics they are looking for?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> You know, I know it's sorta silly to suggest, but do you think it is possible that I could have meant in ANY different way than as a slight to Staffie owners?
> 
> Because that is possible, innit?
> 
> ...


Yes 

Breaks sticks are a great tool but theyre not the answer any more than BSL is the answer. Neither takes in to account the individual dog, or the owners skill and knowledge (or lack there of). A capable owner who is taking proper precautions with their dog is not going to need a break stick because their dog isnt going to have the opportunity to clamp on to another dog.

I get what youre saying, most greyhound rescues recommend muzzling the rescues and keeping them leashed unless theyre in a secure enclosure. I can see the wisdom of encouraging sensible precautions based on breed tendencies. 
However, in order to need a break stick, youve already passed several opportunities for prevention that needed to be addressed first.

For an owner who is responsible, their dog is not going to need a break stick because the dog is not going to be in a position to end up using teeth.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> You know, I know it's sorta silly to suggest, but do you think it is possible that I could have meant in ANY different way than as a slight to Staffie owners?
> 
> Because that is possible, innit?
> 
> ...


Because you said that the Breed Club should encourage the owners of Bull Breeds to carry a break stick.

From that, I deduced that you felt Bull Breeds were more likely to get into a fight.

Had you said that the Breed Club should encourage owners of Labradors to carry break sticks, then I would have deduced the same, only about Labradors.

They were your words.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Yes
> 
> Breaks sticks are a great tool but theyre not the answer any more than BSL is the answer. Neither takes in to account the individual dog, or the owners skill and knowledge (or lack there of). A capable owner who is taking proper precautions with their dog is not going to need a break stick because their dog isnt going to have the opportunity to clamp on to another dog.
> 
> ...


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> You know, I know it's sorta silly to suggest, but do you think it is possible that I could have meant in ANY different way than as a slight to Staffie owners?
> 
> Because that is possible, innit?
> 
> ...


Because it's a bit like saying breeds clubs should advise Sighthound owners never to let their dog off the lead because they will chase.
It doesn't take into account training or the individual dogs desire to chase, just the most simplistic view of what a Sighthound is most likely to do.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

JunoLab said:


> This is a bit off topic but I'm a bit concerned about a comment further back in this thread about how any SBT x large dog cross could be caught by BSL. Our new pup Juno is probably - not sure - a lab x SBT. Now and then she does have a bull look to her, especially if her ears are pricked, but generally she looks very Labrador. What exactly are the characteristics they are looking for?


The descriptors of 'type' are based on the American Dog Breeders Association breed standard of a pit bull terrier.... but they are pretty vague.

Doglaw - Dangerous dogs (pit bull types) : Section 1 & 4B Dangerous Dogs Act 1991


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I don't concur.
> 
> Unless you live in the Outer Hebrides or in the wilds of Minnesota ( I am presently watching Fargo!) you most likely WILL come into a position where your dog ends up using their teeth. And more than once.
> 
> ...


Your experiences and abilities are not the universal rule though.
If you want to walk around with a break stick, knock yourself out.

And yes, if I had a dog who I felt needed a break stick to break up a fight, said dog would be muzzled and leashed in public. And yes, I think thats fair.
A dog who has shown me they will quickly and easily harm another dog does not ever need the opportunity to do so again. Especially not in the current climate.

That said, I have a dog who depending on who assesses him would be of type.
He generally isnt too interested in other dogs, plays nicely with a few compatible ones, and is also happy to use teeth if need be.
He is constantly around dogs of all sorts of temperaments and training.
I do not keep him leashed at all times, I do not muzzle him, and I do not keep a break stick handy. Nor do I feel the need.

I dont put him in positions where he might feel the need to use teeth. 
On the odd occasion that I fail to properly assess the situation, I know his warnings and can intervene in time to prevent him using teeth. 
If on the super rare chance he does get to the point of using teeth, I can still effectively intervene because we have worked on his impulse control and reliable responses.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Your experiences and abilities are not the universal rule though.
> If you want to walk around with a break stick, knock yourself out.
> 
> And yes, if I had a dog who I felt needed a break stick to break up a fight, said dog would be muzzled and leashed in public. And yes, I think thats fair.
> ...


So?

Good for you.

But to quote you "your abilities and experiences aren't the universal rule". Unless you feel YOURS should be, which, by definition, would make any diverging opinion wrong.

What difference does it make to you, what my own position on the matter is? Seriously - what? Fair enough if I had said "Staffies and all related breeds are nasty. The lot of them. EVERYONE coming into contact with one better carry a break stick to break off a fight with those vicious beasts"

If you managed to deduce that, what can I say? Unless you need to infer something which was neither said nor intended. I don't mean this nastily, but are you EVER comfortable with someone not sharing your exact world view, especially in the realm of dogs?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I know a few dogs of various breed that need to be on lead and muzzled... if the owner is committed, they most certainly can live very fulfilled lives. 

There are plenty of games to play with muzzled dogs, there are secure fields you can rent, all kinds of inside games you can play to keep them mentally stimulated


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> So?
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> ...


I think youre projecting again  The only one who seems to care about their opinions being taken as gospel seems to be you. Im just offering my own knowledge based on what *you* have asked me.

You asked: "Do you really think it is fairer on a Staffy to keep him/her forever on a leash to prevent this from happening? Or muzzle it so it can't even defend itself? And my answer is that yes, I do think it is fair. Hell, depending on the situation I might even opine that a dog who would do serious damage should be PTS.

Sorry, I took your question to be a genuine question, not rhetorical... My bad...


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

JunoLab said:


> This is a bit off topic but I'm a bit concerned about a comment further back in this thread about how any SBT x large dog cross could be caught by BSL. Our new pup Juno is probably - not sure - a lab x SBT. Now and then she does have a bull look to her, especially if her ears are pricked, but generally she looks very Labrador. What exactly are the characteristics they are looking for?


Someone posted them either on this thread or another. Its really up to the assessor though it seems.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes
> ...


Ummm....

I do not live in the Outer Hebrides, and in 20 years of dog ownership (had them longer, but they were family dogs then) I have not had any of my dogs in a position were they used their teeth.

It is perfectly possible for the vast majority of dogs owners to go through life without any of their dogs having to use their teeth.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> Ummm....
> 
> I do not live in the Outer Hebrides, and in 20 years of dog ownership (had them longer, but they were family dogs then) I have not had any of my dogs in a position were they used their teeth.
> 
> It is perfectly possible for the vast majority of dogs owners to go through life without any of their dogs having to use their teeth.


I agree with this absolutely.

Rosie can be reactive, to certain dogs, and I've owned dogs in the past who were, but one of them was very dog aggressive.

I've taught Rosie to pass other dogs and ignore them and, in a situation where I think she can't or won't, she goes on her lead. She has never been in a position of having to use her teeth, none of mine have, not because I have special knowledge or powers, but because I never let a situation get that far.

Oh, and I don't live in the Outer Hebrides either.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I think you're projecting again  The only one who seems to care about their opinions being taken as gospel seems to be you. I'm just offering my own knowledge based on what *you* have asked me.
> 
> You asked: "_Do you really think it is fairer on a Staffy to keep him/her forever on a leash to prevent this from happening? Or muzzle it so it can't even defend itself?"__ And my answer is that yes, I do think it is fair. Hell, depending on the situation I might even opine that a dog who would do serious damage should be PTS. _
> 
> Sorry, I took your question to be a genuine question, not rhetorical... My bad...




Look, I don't know you, you don't know me so would you mind awfully to refrain from the "projecting" and some such ? TIA.

This is a discussion started by the OP asking "How safe are Staffies?". My experience was that I never had a problem with them personally but I had seen some nasty fights involving them and other dogs. Who the culprit of those fights was I couldn't say.

What I did say that these dogs certainly often encountered prejudice and worry, as many owners wouldn't let their dogs or pups interact with them. My own dogs had 3 Staffy chums and a Bullmastif friend. Nina, Nico & Charles, the Staffies, were always off-leash and unmuzzled. They got on with everyone. Everyone. Large dogs, little dogs, old,dogs, young dogs. On the rare occasion that another dog snapped or barked at them, Nina looked perplexed, Nico ignored it, and Charles emanated a superior "Ghastly manners!" From every pore. Moses, the Bullmastif, was just sweet and dopey. Also off leash and unmuzzled.

Then there is a whole bunch of others which I don't know all that well, but are also perfectly fine. Also off leash.

WHY should dogs like these be leashed? Or muzzled?

But you know what? I don't know what any of those inherently exceptionally sweet natured dogs would do if another dog seriously went for them, provoked them to the max and they defended themselves. Would they latch on and not let go? I don't know. And neither do you. If I was the owner of any of them, would I consider a break stick now that I know there is such a thing? Yes.

If you want to prophylactically leash and muzzle a dog on the chance it MAY bite one day, go for it. I do not. I do NOT think it's fairer to a dog who has never done anything to perpetually keep it leashed or muzzled. We weren't talking about dogs with an established bite history....and you know it.

Either way, I should have known better. I will no longer engage with you. Regardless of topic. All the best.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Look, I don't know you, you don't know me so would you mind awfully to refrain from the "projecting" and some such ? TIA.
> 
> This is a discussion started by the OP asking "How safe are Staffies?". My experience was that I never had a problem with them personally but I had seen some nasty fights involving them and other dogs. Who the culprit of those fights was I couldn't say.
> 
> ...


Hi HATEOTT, can you tell me, so I can be sure to be more clear in the future, how my statement below:


ouesi said:


> And yes, if I had a dog who I felt needed a break stick to break up a fight, said dog would be muzzled and leashed in public. And yes, I think thats fair.
> A dog who has shown me they will quickly and easily harm another dog does not ever need the opportunity to do so again. Especially not in the current climate.


Turned in to your interpretation of "prophylactically leash and muzzle a dog on the chance it MAY bite one day?

But can I add something? Even if I was saying that my preference was to prophylactically leash and muzzle any bully breed I owned, (which Im NOT just to be clear) thats my choice is it not? My dog, my responsibility, my choice. It doesnt mean I feel thats what all owners should do, just what *I* feel the need to do. Its okay for people to have different ways of training, and managing, and feeding, and grooming, and all sorts of things when it comes to their dogs...

Im really at a loss as to where this went south. You wanted to know how to break up a fight with a bite and hold type dog, a couple of us mentioned break sticks, you seemed happy with this information, you mentioned carrying one, I said Id rather the dog not be in a position where I had to use a break stick to begin with, you asked if its fair to muzzle and leash a dog instead, and I said yes.
Color me confused, but Im not understanding why you seem so upset


----------



## AJ600 (Mar 3, 2014)

I spoke to my oh last night and specifically about a bully he fell in love with but I said no to b4 we got he who must be obeyed.

And although that was a staff he was quite a tall staff so I would've been nervous with all that's going on. Not that it matters cos we did not adopt him. 

In terms of the other debate going on. When I walk bud I'm prepped at the end of the day with all the best intentions these are animals and you can never be 100% guaranteed they won't do something unexpected. So I carry pet corrector with me, and although he doesn't wear with me, I carry his spare muzzle as well.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

JunoLab said:


> This is a bit off topic but I'm a bit concerned about a comment further back in this thread about how any SBT x large dog cross could be caught by BSL. Our new pup Juno is probably - not sure - a lab x SBT. Now and then she does have a bull look to her, especially if her ears are pricked, but generally she looks very Labrador. What exactly are the characteristics they are looking for?


I have no idea what they could be looking for but I was told that SBT crossed with a breed larger than SBT would be considered a pit bull type. This was a few years ago and things may have progressed. This was from the mouth of the manager/owner of the local dog rescue where they usually didn't offer SBTs and SBT xs a new home after the initial 7 days and PTS as strays cos they said the breed was too excitable.

This owner /manager has since retired so I don't know what the policy is now.


----------



## JunoLab (Jul 10, 2014)

Muze said:


> The descriptors of 'type' are based on the American Dog Breeders Association breed standard of a pit bull terrier.... but they are pretty vague.
> 
> Doglaw - Dangerous dogs (pit bull types) : Section 1 & 4B Dangerous Dogs Act 1991


Thanks Muze, I tracked down the DEFRA guidance that includes the standard.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ts/cruelty/documents/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf

It's been archived but presumably they are using the same list of characteristics. Don't think Juno is in any danger (phew!) but honestly this law is ridiculous. No innocent until proven guilty for dogs eh? The owner has to prove the dog isn't a PBT rather than the court having to prove it is! It's basically racial profiling for dogs and I'm shocked it is still in force. I had no idea until reading up on it today what an injustice it is!


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

To be comtroversial, i think the issue with bull breeds is their owners, and not just the bad owners.

The militant owners of 'don't judge my dog because it is s bull breed' are often just as bad as they don't take reasonable steps based on their breed.

I have a breed where you have to take reasonable steps to keep other dogs safe, i have a breed who (for the large majority of them in pet homes) have been taught to use their natural inbuilt ability to chase and grab small fluffy items. As greyhound owners we therefore muzzle our dogs offlead, keep them onlead so they can't get into the chase and grab mindset, etc and it isn't a big deal. We are muzzling due to potential harm, does that mean we are saying our dogs are likely to attack? No, just that their breed has a disposition to do a certain thing so we take precautions.

But, suggest that a bull breed should be muzzled 'just incase' like greyhound owners do and it is outrage from the owner that you are suggesting their dog is vicious. I'm not, i'm not saying my dog was vicious for that first year and a half that i had him and he was always muzzled offlead or my mums dog was vicious because up until he was 11 he was muzzled offlead everytime too. Neither ever attacked a dog/child/squirrel, neither have since. 

All greyhounds who come from the RGT come with a muzzle, do you perceive them to be a dangerous breed? Does the fact they always leave with a muzzle change your perception of them? Probably not in most cases so telling an owner to muzzle their dog for the first x (insert number you see reasonable) months/years/etc shouldn't be seen as a slight on that breed as it often is.

Many of the attacks we see in modern days are within the first year of the people getting the dog, i believe it takes years to fully assess a dog.

Staffies are a breed that by disposition will grab a leg and hang on for a little while, not a terrible thing and doesn't mean all of them do it or will do it, but muzzle your dog in public for the first 6 months of ownership and it can't happen. Simple. Same as what greyhound owners do, not 'vilifying' bull breeds at all.

I think this is sound advice for all breeds tbh but will probably get shot down.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I have a bullmastiff bitch now coming up 3 years. Big powerful girl, tremendous bite , very laid back, very easy going and not aggressive towards people or dogs but the damage she could do is scary.Never had a muzzle for her but if I felt the need for one, would get one.

Also have a greyhound x saluki. Lovely girl, very easy going, not DA or HA...is muzzled always when we go out just in case cos I don't trust her away from home.

Have a mini dakkie who is good with people and fine with dogs cos he lives with 3 others and regularly sees my daughters dogs...never ever take the little sod away from home at all.

Out of these 3 dogs, people always assume the bully is a bad one. The one which always starts trouble is the dakkie...which is why he only walks round the farm so he can't get into too much grief.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Why should all owners of any breed have to muzzle 'just because'?

I do not view muzzles as a bad item, all my dogs have been muzzle trained (no matter the breed) but why the hell should I put a muzzle on a dog that has done nothing to indicate that he would use his teeth?

If an individual owner chooses a muzzle then that is fine and responsible...but it doesn't automatically make you irresponsible because you don't..


Feck it..lets just have done with it and muzzle ALL dogs of ALL breeds and keep everything on lead -job done-

Oh wait, most dog attacks are caused by irresponsible owners who wouldn't muzzle anyway  Not all grey owners muzzle, the same as not all would muzzle with any other breed.


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

lilythepink said:


> I have a bullmastiff bitch now coming up 3 years. Big powerful girl, tremendous bite , very laid back, very easy going and not aggressive towards people or dogs but the damage she could do is scary.Never had a muzzle for her but if I felt the need for one, would get one.
> 
> Also have a greyhound x saluki. Lovely girl, very easy going, not DA or HA...is muzzled always when we go out just in case cos I don't trust her away from home.


Why do you muzzle your sighthound who has never done anything but not muzzle your bull breed who has never done anything out of interest?

I am not saying you are doing it at all but this is a similar thing to what i see in bull breed owners, a sighthound being muzzled just incase, not a big deal but they don't want to muzzle their bull breed just incase due to outside reactions to that dog in a muzzle.

(i just want to reiterate that i am not saying you are doing that, it is just something i see around where i live, people know their dog can be unpredictable in some situations but dont want to muzzle purely because of their breed, when if they had a lab or something they probably would muzzle in that situation)


----------



## BeauNoir (Sep 16, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> Why should all owners of any breed have to muzzle 'just because'?
> 
> I do not view muzzles as a bad item, all my dogs have been muzzle trained (no matter the breed) but why the hell should I put a muzzle on a dog that has done nothing to indicate that he would use his teeth?
> 
> ...


My point is saying that all greyhounds leave the biggest greyhound rescue in the country with a muzzle, if every bull breed left rescue with a muzzle, pro bull breed people would be up in arms saying that because they all have to leave with a muzzle that everyone is assuming they are vicious. Are the RGT assuming greyhounds are vicious? No. It would be the same as making every bully breed leave rescue with a break stick.

I am talking from my own conversations with owners where they see muzzling bully breeds as a big deal purely because they are bully breeds. I am not saying all dogs should be muzzled, i am saying that owners shouldn't see using a muzzle as an admission that their dog is dangerous in some way which is what many seem to think it is.

Muzzles are no big deal, your dog wearing a muzzle is no big deal, that is my point. Using muzzles in situations where dogs can be unpredictable or when their owners haven't had sufficient time to get to lnoe their quirks more should be seen as a good thing not a daily mail type 'whats next, all dogs muzzled all the time' as you have said.

People think that bully breeds are dangerous. People think that muzzle = dangerous dog. Put muzzle onto bully breed makes people think that it is a super dangerous dog. Owners don't want their dig seen as super dangerous dog so do not use muzzles when it couldn't hurt the situation really.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

BeauNoir said:


> Why do you muzzle your sighthound who has never done anything but not muzzle your bull breed who has never done anything out of interest?
> 
> I am not saying you are doing it at all but this is a similar thing to what i see in bull breed owners, a sighthound being muzzled just incase, not a big deal but they don't want to muzzle their bull breed just incase due to outside reactions to that dog in a muzzle.
> 
> (i just want to reiterate that i am not saying you are doing that, it is just something i see around where i live, people know their dog can be unpredictable in some situations but dont want to muzzle purely because of their breed, when if they had a lab or something they probably would muzzle in that situation)


because.....the bully ignores everything thing and everyone when I take her out and has had other smaller yappy dogs attack her and looks the other way. If I take the greyx on a beach, she is really good....til she is distracted and chases . She runs at something and tries to grab as she runs and even though she is really good with people and children at home, don't trust her on the beach.Plus, she is so fast and can cover such a large distance from me recalling her to her coming back .

Have to add here, only place away from home I take any of my dogs is the beach.Occasionally take the bully on a car boot sale


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

BeauNoir said:


> Why do you muzzle your sighthound who has never done anything but not muzzle your bull breed who has never done anything out of interest?
> 
> I am not saying you are doing it at all but this is a similar thing to what i see in bull breed owners, a sighthound being muzzled just incase, not a big deal but they don't want to muzzle their bull breed just incase due to outside reactions to that dog in a muzzle.
> 
> (i just want to reiterate that i am not saying you are doing that, it is just something i see around where i live, people know their dog can be unpredictable in some situations but dont want to muzzle purely because of their breed, when if they had a lab or something they probably would muzzle in that situation)


and, really don't feel the bully needs a muzzle but if I thought she did, would def get one for her.

If we had a law that bullies had to be muzzled, no probs, would get one.

If the grey x didn't chase and give me cause for concern, wouldn't have a muzzle for her either.

I agree, a muzzle is no big deal once they get used to it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I do believe the time will come in the next 5 - 10 years when all dogs have to be muzzled and on lead in public places. I hope I'm wrong but I suspect I'm right.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

FWIW I do not agree with muzzling all dogs that come from any rescue regardless of breed.
The reasons you are giving for muzzling a new dog can be all sorted without the use of a muzzle (which is my point)...

If we got to the stage of muzzling all dogs then that will make the vast majority of people complacent..You know..."Lil Fido can do no harm now he is muzzled" a determined dog can and will cause injury muzzle or not...

I have no issue with muzzles, and if any of my dogs needed a muzzle then they would get it without a second thought...but muzzling all dogs is not even coming close to getting to the route of the issue...because the irresponsible would not muzzle..

Muzzling all dogs just because is not the answer I am afraid..



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do believe the time will come in the next 5 - 10 years when all dogs have to be muzzled and on lead in public places. I hope I'm wrong but I suspect I'm right.


That I don't doubt, pretty sad really


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do believe the time will come in the next 5 - 10 years when all dogs have to be muzzled and on lead in public places. I hope I'm wrong but I suspect I'm right.


I can see this happening too. Some breeds would be hard to put a muzzle on though I think, especially some with flat faces and breathing problems.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

Dont some countries already have laws that all dogs over a certain size have to be muzzled in public? Or am I going off forum hearsay?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Dont some countries already have laws that all dogs over a certain size have to be muzzled in public? Or am I going off forum hearsay?


I think there are restrictions due to BSL in many countries, but not seen or heard that all dogs over a certain size should be muzzled.
I've not found any links to confirm either :confused1:


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Going back to my original topic!..I think it's a real shame that anyone thinking of getting a staffie puppy or wanting to rescue one has to even consider all this first!... what happened to the days when the biggest dilemma was what to call your new arrival!! 

I mean who can think these sweet faces (below) are a dangerous type or would necessarily grow up to be one?...surely they can't tell if you was buying the puppy shown from 8 weeks old. how old before they come and take your puppy away and assess it as 'of type'...does the breeder give you your money back cos its not fit for purpose if it had to be taken away? (After all don't puppies come under 'sale of goods Act'?)

Or if they're breeding from a staffie or staffie cross do they just register the whole litter as 'type' to save any hassle later and people coming back saying their sweet little baby has been taken as a dangerous dog and possibly trying to sue the breeder? Where does it end? 

I wouldn't get a puppy that young as you can't avoid the vets cos of the puppy vaccs needed etc , but if you had a rescue already snipped/neutered and had its booster, you don't need to register it with a vet urgently for routine stuff. People are saying vaccinations lasts years and don't re-vaccinate after the initial puppy jabs and first booster...so potentially if you don't register your dog and happen to live somewhere you can access quiet and remote places, keep dog hidden from neighbours who are likely to cause issue/gossip, then no-one knows you have a dog that could potentially be 'of type', other than the rescue you got it from who are hardly likely to report it to the police after rehoming it to you as NOT 'of type'...and you can always move after adopting the dog! 

An Other issue, someone said you can adopt dogs that have already been given certificate 'of types' and registered. Now I understand that if you live anywhere like populated housing estates/towns etc it would have to have a muzzle on... but what if you are 'out in the sticks', you go walking at 6am and there's not another soul around, you're telling me you still can't let it off or take muzzle off to give it a break in case a PC is hiding behind a tree somewhere waiting to see if your remove the muzzle!! 

I mention this as I know one man with staffie, his house backs onto a field so he's had a gate cut into the back fencing, he can see from his upstairs whether the field is clear let dog for a quick free run before it gets busy, so she gets a free run early morning and late at night, in middle of day he takes her round the village or out for a drive and keeps her on lead with muzzle, even though she isn't at all vicious but he's aware people are afraid of her due to the bad press. She's a little staffy like the black one shown in photo's below. He doesn't take her anywhere public like if summer fete on field cos local police will be there, he takes her out for the day in car. I wasn't clear on whether she had this certificate though as at the time of our chat on the field (JJ plays football with her, both off-lead) I wasn't aware that dogs taken away are returned home with a certificate. I thought they were all PTS once someone thought they were 'of type'.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> An Other issue, someone said you can adopt dogs that have already been given certificate 'of types' and registered. Now I understand that if you live anywhere like populated housing estates/towns etc it would have to have a muzzle on... but what if you are 'out in the sticks', you go walking at 6am and there's not another soul around, you're telling me you still can't let it off or take muzzle off to give it a break in case a PC is hiding behind a tree somewhere waiting to see if your remove the muzzle!!


No dog that has been through the exemption process can be rehomed, it is either keep them for life or PTS.

ALL dogs that have passed the exemption process HAVE to wear a muzzle when out in public and that includes cars as well. If you go through the length exemption process you would be a fool to risk your dog being seized and killed by taking their muzzle off in public.

Can I just say, it's not just staffies that are effected by this stupid legislation...in fact most staffies would not get a second glance from a DLO..

Don't go around shouting that you may have a banned breed or a dog that would fit the type criteria and the likelihood of your dog being snatched from the streets is slim to none...yes innocent dogs have been seized, but as with any law, people mess up and mistakes can be made.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> *No dog that has been through the exemption process can be rehomed, it is either keep them for life or PTS.
> *
> ALL dogs that have passed the exemption process HAVE to wear a muzzle when out in public and that includes cars as well. If you go through the length exemption process you would be a fool to risk your dog being seized and killed by taking their muzzle off in public.
> 
> ...


so what did the other person mean then? the dog had been assessed and found to not be of type? .. I was sure they had said you can adopt dogs that already have these certificates to show they are safe?? I must have got some info mixed up somewhere.

I went on DDA watch FB page and looking through albums of the dogs they had helped and in some cases where dog had been taken away, they had stated the dog was not able to go back to its original owner so they (DDA watch) had rehomed it?

Yes I know other breeds are more likely but as it was a small staffy I was considering myself in future and alot of photo's on DDA watch page do look like staffies to me, most of them are big built, even the puppies it mentioned 5 months old you could tell they were going to be big when they grew up. what I had in mind is one's I've seen that have crossed with smaller breeds and some even had the longer coat of the 'other breed' (staffy x poodle or staffy x shih tzu etc) or just the pedigree staffies that have just stayed on the smaller end of the breed standard.

Lastly not that I'd go shouting it out but I was thinking just things like it having to go the vet.. what would chances be of a vet considering a staffie or small staffie x 'of type' if you had no choice but to rush dog to vets in an emergency?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Assessment whilst in rescue is not the same as the exemption process.
An assessment of a dog is just a quick check if you like, but the actual exemption process involves lengthy court battles.

Once the dog has been released to a registered owner and keeper (the owner and keeper can be at different addresses), that dog can not be rehomed under DDA 1991



>  Section 1(2) prohibits the breeding, sale, exchange, advertising, or gift of any dog listed in
> section 1(1). It also prohibits such dogs from being in a public place without being muzzled and
> kept on a lead. Furthermore, it also prohibits the abandoning or allowing to stray of such dogs.


http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I think the confusion is occurring because some posters are talking about a dog being assessed and declared to not be of type and it would seem some places offer a certificate confirming this but as others have explained this means nothing as another assessor may still come along later and say they are of type. When the BSL first came in if you had a pitbull or type you could apply for it to go on the register which meant you agreed to neuter/microchip/muzzle/lead/and not rehome (think there was something about insurance too). However as the years have gone by the register is now closed (as you can't bring a banned breed in and can't breed from it etc etc) so if a dog is now deemed of type I think you have to first admit to owning a banned breed and then apply to the courts for an exemption which can be granted if you are considered responsible and agree to the criteria stated in the act in StormyThai's post. However that exemption cannot be passed on so a rescue for instance can't apply for the exemption then rehome the dog.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think the confusion is occurring because some posters are talking about a dog being assessed and declared to not be of type and it would seem some places offer a certificate confirming this but as others have explained this means nothing as another assessor may still come along later and say they are of type. When the BSL first came in if you had a pitbull or type you could apply for it to go on the register which meant you agreed to neuter/microchip/muzzle/lead/and not rehome (*think there was something about insurance too*). However as the years have gone by the register is now closed (as you can't bring a banned breed in and can't breed from it etc etc) so if a dog is now deemed of type I think you have to first admit to owning a banned breed and then apply to the courts for an exemption which can be granted if you are considered responsible and agree to the criteria stated in the act in StormyThai's post. However that exemption cannot be passed on so a rescue for instance can't apply for the exemption then rehome the dog.


Yes, all exempt dogs need to have third party liability insurance. Failure to hold insurance means your dog is destroyed. 
I think that only one or two insurance companies will cover exempt dogs.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Yes, all exempt dogs need to have third party liability insurance. Failure to hold insurance means your dog is destroyed.
> I think that only one or two insurance companies will cover exempt dogs.


Blimey that must be worrying incase they stopped offering cover and presumably they can charge pretty much what they like as there is no competition


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

I found where it was mentioned on DDA watch photo album of dogs they have helped This is one example case I copied to paste here.

"The lovely Max was seized in Bournemouth under BSL (4b) in October 2012 and Max's owner became increasingly distressed and believed that signing Max over for destruction may be better than him being kennelled for months on end. DDA Watch supported Max's owner through this difficult time and also offered financial assistance enabling an expert behavioural report to be gained for Max and today, after many months of heartache for his family, Max was ordered to be added to the Index of Exempted Dogs when a court found him not to be a danger to the public. This is a bittersweet ending because *Max is unable to go home to his owner and will live with a new keeper. DDA Watch managed to arrange a new keeper and this was accepted in court today;* our thanks to Max's keeper-to-be who has stepped forward to help save this beautiful dog - we look forward to sharing an update once Max is released into his lovely new home."

This dog had been through the court cases to be go on the exempt register. It seems the DDA can assign a new *registered keeper* to the dog. Meaning they would have had to find a new home for him to go to where someone was willing to be his registered keeper and follow the exemption rules for him, so he didn't get put down.

Someone else has also mentioned another post (can't find it again at the minute) that they admitted to having a 'pitbull type' and the dog came home much quicker. I think they didn't have to do the long court case as they weren't trying to prove their dog wasn't one (even though it wasn't) but still have to live by the restrictions.

There was also a case where a dog had been taken, then returned to its home because it was female and had come into season so for this reason they could not continue with the exemption? The dog was returned home to have her season and until she could be spayed as soon as possible after it ended. I'm not sure if it she was taken back into kennels to finish the exemption process after she had been spayed or not, but it would have broken up the time she would have spent there otherwise.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> I found where it was mentioned on DDA watch photo album of dogs they have helped This is one example case I copied to paste here.
> 
> "The lovely Max was seized in Bournemouth under BSL (4b) in October 2012 and Max's owner became increasingly distressed and believed that signing Max over for destruction may be better than him being kennelled for months on end. DDA Watch supported Max's owner through this difficult time and also offered financial assistance enabling an expert behavioural report to be gained for Max and today, after many months of heartache for his family, Max was ordered to be added to the Index of Exempted Dogs when a court found him not to be a danger to the public. This is a bittersweet ending because *Max is unable to go home to his owner and will live with a new keeper. DDA Watch managed to arrange a new keeper and this was accepted in court today;* our thanks to Max's keeper-to-be who has stepped forward to help save this beautiful dog - we look forward to sharing an update once Max is released into his lovely new home."
> 
> ...


I have put the important bit in red. Under the exemption process you are allowed a registered owner and a registered keeper.
The owner will still be the owner of the dog, but the dog will stay at the registered keepers address as the courts have accepted the keeper that DDA Watch found.

So they haven't rehomed an exempt dog, they have just put forward a keeper which the courts have accepted.

As for the bitch, to be exempt all dogs have to be neutered. It is not advisable to spay an in season bitch due to risk of blood loss so she would have been returned to kennels until she could be spayed and then the exemption could continue.
She would not have been allowed to go home during this time.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I have put the important bit in red. Under the exemption process you are allowed a registered owner and a registered keeper.
> The owner will still be the owner of the dog, but the dog will stay at the registered keepers address as the courts have accepted the keeper that DDA Watch found.
> 
> So they haven't rehomed an exempt dog, they have just put forward a keeper which the courts have accepted.
> ...


There are some that simply say rehomed they didnt' elaborate on registered keeper as post above did here was one

"Izzy was unable to be returned to her owner and came into the care of DDA Watch. *Izzy has since been rehomed* and is enjoying her new happy life"

There's several in the first 20 or so photo's of that album that say the relevant dog has 'since been rehomed' or something like that.

This was the one where the dog was in season:

Beautiful Dottie has returned to her Lancashire family home once again following her spay operation yesterday when she was collected by the dog legislation officer and returned to recover and rest peacefully at home. *Dottie, who had been previously held for four months, was granted 'leave at home' following an extended exemption period at the request of the solicitor instructed by Dottie's owner and at the discretion of the police solicitor dealing with Dottie's case, when Dottie unfortunately came in to season preventing completion of exemption at that time.* The police solicitor sent paperwork to the court to explain the situation and it was agreed *Dottie would remain at home under restriction and she would be spayed at the earliest opportunity.*

It is confusing as it seems whether the dog is deemed as 'type' by the courts or not they still have to be muzzled when they eventually get returned home? ..but if the first assessment when police takes them and returns them cos they don't think they are of type, it doesn't have to be muzzled and remain on-lead?


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

BeauNoir said:


> To be comtroversial, i think the issue with bull breeds is their owners, and not just the bad owners.
> 
> The militant owners of 'don't judge my dog because it is s bull breed' are often just as bad as they don't take reasonable steps based on their breed.
> 
> ...


Now that I have more coffee in me, I want to respond to this post because you raise a very important point about breed traits. I might catch some flack for this, but the "it's all in how you raise them" brigade don't do breeds with bad press any favors. You can't "love" the prey drive out of a dog. You can manage it, you can redirect it, but nothing will completely eradicate a deep seated instinctual drive. (And for the shock jocks out there, no, you can't punish the drive out of a dog either - you may suppress it for a while, but it's always there.)

The easy answer is to encourage common sense preventative measures. 
Where it gets muddy is what are you going to base your common sense recommendations on? Not all dogs are a "breed" where you can make a reasonable perdition of traits. And even within breeds there are individuals with varying degrees of alignment to the breed standard. The owner's capabilities have to come in somewhere as well.

In the US pitbulls are a hugely varied type of dog, from very small, agile, feisty game dogs to giant hippo skeletal abominations who can barely move without heart failure let alone damage anyone but themselves, and of course every and anything in between and mixes with other breeds.
Likewise temperaments and drives vary tremendously. It becomes more and more difficult to be able to tell owners likely behavior traits.

Which circles back to "deed not breed". A dog - of any breed - who has shown himself to be a danger needs to be deal with and never given the opportunity to cause damage again. Whatever that means for that dog.

I feel like if instead of trying to predict what your breed is capable of, we could focus all these resources we put in to BSL on to individual dogs and owners who pose a real, tangible, proven risk, then we could really make a difference.

Edit: Sorry I keep taking this back to the legislation itself, I just feel really strongly about how ineffective it is!!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

You are concentrating too much on the semantics, the fact is exempt dogs can not be rehomed. Doing so is against the law..
They can only be moved to registered keepers that the courts have agreed with.
As for the bitch, all I can say is the owners were lucky they had DDA Watch and a top solicitor behind them.

It's not confusing really, if the dog is seized it will be assessed by a DLO. If that DLO deems the dog to not be type then the dog is released without conditions (however as already explained, just because one DLO says so, does not mean that ALL DLO's will agree).
If the DLO agree's the dog is type, then it turns to the court. The DLO will put forward evidence why they believe the dog to be type , and the owner/solicitor will put forward evidence to show that the owner can be responsible to care for a dog effected by section 1.

The judge will then make a verdict, If he doesn't think the owner able then the dog will be PTS, if he thinks the owner capable then the dog is released once all the conditions of the exemption has been followed.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Incapup i will reiterate what i said early.

I really really do *not* recommend a staff/x pup or rescue for you. You are massively over thinking this and getting paranoid, which just won't bode well for the future, the breed gets enough persecution as it is, and you really don't realise how much people dislike bully breeds until you own one, add to that your paranoia and it just won't work.

I never ever considered the BSL when i went for my boys, Harvey is not a KC reg staffy he is way way over standard at 25 kilos and tall, but I don't constantly walk round paranoid that someone is going think he's of type.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Blimey that must be worrying incase they stopped offering cover and presumably they can charge pretty much what they like as there is no competition


I think most or all dogs should have this insurance; so it would be cheap for well trained family pets, and expensive for powerfull dogs and young owners.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

El Cid said:


> I think most or all dogs should have this insurance; so it would be cheap for well trained family pets, and *expensive for powerfull dogs and young owners.*


how is that fair? just because some dog breeds are a lot more powerful than others


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I think most or all dogs should have this insurance; so it would be cheap for well trained family pets, and expensive for powerfull dogs and young owners.


How would you qualify well trained?
How would you qualify powerful?

And why young owners?


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

I will be honest I haven't read every post so apologies if this has been said before, however I do think the OP should not get a Staffy at all.

The OP is over thinking the whole thing in my view so it would be very unwise to get one as you will be constantly thinking that the dog is going to get seized or reported, etc.

Staffs are the breed of the moment but a few months back in the UK at least Huskies were shown the spot light and next month it will be something else. At the end of the day a dog is an animal and *ALL dogs* regardless of breed are capable of causing harm to an adult or child.

Yes some dogs have higher prey drives or in the past have been bred for certain things so the media hypes these breeds up but if you stood on the tail of a Labrador or a Border Collie or a Staffy, they 'could' all turn round and bite you, or in fact they may not bite at all because shockingly every dog is different!

Also a lot of the instances of 'dog attacks' are from family dogs on family members but we rarely know the full story behind the whole thing.

A bit of common sense goes a long way


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

I have no concerns with my dog at all. I know no-one feels intimated, even walking passed our house. he does not bark at the gate/fence. We have two gates, the entrance to our front garden and the other at our side door.

Someone forgot to tell my dog he's dangerous. imo Its about responsible ownership from getting the dog as a puppy, unless you are trained in dog behaviour and dog training, I don't think it wise to take on any breed with behavioural problems.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

El Cid said:


> I think most or all dogs should have this insurance; so it would be cheap for well trained family pets, and expensive for powerfull dogs and young owners.


I agree.

It is already mandatory in many European countries, and in one ( Switzerland) the premium is tied to the owner having completed puppy socialisation classes plus having subsequent formal schooling.

For breeds classified as "increased risk of personal injury" (American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Bandoc und Basic Dog and all dogs who have a minimum of 10% of blood of the aforementioned within them) failure to insure them ( minimum insurance SFR 1 000 000 , which is about £ 7000000) will yield not only a REALLY juicy fine....think thousands, not hundreds...but seizing of the pet.

Aside from the DDL list, your insurance premium is also linked to the size and weight of your dog. For instance, a Bernese owner would pay more than someone with a Yorkie....because a Yorkie jumping up on a frail person won't yield the same repercussions than a 100lb dog.

Essentially, it is a bit like having to insure another thing which has an "increased risk of personal injury" - your car. You may never have a single incident with it, but if you do, you or any other injured party, won't be left destitute.

And just as you pay a higher insurance premium for a Ferrari than a Fiesta, you pay more for a more powerful dog. Sensible, really.

I am campaigning for the same to become mandatory here.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sweety said:


> I agree with this absolutely.
> 
> Rosie can be reactive, to certain dogs, and I've owned dogs in the past who were, but one of them was very dog aggressive.
> 
> ...


I live in a more remote area than the Outer Hebrides- still plenty of dogs around the towns so not sure where you live comes into it.

Interestingly I knew someone with a staffy long before every other dog was a staffy cross, shortly after the DDA came in and before internet forums. Before he got the puppy (KC registered, sweet little dog) he was told he had to learn how to open the jaws in case of an attack.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes
> ...


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

I just consider it responsible to do some research when planning to take in a family member for another 10-15yrs, part of which should include any special circumstances that would apply to that breed/cross that may not apply to any I've had before. 

As it would be at least next year before I started to think about taking in another dog, I was hoping I'd get another xmas with Inca but I'm not sure due to how quickly her back end seems to be getting worse. 

I go on Deaf Dog Network FB page as I was thinking of a deaf dog as I have the experience of deafness and sign fluently to teach it language. I noticed they seem to get a high proportion of deaf staffies and deaf white boxers etc. Whilst a boxer would be bigger than I would want some of the staffies seemed a nice size so decided to look into them more as they seem to be alot of deaf ones about looking for homes. 

