Are Staff's on borrowed time ?
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-183...
Another tragic attack on a toddler.
Such a shame that Staff's are getting more and more of a bad rep.
I used to think along the lines of blame the owner and not the dog but there seems to be so much interbreeding
nowdays that the breed is becoming unstable and i would not be surprised if they were placed on the dangerous dog list.
Another tragic attack on a toddler.
Such a shame that Staff's are getting more and more of a bad rep.
I used to think along the lines of blame the owner and not the dog but there seems to be so much interbreeding
nowdays that the breed is becoming unstable and i would not be surprised if they were placed on the dangerous dog list.
Part of the problem is the vast numbers of staffs so more chance of them being involved.
But actually plenty of other breeds bite and mean it, it's just they may not cause the same amount of damage they are not a contoversial breed per say.
Collies, retrievers, dachshunds, westies, chihuahuas, yorkies all appear on lists for being biters, staffies unfortunately are newsworthy and they are perfect height for biting toddlers faces so cause horrific damage when they turn.
I have known soo many good staffies, I really hope they aren't listed but indiscriminant breeding poor owners, cheap diets, boredom all lead to aggressive tendancies and staffies seem to find themselves in these boxes.
But actually plenty of other breeds bite and mean it, it's just they may not cause the same amount of damage they are not a contoversial breed per say.
Collies, retrievers, dachshunds, westies, chihuahuas, yorkies all appear on lists for being biters, staffies unfortunately are newsworthy and they are perfect height for biting toddlers faces so cause horrific damage when they turn.
I have known soo many good staffies, I really hope they aren't listed but indiscriminant breeding poor owners, cheap diets, boredom all lead to aggressive tendancies and staffies seem to find themselves in these boxes.
This really does my head in.. I don't understand why people who don't train dogs properly aren't imprisoned and treated like they themselves did the attack.. Would maybe make people think twice.
Staffies are some of the most child-friendly, caring, loving dogs.. Just as children can lose the plot and attack someone, so can dogs.. (does this mean all children should be put down.. just incase?)
Makes me sick that people who claim to have any kind of intelligence decide to blame the dog 100% every time.. Yes, you get viscous dogs - but they weren't all born like that, it's the humans that have no respect for how they should be bought up that are the main issue!
Staffies are some of the most child-friendly, caring, loving dogs.. Just as children can lose the plot and attack someone, so can dogs.. (does this mean all children should be put down.. just incase?)
Makes me sick that people who claim to have any kind of intelligence decide to blame the dog 100% every time.. Yes, you get viscous dogs - but they weren't all born like that, it's the humans that have no respect for how they should be bought up that are the main issue!
Unfortunately ,I think it's going that way . Most Staffs are decent dogs, but the owners are not. I know of several dogs ,locally that have been attacked by STAFFS, and the local dog wardens have Staffs on their hit list. Due to attacks on smaller dogs, that have decided to defend themselves against these dogs. My own one will not tolerate any Staff in his area, or around him .
akita1 said:
Punish the deed not the breed.
A million times this.It's the owners, not the dogs.
Why don't we put "youths" down that "misbehave" and knife someone? They've made the choice to harm. Dogs will only ever react to a situation (barring the really rare, genuinely aggressive dogs... but where did that aggression come from? Oh yes, that's right. Mistreatment/poor ownership).
We may accept that it's the owners, but the dog is the instrument of damage. Guns are banned in this country. There is an argument for banning bull terriers on the same lines, especially as they are quite clearly often selected for the dangerous side of their reputation. Shame for the dogs, but if they're being chosen/bred as tools rather than pets then it's time for action. Unless of course we think it's more acceptable for childrens' heads to be eaten.
Karyn said:
Quite.
Let's ban dogs.
That's not what anyone's saying. We've got a dog, it's a pet, as a Staffie can no doubt be, but they also have huge additional potential as a weapon. While that's the case we must look at restraining them from public life in some way. Not sure how anyone can realistically argue against that when the choice is between that or a maimed/dead child. Let's ban dogs.
Blackpuddin said:
That's not what anyone's saying. We've got a dog, it's a pet, as a Staffie can no doubt be, but they also have huge additional potential as a weapon. While that's the case we must look at restraining them from public life in some way. Not sure how anyone can realistically argue against that when the choice is between that or a maimed/dead child.
I'm not really following your argument. Any dog has "huge additional potential as a weapon". Breed has precious little to do with it... Owners, on the other hand... a lot.
To return to your argument.
Dogs are "weapons".
So, "we must look at restraining them from public life in some way", according to you.
There are more than staffys on the "biters" list.
So we must ban most dogs, following your argument logically, but you say that's not what you mean?
Edited by Karyn on Tuesday 5th June 20:00
All animals are potentially dangerous and reactive.
Children are too young to make their own decisions.
The adults responsible for the child and dog are the ones who are to blame (particularly as the article seems to suggest the dog had form for nipping so should not have been allowed in contact with a child).
I do think overbreeding of animals is a separate issue - people need to think long and hard about whether that cute kitten/puppy/foal they want to create is going to have a viable future, and a home for life before they go ahead.
