RSPCA

Weapon of Choice?

Post: Aggressive behaviour in dogs – does the blame lie with the dog or its owner? by RSPCA

Weapon of Choice? 12:28 p.m. | Thu 27 Nov 2008
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Stumbleupon

Comments

GemmalGD June 26, 2010 at 12:57 a.m.

Well, it really depends on the owner, and the dog itself. Mostly however, i would agree on the fact that it is the owners fault, as a dog is affected by how its owner treats it. If the dog is naturally more aggressive then who is to blame? As the owner may not have the capability to change its personality.

Link to this comment
Rachel1992 April 20, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.

I was walking though a town centre the other day, and saw a man walking a 3 legged rottie with the most horiffic burns and a small staffy pup clearly covered in cigarette burns. THis owner, however, clearly doted on his rescue friends, and explained the amount of work he had put into the rottie after she had been abused all her life. It was nice to see someone really doing something good for these dogs.
Back to the point that any dog can bite - my sister(9) was bitten by a cocker spaniel quite recently. My mum blames the owner, and is someone who also believes that targetting a specific breed is not right. My mum's friend also required nearly 100 stitches after being bitten by a bermese mountain dog.
I would like to see Section One of the Dangerous DOgs Act repealed and a complete overhaul, to get a more sound law. Owners who use their dog to intimidate should have the dog confiscated and punished, maybe the most effective way would be to ban them from owning another. More education is needed for owners, a dog owner suitability test sounds like a good idea, and compulsive microchipped could help prevent many problems. People need to remember that any dog is a dog, regardless of breed, and that all have teeth and can bite, and they are unpredictable. Children need to be kept safe, and need to be taught how to judge the way a dog is feeling and to back of when a dog is showing signs of having enough attention. Teaching a child that a dog wagging its tail is happy and friendly is wrong, and a wagging tail can be indicated other feelings. Children should also never be left unsupervised with ANY dog.
These are a few sites and articles which may be of interest:

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5388/fatal-dog-attacks-why-lessons-are-not-being-learned/

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/636/baby-killed-by-labrador-puppy-is-named/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/DDA-Watch/366883744658?ref=ts

http://www.ddawatch.co.uk/

Please judge the deed and not the breed and stop the wrong people getting hold of any dogs.

Link to this comment
Rachel1992 April 20, 2010 at 8:06 p.m.

I really think that the blame generally should lie with the owner. Dogs used for fighting often suffer awful abuse at the hands of their owners, including one case which I have seen, which involved a Rottweiler being beat with a stick that had had nails forced through it. That dog was actively encouraged to be aggressive and go to attack people and dogs. Any dog has the ability to bite, they all have teeth. Pit Bulls and so called fighting dogs are different from other dogs in the fact that they are bigger and more powerful, but that does not stop them being fantastic family pets. However, education is needed. No dog can be fully trusted ever, and so should never be left alone with children. ALl the dog deaths in the UK have happened when the dogs owner was not around and they were all family pets. To judge an animal purely on the way it looks and not behaviour is wasting time and money, and many dogs are being seized because of the way they look then having to be kept in secure kennels. More time needs to be spent confiscating actually dangerous dogs and suitibly punishing the owner.
All dogs vary in personality, you can get ill-tempered dogs of any breed.
There are more pit bull terriers in the UK now than when the ban was first introduced, and dog bite victims are increasing. Is this law really effective? By banning something it makes it the biggest, baddest thing someone can have, making it a bigger status if someone gets hold of one. In an interview with a pit breeder in the UK (in which the interviewee's identity was kept sectret), it was found that this breeder was against the repeal. He bred dogs to fill a demand - people came to him asking for 'that banned breed'. If the ban was repealled he would lose custom.
Aggression has been found to have only very little to do with genetics. But it is likely that aggressive dogs will parent aggressive pups - mainly because they are bred for the wrong reason and so pups suffer the same treatment as the parents before them. Poor socialisation, poor training and abuse will all lead to either a dog that is fearfully aggressive. In dog fighting, dogs don't always become fearfully aggressive but become purely fearful and shy away. These dogs are the ones used as bait dogs, to build up other dogs' confidence.
I have met so many lovely staffys, rotties and other so called dangerous breeds. I watched a wonderful site the other day as two staffys played with a stick together, and when it was time to go the owners simply had to say the word and the dogs dropped the stick and ran back to them. Any dog can be aggressive in the wrong hands and any dog can make a fantastic pet in the right ones. Another staffy, I met whilst working in a rescue centre, had had his throat slit be his owner. The dog was still so trusting and well behaved.

Link to this comment
shen March 2, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.

Its the owners fualt! the dog has nothing to do with it.. the owner treats the dog badly its obviusly going to act like that.

Link to this comment
animalrspca February 18, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.

the blame lies with the owners it depends on the state of the owners and the living conditions

Link to this comment
Thumper February 16, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.

Neither should be blamed completely. That's a generic, closed-minded assumption as every person and every dog is different.

When adopting a dog, it's a good idea to do the research on where it came from and what breeds are in it's genetic path. If it has generally aggressive ancestors then it may be aggressive itself. Of course, it's wrong to stereotype certain breeds - I know someone who owns the friendliest, most gentle rottweiler I've ever known - but as certain breeds are infamous for having behaviour issues, it's good to be aware.

Some people are impatient with their pets, and when pets are mistreated things can go either way; the animal will either be so afraid of their owner it will behave all the time, or the animal will be so angry it will fight back. When an owner shows compassion and treats the dog well chances are the dog will love them back.

Even when an owner and a dog love each other it doesn't mean the dog won't attack. Again, it could be due to the dog or a human. Someone else could treat the dog badly, or the owner might accidentally do something that spooks the dog. Or, there may be something in the dog's nature that just tells it to be aggressive.

It makes most sense to stay away from aggressive breeds altogether when looking for a dog. If a person purposely adopts an infamously dangerous breed of dog, then technically that person is responsible for the consequences, even if the dog is treated well and naturally vicious.

Link to this comment
animalrspca February 10, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.

I blame the owners as they may live in poor conditions in rural areas and should learn to keep the dogs teperament under control

Link to this comment
tressie January 22, 2010 at 1:02 a.m.

wish people just didnt feel the need to buy dangerous breeds...my work collegue is in bits today as her dog has had its throat almost ripped out by a Staffie. When will people show some responsibility and STOP buying this vile breed!

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia January 18, 2010 at 7:02 p.m.

bull breeds and rotties cause a lot of damage and are unreliable and there is plenty of evidence to suport those facts however once they are gone the thugs and thugesses that walk into that hospital everyday and walk away free? of blame would only move on to a different breed
why are they not held responsible for the damage done to the dog I do not understand
haf their necks bitten off ears and what not !!
clearly been on a fight ...and no it was not an accident at all..

and there are many other breeds besides staffies and rotties who are never ever to be trusted

I for one never trust them...

Link to this comment
Sue January 8, 2010 at 10:46 a.m.

Bassa - I AM a mother and a grandmother and I agree with Hannah. The latest highly publicised incident of a child being killed by a fighting breed resulted in a prosecution because it was recognised that the household where the child was exposed to the risk of harm was one in which this type of dog was being bred for either fighting or financial reward. This was not a bona fide breeder, but a backstreet operation. There are thousands of similar households on estates all over Britain. As a mother, I feel the same as anyone else about the death of an innocent child, but just blaming the dog for existing is a cop out. What normal caring parent or grandparent exposes a young child to contact with dogs bred to be aggressive? I feel for the child, not for the stupid people who knowingly and recklessly exposed the child to the risk of harm. A child is only safe in the hands of responsible parents and family members where there are dogs in the home. Even a non aggressive dog can turn if provoked, it doesn't have to be a dangerous breed although dangerous breeds pose more of a risk that the injury will be life threatening. My dogs are both very docile, but I never allow my grandsons to be around them unless I am there and supervising. If I had a dangerous breed in my home, the precautions I would take to protect my grandsons would be much more stringent. Where were the responsible adults in the home where the latest child to hit the headlines died? Why was the dog allowed near the child in the first place? Surely this was a serious error of judgment on the part of the adults, not only in breeding dangerous dogs on the premises to begin with but in then not ensuring that the child could visit and stay there in safety.

Link to this comment
tressie December 2, 2009 at 12:30 a.m.

Ive yet to see anyone with intelligence who owns one of these dangerous breeds. It seems dangerous breeds attract stupid people which is an obvious result. Kennel Club YOU are to blame !!!

Link to this comment
bassa November 26, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.

Hannah you clearly arnt a mother. Pit breeds are dangerous

Link to this comment
Hannah67 November 23, 2009 at 9:33 p.m.

Londiniumgaia- I disagree, I am a little more open-minded than that. I'd be very angry if anything like that happened to my child, but I wouldnt judge the breed of dog. The same applies to if my child was hurt by someone of a different colour skin.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia November 20, 2009 at 11:55 p.m.

HEAR HEAR ! Shep 1

my heart goes out to all those inocent dogs that never asked to be born nor bred in this manner but unfortunately facts stare us in the face ....
if it was their children they would change their minds pretty fast I asure you !!

Link to this comment
shep1 October 18, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.

Not DEFINATELY with the owner. Pit breeds are fighting breeds and the staffie as a pit breed will attack. Ive seen four children in the last month disfigured for life by the family pet a staffordshire bull terrier, the so called 'nanny dog' In a country where dog fighting is prohibited its high time pit breeds of all types were also prohibited. It would be far easier to only have to deal with injuries from illegal breeds as the numbers would be vastly smaller.I work in facial surgery by the way.

Link to this comment
maren October 9, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.

Definitely with the owner! I know, just like humans some dogs are more prone to aggression than others, but if dogs only know aggression from their owner that's what you get back. I recently saw just such an example when I was walking my friend's dog. A man was walking with 2 Staffs and one of them immediately became aggressive towards my friend's dog without any provocation. The owner's reaction to the dog was so aggressive that it's no wonder the dog reacted like that. Staffs are lovely, playful and friendly dogs by nature but if they are brought up knowing nothing but aggression then that's what they'll show

Link to this comment
dpinn1 October 4, 2009 at 7:35 p.m.

I own a dog and i know that the owners personality reflects on the dog. It all depends how responsible you are with your dog and how much you love it. Proper training needs to be taken when something is out of hand. I've met a rotwiler who is lovely so tame and nice. However i do know some breeds are naturally aggresive and should never be aloud out in public (especially around the young) and will need a muzzle unless it has been trained by an expert.

Link to this comment
tattooedgirlie September 20, 2009 at 11:50 p.m.

PETA NEEDS YOU!!
Come participate in a fun, one-of-a-kind demonstration on Saturday, 3 October, to urge Selfridges to stop selling foie gras
To create foie gras - French for "fatty
liver" - up to 2 kgs of a mixture of grain, maize and fat is pumped into
the stomachs of ducks and geese through a pipe two or three times a day for
three weeks. As the birds' livers become diseased and expand to up to 10 times
their normal size, the animals become sick, and many are unable to move. The
pipes sometimes puncture the birds' throats, which may cause them to bleed to
death.
Foie gras production is banned in the UK and more
than a dozen other countries. More than 60 per cent of Britons believe that foie
gras sales should also be banned. Not one supermarket will sell foie gras in
the UK. Foie gras has also been pulled from the shelves of House of Fraser,
Prince Charles has banned it from Royal menus and the Pope has denounced it as
cruel.
We'd like to make this demonstration as
large and noticeable as possible. Won't you please join?
The demonstration will take place outside Selfridges at 400 Oxford Street at 11 am and last for 30 minutes. However, we will meet in a location close to (but not in front of) Selfridges at 9:45 am sharp to talk through the event.
Our goal is to get 100 compassionate people out for this eye-catching demonstration. Each participant will be given a duck mask to represent the ducks and geese who are used to make the fois gras sold at Selfridges. Some people will also hold signs, while others will distribute leaflets.
It's important that you please RSVP writing to RoseG@peta.org.uk with "Birdie" in the subject line of your e-mail. The meeting location, dress code, lyrics of the chant, instructions on the dance and other fun details will be sent (to people who RSVP) closer to the date of the demonstration.

Link to this comment
Sue September 18, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.

Hi Bilbo, Poppy and Hannah. It is good that we seem to be coming up with answers. Bilbo, if a muzzling law included all dogs, then I would muzzle both mine in compliance because I am generally a law abiding person. I don't know how far you have read back on this thread, but I have already mentioned previously that my greyhound X is already muzzled on walks because of her tendency to pick up anything disgusting she finds and eat it. It is sad when people see the muzzle and walk around her, giving her a wide berth, or picking up their small dogs and clutching them protectively as if my Mollie is about to savage them. It is also sad to see the fear on childrens faces - all because she has a muzzle, and yet, she is the most friendly and docile dog you could ever hope to meet. But I have my reasons for doing what I do, and in the long run, it is best for the dog. My border collie is also the most gentle of dogs so it would break my heart to have to muzzle her, but I would do it if it was the law. Poppy, you may well be right that a muzzling law would only work if it applied to everyone. If it only applied to pit breeds then we could have all sorts of arguments about what is and what is not a pit breed. However, the thing which for me makes a muzzling law an ideal solution is the fact that if it was implemented gradually it would be relatively practically and financially viable. If all dogs had to be muzzled from the outset, the court system would be absolutely inundated with fines/prosecutions within the first month, and the system would quickly get clogged up, meaning that more staff would have to be employed at greater cost, funding for which is not readily available. So I suppose what I am saying is that if initially the law was limited to only certain dogs, then yes, there would be fines for non compliance and prosecutions either for non compliance or failure to pay the fines, but they would be relatively managable. The risk if you apply the law to all dogs immediately is that you open the floodgates and the system would struggle to cope. This would mean possibly that the law would become a laughing stock before it even got properly off the ground. The thing with laws is that they have to be possible to properly enforce, otherwise they are like dogs without teeth (excuse the expression). And anyway, you can't muzzle some dogs because they don't have snouts. Hannah too is right that educating people is important because dog owners who muzzle their dogs in public will not keep the dog muzzled in the home and are generally off their guard there. Some parents expose their children to many dangerous substances in the home, cigarette smoke, drugs, alcohol etc without giving it a second thought. Sad to say that many in our society DO need educating about how to keep their children safe, and this education should include safety around the family pets.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 September 16, 2009 at 6 p.m.

I think we are coming up with some good solutions. Muzzling, regulated breeding. I think another point that is not often mentioned is education, and status dogs!
Regulated breeding may result in a decrease in dogs used for status purposes.
Muzzling is a good idea - but lots of dog attacks happen in the home. So how could these incidents be reduced? Probably by better educating dog owners - a lot of whom don't seem to have a clue about how to care for dogs, and how to care for their family around their dog/s.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 September 16, 2009 at 5:33 p.m.

Bilbo, I couldnt agree more with you on the difference between a dog fight and an attack. I too have witnessed a staffie attack. It stays with you doesnt it? It was my own dog that was attacked.I must admit I didnt really know of the difference between attack and dog fight before but as Sue says dogs resolve issues with a fight. With a pit breed attack everyone who witnesses says the same thing there is NO fight and nothing precipitates it. I also agree with compulsary muzzling as a way to save our pets lives and would comply even though I know my dog doesnt need one. It would only be effective if EVERYONE had to muzzle.We do need to bring the population of dangerous breeds of dog down in this country.

Link to this comment
bilbo September 15, 2009 at 10:03 p.m.

I would comply with a muzzling law for ALL breeds including my non aggressive border collie if it saved lives which it would. Sue you make some valid points. A lot of these dogs will not find homes which is very sad. The dogs didnt ask to be born which brings me back to the view that breeding dangerous breeds is cruel to all dogs

Link to this comment
Sue September 15, 2009 at 10:51 a.m.

Hi Bilbo - I too hope I never have to witness what you have seen. Obviously it is difficult for me to visualise a situation where a SBT would just approach and attack another dog for absolutely no reason but you have seen it and I have not, so I have to accept what you say. I have made the point many times that in my opinion (and it is only my opinion) SBT type dogs are being overbred in this country to feed what seems to be a growing demand for them, and although I have never supported a ban (on the basis that I don't think it would be effectively policed and enforced and therefore would not work), at the same time, I see no point in the excessive breeding of this (or indeed any other) type of dog. Dog shelters where I live are full of Staffie X dogs which the staff are struggling to rehome. Because of bad press (deserved or not) and out of caution, the rescue centre staff are wary of rehoming these dogs with young children and often other pets. This rules out a good percentage of potential homing opportunities for the dog, so even though the individual dog may be completely docile, it will stand far less chance of ending up in a home than many of the other available breeds. So why on earth do we need to breed more of them? But then why do we need to breed ANY more dogs at all. The animal shelters are full of all breeds save for the most obscure ones. If all pit type breeds had by law to be muzzled, maybe some of the people who have these dogs for the wrong reasons would think twice. And the responsible owners might feel a bit miffed about muzzling their pets but if they are responsible they will do it. I have thought a lot about this and don't think all dogs should have to be muzzled, but pit breeds certainly, and this could then be extended if it had to be. This would not go as far as the ban some people want, but it would address the problem to a degree which is cost effective and realistically viable. In addition, it does not have to take forever to implement this sort of law, because the police or the local authorities via the dog wardens (or both) could be given power to enforce a muzzling law. These officers are already in place.

Link to this comment
bilbo September 14, 2009 at 10:02 p.m.

Hello Sue, I completly agree with a law on compulsary muzzling . The reason I agree is because from what I saw and from accounts off other people with this particular breed there is NO fight. The dog I saw killed hadnt even turned round so had no dispute with the staffordshire bull terrier and people who ive spoken to who have witnessed these attacks say the same. Sue I do understand that dogs may resolve disputes with a fight and have witnessed this too. It is NOT the same as a dog attack believe me. Once seen never fforgotton. The stafordshire bull terrier like the pit bull holds its victim and shakes it till it dies. There is no fight.The vets say the dog is in shock from the grip so ouldnt fight,it doesnt even try to escape...shock.I didnt know the difference between a fight and an attack until I witnessed this and I hope you never do it is truly horrendous and an experience nobody or dog should have to go through.For the life of me I cannot see the point to breeding family pets that are unsafe

Link to this comment
Sue September 14, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.

Hi Bilbo - You are right that the police only have power to order a dog to be destroyed if it is a banned breed or if the victim of the attack was human. There is currently no law which mandates that a dog which attacks another dog should be destroyed. You are also 100% correct inn saying that as a family member, the loss of a beloved pet is devastating. I have said already how lucky I feel not to have experienced this, but when I think of my two gentle girls being savagely attacked by a vicious dog not under the control of the owner, just the thought makes my blood boil, so the reality of having to see that happen would be horrific beyond words. The problem with dog on dog attacks is that it is recognised the world over that attacking another dog is a dog's natural way of resolving disputes over anything and everything. I suppose some dogs are more predisposed to attacking than others, who will just give a warning growl, but usually, if warnings are not heeded, most dogs will go in for a fight. As we know, some dogs are stronger and tougher than others and better equipped for the fight, so those dogs inevitably come out the victors. It is unutterably sad for the poor dog who is the victim, possibly the blameless and innocent victim, and for the dog's family. But dog attacks and fights are generally seen as normal behaviour for dogs, so when you seek to regulate this behaviour, what basically you would be saying that a dog should not behave as a dog, and that if it does, it should be destroyed. I am not trying to demonstrate any lack of sensitivity, because I really do feel for anyone who has been placed in the position of losing a beloved family pet. In the cases where people have had their family pets savaged to death, they will have been powerless (in the absence of a lethal weapon at their disposal) to do anything about it. But we can't get away from the fact that if two dogs have issues, the natural canine instinct is to resolve it with a fight. This to humans is uncivilised and we punish it, but for dogs it is normal. We have domesticated dogs to the point where the majority of family pets will not give in to the instinct to fight unless there is no choice, but for some dogs, that instinct sometimes proves too powerful at times. Yet still it is their natural instinct, and how far do you take it? I am convinced that one of my cats which went missing was set upon by a local dog and killed. I can't prove it, but would it be reasonable for me, if I could prove it, to demand the destruction of that dog? Society values human life above that of animals, and this is why the law gives humans greater protection. Compulsory muzzling of certain breeds is a possible answer and prosecution of the owners should an unmuzzled dog in that category attack. There will always be those who don't care and break the law, so it wouldn't eliminate attacks, but it could reduce them.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 September 14, 2009 at 1:21 p.m.

Bilbo – Ok that is fair enough, the fact that you have given me evidence to show that the dogs records had been checked by the police. You are right about my comparison between dogs killing dogs and humans killing animals... it was a bit off subject, but for me, thinking about things like this shapes my view on the way that animals should be fairly treated. You are right, I do not currently own a dog (I don’t think you just assume that though just because of my comment, and you could have been wrong because I could have owned a dog) I have owned 2 in the past, and due to work commitments I’m unable to own another right now, but will do when I am able to. There are 7 to 8 million dogs in the UK, and I am surprised that more dogs are not killed by other dogs. If you can say that it is natural behaviour for a staffie to want to attack other dogs, then I think it is fair to say that ANY dog has the potential to attack another dog – and they do on a regular basis. It is natural behaviour for dogs to want to defend their territory, their pack leader (in most cases the human) and themselves if they feel under threat – which, in a lot of cases, they do. A lot of dogs suffer from anxiety, and in a lot of cases this is only in the mild form, and this is usually due to poor socialisation and a lack of and inconsistent training. Anxiety is, I feel, one of the main reasons for attacks on other dogs and humans.
I agree with you that a dog is part of the family – in our cases. But there are also thousands of dogs that are abused, and are only owned for status reasons; so could you really say that these are ‘part of the family’?
Please confirm which other breeds you think are ‘dangerous’ and why?

Link to this comment
bilbo September 14, 2009 at 1:39 a.m.

Hello Hannah, The police saw the pedigrees of the dogs that attacked. The police can only destroy the dogs if they are a banned breed unless the attack is on a human.This is why they see the pedigree to determine the breed.It is ridiculous to compare dog on dog killings to eating animals.I can only assume you must not own one. If you did you would understand a dog is not just an animal it is a family member. Losing a dog to a murderer is a horrific experience. I forgive your ignorance if you are Not a dog owner. I dont think you would make that comment if you were.Regulated breeding sounds good. I feel we need to get the numbers of certain breeds down and raise the numbers of less aggressive breeds too

Link to this comment
Hannah67 September 13, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.

Bilbo – Your quote “Nobody really cares anymore that we can’t buy pitbulls and as soon as one breed is eradicated another breed is created so we will never run out of choice but its time we chose safe breeds” – this to me is a slight contradiction, and also highlights the main problem – humans. I’d also like to know how you know that the dogs which attacked in your area are purebreds? Did you see their pedigrees?
I’d ALSO like to know what you think classes as a dangerous breed? Unfortunately, dogs killing dogs is only ‘natural’ behaviour, except it is displayed in an unnatural environment. Animals kill other animals, and in each lifetime, the average meat eater will consume 800 animals – is this ok? Humans have evolved dogs into what they are today, that does not mean it is OK for humans to then dictate which dogs should be destroyed, which dogs should be banned, and which breeds should be eradicated.
I’d like to mention that the Rottweiler is a breed I am extremely fond of, I don’t have one myself (as of yet) but have one in the family. They are very gentle dogs, but are very loyal, intelligent and eager to please. This means that they can be manipulated easily into what type of canine you wish them to be (personality wise). As they are very strong and quite willful (in particular the male), it is very important that they are properly socialised from pups, and receive adequate and consistent training. So you can see that there is potential disaster waiting to happen when a dog like this is owned by a thug-type.
I agree with Sue that regulated breeding would help with the staffie ‘problem’, they are such an over-bred dog. Regulated breeding carried out by ‘professionals’ will majorly help in cancelling out any negative traits in the breed, such as streaks of aggressiveness towards other dogs. Breeders will also only sell their puppies to worthy owners. It would also make it more difficult for thug-types to get hold of this type of dog. But on the other hand, this could result in breeding of staffies being driven ‘underground’. Along with this possible solution there needs to be more money put into the regulation of breeding. There can’t be a law on breeding without tough and thorough regulation. I’m not sure if you travel to anywhere like London, but if you do, you’re sure to see plenty of bull breeds with chains and studs around their necks, being ‘walked’ by idiots who couldn’t even manage their way out of paper bags. It’s far less effort to raise a ‘bad’ dog than it is a good dog.

Link to this comment
bilbo September 12, 2009 at 4:46 p.m.

Indeed there are loopholes with regard to banning breeds. The dog attacks in our area are from pure bred staffordshire bull terriers. The police will only get involved in cases where there are no pedigree papers for the dog. Doga are allowed to kill other dogs with no penalty so long as these killers are not a banned breed so unless we are going to ban ALL dangerous breeds I think compulsary muzzling and destruction orders on any dog killing another dog should stop these killings which judging by this site are not just in my neck of the woods. Some breeds are just not cut out for the british lifestyle regardless of ownership. I havnt seen any thug types with pit breeds lately but have seen them with rottweilers and they look fierce too though I have only heard of cases in the newspaper where these have attacked children and other dogs. With the Staffordshire bull terrier I feel the death toll of family pets is rising and just not liking the idea of a ban isnt a good enough reason to continue breeding unsafe dogs

Link to this comment
Sue September 11, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.

Hi Bilbo, my comments were not aimed at you. I doubt you have had the time to go through all the previous posts on this thread but there has been quite a heated debate on the subject. My position has always been that although in my area, we do not appear to have a lot of incidents of dog attacks on either human or canine victims, nevertheless I have always agreed that Staffie type dogs are being overbred by people for whom they have become the breed of choice. I am not suggesting that these dogs have become popular solely among thugs who want to use them for fighting, but there is an element of that in some localities. There is also no doubt that the similarity in appearance to the banned breeds is what attracts certain people to want to own them. I do not necessarily agree that these dogs are Staffies, because there appear to be so many variants of the breed these days, some of them no doubt incorporating pit bull. Whilst the pit bull is banned, there are a number still out there on our streets, and I believe they are being bred with staffie type dogs deliberately to maintain a supply of tough looking dogs whilst at the same time getting around the ban. However, I have no proof other than the dogs I see on the streets. You are right in saying that the area where I live is no different to anywhere else. There are better and worse places to live, but I think we could all say that if we were honest. I am in favour of cutting back on the breeding of these dogs, but I think a ban will just drive them underground and I think a law is only ever as good as the will to enforce it. There are so many potential loopholes. The pit bull ban has had some impact on dog fighting but I regularly see dogs on the streets which bear an uncanny resemblance to the banned breed, and these are not staffies, so there is clearly some loophole in the ban which enables variants of the pit bull to remain on our streets. I do not consider it would be any different if staffies were banned, and the cost of implementing the ban would be prohibitive given the popularity of the SBT generally and the fact that the majority of them will live full lives without presenting a problem to society. My 2 dogs lives are not restricted in any way by the presence of SBT's and I feel fortunate never to have experienced any major incidents of aggression involving this breed in my home area. I accept that other people will have different experiences. I just don't think a ban on SBT's is the answer. I think restricted breeding and/or compulsory muzzling may help, but sadly I am not the expert with all the answers.

Link to this comment
bilbo September 10, 2009 at 11:28 p.m.

Hello Sue, Im not sure how your post connects with aggressive dogs but Im sure Rhyl is no different than anywhere else in terms of dog attacks. I didnt say packs of killer canines were on the loose where I live. I just make the point that pit breeds such as the Staffordshire Bull terrier were bred todo what they do. Whenever I hear of a dog attack that is fatal or very very serious it is this breed . I have witnessed one which was heartbreaking . The problem with breed is its ALWAYS there until we the humans do something to stop it. Nobody really cares anymore that we cant buy pitbulls and as soon as one breed is erradicated another breed is created so we will never run out of choice but its time we chose safe breeds so all our dogs can enjoy what is a dogs right. I and many of my doggy friends I have met along the way are not giving our pets the freedom they deserve for fear of attacks by this breed.In todays society where dog fighting is illegal why breed dogs like this.Its cruel and immoral

Link to this comment
Sue September 8, 2009 at 6 p.m.

Well, I'm back, and reading the forum, all I see is the same arguments going round and round again and again. And the personal snipes....well Hannah is right of course. I make an admission that the town where I live is not utopia and all of a sudden someone turns it into a dump!! No area is perfect, Hannah rightly points out that in many seaside towns in the UK which are nightlife hotspots, the beaches become polluted when young couples decide they are good places to congregate and drink, smoke, use drugs or fornicate. But this is not just about Rhyl. I once went to Cyprus to a beautiful beach just out of season and couldn't walk barefoot on it because of a huge ridge of cigarette butts which had been washed in by the tide. And I do not contradict myself, I just accept that there are more opinions out there than my own. There is not a staffie problem in the town where I live, save that there are a lot of them, reflected in their prominence in the local animal shelter. If there is a problem here, it is overbreeding of staffie type dogs. Some years ago there were reports of dog fighting in a nearby castle, but apart from that, I have not been aware of any major dog issues. Most of our social problems here are down to humans, not dogs. Still, if you don't want to come to my home town with your narrow attitudes, then don't. I probably won't miss you. Very few of you paint great pictures of where you live either, just in case it had escaped your notice. Packs of killer canines on the loose waiting to pounce unprovoked on anyone with the temerity to walk their dog, or themselves anywhere near a local park or amenity area - great advert for your home towns I must say! No, I think I'll settle for a bit of harmless litter, which often gets washed away on the next tide anyway - unlike your problem!

Link to this comment
bilbo September 2, 2009 at 10:44 p.m.

I think that aggression in dogs can be caused by the owners in some cases, however with certain breeds no amount of good responsible ownership will ever stop them attacking to kill.Especially the pit breeds.It is in my opinion not the dogs fault because they were bred by humans and the traits they have were created by humans. All breeds were made with a job in mind. The pit breeds job was to bring a bull down by its nose so strength, aggression and the way the jaw can latch on were and still are traits of these dogs. In todays society where bull baiting and dog fighting are illegal why are we still breeding dogs that kill other dogs through no fault of their own.Imagine the heartache and suffering that would be spared if we just stopped breeding dangerous dogs.I have seen a Staffordshire Bull terrier kill a spaniel and it was horrific. Three people could not open the dogs jaws as it gripped and shook its victim. Humans are cruel to carry on breeding these dogs. We cannot blame the breed we need to stop the breed now

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 28, 2009 at 6:20 p.m.

Sammyd – not sure of the exact routine that is carried out, but tests are carried out to make sure the dogs are friendly with other dogs, with cats, with children etc. But most of this would be known already through the history of the dogs, if known. Different dogs will have different ‘testing’. Obviously the more challenging dog will get more thorough testing, and any dogs that are seen as dangerous may be euthanised. Also some dogs are not suitable for rehoming within a family, but are very clever dogs, and these would be analysed by behaviourists/police dog trainers to see if they are suitable for working. I seem to have gone off track now, but the main point is that there are plenty of dog behaviourists about.

Link to this comment
sammyd August 26, 2009 at 7:31 p.m.

yes I was thinking of Caeser... Are these the people who do tests at rescue shelters like taking the food away while the dogs eating etc?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 26, 2009 at 7:17 p.m.

Sammyd – Sorry, yes I did say that breeders are experts, but now after thinking about this for a while, and as I have said in my past few posts, I only think that SOME breeders are experts. Lots are not, because they aren’t really interested in the breed, just money. There are some breeders who will know the SBT breed extremely well (I am repeating myself now). There are also lots of dog behaviourists, many self-taught, and many who have studied at the various canine behaviour colleges scattered around the country. Animal rescue shelters require the use of these people to evaluate the animals they get in. In fact I think that all dogs that are housed at rescue centres will get checked over by some sort of behaviourist before they are considered suitable for re-homing. I think you may be talking about the American Ceaser Milan, but of course he is not the only dog behaviourist! And remember that behaviourists study lots of different theories.

Link to this comment
sammyd August 25, 2009 at 5:37 p.m.

Dog behaviourists may be experts I agree but Ive only heard of one , in america. he claims that in order to rehabilitate aggressive cases he first has to take breed out of them. In the real world who has time and energy to do that and isnt it easier to just Not breed aggressive breeds!

Link to this comment
sammyd August 25, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

hannah you have said in past posts you would like to hear from breeders as they are the experts in staffies. They really arnt!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 20, 2009 at 7:13 p.m.

Sammyd – no I do not ‘truly’ believe that all breeders are experts. I do think that there are a lot of breeders who know the breed inside-out (all breeders should have this knowledge), and these are the ones who understand the genetics of the SBT and their behaviour, and they will strive to ‘produce’ the best healthiest puppies they can with the best temperaments. There are unfortunately also too many breeders who only do it for the money, and a lot of these don’t know much about the genetics of the breed, and also aren’t really interested in the welfare of animals. There is a lot of this type because the staffie is such a popular breed, especially with youngsters in cities. This type of breeding should be stopped. If it is stopped we will see a fall in staffie numbers because it makes up such a large percentage of their population. I’m not sure what you’d class as an expert Sammyd, but I don’t think that you can call someone one of these just because they have owned one. The only reason why I think some breeders are experts is because they NEED to know all about the breed so that they can produce a good quality litter. I’d also say that dog behaviourists are experts, whether they specialise in one breed or many.

Link to this comment
sammyd August 19, 2009 at 8:47 p.m.

I agree poppy, Hannah truly believed that breeders were the experts on Staffies and other dangerous breeds and keeps going on about scientific evidence etc etc. For all the Hannahs out there, there is none the only evidence you will ever see that proves a staffie is a dangerous dog that we should not continue to breed is when you see them attack. This is like no dog fight you ever saw this is a minature pit bull with the same dangers AND anyone who has witnessed an attack and thousands have will know what I mean. Just because not everyone has seen it doesnt prove the dog breed is safe. And another common misconception is that there are thousands of docile Sataffies out there.ALL owners swear their Staffie was docile before they attacked. The problem with this breed is the damage they can do due to inbred aggression and sheer strength. this smallish dog can lift 30 times its body weight. I spoke to a man last week whos rottie is still in the vets has lost a leg and has 90 stitches to torso from a staffie, this so called nanny dog

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 19, 2009 at 8:16 p.m.

unless the breed is banned they just going to carry on breeding, more dogs are going to be killed, more owners are going to be devestated and the shelters are just going to run out of space. There is no law against breeding Staffies. And if you look closely at those puppy ads in the sun there are as man people selling or giving away unwanted 9 month old to 2yrs old and above Staffs with some lie as to why they can no longer keep them. Are these people who have seen the aggression in the breed? We dont know but I imagine the problem with Staffies is going to get worse until the law states it illegal to breed them.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 19, 2009 at 7:31 p.m.

Poppy - I understand that KC registered doesn't necessarily mean the the breeder is definatly responsible. I don't know how you're supposed to tell really. Breeding should be carried on, but it's not necessary for there to be 1500 ads on the sun website for example.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 19, 2009 at 2:24 p.m.

There are far too many of this breed which is why staffie attacks are so regular. I have looked at all places that advertise Staffies as part of my research before, including the Sun.If you study the types of Staffie 'puppies listed under the 1500 or so you will see that there high numbers for rehoming, many over the age of 9 months etc. Also on he Sun you will find a number of Kennel club registerd puppies. These are advertised in a variety of places and i have found that just because they are kennel club registered breeders dont actually know anything more, nor care more about the dangers of the breed or indeed anything much about them at all. The kennel clubs website currently has around 200 registered pups for sale that are ready to go or nearly ready to go. All these dogs carry the same risk .Trouble with you Hannah is that when you see an organisation name such as the rspca or kennel club or hear terms such as accredited breeder you actually believe these are dog experts, wheras in reality its dog owners that are the experts and the majority of dog owners dont want to be among dangerous breeds once they know what a dangerous breed is, sadly always through experience

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 19, 2009 at 7:21 a.m.

If you have a look in puppy adds on The Sun website – there are 1529 adverts for SBT puppies and dogs for sale! The prices range from £150 to £550 ish and some are even free! It needs to be left to professionals – and I don’t think they would advertise their puppies on The Sun website!!
http://www.local.thesun.co.uk/sale/pet/dog/-/pet_breed_staffordshire_bull_terrier/

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 19, 2009 at 7:11 a.m.

Poppy – let me just clarify that even though I said that staffies may have been bred to fight to defend themselves (rather than to ‘enjoy’ themselves), this is just me thinking about other reasons that some may attack. I still don’t believe that all staffies are this way, infact I think the majority aren’t. I really think that there are just too many staffies about, and breeding needs to slow down. If we left breeding to only the reputable breeders, who work to try and improve temperaments, and the general standard of the breed, then not only would we see the SBT population decrease maybe 10 fold, but we’d also see better temperaments, gradually stopping any future attacks. Coupled with this, it would also help to educate children in responsible ownership – as kids using dogs as weapons is a large problem in some areas. A ‘responsible’ and loving owner may want a new puppy, and they might look for the cheapest option (just because they don’t understand about breeding). The cheap puppies usually come from those who don’t know how to properly breed with the dog’s welfare at heart, and so will only be interested in making a bit of money – which the potential owner is unaware of. These types of irresponsible breeders may also be breeding because they want to sell their dogs to people who may want to fight them, or to people who don’t really care about dogs. The dogs that are bred from this type of owner are poorly socialised (which is very important with all dogs, especially strong dogs like staffies), they also haven’t been bred with temperament in mind - sometimes they breed dogs which have been trained to act aggressively. This is when a cute looking puppy can end up in the wrong home. We know that there is an over population by this ‘cheap’ method of breeding – just take a look in Battersea Dogs home.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 18, 2009 at 8:08 p.m.

well I have no scientific evidence that they enjoy fighting but they do LOOK happy . When my dog chases balls she wags her tail and looks perky ears up etc, i SWEAR she smiles! when I hear about staffies attacking its the same story.Indeed the thing I remember when my dog was attacked was their wagging tailsk.. my dogs tail was well between her legs throughout the savage attack. I think you are still unsure of the difference between a fight and an attack which if you never see you will probably never understand. The point you made about them being bred to want to fight to defend I can agree with. For this reason it is best we stop breeding this kind and concentrate on the breeds that dont want to do this. there are lots of good breeds out there

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 18, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.