The situation may have changed regarding DDA in a year or so and I wouldn't just rush into it. There is a local charity often looking for fosterers for short term in summer holidays when kennels are full so that maybe an option to have one for a few weeks to see how I felt. If it still felt too stressful I could always try a different breed if they had any other deaf dogs of different breed looking for foster. That maybe the way to start then I can see how JJ gets on too and it's only for short periods until a long term foster or permanent adoptive home could be found.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I agree.
> 
> It is already mandatory in many European countries, and in one ( Switzerland) the premium is tied to the owner having completed puppy socialisation classes plus having subsequent formal schooling.
> 
> ...


Where is the part in bold from please?
(Someone may need to quote me or answer me as I think HATEOTT has me on ignore.)


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Where is the part in bold from please?
> (Someone may need to quote me or answer me as I think HATEOTT has me on ignore.)


I was wondering that myself. Who decides which breeds pose more risk to personal safety or security?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

The part in bold are the 8 ( I think?) breeds who fall under the country's - and the cited pertains to Zurich - relevant DDA. Or the equivalent to our DDA.

The original can be found in

Verbotene Hunderassen im Kanton Zürich bestimmt: Acht Kampfhunde auf schwarzer Liste - Nachrichten - NZZ.ch

Who decides which breeds fall under this remit?

The goverment, and ultimately the population. There are variations btw counties ( e.g. The keeping of Staffies is not permitted at all in a couple of them, in others one needs to request a special permit PLUS the dog needs to pass one/several temperament tests. In others still, the owner /handler has to leash and muzzle the dog UNTIL the dog has passed several temperament and obedience tests at no younger than 18 months)

As to how the risk of injury is assessed ...I am not entirely sure. I presume that there are relevant statistics compiled by doctors/veterinarians - not just from that country but worldwide - classifying the severity of wounds inflicted by various breeds. To be sure, the wounds sustained from an attacking bulldog are not comparable to those from an attacking Dachshund. Or Labrador. It is what it is.

The law(s) were implemented - and astoundingly fast -'as a result of the death of a 6 year old little boy who was killed on his way to kindergarten by 3 loose Pitbulls. He was the proverbial straw which broke the camel's back after a string of attacks involving bulldog breeds.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> As to how the risk of injury is assessed ...I am not entirely sure. I presume that there are relevant statistics compiled by doctors/veterinarians - not just from that country but worldwide - classifying the severity of wounds inflicted by various breeds. To be sure, the wounds sustained from an attacking bulldog are not comparable to those from an attacking Dachshund. Or Labrador. It is what it is.


Yet again I would wonder/ask why it has to be based on breed.

Statistics can be very skewed. Something as simple as popularity of a breed will make it appear that breed is more responsible for attacks. For example in the northern parts of the US and Canada huskies and husky mixes are the ones usually responsible for fatal dog bites. Not because these dogs are more dangerous than other but because they are more numerous. Around here if youre going to get bitten, its probably going to be a lab or a lab mix, not because labs are nasty dogs but because if youre going to run in to ANY dog its most likely going to be a lab.

A labrador can absolutely do as much damage as a bulldog. Put bite inhibition and general temperament in to the mix and that dachshund can do as much or more damage than the bulldog. Dachshunds end up pretty high on the bite list as it is....



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> The law(s) were implemented - and astoundingly fast -'as a result of the death of a 6 year old little boy who was killed on his way to kindergarten by 3 loose Pitbulls. He was the proverbial straw which broke the camel's back after a string of attacks involving bulldog breeds.


Is there any evidence of this law working? Like, are there fewer injuries and deaths from dog bites since the implementation of the law?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Pitbulls and Staffies are two completely separate breeds!

Hysteria has set in because they look similar.

As someone who has owned a Staffy, the sweetest dog I ever knew, (and I've known a lot), I hate the presumption that this breed could do harm, so let's muzzle them and make sure they can't.

I've lived with, bred and rescued Jack Russells for nearly forty years now and I've met some who were lovely, some who needed watching and some who were little horrors.

I want to see Staffies treated as dogs, the same as any other, and not condemned by people who don't know them because of silly and irrational fears.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Pitbulls and Staffies are two completely separate breeds!


Indeed they are. And if people buy a Staffordshire Bull Terrier from a reputable/assured breeder who has done the health tests/screening and who can register those puppies with the KC then they have a a Staffy that no one is going to question. It is also hoped that an assured breeder will also breed for temperament as well as looks ( just as you should for any breed).

The problems begin, as always, when buying from the less reputable breeder (and Staffordshires are easy to shift puppies) who can offer nothing except the words 'staffy puppies for sale'. We saw an example on Dog Rescuers a week or so back. 5 puppies. Back yard (literally) breeder. Mum and dad of mixed parentage but looked Staffyish. Puppies being brought up with no stimulation or care simply for the cash they will bring. ££££

Educating people not to buy from such surroundings will do a lot for the breed, for it's popularity as a 'status' dog has led to poor breeding, poor temperament, poor health and yes, dogs that might look staffyish but may indeed have other blood in there .....and those (rightly or wrongly) should they look bullyish may be a target for looking like a banned breed.

And yes, this is exactly what happened to the German Shepherds in the 70's and the Rotties in the 80's/90's. From being just another breed they became status dogs and became relentlessly bred by back yard breeders who cared little for anything but the ££.

This is a link to banned breeds in Europe Banned

J


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Indeed they are. And if people buy a Staffordshire Bull Terrier from a reputable/assured breeder who has done the health tests/screening and who can register those puppies with the KC then they have a a Staffy that no one is going to question. It is also hoped that an assured breeder will also breed for temperament as well as looks ( just as you should for any breed).
> 
> The problems begin, as always, when buying from the less reputable breeder (and Staffordshires are easy to shift puppies) who can offer nothing except the words 'staffy puppies for sale'. We saw an example on Dog Rescuers a week or so back. 5 puppies. Back yard (literally) breeder. Mum and dad of mixed parentage but looked Staffyish. Puppies being brought up with no stimulation or care simply for the cash they will bring. ££££
> 
> ...


My 30 year old daughter has a Great Dane and decided she wanted a smaller dog as a companion for him. She decided on SBT and has been looking for months for a reputable breeder. She doesn't mind travelling and she doesn't mind paying...and this is a very popular breed...and can she find one? No.

Plenty BYBs, plenty x breed and plenty advertised as a blue dog with pink nose. Plenty advertised as carrying the blue gene...so interesting for even more BYBs.

Price of a puppy is no indication either. Pups have been advertised without papers etc for as little as £30 locally. Pups advertised at £600 with papers and needing to travel are still from BYBs.

needle and haystack come to mind here and so far my daughter hasn't had any luck.

Also, I would think too that reputable breeders are reluctant to sell puppies and so don't breed very often.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The law is why I wouldn't consider getting one. There's no exemption register here, being seized is an automatic death sentence. I wouldn't risk the dog like that. Although to get a pitbull or an amstaff all I would have to do is drive a couple of hours south and I could get one perfectly legally. 

There's no evidence that the law has done anything and evidence from other places that its making things worse. By banning pitbulls people are turning to other breeds for the macho penis extension factor and cane corsos and presas are much less idiot proof.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Indeed they are. And if people buy a Staffordshire Bull Terrier from a reputable/assured breeder who has done the health tests/screening and who can register those puppies with the KC then they have a a Staffy that no one is going to question. It is also hoped that an assured breeder will also breed for temperament as well as looks ( just as you should for any breed).
> 
> The problems begin, as always, when buying from the less reputable breeder (and Staffordshires are easy to shift puppies) who can offer nothing except the words 'staffy puppies for sale'. We saw an example on Dog Rescuers a week or so back. 5 puppies. Back yard (literally) breeder. Mum and dad of mixed parentage but looked Staffyish. Puppies being brought up with no stimulation or care simply for the cash they will bring. ££££
> 
> ...


I was given a Rottie butch puppy in 1987 when the pup was 5 months old. There were very few of them about then but by the time she was 18months old or so a little girl was killed by one and then after that every other dog you saw or heard a bad story about seemed to be a Rottie.

I was given my pup cos she was the last of the litter, was small and also had a wavy patch down her back so was sub standard. What a fantastic dog she was.Loved her to bits.

I was given her cos the breeder just wanted a good home for her.I never saw her as a status dog but she was HA.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

El Cid said:


> I think most or all dogs should have this insurance; so it would be cheap for well trained family pets, and expensive for powerfull dogs and young owners.


What about powerful dogs owned by young owners that are also well trained family pets?!?

My girl is a Staffy X - She is powerful when she wants to be?!?

I'm 27... (Does it make me young?!? :lol

Oh and nearly 5 months pregnant and yes I think my dog is well trained-

So where does that leave me? ! ?


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

lilythepink said:


> My 30 year old daughter has a Great Dane and decided she wanted a smaller dog as a companion for him. She decided on SBT and has been looking for months for a reputable breeder. She doesn't mind travelling and she doesn't mind paying...and this is a very popular breed...and can she find one? No.


The KC visits and vets all premises used as breeding premises for the Assured Breeder scheme ...and they are all required to do the health tests. There are a number of assured breeders across the country for Staffies. Worth a try maybe?

I have seen puppies from £50 upwards for staffies too 

J


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Define powerful breed, you might be thinking bullbreed/mastiff but would newfoundlands and saint bernards count? Go Google patterdale weight pull and tell me they aren't powerful, buster can drag me when he wants to. Is there some kind of measure you were thinking of?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Define powerful breed, you might be thinking bullbreed/mastiff but would newfoundlands and saint bernards count? Go Google patterdale weight pull and tell me they aren't powerful, buster can drag me when he wants to. Is there some kind of measure you were thinking of?


Its not just powerful. Bullmastiff is so laid back...my mini dakkie comes to life as soon as I put the hoover on. Got a new dyson a couple of months ago and he has already customised the head with his teeth. He isn't what you would call powerful. He loves scalextric(sp)...attacks the cars as they go round the track...so funny...but he has damaged metal cars when he grabs them.