Children are too young to make their own decisions.
The adults responsible for the child and dog are the ones who are to blame (particularly as the article seems to suggest the dog had form for nipping so should not have been allowed in contact with a child).
I do think overbreeding of animals is a separate issue - people need to think long and hard about whether that cute kitten/puppy/foal they want to create is going to have a viable future, and a home for life before they go ahead.
All animals are potentially dangerous and reactive.
Children are too young to make their own decisions.
The adults responsible for the child and dog are the ones who are to blame (particularly as the article seems to suggest the dog had form for nipping so should not have been allowed in contact with a child).
I do think overbreeding of animals is a separate issue - people need to think long and hard about whether that cute kitten/puppy/foal they want to create is going to have a viable future, and a home for life before they go ahead.
Children are too young to make their own decisions.
The adults responsible for the child and dog are the ones who are to blame (particularly as the article seems to suggest the dog had form for nipping so should not have been allowed in contact with a child).
I do think overbreeding of animals is a separate issue - people need to think long and hard about whether that cute kitten/puppy/foal they want to create is going to have a viable future, and a home for life before they go ahead.
I reluctantly gave up on Staffy ownership when my last fella died, after 40 years and several Staffs.
Too many idiots getting hold of them and not treating/training them properly.
With their bite strength a poorly trained Staffy is a dangerous dog; much moreso than most other breeds.
Unfortunately, Joe Public can't tell that you are a responsible owner and lump you in with the idiots. That means no more socialising for Staffy and people crossing the street and giving you dirty looks when you're out for a walk.
I just got fed up with it all and got a Westie instead.
Too many idiots getting hold of them and not treating/training them properly.
With their bite strength a poorly trained Staffy is a dangerous dog; much moreso than most other breeds.
Unfortunately, Joe Public can't tell that you are a responsible owner and lump you in with the idiots. That means no more socialising for Staffy and people crossing the street and giving you dirty looks when you're out for a walk.
I just got fed up with it all and got a Westie instead.
true yorkies and labs can be biters too, but they are soft mouths, they don't lock on, nor do they shake there heads violently (whilst locked on).
it is this that causes a dog bite to become a " viscous mauling" pure bred staffs can be lovely dogs, but these days there are too many dogs being bred for aggressive tendencies.
Whilst I agree dogs need good owners, a poorly trained yorkie is never going to cause the damage of a poorly treated staff.
it is this that causes a dog bite to become a " viscous mauling" pure bred staffs can be lovely dogs, but these days there are too many dogs being bred for aggressive tendencies.
Whilst I agree dogs need good owners, a poorly trained yorkie is never going to cause the damage of a poorly treated staff.
Gargamel said:
true yorkies and labs can be biters too, but they are soft mouths, they don't lock on, nor do they shake there heads violently (whilst locked on).
it is this that causes a dog bite to become a " viscous mauling" pure bred staffs can be lovely dogs, but these days there are too many dogs being bred for aggressive tendencies.
Whilst I agree dogs need good owners, a poorly trained yorkie is never going to cause the damage of a poorly treated staff.
No dog is a soft biter when they mean it. All breeds can shake ever seen a dog with live prey or a toy or attack a smaller dog.it is this that causes a dog bite to become a " viscous mauling" pure bred staffs can be lovely dogs, but these days there are too many dogs being bred for aggressive tendencies.
Whilst I agree dogs need good owners, a poorly trained yorkie is never going to cause the damage of a poorly treated staff.
And no dogs lock their jaws, not even staffies.
I've been snapped at by far more yorkies than staffies in my career! And one snap from a pissed off yorkie can do a surprising amount of damage.
A lab can do just as much damage as a staffie, but I think this is where owner type comes into play. (there are plenty of lovely staff owners out there though!)
Bex whilst deferring of course to your greater experience, you would concede that staffs have a greater ability to inflict a heavy bite than most other dogs.
I have never played tug of war with my Lab, because surprisingly I want her to let go. yet I regularly see people swinging their staffies round and round feet off the ground with a stick or a rope toy.
I never said they lock their jaws in an anatomical sense more that they are far more likely to bite and hold, tear, shake than other dogs who might nip or bite, but then release.
I have never played tug of war with my Lab, because surprisingly I want her to let go. yet I regularly see people swinging their staffies round and round feet off the ground with a stick or a rope toy.
I never said they lock their jaws in an anatomical sense more that they are far more likely to bite and hold, tear, shake than other dogs who might nip or bite, but then release.
DocJock said:
I reluctantly gave up on Staffy ownership when my last fella died, after 40 years and several Staffs.
Too many idiots getting hold of them and not treating/training them properly.
With their bite strength a poorly trained Staffy is a dangerous dog; much moreso than most other breeds.
Unfortunately, Joe Public can't tell that you are a responsible owner and lump you in with the idiots. That means no more socialising for Staffy and people crossing the street and giving you dirty looks when you're out for a walk.
I just got fed up with it all and got a Westie instead.