Poppy – wow something we agree on. I just came on here to write about the fact that it is not right to let any dog fight. I do not believe that dogs enjoy fighting – especially if they are forced into it. Dogs may attack for certain reasons, but we still must try and avoid this at all costs, so to say let staffies fight with other staffies is very cruel.
To your next point, no I do not have scientific evidence. Obviously any dog that attacks another (without being pushed by a human) dog will be doing so out of his own will. Therefor he does want to. But this doesn’t mean that they necessarily ‘enjoy’ fighting. Perhaps it is bred into staffies that they want to fight to defend? I understand that you see this on a somewhat daily basis, but I don’t, all I see is peaceful staffies. So who is right?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 18, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.

And Hannah you have no scientific evidence they dont want to fight and kill. The evidence they do is seen in every park, every town, every vets and every dog shelter.....open your eyes and you shall see nobody needs a test tube

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 18, 2009 at 4:05 p.m.

Kinkii, whilst it is true Hannah has no evidence to prove staffies are a safe breed and i agree with the fact they are dangerous, I dont agree with allowing them to fight with other staffies. The fact is dog fighting is illegal in this country and as such ALL pit breeds should be illegal too. Unfortunatly the kennel club have promoted Staffies as a great little family dog and ignored the point that they are a fighting dog . we are not sold this lie with labs, collies etc and I agree with that. The kennel club will tellyou these are working breeds and what they require. I just dont agree with your comment about allowing them to fight when the answer has to be to stop breeding them .

Link to this comment
kinkiii August 16, 2009 at 11:40 p.m.

And wot are YOU saying lets just let them carry on killing our pets!? labs dont kill or collies dunno bowt rotties they killed kids they need to go. wheres your evidence they safe when they kill

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 16, 2009 at 10:22 p.m.

To all of those who wish for a ban on staffies - where is your SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that staffies, in general, want to fight and kill? And that by not letting them do this we are depriving them?! How can you judge a whole breed like this on your own personal experience?? Is it kinder to not breed labradors because we are not letting them retreive wild game birds? Is it cruel to keep a collie and not let it herd? Are we depriving JRTs for not letting them chase rabbits out of holes, and for not letting a Newfoundland go for a swim, or for a St Bernard to search in snowy mountains? Is it cruel to not let a Rottweiler guard a home or pull a cart?

None of you seem to be saying anything constructive apart from the fact that you know of a staffie/s that has attacked, and that you think they are monsterous. Don't any of you have anything else to say? Do any of you know the science behind the genetics of this breed? Do any of you know how these dogs are bred by reputable breeders? Remember that breeds are constantly evolving - yes staffies were ONCE bred for bull-baiting, the same as labrador retrievers were generally used as gun-dogs.

Link to this comment
kinkiii August 16, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.

I feel sorry for staffs they attack and dont know what they done wrong cos this is what they were bred for. Spend years miserable cos they want to kill and dont get chance. why do people want them for a pet unless they gonna fight them. humans dont undstand that if they get a staff and they dont let it fight its not happy so either stop breeding them is the best idea or if carry on breeding them dont let them near any breed other than their own and let them fight. its all bowt whats best for the animal on here isnt it

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 16, 2009 at 9:03 a.m.

Sammyd, Jojojo, Playdo, lhaso etc I agree it is a breed we need to stop breeding. Lhaso how your story has upset me. it must be heartbreaking for you and yet here you are trying to do what you can to stop others going through what you have. I used to believe dogs were aggressive due to bad ownership but if that were the case it wouldnt always be the same few breeds and having now met a fair few owners of dogs that have attacked i can see its definatly the breed that is dangerous not the owner. Keep up the good work

Link to this comment
lhasso August 15, 2009 at 12:30 a.m.

Anyone who wants to carry on breeding dogs like staffs and the few other dangerous breeds that arnt banned are a disgrace. everyone knows they were bred purely to kill. Ive lost two dogs to staffs they should have been banned years ago they still havnt been banned after the baby was killed by one . The kennel club lie about the breed as do the RSPCA even though their shelters are full of unwanted unsafe to rehome dangerous and lethal dogs. Hope you are all coming to birmingham tomorrow lets get rid of dangerous dogs we dont need them . humans created the problem and humans must get rid of it

Link to this comment
jojojo August 14, 2009 at 10:19 p.m.

firstly is it not yourself and sue who look after staffs in shelters and secondly ive read sues posts and social problems are brought up time and time again in her attempt to blame breed aggression on owners. I am merely pointing out the contradictions made as she says there are NO staff attacks she knows of in a town she describes as having a lot of social problems, Then whn she is challenged on these comments indeed backtracks and says well actually its quite a nice place. this sort of contradiction has been seen in many of sues posts. I talk to a lot of dog owners some of whom have d staffs attacking also staff owners and the vast majority of these decent owners say its a breed not ownership issue. At the end of the day how decent would it be for our dog population if we stopped breeding them. its the dogs i feel for not the bloody breeders

Link to this comment
sammyd August 14, 2009 at 6:09 p.m.

Sue does contradict herself a lot. If you read past posts there are a couple more examples of this. Point is Sue and Hannah want to believe it is an owner problem as oppose to a breed problem but the facts arnt there. Staffies that kill other dogs dont belong to irresponsible owners they belong to people like jojoo . It is true that thugs are attracted to the breed but the reason they are is because the breed is aggressive , dangerous and any idiot can count on them attacking what they want them to because they were bred to fight. of course they are the weapon of choice but for people who wanted a safe pet that doesnt go around killing which is the majority its awful when they realise they are sharing their lives with an unsafe breed. I met a man today whos staffie nearly killed another dog. He said he only walks the dog once a day now and keeps it muzzled. Responsible owner yes but the dog needs more exercise and should never had been born if it cant live like non dangerous breeds. A ban is a good thing for dogs AND dog lovers everywhere

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 14, 2009 at 4:58 p.m.

Jojojo – Don’t be so ridiculous. Sue was merely saying that her town has its problems – its a shame that the beach there has this sort of littering. She didn’t say to what scale. I’d say you could go to plenty of beaches by the town and find that there may be the same problems. A lot of places have alchol problems. Take Newquay for example – alcohol and drug issues, people jumping off cliffs, and no doubt there must be the occasional condom and syringe lying about, and no doubt people will urinate in all sorts of odd places when they are drunk. This sort of thing happens in a lot of places. If you have a seaside resort which is a night time hot spot, then it’s likely that you will find this sort of litter scattered on the beach. I think you are taking everything Sue is taking way to literally. You apply what little knowledge you have and turn that to what you think is the full picture. So Rhyl has a few condoms on the beach etc – must be an awful place to live and not safe for children. My dog attacked and my vet says staffies are nasty. I see a pattern forming here. And again, you are making crazy wild assumptions again! - “No wonder Sue isn’t bothered about dogs attacking”. How did you concoct this one?!

Link to this comment
jojojo August 14, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.

Hannah can you not read??? nappies, condoms ,syringes on the beach!!! alcohol issues,drug issues , people urinating in the street!!! Yes that DOES sound like a horrendous place to live and PLAYDO you are right she did backtrack in the second post yes I presume rumbled about the fact that the majority of staffs would be status dogs living with the druggies and alkies that would explain the vet not seeing attacks as it is the family pet staffs that are dangerous to dogs. The status ones probably involved in illegal dog fights with each other or set on people etc, This kind of thug behaviour ive seen on tv . No where i live its a breed problem not an owner problem. This is what the govrnment needs to get a grip of. Remind me never to go to rhyl sounds disgusting and dangerous too, what about children on the beach with all the dirty needles. Hannah are you stupid Sue painted a horrific picture of rhyl, no wonder shes not that bothered about dogs attacking having to look at that

Link to this comment
Sue August 14, 2009 at 9:32 a.m.

Playdo - what on EARTH are you talking about? You make zero sense! I've never backtracked, but I do not automatically dismiss the opinions of other people even if I do not hold them myself, and when I accept any point one of the staffie haters makes on this forum, I am accused of backtracking. My stance has always been that I accept that some staffies have been involved in some attacks where people and other dogs have been injured, or in the case of some dogs, worse. But I do not agree with the idea that this means all staffies should be branded killers or vicious dogs, and I do not support the idea of a ban purely on the basis that I don't think it would work. Hannah is right in saying that whenever anyone who does not agree with your views posts on this site, you seem to look for the negatives all the time. Of course the area where I live isn't a perfect utopia. What place in this country is? Just because I accept we have one or two social problems doesn't give anyone any basis to assume that where I live is worse than anywhere else. I have never said that, and frankly, if the problems some of you describe with staffies is nearly as bad as you make out in your localities, then I consider myself very fortunate to be in a neighbourhood which is relatively untouched by this problem. For example, I know the place where Harriet lives. On the whole it is a lovely city. It attracts tourists from all over the world, and rightly so. Like any other city though, it has (mainly on the outskirts) some dodgy areas with the same social problems as anywhere else. Every city in the world has these areas. They are not on public display but they are there. Taking a balanced view, where Harriet lives and where I live are, comparitively speaking, nice areas, but in both cases, there are less salubrious districts. I was surprised to learn that staffies are such a problem in Chester, but as I say, there are some areas around the city where problems of various sorts do exist and I don't discount anybody's opinions of their own area because they know their neighbourhood better than I do. Anyway, you aren't going to have to contend with me for the next 3 weeks because tomorrow I am off to the South of France with my two very excited doggies. This will be their 4th visit and they love it!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 14, 2009 at 7:25 a.m.

Playdo – Yes a lot of them are status dogs, therefor the dog’s welfare is not in the owners best interests. This is what is happening in a lot of cities and towns, and its becoming a larger problem. It’s a bit like the boy who carried around a snake with him so that he could use the snake as a weapon to hurt people, and he did. This was in the news last week I think. This is the same thing that happens all the time with dogs. And the problem will not go away until people change their attitude towards animals. Why has Sue been ‘rumbled’? I’m pretty sure she knows this problem exists too, which is partly what she has been saying the whole time. This is what she says she sees in a lot of her work.

Jojojo – It’s clever how you come up with such wild assumptions. I struggle to keep up a debate with someone that comes up with all sorts of things without knowing the true facts first. You reckon that Sue lives in a ‘horrendous’ place. Well how do you know this? Most towns have a number of problems, and she pointed her town’s problems out. But again you then assume that her town must be awful. Again, you are only listening to negative things and not thinking about the positive. Also who is it that looks after staffies in cages, that talk a lot of rubbish? Who says the majority of responsible dogs owners agree on stopping the breeding of staffies? If this was so, where is the petition? Why hasn’t the breeding been stopped already? Surely to get information like this you’d have to scour up and down the country interviewing people from all walks of life, from different towns, cities and villages to get a wide perspective on the public view. I think you’d find it difficult to find someone in parliament who would take your comments seriously.

Link to this comment
playdo August 13, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.

Shes like BlAIR isnt she !! Talk about backtrack!!! Anyway im sure of one thing where staffs are living in families other breeds are sufferring , ...jojo you are probably right ,if a lot of them are status dogs they wont be seeing the vet...you been rumbled sue. Keep up the good work dog lovers our pets deserve to be safe

Link to this comment
Sue August 13, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.

jojojo - no, believe it or not, it isn't really any more horrendous where I live than it is where most people live. In fact, the part where I live is quite a nice area, save that we do have a council estate close by where sometimes the Council place the occasional problem family. When that happens we get a mini crimewave, petty vandalism, joyriding etc before the family eventually moves on. Mostly though, we live in comparative peace. Yes there are issues, but dogs (apart from a few selfish owners who don't clean up after their pets) are not really a problem here. I am sure that some of the staffies here ARE owned by hooligans as status dogs, just as they may be anywhere else, but a lot are just family pets in family homes with families who don't have a problem with them.

Link to this comment
jojojo August 13, 2009 at 2:02 p.m.

Sounds like a horrendous place you live. with all those fowl people I would imagine the Staffies you do have belong to hooligans who use them as status dogs. Where I live there is no problem with pavement fowling , nor is there needles etc or urinating in public places. Infact all is quite civilised apart from staffs killing other dogs

Link to this comment
Sue August 13, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.

Harriet - as it so happens, I know Chester quite well as I live 30/40 mins down the road from you in Rhyl. Yes, there are lots of staffies in Rhyl. I don't think a day goes by when I do not see at least one staffie being walked around town. And yes, I have to admit that I have never witnessed a staffie attack another dog and seriously injure or kill it. Nobody in the office where I work (about 50 people) has ever seen one either, so I am not in a minority here. My vet has never treated a dog victim of an attack by a staffie, although I accept that there are more vets in the town who might have done. I have never tried to claim that these things don't happen here or anywhere else, but what I am saying is that if it was a large scale problem here, then everyone would know about it, because it would be reported in our local papers for a start, but I would know about it from the contacts I have within the animal welfare/rescue community here. In this town we have drug issues, alcohol issues, all sorts of inner city problems in a smallish seaside town. But the only issues which have been highlighted here concerning dogs is the problem of dog fouling, which is the responsibility of owners to address, and the environmental pollution people here are fining owners who are seen to let their dogs foul without picking up after them. Pity they don't do the same with the humans who urinate in shop doorways, telephone boxes and bus shelters, and who leave syringes, condoms and used nappies on our beach, but that is another story. I am not sure that I or anyone else needs to witness a dog attack to be converted to your way of thinking. If I witness a human attack on another person (which I have to say is far more likely here), it doesn't lead me to the automatic conclusion that all humans love to hurt each other. Some do get a big buzz out of inflicting injury without a doubt, but it doesn't leave me quaking every time I venture out of my front door. I believe our views are all coloured by our own experience of life, and I am only sorry that there seem to be so many people posting on here who have had so many negative experiences. I wish your experience of all dogs was like mine, because I have never feared a dog, I have never felt intimidated by a dog, and dogs of all breeds have always responded warmly to me. My dogs are gentle and friendly and have never had a bad experience with another dog. I try never to assume anything about dogs, but I have never had a bad experience of one. Am I just very lucky?

Link to this comment
jojojo August 12, 2009 at 11:07 p.m.

Theres a lot of rubbish talked on here from people who look after staffs in cages .Try loving one and having to put it to sleep because it was bred to kill

Link to this comment
jojojo August 12, 2009 at 10:58 p.m.

My vet also thinks the breed is dangerous. The majority of responsible dog owners are in favour of stopping breeding staffs which is a positive result..WELL DONE GUYS!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 12, 2009 at 9:47 p.m.

Poppy – Since you have been posting on this blog, have you ever thought of speaking to someone who has had good experiences with staffies, or any vet/nurses who like the breed, or been to a respectable breeder for information? Or will you continue to only pick up on the negative points.
I have to say that I do understand the difference between a fight and an attack.
Attack – to launch an assault on someone. Fight – to engage in battle with eachother.
You keep going on about myself and Sue not witnessing a staffie attack, but what about the fact that you don’t understand that most staffies don’t and will never attack, and don’t have a naturally aggressive behaviour? How about that not being helpful to the debate?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 12, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.

Harriet – Why do you think staffie attacks are such a massive problem in Chester? Is it because there is a large population of the breed here? If so, why is there such a large population? If people know how much of a problem there are, then why are there so many? Where I live, there is a wide variety of dog breeds. I know a few staffies, a few labs, a few spaniels/collies/rotties/other terriers types etc. In my area we don’t seem to have a problem with attacks. I don’t know if you have read any of my previous posts, but throughout my life I have known a LOT of staffies, mainly through my work. Some have been a little aggressive, and if we can see the history of the dogs, then usually they have a reason to be this way. Many staffies that need re-homing undergo thorough testing on their behaviour to make sure they are suitable to be re-homed – and the majority are. The RSPCA I assume is very careful as well to carry out these tests for the sake of the dogs, their new families, and the fact that they would not want to tarnish their reputation for re-homing suitable family pets.
I’d agree with Mags53 that all vets do have their own opinions, and no, they do not all know everything about dogs. If you live in an area where staffie attacks are a big problem, then I am not surprised that your vet dislikes them. If you spoke to a vet where I live, or where there isn’t a problem with over populations of the breed – then you’ll probably find that they like this breed as much as they like any other. It all depends who you speak to.
You are another typical type of person to assume everything. Assuming that all staffies are bad, that vets know everything, that Sue lives in a place where there are no staffies, and that Sue hasn’t got a clue what a dog attack is. How do you know all this?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 12, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.

Also Harriet you are quite right there are one or two people on here that actually havnt witnessed a dog attack and I agree they do not really know what it is. Anyone who has seen a Staffie or any other dangerous breed will realise it is NOT a fight. Its not helpful to the debate to not KNOW the difference between an unprovoked viscious attack that the dog enjoys than a fight.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 12, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.

This I would imagine is true Harriet. Whenever I go to the countryside I never see dangerous dogs such as Staffies so I would imagine this is because the farmers tend to breed the working dogs and the locals have them as pets.However everyone I know all over the country has come across the breed in large numbers.My vet tells me they are attacking and killing dogs nationally but some areas more than others. the point is whilst staffies like other dogs they love to fight so that is why they look so happy when they attack its like the sniffer dogs love finding the scent , the sheepdogs love herding the sheep etc etc. This is why fighting breeds need banning, they cant live amongst other dogs and in some cases children and people.

Link to this comment
harriet August 12, 2009 at 2:22 p.m.

ALL very interesting Sue. Then where is it you live? Some place where Staffs dont live ??? My Aunt lives somewhere where she has never seen a Staff, out in some quiet country village where the majority of dogs are locally bred lab/ collie mixes. Would imagine the vet there may treat the odd minor fight too. See any dog might need the odd stitch from a fight but a staff attack is different you are looking at surgery ,intensive care and months of treatment IF the dog survives. I think you havnt a clue what a dog attack is. It isnt a fight and if your vet hasnt seen one then you must have very few staffs in the area that have not attacked. I live in Chester its a huge problem where I am

Link to this comment
Sue August 12, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.

Harriet - My vet wouldn't go out of business if staffies were banned, because I think I keep him in profits on my own, and he really does know how to charge!! He would just love you, elevating him to God status - it isn't what I call him!!! More seriously though, and as Mags says, all vets are different. My vet worked with wild dogs in the Yemen for a while so he knows about dogs, but when I asked him casually last week, he couldn't tell me that he had ever treated a dog attacked by a staffie, although he had treated minor fight injuries in all sorts of dogs (and cats) from time to time. He's in his late 40's so he isn't a kid just out of veterinary college. All this signifies of course is that these dog attacks are not such a problem in this particular area, which also ties in with the fact that I have never known of one happening here. I have always accepted that in some quarters, staffie type breeds are identified by some people as a major problem, but I also think it is easy to lose perspective and objectivity when you have been personally affected by something like this. People on this site can describe 7 or 8 instances where staffies have attacked. I know roughly 12 families who have owned, or do own staffies which are extremely docile. What does that tell us? The answer is, it tells us nothing except that you can't tar the whole breed for the actions of a minority. Just because some of the youths on our local estate rob cars and mug people doesn't mean that the rest of them are exactly the same. If we all generalised in that way, then the list of things we would try to ban would stretch into infinity. I will never understand people who think that the answer to anything we don't like is to ban it! I (and many others) don't like smoking, so let's ban it. I don't agree with some welfare benefits, so let's ban them. But it isn't that simple is it? Calling for a ban is the simplistic answer, the cop out, so we don't actually have to put any time or effort into dealing with the real underlying cause of the problem. It is the lazy way out, and we live in a lazy, throw away society where our pets are expendable if they don't please us. Pity like minded people don't scream for a ban on the hooligans who throw apples at passing cars in my neighbourhood, endangering lives and wreaking havoc. If you asked my neighbours to name the scourge of the community, the answer wouldn't be staffies!

Link to this comment
harriet August 11, 2009 at 10:04 p.m.

yes and they would go out of business if staffs and other dangerous breeds were banned. What a ridiculous comment vets trest the victims of dog attacks every day. They save our pets lives they know which breeds kill and savage .They ARE gods

Link to this comment
Mags53 August 11, 2009 at 9:55 p.m.

Vets all have different opinions about dogs - some hate them, some love them; just being a vet does not mean that they know all about dogs and issues with them - that's like saying your doctor is, by definition, an expert on behavoural problems in thugs and villains!! Vets are not gods - they don't know everything and, shock, horror, some are just out to make money from people who own pet.

Link to this comment
Jimmy-Jen August 11, 2009 at 8:18 p.m.

Somtimes RSPCA.
Dogs have thier own behavior. They could have learned being a weapon from other dogs. Its is horrible in ways to have a bad dog.
But waht about people who have sheds full of pecious things? The could have dogs for that.

Link to this comment
harriet August 11, 2009 at 7:08 p.m.

that makes me a 7th then !!! Ive witnessed 3 staff attacks 2 on dogs, one on a dog AND its owner. It is time people sat up and realised the breed has gone beyond the point of return. No amount of responsible ownership is going to change the nature of a figting breed. Frankly hannah though you want to blame this on what the media blame it on the majority of staffs do ike to attack it is the same as working breeds liking what they do, you cant change the nature of the breed and the nature is unpredictable and dangerous. I have as much right to blog on an rspca site as any other site as i strongly believe in many (not all) but mostly aggression in dogs is a breed problem in that we are still breeding some dangerous dogs.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 9, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.

Jojojo – I feel like you are judging this breed on your own personal experiences. The only reason why there are quite a few people on this site who have been attacked by dogs is that they specifically seek out these types of blogs to air their views. For example, there are 10 main people who are posting on this blog, and 6 of them have been attacked/witnessed an attack by a staffie – does this mean that 60% of people have been involved in attacks with a staffie? I’m not sure where you are all getting your statistics from, and how is it that you say that the ‘status dogs’ problem is not huge? I completely disagree. Any dog used for this purpose means that there is a problem. It means that this dog is not living a decent life, and this dogs welfare is not the priority of its owner. How do you know that the majority of dog attacks stem from loving owners? When you say loving do you mean responsible? Anyone could be loving towards a dog, but not know much about the breed and how to look after it – you can be loving and irresponsible at the same time. If you go to somewhere like London (in certain areas), you will see COUNTLESS numbers of staffies, pit bull types, rottweilers etc being walked around by youths, who blatantly own these dogs to try and frighten people. I do understand that attacks happen in the home too – they can happen anywhere. See if you can work out the percentage of people who have been personally attacked by a staffie in this country. I’m not sure if one vet’s opinion counts, as I am unsure of how personal that opinion is. It would be more helpful to speak to hundreds of vets from all different areas to get a more accurate view.

Link to this comment
jojojo August 8, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.

aLSO FORGET about status dogs being the problem , this is media hype on the whole.The majority of dog attacks are from staffs like mine family pets with loving owners in good homes who bought a staff because it was written of as a good loyal,great for families , nanny dog!!Apart from tv documentaries ive yet to see a thug walking a staff in the street but have heard countless accounts of family staffs savaging other breeds of dog. My own vet says its a huge problem. Suppose a vet isnt a qualified opinion to hannah either.

Link to this comment
jojojo August 8, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.

There are no dog haters on this site.The question is whether aggressive behaviour in dogs is the blame of the owner or the dog. As most people on here agree with you playdo that it is breed then I would ignore hannahs ignorant comments . There are lots of places to blog but the rspca is an important organisation so i would urge all dog lovers that feel strongly about dangerous breeds to continue to have their say as we who witness the attacks ARE THE STATISTICS!!!.iM A DOG LOVER WHO HAS OWNED AND LOVED A STAFF AND WANTS THE BREED OVER WITH FOR GOOD.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 8, 2009 at 10:53 a.m.

Playdo - I agree with Mags53. For all those dog haters on here - you are campaigning in the wrong place. If you really feel that strongly, then take his/her advice. Though you would find campaigning quite difficult seeing as you have little scientific evidence, lack expert opinions, and don't have any statistics - you also appear to not believe that there is a HUGE problem with status dogs -and this is what the councils and mps are going to try and tackle (at some point).

Link to this comment
Sue August 7, 2009 at 9:53 a.m.

Playdo - Whether or not a staffie is a "dangerous" dog has to be a matter for qualified experts rather than individuals with some negative experience of the breed. I do not class myself as an expert in saying that I do not consider staffies to be inherently dangerous and so I accept that I could be wrong. But those who are campaigning for a ban are not accepting that they are wrong, so where is the qualified expert opinion among you? Qualified expert opinion means a vet or other person with formal qualifications in animal behaviour or related field who can give an unbiased and independent view. Mags has a point in that you are appealing here largely to people who love dogs and consider that humans have a lot to answer for in their management of them. I have already said on previous posts that bad management of a dog does not have to mean the owner is not a responsible or good person. It can just be someone who lacks a bit of insight into the psychology of the dog and therefore does not understand how to establish proper control and leadership. The dog might be very well cared for otherwise, but dogs assume control when humans don't, and in my (unqualified) opinion, any breed of dog which thinks it is in control has a greater propensity to be aggressive than a dog which looks up to its owner as master and pack leader. That much at least is down to human management and nothing else.

Link to this comment
playdo August 6, 2009 at 9:48 p.m.

Staffs are bigger problem than pitbulls cos the type of people who own them are ok good owners mostly. At least with pitbulls there was only a few idiots who had them to look hard. staffs are in every street and just as dangrous in good hands as bad

Link to this comment
Mags53 August 6, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.

I don't think that any particular breed of dog should be banned just certain types of people from owning a dog at all. AND, before you "dogs are wicked" crew get going - I'm terrified of stray dogs having grown-up on a council estate in the days when dogs just roamed around in packs. I know that that sounds mad given how many dogs I have now and that I show them and go to places where there are hundreds of dogs - but they are all under control and well cared for. I have witnessed dog fights and attacks on children and adults from all sorts of dogs INCLUDING mongrels (crossbreeds) well before Staffies were a common breed.
AND, all of you wanting to ban dogs - you're not getting anywhere whingeing on a site like this - if you feel so strongly then get yourself elected to your local council/parliamentary seat on a "Dog Ban" ticket - the next election should be an easy time to stand as an Independant and have a chance of doing well.
By the way, are you all sure that the dogs that you refer to as Staffies are Staffies? They are a fairly small breed! 14-16 inches at the withers (shoulder) and weighing no more than 17 kilos - I've seen Staffy types around that are much bigger than this and that are probably nearer to a pit-bull size - 18-22 inches weighing 27 kilos.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 6, 2009 at 6:51 p.m.

Playdo – What is your evidence that the staffie has become ‘the new pit-bull’? How is it that you think you know all about the staffie just because you have been involved in an attack? Do you think they are the new pit-bull because of the type of people that own the breed? How can a breed of dog suddenly become like another breed? Again, you are classing all dogs from this breed as one thing, just because of a few incidents. Is it ok for us to class a certain nationality of people all as terrorists, just because of what we have seen on the news? I know of a couple of people who have been mildly attacked by rottweilers, and this has not affected my opinion of this breed at all – I think they are wonderful dogs. The dogs involved were used as guard dogs, so I can’t blame them at all. Also how can you say that people such as myself who love ALL breeds of dog are not true dog lovers. Doesn’t make any sense to me!

Link to this comment
playdo August 6, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.

I said the breed is filth. yeh im a dog lover but i want dangerous dogs banned so we the dog lovers can give our dogs a better life. my gran is blind and cant go out without her guide dog. you lot who dont want to stop breeding staffs now arnt dog lovers at all.We cant even get the staff put down that attacked my grans dog and when its better it mite not be able to work , Most people on here are decent dog lovers that want the pit breeds and other dangerous dogs banned so dont come on here calling them cos they get off there bums and do something instead of you sat there calling them

Link to this comment
Sue August 6, 2009 at 3:46 p.m.

nicky - you are right and I agree with you, but you are wasting your time trying to get your points across to some of the people posting on this thread. Staffies are popular pets these days. I agree they are not the new pit bull but they have attracted a following among the thug element now that pit bulls are not readily available because they look similar. This has done nothing to enhance their reputation. Millions of staffies live peacefully in millions of homes with no aggression and no incidents. But all it takes is a small number of incidents involving them, and they are in the eyes of some the new serial killers of the dog world which must be stamped out at all costs. One post refers to them as "filth". Well I suppose I can't make too much of that since this is pretty much my sentiment about people who mistreat animals, but a person who refers to an entire breed of family pet as "filth" blatantly obviously is not a dog lover!

Link to this comment
nicky86 August 5, 2009 at 7:05 p.m.

Staffies are not the new pit bulls. Where is the hard evidence for this? Are there up to date, Uk statistics by breed stating what you are saying? I doubt it, although I am not 100% certain. (please add link if there are)

Peoples views are based on experience and while I fully accept that a number of people have had bad experiences this does not mean that the whole breed behaves in the same way.

I AM a caring person and a responsible dog owner. I'm not some chav with my staffie to look hard.

Link to this comment
playdo August 5, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.

nice work jojo, people like you are good and caring. good people have had enough of this breed its time they stop cant even go to the beach without having to hold onto my dog now, some girl got her leg chewed last month. staffies are the new pit bulls and theres loads more of them and they are living in every street in every town.ban the filth now

Link to this comment
nicky86 August 5, 2009 at 10:08 a.m.

What is the evidence base for it being the breed itself?

Link to this comment
jojojo August 4, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

My story is to prove the breed is to blame and not the owner. What happenned to my neice only happens with dangerous breeds. Also ALL dogs are humanised except ones kept in shelters or reared in kennels You havnt seen an attack. It is NOT a fight.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 4, 2009 at 7:23 p.m.

Sammyd - In your last post you said that staffie attacks are popular due to high numbers in popularity. So why can't you be happy with regulating breeding to solve this issue? If you think staffies aren't 'fighting' when they are attacking, then what on earth are they doing?!
The only reason why dogs become humanised is because there are humans around them, and this is why puppies may start to lose interest in their mother and brothers/sisters. If a puppy was left with his mother for too long than that puppy will become more 'doggy' and less 'humanised'. So of course domestic dogs are 'humanised', but only because they are reared in an environment with humans in it! If there were no human's about, then a dog wouldn't even know what being 'humanised' is.

Poppy - compulsary muzzling wouldn't help attacks in the home, escaped dogs, and it may only prevent some owners from properly training their dogs.

Jojojo - I'm interested what is your story that you have involved your local paper in? This is what the media has been doing for a while - demonising dogs, and making them more appealing to the idiots who want to own them to give themselves a certain image.

Link to this comment
jojojo August 3, 2009 at 9:47 p.m.

Im doing my bit now.Have got a local paper who will run my story and they will put the websites on for us. Poppy you are right once you see it it stays with you and you talk and meet so many people dangerous dogs have affected. I didnt know how many lives are ruined by dangerous dogs and it is sad that we only hear about bad owners cos it gives the wrong image of the problem. The thugs are attracted to the dangerous breeds not the other way round, they are still dangerous with nice owners

Link to this comment
poppy2007 August 3, 2009 at 8:24 p.m.

Some really good ideas, I just wish the government would do something but dogs are low down on their urgent list I guess. I think the most we can hope for at the moment is compulsary muzzling. I wish we could get the message out there so people arnt sold a lie. So its down to us lot who know to spread the word in the parks etc, never trust a dangerous breed with our children or near our own safe dogs until people power prevails. There are more people dislike dangerous dogs every day. What is sad is it usually takes witnessing or hearing of another savaged pet dog for people to realise how bad the problem is

Link to this comment
sammyd August 3, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.

Im not discriminating over one breed. There are a few breeds should be banned however due to high numbers and popularity it is mainly the Staffie that is killing other dogs on a regular basis. Everyone who has witnessed a dog attack either on another dog or human w ill agree it is NOT a fight and Not a way to resolve issues. Dogs are more humanised than you think and the main way breeders know their puppies are ready to leave mum is because they start showing less interest in other dogs and more interest in humans. Pit breeds and other dangerous breeds attack because the instinct has been bred into them. A dog attack is not a fight nothing like the little squbles your dogs may have over teritary . Hope you understand that now .

Link to this comment
Sue August 3, 2009 at 9:31 a.m.

Sammy - I am not negative to change, I am negative to discrimination, and you are discriminating against one particular breed. The fact that I accept that there have been examples of staffies attacking other dogs does not imply that I think it is okay, and you have twisted what I said to suit your own argument. If you do not understand and accept that dogs resolve their disputes (usually over heirarchy) by fighting one another, then you do not understand dogs at all. Very few dog owners of any breed would be able to honestly tell you that their dog has not ever been involved in a fight. Mine both have, sometimes with each other. The problem arises only when a more powerful dog gets the better of a less powerful one, and in some tragic instances, yes, I know this can result in serious injury or death for the weaker of the two. This is how life is in the wild, and yes, it is cruel, but nature IS cruel. You can't punish dogs because they occasionally revert back to their wild, instinctive behaviour. It is built into them, it is what they are, and to deny this is to completely misunderstand them. They are not humans with a fur coat.

Link to this comment
sammyd August 2, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.

A very very small minority of unintelligent people which would mean the demise of this horrible breed .......................RESULT

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 2, 2009 at 8:48 p.m.

Mischief - But any decent breeder should point out all negative and positive traits of the breed they are selling anyway. If they don't, then they aren't a trustworthy breeder. They also aim to find the right type of home for their breed. If they think the home is not suitable, then they will not sell their puppy. If all breeders could be like this then we would see a smaller sale of dogs of these breeds, and then we will start to see less of these breeds in animal shelters too. If these 'interviews' are carried out where potential buyers are told of the dangers of staffies, then what sort of people do you think would still be willing to take on this breed as a pet?

Link to this comment
sammyd August 2, 2009 at 4:32 p.m.

Nice to see you on the other sites jojo. Yes I agree Staffies are going to be bred and sold to people like yourself unless something is done. Keep campaigning nothing changes overnight but there are thousands of people share your views as you know.

Link to this comment
jojojo August 2, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.

If this was going on now more people would realise a Staff is not a safe pet before they brought it home and loved it. Would save a lot of safe breeds being killed as well

Link to this comment
mischief August 2, 2009 at 11:37 a.m.

No but i meant the idea of another interview for the breeds of dog classed as more dangerous. the ones that reuire the licence. The interview is to point out the dangers of the breed and the consequences if the dog attacks etc. breeders are not nescessarily the right people to do this as its aimed to bring numbers of unsafe breeds down as an alternative to a total ban.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 August 1, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.

Poppy & Mischief – The idea of the fee I do not agree with – because there would be too many loopholes, but the idea of interviewing is a good idea. This is what is done by any respectable breeder anyway with all breeds, because they care about where their puppies go to. These breeders should also take back any puppy if the owner decides they can no longer look after it for any reason. This is why dog breeding needs to be toughly regulated. This ‘interviewing’ law would not work if ‘underground’ breeding is not controlled. At the moment animal shelters already interview potential owners and also carry out home visits, so I don’t think there needs to be much change here. This whole plan would slow breeding down, which is what is needed, and we would eventually see less unwanted dogs in rescue centres.

Link to this comment
sammyd August 1, 2009 at 12:45 a.m.

Sue I find you very negative to change. The way you accept that Staffies attack other dogs is evil. Poppy I quite agree dogs are humanised its for the best so they lead happy lives with the pack leader their owner. Mans best . Puppy farms or puppies ed to lead raised in kennels a no. Som breeds just havnt been bred to lead the sort of life society expects which is why they attack to kill.A ban is needed

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 31, 2009 at 6:15 p.m.

I also believe puppy farms should be illegal. All pups should be bred in registered homes. I have ALWAYS bought dogs reared in homes usually with children around, all have been paper trained and socialised to household life during the 8 or so weeks they are with the mother.At the end of the day our dogs are part of our family and are more in touch with humans than other dogs.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 31, 2009 at 6:10 p.m.

Sue, I did say to mischief there would be a few loopholes but the general idea he or she has is good, as is compulsary muzzling although muzzling would not decrease breeding as the other option would.The licence should decrease ownership of certain breeds that are inherantly more dangerous than others. Ferral behaviour does not exist in most domesticated safe breeds. My experience is only relevant because it is SO common. I have conducted enough research myself to KNOW this is true as do the majority on this site and other sites. I am not talking about dogs bred illegally or sold to thugs im talking about dogs living with people like you and I that are dangerous breeds. As for dogs being euthanised if they kill another dog that is not at all cruel and if people know they have brought home a breed that is known for this and have had to pay licence for the danger of that breed they only have themselves to blame if they then are forced to euthanise their dog. Nobody is FORCED to own a dangerous breed there are plenty that arnt is the point this would make.Mischief the issue of rescue dogs is a lot more complex and what the breeds on the list were called too. Maybe powerful or specialist dogs as oppose to safe family pets with responsible ownerrs(for the other breeds)

Link to this comment
Sue July 31, 2009 at 5 p.m.

Poppy - I suppose I understand the logic behind the idea of interviews and licence fees for purchasers of pups of large and powerful breeds. But who is going to do the interviewing? Looking at my own local animal rescue charities, I notice that few have ANY puppies whatsoever. They get the older dogs which have been discarded very often just because they are older and the family now wants a puppy. Who supplies puppies? The answer has to be in the main, puppy farms, registered breeders and backstreet breeders. Of these, the backstreet breeders with no pedigrees, no papers and no guarantees are going to be the cheapest, and therefore the most popular suppliers. The puppy trade is about supply and demand, but it is also about making money for individuals for whom the money is the only purpose of the venture. So are these people going to warn off their potential customers? What do you think? And if a licence or similar is introduced, you will find a healthy market in cut price forgeries springing up from nowhere. For the government to be able to police every household with dogs is going to take more manpower and resources than the government can afford to devote to it. Crikey, our government can't even keep track of how many illegal immigrants and terrorists are roaming our streets, so do you think the new priority is going to be ridding the streets of unlicensed dogs? Also, I know you have had a terrible experience, but I think this could be more effectively avoided by compulsory muzzling in future, because I don't think a dog owner can ever be compelled to euthanise their dog for killing another dog. Dog on dog attacks are normal (feral) behaviour for dogs, and the strongest generally come off the winners. It is the law of the pack, and these ARE dogs, not people. We can't apply human logic and moral standards to dogs, and thus the concept of punishing a dog for not applying the Queensbury Rules in a dog fight is a bit meaningless and pointless. By making an example of one dog, you aren't going to deter other dogs from doing the same thing, because they don't understand. What you are talking about is purely vengeance - and dogs don't understand that either. I know you are looking for answers, and I don't want to see people or animals hurt any more than you do, but it is a much more complex problem than just banning a breed of dog, or introducing penalties, fines or licences.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 31, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.

I was under the impression Mischief that the idea of licence fee and interview for a list of more dangerous or powerful breeds was for new puppies as an attempt to promote the safer types of dogs and slow down the breeding of Staffies especially. I think the breeds on the list would have to be changed on a regular basis anyway but at this moment in time we all know which breeds cause the problems. Basically thugs arnt dog lovers anyway and are attracted to the easy to get hold of weapons. They wouldnt pass an interview even if they were prepared to pay a fee. Yes the ideas have a few loopholes but could save a lot of lives and bring freedom back to those who got a dog to enjoy being out and about with it.Im not sure this system would work with the thousands of dangerous dogs in rescue shelters but if this was employed over the years they would not be filling up so much because breeding would have slowed down.Breeding is a suply and demand thing.I like your ideasMischief and as it looks like no bans its better than nothing. As well as the licence and interview dogs to be euthanised at first serious attack. Serious as in requiring surgery to DOG or human. If people know this when they buy a staffie pup they cant say they wernt warned what the breed was capable of

Link to this comment
Sue July 31, 2009 at 10:09 a.m.

Mischief - I apologise if I didn't read all the posts properly, I am having a very busy and stressful week at work so perhaps I am not quite on the ball at the mo. I note what you say. But who will decide if the breed is dangerous or if it is safe? In my local rescue centre there are a lot of staffies. Out of caution I suspect, the centre do not recommend the homing of these dogs in homes with young children, although the ones up for rehoming are not considered to be unsuitable as pets generally. By having a list of dogs classified as aggressive, the exclusion of other breeds may lead in many instances to the assumption that they are "safe". But a dog is a dog, and NO dog to my mind is "safe". So if my local rescue centre wanted to avoid being criticised by someone who homed a "safe" breed which then bit someone, it would really have to be very cautious in the description given to all its dogs. This being the case, no dog would be recommended as a suitable family pet, no dog would be described as "good with children or other pets" and very few dogs would end up with homes. I don't quite see how this improves the cause of animal welfare. It is not easy to get a dog from most rescue centres, and all charge a fee for the dog, which is usually in excess of £100. My local centre asks a lot of questions, and does home visits before any dog is homed with anyone. Most of the rescue organisations whose websites I have visited appear to adopt a simlar approach. To my mind, and this is only my opinion, it is the thousands of mixed breed, pit bull or staffie type dogs being bred underground by irresponsible people for financial gain or other reasons which is at the root of the problem, and banning specific breeds in my view is not likely to eradicate this practice. And again, the classification of the staffie as a "dangerous" breed is not something I agree with anyway. It is, as far as I am concerned a potentially dangerous breed, as are many other dogs, and I think a lot of caution should be exercised in the owning of them. But that is down to people doing their research before they introduce these dogs into their homes. We live in a nanny society where everyone expects to be spoonfed, and I just wish people would accept responsibility more and be accountable for decisions they have made for themselves and their families. Owning any pet is a responsibility, and it is for people to decide whether it is a responsibility they can handle. Why is it that we think as a society that it is our job to exercise control over these decisions? Responsible pet ownership is similar to having children, it is a long term commitment and not something that should be entered into on a whim. Legislation promoting responsible ownership ought to drive this message home to people and help them to make informed choices.

Link to this comment
playdo July 30, 2009 at 11:13 p.m.

Wouldnt it be cheaper and easier just to ban these breeds like with the pitbull. Everyone knows they just ruin lives. What about just getting rid of them for once and for all. My grans guide dog was attacked by a staff. ive had enough of the idiots that want to keep dangerous dogs in this country. its not the owners that kill its the staffs cos they were bred to bring bulls down. we the public , dog lovers have had enough

Link to this comment
mischief July 30, 2009 at 7:36 p.m.

Because you are then adopting a dog that is dangerous. The fee and information and training given with the fee will remind you of the danger to others you are taking home. Hopefully when given that information you will decide against this breed in favour of one of the many more safer breeds to which there would be no charge

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 30, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.

Mischief - I understand your posts perfectly well, but I completely disagree with them. If I want to adopt a staffie from a rescue centre, then why should have have to pay £500? Also the government would probably spend more trying to enforce a law like this than what they would make out of it. 'Dangerous breeds' may decrease, but for all the wrong reasons. This is supposed to be about the welfare of the dogs, and this would never increase animal welfare. Tell me how you think a law like this could be regulated.

Link to this comment
mischief July 30, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

I wish people would read ! No Sue the licence is only for what we would probably have to call Powerful breeds so If you chose a safe breed wouldnt cost you a penny. The idea is to make dangerous breeds demand decrease

Link to this comment
Sue July 30, 2009 at 10:55 a.m.

Is the £500 fee being suggested just for those who choose to own a dog from a list of breeds perceived as "dangerous"? I have 2 dogs who are non-aggressive, well loved, well cared for and happy, and I earn a reasonable salary. When my dogs eventually die, I will not consider replacing either of them with another dog if I have to pay a licence fee of anything near £500. People like me - ie. responsible dog owners but who do not count themselves in the top wage earning categories, will not consider that they can afford the luxury of owning a dog and the result will be that many dogs will be destroyed because there are not homes for them. I don't need to pay £1000 per annum to show that I can be a responsible dog owner. If the suggestion is limited to "dangerous" dogs from a limited list of breeds only, then a list of "dangerous" dogs pre-supposes that all breeds not included on the list are "safe". There is likely to be a lot of disagreement about what is a dangerous or a safe breed. To my mind, ANY dog, of whatever breed, in the wrong circumstances is capable of being dangerous. That doesn't mean that all dogs WILL be dangerous. Certain breeds I accept have more of a propensity for aggression than others, but that does not mean that ALL dogs of that breed are dangerous. This is a generalisation based on a small percentage of dogs of a particular breed which may at some stage have attacked. To label a dog as inherently dangerous as a breed, there would have to be a lot more sound, rational evidence to support such a proposition. Also, I think that the people who do not want to pay this licence fee simply will not do so, and the responsible people who do pay will end up subsidising those who don't, which happens a lot in this country. Another aspect of it is enforcement. What is the point of a system which is not enforced? Enforcement would be very difficult and very expensive because of its time consuming nature. If ownership of these dogs was driven underground, it would be very difficult to enforce licence fees against those who are the most irresponsible of dog owners in society and who don't care either about the welfare of the dogs, or the people who may be placed at risk by them. As usual, you would be penalising responsible caring owners for the irresponsibility of others. Finally, someone said that responsible dog owners should understand what staffies are so as to be discouraged from owning them. Why? Responsible owners should already know what the dog is all about because if they are responsible, they have taken the trouble to find out and therefore shouldn't need to be educated. And who are all these enlightened experts on dog aggression who are going to be responsible for educating us all?

Link to this comment
mischief July 29, 2009 at 11:26 p.m.

Hannah you need to read the posts again you are still not understanding.Poppy you have a point the government do want to make money out of this which is why they are pushing for fines for irresponsible owners.Do you not think the licence fee for dangerous breeds would appeal to them and still fine for irresponsible ownership? The main objective to make Staffies and other aggressive breeds unattractive to the responsible owner should be achieved and that way the small percentage of status dogs left can be dealt with

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 29, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.

Poppy - Mischiefs idea of an annual fee of £500.00 to me has these cons -
- Make these 'dangerous' breeds even more desirable to those who want these dogs for the wrong reasons
- Is a VERY large sum of money, and would be unfair to ask those who are very knowledgable of the breed already
- Would be difficult to know who is owning a 'dangerous' breed, so tough to regulate
- Drive breeding of these dogs underground
- Dogs that are bred underground would be sold to people who are dodging the law
- Will have cause negative welfare concerns for the breeds
- Will not encourage people to search for a suitable breed to suite their lifestyle

Why should a list of breeds influence people's decisions? Can they not go out and do the research for themselves? If they can't, then that is being irresponsible.
"To focus on responsible ownership is not going to reduce attacks if the problem is that the breed is dangerous not the owner" - what a contradiction!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 29, 2009 at 9:41 p.m.

Mischief - I understand your posts - but I disagree that a yearly fee will help. Anyone who is thinking of owning ANY breed of dog should know about that breed in full depth in the first place - they shouldn't be influenced on their decision just because of a fee that they might have to pay. Anyone who wants to own one of these breeds could find £500 from some where - so we still have the problem of so called 'dangerous' breeds being owned by any old person. It would be great if people could fully research into breeds PROPERLY first, before they pick which dog they want. I think it would be a better idea to have a licence to own any breed of dog, not just the ones you call dangerous otherwise it isn't fair on those who are extremily knowledgeable on their favoured breed such as a staffie. A fixed license probably would slow the breeding process, but I think the breeds on your list will just become even more favoured to thug type people.
I like Poppy's idea of everyone being interviewed when they purchase ANY dog. This would have to be carried out by breeders and people who work in rescue shelters. This is what could help educate people - not a £500 fee.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 29, 2009 at 7:10 p.m.

This is good. To focus on responsible ownership is not going to reduce attacks if the problem is that the breed is dangerous not the owner.Shame this is not happening. You do realise the kennel club will deny the staffie and other breeds are dangerous, the rspca will back them and convince the government to focus on irresponsible owners being fined instead.good revenue wouldnt earn a penny if they were banned!! But we have to have hope Mischief and your ideas are sound and worthy of further consideration. Would you like me to mention them in my next correspondance with the mp?

Link to this comment
jojojo July 29, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.

No problem understanding that mischief. If you are talking about people like me yes I agree . If Id been given an accurate description of what the breed is capable of by its breed and would have to get some sort of dangerous dogs licence to buy one of course i would just think that breeds too much trouble and opt for another breed. its good logic for cutting down the breeding as obviously dogs that are popular are bred more often. good ides mischief though i would prefer a ban

Link to this comment
mischief July 29, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.

Does anyone else have a problem understanding my post.? The idea of the licence is to make people aware of what these breeds are

Link to this comment
mischief July 28, 2009 at 10:31 p.m.

The point of the fee is so that people realise they own a dangerous breed. Most people like yourself think a Staffie is not dangerous. Its a bit late to find out two years down the line when you love the dog . I dont agree the last few breeds are inherintly dangerous if they have attacked its down to bad ownership not breed. A daschund couldnt kill a dog. i COULD SMACK IT AWAY IF IT TRIED !!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 28, 2009 at 10:02 p.m.

Mischief – The breeds that you would not class as ‘dangerous’ are all capable of injuring humans and animals. I made up this list from articles and things that I had found on the Internet relating to dog on human and dog on dog attacks. Dogs such as labs are not commonly known for being aggressive, but there are many that have caused damage to humans – so this means that there must be a few people out there that might class Labradors as dangerous/aggressive. That was the point I was trying to make. I do understand though that some dogs are more known to cause injury than others, and Labradors would be somewhere near the bottom of the list, I expect.
The point I am making is everyone has different opinions on what is aggressive and what isn’t.
Your last point is interesting. “All the dogs that have attacked have belonged to responsible owners”. “Yes it would be fair for responsible owners to pay the same licence to keep a staffie or other dangerous breed”. You are saying that responsible owner’s dogs still attack. So what difference is it going to make if these responsible owners pay a £500 annual fee? If these people really think they are responsible owners, then they should be fine with owning one of these ‘dangerous’ breeds anyway – because to me being a responsible owner is someone who knows the ins and outs of the breed they have – so why should a ‘dangerous dogs list’ make a difference to these ‘responsible owners’.

Link to this comment
mischief July 28, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.

Yes it would be fair for responsible owners to pay the same licence to keep a sraffie or other dangerous breed. The idea is to stop people thinking this is a safe breed. All the dogs ive seen attack have belonged to responsible owners. dont see status dogs in my neighbouhood

Link to this comment
mischief July 28, 2009 at 8:04 p.m.

No am not interested in a law that focusses only on irresponsible ownership. Am not sure if the first two breeds you mention are dangerous breeds. The last 6 I would not consider dangerous with decent owners but those in the middle are dangerous yes would like them banned if it was down to me which it isnt

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 27, 2009 at 7:32 p.m.

If there was a list of dangerous breeds, I'm still not sure how you would decide which dogs would need to be put on this list (apart from the obvious breeds such as staffies and Rottweilers). Poppy has mentioned breeds that cause damage to other pets and humans. So would we put greyhounds, dalmations, boxers, presa canario, chow chows, dobermans, alaskan malamutes, huskies, mastiffs, dachshunds, schnauzers, lhasa apsos, bichon frise, labs and collies on the list too? I am obviously against BSL - are any of you interested in a law that focuses on irresponsible ownership? Would you be interested to see how this could work?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 27, 2009 at 7:12 p.m.

Mischief - I personally think £500.00 a year is quite a lot - but it would stop a lot of people from getting the breeds, and therefor should slow breeding down - which is what you want to achieve. Would this fee be fair to those who own these dogs as a 'hobby' and look after them extremily well and have done so for most part of their lives? Regarding insurance, I think that it is quite difficult to insure these types of dogs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Muzzling is an option, but again, for those who have kept these breeds for many years, this might not be a favourable idea. Back to the fee, you're are right, most of the 'scummy types' may not be able to afford this hefty license fee. But then again, these are also the type of people who will try and dodge any law that stands in their way. These people may desparetely want a dog like this so could easily come into getting the money for it is they really wanted. They may also decide that because they don't want to pay this fee, that they will secretly breed these dogs - and they may sell them for a an even 'better' sum of money than they'd sell them for now - especially because these breeds may become even more desirable because they are on the 'dangerous list'! This is exactly what is happening in this country with the pit-bull terrier. More and more are being bred by the wrong kind of people, and a lot of them are being seized. These are then either euthanised or kept in kennels for the rest of their lives. I think what is important is educating potential dog owners about the different breeds, and how they need to be cared for. People who can't afford £500.00 should not be void of owning a dog which they may look after incredibly well. Money should not be an issue when it comes to how well you are able to look after a dog. Your idea of compulsary training would be a good idea - as this would give all dogs good socialisation skills, and it would help the owner to understand about their dog. This would be fantastic, but it might be tricky to set up some sort of scheme. Poppy's idea of compulsary interviewing is also a great idea - it would mean that dogs would be bred with the best temperament standards by knowledgeable breeders, and it would mean that the breeder (who would care for their puppies futures) would only let their pups go to the most suitable homes. This is why a crackdown on backstreet breeding is needed! Lots of people just breed and breed their dogs, with no welfare concerns for them at all. And this is what needs to be stopped. Once this is stopped, then this is when the positive changes will be seen.

Link to this comment
sammyd July 27, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.

Sounds a good workable idea to me. Anything that reduces the numbers of dogs that attack is a good thing

Link to this comment
sammyd July 27, 2009 at 1:54 p.m.

Avarian. jojo is referring to breeds such as staffies, rottweilers etc that are not listed on the 1991 dda.A special licence for 'powerful breeds', the ones that kill other dogs and cause serious damage if they attack

Link to this comment
Avarion July 26, 2009 at 6:10 p.m.

FYI, it is illegal to own any of the dogs specified by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 without being granted specific exemption from a court. The exemption is conditional: the dog must be muzzled and kept on a lead in public, must be registered and insured, tattooed, neutered and be micro-chipped.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 26, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.

yes the thug types wouldnt be interested in dogs at all if the aggressive ones were out of reach.I think if owners were also interviewed when purchasing their puppies licence this would put a few people off owning this kind of dog. Certainly people after a good family pet would not want a breed known to cause damage to dogs and humans.Trouble is though all your ideas are excellent I cant see the powers that be being prepared to spend money on it. There are a few people who dont even accept we have dangerous dogs in this country so its hard but at least we could push for compulsay muzzling. Ive had correspondance from the house of commons on this.There are other non Rspca sites in favour of bans on dangerous breeds where you can get involved campaigning. I have

Link to this comment
mischief July 26, 2009 at 10:08 a.m.

Yes I agree about £500 a year to own one of the registered 'powerful breeds' plus insurance plus a full description of what the breed is capable of and compulsary training classes,plus an order to muzzle all of the named breeds in public places.It really would be easier to stop breeding dangerous dogs though!! Most of the scummy types owning status dogs would not have the money to if these were introduced. It makes owning one too expensive which should slow breeding down

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 26, 2009 at 8:52 a.m.

Jojojo - how would the 'dangerous' breeds be separated from the 'non dangerous' breeds. Who would decide? There are so many factors to be considered when making a decision like this - not just jaw strength. You said "if the staffie was on the dangerous dogs list then I wouldn't have got one". You may think that, but I have a feeling that this 'rule' may further encourage the wrong sort of people owning staffies, rottweilers, GSDs and bull type breeds - assuming these are the sort of dogs you are thinking about. A big problem we have in this country (and other places too) at the moment is dogs being used for status symbols. Having a list of dangerous breeds will only make these breeds look more appealing to those who want them for reasons such as looks and strength - and therefor make this situation even worse. If these breeds are put on a dangerous list, then their welfare will only decrease too - and to me this is the most important thing. Instead of this, dog licences could be introduced instead and compulsary microchipping.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 25, 2009 at 9:01 p.m.

Miaschief, yes I intend to. No I wouldnt have bought a Staff if it was listed as a dangerous breed and yes I think a special licence for dangerous breeds would be a good idea though I would prefer to stop breeding them. Who would decide which the breeds were? please not the kennel club!! I guess they would be called powerful breeds or something but long as there was an accurate description of what their jaws are capable of it would stop people like me owning them. The numbers would go down so attacks would too. I dont think scummy types would want to pay the licence,would have to make it an anual high amount in the same region as car insurance to deter them.its not a bad idea mischief.
Poppy looks like there should be aregister for any dog attacks that are serious. As you and I know there is a huge difference between a bite and an attack.In an attack its always surgery isnt it.That should always be reported so there is evidence of dangerous Breed.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 25, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.

Jojojo - I did not quote 'millions' of staffies not attacking. I may have said 'millions of good experiences'. Instead of millions I would probably have said thousands of staffies have not attacked - and this is a completely different figure all together. I don't event think that there are millions of staffies in this country. When I use the word 'attack', I mean with horrific consequences. By 'horrific', I mean seriously injure or kill. If there aren't proper figures kept on dog attacks/bites, then how can any of us say how common or uncommon they are? Probably the only reason why there is about 3 or 4 people posting on this sight who have been involved in attacks is because they have specifically gone out of their way to find a site like this to debate about it. Why else would you come onto an RSPCA website to brand certain dogs monsters? If you went out and carried out a survey on your average passer by, what percentage do you think will have personally been involved in a dog attack by a staffie? Do you really think Sue bites dogs? You have owned a staffie previously, so you must have some sort of liking of the breed. If there was a ban, would you be worried about the welfare standards of the staffie dropping?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 25, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.

Sue - You are right. I have owned a couple of dogs in the past, but cannot at the moment - mainly due to work commitments! I have also worked 'with' animals for some time (have worked on the practical side, and behind the scenes!). It is not fair to have my comments dimissed just because I have not been involved in an attack or witnessed one. I do find it mildly amusing that our opinions do not count because of this! I have come across a hell of a lot of dogs who have previously have had bad lives, all due to different cirmcumstances. Popp and Jojojo seem to think that most people have been involved in/witnessed a dog attack. If this was true then would something not have been done by now? You are also right about Jojojo's comments - it does seem like she is living in a horror film. I can't stand how a dog is killed for biting, but when a human kills another in this country - especially when the murder is carried out purposely and not through self defence - they are just put in prison. I suppose not many people have the time or money to rehabilitate their dogs. So I would be glad of a new law holding owners responsible. For once animals can be put first instead of humans always thiking they are the superior one!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 25, 2009 at 12:20 p.m.

Jojojo, In answer to your question The poliice and ambulance were called by a witness when my dog was attacked but I was in a car of a passr by and straight to an animal hospital s for the urgent intensive care and surgery needed.Two days later I reported the crime and was told I could only prosecute the owner for MY injuries which is a civil matter and a very expensive and lengthy process.I was advised it would cost me a lot of money and the dogs would probably not be destroyed. If the dogs had killed my dog there would be no grounds to have them destroyed either. Then I was told the dogs would only be put on the bite register if I prosecuted for MY injuries.They said the best I would get is for the owner to pay vets fees ,loss of earnings and apologise. So in answer to your question no the attack on us is not recorded in any official statistics.Maybe this goes some way to explain why some people think dog attacks by certain breeds are rare. We hear about it when a baby is killed and everyone not in favour of a ban jumps on the irresponsible owner band waggon but we who have been through it know the truth and ive heard dozens of stories like mine just from chatting with other dog owners.Only yesturday I hear of a little old man in hospital having been knocked over trying to save his little dog from a staffie. The dog was luckier than him but still lost an eye. I heard this off one of the home carers that looks after his wife,I doubt it will make the papers. The dog wont be on the bite register because he wasnt bitten he was knocked over and his dog like so many others just doesnt count. No the law is on the side of dangerous breeds that should be banned. Its a disgrace

Link to this comment
mischief July 24, 2009 at 10:32 p.m.

Jojojo, My dog was savagly attacked by a Staffie .I too find the comments on here from Sue about biting dogs back etc very offensive Having witnessed a dog attack it is very hard to find anything to joke about where danerous dogs are concerned.Probably best to ignore these silly people. I would like a ban on a variety of dangerous breeds but cant see it happening overnight. Do you think there should be a special licence to own certain breeds based on their tendancy to attack? Would you have bought a staffie if it was registered as a dangerous breed and required a licence to own one ? The owner of the dog that attacked my dog had no idea her dog was capable of what it did either. I felt sorry for her though she did not have the dog destroyed.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 24, 2009 at 7:07 p.m.

Sue this is supposed to be an intellectual debate . Dont come on here if you do not want to discuss aggression in dogs.That is the subject. Avarian read the posts Sue was indeed making jokes being flippant and still is. The woman bites dogs back allegedly

Link to this comment
Avarion July 24, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.

1) Nobody is making jokes.
2) Nobody is being flippant.
3) Nobody is making anything up.
4) Because some people take a different position on this issue does not mean the views expressed are a personal attack on you.

Link to this comment
Sue July 24, 2009 at 6:39 p.m.

jojojo - I don't see that I have joked about dogs or people being hurt. I don't think Hannah's observations that the majority of staffies live uneventful lives without attacking anyone are inaccurate. My problem with your comments is that they misinterpret and twist anything anyone says who does not agree with your narrow perception of both the problem and the solution to it. Reading your posts paints a picture of a world where nobody is happy, where dogs and people live in fear, where evil, snarling and vicious dogs prowl your neighbourhood looking for people to kill or maim. In short it sounds like something from a futuristic horror film and your posts are enough to depress anyone! Have you thought about counselling?

Link to this comment
jojojo July 24, 2009 at 4:43 p.m.

Hannah is not LIVING with the problem of dangerous dogs. She doesnt walk her own dog and fear for its safety as Twinkle does or maybe Poppy. The problem I have with yours and Hannahs comments is youare a very small minority of the people posting on here that have NOT witnessed a dog attack. This is the main reason you seem to give for not wanting a ban. Hannah keeps quoting ridiculous figures of millions of Staffs living long lives never having attacked anything. She is just making this up. There is nothing to say this is true. My dogs attack on my niece is not in any government figures or recorded anywhere axcept in her medical records where it says attacked by dog somewhere I guess. Poppy is the attack on your dog recorded anywhere or is yours Twinkle? We know the problem is bad only because we talk or if it ever makes the papers. None of the stories Ive heard including mine have ever made the papers.Hannah you cant just make things up and that is all you do and Sue I DO find your flippant remarks about dangerous breeds offensive. You would not find it a lighthearted issue if one of your dogs was mauled to death in front of you

Link to this comment
Sue July 24, 2009 at 4:12 p.m.

jojojo - I don't think anybody on here is "making jokes", in case you are alluding to me. The posts on here can get extremely heavy and personal, and it sometimes helps to get the odd lighthearted one. Being lighthearted about life helps lots of people to cope with the grim realities sometimes, and in this day and age, you need a sense of humour to get by in an increasingly hostile world. A "joke" is a very different thing. I don't make jokes about serious issues I feel strongly about. Life with my dogs is often funny, and I imagine it is with yours too. We should always, as balanced people be able to see the lighter side of life aswell as the dark side. And I don't agree that Hannah copies what I say, she has made some good points in some of her posts which I had never thought of. And my understanding of Hannah is that she works, or has worked with animals for a long time. The fact that her circumstances may prevent her from having a dog at the moment just means that she is sensible enough to accept that she can't have one. She may love to have a dog for all we know, but sometimes, in some cases, we can't and to get one when we can't fully commit to it is not fair to the dog, so why criticise her for her lifestyle? Just because she doesn't have a dog at this moment in time doesn't mean she doesn't care or doesn't understand. She wouldn't be posting on here if she didn't care about dogs, and from what I have read, there is nothing wrong with her understanding. This is what I mean about it all getting personal. I post on here to discuss dogs, not to defend myself from unfair comments from other contributors.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 23, 2009 at 9:10 p.m.

Thanks Twinkle. It seems that people think its ok to make jokes on here. Would be a different matter if they witnessed what a lot of people on here have with their own pets or loved ones.I do think its time they realised its not important to keep any dangerous breed going just cos they like them its not about what we like or dont like its like you say one child or one dog is too many

Link to this comment
jojojo July 23, 2009 at 8:26 p.m.

Thanks poppy. I think to joke about something so serious shows how little these people care about dogs. It does upset me that I come on here to help the debate as I have first hand experience of dangerous breeds and these two make a joke out of it.Hannah you actually have no opinions of your own you just copy everything Sue says and as you dont even own a dog have little knowledge of living with the problem

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 23, 2009 at 5:27 p.m.

Hannah I have never said I dont care about any other dogs than my own unlike you though I do not love ALL dogs. I love mine

Link to this comment
Sue July 23, 2009 at 4:23 p.m.

Whoa Poppy and Twinkle - I didn't intend my ligthearted post spark a Rottie rant!!! Let me clarify that the Rottie walked into the vets waiting room quite calmly and under the control of her owner and sat across from us. She was clearly non aggressive and was wagging her tail like mad. Our dogs were doing the same and they all just wanted to be let loose so they could play. Rottie owner told me his dog loves people and was very friendly. Of course, having already worked that out from her body language I approached her. She remained sitting on the floor and held up her paw to shake hands. I knelt down on the floor in front of her, placing my face on her level, and shook hands with her. I was warned by her owner that she would lick me to death, so when she did, I was not frightened, offended, upset or surprised, and as this post testifies, I am still very much alive. But I felt the weight of the dog's paw and when I stroked her head and ears, I could tell she was a very heavy dog, very chunky, and I assessed that if I had to fight to control a dog like this on a lead, it would be likely to be a fight she would win based on sheer weight and power. Dogs of this size should only be owned by those who have the physical ability to hold them back if the necessity arose. But from what I saw, this owner was in control, and the dog deferred to him rather than did what it wanted. So no problem, though it is easy to judge to the contrary if that is what you are predisposed to do.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 23, 2009 at 2:39 p.m.

To me it seems like most people are only concerned about the welfare people and not the dogs (except their own dogs). Poppy has clearly stated that she doesn't care about any dogs except for her own - as stated some while back in one of her posts. The problem with staffies is that there are far too many being bred, and far too many falling into the wrongs hands of people who only want them for image. This is a serious welfare issue for the DOGS. There are too many being abused far too often - why is nobody talking about this problem? Of course there are many owners of staffies who take good care of their dogs. The simple answer is to tightly regulate breeding, and breeders should only sell to suitable owners. My main concern is the welfare of the dogs. So the breeding idea will definatly help the welfare problem - but we would also see dog attacks decrease as well as anti-social behaviour. Poppy - I know you are now thinking about the staffies that have been 'well trained and cared for' - but I am thinking of all of the thousands of staffies that aren't, and that normally end up either dead or in shelters - and there are thousands.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 23, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.

Poppy - I have had hundreds (literally) of good experience with breeds you would class as dangerous. I can only imagine that lots of people feel the same way as this and have also had good experiences. You seem to think that if I am involved in a dog attack, then I will suddenly see how vile these bull breeds are. Well why would I? Would this 1 bad experience make me forget about all of the good experiences I have had? And would I suddenly judge every dog within the breed that I have been attacked by? Well I'd have to say that I wouldn't. Depending on how severe the attack may be, it would I'm sure affect me in a negative way, but not enough to judge a whole breed because that is not the sort of person I am. I do realise that some people have bad experiences with staffies, and many other types of breeds such as collies, greyhounds and other terrier types in particular. I do understand that we have a problem with dog attacks - and until we do not keep dogs as pets - I believe there will always be attacks and some quantity or another. The only viable way to help decrease attacks would be to further educate people. You seem to think that I do not realise that this problem has a problem - well I do think there is a problem - that is why I am all for responsible ownership and regulated breeding and possibly compulsary microchipping.
You have stated that the rottweiler's owner was irresponsible for letting it drool over and lick Sue. But you weren't there were you? By the sounds of it, Sue was quite happy with the situation, and probably let the dog lick on her. It didn't sound like Sue didn't want the rottie licking her did it? So how can you say that this owner was irresponsible and had no control? Are you imagining that the rottie went for Sue while the owner was desparately trying to hold the dog back? A lot of people would not allow their dog to lick strangers, but some do - especially if the stranger signals that it is ok. Because we don't know how this rottie has been trained, then we cannot judge. The onwer may have asked the rottie to 'stop' or whatever, and the dog may have done what it was told immediatly. How do we know though if we aren't there? We don't. Therefor we cannot judge the owner or the dog.

Link to this comment
Twinkle July 23, 2009 at 10:03 a.m.

I have to say I basically agree with Poppy and JoJo here.. some remarks are very flippant to say the least. One child hurt(or indeed dog) in this appalling manner is one too many. I am neither for or against a complete ban on certain breeds. I think dog breeding IN GENERAL should be curtailed. People are buying huge and powerful dogs for protection, they cant handle them, and whats more they dont care in SOME cases what they do to other peoples pets, why should they? Their dog never comes off worst! Something needs to be done, walking the dog used to be a pleasure for me...not now.. I find myself looking round every corner wondering whats going to appear!
Rotties are incredibly strong dogs, yet its school holidays and parents are sending their children out with the dog round here, alone, no control, just told to LET IT GO if any problems! I once saw a child holding a Rottie dragged straight across a busy main road by the dog, how she and the dog weren't killed I dont know! The dog was probably a lovely dog, but like a lot of powerful dogs, the owner had NO CONTROL.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 22, 2009 at 10:51 p.m.

jojo these people are cruel and ignorant. There are many on here that do not make light of dog attacks and understand the huge problem we have in the country. Just because there are 3 people who have not yet witnessed a dangerous dog savaging a human or other dog does not make any of their views right. Im sorry that you have had to tolerate such flippant remarks when you have been through a traumatic experience watching your niece suffer and are probably still grieving the loss of what was your family pet. It is easy to see how ignorant people are when they think responsible dog ownership is having no control over a dog and allowing it to slaver all over a stranger in the vets. To most this would be perceived as an untrained out of control dog. If it was having a bad day which is Hannahs reasons for why dogs might attack Sue could be dead. Jojo remember there are far more people on side with your views on dangerous breeds and please dont be upset by ignorant comments

Link to this comment
jojojo July 22, 2009 at 9:20 p.m.

my niece wasnt bitten. she nearly lost her arm and has serious nerve damage. you are not funny

Link to this comment
Avarion July 22, 2009 at 8 p.m.

100% in agreement with Hannah.

Every worthy cause has the danger of slipping into tunnel vision. Safeguarding people (especially children) and other dogs from random attacks is important but it cannot and will not be achieved unless there is some much needed perspective and a healthy dose of scepticism. Simply banning dangerous dogs is too idealistic - and idealism rarely works in a practical world, full of unpredictable problems. And what actually constitutes a dangerous dog? If we mean a canine that can have its innate qualities exploited through wreckless breeding and conditioning, then a dangerous dog could be virtually ANY dog of ANY breed. Even Collies, Spaniels and Labradors, who have not yet had their reputations smeared by sensationalist media hysteria.

I'd much sooner trust a big, "ugly" Rottweiler with my children than a supposedly cute and harmless Pomeranian - who can be genuinely vicious little things.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 22, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.

Sammyd - I believe there is a major annual staffie gathering somewhere - not sure where though and don't know anything about it. But, this does involve an awful lot of staffies in, I suppose, a small-ish area. And I bet they have no problems and the owners are probably all hard-core enthusiasts. And yes, they should get their act together with this new law based on responsible owners - I'm sure though that all the legislation takes a long time to put in order. I don't ven think that this law has been passed yet.

Sue - What a nice experience! I think Rottweilers are great dogs. And it does go to show that responsible ownership goes along way. Shame that Jojojo doesn't understand this.

Jojojo - Why would a rottie want to "chew someone's face"!!?? Do you even know any thing about rottweilers?! If you are so been on 'saving people's lives', then perhaps you could look campainging for saver car drivers/roads and perhaps drugs and alcohol, and even domestic violence. These are the real killer's.

Link to this comment
Sue July 22, 2009 at 5:06 p.m.

jojojo - you are probably right. The last time a dog bit me, I bit it back! You should have seen the surprised look on its face, but it was a reflex response. Maybe I was a dog in a past life. I didn't hurt it much, nor it me, much - so no harm done, but I am probably just one of these people who is lucky with dogs. They rarely go for me, and I have never been frightened of dogs, even aggressive ones. That isn't to say I am not careful if a dog is a bit of an unknown quantity, but in general, I am quite relaxed around them. Anyway off home to drink 10 bottles of wine now after my horrible day!

Link to this comment
jojojo July 22, 2009 at 3:07 p.m.

Yes Sue Far too strong. you are VERY lucky it was licking your face and not chewing it. The other scenario and you could have been dead cos as you say there would be no way you could fight the dog of that breed off.Mags I didnt mean we should ban dogs because of what they look like I was just stating that in my opinion most powerful breeds do not look cute. The Chow Chow is one of the very dangerous breeds we have in this country as is the Japanese Akita which i think is banned in some countries. We just shouldnt be still breeding dogs that are dangerous. What reason do we have to give for saving lives cos all we are doing by stopping breeding is saving lives for gods sake

Link to this comment
Sue July 22, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.

Well everybody, went to the vet last night to get my dogs' rabies boosters done, and had a little experience with a humungous Rottie - I came away with a face covered in Rottie slobber after being nearly licked to death! I have to say though that it was VERY strong, and if it was my dog, I am not sure if I would have the physical strength to restrain it. I am probably going to be accused of being flippant now or making light of a serious issue. Well I've had a pig of a day today and I am past caring what anyone thinks! But I don't meet many Rotties, and this one was lovely! That's not to say they all are I know, but good sensible and responsible ownership does go a hell of a long way.

Link to this comment
sammyd July 22, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.

I see this debate has moved on a bit since my last visit. Good to see a more varied set of arguments. I agree with mags. There are other dangerous breeds out there as well as Staffies. its just staffies are most popular at the moment so are causing higher numbers of attacks than the rottweilers etc. The last dog show a friend of mine went to in birmingham he witnessed two unrelated staffies attacking another one so I dont think thats true what you are saying mags but am sure sometimes they dont fight and if you have been in a room with 150 non fighting staffies thats pretty good going. Are you sure??.Jojojo I think you are very brave to tell your story and I agree it is a breed problem that needs sorting out .This new law on responsible ownership should highlight the problems of dangerous breeds AS well as dodgy owners but its taking too long and while they dither dogs are being killed by dogs that should never be pets

Link to this comment
Mags53 July 22, 2009 at 10:44 a.m.

Can't believe how rude and personal this has become! Can't believe that supposed animal lovers could ever bruit the banning of an animal for how it looks not for its actions! And, yes, it is a form of blind predjudice.Go to a championship dog show (there will be one sometime in the year near where you live) and see the 150 or so Staffies all together NOT killing any other dog and then tell me that it's the breed NOT the owner who is to blame.
If you are going to ban any breed that has attacked and killed either a human or other dog then the following breeds are also implicated (to my sure and certain knowledge) GSD (Alsation), Greyhound, Akita, Rottweiller and Doberman - other people could probably add to this list. Over the years the press have pilloried and demonised several breeds because of the action of just one or two of that breed; nearly always the problem has been caused by the actions of the humans in that dogs life.

Link to this comment
Avarion July 22, 2009 at 12:10 a.m.

Stop hastily skimming my posts: I did not say Rottweilers, Mastiffs or Dobermans were cute. I said they appear intimidating. And in no way are they 'ugly'. On the contrary, a chow chow could be conditioned to behave aggressively yet no one would ever suspect it of being a 'type' of dangerous dog purely because it looks cute and cuddly. The DDA discriminates largely by appearance - that is why it is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in the UK.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 21, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.

Avarian none of those breeds you have mentioned look too cute to be aggressive.They all look very ugly. The Staff has a cute appeal to it hence its popularity with normal people

Link to this comment
jojojo July 21, 2009 at 8:42 p.m.

There are ways to go about it that would not cause an uproar. im not saying we should cease every staff in the country and euthanise it, im saying we should stop breeding anymore and licence those left any found to be dangerous by means of attack to human or dog euthanised.This is kind and fair way to do things cos there are some that havnt attacked and might not as you say. I myself as a stsff owner would not have had a problem with that. my dog would have been licenced then destroyed at 2yrs old. But it would have been fair still upsetting but the law is the law. as it was i had to make the agonising decision myself which isnt fair

Link to this comment
Avarion July 21, 2009 at 6:57 p.m.

Most breeds can be conditioned and trained to be vicious and aggressive - this isn't an issue confined to Staffies or pit bulls. Consequently, the DDA bans four 'types' of dogs, not breeds. So if I own a dog that bears resemblance to a dangerous 'type' of dog, there's a chance I could be prosecuted if someone reported me to the police. But what would it matter if I owned a Staffie or not? I could just as easily obtain a Rottweiler, a Mastiff, a Doberman Pinscher (or any one of perhaps a hundred different kinds of herding, guarding and working dogs that appear intimidating) and train it to be aggressive. I could even do the same with a Chow Chow - and no one would suspect a thing because it just looks 'too cute' to be vicious.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 21, 2009 at 6:47 p.m.

Jojojo – There are hundreds of pit bulls being seized every year in this country. Therefore the ban has not worked. All it has done is made the breed even more desirable to just the type of people who shouldn’t even be owning any dogs in the first place. Now that pit bulls are banned, their image has decreased even more to the public because of this, and because they are only, in general, seen with thugs – this makes them look even worse. Then when the poor dogs are seized, they are either euthanised or have to spend the rest of their lives in kennels. This is what would happen to the staffie is there was a ban. The staffie, I feel, is more popular than the pit bull was when it was legal, so think of the uproar a ban would cause with genuine staffie lovers. It would be practically impossible to enforce a ban on so many dogs and so many people. A ban would also drive the breeding and owning ‘underground’, therefore their general welfare will dramatically fall. They will probably then be owned by those who do not care for abiding by the law, and so will gain even worse reputation. Some of the thug type people - who only want these dogs for image – may not want to break the law by owning a staffie, so may steer towards a new breed that will make them look tough, such as mastiffs or GSD’s. To me the top priority is the welfare of these dogs – that is why I am against these types of bans.
What to you is a ban on ALL dangerous breeds? To someone else these breeds are not dangerous. So where do you draw the line? How are there millions of dangerous breeds living in people’s homes? If they are so dangerous then why aren’t there millions of injuries and hundreds of deaths? To me a staffie is not dangerous – just misunderstood. A rottweiler is not dangerous either – they are very sweet natured dogs who often fall into wrong hands because of their looks.
In your second to last post you have gone on about personal experiences, but do the millions of positive experiences (that far outweigh the negative) not count for anything? So dog bites are not all registered, well neither are all the little miracles that dogs perform. I wonder how many staffies have saved lives of their family members and other animals, by calling or barking for help, and alerting people to danger. You still need to understand that dog attacks are such a TINY minority compared to everything else that dogs do. And if we can’t rely on what we read, then who is to say that we should bother reading a bite register? You could have a register for men attacking women… now that would be interesting. Perhaps we should call for a ban on men. What about the number of people who abuse their own pets? Should we call for a ban on pet ownership just because of the irresponsible ones? And don't tell me I am going off subject, because it is all relevant.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 21, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.

The ban HAS worked with the pit bull. I cannot buy one and if I could illegally I wouldnt WANT to because I KNOW they are banned for being dangerous. There are only a minority of people want to own dangerous dogs. ONLY criminals could buy staffs if they were banned so dont say that the ban on pit bulls hasnt made a difference. What is needed is a BAN on breeding ALL dangerous breeds. yes a few will slip through but like I say criminals are a minoriyt and there are millions of dangerous breeds living in good homes right now

Link to this comment
Sue July 21, 2009 at 4:45 p.m.

jojojo - I am not in denial. I have never tried to suggest that these attacks don't happen. I know they do, and I also know and acknowledge that for those who experience them first hand, it is probably one of the most traumatic things that could possibly happen to anyone, but particularly to an animal lover. So I don't dismiss your experience in any way. I agree that the problem may be more widespread than people think due to the number of cases which go unreported, so I do not in any way seek to minimise your loss or suggest that it is not important in the overall scheme of things. But to achieve a ban, which is what you want, you would have to be able to persuade the powers that be (supported by cogent expert evidence, rather than personal accounts and personal opinion) that this aggression problem is on such a scale that it demands legislative intervention. This is going to be nigh on impossible when the majority of staffie owners in this country do not share your bad experience of the breed. Even if you succeeded to overcome this apparently insurmountable obstacle, the truth is that breed bans do not work, they havent worked with the pit bull and they wouldn't work with the staffie. So in the end, exactly what would have been achieved? You look at only one solution to the problem, the one you want, and anyone who suggests that there are other potential ways of combating this issue is automatically wrong, uninformed, selfish, making excuses, whatever.... the point of a debate on the subject is that you should be able to look at the situation objectively and from all angles before coming to a balanced and fair assessment. Your views are subjective because they are largely based on your own bad experience and only the bad experiences of others. You do not appear to be interested in the views of people whose experiences of this breed have been positive and good. That puts you in the position of being biased. I don't blame you given what you have seen, but your experience is not representative of the majority.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 21, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.

Every time a staff kills another dog it is somebodys personal experience. every time somebody witnesses attacks by dangerous breeds it is a personal experience. if people didnt tell you these experiences Sue you would notknow how widespread this problem is.The staff uat the hospital my niece was treated at knew what breed had attacked her cos they seen it all before...again personal experience. pit bulls were banned because of personal experience.Also we cannot rely on what you read. many dog attacks are not reported. because i chose to have my dog put down the policewere not involved and so the incident was not put on te bite register. also there is no register for how many dogs have been killed by staffs. ive heard of some but its not a crime for a dog to kill another dog unless its in an illegal dog fight. sue you are in denial

Link to this comment
Sue July 21, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.

jojo - well done! You have just illustrated my point, and Avarian's too. Whatever you may say, it is plain that your traumatic past experience has robbed you of all sense of objectivity, and this comes through loud and clear in your last two posts. I have no doubt that you hold your views very strongly, and I respect your right to your opinion, even though it contrasts with mine. The plain and simple fact is that people who have had bad experiences like yours are in the minority compared to the millions of people whose experience of owning staffies has been positive and rewarding. We will probably never agree on the underlying causes of dog aggression because for me, there is no one simple answer to the question. Just to say that all staffies are bad is narrow minded and plainly not the case. Your answer is just to get rid of the staffie, because that means we as a society don't have to accept any responsibility, or to look to ourselves for any of the answers. It is a cop out. Avarian made a point somewhere I think about blame. What is the point of blaming a dog which has acted on instinct and doesn't have any concept of what it has done wrong? All these staffies "love to kill", or "live to kill" comments which we keep reading are just not adding anything to the debate, they are the narrow, subjective views of a small minority of individuals who have reason (possibly good reason) to be biased against the breed. They are knee jerk responses, which however understandable, do nothing to contribute to a healthy debate on the subject. Rational debate has to be objective. Those who lack objectivity never consider the valid contributions of others, and never accept that they may be wrong about certain things, they never give sensible and rational responses to the points made by others because for them, there is only one view, and that is their own. You just can't debate with people on this basis.

Link to this comment
Avarion July 21, 2009 at 9:04 a.m.

Oh believe me, I am not concerned in the least about my ego. What I am concerned about is attempting to have a healthy debate that goes beyond narrow minded generalisations (as Sue has identified) - but clearly this is impossible because you are unable to look beyond a personal experience. And if society prohibited anything based on personal experiences, we would be in utter chaos. Effective lawmaking depends on looking at every possible perspective of an issue and considering as many possible consequences.

And Sue was indeed correct: the point has gone over your head.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 20, 2009 at 10:16 p.m.

The point Sue if you had met my Staff you would have called him one of the ten gentle staffs that showed no aggresssion.....then what he could have killed my niece. See you know nothing

Link to this comment
jojojo July 20, 2009 at 10:09 p.m.

Sue i can assure you NOTHING went over my head. I think its YOU thats rude!!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 20, 2009 at 5:38 p.m.

Poppy - I think you'll find that I was on subject with my last post. I was merely stating one of the many reasons why I think a ban is wrong. As an animal lover, I think it is wrong to discriminate against specific breeds.

Poppy & Jojojo - you both keep saying that we are talking a load of rubbish, but it would be interesting for you both to state exactly why it is rubbish, and what your opinion it is on what we have been saying. So far I don't think either of you have contributed anything much to this debate, apart from the fact that you have both been involved in dog attacks, and that you have spoken to a few vets who feel the same way as you do.

Link to this comment
Sue July 20, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.

Poppy and jojo - I too think you are both extremely rude. So Avarian's points go over your head, why not just admit that you don't understand instead of just being rude to her/him. Avarian was not bringing racial issues into the debate, simply making a comparison which you don't want to acknowledge because you are too polarized in your opinions to even admit that someone else might have valid points to make. I made a point in my last post about generalisations. If I see 10 friendly staffies and one aggressive one, do you think I should read into this that all staffies are aggressive or all staffies are gentle? Both answers of course would be wrong, because I believe that dogs personalities and the triggers which cause aggression are all individual, and should be treated that way. But, whether it fits in with what you think or not, the majority of staffies are not aggressive and a minority are. You could apply that to any species, regardless of type or breed. You could also of course apply the same logic to humans, but do we eliminate certain humans because we notice some undesirable traits in their type? Well, Hitler did, and so did certain other dictators in history, but history has also proved them wrong. This is the point I believe Avarian was trying to make and I don't expect to be any more successful because it seems that we are appealing here to very narrow minds. Those who oppose a ban do not do so for selfish reasons. How am I being selfish for example? I don't own a staffie, never have and possibly never will. I am in favour of tight breeding controls to reduce dog population generally, but I just don't think a ban will work. Avarian points out that it could make matters worse and he/she may well be right in saying that. How is it that you interpret us not supporting ineffective or unworkable legislation as selfishness. To my mind, we are just taking a realistic approach. If we were selfish, our opinions would be held purely for our own benefit. From my own standpoint, I have nothing personally to lose or gain one way or the other, I simply don't think a ban would work. This is my view, and if it is not yours, then you could politely agree to disagree couldn't you?

Link to this comment
jojojo July 19, 2009 at 8:16 p.m.

Avarian we are talking about DOGS on here NOT your ego. I am not racist. Thanks poppy get back to the topic again now can we

Link to this comment
Avarion July 19, 2009 at 7:09 p.m.

Your rudeness is completely unnecessary Poppy, especially when it is clear you have not read my post properly, thus missing the point entirely.

To make it simpler: criminalising a majority based on actions committed by a minority is a method of logic. This method of logic has been applied to justify a ban on Staffies, and is exactly the same logic applied to justify racial discrimination. Based on this observation, my question is: if, in civilized society, we do not accept this method of logic as justification of racism, why is it acceptable when applied to breeds of sentient creatures? Such philosophical dilemmas are central to all issues concerning animals and should not be dismissed.

If that doesn't clear things up for you, maybe dictionary.com will. (I'm quite content for you to insult my intelligence if you can handle me insulting yours).

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 19, 2009 at 3:35 p.m.

Hannah can you as well just keep to the subject which is about aggressive behaviour in DOGS

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 19, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.

Poppy - Hopefully a laws such as regulated breeding would discourage certain types of people buying these animals. In my opinion it is a shame to have to destroy any dog though. I see that you are annoyed at people for not agreeing to a ban, but I'd like to see regulated breeding, more prosecutions, perhaps dog licences (maybe), compulsary microchipping, more education first - and see where this leads us. Why do you think Avarion has spoken rubbish? Everything she has said makes sense to me. Since the DDA, attacks have increased - because thugs want dogs which cause controversy. Re: Avarion's remarks on racism - I think she/he was trying to say that every animal is an equal individual, so why discriminate against a breed? Animals fight in the wild, domestic animals fight, a human meat eater in their life time will, in general, eat hundreds of animals which have suffered horrific lives and have lost their dignity only to end up in mcdonalds deep fat fryers and kebabs for us all to 'enjoy'. Human's kill eachother only to end up in prison for a few years, some human's want power, and will destroy their way through countries. The animals are the innocent ones, they will fight through fear, protection and for food - not for enjoyment. I think we all need to get our priorities straight. That is not to say anyone is wrong for disliking a breed, because it is understandable if you have had a bad experience with it, but to me it is not ok to want to eliminate a species, just because it has attacked some of our own. I think human's ought to take a look at themselves first (including myself).

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 19, 2009 at 11:34 a.m.

Jojojo - so if it is a breed problem (and as far as I'm aware the majority of staffies live happy - aggressive free lives), then how will regulated breeding not help? I don't understand. Technically it should make a difference.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 18, 2009 at 9:23 p.m.

Avarian, what a load of rubbish . i thought you were reasonably intelligent until I read that twaddle. Jojojo, dont worry nobody else is going to compare you to a racist ,well certainly not me.Maybe its time to remind people we are not discussing race relations or any other political issue other than whether it is the dogs the owners to blame for aggression in dogs.

Link to this comment
Avarion July 18, 2009 at 7:47 p.m.

@jojojo: I understand entirely where you're coming from, but the same logic you have used to justify a ban of a specific breed is the same logic used by racists to discriminate against ethnic minorities. Yet this kind of discrimination is not tolerated by our society as we are told to treat everyone, irrespective of ethnicity, as an individual. In the case of dogs, each should be treated as an individual - irrespective of breed. However, this does not mean turning a blind eye to the real danger exhibited by some Staffies. But prohibition, as a political response to this issue, only exacerbates the problem. And this brings me to my response to Poppy: after the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the number of dog attacks actually increased because the legislature actively gave Staffies (and the other banned breeds) a coveted status. And it is no coincidence that we now recognise them largely as 'status dogs'. Banning anything catalyses its appeal. Consequently, those who oppose an outright ban (such as myself) are deeply concerned about the ramifications of absolute prohibition because we know it simply does not work. It has never worked. The opposition is not necessarily selfish as you have judged it to be.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 18, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

I think the new law if it is passed is better than nothing as we have now.I think though it is not enough just to prosecute the owner of the dog because it wont discourage people from buying dogs and thus breeding wont slow down . I think if a dog kills another dog it should be destroyed no ifs and no buts, same as if it injures a human. I think people may be discouraged from buying a breed that is often being destroyed, The law will probably work best on the thug element but in my experience this is a very small percentage of dog attacks.Its not enough to prosecute the owner for the deed the dog must be destroyed too otherwise the dog could be rehomed ,attack again and again and there could be 3 owners being prosecuted for the same dogs behaviour. its only a workable law if BOTH the dog and the owner are prosecuted. Jojojo; I would prefer a ban myself you know I would but I see something as better than nothing. I would like to see see compulsary public muzzling too but that wouldnt change what happenned to you. I just think there are too many people for their own selfish reasons opposed to a ban. So many on here dont even think Staffies are dangerous.For those of us who know they are we wish we didnt and can only worry who will be next

Link to this comment
jojojo July 18, 2009 at 4:29 p.m.

Hannah cos I now know the blame for aggression in dogs lies with the dog breed and not the owner and the only reason owners are blamed is cos the experts wont admit they got it wrong so the breed isnt banned no i dont think that new law will work.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 18, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.

Jojojo - Before banning a specific breed, how do you feel about trying to, some how, inforce some sort of law that focuses on breeding programs. I understand where you are coming from - a lot dog attacks involve staffies. I think that the government are now (thankfully) looking at deed not breed legislation. If this new part of the law is passed, then there will be more punishment on the owner - and this would hopefully discourage unessecary breeding, and discourage youths (especially) from buying this breed. From what you have said about your own case, you have done nothing wrong, so hopefully this law will try and look at cases individually. If this law passes, which it hopefull will, then it will be interesting to see how much attacks fall by - I'm pretty sure that they will decrease a lot. Do you think that this would be a good thing to try?

Playdo - how very immature

Link to this comment
playdo July 17, 2009 at 11:35 p.m.

what a load of crap ive read on here. if you love dogs get a nice one that doesnt kill your neighbours .theres plenty out there. only scummy people would want a dog thats aggressive by nature.ban all dangerous breeds now. they look ugly and act ugly

Link to this comment
jojojo July 17, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

Avarian. I understand what you say and agree with some of it. But the problem is this.When its the same few breeds attacking other dogs and people all the time it has to be something wrong with the breed. Before my dog attacked I heard bad news about Staffies killing dogs in the neighbourhood andi quitewrongly assumed they had been treated bad or were with stupid owners etc. After what happenned to me I started asking questions,spoke to a few people whos dogs had been attacked by staffs and a few of the staff owners and I dont think they were any different from me and my dog. There is no way of knowing for sure why dogs attack but like i say when its always the same breed there must be something can be done. I totally agreed with the pit bull ban and though it hurts me to say it cos i loved my staff i totally agree with a staff ban too and probably any other proven dangerous breed.

Link to this comment
Avarion July 17, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.

In response to jojojo's post:

The information I have on terriers comes from a number of sources: breed specific literature, experienced dog handlers/trainers, and fellow terrier owners. It is never wise to rely on one source alone.

To reiterate my point (and to dispel any perceived contradiction) I should clarify my original position on the matter of fault and blame, which I failed to do in previous posts. Quite simply, it is futile to place blame on an animal which does not share the same moral and ethical sphere as human beings. Dogs are not amoral, nor are they immoral, and on occasion (for some unknown reason) a dog will act 'out of turn'. Immediately we condemn the dog's actions, and in the case of Staffies, we place the blame on the breed.

In the unfortunate case of your niece, there appears to be no error on your (or your niece's) part to account for the dog's uncharacteristic behaviour, but still it is futile to blame the breed itself for that incident. There are a number of reasons why it is futile: nobody can ever ask a dog to explain why it does what it does, and what for. Nobody can understand the mind of a dog through psychoanalysis. There could be clues in the dog's pedigree (family tree) that could point to potential behavioural/mental problems, but again this cannot always account for uncharacteristic behaviour - and not many people actually have a dog's pedigree. And in addition to this, it is futile because a dog is not like a child: it is an animal, and animals are instinctive and impulsive. Extensive training serves to channel those impulses into acceptable behaviour, but it never completely silences them.

Considering the circumstances of your case (which, unlike most attacks, involve abuse and cruelty), no blame can be placed on you for what happened to your niece, but no blame can be placed on the dog either because it does not share the same moral/ethical sphere as humans do, and because it is absolutely impossible to know its motives. As such, it is unjustifiable to place blame on an entire breed for an incident that has virtually no explanation.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 17, 2009 at 6:26 p.m.

What the government needs to do is to some how try and regulate breeding. As Avarion says - Responsible breeding seeks to phase out any undesireable traits. I am not contradicting myself here - I do think that the staffie is up there on the list of a breed that is more likely to injure than other breeds. But there is always going to be a breed at the top. There is too much backstreet breeding, and the people involved in this will breed any dogs with eachother, and they will often purposely pick the most aggressive ones (I am not saying that staffies are aggressive, but on a scale there will always be a dog that is a little more aggressive than another, which ever breed it is) and breed them together to get unwanted traits - and these traits are the ones favoured by a lot of people who want these dogs to be tough.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 17, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.

Jojojo - I always listen to other people's opinions, this is not to say that I will agree with them though. If you want to class yourself as an expert, then that is fine. But to me an expert is someone who is recognised as a reliable source of the subject in question, and is a person with extensive knowledge in a particular area of study. Experts are also called for advice on their chosen subject. Therefor to me an expert on staffies (someone who knows positive AND negative flaws of the breed) would be someone like an accredited breeder, researcher, someone who trains dogs for a living and so on. Obviously you have owned the breed, so you will know a lot about it. But I get the impression that you have only owned one, so this can not give you an overall impression. Even though you have spoken to other people about this breed, they may only give you negative information, mainly because negative imformation tends to travel further, and also stays in the mind for longer. I am obviously not an expert on the breed, but I have owned dogs, and I do visit animal shelters and kennels as part of my job - and I do see a LOT of staffies. Some of the dogs have backround information on their past, a lot don't. I see a lot of these dogs who are very well behaved, and I do know a lot that have lived wonderful lives. I also know that some do attack, but like Sue, I always think that there is a reason for this. Dogs can't tell us how they feel, or when they are fed up - and if this problem isn't sorted - then this can lead to biting. Some breeds are more placid by nature, and some are less so. But is not an excuse to ban a breed. Obviously all breeds have different traits - this is what makes them who they are. But with correct training, in most cases, negative traits can be controlled. Sorry if you mis-read my last post - but I did say "I think what Avarion was trying to point out was that many staffies are used as status symbols". I was NOT implying at all that this relates to you and your dog. Neither did I say that your dog was "mental". I was simply asking if he had any underlying issues. I am sorry that I disgust you as well! There seems to be a connection with certain individuals on this site, who have bad tempers and resort to bad mouthing the others - these same people have also been involved in dog attacks. In your post to Avarion, what exactly are my "rubbish quotes" that I have read about? Another things that Sue has said that I agree on, is that things with you tend to be generalised, and to me you seem to be assuming things about all staffies. How do you know that Poppy has done more 'research' than I have. How on earth can you tell!? This proves my point that you assume things.

Link to this comment
Sue July 17, 2009 at 1:33 p.m.

I think one of the problems we have when debating about anything is that there is a tendency to generalise based on our own experiences. The fact that some staffies have attacked (and I don't deny it happens)does not have to mean that the whole breed is intrinsically flawed. I could say that fat people all eat too much because I know someone who does, or I could say that all men are rapists because I read reports in the media of men committing rape on a regular basis. I could say that all muslims are terrorists because some are. I could say that all unemployed people are idle and don't want jobs. None of this would be true in all cases, but it would be true in some. There is ALWAYS a reason in my view why a dog might attack. It may or may not amount to direct provocation. It could be a psychological flaw in the dog, which in the eyes of some people would mean it was a breed issue. But it could be anything else. When we feel tired or ill, or when someone or something is really getting on our nerves, we humans sometimes snap and lash out, but we can communicate our frustration to one another. Dogs can't always get this message across until they snap or growl, or attack. A dog can be stressed out in a noisy or chaotic environment without the humans realising because to them, it may be normal. Some dogs are upset by certain sounds. I can't stand being around screaming children. If I was a dog, I would probably bite one of them, but as a human I have the choice not to be in that situation. I just think we can be too prone to making sweeping generalisations. The fact is that for every staffie which attacks, there will be 10 more who never do, so would it be right to say that all staffies are like the 10 who are good natured, or that all staffies are like the one who is not? The truth is I think that in all species, you will find positive and negative examples, and sweeping generalisations such as "all staffies want to kill" is plainly not representative of the breed as a whole.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 17, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.

Avarian. Did you get this information about terriers from literature you read? or was it from owners or people who had been 'nipped'.The thing is everything i had read about staffs said they were great family dogs that could handle a lot of rough and tumble etc and great with kids. I did not take this for granted though and when my niece came to visit which is often I did not allow her to mess with the dog. We had never played any tug of war games with him as my vet and the dog trainer we went to said this can bring out aggression in some breeds. What i am saying is I and my niece did nothing wrong.We had a gentle loving well trained well cared for in every way dog that never even growled at a person.On the day of the attack we had taken him out for a long walk come home put a film on. He was asleep then awake just calm then he just turned on her. The contradiction in your post was that while you acknowledged breed traits you at the end believed the blame is on the other end of the lead. I am not to blame for the fact dangerous breeds are sold as safe pets am i? I think you understand a lot more about dogs than some on here who just listen to the rspca and not real people with real experience of the breed. Hannah cant win an argument on quoting rubbish shes read so she has a go at people like poppy who have done loads more research. I still love dogs and still have my jack russell would like another dog in the future but am not going to rely on what i read about breeds am going to ask around and watch them out and about.Looking back now theres been a few near misses with other dogs. ive learnt there is little warning with a staff they actually go very calm before attack a few people have since told me. I wish the goverment would do something about stopping breeding staffs now

Link to this comment
Avarion July 17, 2009 at 12:07 a.m.

To clarify, no I don't own a Staffie at present. My current dog is a crossbreed (terrier mix) and I've taken care of her from the age of about three or four months. She has a very sweet temperament, but cannot tolerate small children for too long. This is not due to bad breeding or poor training/socialisation, it's part of her genetic disposition. As such, my family and I have gone to great efforts to teach my 3 year old niece about respecting the dog's boundaries to ensure that she is safe, and that the dog is at ease. If my dog was to nip, it would be because of prolonged heavy petting and rough handling - in other words, an error on the human's part.

Now, if I was the parent of a small child and wanted a dog that would be suitable for a family environment, I would not choose a terrier mix based on what I know about terrier characteristics. Though they are loving and spirited, they do have a tendency to nip, can be quite territorial, and don't have a particularly high pain threshold. If my child was to start clambering on the dog and petting too hard, the dog's natural reaction would be to growl or nip; consequently, any injury my child sustains as a result of being rough with the dog is immediately my fault because I chose to bring home that breed.

I fail to see where the contradiction lies in my previous post.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 16, 2009 at 10:38 p.m.

Hannah it seems to me its you that wont listen to other people. I did own a staff, i loved him and i miss him. I am an expert.Breeders have lied. the breed is dangerous and all you do is read websites ive spoken to people whos dogs have been attacked by the breed and my vet . you have spoken to no one and just think you are a dog lover because david grant told you a bit about status dogs. my dog wasnt a status dog. read my posts. nor was he mental he was loving gentle and its the breed in the dog that made him attack. We need people like Poppy who are proper dog lovers not you all you want is for all these dangerous breeds to carry on hurting dogs and people. you disgust me with the way you dont care

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 16, 2009 at 9:14 p.m.

Where does avarian say he or she owns a staffie???

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 16, 2009 at 6:39 p.m.

Jojojo - I think what Avarion was trying to point out was that many staffies are used as status symbols, and that many ARE praised for their bad behaviour. That may not have been the case with your dog. All dogs are individuals.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 16, 2009 at 6:38 p.m.

And my dog definately wasnt praised for displaying aggressive behaviour either. My dog was never aggressive.I saw the mum with the pups and they lived in a house with kids. up till the attack my dog was gentle and loving and calm. you cant just lie

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 16, 2009 at 6:36 p.m.

jojojo - you have said that you took your puppy staffie to training and properly socialised it - which is good. I don't know why your dog attacked - but it does certainly not mean that all staffies are the same. How do you know that your dog did not have a psychological or behavioural problem? Did nothing trigger the attack on your family member? I find it difficult to believe that any dog would suddenly attack out of the blue. I agree that staffies and all dogs have different charateristics, but to attack humans is not one of them. They have always been trained to be very loyal and loving towards humans. Blaming all staffies (number of attacks in comparison to population of staffies) is slighty unfair don't you think?

Poppy - Has avarian not also made a good contribution to the debate as she owns the breed now? Or do opinions still only count to you if they are negative? You would listen to me if I had been attacked by a staffie, but my opinions don't count because I have not. And can you really call yourself an expert on this breed just because your dog was attacked by one?! I think your slightly deluded. Would you not call the real experts those who study the breed inside out, and those who breed them responsibly?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 16, 2009 at 6:05 p.m.

Avarian; You contradict yourself a bit in that last post but i get the impression you are blaming owners rather than breed. Jojojo you are making a huge contribution to the debate as you have owned the breed and have had to cope with the fact it has been proven Be warned a lot on here are pro RSPCA and kennel club views that there are no dangerous breeds only bad owners. Sadly they get all their information off the 'experts'.The real experts however are decent dog owners like ourselves who have seen dangerous breeds in action. I understand you have been let down by experts and like myself want the breed erradicated but this is not going to happen unless people stop making excuses for breed characteristics. You are quite right in what you say and my heart goes out to you and your family for what you have suffered. The kennel club lie about Staffies.It is NOT your fault your dog attacked

Link to this comment
jojojo July 16, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.

Avarian. I was on the end of the lead of a Staffie that attacked and I did nothing wrong. It was as you said at the beginning the breed characteristic of the dog. Staffs need to be on the dangerous dogs list cos even with the best of owners they are unsafe to live in families and should all be muzzled

Link to this comment
Avarion July 16, 2009 at 12:42 p.m.

Irresponsible, indiscriminate breeding is partly to blame for aggressive behaviour in otherwise sweet natured dogs. Responsible breeding seeks to phase out undesireable traits, and if a well bred dog is properly trained and socialised there is little chance of it behaving aggressively.

With this in mind, I've noticed a lot of people forget that not every breed is suitable for a family environment. No matter how well bred and trained your dog is, if it's a breed known not to work well within a family environment then it is entirely the human's fault for choosing that breed in the first place!

From everything I've seen in the past couple of years, too many people are choosing dogs based on aesthetics and not on behavioural characteristics, traits and important genetic dispositions. Not everyone has access to a dog's pedigree, but that doesn't prevent anyone from picking up a book or searching the internet for a breed history. At least this gives you an idea of the sort of dog that would be suitable for a family environment.

Staffies were originally bred for bull baiting - not to fight with other dogs and certainly not to attack people - and are naturally very eager to please and have a fondness for people. Unfortunately, they have a terrible amount of bad press because certain individuals have exploited their disposition by praising them for exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

I firmly take the same position as Mark Evans, chief vet of the RSPCA, that if there's a problem it's on the other end of the lead.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 15, 2009 at 7:27 p.m.

Hannah. I thought my staffie was one of the thousands that had lived and never attacked. I did research the breed and found nothing written about them being unreliable or that they could just turn on dogs or people for no reason.I have met people whos dogs had been attacked by the breed but never realised how often this happenned till I started asking more questions. There is hardly anything bad written about staffies but when you talk to dog owners of other breeds theres a lot bad .My dog was well trained .we went to puppy socialisation classes and further training classes. If i hadnt the injuries to my niece could have been fatal.Hannah you have said its anything and everything but breed when a dog does this but I know now that is wrong. There are too many dogs like mine well handled and well looked after that just turn.We never even played tug of war with our dog cos the vet said it can bring out aggression in the dog. I did NOTHING wrong and ive heard of loads of dogs like mine since. it IS the breed

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 15, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.

jojojo - well if that's what your vet has said then that is her opinion. But people need to start taking responsibility for their own dogs. If people would like to own a staffie then they can - as long as they know the breed inside out first, and how to look after the breed. This is the same with all breeds. What happened with your family dog is awful, but if this had not happened, would you still feel the same about staffies as you do now? Most staffies will never attack - this is because they don't want to. If breeding, fighting and general welfare of these dogs is better regulated, then their should be little/no problems. What do you feel about the thousands of staffies that have lived and haven't ever attacked or bitten?

Link to this comment
jojojo July 15, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.

Its up to us to stop breeding dogs that attack no matter what owners they have. I know I did everything right and my vet has told me some breeds are unreliable and it is not the fault of the owners in a lot of cases.

Link to this comment
lindaluvdup July 15, 2009 at 12:11 p.m.

I sympathise with anyone that has suffered in any way, but I stick to my opinion.
I think we all need to bear in mind that our dogs, from Chihuahua to Rottweiler and beyond, are all domesticated wolves. They need good pack leaders and to be seen and treated as dogs.
Some breeds are easier to manage than others and it's up to us, the humans, to investigate which breed would best suit us. There are huge resources at our disposal now, with the web, also vets, dog trainers and behavioural experts are always willing to offer free advice - it's not always a good idea to take the word of the person selling the dog.
I spent months researching before chosing dogs and I don't see why everyone else shouldn't do the same.

Link to this comment
jojojo July 14, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.

I dont agree. I think some breeds just shouldnt exist to own cos they are dangerous.

Link to this comment
lindaluvdup July 14, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.

From my own life experiences I believe it to be almost always the owner's fault in some way - nothing is 100%. I have met a few dogs that were clearly mentally unbalanced, but that could also have been caused by the humans they interacted with.
Some breeds, I think, do need experienced owners. They need a strong and capable pack leader, so you need to be aware of the breed's traits when taking on a dog and, if it looks like you're not respected as pack leader by your dog then you should get professional help asap.
I'm not the perfect boss with my dogs all the time, but greyhounds aren't a dominant breed, so I think many of us have a lot to learn about our dogs and the messages they pick up from us.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 13, 2009 at 10:28 p.m.

Poppy - No I do not currently own a dog, due to current circumstances, But will do again soon hopefully. I have previously owned a couple of cross breeds, one mainly lab mix and some mastiff. I also have a rottweiler in the family, and a couple of terriers. I also work frequently in areas with dogs and at shelters. Just because you do not agree with David Grant, that does not mean that his opinions do not count. That is the problem you have, only opinions of people who agree with your own experiences are the ones that make sense, and you only listen to people who will reinforce your ideas. Well done for conducting all of your research over the past 12 months, but as I say you only hear what you want to hear. If you had been speaking to a wide enough variety of people then you should know that staffies can make great pets, and aren't as bad as you imagine. Once again you are only listening to people like Jojojo. Why do the opinions of myself and Sue not count for anything?

Link to this comment
jojojo July 13, 2009 at 10:03 p.m.

Hannah. I used to believe as you do that there are no bad dogs only bad owners. I have had dogs all my life and did not think my Staff would be any different from my other dogs I was wrong and there is a lot of truth in the fact that breed traits take over. I learnt the hard way.Looking back I think I can now see the difference between a dangerous breed and not. I have a jack russell that is yappy and may look and sound aggressive but the staff was calm and quiet before it attacked. its dead hard to explain but poppy explains it quite well in some posts .I would love it to be true that it was all down to the owner cos if it was my niece woulnt be scarred .Im a responsible dog owner that did everything right. even my vet said theres a problem with staffs now.
Poppy, thanks for your kind words.We are trying to put it behind us but its hard not to dwell on it sometimes

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 13, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.

I do listen to your opinions, have agreed with some of them but as regards dangerous breeds attacking being the fault of the owners I have seen no evidence of this other than the thugs ive seen on tv or in the papers with their weapons of choice.As I dont live in an inner city area where these dogs seem to live I have not heard of any dog attacks from this sort of bad owner. Lets not fall out. I cant change the facts ive collected along the way.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 13, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.

Jojo I think the blame there lies with the kennel club not yourself. They still promote this pit breed as a nanny dog. I hope your niece and yourself are coping I can imagine it must have been hard to have your family pet put down.I have always believed its the breed rather than the owners fault in 80 percent or more cases so dont EVER blame yourself. If the Staffie wasnt being bred and sold as a good family dog your niece would not have been hurt.My thoughts are with you.I too have witnessed a staffie attack so I can imagine how hard it must be for you and your niece

Link to this comment
jojojo July 13, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.

I think I wish i had learnt more about the staffie breed before I brought one. i fell in love with my staff had him 2 years and he was a great familydog.I took him to puppy socialiasation classes and some other training classes after that. he didnt get on with other dogs but was great with people. One day out of character he visciously attacked my niece who was just sat next to me on the sofa.It broke my heart to have him destroyed but I realised he was not safe. I wish I had been told what this breed was really like cos i wouldnt have got one. ive heard lots of stories about staffies attacking but until it happens you dont believe its a breed thing. i used to think the blame lied with owners. its definately a breed thing. i was a good owner and have never had problems with my other dog

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 13, 2009 at 5:11 p.m.

MORE EXCUSES; My views are not an emotional knee jerk nor are they based on what happenned to my dog. i have conducted my own research over the last 12 months and am merely reporting my findings. There are as many people on this site who agree with me as those who disagree. At least i dont sit around quoting links and actually TALK to REAL people about the problems.The Staffie IS ruining DOG communities around the country ,every time a dog is attacked or killed lives are shattered. MOST people see their dog NOT as a wild pack animal but as a member of their pack or as MOST would say ,a family member. People that do not acknowledge BREED in a dog and say its all down to the owner are extremely narrow minded far more so than myself. There are other breeds that are a danger to our families too

Link to this comment
Sue July 13, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.

Sarah1 - you make some intelligent and insightful comments and observations which are lost on the likes of Poppy. I have posted on this thread many times to no avail. Poppy has had a terrible experience and I acknowledge that, as do you and as do many others. But for her, this experience appears to define the breed. Her view is very plainly that Staffies are primarily motivated by the instinct to kill, and that this is what they were born to do and what they are at their most content doing. Many others express a contrary opinion, but Poppy only accepts the views of those whose views reinforce her own prejudice. A person with a well behaved Staffie who presents a very low risk (all dogs probably present SOME risk) is not someone who reinforces Poppy's ideas, and so they are branded as being naive or making excuses. I have posted my views about pack instinct, since you have to remember that a dog is a dog, and to superimpose human characteristics on a dog, as some people do can give a distorted idea of dog behaviour, but my posts have hit stony ground with Poppy and her ilk. I do not mind if we breed fewer staffies or fewer dogs full stop as there are insufficient homes for those we already have, but breed specific legislation does not work. I really cannot imagine that Poppy's neighbourhood is actually being turned into a "bloodbath". I cannot accept that the sole cause of the ruination of her local community is the Staffie. Most of us live in communities and if all staffies were as Poppy described, then she would find herself pushing at an open door on this website instead of having to fight her corner (if you'll excuse the expression). The fact that her view and experience of this breed is different to that of so many other people is telling. She says she has spoken to vets who support her views, but some people only hear what they want to hear, and take the comments of others out of context. My opinion is that Poppy's views are an emotional knee jerk response to her own situation and environment, and such responses are not rational. Rational people find it difficult to make sense of such emotive views, as you have. You have read some of the other posts on this thread and so you will know that nothing you or I or Hannah say will make any difference to what Poppy feels about this breed. And as she is entitled to her view, then so be it.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 12, 2009 at 1:09 p.m.

And NO David Grants opinion is not important.The man is in denial like Hannah. Hannah do you actually own a dog?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 12, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.

ive spoken to vets who have worked in the midlands, north west,south west and north east of england.Also one from australia ! The one from Australia has worked throughout the uk over the last 2 years. I think i can safely say thats a good representation of the uk

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 12, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.

None of you LISTEN to what i say !!! The reason the country is not a complete blood bath is because most dog owners try very hard to control their dogs urges. I do it with my own dog but like i say although she is well trained when i visit my friends farm i put her on the lead because she wants to chase the chickens. my dog was bred as a ratter so wants to chase anything small . the dogs on the farm are working dogs and do not chase small animals because its not in their breeding to do so. the labs retrieve the pigeons, rabbits etc that are shot the collies herd the sheep etc etc. these dogs need very little training .they are doing what comes natural to THEIR breeed. What comes natural to a pit breed is damaging our communities. Also for the LAST time Hannah I do NOT live in an area with social problems. The dogs that are attacking and killing are NOT status dogs they are living in families who have trained them well

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 12, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.

Poppy – it would be interesting to know which areas the vets were based in that you have previously spoken to. It would be good if you could visit some of the surgeries in my area and plenty of other areas in this country and see what other opinions are. Any worthwhile ‘survey’ of what vet’s think about staffies cannot be based on 4 opinions. And I’m sure you must have only asked vets that you know are based in social problem areas. What about David Grant’s opinions – one of the countries top vet – do they not count for anything? I’m sure you must have watched the video of him on this site, where he is talking about this particular breed.
Anyone who has to hold their dog back (while its licking it’s lips and is tempted to kill another dog) has not trained their dog properly! You’re very blind to make a statement like this. Honestly do you really think that, I say again 250 thousand or so staffies in this country are all mean killing machines that enjoy attacking? If this is so then we would be living in a very bloody country – and they would have certainly have been banned already. Humans cannot be held responsible for their own pets? Are you serious? If everyone in your community has this same view – then that is where the problem lies! You're very one sided. Country people don’t have terrier – only labs and collies? And town people have terriers?
As with Sarah, I also know a couple of vets/nurses who certainly do not share your view.

Link to this comment
Sarah1 July 11, 2009 at 7:41 p.m.

In response to your last couple of posts, first of all try not to anthropomorphise dogs. They are not capable of “loving” to fight in the same way as a human might.
If you want to analyse dogs’ behaviour look at it in terms of the old nature vs nurture debate. IMO their behaviour can be attributed to a combination of the two.

Nature – Dogs have a natural instinct to fight in order to defend themselves, their pack or their territory. They also have an instinct to hunt.

Nurture – It’s up to owners to train and socialise their dogs so that they understand what constitutes a threat to themselves, their pack or their territory and to define what is / isn’t “prey”.

I’d also be interested to know where these 4 vets are and exactly what they said to you – I find it hard to believe that any vet would tell you that a Staffie will kill at any given opportunity.

Just by reading back on here, Malibu on 13th Jan and Schmemily on 2nd Feb both have veterinary backgrounds and disagree with your view. My friend’s brother is a vet and he owns 2 Staffies as family pets – Both our Staffies were from Rescue Centres and the vets at both of these held them up as outstanding family pets.

Link to this comment
Sarah1 July 11, 2009 at 7:40 p.m.

Hannah – I’ve just read back a bit further, I hadn’t read all the posts the first time round (there are just too many).I can see that most of what I’ve said has been said before . . . it didn’t seem to have any impact then either.

Poppy - it’s so frustrating trying to have a discussion with somebody who just ignores any points that don’t fit with her world view.
I would really like to hear your responses to some of my arguments raised in opposition to a breed-specific ban.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 11, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.

listen none of this is about what happenned to MY dog.I talk to people who love their Staffies too of course but usually at the same time im talking to them they are holding onto them tightly as the dogs are licking their lips and staring at the other dog they want to kill. I dont believe 4 vets across the country would ALL say the same thing about a breed and for the record it was a vet that told me they felt no pain until their jaws relaxed. Suppose you think these vets know nthing about breeds of dog.I think dogs that kill so easily should not be bred because humans cannot be held responsible. country people who I know dont have terriers like mine, they tend to have collies and labradors. A staffie IS a pit breed it is even origionally named staffordhire pit bull terrier. ALL dangerous dogs should cease to breed NOW

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 11, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.

Sarah – What happened to Poppy’s dog is awful, but I agree with you that emotional instincts have taken over. I have tried questioning her and asking her the logic behind her ideas – but she never answers me. I don’t understand why a ‘dog lover’ would say ban staffies and ‘disgusting rotties’ just because they are strong and have the power to hurt. All other breeds – such as terrier for example – have the power and instinct to chase a rabbit. As far as I’m concerned a rabbit’s life is just as precious as a human’s life. We should work with people and owners to train responsibly and ensure safety. It’s the owners that need training not the dogs.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 11, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.

Poppy – I think you are living too much in the past. Yes staffies were once bred for fighting, but they were also bred to be trusting human companions. Yes dog fighting is illegal. But who sets up these fights? The staffies; or the humans?
Who says that the staffies felt no pain when they were beaten – they aren’t machines! And are you sure staffies like fighting? If they did fight, the reason would be because they think they are doing the right thing by trying to please their owners. If their owner was a proper pack-leader, then they would have trained the dog that they do not need to do this to impress. Stop tarring these dogs with the same brush - “all staffies love fighting”? Are you sure about this? As Sarah says, all dogs have an instinct to fight. In the wild, your dog would fight – to gain territory or a mate, and for food. Again – you don’t know anything about this breed. What on earth makes you say a staffie will kill given the chance!!? You seem to talk to countless people about staffies – but you only seem to choose ones who you know have had an unfortunate experience. You won’t listen to people who have had wonderful staffies their whole lives. And you won’t accept that there are thousands of gentle staffies living in harmony and safety right now - with people of all ages and other dogs. And staffies are not pit breeds. They are in the terrier group – just like your dog.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 11, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.

no im saying its ok to own a staffie if nobody in your neighbourhood owns ANY dog big or small a staffie will kill it given the chance.If I lived in the country a cairn terrier would not be a suitable breed to own. She would obsess with chasing rabbits, and other small wildlife. A Staffie in the same way ruins our town and village communities. Just as the rabbits would suffer if my dog lived among them , our decent dogs suffer at the hands of fighting pit breeds living in nice family homes. They should be banned

Link to this comment
Sarah1 July 11, 2009 at 11:55 a.m.

Of course all dogs have an instinct to fight . . . the fight or flight instinct is present in all animals. What happened to your dog is awful, and she was so overpowered that she didn't have the opportunity to fight back. Had she been attacked by a smaller dog and she had been able to, then I can guarantee that her instinct would be to defend herself.

Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to follow some of the arguments in your latest posts.

You imply that it's OK to have a Terrier because your neighbour doesn't have a rabbit ?????? By that logic are you saying that it's fine for people to have Staffies as long as nobody in their neighbourhood has a smaller dog.

You also say dogs originally bred for fighting should be banned because dog-fighting is now illegal. So is badger-baiting, should Dachshunds and some of the Terrier breeds also be banned?

I ask again - how do you see a breed-specific ban being workable? I've outlined before why I don't think it's a) necessary or b) a feasible solution but you don't seem to have come back on these points.

Finally, have you actually read the link that Hannah posted, as to statistically and factually which breeds are responsible for the most injuries in the UK?

I'm not trying to pick on you Poppy, but so far your argument appears to be an emotional response and I'm having difficulty finding any logic in it.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 11, 2009 at 10:20 a.m.

ALSO not ALL dogs have an instinct to fight at all. Mine doesnt. She cried out once whenshe was attacked. She made NO attempt to fight back and was unconscious very quickly. The staffies that attacked her felt NO pain when they were beaten off me with golf umbrellas that some good citizens had ran to their houses for.Vets will tell you Staffies LOVE fighting. They will fight to the death because until they stop they feel NO pain

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 11, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.

Bethany kate ; they are dangerous and aggressive. That is true. I dont have a neighbour with a rabbit. If my dog saw a rabbit it would chase it yes and might kill it if it caught it. BREED instinct. She has been trained the LEAVE IT command but if instinct took over then yes she could kill the rabbit. Instinct takes over FAR too often with pit breeds and its family pets that die as a result.Every day in the uk somebodys pet , a family member is being killed by a breed that should no longer be around. May i remind you ALL again. Dog fighting is illegal in this country therefore it is animal cruelty to continue breeding fighting dogs.

Link to this comment
Sarah1 July 11, 2009 at 8:25 a.m.

Thank you Hannah - I'm glad that there is someone on here who is taking a wider view.

Poppy, I'm not making excuses for Staffies - I am trying to present the facts of the situation. I know that this is a very emotional issue for you and I don't think that I'll change your mind. However, the fact is that whether you like these dogs or not they are with us and a ban will not substantially change that fact. I pointed out in my last post the reasons why a breed-specific ban will not work. The answer has to lie with encouraging owners (of all breeds)to be more responsible.

Out of interest, how wide a ban do you want? You've mentioned Staffies and GSDs. I also know two dog owners whose pets have been attacked by Greyhounds - should they make the ban list too? And you own a terrier right? What would happen if a neighbour's rabbit got into your garden? Perhaps they should be banned too.

The fact is that dogs are animals and ALL have an instinct to fight if they feel threatened and also to hunt. The consequences with larger dogs can be more severe, but this doesn't make them any better / worse than other breeds.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 11, 2009 at 7:59 a.m.

bethany-kate - staffies are not aggressive or dangerous.

http://www.dogbiteclaims.co.uk/compensation/dangerous-breeds.html

Link to this comment
bethany kate July 10, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.

Id love to see Staffies banned. They are not to be trusted and its always them that kill nice dogs. I hate them and dont understand how anyone could want one in their house

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 9, 2009 at 7:15 p.m.

Hannah i have told you before I didnt like dangerous breeds before my dog was attacked and there is no problem with dog owners where I live. I dont see any thug types with weapon dogs like in that tv programme. My vet says its a problem all over the country AGAIN Hannah you are making excuses and no I am not the sae person as Jimbo but I agree with the comments as you repeat everything Sue says on a regular basis.I AM a dog lover which is why I want to live amongst safe breeds that dont kill

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 9, 2009 at 6:16 p.m.

Sarah1 - I have pointed out what you have said in your last post many times! But Poppy will never look further than what has happened to her and her dog involving a staffie. I agree with you that these are wonderful dogs, who need to be treated with more respect. Breed specific bans will never solve anything.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 9, 2009 at 6:16 p.m.

Poppy - its fair enough that you love your dog and don't care about other dogs - but you need to understand that there are people such as myself that care for ALL dogs and ALL breeds. Would you still hate the staffie breed if one of them hadn't hurt your dog and others that you know? Training a dog to FREEZE, as Sarah says, is not going against its natural instincts. It means that it is a well trained dog. I'm sure you have taught your dog a few things such as sit, come and wait - so then you must think that these are not natural instincts either. You can't really talk about natural instincts too much, mainly because pet dogs aren't any where near being all natural, not unless they live in the wild. You have spoken to vets from all areas of the country about staffies attacking, but have you gone into each case in detail with the owners of the dog and the victim to see what happened each time? Probably not. If you think Sarah1 is making excuses for the dogs behaviour, then I'd like to know what you think the excuses are - in terms of what EXACTLY triggers a dog to attack. We all know that these dogs were once trained to fight. But there is more to it than that isn't there?
Also, it might be a good idea for you to try and resolve some of the problems in your own community because there seems to be a few issues with the sort of people who own these dogs.

Jimbo & Poppy - are you the same person? You both say very similar things like "a real dog lover would not defend carrying on breeding these killers". It's surprising that people can actually think like this.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 9, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.

Also Jimbo My heart goes out to that poor dog and the lady who had to watch that disgusting horrific killing. Im not suprised she is still ill.Everyone ive spoken to who has witnessed a staffie attack has been trauatised. i still have flashbacks and was on medication for a few weeks after the attack. I agree with you that there are loads of decent breeds we can have as pets

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 9, 2009 at 5:28 p.m.

Jibo I totally agree with what you have to say.Sarah Again you are one of many making Excuses for BREED behaviour. ANY breed couldnt try to fight back against an aggressive breed at all. when y dog was attacked by staffies she cried out in pain once then was alost unconscious immediatly. Staffies are a fighting breed NO non dangerous breed stands a chance against them. And please dont do what many on here do and say youve seen aggressive yorkies etc...it gets silly and akes too uch light of a very serious problem in our comunities

Link to this comment
Sarah1 July 9, 2009 at 8:40 a.m.

Poppy, I didn’t say that the “freeze command” went against *that breed’s* natural instinct to fight. It would be the natural instinct of *any* dog to retaliate if pinned down, unable to escape and being attacked. It’s just that as a powerful dog she could have inflicted more damage if she had fought back.

Jimbo, your story is horrific and I agree with both of you that there is currently a problem with people keeping large, aggressive dogs - however, IMO, the problem is not with the breeds but with the fact that it is too easy for people to acquire a dog without having the knowledge or experience to properly train it and that there are many people for whom a large, powerful dog is a status symbol. Just because a dog has the power to do harm, does not mean that it will do. A car can also be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands, yet we don’t propose banning cars . . . instead we educate drivers through the driving test, ensure that they have a licence to show their competence, have the Highway Code to dictate what “safe driving” entails and impose penalties for anyone breaking these rules.

In an ideal world I would like to see a similar training and licensing arrangement in place for dog owners (of any breed) . . . but obviously the practicalities of that don’t make it a simple solution.

Banning all large, powerful breeds can only have a few potential outcomes – none of them addressing the real issue.
1) The breeding of these dogs will be driven underground, resulting in a glut of illegal puppy farms.
2) Some breeders will try to meet demand by bypassing the law - cross-breeding from these dogs and creating crosses that still retain the features of the original breeds, but don’t fall into the “illegal classification”
3) Even if you could eliminate 1 and 2, people who want a large, powerful dog will move onto the biggest and, strongest of the newly “legal” breeds. Before long we will see these becoming a status symbol in the same way as the currently so-called current “dangerous breeds” with idiots promoting aggressive behaviour. What’s the answer then? Ban those breeds as well?

Link to this comment
jimbo July 8, 2009 at 8:39 p.m.

ive been reading some of the comments on here and have to say I agree with POPPY. There are too many excuses made for the fact that dangerous breeds cant be trusted to interact socially with other dogs. I have a friend whos little dog was killed by a staffie, she witnessed the beast drag her dog out of her arms ,kill it and has never recovered. she has been on medication for 18 months because of this breed. its a disgrace that they are still legal. i talk to people who wont hear a bad word against staffies but i have also met people who are scared to walk their dogs because they fear meeting one. they are a disgusting breed and a real dog lover would not defend carrying on breeding these killers. ive also met people who have been badly injured by them . We only need dogs as pets so why are we breeding fighting dogs to live in families. its wrong!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 8, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.

of the breeds that will kill other dogs at every opportunity the Staffie is the most popular AT THE MOMENT. My witch hunt is not aimed at any particular breed but ALL dangerous breeds. You said it yourself the Staffie was well trained to FREEZE and this went against the breeds NATURAL instinct to fight. There is NO reason to carry on breeding dogs whos power and instinct is so strong. Our communities would be safer and happier places for dogs and owners if the dangerous breeds were erradicated. I quite agree german shepherds are ALSo too powerful to have as family pets. There are plenty of loyal good with children breeds out there that couldnt kill on an instinct basis and that is all we need in a supposedly civilized society. You Own a Staffie and are going to defend him or her but that doesnt mean the country wouldnt be better off without them and other breeds that IF as popular would also be killing on a regular basis. I dont care what Hannah says this breed DOES kill on a regular basis . Ive spoken to vets from the north west north east south west and midlands and they are ALL seeing attacks on a weekly basis by this breed that belongs where dog fighting does ...in the history books

Link to this comment
Sarah1 July 8, 2009 at 12:06 p.m.

I’ve just come across this page and I am absolutely horrified that a debate about the causes of aggressive behaviour in dogs seems to have turned into a witch-hunt for one particular breed – Staffies. I can only assume that those of you in the anti-Staffie camp have never had the pleasure of encountering a well socialised and properly trained Staffie.

Let’s put things into perspective here.
The biggest argument against Staffies seems to be because they were bred for fighting, but what does that mean exactly?

At the most basic level, it means that they are agile, strong and have powerful jaws . . . and yes it does mean that they have the potential to do much harm to humans or other animals. It DOES NOT mean that because they have the potential to do harm that they are more likely to attack than any other breed – just that in the instances where this does happen the consequences will be more severe.

It also means that they have been bred to show great loyalty to their “human masters”. It is not natural for ANY animal to fight to the death unless defending their young (no matter what species or breed) yet where the disgusting practice of dog-fighting does go on these dogs will exhibit this unnatural behaviour at their owners’ encouragement .

What you have in a Staffie is a dog that is loyal to its owners at all costs and a great companion for children. Because they are such sturdy dogs they are far more willing to tolerate clumsy stroking by young children than many other breeds. Their bad reputation stems from those idiots that buy a Staffie, thinking they look “hard” with this breed at the end of a lead.

My heart really goes out to anyone whose dog has been attacked by a Staffie, but please don’t apply this to every dog of the same breed.

It can also happen the other way around. My Staffie was attacked several years ago by a German Shepherd. Although she certainly had the ability to defend herself and hurt / possibly kill her attacker, she didn’t. Why? Because she has been properly trained and when the command was given for her to freeze she did even though her every instinct must have been to defend herself.
She was quite severely injured and for a long time after this incident I felt nervous walking her (yes a nervous Staffie walker). However, I don’t hate all German Shepherds as a result. I blame the owner who had no idea how to control his dog . . . in fact I had to take control of his dog for him and hold it until he could get it back on its lead.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 7, 2009 at 9:16 p.m.

I love my dog so if that makes me a dog lover so be it. If it was decided that there were going to be no more cairn terriers bred id still have my dog so why would that bother me. all it would mean would be i would have to choose another breed next time i wanted to own a dog. I love MY dog she is part of my family . I HATE the breed that nearly killed her and thousands of other dogs and really couldnt care less about losing half the aggressive breeds you lot seem to be so attracted to no. I would have liked the dogs that attacked mine to be put down because i would hate any other dog to suffer the way mine did. I dont believe wanting to preserve breeds that damage communities is the sign of a dog lover i think its cruel

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 7, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.

Poppy - I'm surprised an 'animal lover' such as yourself would come out with a comment like that. Obviously dog lovers would want to preserve all breeds of dog. We all know that dog behaviour stems from their environment, so who are we to say that certain breeds must be banned. We maybe humans, but we shouldn't dictate which breeds survive and which don't. I'm surprised you don't realise that there are many people who love staffies and any other breeds which you hate. What would your feelings be if someone said "who cares if the breeds of dog Poppy likes were banned?". You may hate the staffie breed, but you should have realised by now that the majority of people don't hate staffies. Why don't we just stop breeding labradors? I mean will anyone really care?? You think we are strange for wanting to preserve a breed, well perhaps it's because we are not selfish enough to think that we can play 'god' and decide which breeds stay or go. "I couldn't care less if half the breeds in this country dissapeared" - hmm some dog lover you are!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 6, 2009 at 9 p.m.

I dont understand. Why does it matter to some people if we stop breeding some breeds of dog anyway. There are still going to be other breeds available to choose from. I couldnt care less if half the breeds in this country dissappeared as I only want a safe pet in my home. Im beginning to think it very strange the people on here who WANT to preserve breeds WHY !!!!

Link to this comment
Sue July 6, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.

Hi everyone - just had a thought - Hannah, you are right, if it wasn't seen as being "cool" to own a fierce looking mutt, then the demand would probably diminish and the net result would be less breeding. I suppose it is the demand which feeds the problem, like everything else. So if we had compulsory muzzling and we were ALL walking round with muzzles on our dogs faces, then in a way, our dogs wouldn't look much different to some thugs pit breed. I always think a muzzle gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) of a dog you don't really want to mess with. So the thugs wouldn't stand out any longer, and they would just have to look for something else to boost their image wouldn't they?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 5, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.

Thats no good though. Unless compulsary muzzling is the result dogs like mine are still going to be killed by dangerous breeds.Keep telling you 9 times out of 10 its the BREED not an irresponsible owner.

Link to this comment
ghorror July 5, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

The way dogs act are the way the owner brings them up. I think its horrible that people brandish these dogs are violent, nasty dogs. For example staffy dogs have been brandish as evil dogs and they arent. It is all down to the owner, and young men and women shouldnt take on a dog or any other animals if they are going to use them for there image.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 5, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.

Poppy – it looks like the website is working again, but I think it was just a computer problem because the comments were there but every time I opened the page they all disappeared until the next day. So staffies don’t technically have ‘lockjaw’, but of course they do have VERY strong jaws. But hopefully if ALL owners teach their pets that biting is wrong, then we shouldn’t have much of a problem.
Your quote “Anna illegaldog fighting is disgusting but as long as fighting breeds are still legal its going to happen”. But if we try and educate these people who want to fight dogs (most of them are thick so would be tricky) then eventually dog fighting can be phased out. It is the PEOPLE who are dog fighting not the dogs.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 5, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.

To foreverstaffielover – Yes there needs to be more campaigning on this subject. It is something that is ignored by people most of the time. And it doesn’t help by all the rubbish that is thrown out by the media. I completely agree with you that humans are to blame, and are the ones who need punishing, not the poor dogs. Humans are the ones who destroy and hurt – we are the ones that need re-educating. I have been on and off of this blog for months and have been trying to explain this to the people who want staffies/rotties (beautiful dogs) banned. It’s unbelievable.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 5, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.

Sue – If we ever come to a time when staffies are no longer ‘cool’ to own by youths and dog fighting no longer exists, then breeding should, in theory, decrease quite a bit. Simply because the huge demand will not be there. Breeding still needs to happen (obviously) to keep the breed alive. I’m not sure if you need a license for breeding? But if you don’t, then there should be a licence, and a very hefty fine if ignored. This would hopefully attempt to put a stop to some of the back street breeding, and those who are breeding dogs for fighting. This idea I think would help (it would be hard to regulate, but may deter some of the people who do it), along with your ideas too.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 July 3, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.

This website is not working!

Link to this comment
Sue July 3, 2009 at 9:09 a.m.

Poppy - you are right, a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act is under way and will be debated in parliament in the near future. They are trying to put more emphasis on responsible ownership rather than promoting breed specific legislation, which is a move I support because whilst I accept that some breeds have more of a propensity to become aggressive than others, nevertheless, policing dogs by breed has proven unworkable. If you make people responsible, then I think there is a better fighting chance of combating the problem which I do not deny exists in some parts of the country. The outcome may indeed be compulsory muzzling, which I as a responsible dog owner would comply with, although it would make me very sad to see my gentle little collie with a muzzle on her face. Anna - I do not support any ban on Staffies, but I have always said on my posts that I would support better breeding controls. There are simply more dogs than homes for them to go to, and I am not just referring to Staffies here. You only have to go around the dog shelters, and Staffie type dogs do tend to get overlooked there because of the sort of reputation they are gaining. So controls on the indiscriminate and unnecessary breeding of all dogs, including Staffies, is what I would like to see, together with more onus being placed on dog owners to ensure that their dogs do not pose a risk to other pets or humans - with strictly enforced penalties to deal with those who will choose not to comply.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 1, 2009 at 9:24 p.m.

Anna illegaldog fighting is disgusting but as long as fighting breeds are still legal its going to happen. what is equally disgusting is family pets killing other family pets and its always the breeds that should be banned under the dangerous dogs act mainly Staffies

Link to this comment
anna1234 July 1, 2009 at 8:56 p.m.

I think it all lies with the owner. Yeah some breeds are more aggressive than others but they are forced to fight on this stand thingy when they are just weeks/months old. It's very cruel and I think it is very mean to have your dog as your weapon and not as your friend. I wish I could make it stop!!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 1, 2009 at 7:22 p.m.

again hAnnah ive answered your post and yours AND mine have been removed.To clear up a point I didnt mean their jaws were built differently but there are only a few breeds of dog that have the ability to lock onto their prey.The jaws can lock tight so it is impossible to prise them open. they then shake their head while the jaw is locked tight and the prey dies. The vets ive seen over the last year for my dogs treatment explained this to me and I have read it on various sites when discussing dog attacks.It was also discussed at the recent court case on the baby in whales who died .that was in the paper. I accept what you are saying that anatomically there is no lockjaw. It is a characteristic that was bred into fighting dogs more to do with strength to kill that other breeds dont posess

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 1, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.

Also Sue, TWINKLE etc Ive had a letter back from the house of commons today. ITS being debated soon and am hoping there are enough MPs keen to pass a compulsary muzzling law. It would be nice to feel my little dog counted,Staffies can kill as many dogs as they like but unless they hurt a human they wont be destroyed. I think THATS appauling too. I really wanted the two vile dogs that attacked mine destroyed

Link to this comment
poppy2007 July 1, 2009 at 5:49 p.m.

twinkle your dog my dog and thousands more in this country have country nearly been killed or actually killed by staffies.You are right when you say there is a lot wrong with the breed. Its not the dogs fault or ALWAYS the owners fault. We have our first Staffie owner on here now convinced her dog wouldnt harm a fly. Well thats what EVERY staffie owner says until their dog kills another dog and then they say its out of character!! Like pit bulls Staffies are bred to fight. given the chance that is what a pure breed will do. If this breed is not going to be banned and the various other dangerous breeds out there then compulsary muzzling with strict penalties for non complience should keep our dogs safe.A Staffie owner is not going to be scared to walk their dogs but like you Twinkle I just dont enjoy it anymore. I pick my dog up FAR too often because this breed even managed to kill a yorkie in Sheffield when it was on lead. If the dogs jaws lock on another dogs throat there is no chance for the victim. I think this breed is damaging community life as the pit bull did. MY dog is a huge part of family life for me and she suffers because dangerous pit fighting breeds are still being born.They are in shelters because they cant be trusted and its CRUEL to continue breeding them.

Link to this comment
Twinkle July 1, 2009 at 8:19 a.m.

What a rant! I was angry too when my dog was pinned to the floor and almost killed by a staffie. Ok, so I do blame the owner, it was a known agressive dog, it should not have been off lead (my dog wasnt!!) There IS a problem with staffies AND some owners. Excuses are made right left and centre, in the mean time there are loads of people VERY scared of walking their dogs in some areas.
Look at the poor poor dogs in rescue, its heartbeaking, and the breeders keep on breeding them! There is a problem with dogs in general in many parts of this country. What the answer is I dont know. For myself I would give anything to just be able to relax and enjoy walking my dog, if compulsary muzzling were brought in I'd welcome it, I would feel safer,and it would stop many serious injuries to other peoples pets. Not that some idiots would comply.
Trying to breed out traits of in dogs that have been there for generations is not feasible i dont think, like trying to stop a collie from herding and a whippet from running.

Link to this comment
foreverastaffielover June 30, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

SUE - Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate them. You're right, I'm extremely angry and very saddened by all the nonsense and ignorance of some people, and definitely saddened by the dog fighting. China, Spain, where ever, world-wide dogs and other animals are cruely treated. This is just another fact of life unfortunately - Again, HUMANS are the DANGEROUS BREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Always for entertainment or money. China is one of, if not the worst, country in the world for cruelty to animals. Beggars belief doesn't it?? I wouldn't say its any different though, cruelty is cruelty. Full stop. The world is full of sickos. While we're at it all you for banning - Why dont we kill all the elephants, tigers, lions, even bees!!! All are DANGEROUS. The list is endless. NO I'M NOT SUGGESTING SUCH, JUST HIGHLIGHTING HOW RIDICULOUS THIS ALL IS. I LOVE ALL ANIMALS. Instead of getting on your soap box preaching to the world BAN THE BREED, educate yourself PLEASE. Get a reality check and support saving them rather than eradicating them. No amount of 'rare attacks' warrant them being banned/killed. Have you researched each and every case? Are you a professional in dog attacks? No, nor am I, but I know right from wrong. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for jumping on the modern day witch hunt if you like. Do something beneficial to the world if you want to 'change the world'. I thought the medieval days were over. By the way I write with my left hand, that therefore makes me a witch, therefore I'm dangerous, so hang/drown me. Ridiculous I know, but that's how this all sounds. Its pathetic. STAFFIES ARE AMAZING DOGS. I do agree that it is scary when you have imbociles raising dogs to attack/be aggresive - The best & right thing is report them!!!! Have the courage of your convictions and bring these morons to justice. MAJORITY will support you!! Its the owner, not the dog. Go on, do it. The dogs need help, the owners need banning. If you report them, they can NEVER own a dog, and yes I know that's not worth the paper its written on sometimes, but its a step forward. DONT KEEP QUIET. Hold your head up high and report the bad owners. They dont deserve a right to have an animal. Most definitely report any dog fighting you're aware of - In fact, if you know but are afraid, tell me and I'll do it, and i'll tell them I did it too. You have to rise above them. I'm not frightened of them, they're low life.

Link to this comment
Sue June 30, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.

foreverstaffielover - I can understand your anger, and if you've read all the posts you will understand that I am not one of the people who seeks to demonize the Staffie, but there are some who for whatever reason think it is time for a ban. Frankly, none of these views make me angry, because if you visit www.animalsasia.org you will read all about the dog cull taking place currently in Hanzhong in China. THAT makes me livid with rage. Compared to that, all this is trivia. I have two dogs who I guard with my life, and yes, you are right, Homo Sapiens is about the most dangerous breed on the planet and should probably also be banned! I would not be put off owning a Staffie by anything I have read on this forum. I only ever end up with animals I have rescued, and when that happens, it isn't a matter of choice is it? You step in to save a dog in distress - the breed is not really something you balk about in that situation, you just act and do your best for the dog. If I ever ended up with a Staffie, I would get on with it. My auntie had a Staffie who grew up with the kids and the cats and other dogs in the household - no problems, he lived a happy long life and died of old age. I have always said that it is poor management at the other end of the lead which is largely to blame.

Link to this comment
foreverastaffielover June 30, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.

I've read a majority of these posts and am flabbergasted at how many think staffies should not exist?? Please, do not think this. Spend some time with one, and you'll see how gentle, loving, stupid, amusing, fun, active, intuitive, caring, soppy, attentive, and adorable they truly are. PLEASE dont fall into the scaremongering. ALL dogs can bite - They have teeth. Obviously avoid idiots that promote them to be violent - Do not approach on this basis. If you know someone who owns one, ask if its ok to spend some time with one. THEN and only then can you make judgement. I know lots of people with this breed, they're top of most peoples' lists. I never realised how many people are against them. This has REALLY upset me. I know that dog kennels are FULL to the brim with this breed, and I wish I owned lots of land, because I'd look after them all. I once had someone approach me and say 'did you know your dog is one of them dangerous ones!!' I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This person has NEVER had a dog grace her life (unfortunately). Peoples' ignorance REALLY rattles my cage. I'm really not that stupid to put my 10 year old daughter IN DANGER. To leave her with a stranger would be more dangerous I think!! And that sums us wonderful un-dangerous human beings up doesn't it :-) I'd trust a dog over a human ANY DAY (other than my nearest and dearest of course!). I LOVE MY STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER WITH EVERY BREATH I TAKE AND THE ONLY FEAR I HAVE IS THAT SOMEONE WILL STEAL HER FROM ME. GOD FORBID ANYONE EVERY TOOK HER - BUT IT HAPPENS - WATCH YOUR DOG WITH YOUR LIFE (I DO)- OR SHE/HE WILL END UP WITH THE MORONS OF SOCIETY WHO ENJOY DESTROYING THEM.

Link to this comment
foreverastaffielover June 30, 2009 at 2:36 p.m.

I own an amazing staffie. She is the soppiest bundle of joy. She makes your heart melt. YOU haven't lived till you've had a staffie in your life. I was brought with all breeds (Dobermans, German Shepards, Rotweillers, Jack Russells, Bull Mastiffs), and never bitten by one! We rescued SEVERAL too, ALL ABUSED - Not ONCE EVER did they attack us. Dogs will treat you how you treat them. Out of fear they'll attack. Staffies are top of my list for having with children. She is a major part of our family. I do think it would be a good idea to vet people that want to own ANY dog, but that will never be until the government move their back sides and realise this is IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Irresponsibility/poverty can all contribute. This needs addressing. Make nuturing FREE instead of lining the vets' pockets. Does anyone care? I'm ashamed to be human, WE'RE THE DANGEROUS BREED EVERYONE!! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. I ABSOLUTELY HATE WITH A PASSION THE EVIL VILE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE DOGS' DEMISE. A SO CALLED 'SPORT' (DOG FIGHTING). THEY'RE ALL SOCIAPATHS. HOW CAN ANYONE NOT HAVE A SHRED OF REMORE/FEELING??? ITS NOT COOL, ITS EVIL. I SINCERELY HOPE THE DOGS TURN ON THEIR TRAINERS. THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIABLE. I'm saddened to see people on this blog feel this breed (Staffies, or any come to that) shouldn't exist? I find that hard to understand, especially when they've clearly never owned one, otherwise they wouldn't say it. I actually had a toy poodle once savage me - YES THAT'S TRUE!! - But I wouldn't want to abolish this breed?? Its a dog, dogs can bite as can humans. Its the vermin that train and destroy this breed (+ pit bulls + other breeds) that should be destroyed. Its a shame these dogs fall into these peoples SICK arms. They're severly abused for their sick pleasures (and of course money plays a part again!! GET A LIFE!!!). I've been looking for a campaign to against this - ALL I CAN FIND IS ACTIVITY IN THE USA!!!! How shocking is that - No one seems to care about these breeds. The government/police should see this as a priority but it never will be because the breeds do not seem to warrant any rescue, only a minority it seems want to prevent this evilness. It breaks my heart. I've made myself watch a couple fights on the TV, to my disgust, but we cant all turn a blind eye. Its so distressing to see. How on earth does this happen. They're all cowards, they should be responsible for what they do at the very least, but no, THEY HIDE!! BECAUSE THEY'RE COWARDS. ITS NOT BIG, AND ITS DEFINITELY NOT CLEVER. MORONS OF OUR SOCIETY THAT KEEP HIDING. ROT IN HELL ALL OF YOU.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 27, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.

Poppy - Attacks will keep happening until people learn how to look after their dogs , and until dogs are properly socially trained in the right ways. I will never accept your opinion that these breeds aren't suitable for family life. Staffies (and pit bulls) were once bred to fight and at and the same time be loyal, calm and trustworthy family pets. I believe that if these types of breeds were bred by accredited breeders that know what they are doing, and that have a love for these breeds, then eventually all traces of any aggressiveness towards other dogs may be banished. I do think that compulsary muzzling would help save lives of other dogs, but I do not think that this is a long term solution, nor do I think this will ever be made law.
Could you please post the link of the website you found that has the info about staffies having lockjaw.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 27, 2009 at 3:31 p.m.

hannah two of my posts and another one of yours have gone. it would seem the rspca are only printing the comments that they choose to. Shame on you RSPCA

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 27, 2009 at 2:37 p.m.

Attacks in the home with children like you say cannot be avoided until people like yourself accept that some BREEDS of dog are not suitable for family life. If GSDs and other Breeds are killing dogs on a regular basis again these dogs should NOT be being bred. There is a difference between BRED characteristics and a dog that attacks out of insecurity or other reasons usually down to ownership issues. Compulsary Muzzling should save a lot of dogs lives and alyhough my dog is of a breed that doesnt need it I would welcome it. Incidently Ive done a lot of research on the internet as well as at the local animal hospital and im afraid you are wrong. In certain breeds of dog the jaws DO lock and the Staffie is one of them. This is how they kill. The jaws were developed this way to bring a bull down by its nose.The Staffie can also pull more than 30 times its body weight, also developed to bring the bull down. I hear what you are saying in that this is not the only breed that is killing dogs at the moment. I would never want to live with any of the breeds you have mentioned. it is unfair to the rest of the community to own a fighting or aggressive breed unless it is permanently muzzled. The only way forward is for ALL breeds of dogs to be muzzled in public places and for the pit breeds, GSD and various other breeds to ALWAYS be muzzled when around children. Adults that have chosen a dangerous breed have only got themselves to blame if their dog turns on them but children didnt choose to be in danger from the dog .

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 27, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.

For the life of me I cannot understand why we still insist on breeding fighting dogs in this country its cruel to ALL dogs Staffies included to carry on breeding them.Anyone who has seen a Staffie rip another breed to shreds will realise this is not just a case of aggression but a case of BREED

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia June 27, 2009 at 12:56 a.m.

why are staffies still walking around is a mystery to me
they are very lovely and all that nanny stuff
as long as they are read about in history books
once upon the time says the real trustworthy nanny there was dog that would and could have torn you to pieces but thankfully they are no longer around us.. as people came to their senses and they are all the wrong shape and were not be aproved by the EU

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 26, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.

Staffies DO have lockable jaws. I saw 4 vets when my dog was attacked and had this explained to me it is the reason for why she had so many drains in her the jaws had locked and the ragging action of the dog tears the flesh in the way that there are fragments of tissue missing ....bla bla bla I know but the point is all 4 vets said the breed has jaws that lock . Its common knowledge amongst vets.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 26, 2009 at 8:53 p.m.

kbaker234 - Fortunatly not all staffie owners are cruel - there are plenty of kind owners. But there are also a lot of people who do buy these dogs for the wrong reasons, and there are a lot of people who purchase this breed without realising that they can be very strong. Staffies are a very loving breed, but should have knowledgable owners.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 26, 2009 at 8:50 p.m.

Poppy - I posted a comment on here a couple of days ago but it seems to have disapeared. In short, I was saying that if you have a look on the Internet, you can find all sorts of news stories of all different breeds of dog which have attacked and killed, including GSDs and greyhounds. I also mentioned that dogs do not have 'lockjaw'. There is nothing in their skeletal structure that allows them to lock their jaws. All breeds have the same basic structure, but different shapes and sizes. Obviously there are certain breeds with very strong jaws, which are the ones we have mentioned, and others too. The only way a dog may have 'lockjaw', is if the dog has a medical condition.
I also said that if there was a law meaning all dogs must be muzzled in public, then what about the dogs that have killed in their own homes, and dogs that escape from their homes. When dogs excape they sometimes can become aggressive.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 26, 2009 at 2:37 p.m.

Kbaker; I daresay there are a minority of Staffie owners that treat dogs like that but the vast majority treat them with kindness and dicipline. The ONLY reason thugs that you mention buy Staffies is because they are a FIGHTING BREED> You would not find this kind of person buying a placid breed because they are NOT dog lovers. At the end of the day there should be no more fighting dogs bred and this problem would not occur

Link to this comment
kbaker234 June 26, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.

i think that the owner is resonable. the owners of staffs kick and punch them and teach them to fight to gain respect and the fear off people. personally i think its sick the way people treat animals they are living things and should be respected. Dogs are very kind and loyal animals.
if you cant look after a pet right why have it in the first place. thank god for the rspca for doing a good job in protecting animals across the country.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 21, 2009 at 9:29 p.m.

Poppy - The only reason that I am aware of deaths caused by GSDs (and other breeds) is mainly because I do a bit of researching on the Internet. When searching, you could probably find that nearly most breeds have attacked dogs and humans at some point. Obviously some more than others, and lot of breeds attack in extremily rare cases. You should do some research yourself (if you have the time).
I'd also like to mention that there is no such thing as 'lockjaw' in dogs. There is nothing within the skeletal structure of any breed of dog that shows that their jaws are built this way. There are also no obvious differences between the main structure of the jaw of say, a Pit Bull, and that of a Labrador for example. The only time when any dog would be able to do this is if the dog has a medical disorder that ables them to lock their jaw - the same as with Humans.
If muzzling was made law, then dog bites in public will certainly reduce. Dogs that are in public are always under supervision by the owners (as in the dog is always being walked by someone). There are exceptions to this - such as stray dogs and escaped dogs. If everyone trained their dogs properly then there should be no need to muzzle. It seems to me that many fatal attacks seem to happen in the home, and often involves a youngster in the family. SO how can attacks like this be avoided. Also dogs seem to become more aggressive if they manage to escape from their home - they then go on to attack, and this is made worse by the fact that they are not under any supervision. The dog will probably not be muzzled in this situation either. I think that a lot of attacks must happen in the home and when dogs manage to escape.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 21, 2009 at 10:41 a.m.

H annah. Im not aware of German Shepherds or Whippets attacking or killing dogs but I believe Mags has seen this or heard of it. They are not breeds of dog I personally would want to own as a family pet.Because there are always going to be dangerous dogs around that dont fall into banned breed catergories the only safe way to save lives IS compulsary muzzling. I have never owned a breed that has any aggression in it myself and in an ideal world I would want ALL dogs with lock jaw banned for a srart but this is not going to happen wheras as Sue says muzzling could be enforced immediatly and with immediate effect so long as penalties for not complying were of the highest for all crimes;ie not JUST a fine. If muzzling was LAW and a dog attacks we can DEFINATely say the BLAME for the attack then lies with the owner not the dog.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 20, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

Poppy - It is a shame that the 'pit bulls' were put to sleep. I agree though that it is not the RSPCA's fault. They have to do it because it is law. I'm sure it is against their beliefs though. Who says that staffies are killing on a daily basis? And what about the breeds that Mags mentioned? (GSDs and greyhounds).

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 20, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

Sue - In regards to muzzling, I think that it would be a good start to try and avoid people from thinking that muzzling is associated with aggressiveness - as you have stated, dogs wear muzzles for various reasons. People who do not know the dog or owner will not understand why the dog they see is wearing a muzzle, and they should not assume things. I think it is naive for Poppy to think that you are naive for stating that you're not aware of any dog attacks in your area. I am in the same position, as in I have not heard of any dog attacks in my area either. That might not mean that they do not happen, but if they did I imagine they are only minor attacks - which are probably common in many areas.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 20, 2009 at 7:56 p.m.

Mags53 - I think the RSPCA must very much dislike having to put dogs like these down. But due to this stupid Dangerous Dogs Act - they have no choice. I think it was awful that they put the pups shown on RSPCA 24/7 to sleep, but until the law changes, it will keep happening. It is terrible that these blatantly friendly dog's lives ended this way - the person who bred these innocnent dogs should be banned from keeping animals for life. To my next point, Poppy and Sammy say they are great animal lovers, and they also say that anyone who does not support a ban on staffies is no animal lover themselves and they are putting vulnerable lives at risk. This is rubbish, like you say, a true dog/animal lover should support all breeds. You have said that you think that ANY dog that attacks must be destroyed. Do you mean kill or just attack? And also attack to what severity? Do you think that dogs that attack could be 're-trained' to be more well behaved after thet have attacked? I'm not sure how I feel about this point you have made. I do think that it is a little unfair to destroy a dog. It would be good to get inside of the mind of dogs to see extactly why they have attacked.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 20, 2009 at 7:56 p.m.

Sammyd - If a law came in to muzzle all dogs, then everyone should comply. As you have previously said, staffies seem to attack even when then owner thought that they were a gentle dog. Remember all dogs are capable of attacking, so who is to say what dog will bite and what dog won't bite. I'd also like to add that muzzling a dog doesn't/shoultn't cause any suffering nor is it cruel or punishing at all. There are no 100% guaranteed 'safe' breeds. Labradors, for example, have the power to injure it's victims, and a small number of them have killed humans and dogs. In my opinion there is no such thing as 'decent' breeds - you cannot label breeds this way. If there is a law on muzzling, the only way to make sure all the right dogs wear them is by making ALL dogs where them otherwise how else would the new law be controlled?
I hope that one day people will move on from using dogs as weapons, and that perhaps pit bulls we one day be allowed 'back' into the public and belong to only people who know what the needs of this breed are - they really aren't nasty dogs at all.
In reply to your next point where you stated that taking the muzzle off of dangerous dogs will make them more dangerous. Well, if the owner was able to train and treat their dog correctly, then this shouldn't be a problem. I think you are associating muzzles with aggressiveness, which is what many people seem to do. The dog should be properly trained to wear a muzzle, and as Poppy says, the dog will hopefully begin to associate wearing a muzzle with fun walkies.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 18, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.

Also Mags the reason you havnt seen a dog ripped to shreds by a pit bull is that they have been an illegal breed in this country for about 16 years now.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 18, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.

if dogs are being killed on a regular basis by one particular breed they should be banned yes. At the moment Id say definatly staffies ans staffie crosses. these took over where pit bulls left off except they are not used in illegal fighting in the same way pit bulls were though am sure some are. Im in favour of compulsary muzzling as a ban would not go far enough to cover ALL aggressive dog breeds

Link to this comment
Sue June 18, 2009 at 9:18 a.m.

Mags - I looked on the BBC website but I was too late to watch the episode you described as they only show them for a limited number of days. Still, I agree with your views on this and the only justification to destroy a dog such as this one for me would have been if it was suffering. This dog shouldn't have been mistaken for a banned breed (if that is what happened). If we have a ban, then all well and good, but it is encumbent upon those who have responsibility for decision making about dogs lives to know the difference between one breed and another, and if they can't get that basic thing right then they should move over in favour of someone who can. If there is one thing in this world that makes me see red apart from mindless cruelty to animals, it is mindless stupidity.

Link to this comment
Mags53 June 18, 2009 at 6:29 a.m.

Poppy2007 - she would have done better if she'd been rescued by the Dogs Trust! And, my argument is that she wasn't a pit-bull BUT a Staffy cross - NOT A BANNED BREED. It is the owners who should be punished not the dogs. No I haven't seen a dog ripped to shreds by pitbulls but have known of small dogs being attacked and killed by GSDs and greyhounds - do we include these in the banned breeds?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 16, 2009 at 11:18 p.m.

MAGS, The RSPCA were preventing cruelty by rescuing and humanely euthanisie these dogs.Pit bulls are an illegal breed because they are a danger. What else could the RSPCA do? They cannot be rehomed. Are you suggesting that when illegal breeds are seized they should spend the rest of their lives in an rspca cage?! The sooner we stop breeding ALL fighting breeds by law the less cruelty we will see. I assume you havnt witnessed a pit breed ripping a terrified dog to shreds. I think you would know whats cruel and whats not if you did

Link to this comment
Mags53 June 16, 2009 at 8:54 p.m.

Sue - Animal 24-7 BBC1 (the RSPCAs own programme!). I cannot remember what date but some time before 8 June - it was very sad and I cannot reconcile the idea of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the wanton, unecessary and callous killing of an animal because it may be of a certain breed. As one of our main animal charities the RSPCA should campaign against the DDA NOT subject innocent and friendly dogs to all of its horrors - it is the worst sort of predjudice.

Link to this comment
Sue June 16, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.

Poppy - I am hardly naive at my age! All I am saying is that I have never seen nor heard of a dog attack in my locality. I am sure they do happen sporadically, but it hasn't reached levels where it has become a topic of debate as it has on this forum. And with two dogs of my own, I am mixing with other dog minded people on a daily basis, and we do talk to each other.
Mags - I agree that a dog which is dangerous and attacks without any provocation should be destroyed, and although I have discussed muzzling of dogs, I have also made it clear that it is not personally what I want, though I would be one of those who would comply if it ever became compulsory. The idea of a ban on Staffies to my mind is unlikely to make much difference to the situation some people have expressed concern about on this forum. And, as you rightly point out, even the experts can't agree on what is and what is not a pit bull or a Staffie. DNA tests would prove the point, but they get expensive, and where does the money come from? I was so sad about the dog you told us about. Where was this? There is nothing on this website about it. Do you have a link where I can read about it? It will upset me, and it already has, but I never look the other way. And you are right. What happened to her was absolutely deplorable and no credit to those who claim to be animal lovers.

Link to this comment
Mags53 June 15, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.

sammyd - no, I do not agree with muzzling any dog - ANY dog of ANY breed that has made an unprovoked attack on anyone MUST be destroyed, we cannot have a situation where dogs have become a danger to other animals - but all dogs are capable of becoming vicious if they are caused to become so. Any person found to be in charge or possession of a dog that randomly attacks anyone (or other dogs) should be prosecuted and banned from keeping dogs for life. BUT you must understand that many of these dogs that so called "experts" have looked at and deemed to be of pit-bull-type ARE NOT pit-bulls - they are staffy crosses, even the "experts" cannot agree on this identification. The only way to be sure of the type is to DNA test. I feel for anyone who lives in an area where dogs are dangerously out-of-control, I think that your time would be well spent in developing some sort of relationship with the council and the police to make your neighbour hoods safer rather than attacking innocent animals. And, the bitch on the programme was so friendly and did not deserve to die; I cannot understand how anyone who purports to be an animal lover can think that this is ok!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 15, 2009 at 4:52 p.m.

think you are being a little naive to say dog attacks dont happen where you live Sue. I guess we all are till it happens to us and we start asking why

Link to this comment
Sue June 15, 2009 at 9:39 a.m.

Sammy - you know that I do not support your call for a ban, but this is irrelevant. If you think a ban is necessary then you and others of similar mind will continue the campaign and it might (or might not) happen. But that is a solution for the future. I don't know why you think muzzling a dog is cruel, because although my dog Mollie initially hated it, it doesn't bother her any more, and I don't feel I am being cruel. I do feel very sad to see such a gentle dog in a muzzle because it gives altogether the wrong impression of her, but in her case, it is for her own good, not necessarily for the good of others as she would never bite. It would bring tears to my eyes to see my collie Sammie similarly muzzled, but if everyone did it, then it would almost certainly result in a reduction in the sort of attacks you are most concerned about. I am not suggesting that it should be a cop out, that it should replace your campaign for a ban if that is what you think is necessary, but you must appreciate that your call for a ban is not guaranteed success, and even if successful, it would take years to make a difference to the situation on the ground. How is that better for the victims of dog attacks? Don't get me wrong - I don't want my dogs compulsorily muzzled either, even though I don't see it as being cruel. And, as I have said many times on my posts, I am not aware of one incident of a dog attack in my immediate area, or even in the wider area around where I live, so I don't necessarily see any need for muzzling here. But where you and Poppy live seems to be different. A little bit of me would be asking, why should my dog and the other local dogs here who don't attack each other have to be muzzled because in some other areas of the UK, dogs are being attacked on a daily basis? It doesn't happen here, and I still lay the blame at the other end of the lead, but you want the attacks to stop. You want solutions to save innocent lives. Here you are!

Link to this comment
sammyd June 14, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.

I still think its unfair to punish ALL dogs because the dangerous dogs act should ban them. I dont want a muzzle on my dog EVERY time I take it out. Thats WHY I chose a safe breed. It seems like a cop out for not doing what needs to be done which is getting rid of dangerous dogs for once and for all!! Plus wouldnt it just make the dangerous breeds even more aggressive at home when the muzzle was off?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 13, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.

sammyd as long as dangerous dogs are being bred dogs like mine are going to be seriously injured or killed. if muzzling became law and with the strict penalties that I outlined it would save thousands of dogs lives. That can only be a good thing. My dog doesnt need muzzling but I agree with Sue if we start making it breed specific its too hard to police.ALL dogs to be muzzled at all times in ALL public places. That way the crime is there for ALL to see. Also I dont think its cruel to our dogs. When my dog was a puppy it took her a week or so to be comfortable walking on a lead. She hated it and was afraid of it but as time went on became accustomed to it. Ive never used a muzzle on her and imagine she may hate it at first but like the lead it would become associated with walkies so she would welcome it im sure.On the whole i wouldnt feel cruel to her. The main point to remember is a law on muzzling would mean she was safe on her walks and off lead.So Sue how do we go about campaigning for this. Im keen to get the ball rolling. I want to be able to enjoy our walkies without constantly worrying. Shall we get a petition going for our MPS? Maybe a facebook group so we have numbers behind us? Hope you will join us Sammyd. It could save your dogs life

Link to this comment
Sue June 13, 2009 at 11:02 a.m.

Mags - that is terrible, this dog clearly wasn't aggressive and what they did to her and her pups was just cruel and unnecessary. I am appalled.
Sammy - even if you could ever successfully argue for a ban on Staffies, it would take ages, and there are so many cross breeds around that it would take a long time to decide what is and what is not a dangerous dog. Then there is the expense of policing such a ban, and the government would take ages to find the money and implement the provisions. Muzzling is inexpensive, simple, not cruel, and is within the ability of most people to comply. It can be implemented quickly, and it could result in an immediate difference to the sort of attacks which you and Poppy have been so incensed about. Don't get me wrong. I do NOT want to have to muzzle my gentle little collie, who wouldn't hurt a fly, but if a law like this saved lives, animal and human, then I would see it as being for the greater good and I would do it. Of course I wouldn't be happy about it, but that is life, and a sad sign of the times we live in that this sort of thing should ever be necessary.

Link to this comment
sammyd June 12, 2009 at 7:36 p.m.

Because they are pit bulls which are banned under the dangerous dogs act !!!! It would be illegal to keep them alive and it wouldnt be HARD for a dog expert to know the breed thats his job. The breed kills innocent doga has killed humans . we do not want it in this country. I suppose you agree with muzzling ALL dogs as oppose to banning more dangerous breeds too dont you?

Link to this comment
Mags53 June 12, 2009 at 6:32 p.m.

Animal cruelty seen on RSPCA 24/7 - a bitch with a litter of puppies locked into a house and starving. RSPCA and others break door down, bitch goes to them tail wagging and very happy, puppies all friendly and happy - RSPCA inspector takes all away - Some "expert" decides that they're a pit-bull type and all killed!! Why? The bitch, despite being hungry, having pups to protect and people breaking into her house ran to them tail wagging and so happy to be with people - then they kill her. Just because she was some sort of staffy-cross - do you know how difficult it is to identify a pit-bull terrier from,say, a staffie/lab cross, etc. SHAME ON YOU RSPCA!

Link to this comment
sammyd June 12, 2009 at 5:26 p.m.

But why should we who own safe dogs have to muzzle them just because these dangerous dogs havnt been banned. I thought you were in favour of a ban poppy so why should your dog have to suffer again. I was responsible enough to choose a dog friendly, person friendly breed. It should only be the dangerous breeds muzzled but thats not enough they should be banned. You cant expect decent dogs to wear a muzzle every time they go out.its cruel

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 12, 2009 at 3:03 p.m.

hannah as i sald this is a very small price to pay. Compulsary muzzling would mean for me that i could start enjoying my walks with my dog again. i never feel safe anymore. I would like the penalty for not complying to be seizure of the dog, prosecution of the owner and the owner forbidden to keep another dog. It has to be strict to ensure people comply. It has to be stricter than the dog fouling laws or we are not going to get everyone complying . Sue I agree with you this has to include ALL breeds because of crossbreeding. My dog has never been muzzled and couldnt hurt a fly but i would have no problem at all compling with this law if it came in. I would embrace it with open arms!! I can imagine it would save thousands of dogs lives every year

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 12, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.

Sue - yes it is a good idea. I have a feeling though that there would be a lot of people against it and asking the question of why should they muzzle their dog? Some people may also think it is 'cruel'. I think most people would comply if there was some sort of fine for not doing so. No body wants to be charged lots of money. Dog fouling incidents in public areas have certainly decreased now since the law came in stating that there would be large fines if not followed. Most people will pick up their dog's 'mess' because they are worried they will be fined a hefty sum. If a muzzling law did come in, I'd be worried that some people may become lazy when training their dogs to be social.

Link to this comment
Sue June 12, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.

Hey, looks like we might have found a winner idea here! Muzzles aren't that expensive and it is not beyond the means of most reasonable income households. Of course, not everyone would comply if it was made compulsory, but then, it is easy to detect when an owner is not complying with the requirements, so enforcement needn't be a big minefield of difficulties. As Poppy rightly says, small price to pay, but this would have to mean ALL dogs, not just the ones some people single out as being aggressive, because otherwise we would be getting into pointless debates over cross breeds.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 11, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.

small price to pay for stopping the dangerous breeds from killing. wouldnt bother me muzzling my dog if it was law.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 11, 2009 at 5:28 p.m.

As Sue says, muzzling may not encourage proper training for some dogs.

Link to this comment
Sue June 11, 2009 at 9:51 a.m.

I don't have a problem with the idea of all dogs being muzzled as such when out in public. The companies who manufacture dog muzzles I am sure would be very happy with this idea too!!! My dog Mollie wears a muzzle when out to stop her eating disgusting things, not because she would bite anyone, and she didn't like it in the beginning, but it doesn't bother her now. I think as long as the muzzle is the right size and is comfortable for the dog to wear, it doesn't cause them any pain or discomfort and they get used to it. My only concern with regard to this would be that people who are lazy might think that a dog with a tendency towards aggression which has a muzzle is automatically safe and that the dog does not need training input to prevent the likelihood of aggression. Dogs do manage to get muzzles off, and there will always be occasions at home perhaps where a dog is not muzzled, and when it might present a risk to a family member. Muzzles are preventative measures, they do not replace the need for proper training. As I say, this is my only reservation about muzzles. Might start a business making them!!!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 10, 2009 at 11:37 p.m.

yes but if the deed is killing dogs and its always the same breed i cant accept that its fair this breed carries on

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 10, 2009 at 5:22 p.m.

Twinkle - I viewed the link - It seems like a lot of people are for a law on muzzling ALL dogs to be on the safe side. A wide mixture of interesting views. I still believe it is the deed not the breed and that all dogs need proper socialisation and care.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 10, 2009 at 5:11 p.m.

Poppy - I agree with the first thing you said - you're right it is not unreasonable at all to phone a breeder. I'm sure this is what most people would do before visiting the puppies. I don't really understand why you got some of the responces you did - such as why they were quite reluctant to answer your questions. But on this one, I do agree with Sue that they may all have valid reasons. This doesn't make it ok, but it does mean that perhaps we cannot judge a breeders on one phone conversation, even if they do seem rather off-putting. On the other hand, I would not trust the breeders who you said seemed to know little about the breed. As you are aware I believe that all breeders of dogs must know that breed inside out. I definatly would be wary of the breeder/s who said that they didn't want you to view the pups first. This seems a little dodgy, and this is a cause for concern. If these people are KC registered, then I'd probably contact the KC about any breeders who say that the pups cannot be viewed in the home. I'm sure if the KC were aware then it would probably be investigated. There must be thousands of breeders in the UK, and I'm sure tabs can't be kept on all of them. The breeder that you said you felt was being very honest seemed to give the right balance of information. He gave you some of the pro's of the staffie (such as it's loyalty, good with families) and he also gave you some cons (including the fact that staffies are not the easiest to train, and that, in his opinion, they are naturally dog aggessive). He is giving this information because he wants to make sure his puppies go to the right kind of owner. He probably would not sell his pups to anyone 'dodgy' looking/sounding - such as someone he feels may only want a staffie for it's looks or for status reasons. The fact that he gave you some other breed options reflects this. Good quality breeders want their dogs to only go to the right home. A responsible breeder would let the person interested in his puppies know of any potential problems that they may face in the future, such as aggressiveness or health problems. If all breeders sold their puppies in this way then most dogs would hopefully end up in the right homes with owners who know about the breed in depth. This is why I believe that it is important for all breeders to become registered - and some how for this to be well regulated. If your research is true, then this is something that the KC need to work on.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 10, 2009 at 2:27 p.m.

Fair comments Sue but two of them were NOT allowing me to come to the house to view the pups. That is unnacceptable

Link to this comment
Twinkle June 10, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.

Yet another interesting thread..
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23703572-details/Spot+the+difference%3A+magistrates+taught+about+%27weapon%27+dogs/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

Link to this comment
Sue June 10, 2009 at 10:59 a.m.

Poppy - I am sorry you thought I was making excuses for the KC or the breeders you contacted in my last post. I wasn't intending to come over that way, and I did say that I wasn't defending them. I was simply making the point that none of us know what was going through the mind of the person at the other end of the phone when you were making your enquiries. You weren't genuinely phoning them to buy a puppy, and if they were perceptive enough, they will have latched on to that, and may have been wondering why you were asking the questions you were asking. As I say, they may have been on the defensive, thinking you were trying to catch them out, or they may have simply thought you were unnecessarily wasting their time. Then of course, as you know, you will always find that people are different in their responses. The helpful guy you spoke to was obviously a person who was happy to talk to you, who had the time to discuss the subject, and who was an obliging and communicative individual, probably by nature. Not everyone is. Some people communicate better face to face, some people just don't have the time or the patience to answer questions over the phone. They may have felt that if you wanted a dog, you would arrange a visit. Dog breeders must have to deal with a high percentage of time-wasters. I used to be assistant warden in an animal shelter, and we used to get all sorts of people phoning us just to sound off about something which we couldn't do anything about, or to ask questions about what cats we had available for rehoming, just to save themselves the time involved in paying a personal visit. We had over 200 cats, and we were always busy. We had one phone line in and calls coming in about cats in distress (it was a cat shelter) all the time, so we didn't really want to spend an hour on the phone to someone asking us meaningless questions about our 200 residents when the best way of deciding if they wanted a cat would have been to have come and seen the cats for themselves and to ask their questions in person. I am not suggesting that there was anything wrong in your approach, but I am just making the point that there are many reasons why you might not get a true picture of the breeder in the course of one phone call. How do you know he/she wasn't ill that day? How do you know they hadn't just been bereaved? How do you know they didn't have a sick animal to tend or a family problem at that time? Your research is welcome, and we are all interested, but it is not necessarily conclusive of anything unless you are right and the breeders really don't know very much about the breed - and we can't argue that this might or might not be the case because we don't know enough about it.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 9, 2009 at 6:52 p.m.

Hannah. I cant answer all your questions about the kennel club.Apart from ringing round when i purchased my dog, crufts, breed standards etc and of course last weeks little exercise ive had no dealings with them.I dont really think its unreasonable to phone a breeder and ask questions about the size, temperament,health problems,trainability etc of a breed of dog.As I said one breeder was quite happy and very competent in his knowledge of the breed.This is what i did prior to the purchase of my own breed although there were only 3 breeders registered for my breed.The only point im trying to make is that if people are being given false information on purchase the consequences can be bad for the communities they live in. The one breeder that knew his stuff regarding height weight etc gave a more balanced picture of the breed than i ever do.Im in favour of a ban as you know!! But I liked his honesty. He said they are not one of the easiest dogs to train, if i wanted a dog that will do as it is told i should opt for a more trainble breed such as a lab, collie or german shepherd. He said they were a loyal breed good with families but needed a lot of supervision. He EVEN said many are naturally dog aggressive and supervision and training is whats needed there too.Now his description of the breed i felt was fair. If I heard this off the breeder of my dog i would have opted for a different breed because i would hear dog aggression and supervision and think thats not what i PERSONALLY want in a dog. See the point I am making is this : TO NOT mention that staffies are dog aggressive means owners are not aware the potential of their pets till its too late. Maybe if they were told this was a breed trait the responsible owners around would mussle them off lead and there would be less dog attacks. if all staffies were mussled by law there would only be the thugs dogs attacking and it would not be good but prosecution would exist because a crime has then been committed. Think im rambling on to other things now so ill leave it there for now

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 9, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.

Poppy - In responce to your last post "in short (KC) are a profit making organisation who serve people NOT dogs".
Wouldn't this be true for most breeders? The KC do well, in general, to make the welfare of dogs as high as possible (putting aside CKC spaniels). This is what I have to say about buying a puppy from a breeder - always view the puppy first, ask to see the paperwork for vaccinations and vet visits etc, ask to see the parents, ask questions about the dogs, show that you know about the breed (and make sure the breeder is interested in your family life, and is interested in why you want to buy thr certain breed - and is generally interested in you as a person, as that is where his precious puppies are going to), and make sure you have some sort of guarantee. Most accredited breeders will take the puppy back if for any reason you cannot look after it, or if the puppy is unwell. There are other rules too, but if everyone follows these when purchising a new puppy, then welfare standards will rise, and back street breeding will decrease.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 9, 2009 at 4:56 p.m.

Poppy - I agree with Sue that you should write a letter when your calm! I do think though that even though it was good of you to research into the different breeders, and even though your findings are interesting, I do think that perhaps a visit to the breeders would have surficed rather than conversation by phone - where we can easily get the wrong ideas (and indeed right ideas). I believe this mainly because of the reasons that Sue has stated in her last post. I think that there are possible reasons why the breeders could have been acting this way over the phone, possibly because of the questioning, and because of bad press that they may have received. Obviously though, your thoughts may be true, and these breeders may not be what they seem. I wouldn't make that judgement until I have made a personal visit. If though I had made a phone call and got a responce similar to what you had, then that may put me off the breeder, but I don't think I would feel the need to 'complain' to the KC. This is only my personal opinion though, and, it would be interesting to see what responce you might get from the KC.
I think that you believe that the KC are selling for money, and that they are only in the business for money. I would not agree with this accusation, purely because I don't know enough about them to make this sort of judgement. As you have mentioned, the KC label staffies as 'nanny dogs'. Obviously you disagree with this because of the negative situations you have been in involving staffies in the past. Even though I love all dogs, 'Nanny dog' would not be enough to make me decide I want a staffie. I would have to fully research into the breed myself and find my own sources of information, as well as information from the KC. I think that they want to sell the staffie as a nanny dog simply because that is what they believe the staffie is! I don't think they would want to sell a breed that they know is dangerous, as this would only give them more bad press. If they are only interested in selling a breed for money, then why not chose a breed which has only had good press such as labradors and collies for example? I don't understand why they would want to sell a breed knowing that it can be dangerous; which is why I think that they believe that the staffie is a friendly and trustworthy breed to own. Do you have any evidence to show that the KC are purely in it for the money? I don't know much about it so it would be interesting to hear what you have to say. There will be the money aspect of it, but also a lot of the members must be true animal lovers. Even if the KC were selling large numbers of staffie breed just for the money - it is still up to the buyer to make an informed choice. Any dog/puppy owner must research into the breed first. If anyone buys a puppy only on the grounds that the KC say it makes a good nanny dog (true or not true), then they are just plain daft!! And it does take two to make a sale.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 9, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.

THE kennel club make decisions on breed standards and pedigree status. for example many decades ago the border collie was not a pedigree and now is. More recently the labradoodle became a registered pedigree. This breed was purely created for asthmatics. in short they are a profit making organisation who serve people NOT dogs.My research just goes to show how the public including myself were misled when they believed buying a dog from a registered breeder would mean certain standards were in place.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 9, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.

Sue im suprised at your response. I didnt think you would make excuses for irresponsible breeders or organisations in the way you just have.I will publish the response when I get one , daresay that will be full of excuses too. after all they dont like staffie bad publicity do they ?

Link to this comment
Sue June 9, 2009 at 10:17 a.m.

Poppy - perhaps you shouldn't write that letter when you are "fuelled up". I often find that when I am incensed about something, it is difficult to be objective, and if you are not objective, you get labelled a "crank" and ignored. Like Hannah, I am not an expert on the KC. I assume that they are simply a club which breeders can register with and which promotes certain standards in breeding. I assume that if the KC suspected some of its registered members were falling short of those standards, then they would have something to say on the subject, but policing all of their registered members has to be nigh on impossible, in which case it seems a bit harsh to be holding them out as being responsible for each individual breeder's shortcomings or lack of knowledge. In an ideal world, a breeder should know everything about the breed, but we don't live in an ideal world. People are all different. Some people may be suspicious of a person who rings them up and asks a lot of questions because they may mistake you for a reporter or someone trying to catch them out. So in these circumstances, a person may clam up and prefer not to say anything. These people deal all the time with potential purchasers of puppies, so I would imagine that they would have sensed that you were telephoning to get information for a different purpose, only they didn't know what that purpose was, so they may have been irritated and on their guard with you. They may have been very busy that day and just thought you were wasting their time. There has been a lot of bad publicity about Staffies recently and it must have left some Staffie breeders feeling sensitive. I am not defending them if in fact their knowledge of the breed was lacking. It obviously shouldn't be. I am just saying that there could have been a number of reasons why they were not particularly willing to deal with all the questions you asked. The KC response, as you say, ought to be interesting and I hope you will share it with us.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 8, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.

Yes Hannah and i have drafted a letter to the kennel club with regard to my research. Im not Totally blaming the kennel club but I do blame them for misleading the public to believing their word is the word of truth in the dog world. All this carry on about nanny dogs has brought this breed into too many family homes. The thug back street breeders is responsible for some attacks too. By and large though popularity of breeds always starts with the kennel club and crufts. you only have to look at how the kennel club change breed standards in very cruel ways and then there is an influx of the breed. I see loads of those poor king charles with their BIG eyes. My friend still has one of the origional king charles before they were messed about with . hes nearly 16 and a lot bigger and his eyes may not be as cute but his brain isnt slipping down his neck and has lived twice the happy life of these KC endorsed new breeds. Whos to say the kennel club are good ? I think they are just a profit making organisation with more interest in what people want than animal welfare. I know you dont support a ban on breeds but the reason the kennel club dont support it is financial. The Staffie is a nice little earner for them at the moment. Going to rewrite that letter while im fueled up.!!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 8, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.

hannah re pit bulls. im not stupid!!! I meant back in the late 80s before the ban when they were legal !!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 8, 2009 at 5:12 p.m.

Poppy - In reply to "would be interesting to know how many pit bulls that went on to kill were kennel club registered puppies". Pit Bull Terriers are not a registered breed under the KC, so therefore there shouldn't have been any registered with the KC as puppies.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 8, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

Poppy - I think it is fair of you to say that you do not trust the Kennel Club, but I also think people need to make their own choice on whether they want to trust the KC or not, based on experiences etc. I really do not know a lot about how the KC works, therefore I can't say whether I do or do not trust them. The issue of breeding has now been brought up, such as back street breeding, microchipping, and where to find suitable puppies. At this moment in time, I do not believe the KC can be blaimed for everything here. Obviously they are involved with breeding some what, but I do not believe that they are a problem at all - seeing as they are the ones who set the standards and try to promote high welfare of dogs and puppies. In general I would rather buy a puppy from a KC registered breeder because of this. Your research has proved interesting, it has also shown that we should probably not fully trust any breeders without meeting them and the puppies in person. This is why KC breeders will and should always invite the potential buyer to meet the puppy first and not have a 'home delivery' and certainly not go without meeting the parents of the pup. This doesn't explain why some of the breeders on the KC site were the opposite of this. I'm not saying that I do not trust your research, but this is something that I would need to investigate myself. If what you say is true about KC registered breeders not willing to answer your questions, then I'd probably get in contact with the KC too, to see why the breeders are behaving this way. This does not mean I wouldn't trust the KC as I suppose they can't keep a hawks eye on all of their breeders, but I assume they do try. The reason for the staffie being so popular on their webiste; this is probably because it is a breed that is in high demand. I'm not sure if the KC have any standards of how many breeders can breed what type of dog.
Personally, I do not think we can blaim the KC here, like I said earlier, they are the ones who are for breeding high standards of dogs with high welfare statuses. Again, the problem lies with the back street breeders, and those who only breed for the 'quick buck' and sell pups on to buyers who also no nothing about the breed, and the breeding goes on and on, and puppy farming. Also educating people would help a great deal. If all of these problems are tackled, then this will reduce the numbers of dogs such as staffies, and welfare standards and attacks will also reduce. It is unfortunate that you had a bad experience phoning around for KC registered breeders, but I wouldn't be one to assume that this means the KC club are 'bad' and I'm sure it is just a small minority of breeders. Perhaps writing to them might make them investigate these breeders.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 8, 2009 at 2:35 p.m.

infact sue im going to write that letter now. Their reply should make interesting reading on here. See if they wiggle their way out of this same as they did with what theyve allowed to happen to the cavaliar king charles spaniels !!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 8, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.

sue, I think I should write to the kennel club and ask them why they have what I would call irresponsible breeders registered with them. If this dangerous breed is allowed in anyones hands as it is and if the numbers continue to rise and attacks continue to rise I would say that the kennel club have blood on their hands . They are the organisation who decides which dogs are popular at the end of the day.Would be interesting to know how many pit bulls that went on to kill were kennel club registered puppies.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 8, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.

hannah, the point i was trying to make is that we should not trust the kennel club. Of course the site was the kennel club site. I myself chose a puppy that was from an accredited breeder registered with the kennel club. The reason I did so was because I believed Tat the time the kennel club registered puppies coming from accredited breeders would have been well cared for and the breeders would understand all there was to know about the breed and be able to answer my questions. I was lucky with my dog the breeder still keeps in touch to this day. I feel as long as there is a proven pedigree the kennel club dont really care what the staffie breeders are doing. 3 out of the 4 I spoke to knew very little about the breed and seemed a bit annoyed they had to TRY and answer my questions. One was excellent as I said. In my opinion this result could be no different with unregistered breeders which is the point i am making. What is the point if the kennel club dont care who they have on their books people may as well take pot luck out of the papers.Have a look on the kennel club website for yourself. The staffie has one of the highest number of registered breeders than any other breeds. Far too many

Link to this comment
Sue June 8, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.

Mags - interestingly, your ideas are fairly similar to suggestions I made a while ago on this site, though I can't recall where. I suggested that as the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups already send pets to new homes with vaccinations, microchips etc. that EVERY breeder should be required to do likewise. There is already an expectation that if you get a pet from a registered breeder or the RSPCA or other bona fide welfare charity, that the pet will come with health checks completed, worming treatment, and vaccinations, so why not make this a compulsory requirement for anyone who sells a pup? The cost would have to be added to the price paid to own the pup, but it would end the heartbreak for people who have had a pup from a puppy farm only to lose it later. The big problem with this of course is that laws and rules are there to be broken, and there is no shortage of people ready to ignore the rules, cut corners and make a fast buck. If the initial microchip is to the breeder, and the microchip is updated at the point of sale, and at all stages when and if the dog changes hands, we could trace the dog always back to its source, as Mags says, we do this with cars. You can't trace a dog back to a breeder if the breeder is a backstreet breeder who hasn't microchipped it, but if the law says all dogs must be microchipped, then the buyer would be accepting the legal responsibility for having it done, and that would mean the backstreet breeder would have to accept less for the dog to compensate the new owner. Even if the new owner has no intention of complying with any law, and is just as morally bankrupt as the original breeder, they will still be buying a risk, and won't pay as much for the dog. All dogs without a microchip could then be seized, the way the police seize cars which are not insured/taxed. The problem is that those cars get destroyed, and it is not fair to destroy a dog because it has no ID. Those dogs would have to be housed and fed, and also microchipped and released to new, hopefully more responsible homes. All these things cost money and money is the common thread running through all these arguments, whether we acknowledge it or not. And in this day and age, funds and resources, particularly for animal welfare charities are a big issue.

Link to this comment
Sue June 8, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.

Poppy - I agree that your findings are interesting. I suspect the reason why you found more Staffie breeders advertising is that the Staffie has become a popular choice of dog generally, although sadly in some cases this is for all the wrong reasons. This means Staffie breeders have more hope of selling. Having said this, I am suspicious of the ones who could not or would not answer your questions and I am particularly suspicious about the one who told you that seeing the dog with the parents was "not necessary" and that they could deliver the pup to you. I suspect most bona fide and responsible breeders would WANT you to see the pup with the parents, or at least see the pup at their premises. In fact, I would expect a bona fide responsible breeder to INSIST that you saw the pup first at the breeder's home. But your findings are still interesting, because they may have highlighted a trend in unscrupulous people posing as bona fide breeders and possibly even falsifying paperwork to get more money for the pups. I would hate for this to be true, but I wouldn't be surprised. Like Hannah suggests, not everyone is what they seem, and selling pups is easy money for some who don't have any standards and who don't care what the cost is to other families. It would be interesting to find out if these people are actually what they say they are.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 7, 2009 at 11:07 p.m.