Dakkie found a dead rat one of the outy cats must have killed...he shredded it with such gusto.....Bully still asleep in the kitchen at the time.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> Its not just powerful. Bullmastiff is so laid back...my mini dakkie comes to life as soon as I put the hoover on. Got a new dyson a couple of months ago and he has already customised the head with his teeth. He isn't what you would call powerful. He loves scalextric(sp)...attacks the cars as they go round the track...so funny...but he has damaged metal cars when he grabs them.
> 
> Dakkie found a dead rat one of the outy cats must have killed...he shredded it with such gusto.....Bully still asleep in the kitchen at the time.


Well I imagine anything bred to go after badgers is going to be pretty tough  no matter how small


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Well I imagine anything bred to go after badgers is going to be pretty tough  no matter how small


Yes, agree....he is a mini dakkie though but the instinct is very much there. He digs with his front paws and gets the back ones in on the act too...loves digging....but only my nice lawn.lol

If I bring roadkill home, he is 1st there and he knows how to rip fur or feathers off...bully just watches confused.

My last dakkie died 12 months ago. She was the reason I would never have a kitten but opted for older cats instead. This dakkie is 5 years old and we have had him since he was 12 months but he was my daughters. I never thought of him as aggressive but I think he would kill a kitten too given half a chance. He loves people....but I wouldn't put it past him nipping to prove a point.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I have held back from contributing to this thread as I know that what I want to ask will win me more enemies than friends! So, before reading on, three things: first, please understand that I am writing out of genuine interest because there is something about all this that I just don't 'get'; second, my mother and her siblings were brought up with a staffie (before my time, but there are lovely photographs of him in old albums) and they thought that he was a wonderful dog; third, I have only once, personally, had a bad experience with any 'bull-type' - all the others I've met have been fine.

Preamble over  My question is this: why do people choose to own this type of dog? The thing is, we do know (as has been shown by more knowledgeable people than me, upthread) that these breeds have a higher prey/aggressive streak than others. Now, if I was buying a new car, and had a choice between a brand that was known for a tendency to develop mechanical faults, and a brand with a better record, I know which I'd buy! So why don't people think the same way with dogs?

(Reaches for sandbags and tin hat )


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

All breeds have their faults not just terriers. Staffies are generally very soft with people although they're more prone to dog aggression than some breeds of course. Terriers tend to be quite marmite breeds as a rule, the terrier people love that spark and prey drive can be mnaged, others prefer a softer dog like a gundog. That's the good thing about breeds there's something out there for everyone if you don't want a high prey drive dog don't get a hound or a terrier, you want a dog to do agility with you're not likely to get a pekingese that would be borderline cruel


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

what kind of bull breed though....so many to choose from and so many different sizes.

I have an almost 3 year old bullmastiff bitch. My husband sometimes drives a truck and is away from home. Its isolated where I live and my husband wanted me to have a gentle laid back easy going dog here if he was not. For me...she is smooth coated so clean , no grooming and laid back.She has a loud bark that shakes the foundations.....if someone broke into the house not sure if she would bite but but def bark....mini dakkie would attack and bite.

If we are out in the field, bully is always with us. She is fantastic with children and very gentle with babies to the point if we are out with her and she sees a child...better still a baby in a pram...she sits down and goes all gooey eyed at them.She is good with livestock, doesn't mind cats and is not DA or HA.She is generally quiet but has very good hearing and does bark loudly if she hears something. If she barks, I know somebody is about.I do think though that it would be very easy to wind her up as a puppy and turn her into an aggressive dog.
I live in a very low crime area, don't really need a vicious guard dog to protect against thieves etc.

2 months ago, my husband bought me a EBT puppy for my birthday. This ticks all the boxes.Small, smooth coated, highly intelligent, very friendly, eager to learn, tough and robust, loves being with all the family but can get a bit over excited and starts to play rough if not checked...so we will work on this. Very clean, so easy to house train its untrue.

I can understand your question and feel it is valid....never ever would I ever want a small fluffy flat faced, short legged dog cos they just don't do a thing for me...and its nothing to do with aggression either. I want to come indoors and not have to start cleaning a dog so it doesn't leave a trail of mud in my kitchen. 

Same reason I wouldn't want a large fluffy dog of any description either.

I also find the bull breeds to be so switched on mentally and I think that's what I go for too.

I also have a 12 month old saluki x greyhound. She is the most sly creature I ever came across but highly amusing and I love her to bits too....totally non HA, not too bad with strange dogs but I don't toally trust her with them and def don't trust her with small furries or strange cats.


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

Think all breeds can have traits that aren't ideal for some situations, one of my greyhounds has a huge prey drive (the other is more into scents) this can make recall more difficult & potentially risk of predatory drift. I'm happy to live with that as the other benefits outweigh the negatives.

Think issues can arise simply due to type of owners, if they aren't training, socializing properly or understanding the breed traits as not simply dog in a different 'suit' can cause problems. Nor understand their communication/behavior to recognize if a dog is stressed or trying to say its not comfortable being sat on by a child etc.


My staffy x greyhound has a wonderful people oriented nature, always wants to be with you, loves cuddles, does actually respond to commands rather than my greys sighthound ways thinking if they can be bothered first. She inherited the licky staffy tongue which drives me nuts. Most staffy types seem to give love by the shovel full from what I've heard.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Preamble over  My question is this: why do people choose to own this type of dog? The thing is, we do know (as has been shown by more knowledgeable people than me, upthread) that these breeds have a higher prey/aggressive streak than others. Now, if I was buying a new car, and had a choice between a brand that was known for a tendency to develop mechanical faults, and a brand with a better record, I know which I'd buy! So why don't people think the same way with dogs?
> 
> (Reaches for sandbags and tin hat )


Just from my chats with Staffy owners over the years:

A) A great many have grown up with them, never had a negative experience with them, therefore will always have a soft spot for them and see no reason NOT to have one.

B) that is all what the rescue shelter had available. Especially in the last decade, where crossbreeds go for as much as pure breeds, if you adopt a dog from a shelter - whether this is out of ethical reasons or financial constraints - the overwhelming majority of dogs available for adoption are Staffies and Staffy crosses. And BC crosses. But since the latter are often very high energy dogs, people often choose the lower energy one. Also, unlike a BC, they have a reputation to be better with young children


----------



## Dwavid (Apr 28, 2012)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Preamble over  My question is this: why do people choose to own this type of dog? The thing is, we do know (as has been shown by more knowledgeable people than me, upthread) that these breeds have a higher prey/aggressive streak than others. Now, if I was buying a new car, and had a choice between a brand that was known for a tendency to develop mechanical faults, and a brand with a better record, I know which I'd buy! So why don't people think the same way with dogs?


That question could be asked of any breed of dog, its down to personal choice and lifestyle. Why did you choice to own the breed of dog you have?
You say about prey drive, well most terriers have prey drive just look at most Patterdales or JRT for that. As for aggressive steak I've seen more aggressive Shih Tuz than I ever have Staffies, the most aggressive dog I've ever seen was my Dads Chihuahua, it would attack dogs on sight and used to snap at people it didn't know.

As for owning a Staffordshire Bull Terrier dog, I can say that no amount of stupid bigotry or stereotyping by small mind numpties who do not know me or my beloved dogs hold any bearing on my life. I've had runs in with people, lots in fact, I've literally come to blows with some. 
Does the fact that my dogs, due to their breed, get the blame if in a fight with another dog even though the other dog started it, yes it bothers me, and I've been in that situation.

As for BSL, yes I'm concerned that some jumped up little **** who knows bugger all about staffies or pit bulls could try to take my babies away from me. But that is why *ALL DOG OWNERS OF ALL BREED TYPES* should take a stand against this law. I've long argued with other breed owners that BSL does affect them too. It affects all dog owners as it is not making the owner responsible for their dogs actions. Most people on this site have had an occurrence where their dog has been in an altercation with another. Are all these altercations only with staffies or a Pit Bull Type, nope there with a multitude of different breeds which just goes to highlight that proper dog ownership is more paramount than the type of breed that starts an altercation.
I also hear a lot about the damage staffies or pit bull types deliver, yes its true some breed of dogs can do more damage than others , just last week at the agility club I go to every Saturday a mix breed (Patterdale/JRT) terrier got away from its owner and attacked the Giant Schnauzer, lucky for the terrier everyone got there and stopped the fight before the Schnauzer got hold of him. The terrier was the aggressor but the Giant Schnauzer would have seriously hurt or possibly killed the terrier if it we had not got there in time as there are a big powerful breed.

Does DDA make me not want to own another Staffy in the future, no not at all. Am I worried about BSL, yes. But I know this law is wrong and I am willing to fight against it and to help in any way I can to promote the abolishment of BSL. 
Truth is DDA/BSL has done nothing to stop dog attacks. It has only succeeded in taking perfectly behaved family dogs that have never hurt anyone away from their family. 
The difference between now and when the GSD & Doberman had bad press is BSL, this law helps to promote the stereotyping of bully breeds, which has lead to bigotry from those small mind **** I mentioned earlier. The end result of BSL is going to be the genocide of an awesome breed of dog the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and other bully breeds.
Once the bad irresponsible owners can no longer get staffies, staffy crosses, or other bully breeds they'll more on to another breed like the Rotti, GSD, DBD etc.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> *Indeed they are. And if people buy a Staffordshire Bull Terrier from a reputable/assured breeder who has done the health tests/screening and who can register those puppies with the KC then they have a a Staffy that no one is going to question.* It is also hoped that an assured breeder will also breed for temperament as well as looks ( just as you should for any breed).
> 
> The problems begin, as always, when buying from the less reputable breeder (and Staffordshires are easy to shift puppies) who can offer nothing except the words 'staffy puppies for sale'. We saw an example on Dog Rescuers a week or so back. 5 puppies. Back yard (literally) breeder. Mum and dad of mixed parentage but looked Staffyish. Puppies being brought up with no stimulation or care simply for the cash they will bring. ££££
> 
> ...


The part I have bolded will make no difference...
I repeat...KC registered Staffs HAVE been seized under BSL and their papers meant nothing, they STILL had to go through the exemption process..Even the PSBTC (breed club) have a warning of what members should do if their dog is seized..



BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Preamble over  My question is this: why do people choose to own this type of dog? The thing is, we do know (as has been shown by more knowledgeable people than me, upthread) that these breeds have a higher prey/aggressive streak than others. Now, if I was buying a new car, and had a choice between a brand that was known for a tendency to develop mechanical faults, and a brand with a better record, I know which I'd buy! So why don't people think the same way with dogs?
> 
> (Reaches for sandbags and tin hat )


Why do you chose the dog you have? Why do any of us chose anything?
Many breeds have high prey drives...shall we forget about them too, or is it just bullies that you have an issue with people choosing to own?


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Have just skimmed over this thread but I will say no matter what bad press Staffies get, they are still one of my favourite breeds and nothing will deter me from adopting one in future. Somebody elses ignorance and fear isn't going to put me off.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dwavid said:


> As for BSL, yes I'm concerned that some jumped up little **** who knows bugger all about staffies or pit bulls could try to take my babies away from me. But that is why *ALL DOG OWNERS OF ALL BREED TYPES* should take a stand against this law. I've long argued with other breed owners that BSL does affect them too. It affects all dog owners as it is not making the owner responsible for their dogs actions.


Absolutely spot on. I've seen many versions of the piece below, but it still hits home:

_First they came for the Pit Bulls and I did not speak out, because I did not have a Pit Bull.

Then they came for the Staffies and I did not speak out, because I did not have a Staffie.

Then they came for the Rottweilers and I did not speak out, because I did not have a Rottweiler.

Then they came for the German Shepherds and I did not speak out, because I did not have a German Shepherd.

Then they came for the Collie... and there was no one left to speak out for my Collies._

BSL affects every dog owner and we should all be fighting against it.

.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I have held back from contributing to this thread as I know that what I want to ask will win me more enemies than friends! So, before reading on, three things: first, please understand that I am writing out of genuine interest because there is something about all this that I just don't 'get'; second, my mother and her siblings were brought up with a staffie (before my time, but there are lovely photographs of him in old albums) and they thought that he was a wonderful dog; third, I have only once, personally, had a bad experience with any 'bull-type' - all the others I've met have been fine.
> 
> Preamble over  *My question is this: why do people choose to own this type of dog? The thing is, we do know (as has been shown by more knowledgeable people than me, upthread) that these breeds have a higher prey/aggressive streak than others. Now, if I was buying a new car, and had a choice between a brand that was known for a tendency to develop mechanical faults, and a brand with a better record, I know which I'd buy! So why don't people think the same way with dogs?*
> 
> (Reaches for sandbags and tin hat )


Well, why not?

My personal experience of Staffies and Staffie types is that they are excellent with people, however they are not necessarily excellent with other dogs. When I worked in veterinary practice, the vast number of dog-on-dog attack cases that we saw involved a Staffie type. That isn't being breedist or bias, it's just stating a fact. Likewise, the Staffies we treated were always delightful, however again a good majority of them were DA. It's no more a "mechanical fault" than other dogs with their various breed traits - it is what it is, and a higher incidence of dog and animal aggression is surely to be expected given their history.

As with any breed, it's up to the owner to weigh up the pro's and con's when taking on a dog. For me, the only con of a Staffie is the potential for dog aggression, which for me is a big enough con to probably not own one due to the lifestyle I like to lead with my dogs. Not only that, but I live in a 'pink a fluffy' dog owning place full of middle class dog owners with gundogs and LabraGoldenCockerpoodoodle types called Hugo and Montgomery that run riot; managing a DA dog would be a nightmare. I'd rather come across the folk with DA dogs that keep themselves to themselves and their dogs under control than the pink and fluffies.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> is it just bullies that you have an issue with people choosing to own?


Sigh...... I hoped the tone of my post made it clear that I don't have 'an issue', just a question!


----------



## Patterdale_lover (Sep 25, 2008)

IncaThePup said:


> On the back of the thread 'Dangerous dogs and Proud' and as someone who is interesting in adopting a deaf dog in the future I'd like to ask how safe do you think/feel your staffies are under these rules?
> 
> Before you jump down my throat I DON'T mean do YOU see your staffie as a dangerous dog now...I mean if you have one, do you now constantly worry about being stopped by police/dog warden and the dog seized/house raided, even though you know it's a loving family pet whose never put a paw wrong?
> 
> ...


I love Staffies, I particularly love my own. He is my my absolute baby and I can't imagine being without him. Having said that, when Enzo passes. I won't get another Staffie, unless media hype and hysteria has calmed down. It's stressful to take him out particularly him being DR/DA, the comments go in to overdrive, it's not what dog owning is all about and takes the fun out of it. I can't sit in the pub with him without a comment or look. Whilst there are a minority who love him and think he is great and never judge him. The vast majority do.

Wouldn't give him back for the world, wouldn't judge someone with a Staffy but I sadly don't think I will have another one through first choice.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Issue may have been the wrong word to use.
My post as a whole was just posing the same question back to you. Why do any of us choose the breeds we own?

Why shouldn't people chose the breed/s that they love?

Obviously it would be a tad irresponsible to go out and get a known banned breed, as much as I don't agree with the banned list. It is law, and breaking that law not only risks getting yourself a criminal record, it also means a certain death for your dog.

But the vast majority of bullies are not banned so as long as the dogs are kept responsibly (as should any dog regardless of breed) then they reduce the risk greatly of having their dog taken.

You can't really compare choosing a breed of dog with mechanical faults on a car. They are not comparable.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I have held back from contributing to this thread as I know that what I want to ask will win me more enemies than friends! So, before reading on, three things: first, please understand that I am writing out of genuine interest because there is something about all this that I just don't 'get'; second, my mother and her siblings were brought up with a staffie (before my time, but there are lovely photographs of him in old albums) and they thought that he was a wonderful dog; third, I have only once, personally, had a bad experience with any 'bull-type' - all the others I've met have been fine.
> 
> Preamble over  *My question is this: why do people choose to own this type of dog? The thing is, we do know (as has been shown by more knowledgeable people than me, upthread) that these breeds have a higher prey/aggressive streak than others. * Now, if I was buying a new car, and had a choice between a brand that was known for a tendency to develop mechanical faults, and a brand with a better record, I know which I'd buy! So why don't people think the same way with dogs?
> 
> (Reaches for sandbags and tin hat )


First off, prey drive does not equal aggression. Aggression and prey drive light up entirely different parts of the brain.

Dogs are predators anyway, so prey drive in a predator doesnt bother me. Arguably, prey drive makes a dog easier to work with. Add in the staffie trait to be very handler-centered and you have a dog who can be super fun to work with.

Dog intolerance can be annoying, but it is not at all unique to the bully breeds. Lots of breeds from the working group (and more) are well known for being dog intolerant or maturing in to having same sex aggression or just being pushy, obnoxious PITAs. Go on a doberman or cattle dog forum and youll see plenty of posts on how to deal with your DA dog. Great danes, boxers, rotties, many of the mastiffs, GSDs - no one is surprised if one matures in to a dog intolerant adult. And terriers of all types - not just the ones with a bull in their name, are notorious for being scrappy and bad about fighting. A JRT breeder shocked me once by proudly announcing she keeps a cattle prod for the sole purpose of breaking up fights because hers would get in to it so bad and were impossible to break up otherwise. Contrast that with my friend who breeds greyhounds. She has all these dogs in the house, including intact males and females, and they all get along. Yeah, things can get a little iffy when one of the girls come in to heat, but she can still easily keep the peace. (Which blows my mind honestly.) But then, most types of Hounds are generally not known for having issues with other dogs...

Where a dog intolerant staffie is preferable to me than say a dog intolerant JRT, the JRT will happily bite the snot out of you as you pull him out of the melee. The staffie is far less likely to re-direct on to you when you intervene.

I love fox terriers, JRTs, PRTs, and rat terriers, and would love to have a terrier again one day, but the older I get, the less appealing it is to deal with any level of DA. A more dog fool-proof dog is far more appealing. Another breed I absolutely adore but will probably never get because of potential DA are ACD. Oh, they are amazing dogs and I could have so much fun with one, but the potential for DA is just too high with ACDs.

So yes, its a valid question and something potential owners should honestly ask themselves when they take on ANY breed prone to DA. Are you willing to deal with a dog you may have to crate and rotate with your other dogs? Are you willing to deal with a dog who may never be a dog park safe dog? Are you willing to deal with a dog who may need to be leashed and muzzled in public?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> I think most or all dogs should have this insurance; so it would be cheap for well trained family pets, and expensive for powerfull dogs and young owners.


My comment about it being worrying was more to do with the fact that it is compulsory for those dogs on the exemption list to have it but as StormyThai stated there are only a couple of insurance companies offering it. Its that I thought was worrying incase they either stop offering it or kept on raising the premiums knowing the owners have no choice but to pay or the dogs would be seized and destroyed.

I think compulsory 3rd party insurance for all dogs is a good idea but have no idea how that could be enforced given that so many get away with no car insurance either. However I don't think the premium should be based on how powerful the dog is - out of my 3 for instance Colt the GSP is the lightest but the most likely to get in a scrap with another dog whereas Indie the rottie might be bigger and more powerful but is frightened of other dogs and tends to run away from them.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Owning a staff x I can only give my opinion on why do folk own them.
1. There were lots in rescue
2. Reading about staff's gives you the impression of friendly, loyal energetic dogs, what I was looking for.
but probably most importantly
3. I didnt even know bsl existed until he was living with us ( which I hope is the case for most joe bloggs public)

should I have taken on a big, dog reactive, adolescent as my first dog....... probably not, that has nowt to do with him being part bull breed tho.
he has also taught me a great deal, and wouldnt change the ginger PITA.......


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think compulsory 3rd party insurance for all dogs is a good idea but have no idea how that could be enforced given that so many get away with no car insurance either.


I disagree. Responsible Dog Owners don't need 3rd Party insurance and the irresponsible ones probably wouldn't bother anyway.

Responsible Dog ownership is expensive enough as it is. And you can bet any such insurance would penalise certain breeds too, particularly the Bull types.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think compulsory 3rd party insurance for all dogs is a good idea but have no idea how that could be enforced given that so many get away with no car insurance either. However I don't think the premium should be based on how powerful the dog is - out of my 3 for instance Colt the GSP is the lightest but the most likely to get in a scrap with another dog whereas Indie the rottie might be bigger and more powerful but is frightened of other dogs and tends to run away from them.