Great, but did you research the breed. Westies ,are white versions of Cairn Terriers. Something a lot of folk don't know. Both breeds are as much of a predator as a Staff, both were bred as badger hunters.And in the past, only the dog keeper could control them.This was out of the dogs respect & love for the keeper. Nowadays, the vast majority of both breeds are well socialised. I prefer the Cairn as being of a better temperament, but Westies are equally sociable. Bite strength , I've seen my Cairn make a mess of a large bone. He's shattered it with one bite. Too many idiots getting hold of them and not treating/training them properly.
With their bite strength a poorly trained Staffy is a dangerous dog; much moreso than most other breeds.
Unfortunately, Joe Public can't tell that you are a responsible owner and lump you in with the idiots. That means no more socialising for Staffy and people crossing the street and giving you dirty looks when you're out for a walk.
I just got fed up with it all and got a Westie instead.
On the other hand, my Cairn adopted my grand son ,and has come to love the others.We've two grand kids of three & four, and he loves them . He's a re homed dog, but obviously grew up with kids.I just wish he could cope with pups as well as he does with kids . Outside ,he's looking for a dog friendly kid, but that's the breed nature .Staffs, I adore - they love all, but my dog won't accept any near him ,as he's been attacked .So I know how you feel . My son has a rescue Staff, who's great with the kids. Staffs always are .They're not upset by hair pulling and tail pulling.Most just love it from their kids. But that's pets,not the yobs dogs.
Gargamel said:
Gargamel said:
a poorly trained yorkie is never going to cause the damage of a poorly treated staff.
^^this gets me cross.I think that it's a ridiculous idea to have breed-specific laws.
I think it's completely bonkers that two dogs can offer a potential hazard of danger to a smaller, cognitively unaware child, yet one would be "allowed" to nip the child in the face, or be needlessly (if unknowingly) provoked into an aggressive response (i.e. there is no breed-specific legislation giving consequences to the outcome of the situation - your "poorly trained yorkie"), and one dog not be "allowed" to do so (i.e. its actions are governed by breed-specific legislation - your "poorly treated staff").
All dogs offer the potential for a dangerous situation.
A poorly-trained dog multiplies that potential hugely. Staff, yorkie, doberman, jack russel, chihauhau, whatever.
Ergo, if legislation has to exist to try to govern this, then that legislation ought to be to govern the owners, for increasing the risk of a situation by keeping a dog in the first place.
Dogs will always pose a potential danger - we choose to accept them in our lives knowing that they have teeth and claws and a bite force harder than ours and are animals, not human - the onus should be on us to minimise that risk by good training and effective management of situations (never leave a small child with a dog, unattended. How hard is that? Not hard.), not govern which breed of dog you can live with.
So, in your "poorly trained staff/poorly trained yorkie - one does more damage to a child's face than another" scenario, why does the breed of dog matter? Both offer an increased risk of danger, by virtue of being poorly trained, so why is one worse than the other?
I've met lovely staff owners, and also people who live with a poorly trained staff.
I've met some lovely jack russell owners, and also people who live with lively, excitable, poorly trained jack russells.
The dogs belonging to any one of those four potential owners poses a threat to a child.
Two of those dogs offer a significantly increased threat.
Why does one get legislation to govern it, and one not?
Staffy or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all (or it shouldn't have, but we have idiotic t
ts breeding for wrong reasons and washing the world with dogs that go to irresponsible owners), but sadly it's the staffy's "turn" for the idiotic-people's spotlight. Other winners of such (dubious) honour include dobermans and rottweilers. I say for the millionth and second time: Deed, not breed. And for the love of god, someone find that miracle way of stopping irresponsible people buying, selling, owning and breeding dogs.
Degucrazy said:
Yes, you get viscous dogs
Mostly viscous owners, I think, resulting in vicious dogs.GSDs used to have a bad reputation, but my folks have always had them and they've always been fantastic family pets. On the other hand, they recently tried to adopt one from a rescue centre and had to give it back after it bit mum - some idiot has already ruined that poor dog.
otolith said:
Mostly viscous owners, I think, resulting in vicious dogs.
GSDs used to have a bad reputation, but my folks have always had them and they've always been fantastic family pets. On the other hand, they recently tried to adopt one from a rescue centre and had to give it back after it bit mum - some idiot has already ruined that poor dog.
YEP --- quote from a TV program (Dog Borstal) ,and well known dog trainer "no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner". GSDs used to have a bad reputation, but my folks have always had them and they've always been fantastic family pets. On the other hand, they recently tried to adopt one from a rescue centre and had to give it back after it bit mum - some idiot has already ruined that poor dog.
I've got a Cairn Terrier ,who has (IMHO) never been socialised with other dogs. I'd suggest that after an attack by a Staff, he's been shielded from any further dog contact. Result, he's decided that any bigger dog is a threat, and due to his shielding,he's decided that he's got to protect owner from any other dog. After a lot of freedom ,he's now socialising with other dogs. Problem is that due to his trauma with Staffs, any short nosed dog is seen as a threat.
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff