PETA want staffies to be added to dangerous dogs act

[TRIUMPHBULLET]

Signed,shame something can't be done re some of the 'owners'.
A true English breed and they are not natural nasties in anyway.

[durbster]

techguyone said:

I'm with him, this would be a good start, stop the scum/chavs/muppets from breeding the lovely little cute staffies from biting babies heads off.

Breeding at both extremes should be addressed equally.

The backyard breeders trying to make a few quid can be awful, but some of the dog show types who are breeding (and in-breeding) their dogs specifically to fit some ridiculous ideal at the expense of the dogs health is worse, as they're causing damage that can last generations and means dogs are born into suffering.

[Jasandjules]

Whilst I don't like tiny dogs as a rule, staffies tend to be lovely little things, cute and friendly.

Signed.

[anonymous-user]

Thx for signing everyone.

Agree with everyone else it's the idiots who think theyre good for their tough image that aRe the problem, whereas anyone that knows staffies knows that they are one of the few breeds recommended as child friendly. They used to be known as the nanny dog for that reason.

I also agree about the kennel club but the staffie doesn't suffer like some breeds, but you only have to look at the type of person that shows dogs to see why it's ridiculous.

My staff is a rescue (and my next one will be). Soft as anything and scared of everything (I suspect he was abused) so to say hes dangerous because of how he looks is ridiculous. But then again so is PETA.

[Glasgowrob]

can we not ban loony lentil eaters instead?

[LotusMartin]

Signed. PETA - bunch of loonies. How they ever got 'charitable status' is beyond me.

[Lazermilk]

xstian said:

ctdctd said:

They want to take it a bit further than Staffies.

"And it’s not just pit bulls and Staffies. PETA is opposed to all dog breeding, and we support any legislation that stops this cruel and exploitative practice."

Source:-
https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/why-peta-supports-bre...

Oh, and petition signed!

I'm not sure if this legislation is the right one but to be honest I'm opposed to all uncontrolled dog breeding.

Something needs to be done to control dog ownership. Stopping people breeding there dog at home would be a good start.

I heard here in Austria it is now illegal for just anyone to breed and sell dogs, there is at least registrations etc and also the dog is kind of treated as a product in a way, so if there are expensive vet bills etc for something like up to two years old you can claim them back from the breeders!
Not sure if this is a European thing or just in Austria, it was mentioned by someone I was speaking with recently so have no links to post unfortunately.

Also - Signed the petition, know some very nice staffies, always down to the owners who raise them that causes the issues you read about. Arent they known as the nanny dog or similar due to their gentle nature with kids?

[otolith]

The "nanny dog" claim is often made for pit bulls, too. Would be interesting to see where it comes from.

PETA do not believe that we should have pets. At. All.

They are an appalling organisation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/p...

[QuickQuack]

Signed.

Not a Staffie fan (love and used to have Irish red setters), but as above, it's some of the owners that are the problem, not the Staffies. Breed specific laws are just stupid and don't deal with the root cause.

[Blue383]

Signed.

Staffies are gorgeous dogs with a lovely nature. However there are a few owners I could do without who spoil there good name

[durbster]

I'm sure all those who signed have seen that this was debated and the Government said there are no plans to add Staffies to the DDA.

HM Government said:

To reiterate what I said earlier, the Government have no plans at all to add the Staffordshire bull terrier to the prohibited list.

I've just read the transcript of the debate and there's some talk of revising the laws around dangerous dogs, particularly with regard to breed specific legislation. The general feeling is the act was brought in too quickly and wasn't that well thought out, so should be looked at.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-16/d...

My favourite bit which echoes my thought above:

John Spellar said:

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Before she moves on, I must say that I find it surprising that we give any credence to that ridiculous organisation.

[Lazermilk]

durbster said:

I'm sure all those who signed have seen that this was debated and the Government said there are no plans to add Staffies to the DDA.

HM Government said:

To reiterate what I said earlier, the Government have no plans at all to add the Staffordshire bull terrier to the prohibited list.

I've just read the transcript of the debate and there's some talk of revising the laws around dangerous dogs, particularly with regard to breed specific legislation. The general feeling is the act was brought in too quickly and wasn't that well thought out, so should be looked at.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-16/d...

My favourite bit which echoes my thought above:

John Spellar said:

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Before she moves on, I must say that I find it surprising that we give any credence to that ridiculous organisation.

Great news

[gareth_r]

otolith said:

The "nanny dog" claim is often made for pit bulls, too. Would be interesting to see where it comes from...

1. Dog fighting was a working class "sport". If you lived in back-to-back terraces or a tenement, you wouldn't have kennels. You might have a small yard, if you were lucky. You wouldn't want a dog that was likely to savage your children.