There could be a limit on how much the claim could be, say £5,000, not very much, but its £5,000 more than people would get now, and it would keep the cost of insurance down.
The size of the premium would be down to the insurance companies. Just like insuring your car, it might depend on a number of things related to risk of injury from the dog. Training of the dog and owner, suitability of the dwelling. ect


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

cbcdesign said:


> I disagree. Responsible Dog Owners don't need 3rd Party insurance and the irresponsible ones probably wouldn't bother anyway.
> 
> Responsible Dog ownership is expensive enough as it is. And you can bet any such insurance would penalise certain breeds too, particularly the Bull types.


It has nothing to do with being responsible. 3rd party protects you if your dog causes an accident. No dog or owner is infallible and in the blame culture we live in, I'd be very wary of not having 3rd party insurance.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> I disagree. Responsible Dog Owners don't need 3rd Party insurance and the irresponsible ones probably wouldn't bother anyway.
> 
> Responsible Dog ownership is expensive enough as it is. And you can bet any such insurance would penalise certain breeds too, particularly the Bull types.


Sadly even responsible dog owners can have accidents - lead breaks, dog runs in road after a squirrel or a cat and causes an accident, your dog gets attacked by another and in attempt to break up fight your dog bites hand of other owner etc etc. I believe such insurance is even free to dogs trust members and is included with most general pet insurance anyway - actually I've never found I pay more for it with german sheps/rotties - its only the health element with rotties that tends to be higher.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

El Cid said:


> There could be a limit on how much the claim could be, say £5,000, not very much, but its £5,000 more than people would get now, and it would keep the cost of insurance down.
> 
> The size of the premium would be down to the insurance companies. Just like insuring your car, it might depend on a number of things related to risk of injury from the dog. Training of the dog and owner, suitability of the dwelling. ect


Sorry you've lost me on the first sentence. With 3rd party the other side are usually taking legal action against you for injury/death/accident so not sure how you/I could limit the claim - that would be decided by the courts surely?

Also not sure who on earth would assess the risk from your/my dog - if all insurance companies had to send out assessors to look at the training of the dog and owner and the suitability of the dwelling premiums would go through the roof to cover such an assessment.

In principle I agree with compulsory 3rd party insurance but for all dogs not depending on a wide variety of factors but as I said before who is going to enforce it?


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In principle I agree with compulsory 3rd party insurance but for all dogs not depending on a wide variety of factors but as I said before who is going to enforce it?


If it stays the same, nothing will get enforced. If we bring in laws and private insurance; it can be worked out who pays what.
Will the governments compulsary micro-chipping be enforced, and will it solve dog attacks on it own?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

No I don't think micro chipping or insurance will stop attacks - that is down to owners being more responsible. So whatever the breed of dog if you know its DA taking the right precautions, if you know it has high prey drive taking the right precautions etc. I don't think any particular breed or type should be singled out for compulsory insurance as any breed of dog can/does cause accidents or injury to others. The thing is most responsible owners already have their dogs chipped and insured its how you get the irresponsible ones to comply that is always a problem. No idea what the answer is to that but it sure as hell isn't BSL that targets a breed and not the individual owner.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

labradrk said:


> It has nothing to do with being responsible. 3rd party protects you if your dog causes an accident. No dog or owner is infallible and in the blame culture we live in, I'd be very wary of not having 3rd party insurance.


If you think you need insurance that's fine, I don't. Besides in the context of dog attacks do you really think the Insurance industry would be prepared to pay out? They have already dismissed the idea as being very complex and probably unworkable.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I believe such insurance is even free to dogs trust members


Thanks for the Dog trust comment. It looks very worthwhile being a member so I just joined up.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

cbcdesign said:


> If you think you need insurance that's fine, I don't. Besides in the context of dog attacks do you really think the Insurance industry would be prepared to pay out? They have already dismissed the idea as being very complex and probably unworkable.


So are you saying that your dog is incapable of causing an accident if you do not need third party insurance?

What would you do I your dog bit someone by accident, or caused a road traffic accident, or ran in front of a cyclist causing them to break their leg and they sued you for damages? Just curious as you say that you do not need insurance.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

labradrk said:


> So are you saying that your dog is incapable of causing an accident if you do not need third party insurance?
> 
> What would you do I your dog bit someone by accident, or caused a road traffic accident, or ran in front of a cyclist causing them to break their leg and they sued you for damages? Just curious as you say that you do not need insurance.


I am saying I don't allow my dog to cause accidents in the first place. I don't allow my Dogs to run into a road in just the same way that the vast majority of parents don't allow their Kids to do so. It is possible to have dogs and not allow them to run into the path of oncoming cyclists and cars you know. Millions of Dog owners do this every day.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Microchipping and getting a dog licence are a legal requirement here, the uptake is about 40% and rarely enforced . I can't imagine it would be much different in England. 

Insurance is a different matter surely and it would depend on whether they went with actual claims or the job the dog was bred for/public perception. If they went for guard dogs before herding dogs where would gsds or malinois fit in?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> They have already dismissed the idea as being very complex and probably unworkable.


Yet in Germany it's a legal requirement.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> In all my years of owning dogs I have never had a single unpleasant encounter with a Staffie. And there are a lot of them about.
> 
> ...


With great bloody difficulty. When I had to split up a fight between my dog and a staffie I ended up practically sitting on the pair of them throttling the staffie with its collar. However, the fact it just latched on and didn't let go actually saved my dog from serious injury, he had puncture wounds and bruising where it had had hold of him but his repeated bites left the staffie in need of a lot of stitches. And this dog meant business, it wasn't a noise and slobber type incident on either side.

As for the 3rd party liability, it's a legal requirement here in Germany as Goblin says. And doesn't just cover dog attacks. Accidents can happen no matter how good an owner you are, not as black and white as "not allowing" your dog to cause an accident. Nothing is 100% foolproof.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Sarah1983 said:


> As for the 3rd party liability, it's a legal requirement here in Germany as Goblin says. And doesn't just cover dog attacks. Accidents can happen no matter how good an owner you are, not as black and white as "not allowing" your dog to cause an accident. Nothing is 100% foolproof.


Well some sort of compulsory insurance was ruled out in the UK although the proposal was to do with dangerous dogs rather than road traffic accidents.
BBC News - Government rules out all-dog insurance plan


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

cbcdesign said:


> I am saying I don't allow my dog to cause accidents in the first place. I don't allow my Dogs to run into a road in just the same way that the vast majority of parents don't allow their Kids to do so. It is possible to have dogs and not allow them to run into the path of oncoming cyclists and cars you know. Millions of Dog owners do this every day.


Gosh, if only we all had your powers of foresight! sadly it is the people with the "it will never happen to me" mentality who are the most likely to get caught out.

I'm sure you do not need the definition of 'accident' spelled out to you. Anyone who believes they are immune to either causing or being involved in accidents at various points in their life is frankly delusional.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

labradrk said:


> Gosh, if only we all had your powers of foresight! sadly it is the people with the "it will never happen to me" mentality who are the most likely to get caught out.
> 
> I'm sure you do not need the definition of 'accident' spelled out to you. Anyone who believes they are immune to either causing or being involved in accidents at various points in their life is frankly delusional.


I made a similar point on the subject of Neutering male Dogs and boy did I get royally chastised by some for it! 
Clearly the Insurance Industry and the Government disagree with you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2014)

cbcdesign said:


> I made a similar point on the subject of Neutering male Dogs and boy did I get royally chastised by some for it!
> Clearly the Insurance Industry and the Government disagree with you.


LOL, slight difference  
There is only one way a dog can accidentally mate. Which I wont spell out for you as I assume youve had the birds and bees talk at some point.

There are a myriad of ways a dog can cause some unforeseen accident and/or injury.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> I made a similar point on the subject of Neutering male Dogs and boy did I get royally chastised by some for it!
> Clearly the Insurance Industry and the Government disagree with you.


Neutering has potential health issues beyond simply not being able to father children which are still not fully understood. Last I read the trend was if looking purely for health you spay bitches but don't neuter dogs. Then you are back to enforcement, the sticking point with most initiatives.

As far as insurance goes, cyclist, on his phone, swerves to avoid your dog and crashes into someone. They place the blame on your dog. Doesn't necessarily need to be the dog's fault. All they have to do is persuade a court it is.

Chihuahua attacks your dog, your dog responds which results in chihuahua going to vet. Chihuahua owner sues you with "my dog is small and couldn't harm a bigger dog", not just for vet costs but for "stress, fear, anxiety", the fact that they couldn't work as the dog needed looking after etc etc. Sounds crazy but it's a sad reflection of what I hope is still the minority mindset.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

ouesi said:


> LOL, slight difference
> There is only one way a dog can accidentally mate. Which I wont spell out for you as I assume youve had the birds and bees talk at some point.


We are talking about a Dog expectantly running into a road into the path of an oncoming bicycle or car or in the another thread running off expectantly to find that enticing Bitch, I don't see any difference in these scenarios in terms of the owner or handler losing control. The point made was that people were 100% certain they could prevent their dog doing the latter. It follows then that must mean they can stop then doing the former too.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> We are talking about a Dog expectantly running into a road into the path of an oncoming bicycle or car or in the another thread running off expectantly to find that enticing Bitch, I don't see any difference in these scenarios in terms of the owner or handler losing control. The point made was that people were 100% certain they could prevent their dog doing the latter. It follows then that must mean they can stop then doing the former too.


Then both sets of posters are ummmm daft. Leads break, recall is never 110%, dogs are not robots, dogs follow their instincts regardless of training at times. I have only ever had one accident in my car but i would be an utter fool not to insure my car because "it'll never happen again"


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Then both sets of posters are ummmm daft. Leads break, recall is never 110%, dogs are not robots, dogs follow their instincts regardless of training at times. I have only ever had one accident in my car but i would be an utter fool not to insure my car because "it'll never happen again"


And when it comes to cyclists, joggers etc they often sneak up behind you too quickly for you to prevent your dog getting in the way. We regularly have them do it to us, whizzing past just inches away before I even know they're there. Really makes me angry.


----------