Poppy – Firstly, you haven’t mentioned where you saw these adverts for the puppies. Was it a newspaper or Internet site? Secondly, how can you be sure these were Kennel Club accredited breeders? Did you see their paperwork that proved this? I wouldn’t trust what I read in any adverts until I went to see the puppies and breeders for myself, and have seen ALL of the appropriate paperwork. Thirdly, how do you that these puppies were all Kennel Club registered? Again, I wouldn’t believe it until I see it. The breeders who you spoke to who couldn’t give you all the information you required should be out of business. People like this should not be breeding any type of dog. Puppies sold from these types of breeders will probably not go to homes where the owners know much about the breed either. And yes, there is a huge problem nationwide with breeding. Potential buyers must also know which breeders to look for – this is a problem too.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 7, 2009 at 10:59 p.m.

To Mags – yes your ideas are great. KC registering puppies would be a start. And microchipping too. I still think though that the main problem lies with those who break the law to start with (purchasing illegal breeds, breeding for fighting etc). These are where the problems seem to come from, and these are the same people who would try to avoid KC registering and microchipping. Puppy farming needs eradicating asap.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 June 6, 2009 at 7:09 p.m.

Just out of interest I conducted a little survey of my own this week.By no means conclusive but interesting enough to mention to you all.On Thursday there were 35 accredited breeders of staffies kennel club registered with puppies ready to go. This was a very high number, by comparrism for example there were only 7 border collie breeders on there. Anyway what I found more shocking was when I phoned 4 of them pretending to enquire about buying a puppy but wanting to know a little bit more about the breed. Out of the 4 I called I can say one man answered ALL my questions and seemed very knowledgable of the breed asking me if i had children and explainng that they need to go to puppy socialising classes and there was a high percentage of the breed who can be dog aggressive even with careful handling and this wasnt a breed for someone who didnt have a lot of time and energy to put in.He was excellent in his job I have to say. However the other 3 were a disgrace. They had little or no knowledge of the breed not even knowing what sort of height and weight an adult should be. Two of them were willing to deliver pups without me seeing them and when I asked about seeing the parents before buying 1 said it wasnt nescessary and another said the puppies were weaned and the mother was not at her home !!! I dont know about you people but to me these kennel club dog breeders seem to care as little about where their pups go as the back street breeders . my conclusion is if there is aggression in a family pet the blame could lie with the breeder rather than the owner or dog. I wish people would stop supplying this breed no wonder the shelters are full of them. If there are 35 littere available that are registered with the kennel club can you imagine the whole picture nationwide . Shih zus were the MOST popular at 38 just for interest

Link to this comment
Mags53 June 6, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.

Sue/Hannah - I am coming to believe that the best way is to make it illegal to sell a puppy unless it is microchipped and KC registered (this will make sure that you can trace to the breeder) - it will then be transferred to the new owner (we do it with cars!!). Then, the puppy can be traced back through all owners from the breeder onwards. It would then be easy to identify the puppy farmers AND would probably stop them as it costs money per puppy. I would also urger anyone buying a puppy to go to the breeders house; to make sure that they see the puppy with the mother (preferably in the breeders house being well socialised). NEVER buy from a puppy farmer (they often advertise in the paper listing several breeds) - mind if I saw a litter in such circumstances I wouldn't be able to walk away - I'd have to buy the whole litter!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 6, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.

Sue and Mags - yes this is where the main problem lies. It is what needs looking into, but as Sue says, the people who need to comply probably won't, because they generally don't care for laws.

Link to this comment
Sue June 5, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.

Mags - you are of course right, but how do you stop them? These are not people who would comply with any rules or legal obligations, and certainly no moral obligations either since they have no morals!

Link to this comment
Mags53 June 4, 2009 at 9:29 p.m.

Sammy/Sue, etc. - I know many breeders involved in pedigree breeds who - breed to improve the breed and because they love the breed; have their pups registered with the KC; belong to breed clubs; show their dogs, etc., etc. and who are very, very careful where they let their puppies go; who follow the progress of their puppies throughout their life and who take their puppies back at any time if the new owner runs into problems. They have all of their dogs health tested to ensure that they don't breed problems into their pedigree line. This is the norm in the pedigree/show/kc world that I know of. The problems are people who don't do this, they give us all a bad name.

Link to this comment
Sue June 3, 2009 at 9:26 a.m.

Hannah - you are right about backstreet breeding being a major problem, and the dog which seems to be most popular among backstreet breeders is the Staffie type dog. Possibly some of the pups are simply the result of careless and irresponsible owners not bothering to have their dogs neutered/spayed, but there is also a lot of money to be made from selling pups, and I know of a lot of people on state benefits who are supplementing their income this way. Think about it. It beats working whilst claiming benefit. It is difficult to prove you are doing it, you don't have to get up in the morning to do it, it doesn't even involve any real effort, just shove your dog and another dog together and wait for the pups to appear, let the mother feed and raise them then just pocket the cash. Simple! The pups go to like minded people all doing the same thing, so there is a cycle. And how does anyone stand a chance of policing this? All this happens in private homes all over the country. It is not illegal to allow your dog to have pups, so there is no power on the part of the authorities or the RSPCA to go in and do anything about it. The only prospect of any change is if people's attitudes change, but why will they as long as they are making money out of it?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 June 2, 2009 at 5:10 p.m.

Sammyd - I would not expect my dog to attack another either. I wouldn't let it happen full stop. I note you have said that you wouldn't chose any breed that it aggressive - but in my opinion there are no legal breeds in this country that are all aggressive. The only people who I think would chose to own an aggressive (or aggressive looking) dog are those who want a dog for fighting, image, or personal protection on the streets. These are all wrong. It is good that you have been 'walking and talking' in your local park, as you can talk to people who know about dogs. I would disagree though that it would give you a better insight into the breed, instead of doing other types of research - such as reading books, speaking to breeders. Obviously it does all depends on who you speak to and what books you read! I think that by watching the local dogs in the park is a good idea as it can give you a personal insight into the breed, and help you chose, but again I think that other research needs to be done aside from this as well. I would never buy any breed of dog without full investigating everything about the chosen breed first. Like you, I'd probably try and see some of the breeds as well to help me make a choice.
I think that something that would really help reduce dog attacks is regulated breeding. There is too much back street breeding - mostly by people who are only interested in money. Dogs which they breed would not be checked for health problems, and any old staffies (for example) will be bred together, and then be sold to anybody that will pay up - no matter how unsuitable that owner looks. They usually do not care about temperement or health problems that they might be passing on - often they will breed most aggresive dogs together to create aggressive-ish puppies, which when not trained properly by their new 'owners' who have no knowledge of the breed - will this just spells disaster. There is a major problem with the over breeding of staffies. If I chose to buy a staffie puppy, and after doing my research, I would only buy my new puppy from an accredited breeder. This would be someone who is usually interested in the owner and will probably question why they think the staffie is right for them, has healthy puppies with the best temperaments possible (the parents would have been chosen well and the breeder wants to improve and better the breed), have all the right paperwork, ensure that the welfare of the puppy and parents is top standard, possibly microchip the puppies, vaccinate the puppies, give the puppies proper socialisation (extremily important) - good breeders are usually dedicated enthusiasts of a particular breed, and should have spent years and years studying that breed. Responsible breeding would mean selling the best behaved pups to responsible owners. Irresponsible breeding means the opposite.
What type of breeders do you think that most of the staffies that end up in the wrong hands come from?

Link to this comment
Sue June 2, 2009 at 9:02 a.m.

Sammy - nobody to my knowledge has ever regulated where dogs go. This is apart from animal welfare rehoming centres who do make an attempt to match the pet with the home. I don't know enough about breeders to be overly critical of them, but I don't know how many of them, if any, really worry too much about the sort of owner the animal is going to end up with. And to be fair to them, how would they ever know? People can be very plausible and are not always what they seem. Then what is to stop them selling the dog on later to someone who is completely unsuitable? I think sensible dog ownership involves making some effort to learn about the breed characteristics and tailoring the training to what we know about the type of dog we have. I think bull type dogs and some larger dogs with a bit of a propensity to be intimidating need assertive leadership from their owners because without it, they will assume that they and not the owner is calling the shots. And indeed, that is what would happen if the owner left the dog in any doubt about who was actually in charge. I think some types of dog which are naturally passive would defer to the human almost automatically with a minimum of training, but other breeds are not necessarily the same. It is difficult to find workable solutions. Even though I am in favour of a restriction on breeding dogs, I wouldn't have a clue how we would achieve that, and how it could be effectively policed.

Link to this comment
sammyd June 1, 2009 at 10:25 p.m.

I cant speak for the others on this site but thats all i would wish for. To stop breeding them now. Maybe we are all barking up the wrong tree. Maybe the blame doesnt lie with owner OR dog but Kennel Club and Breeders. I believe that breeders are irresponsible. They dont check that these dangerous breeds are going to homes where a caeser Millan type can do the dog psycology required to take the fighting breed out of them do they? No they really just sell the dogs on with a pedigree from the kennel club. When these breeds are doing so much harm to dogs and people I think its irresponsible of breeders not to check where their pups are going but the Staffie is SO overbred they probably dont have the time.

Link to this comment
Sue June 1, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.

Sammy - I take on board all the points, and I have never had an issue with the idea that we should stop breeding any dog of any breed because the country is currently awash with dogs which are unwanted and which can't find permanent homes. One of the things which the pit bull ban has shown us is that banning dogs does not succeed in eliminating them from our society, because as the programme the other week showed, pit bulls in the UK are now on the increase, and one of the problems is that in spite of having the law, the police and other law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to effectively police it. So the law is (excuse the expression) a bit like a dog with no teeth! What then if you extend the ban to include several other breeds - the answer? Nothing! If the police and law enforcement don't have the time or resources to police a one breed ban - they are even less likely to be able to effectively police a wider ban. To restrict or stop breeding will eventually have the effect that the population of certain types of dog will be reduced by natural wastage with no new pups being circulated. This hopefully will address the issues which most trouble you, Poppy and Shep. It probably won't completely eliminate them though.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 31, 2009 at 10:51 p.m.

i expect a dog not to attack other dogs. ive never owned a dog that has been anything but friendly and loving. Ive had two a lot more intelligent than the one i have now but i have never and would never choose any Breed that is aggressive. I really think walking and talking in a large municipal park has given me far more insight into breeds characteristics than ANYTHING you might read Hannah. If I believed what the kennel club and other organisations write about different breeds i too could have been a Staffie owner. What an awful thought! When I decided i was going to get a new dog i had an idea of what sort would suit my lifestyle this time round but wanted to see for myself so where better to go dog watching than the park. This is what I did for 3 months and in that time actually changed my mind over which breed i wanted as my pet. So when Hannah says I need to see the wider picture I think I do. Nine times out of ten when I hear of an attack or a dog being killed at the moment and for some time now its been by a Staffie . Sue you would say its with the wrong owner. The owner whos had no problems before might disagree. How can we possibly find Caesar Millan types with dog psycology centres and a pack of dogs to take the aggressive streak out of the millions of staffies who through no fault of their own were bred to bring a bull down. The best option for all is to stop breedin pit dogs now.

Link to this comment
Pixi May 30, 2009 at 8:35 a.m.

If the owners act aggressively then the dog will copy their behaviour and also act aggresively. Never leave a dog in a room with a child, the child might provoke the dog and the dog will get annoyed bite back and the dog will get all the blame for mauling the child. Consequently if the child is hurt badly enough then the dog might get put down. However if you have a dog in a nice calm enviroment with young children in supervised conditions, with everyone acting calmly, then your dog is sure to have a nice calm manner.

Link to this comment
Sue May 29, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.

Sammyd - I go with Hannah on this one. It IS irresponsible to take on a dog unless you know that you have the skills to manage it, and obviously also the ability to meet the dogs' various other needs. The problem I think is that we live in a selfish "me" society where some people get dogs because they expect a dog to meet their selfish needs. But pet ownership is not about having our needs met (though pets can be very good for people). The first consideration should always be the animal. There is a parallel also with some of the families I work with. Some women (or should I say girls) get pregnant deliberately because they "want" a baby. In many cases they see having a baby as a right, and they are looking at motherhood as a way of meeting their needs. In some cases, it is about getting more benefits or jumping the queue for better housing, but often it is just because the girl feels that SHE would benefit in some way from having a child. There is often no thought given to the responsibility attached to rearing a child, or to whether the girl has the resources to provide for it. Some people sadly take the same selfish attitude to pets. Our pets often become the unwitting victims of a selfish, greedy, thoughtless and sick society. If people would only take more care in the selection of a suitable family pet, and only have one if they are able to meet its various needs for food, shelter, exercise, stimulation, training etc, then we probably wouldn't be having this exchange at all.

Link to this comment
Sue May 29, 2009 at 8:59 a.m.

Hannah - well said! And yes, if I thought it was important enough, I could probably train Mollie not to eat anything she found lying around, but I would probably have to be very mean to her in order to achieve the end result. At the end of the day, it ISN'T important enough. In common with Poppy, I speak to other dog owners on our walks, and it is apparent that eating things off the field, including dog faeces is quite common among dogs, although I have to say it is not something my other dog ever does. Mollie is quite dim, so it would take a long time to train her out of this habit, and at the end of it all, there wouldn't be any great benefit. The only reason I don't like her eating things is because some of the things can make her ill, and people put poison down to kill rodents, so you never know what damage it could do. But with the muzzle, which she now fully accepts, the problem is removed. If her problem had been one of aggression then of course I would have made damned sure other people and their pets were safe through training methods and also a muzzle and by keeping her on a lead, under my complete control. But Mollie just loves everyone, all dogs and their owners, so she is not a problem.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 28, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.

Sammyd - Why do you think Poppy said - "I think its time you visited a large municipal park and spoke to a few dog owners" - do you think she wanted me to view the boating lakes and woodland walks? Or do you think she wanted me to visit these parks goverened by councils to see what types of dogs are about. To be honest I don't really know what she wants to me to see. The only reason I can think of is to see all of the staffies which attack in the hands of 'responsible owners' (her views not mine). In which case, I don't really know what you were raving on about in your last post to myself. Why do you agree that I need to visit one of these areas? - to see the grand halls and golf courses? (I am not ignorant enough to think that all of these parks are full of thug types by the way). So you have only seen 2 youths with status dogs. So what you have seen is gospal? And I live in a world of my own to think that dogs behaviour is based on their bringing up and environment?
To your next point about people being 'sold a lie' when they buy staffies. The answer to this is that nobody should buy ANY breed of dog without researching fully into the breed first - from the history of the breed, to everyday things such as grooming, handling, feeding, and where to buy a dog from. People should also use their own initiative before being 'sold a dog'. Anyone who owns a breed of dog and does not know about the breed is irresponsible themselves. I wouldn't buy a staffie (or any other breed) without having looked into the breed myself. I would read through books, ask peoples opinions, read KC opinions (I wouldn't only take on the opinion of the KC), read articles etc, dog magazines, and look for as much postitive AND negative material as I can, and then I will make my OWN choice on whether the breed is suitable. Therefore it will also be pretty much impossible for me to be 'sold a lie'. The problem these days is that many people do not want to take responsibilty for their own choices and actions. I think that nowadays the DDA is aimed more at tackling the use of dogs within gang crime and illegal dogs. These things are both associated with "dogs being used as weapons" - and this is associated with anti-social problems.
Why don't you try reading Sue's posts properly. She was saying that breeds such as Staffies ARE suitable pets - for those who research into the breed and train the dog properly. It is NOT suitable for someone who does not know how to handle and train dogs well. I'm sure if Sue really tried then she probably could train her dog not to eat scraps off the floor. I'm sure she will explain her reasons when she next posts.
And well done - pit breeds can kill (they are the ones using their teeth etc - good observation). Owners are often the reason behind these attacks though. Bad owners with illegal tough dogs - you do the math.

Link to this comment
Sue May 28, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.

Sammy - no, I am not saying that certain breeds are not suitable as pets as such. What I am saying is that probably they are not the right pets for certain types of people. It is for the person choosing the pet (since the dog doesn't get any say who ends up owning it)to make a sensible judgment as to whether they can handle these dogs. But what too often happens is that people don't think about what the dog is going to grow up to be. How many times have you heard of people taking on a cute puppy and then getting rid of it because it grew too big, ate too much, or cost too much money to feed? These people had just not taken the trouble to find out about the breed before taking the puppy on, and similarly, people do the same with Staffies and similar breeds. Yes, you make a valid point about my dog. Yes she did eat all sorts of crap on her walks, and if I saw her and told her, she would stop what she was doing, so in a sense I was able to exercise some control. But Molly is thick, and it didn't register in her not very bright doggy brain that NO meant NEVER, so having to watch her like a hawk all the time on every walk got to be tiresome. The final straw came when she ate (we think) a dead mouse or similar and had dribbling diarrhoea for 3 days. It was DISGUSTING! Mollie was starved by her last owners (prior to the dog rescue), so her habit of getting her nourishment anywhere she can and at every opportunity is instinctive, and is a habit which may once have saved her life. As it does not pose any risk to other dogs or humans, and as she is in every other respect a much improved version of the dog she once was, I have not made an issue of it. I just don't want to spend my time shovelling s**t, hence the muzzle. Although your point is perfectly valid, you never train dogs to the nth degree, and as long as the thing you don't train them not to do is harmless, why worry? I found another way around the problem which works. But I am not talking about training for docile, idle, lazy, stupid lovely mutts like Mollie (sorry but that is what she is). Yes it matters and she is as well trained as it is possible for her to be, but if I had a dog with a bad reputation, my whole approach to training would have to be different. I could not train a high energy dog the way I trained Mollie. It wouldn't be the same. I think people need to know their dog, and treat every dog as the individual it is. If the dog is assertive and aggressive, it takes a person with the right skills to manage the dog to ensure that it will not behave in an antisocial way when under the owner's control, which for that type of dog should mean always.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 28, 2009 at 3 p.m.

Pit Breeds kill animals not the owners

Link to this comment
sammyd May 28, 2009 at 2:59 p.m.

All you are saying really is that this type of dog is not a suitable pet and there I agree. Was it yourself who couldnt train your dog to not eat things off the ground and put a mussle on the dog. I dont say you are irresponsible because you have no control over your dog eating everything off the ground so please dont call a staffie owner irresponsible if their dog attacks other dogs. Its a BREED problem not an irresponsibility issue

Link to this comment
Sue May 28, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.

Sammyd and Poppy - you just don't get what Hannah and I are saying at all. You think Hannah and I don't know anything about these dogs. This seems to be because we havent owned one or witnessed one attacking. Members of my family have owned a Staffie. My brother has a GSD and a Rottie - in all cases, no problem with aggression. We know that dogs with an aggressive reputation can be trained to attack, as the TV documentary showed clearly. The sort of person who would want to do that is what we call thugs, and the dogs are clearly status dogs used as weapons in those instances. However, the attacks you have both mentioned were by dogs not trained to attack, and raised in responsible homes by responsible owners - you say. But your idea of responsible may well not be Hannah's or mine, and working in animal welfare organisations does tend to teach us the distinction. A person can be kind and thoughtful,feed a dog well, groom it, take care of most of its needs, even train it to do most of the things we think dogs should do. And if that dog is a docile, low energy sort of breed, then this may well be enough to ensure a happy household with no management problems. But if the same family takes on a high energy dog with different needs and a different temperament, then they will need to approach training and management in a different way. This type of dog can be obstinate and strong willed, and will take control in the household if the human doesn't. This type of dog will be difficult to control for the human who is unassertive. This type of dog is not a suitable pet for that type of person. The irresponsibility comes in when people do not consider these things and just take on dogs on a whim. Then the irresponsibility is compounded when that person does not make any effort to find out how to manage the dog. Meanwhile the dog gains the upper hand, and consequently, when that person is out with the dog, it is not under the control of the owner. The dog is essentially in charge and can and will do whatever it wants. In this situation the dog resorts to pack behaviour. In the wild, dogs in packs settle all their issues with a fight, and this is what you are seeing. The owners may be lovely people, but they are not in control of the dog, and this is what I, and probably Hannah class as irresponsible, not cruel, not unkind, just having no idea how to manage the dog properly and effectively. Himantura DOES know how to handle dogs, and he would probably tell you that a properly handled dog is one which is in the control of the owner (and pack leader) at all times. This dog will not attack unless it is a dog trained to attack (like a police dog). I don't like to make comparisons, but its a bit like buying a high powered performance car when you only have a provisional licence and don't have the experience to handle it. You put yourself and others at risk. You may not have intended any disastrous consequences, but it is still irresponsible.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 27, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.

Oh dear me Hannah you really dont want to know do you?? A municipal park is not at all full of a certain type of person owning a status dog. Its time you opened your eyes. I agree you should go visit one. Mine has a boating lake, a grand hall where weddings are booked all year long , an excellent golf course, 4 cafes , woodland walks, 12 fields and 5 childrens play areas. I have only once seen 2 youths with a status dog and they were asked to leave by one of the park wardens. I think poppy may have suggested you visit one so you can see what is a dangerous breed and what isnt because you have no understanding of the subject. you live in a little world of your own and seem to think dogs behaviour is governed by their owners in ALL cases. Maybe if you mixed in the real world you would realise people who buy a staffie as you have been told umpteen times are sold a lie. If we stopped breeding dangerous dogs now there would be no more programmes about hooligans with weapoms of dog choice. they wouldnt own dogs. You are right poppy they wouldnt own dogs. They dont have them for friendship as we do. Open your eyes Hannah you are NOT seeing the wider picture at all!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 27, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.

Very interesting link. Sue I think you would find this interesting.

http://www.endangereddogs.com/EDDRNickMays.htm

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 27, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.

Poppy - I'm not sure about the French mastiff being dangerous, and I haven't heard of one kill a child. I gave a list to Shep on May 23 regarding dog killings over a 20 year period, after he suggested that any breed that has ever killed a human should be banned. You would need to read further down for this. Breeds that have killed include Pit bull, Rottweiler, GSD, Malamute, Husky type, Chow Chow, Doberman, Saint Bernard, Great Dane, Akita, Bulldog, Mastiff, Boxer, Labrador Retriever & Lab mixes, Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel. These dogs therefor have killed and so must have the potential - so do we need to ban these too? I'm sure you will say I am being silly now.
To your next point - no I do not contradict myself. I suggest you read my posts properly before saying this. Yes I did say that thugs train dogs to make them aggressive. I also said "In the cases of dog attacks, it appears that the dog has been brought up as some sort of pack leader, and so feels like he/she can do whatever he/she wishes. When the human takes charge as pack leader, the dog should always be under control". I am saying here that it is important for the human to be pack leader - not dog! Not too confusing? I hope I've answered all of your 'queries'.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 27, 2009 at 5:38 p.m.

Poppy - I do not need to visit a park within a town or city to understand the dangers of dog attacks. If I did though I would probably find a mixture of views. In a municipal park it is more likely that there would bea certain class of people owning dogs for status reasons - therefore views from these types of owners would be interesting. There would probably be views from other members of the public who are frightened of staffie breeds because of what they see happening in their local parks. Why do you say I need to visit a municipal park? Is it because you think that staffie problems are higher and attacks here are more frequent? If you do, then this would be a social problem not a breed problem.
I do not assume that EVERY staffie that attacks has had an irresponsible onwer. I assume that most staffies that behave this way have not been brought up correctly. A tiny percentage of staffies, the same with any breed, will have behavioural or mental problems. I agree with you that Shep has experience with dealing with the effects of dog attacks. But has he the knowledge into why these breeds attack? I would like to clarify that I DO have experience of staffies. I have not once said that I have no experience. I work in the animal welfare industry. I'd rather not disclose which organisation, or what position I hold within that organisation (all I will say is that it is not the RSPCA). My work involves me dealing with many animals, and dogs in general. I would not agree with you that you need to own a particular breed of dog to know about that breed, nor do you need to see a dog attack to know the consequences. I would say though that anyone that does see an dog attack will almost certainly and instantly get a specific view on the breed in question.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 27, 2009 at 2:23 p.m.

And finally 'behaviuoral issues' A pit breed is a fighting dog. Attacking to kill is not a behavioural issue,. It is what the breed is and does. Its like saying if a hound sniffs to follow scent the owners are irresponsible !!!! you really do need to give up now .

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 27, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.

Hannah you do contradict yourself a lot in a pathetic attempt to make a dangerous breed sound ok. One minute you say the thugs train or make the dogs aggressive by how they treat them and the next minute your saying the DOGS are the pack leader not the owners.Make your mind up !! No wonder many people on here think your views are ridiculous. They arnt views, They are silly excuses for dangerous breeds needs to attack .. Id give up now if I were you

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 27, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.

The french mastiff is a dangerous breed. All the programme did was highlight its danger. Im sure a child was killed by this breed a few years ago but I dont remember it being as large as it seemed in the programme

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 27, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.

I think its time you visited a large municipal park and spoke to a few dog owners instead of each other. That might give you a chance of seeing the wider issue. At the moment you are just ASSUMING that every staffie that attacks must have an irresponsible owner. Shep has told you this is not true as have the many people on here who have witnessed dog attacks. This IS the wider picture.People who speak from experience. You two have even admitted you have no experience of staffies. Have never owned one or seen one attack so you actually have no experience of the breed

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 26, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.

Poppy - explain how Sue and I can't see the wider picture, even though we are the ones who are looking further than our local parks?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 26, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.

Sue - further to your second to last post, yes I do agree with yourself and Himantura that there needs to be a 'pack leader'. Since writing on this blog I have been doing extensive research into this! Practically everything I have read about dog handling and ownership states that there will always be a leader in the family, be it human or dog. In the cases of dog attacks, it appears that the dog has been brought up as some sort of pack leader, and so feels like he/she can do whatever he/she wishes. When the human takes charge as pack leader, the dog should always be under control. Even though my work, this simple theory hadn't really crossed/clicked in my mind! Some people here (Poppy, Londiniumgaia, Shep etc) need to realise, as you say - its not enough to a dogs behaviour whether the owner has brought that dog up in a mansion, given it all the toys it wants, all the care it needs (obviously these things help to make a happy dog), but deep down behavioural issues need to be dealt with through extensive training and generally knowing your breed. This is even more important when you have a strong powerful breed. I think this is pretty obvious really. In the interest of humans, small dogs can almost get away with not being trained to high standards, because people in general won't bat an eyelash when one bites or nips - it might even be a bit of a 'laugh'. On the other hand, a staffie or rottweiler biting is a completely different issue altogether, which is why it is important to have knowledgable owners who will put in plenty of effort to train their pet. In the BBC documentary, it showed that in some areas, demand for staffies are perhaps starting to decrease, because their small size is not enough to stand up to thugs are their new larger, more 'aggressive' dogs. I really hope that the french mastiff's and other breed's fate will not end up lying in the hands of these people.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 26, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.

think its sue and hannah who are blinkered and dont see the wider picture.

Link to this comment
Sue May 26, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.

Shep - I think when Himantura suggested that most of the damage you come across in your work is caused by humans, he was actually referring to the fact that not all facial injuries requiring the services of a facial surgeon are down to dog attacks. Presumably you treat victims of road accidents, maybe burns/scalds, general accidents and injuries sustained in fights between or attacks by humans on one another. Presumably you are not saying that the only facial injuries you treat are the result of dog attacks. You know I don't agree with a lot of what you say so I am not going to push that point further. I respect what you see in your job, but I also see a lot of battered wives, and abused children. That doesn't mean I see all men as monsters and paedophiles who should all be locked up. I think Himantura has made the point well about the importance of knowing how to handle dogs and its relevance to the increasing incidents of aggression. So I don't need to make it again.

Link to this comment
Sue May 26, 2009 at 1:18 p.m.

Himantura - perhaps having read the latest posts, you can see what Hannah and I are up against. People with blinkered and single minded opinions who will not look at the wider picture. They do not respond to requests to back up the things they say because this isn't about viewpoints based on evidence and fact, it is about viewpoints based on prejudice. And all prejudice (as we know) is based on ignorance. Shep feels we should listen to him because he is a facial surgeon who has first hand experience of treating victims of dog attacks, but you have first hand experience of dog training and handling, yet he doesn't want to listen to you! Why? Because your views are not his views, end of story, because he will not consider any other view as having any validity if it is not his own. Similarly most of the other people posting on this thread. This is a blinkered and narrow minded approach. I have always accepted that these strong breeds attack people, and that when they do, they can cause massive damage, but I have never agreed that the problem (and therefore the solution) lies with the dog. The points you have made (and which echo points I have previously made) about establishing the human as the pack leader go to the core of this problem. But nobody, except possibly Hannah and Mags, seem to make the connection. I keep saying it, and I will keep saying it - it doesn't matter how kind a person you are when you take on a dog, how well the dog is fed, how suitable your home is etc - if YOU have no insight into the psychology of the dog or know how to train it effectively and consistently to see you as its pack leader, the dog is going to assume that role. It might not necessarily be very obvious if you have a docile and passive mutt, but when you have a large and powerful breed, or a bull breed, it is absolutely crucial that you know your dog, and how to look after it. Many of the people who have these dogs do not know how to look after them and do not understand them. The worst of these people treat the dogs as four legged humans. This shows not only a basic disrespect for the dog, but also for any human who may one day become a victim of the dog. I agree with Hannah that the BBC documentary did not show the positive side of the Staffie breed, but then, the documentary was about the subject which was portrayed, not about promoting Staffies as a breed, so to that extent, it was successful in getting the point across. I hope you have been able to see it with the assistance of Hannah's link.

Link to this comment
lottylovesanimals May 25, 2009 at 11:01 a.m.

Dog fighting is cruel and horrific, once a dog is trained that way they just live to fight. It is not the dogs fault, all blame should be placed on the owner who got them into this terrible situation. We need longer prison sentences and instead of an animal ban for two or three years it should be for life!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 25, 2009 at 10:29 a.m.

Himantura – what you say is true. Staffordshire bull terriers needed to be handled by humans whilst they were in the ‘pit’ - so were also bred to be as trustworthy with humans as they were aggressive towards other dogs in the pit. In regards to Shep’s point “staffies are now attacking their owners on a large scale” – firstly, these dogs were never bred to attack humans, so the owners must be making some sort of mistake. Secondly, where is Shep’s evidence for this? If the owners are purposely forcing their dogs into aggression, then they are the ones who need banning (from keeping animals for life). Unfortunatly there seems to be no solid laws to regulate this. Nothing seems to add up with what he says. If dogs are trained correctly from puppyhood then there should be NO aggressiveness towards any other living being. I was rather ‘amused’ by what Shep had said about any breed that kills human should be banned. He appears to have little knowledge on this as otherwise he’d know that if this was to be the case, then there would be few dogs left in the world.
I wonder how many people FULLY research into a breed of dog before they decide to own one as a pet?

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 24, 2009 at 6:11 p.m.

I am on my toes when I go out because of those dangerous dogs

feel terribly sorry for them but the facts are there
sorry as I am for them its better for everyone on this land if they go and be banned ASAP!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 24, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.

Himantura I have heard this what you say that these dogs were supposed to be non agressive with humans and bred to fight with animals. Obviously as Shep is a surgeon who treats a lot of human victims we have to accept this is not true. If the kennel club said it then I would imagine its a lie because they seem to do a lot of lying!! The point is the staffie is ruining communities because so many peoples dogs

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 24, 2009 at 10:55 a.m.

are getting attacked. I dont want Dangerous breeds in the park and worrying my dogs going to be the next victim . its not fair on those of us who choose a nice breed that doesnt want to fight to kill. Why should it always be the nice dogs that suffer. People are frightened to take their dogs out cos of Staffies who should have been banned when the pit bulls were . They arnt dogs . When they attack they are ugly monsters. My dog nearly died at the hands of this breed you want to preserve.Londiniumgaia got iot right first time. Dog fighting is ILLEGAL therefore why are we still breeding fighting dogs. Its like selling guns at tesco when its illegal to shoot someone. Staffies and other fighting breeds ..IN THE HISTORY BOOKS where they belong!

Link to this comment
shep1 May 24, 2009 at 10:36 a.m.

No the vast majority of my work is NOT caused by humans . I have only dealt with an injury from ONE dog in the last 3 years that had a bad owner. Every dog attack requiring surgery is reported to the home office along with inquest if there is one. I am not in a position to breech confidentiality but I know there are going to be some more bans enforced in the next couple of years because there are breeds around that are dangerous to society. The main trouble at the moment is the Staffie in loving family homes

Link to this comment
himantura May 24, 2009 at 12:53 a.m.

In actual fact, dogs that were selectively bred as fighting dogs were also selectively bred to be completely non-aggressive to humans so that the b******* owning, training and fighting them would not be at risk when they had to work with their dog, be it behind the scenes or pull their dog out of the ring.

Shep1- I would still like to see the evidence you have to support your facts about rates of dog attacks. As a surgeon I am sure you will agree that unfortunately the vast majority of your work is caused by humans and not dogs, and in terms of causing physical injury there are many breeds of dogs - if not all - that are capable of causing a human physical damage. A collie cross nearly took my eye out when I was a child (non-aggressive but non the less a serious wound).
Please don't misunderstand or misquote my posts, I did not make any claims about the 'happiness' of a dog, when doing anything. I don't anthropomorphise dogs - in fact I lay that to blame for many issues. I point out that you in fact refer to them 'enjoying fighting' which is anthropomorphic, does a collie 'enjoy' herding sheep? No. It likes the rewards after.

I don't know that you could refer to Cesar Millan's work as 'cognitive' behavioural as there isn't a great deal of cognition, it's mostly behavioural ethological. On the whole dogs are relatively simple animals in terms of their behaviour. Yes, it does mean looking at the dog as a dog first and breed second, as this is how a dog functions, above all else it is a dog and regardless of breed most dogs have similar needs and a similar behavioural repertoire. On top of the general dog needs there are some breed specific traits that need special attention - how much exercise they need, how strong they are, how quick to learn they are.

I don't think a comparison between an animal and gun ownership is a very valid point.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 24, 2009 at 12:12 a.m.

Absolutely. Pit bulls are still legal in the USA despite the hundreds of people being killed or disfigured by them.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 23, 2009 at 11:45 p.m.

may I point it out that we are in the UK
and its not always the case that what applies for the Yankees applies here...

this is one case that does not!!

Link to this comment
shep1 May 23, 2009 at 11:02 p.m.

The dogs you listed as being responsible for killing one human at the end is incorrect. I know for a fact there have been no death to human by these breeds; westhighland white terrier and cocker spaniel

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 8:48 p.m.

Shep - In response to your quote “I believe ANY breed that has killed human should be banned” -

This United States study was done for the years 1979 to 1998. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a TWENTY YEAR PERIOD is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsible for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel.

I'd also like to add - is it ok for humans to kill billions of animals each year, or for chinese to kill thousands of dogs annually while they're still alive for food?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 8:38 p.m.

Shep - if there was a ban, what do you think should be done with quarter of a million staffies, thousands of pit bulls and god knows what other dogs - rottweilers etc

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 8:35 p.m.

Shep - staffies were trained to fight other dogs, not kill humans. Of course they can be trained not to be aggressive - as proved by thousands of dog owners over the country. Only a tiny percentage attack - and you happen to see human victims. And I do agree with you that people who are attacked and have lived must suffer post-traumatic stress. I think that killings are extremily rare. I know this is off subject and I often mention it, but thousands of children die on the roads every year (I'm not saying that this makes dog attacks ok), and banning a breed of dog won't solve anything. The most dangerous dogs are those who are on the leads of thugs in cities. These people don't care about laws, and they encourage their dogs to kill - no matter what the breed. In the programme it looks like the completely innocent french mastiff may now become a 'good' choice for a weapon.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 23, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.

Hear Hear Shep1!!!

may all those inocent creatures that humans bred for a purpose that is no longer there forgive us but this ban cannot come soon enough and
its kinder all around ....

Link to this comment
shep1 May 23, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.

I think its important in this debate to differentiate between criminal behaviour and the victims of a breed that is still legal. Back in the day we were seeing family pets attacking owners and family members. This is happenning now on a large scale with Staffies. These are docile , gentle ,never shown aggression before dogs that we have got to stop breeding before there is another baby killed. It could be today , it could be tomorrow .the timebomb is ticking in every fighting breed in family homes. Also I should point out that sometimes a life is 'lost' even without death. Psychological trauma from witnessing or being involved in a dog attack ruins lives. This can be stopped and will be stopped

Link to this comment
shep1 May 23, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.

I watched the programme and No Of course I do not find the behaviour of the owners acceptable. The programme featured a handful of hooligans using dangerous breeds as weapons in inner city areas. There was one victim interviewed who had been attacked by an off lead pit bull before the ban. My collegues used to frequently see these sort of attacks from pit bulls. today we see mainly staffie attacks we know how the attacks happen as sometimes we are required to attend inquests. In the last three years I have only seen One attack from a pit cross staffie. The majority are family members living with pedigree staffies . Attacks being unprovoked. Of course I believe it is nescessary to train dogs. With non dangerous breeds this is going to go a long way in their socialisation with the outside world and will make sure they do not jump up or get excited and nip. You fail to understand that it is near on impossible to take BREED out of a dog.Fighting dogs Enjoy killing. this is why we should never trust them and on behalf of society should ban them. I believe ANY breed that has killed human should be banned

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 11:02 a.m.

Jojojo – List the ‘dangerous’ breeds you think need to be banned. Do you not think that there is a problem with human behaviour too? (as seen in the BBC3 doc)

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 11 a.m.