2. Bets were placed on dog fights. The fight took place, under strict rules, in an enclosure (pit), in which were two dogs, two handlers, and a referee. Any dog that attacked the people, not the other dog, was disqualified, so it wouldn't last long and wouldn't pass on its temperament to the next generation.

3. Successful fighting dogs were sold, and would frequently pass to new owners. That's why "proper" bull terriers are so friendly to humans, even strangers. A breed with a distrustful "guard-dog" temperament wouldn't be much use to the new owner.

Edited by gareth_r on Saturday 21st July 14:51

[Rumblestripe]

They are looking at the wrong end of the lead.

Pleased to see this has been chucked out. PETA are...

...shakes head...

[alabbasi]

I'm surprised to hear this and saddened. It's always the owner and never the dog. Staffs like Pitbull Terriers are strong dogs and tend to attract idiots who use them for intimidation. It doesn't take a lot idiots to create a problem and when there is, hysteria takes over.

I had a Pit Bull Terrier for 8 years. He was a street dog and I found him near the warehouses where I kept my cars back then. There are lots of abandoned dogs in that area and I picked up a big mastiff mix a couple of years later.

He could be dog aggressive, the breed is known for that and if they're not socialized, there can be problems. He was super sweet to anybody that came in contact with him. Tail is always wagging, super affectionate. It was cuddling with a body builder. The only time he got aggressive with people was if he was on one side of the fence and the other guy was on the other. This his protective instinct would take over and he would protect his back yard.

That's probably where the nanny dog reputation came from and I heard from many owners who would say that they would keep their kids and grand kids in the yard with their dogs and never worry about anything happening to them. I lost him to cancer a couple of years ago and it was one of the saddest days of my life.

Pits and Staffs are super strong dogs, they have a lot of energy and require a responsible dog owner. They're not a dog for everybody. I had to stop walking mine because idiots would walk their dogs off the leash and while I was able to control my dog, I was not able to control some other idiots dog that would run up to it. Lots of cities in the US have leash laws unless you're in an enclosed dog park. Every time i'm in England and go for a run in a park, I'm amazed at how many dogs are running off the leash.

Here's a video of Billy (my pit) playing with Benny, my mastiff mix who I also found in the same area a couple of years after I found Billy. Happy days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT5jrFapG50

Edited by alabbasi on Monday 23 July 06:24

[otolith]

gareth_r said:

otolith said:

The "nanny dog" claim is often made for pit bulls, too. Would be interesting to see where it comes from...

1. Dog fighting was a working class "sport". If you lived in back-to-back terraces or a tenement, you wouldn't have kennels. You might have a small yard, if you were lucky. You wouldn't want a dog that was likely to savage your children.

2. Bets were placed on dog fights. The fight took place, under strict rules, in an enclosure (pit), in which were two dogs, two handlers, and a referee. Any dog that attacked the people, not the other dog, was disqualified, so it wouldn't last long and wouldn't pass on its temperament to the next generation.

3. Successful fighting dogs were sold, and would frequently pass to new owners. That's why "proper" bull terriers are so friendly to humans, even strangers. A breed with a distrustful "guard-dog" temperament wouldn't be much use to the new owner.

Perhaps so, but did they call them "nanny dogs" or is that just something that the internet has invented and applied to whatever breed was being vilified that week?

[chris4652009]

Signed


they are looking at the wrong end of the lead for the problem imho

[gareth_r]

otolith said:

gareth_r said:

otolith said:

The "nanny dog" claim is often made for pit bulls, too. Would be interesting to see where it comes from...

1. Dog fighting was a working class "sport". If you lived in back-to-back terraces or a tenement, you wouldn't have kennels. You might have a small yard, if you were lucky. You wouldn't want a dog that was likely to savage your children.

2. Bets were placed on dog fights. The fight took place, under strict rules, in an enclosure (pit), in which were two dogs, two handlers, and a referee. Any dog that attacked the people, not the other dog, was disqualified, so it wouldn't last long and wouldn't pass on its temperament to the next generation.

3. Successful fighting dogs were sold, and would frequently pass to new owners. That's why "proper" bull terriers are so friendly to humans, even strangers. A breed with a distrustful "guard-dog" temperament wouldn't be much use to the new owner.

Perhaps so, but did they call them "nanny dogs" or is that just something that the internet has invented and applied to whatever breed was being vilified that week?

The epithet is pre-internet, and pre-DDA.

[otolith]

Doesn't seem to be a phrase which has ever been used in the Google literature archive.



Someone, albeit someone with an obvious axe to grind, spent some time trying to find the origins of the phrase here;

http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2010/08/...

I think it's a fairly recent bit of propaganda which has become an urban myth.