Shep – are you sure you know why these dogs really attack? When I say “specialist” what I mean is that require firm handling a good training, because of their strength. You need to train all dogs obviously, but something like a golden lab is less likely to hurt someone with a nip or a bite! It is not a staffie’s fault that they have all this inbuilt strength, but it is something that owners need to work with properly to make sure the dog is well behaved. So you think no training is necessary? That’s not a good attitude. Did you watch the programme on BBC3? And you think that the behaviour of the owners, who were featured, is acceptable?

Link to this comment
jojojo May 23, 2009 at 10:46 a.m.

is there any sort of pettition we can sign to get breeds banned. I would like to see not just the staffie go but all dangerous breeds because why should it be such a trial taking our dogs for a walk. Why dont parks ban dangerous breeds so at least theres a safe haven for us to be with our pets?? i know this wont stop people being attacked by family pets but maybe as people on here are saying the kennel club are to blame. they have lied about the staffie definatly it is not a breed that can be trusted. I saw that bbc3 documentary and its proof that ALL dangerous breeds should be banned. Guns are illegal so why arnt dogs that can kill. We wouldnt be allowed to keep cats that kill so why are we allowed to keep dogs? Imagine if there was no ban on cats and we were sharing our homes with lions and tigers?? NO so why share them with dogs that kill babies. Whoever termed the dead baby as just a statistic should be disgusted with themselves. We need to stop the breeding now and stop the importing too. this country has enough problems without dangerous dogs. No wonder they are a weapon of choice!!! They are LEGAL, most of them

Link to this comment
shep1 May 23, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.

Making excuses for WHY a breed attacks is the reason we are still treating serious injuries on a regular basis. If these breeds are specialist breeds as you say Hannah then WHY are the public being told they make good family pets!! If the pack leader is Caesor Millan they are trained the cognitive behaviour way. Which actually involves removing the BREED from the dog.Himantura, I opereate on the victims of dog attacks. There are only a handful of breeds in this countrt that can still legally damage peoples lives. As Im sure you will understand the implications of beind attacked on the face by a dog bred to kill last a lifetime. Unfortunatly a few people on this site think of these people and the thousands of dogs killed by dangerous breeds as statistics and say there is always a reason a dog attacks. The reason The dangerous breeds attack is because that is what they are bred to do. No training is nescessary .Pit breeds were put on this earth to bring a bull down by its nose. Thats not aggression thats an instinct to kill. You all want to stop and think of the misery allowing this breed into family life has caused and stop pretending its anyone elses fault but the kennel club, RSPCA and the government. Another point is pit bulls enjoy fighting so trying to humanise them and saying they are not happy is silly. Its like saying its cruel to make sheepdogs herd sheep or cruel to make gundogs retrieve the dead birds. Ridiculous

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 9:32 a.m.

Himantura – Sprockett sounds very sweet. It’s good to know of a trained dog for once! I think If Shep or Poppy read that they would say that you have a very dangerous mix and you need to be careful (!). The people on here who are for a ban on staffies say that staffies are a pit breed. Am I wrong or is there no such thing as a pit breed? Would they not be a terrier breed or as you say a working breed? I think the problem is with dogs such as staffies – people here are saying that they are being responsibly trained and cared for. But when they say this I think that they probably just mean that the dog has been part of a loving family, and is probably trained simple commands such as “sit” and “beg”. Obviously this is good, but with a strong dog such as a staffie, it needs more than this. And as you sat it is a terrier! Very stubborn and needs a lot of mental and physical exercise and obedience! A few attacks on here have been mentioned – and sadly in some of the incidences the child has died from the attack (these incidents have all made headline news in the past). One of the owners of the staffie that attacked was a “little old lady”. Without sounding discriminative, perhaps this lady wasn’t the best owner for the type of dog she had (obviously this owner on the other hand could have been perfect for the dog, but little old lady tells me perhaps weak and fragile?). I think there will almost always be a reason behind an attack, and it will usually be through the fault of humans. Londiniumgaia, Shep, Poppy all disagree with this and as I have said before, no amount of training can make these dogs safe. I’m not sure why they think this though. I do know though that they have not heard one good thing about staffies – all they seem to hear of is attacks, so no wonder why they think this really. Londiumgaia (a very contradictive person), on the other hand, some of the things she comes out with is mind boggling. On a different thread (crisis point at animal hospital), you can read that she has come up with the idea of a NHS for pets – because she thinks that everyone has the RIGHT to own an animal – nonsense. She claims that this will one day be reality and it will make the country a better place, because everyone will have the pets they have always wanted and vet bills will be free for all! And apparently it will lower the burden on police and the RSPCA, because animals will be better cared for – I don’t think so!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 9:11 a.m.

Londiniumgaia - you cannot defend these thugs for what they are doing to the poor dogs. They know what they are doing. All that rubbish you are saying about giving them a chance? Their parents are the ones who are supposed to bring them up with decent morals. On the other post YOU were telling me that it is HUMAN RIGHT to own a pet?! How rediculous. If you watched the programme then you would have seen the consequences on a small scale of what would happen if everyone was allowed a pet. So because these awful people abuse animals - you are saying to ban the animals?!

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 22, 2009 at 9:28 p.m.

sorry

a staffie or a rottie will always be snappy and unreliable whoever trains them from day one...

there is plenty of evidence to suport this fact.....

ad they are very strong dogs with a disposition that is natural in most of them to cause a lot lot of damage...

Link to this comment
himantura May 22, 2009 at 7:40 p.m.

londiniumgaia -I see your point in terms of addressing social problems, however after working in an inner city, UK high school with special educational needs - I would say the kids need discipline, boundaries and strong but fair leadership to turn things around. (In my experience these kids know exactly what is wrong from right but they have never learnt consequences and how they weigh the cost/benefit of a behaviour is different from 'legal' society). This is EXACTLY the same thing that any dog needs, bull breeds as well.

Shep1 - with all due respect, if you are going to state facts then you need to quote evidence, do you have statistics on dog attacks? I would be very interested in seeing the numbers.

Hannah - Sprockett is very much a mutt - we see so much of so many breeds in her that it's hard to think of her as a pit bull. But, working with her along side other bull breeds they are quite simply the same as any other well trained dog when they are well trained! They are 'working dogs' which means that when they are trained and under guidance they are loyal, obedient, in service to their master and in that sense they are as trustworthy and dependable as any other well trained dog. The organisation had ex-rescues that were champion agility dogs and therapy dogs (going to hospitals, etc).

In general with regards to training dogs I cannot stress enough how important obedience work and establishing yourself as pack leader/ boss really is. When there is no leader the dog feels the need to take over - they are pre-programmed to do this. This is when they become more 'aggressive' as they feel the need to defend their pack and territory - like their families safety is their sole responsibility.

In a nutshell, the big problem today is that people have lost sight of the dog aspect of the dog. They no longer give the responsibility of owning a dog proper consideration. It's a huge responsibility. A dog isn't a toy, it's not a human, it's certainly not a baby. A dog doesn't think or behave like we do, but it does reflect our behaviour and attitude. People these days get dogs for all the wrong reasons, they do not take into account the needs of the breed, they chose it because of it's appearance. A staffy is strong and stubborn, as it is a terrier it needs a lot of exercise.

Responsible ownership means knowing your dogs needs and knowing you fulfill them, this is why the RSPCA and Dogs Trust have such high standards for adopting dogs. A Staffie or a bull breed with a truly responsible owner will NOT be trouble.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 22, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

yet again if we don't learn to have consideration and respect for our own fellow humans then its in vain to expect that this very same people have any respect or consideration for our other fellow creatures
these kids are all around me Hannah if they were treated with respect and dignity told what is wrong and what is right if anyone did bother with them these things would not happen
they have to learn responsibility as well put to good use do something constructive with their spare time these kids do not bite nor cause the damage staffies and rotties DO what these kids do is wrong.... and the police who have their hands full have to be social workers? the parents fo these kids as well? and what not?
think not
a ban would help unfair it seems to many kinder to all dogs and kids and everyone else...

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 22, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.

To Sue - I watched the programme with great interest. Though I felt that this programme didn't benefit the breed at all but instead sensationalised that they are used for fighting! There wasn't enough statistics, and I am very disapointed that there wasn't one single person who spoke about the dogs in a good way, nor was it mentioned once that most of the dogs featured are friendly dogs if trained properly. Like you, I was at first impressed by the owner of Pepper the rottie, until he boasted that with one command the dog would have someones arm off! At least he had some respect for his dog though, and there were far worse 'owners'. It's very sad that french mastiffs are now being brought into the equation. It makes me sad that one day this breed could be on Poppy and chums "list of breeds to ban".

To Himantura - The points that Poppy, Shep, Londiumgaia etc have been trying to put across
is that no matter how much you train a Staffordhire Bull terrier (the main dog to feature in our debate), it will never be a safe or reliable dog, and that anyone who owns this breed has been "sold a lie". I completely disagree with what they have said. They all seem to live in areas where dog attacks are a common occurance, and most of them say that their own dogs have been attacked by staffies, and that the owners of the staffies that attcked their own dogs, were all responsible owners - a bit of a contradiction ay?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 22, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.

Londiniumgaia - calling people names is not a solution? Are you saying that these people aren't to blaim? Perhaps if yopu bothered to watch the program then you'd think very differently. And no, dog fights are not getting better, and the population of pit bull terriers is rising two fold each year - dogs fault or irresponsibilty? Pit bulls will unfortunatly never have a good name as they are mainly favoured by thugs who will always abuse them.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 22, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.

POPPY - Staffies are almost "specialist" dogs, as Himantura says. When I say this, I mean that they require proper handling, and the owner needs to be strong minded, and it's an advantage to be a strong person, as it is a strong breed of dog. Therefor, perhaps "grannies" and suchlike perhaps aren't suitable owners for this breed. Sorry if any offence caused. I don't know where you get the idea from though that this is an unsafe breed. If all staffies are trained to good standards then would they still be unsafe do you think?

TO MISCHIEF - Making a dog illegal won't make much of a difference, it may do on a short-term basis but not in the long-run. Staffie's were never as popular as they were when pit bulls were legal. The ban on the pit bull has made the staffie more popular. So the effect on banning staffies will create another "weapon of choice" - just as the programme proved. It looks like now people seem to be interested in the french mastiff. Will it be ok to keep banning breed after breed and constantly letting thugs get away with their crimes, and along the way causing millions of dogs immense suffering? The programme also highlighted that it is extremily difficult for police to be able to tel the difference between pit bulls/staffies and not to mention all the cross breeds. They do look very similar to the untrained eye. A law on irresponsible owners would be easier to regulate. Dog suffering would reduce dramatically, attacks and fighting will be reduced, and any possiblities of new breeds becoming favoured by thugs will also be reduced. In regards to your very unfortunate attack - perhaps the little old lady shouldn't have a dog such as a staffie, just because they need firm handling and a strong arm. I'm very glad that your dog has now recovered. I do think though that this horrible experience shouldn't make you feel that all staffies are the same. This is simply unfair on the breed. Where did you read that pit bulls and staffies are almost the same breed? You asked the question - what about the pedegrees who live in nice homes? This doesn't make any difference. It's all to do with how dogs are trained. You say you haven't heard of any pit bulls attacking, but this banned breed is going up and up in population almost 2 fold each year. And of course, it is illegal to own them, so who are the people that own them? - irresponsible law breakers. So the pit bulls are on the rise, and attacks will be on the rise too, because they are being trained to be this way - by their iressponsible owners. Only an irresponsible person will own a banned breed. I disagree that banning staffies will help the police workload, in fact it would make their work load increase. Much more regulations, more law breaking. So what breeds do you think need banning?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 22, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.

To Himantura - It's nice to hear from someone who really seems to know a lot about dog training - especially with so called "dangerous" dogs. If you want to watch the programme we are talking about then the link to watch it is -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00kmtl9/My_Weapon_Is_a_Dog/

I really hope you are able to watch it. I think this show did highlight that dogs are more and more frequently used in gangs and for anti-social reasons, but I didn't like that fact that there wasn't anyone who was giving a clear description of what these types of dogs can actually be like if trained well. I think that anyone who watched it will feel that these dogs are just plain scary - so it hasn't really been much help to the breed's popularity with 'responsible people'. Can you give me an insight into a pit bulls temperament when it is trained correctly? As they have been banned in this country, I have not heard much about the breed or what it's really like. All I ever hear is negative views but never posivtive. I agree with all your and Sue's ideas. Correct dog handling is the way to go. My sister has a beautiful rottie, he is the softest loveable dog you'd ever care to meet. We've never had one single problem with him.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 22, 2009 at 5 p.m.

When people are saying a ban on pit bulls has made no difference I get annoyed. Since the pit bull ban there have been a handful of attacks on humans requiring hospital treatment and in more recent times none that I have heard of with the exception of the odd cross breed. Attacks on humans from Staffies was rising at the time of the pit bull ban and s of no suprise this has increased since the ban. Whilst we all were appauled by the criminal activity,cruelty to dogs and the pit fighting we saw last night im sad to say the programme did not as some on here have pointed out tackle the problem of legal pedigree dogs being sold as family pets , still being called'nanny dogs' by the kennel club. These are the dogs that are killing other dogs, injuring children and adults,and in more and more cases ruinig lives for ever. A ban IS a start. Not the whole answer but it WILL save lives, not EVERY life but its tradgic that one breed is now responsible for the death of so many family pets in this country. These are not JUST my opinions they are facts too

Link to this comment
Sue May 22, 2009 at 4:49 p.m.

Himantura - Hannah and I have been saying all this sort of stuff on our posts for some time, but we are generally accused of "making excuses" for these dogs. Your reference to the Presa Canario is interesting because if you look on the news section of this site, to the recent news report about dog fighting, this is one of the breeds which is mentioned there. I can see this breed being adopted here before too long. I wish you could have seen the programme last night. I nearly taped it onto a DVD but then didn't. The programme did highlight the fact that some people use aggression to train their dogs, but it didn't actually give statistics about the sorts of numbers which are are killed in the course of being brutalised by their owners. I am sad to be saying it, but there was not ONE SINGLE dog owner interviewed on that programme last night who impressed as having any real insight into good handling or training. Only one guy had any control at all over his dog, and then he blew it for me by boasting that if he commanded his dog to kill, it would. It also showed him training the dog to attack a person. That is control in the wrong hands. I have previously on this forum made the point repeatedly about the need to establish a pack leader relationship with a dog and to gain its respect. Some people treat dogs as humans and expect them to think like humans. They forget that a dog is a pack animal, and they confuse the dog by allowing it to have control in the home. You are right, many owners can be very kind people but they have no insight into what a dog needs to be happy. And as you obviously know, an unhappy dog, which also happens to be a large and powerful dog, can be an accident waiting to happen. People should just think more and listen more to all the advice which is out there to be had before launching in to get themselves a cute puppy for the kids, with no insight into how to meet its needs, or even at times any knowledge about the adult dog it will one day become.

Link to this comment
himantura May 22, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.

I'm with Sue on the importance of good dog handling and I think there is a significant problem concerning most peoples idea of responsible dog ownership and what a dog needs. When you are dealing with a particularly strong or powerful breed then this needs to be taken into consideration, without wanting to sound prejudicial, a staffie is a strong dog and the bull breeds (including bull dogs and mastiffs) can be very 'determined' to the point of being obstinate, therefore they need an owner who is strong mentally, and perhaps physically. This is why I think licensing and policing breeding and 'retail' of ALL dogs is the ONLY way such problems can be resolved.

I think new problems might arise when strong breeds are placed in nice families where, although there is more than enough love for the dog, there is not enough leadership and control (and exercise, both mental and physical). If you are 'the (firm but fair) boss' your dog doesn't need to be, and with proper exercise and 'working', aggressive encounters diminish. I see these issues all the time when I am out with Sprockett, dogs not being treated like dogs, not having their canine needs (exercise, guidance) fulfilled, and this causing behavioural problems. Don't get me wrong, PLEASE don't think I am making personal accusations, I am not implying that people do not love for and care for their dogs or are being consciously irresponsible, I think the problem is now a cultural attitude or misunderstanding of our dogs.

Once again, I have to say (and repeat Sue, AGAIN! sorry Sue) that by erradicating a breed you will simply force it underground which will make it more popular with the 'wrong people' and increase irresponsible breeding. Furthermore the dogs that would be killed would mostly be the good dogs with good people therefore you are also limiting the gene pool to the illegal and more aggressive dogs. Did the show mention how many dogs are killed, usually beaten to death, by owners and breeders in an attempt to illicit an aggressive response which is not naturally there. Secondly when you eradicate one breed, another one will take it's place. Out here in North America (I am a brit living in Canada) the new 'dangerous dog' on the block is the Presa Canario.

I agree with londiniumgaia that many of the kids with the vicious dogs are as much victims of society as the dogs, but how in earth do you stop gang crime. Without wanting to be controversial, humans tend to have an aggressive streak which needs to be continually trained out of us, and when it's unchecked or promoted - hey presto - you get an inner city gang (with aggressive dogs).

Link to this comment
mischief May 22, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.

What about all the pedigree staffies from breeders that live in nice homes but are still dangerous, The one that attacked my dog was like the ones Sue describes.the old lady who owned it was shocked by its aggression and had never seen it before.Think i agree with banning them. Ive not heard of any pit bulls killing since the ban and there were a few before and think because a baby haas been killed it would be best to have staffies on the dangerous dogs act and judging by that programme its the police that need to sort out what they are doing . The dangerous dogs act lets police prosecute if a dog is out of control in a public place so police should be doing this but they wouldnt have to if all dangerous breeds were banned. it would make it easier for them. I thought it was really easy to tell the staffie from the pit bull in the 3 dog line up. Dont understand why the police cant tell the difference. Pure bred staffs are different looking from cross breeds too. Think its a lot of excuses when banning all dangerous breeds would do the job

Link to this comment
Sue May 22, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.

bea - My aunt had a Staffie in a house full of children. He was a very friendly and tolerant dog, because my cousins pulled him around mercilessly. He had a long and happy life in spite of having the children to contend with and eventually died of old age having never shown aggression towards anyone. I too believe that most Staffies make good pets, but just like people, you probably get variations in temperament. Most of the people calling for a ban on the Staffie are concerned that the Staffie has the same jaw configuration as the banned Pit Bull, and that consequently, once it does attack, it is almost impossible to get it to release its victim. The argument seems to be that the injuries caused by this type of dog will be far more severe than those caused by other breeds, and that there is far more likelihood that this breed will actually kill its victim. I have no doubt at all that these people are right, and the media is full of cases where babies and young children have been killed or maimed by this type of dog. Yes it is very worrying, particularly if it is a growing trend, which seems to be the suggestion. But the people calling for a ban look no further than the breed. They think a ban will solve the problem. They claim that docile, friendly Staffies in good homes with responsible and caring owners are suddenly turning on their families. This doesn't stack up for me. Something is wrong in the dogs environment if a responsibly bred, previously docile and friendly dog suddenly attacks. I suspect that many people who keep this breed do not understand it, and as we all know, a bored, underexercised, understimulated dog is more likely to show aggressive energy than a dog which is properly managed. Himantura makes this point in his post. Even the nicest and kindest of people could unwittingly end up with a bored, restless and ultimately potentially aggressive pet if they don't manage it the right way. It isn't all about thugs, thugs just make the problem a lot worse. People don't seem to realise that you can only bring out the best in a dog if you understand the breed and if you train it according to its temperament - Himantura made another valid point about his dog Sprockett - he said they don't play fight or play tug of war - why? Because this sort of play encourages the dog to think that you want to see its aggressive side. Lots of people with bull breed dogs like to play rough with them, but by doing so, they are encouraging negative energy. They are not being cruel. They may not be what you would term irresponsible. They just have no understanding of the dog, and probably should have opted for a different breed. I accept that possibly now and then, just as in people, you will find examples of dogs of all breeds with mental issues, but on the whole, I think Staffies are attracting a lot of unfair criticism.

Link to this comment
Sue May 22, 2009 at 9:34 a.m.

Poppy, you have said that the sort of thugs featured on last night's programme only unleash their dogs on other thugs. Not necessarily so. If their dogs got out, they wouldn't make the distinction. If they were trained to be aggressive, then that is very likely what they would be, and towards anyone. It could be a random person or another dog on the street, or if left with a family member at any point, it could even be a child in the family. It may be that under strict control, the dog may not have previously been aggressive within the family, but with the owner (and pack leader) out of the way, the dog could behave quite differently. The bottom line is that there is no benefit to dog or human in bringing out aggression in a dog, but the programme showed that people are increasingly encouraging their pets to be aggressive, and they are also breeding them with no concern for the innocent family who might end up with one of the pups. If you got a pup from someone with this mentality, then to my mind it would be like playing Russian Roulette. You might be lucky to get the pup which does not exhibit the aggressive traits of its parents, and which makes an excellent family pet, or you might get Godzilla! Indiscriminate breeding by people with the mentality of those featured on last night's programme is a huge problem, and this needs to be tackled if we are to avoid more tragedies.

Link to this comment
Sue May 22, 2009 at 9:17 a.m.

Watched the programme last night. Appalling! One guy boasted that handled in the RIGHT way, his French Mastiff could do serious damage to a human! Then he announced that he had bred it with another French Mastiff and would be selling the pups. Who will he be selling them to? Well, the reality is probably anyone who comes up with the money. If it is someone like him, he will promote the pup's capacity to be tough and aggressive, if it is a family with children, he will no doubt tell them the pup will make an ideal family pet. And it might, but then again.... Then there was the guy with the Rottie. To be fair to him, he seemed to have some basic dog handling skills and his dog was well trained. BUT, in addition to training the dog to be obedient, he had also trained it to attack people, and boasted that upon his command, the dog would kill someone. He clearly adored the dog, but hadn't made the connection that if the dog killed someone, it would end up being destroyed, not to mention the impact on the family of the human victim. Then there were the thugs still breeding pit bulls for fighting. They are not worried about the Dangereous Dogs Act, because the police don't enforce it. They havent got the time or the resources to police the tens of thousands of these dogs which are on the streets. The programme also confirmed my belief that pit bulls are being cross bred indiscriminately with staffie type dogs, and what was also obvious was that it is very difficult visually to tell them apart. With so many variations of cross breed, it is increasingly difficult to identify a pit bull, and therefore to enforce the ban. For newcomers to the site, I am not one of the people in favour of a ban on Staffies, I am simply pointing out here that the ban on pit bulls has not worked, and I am one of those who believes that tackling irresponsible owners and gangs using dogs as weapons is going to be more effective than a ban on any breed, but only if the Police and other agencies are given the powers and the resources to police it. Backstreet breeding is difficult to police because policing it and regulating it just drives it underground. The guy with the French Mastiff said he preferred it to a "little Staffie" because his French Mastiff is a large powerful dog which can jump up and bring a human down! What sort of mentality is that? So, all those worried about Staffies, I think maybe before long there is going to be a growing trend away from Staffies towards the bigger Mastiff type breeds, which may not have the same jaw strength as a pit bull type dog, but which nevertheless, you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of.

Link to this comment
bea1984 May 22, 2009 at 8:40 a.m.

I cannot believe some of the people on here. Especially the likes of londiniumgaia. I have a 2 year old staffordshire terrier my friends and family all own staffies not as status symbols but because they are sweet natured gorgeous dogs. They are called Nanny dogs for a reason and unfortunately thats why they are used for fighting because they are so loyal and will do anything to please their owners. Any dog can be a dangerous dog if its bought up wrong. I remember my Aunt used to have a JRT and she literally had to lock it in a cage when people came to visit because it would bite if it could. There are probably just as many dog attacks that happen with other breeds and just as much fighting that goes on but that doesnt make sensational news. A picture of a poodle bearing its teeth is no where near as frightening as a staffie, rottweiler or GSD doing it now is it? All owners have a responsibilty to care for and correctly train their dogs. There should be laws to stop teenagers using these beautiful animals as status symbols. I have berrated youngsters before for hanging around in groups in our parks intimidating people. I'm not scared of staffies because I was bought up with them. The fear comes from not knowing about the breed. If people werent so afraid of them because of what they've read in the news they wouldnt be used as a weapon.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 22, 2009 at 2:21 a.m.

calling people names is not a solution for anything
banning this breed is
these kids are as neglected as victims as the dogs...
its not the owner and the RSPCA got it wrong its the dogs
its common knowledge that they are and will always remain UNRELIABLE maybe if those attacks happened a bit close to home... your own pet or other family member....
time for the breed to go and its long overdue and the RSPCA is making matters worst by coming out with any other solutions other than a total ban
no ifs no buts
kinder to the dogs and safer for all of us
ACT NOW please
thank you for your attention
ps.I never watched the program as it would upset me too much I live in an area that has plenty fo dogs fights although its getting better and have no end comendations for those vets and nurses reception cleaners volunteers admin and everyone else at the Hamsworth hospital who face this sort of stuff on daily basis and other charities as well as the Mayhew ect
too sad
has to be stoped and its by banning the breed now before more damage is done....
those are far stronger animals with the right disposition to cause damage staffies should be conceled to history NOW!!!

Link to this comment
mischief May 21, 2009 at 10:18 p.m.

i have watched the programme tonight and didnt have a clue that there were hooligans using dogs as weapons so much in the inner city areas. I guess as long as there are aggressive dogs around then these thugs are going to use them so really the government should make them illegal. My dog was attacked really badly by a staffie two years ago but the owner was a little old lady. My dog was in the operating theatre for 6 hours he had a punctured lung and serious injuries. he pulled through and is fine now but its the most traumatic experience ive ever hadf. The dog that attacked him was one minute chasing balls with him and myself and the owner chatting and then it just turned into a monster. The lady who owned the dog was as upset as me. ive seen her in the park since and she keeps her dog muzzled now, she was never told a staffie was aggressive. i always knew they were a fighting pit breed and would never want to own one but i used to think maybe it was owners that made them attack,. I now know this is not true. Why has the government not banned them because one killed a baby not long ago and i dont see how they can be any safer than pit bul;ls. they are almost the same breed from what ive read

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 21, 2009 at 9:24 p.m.

I agree the owners ive just seen are scum but i dont see these types where i live. its the decent family pets that are attacking where i live. i would imagine the dogs we have seen tonight are safer to the public because their scum owners will only let them loose on other scum. Also at the end of the day the filth i have just watched ACCEPT that the dogs they own are dangerous. The decent family who buy a staffie as a pet are led by breeders kennel club etc to believe it is a safe breed. programme has not addressed the real problem just sensationalism plus given the thugs a bit of publicity and allowed them to get away with their crimes. Not very thought provoking viewing. and does nothing for the debate we are having on here

Link to this comment
VeganxChick May 21, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.

In the news rescently it has said that people who are no more then vicious thugs have dogs on the street with them as their 'weopans'! This is just appaling! No dog is born vicious, this behavior is brought on because of vile owners. All dogs deserve loving homes! These dogs are shown on the news but I don't see anyone doing anything to help these poor dogs. The owners of these dogs deserve to go to prison!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 21, 2009 at 7:20 p.m.

I will be watching the programme of course. I just hope it is not along the same lines as one i saw about weapon dogs in Liverpool focussed on illegal breeds and thugs because im more concerned with the legal attacks that are going on with pedigree staffies in good families. Im hoping that is going to be covered because we all know about illegal dogs already. We all agree that thugs with fighting dogs is cruel and disgraceful. its the questions surrounding well cared for legal breeds that needs adressing. lets hope it is

Link to this comment
himantura May 21, 2009 at 6:39 p.m.

Hannah & Sue - I'm actually in Canada (tho originally from the UK), and here in North Vancouver pit bulls are legal. I've been involved with an organisation out here called bully buddies that aims to foster out and use ambassador animals, rescued pit bull & bull breeds (mutts and pure bred), to raise their profile and public opinion by placing them with responsible owners.
This is where 'Sprockett' came from. Heeler x bull mixes are fairly common here as there is unfortunately a puppy farm close by that breeds them. Sprockett was from the SPCA and adopted through Bully Buddies.
Because I am in Canada I can't watch the show - but wish I could, I appreciate it is a very emotive issue. I can see both arguments, breeds are 'bred' to show different traits - but breeding is not a pure science luckily, genetics and socialisation are such complex issues that mercifully very few animals are 'fighters' the one trait that does shine through consistently is their loyalty and docility with humans. From working with rescue pit bulls with bully buddies I never cease to be amazed by the amazing trust and faith these neglected and abused dogs would show humans and other dogs in the face of their horrific pasts. I never once encountered one that was aggressive to myself or other dogs and I would be handling them in an open obedience class with at least 5 ot 6 other dogs nearby.

I do think anyone that takes on a bull breed needs to be aware of their background and work with the dog accordingly. For example, we don't play fight or play tug of war with Sprockett - because of her strength it would be irresponsible to promote such play behaviours. By the same token we have to be aware of the heeler side of her which means we need to exercise and work her like crazy to keep her entertained, and fulfilled. A dog full of pent-up energy is prone to behavioural problems, I have heard of countless 'nasty sheepdogs' or 'snappy terriers' - issues undoubtedly caused by boredom and lack of exercise. In my experience the MOST aggressive breed is the West Highland White Terrier - and that comes from having owned and loved one alongside ridgebacks, mastiffs and bull terriers.

I have spent a long time learning how to 'read' and understand the behaviour of dogs to ensure the safety of my dog and others... and if everyone else did the same I think people would be amazed to see what is going on infront of them.

A blanket ban on a breed is just a ridiculous idea, it will never work, but an effective and long term solution is needed and I really believe the only way this can be done is by targetting breeders and owners and banning pets in the classifieds.

Please forgive me for butting in with points already raised - but I guess the more people singing the same tune the better! Thanks for your patience and the welcome!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 21, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.

Sue - I'm really pleased that this programme is on tonight - and I will too be glued to my sofa. I wonder what the anti-staffie group will make of it (that's if they watch it). If they do, I am guessing that they will say it's all "lies and excuses" because they have seen attacks themselves! I'm sure we'll hear "the people who made the program have not witnessed staffies attack so they don't know what they are talking about!". I'm glad that some more people have finally joined this debate, as I think you and I would forever be going around in circles!

To Himantura - good thoughts! In reply to what you said - yes your points have been raised many times already, mainly by Sue and myself trying to get through to about 4 others on this site who say the dogs are to blaim and people are the victims. It's good that someone shares our views. It has been impossible trying to get our points accross without being judged for being "not human", "evil", "snobs"! Your dog sounds like an interesting mix. Out of curiousity, being part pit bull, does this make him/her legal? I have never been sure of the Dangerous Dogs Act (which I believe is pretty useless!) in regards to cross breeds.

Link to this comment
Sue May 21, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.

Abster and Himantura - we have been having a hot debate on this subject, and the main contributors have been myself, Hannah (with whom I mostly agree), occasionaly Mags (with whom I generally agree), AND in the other corner we have Poppy, Shep, Sammy and Londiniumgaia who all seem to be calling for a blanket ban on the Staffie, and who will accept no opinions or reasoning to the contrary. It has to be said that most of these people appear to live in some of the areas where dog attacks are causing the most problems, so you have to see their views as a reflection of their environment. Shep is a facial surgeon who sees the aftermath of many of these attacks, so his views are understandable. We all share in a basic condemnation of these attacks, but we disagree fundamentally about why they happen and what should be done about it. I trust that you will both be watching the programme tonight. Tomorrow's forum ought to be quite interesting!!

Link to this comment
himantura May 21, 2009 at 4:56 p.m.

just a couple of thoughts... forgive me if they have already been raised but I don't have time to read the whole page as I have to take my own dog out!! In short I feel this is a people problem, not a dog problem.

1) Eradicating a breed, or trying to, is impossible (and wrong) for a few reasons. By trying to eradicate the breed you will push breeders and dogs underground, it will become more desirable as rare. When it's underground, it's impossible to control or manage. The breed would be in the hands of the disreputable, illegal breeders.
Would you eradicate German Shepherd Dogs? Rottweilers? Doberman Pinschers? Because they were the 'danger dogs' of previous decades according to the media and cultural standards.
Would you eradicate cross breeds? How do you quantify how much 'bull' is in a dog? How do you trace the lineage?

2) The only way to reduce this problem is by closing down the disreputable breeders - traits are bred into dogs, certain breeders specialise in show dogs with physiological traits, others in family dogs with personality traits... and then some breeders specialise in breeding dogs with aggressive temperaments and THOSE breeders need to be closed down.

3) Licensing... an adequate licensing system would help hugely. Vetting people and breeders, closing down pet listings in the free-ads/classifieds and controlling who gets what and from whom would allow the police and agencies to monitor and ENSURE responsible dog ownership. Like a driving license, a couple of black marks equals a ban, you have been caught at a dog fight - you will never own a dog again. It would be hard to employ - but we did it with cars and we can do it with dogs, the costs and effort would have long term payback.

More than anything... we need to see SERIOUS penalties to humans involved in abusing and fighting these dogs.

For the record my dog is a pit bull x heeler x german shepherd and she is the most non-aggressive, placid dog I have ever met.

Link to this comment
abster May 21, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.

The blame lies with so many people these days. it's the owner, the dog and the people who decided to breed such animals and the people who continue to breed them. it doesn't mean we should iradicate the breed because a minority have bitten or killed. would you iradicate the human race because a few thousand people have commited murder/GBH etc? probably not. So why say get rid of staffie type dogs just because a minority of people raise them for the wrong reasons. I understand that children have been killed and mauled and so have adults and it is an absolute tragedy but what parent would take a staffie/pitbull type breed from an unknown source with a child at home and then leave them unattended. I have a GSD who raised her lip at my 3 yr old nephew when he tried taking a treat off her. if hadn't taken hold of her muzzle and told my nephew to leave the room he wouldn't understand what she was saying to him and she might have bitten him. its a risk with any dog.
Also i know a staffie type dog who was taken from an abusive home some years ago but he is the softest dog i know. he never growls, nips, bites or shows any form of aggression. so its not the breed in general that is to blame, its the idividual dog and owner that is to blame these days but the bigger picture is that its the original person who decided to breed a killer dog, its our ancestors who used them not so long ago in victorian london for fighting who are to blame. It is only the 100 years or so that society has started to dislike dog fighting and while the idea is still in one person's mind, dog fighting is going to happen on our streets.

Link to this comment
Sue May 21, 2009 at 10:24 a.m.

Poppy, Sammyd, Londiniumgaia and Shep - I don't know if you have seen the "latest news" section of this site, but there is a programme on tonight at 9pm on BBC3 about the very thing we have all been hotly debating. I will be glued to it, and no doubt so will Hannah and hopefully yourselves. Whatever our differences in approach, it does seem this is a subject upon which we all hold strong views, one way or another. Reading the article on this site, it does seem that the main problems occur in urban areas, and where I live is not urban, which would explain why I don't see as much of it as some others do. The same probably applies to Hannah. I hope you will all watch the programme, because all our views are based on our own experience of our own neighbourhoods and this programme hopefully will give a wider perspective as to just how serious the problem is. Poppy, I am sorry to "harp on" about what happened to you, but I did think it was important, and if you didn't, then you would have kept raising it yourself in your own posts. Thank you for clearing it up. It sort of explains a bit. It explains that the dogs which were loose and not in the control of the owner (admittedly through no fault of his) were behaving like pack animals, and your dog was on a lead (again quite rightly). As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, off lead dogs seem to be more aggressive towards a dog on a lead, and I don't know why. It is obviously a "dog thing". In the kennels where my dogs occasionally board, the staff let all the dogs loose in one large enclosure where they play together and socialise. Because they are all off lead, they probably see one another as equals, and so get on. Unsociable dogs of course are not included. I think you are being unfair and judgmental Poppy in suggesting that Hannah doesn't care about the dogs and babies who die in dog attacks, I am sure she does care, as do I, but she is taking a wider view. If you look objectively at all the terrible things that go on in the world, the incidents of dogs fatally attacking other dogs and children come very low down on the statistics scale. Road accidents kill, maim or disable far more children and adults than dogs, but we seem to accept RTA statistics without a second thought because we balance them with the benefits of having cars.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 20, 2009 at 11:57 p.m.

And Hannah im not suprised you are ashamed to call yourself human. You certainly dont care that dogs are being killed or babies for that matter. I wouldnt call you human either

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 20, 2009 at 11:52 p.m.

And yes Sue something does have to be done to save helpless creatures. DANGEROUS BREEDS created by MAN need to be erradicated so our communities are safe . Another fact . Not my opinion FACT

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 20, 2009 at 10:59 p.m.

Witnesses and the police told me about the owner. He has never mistreated the dogs , they had never done it before and they were very obedient when he arrived to take them home. The only thing everyone said was they seemed very loving happy dogs. They would be they had tasted blood which is what pit breeds love to do. Jut as a sheepdog loves tro herd sheep and a gun dog loves to retrieve a fighting dog loves to kill. FACT

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 20, 2009 at 10:54 p.m.

For goodness sake sue . Does it really matter . My dog was attacked by Staffies who had been reported lost by the owner. Someone had opened their garden gate apparently. The staffies were off lead mine was on lead. Apparently when the 999 call went in to the police and they responded the police called the owner because he had already phoned police to say they had got out.I wasnt there I didnt wait for police saw them later once my dog was in intensive care. ALL irrelevant but you kept harping on about what happenned to me. The only thing that is relevant is that if my dog got out of my house by accident it wouldnt attack to kill. Staffies do because they are a dangerous breed. Stop making excuses for why they kill its getting boring. Go and buy one and see for yourself what the breed is

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 20, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.

Sue - I didn't mean to sound rude by saying that there are worse problems than a baby dying (which is awful for the family), what I was trying to say was (again the car subject) that there are thousands of road deaths each year, children getting knocked over on their way to school and other vehicle related incidents. I don't see the country worrying about this, infact probably half of the population probably break some sort of law every day (such as minor speeding - but enough to kill a small child). Why does no one seem as bothered about this. It just seems like people are constantly blaiming anything they can, apart from themselves.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 20, 2009 at 6:27 p.m.

Sue - most probably true, people need to start taking responsibilities for their actions and stop blaiming helpless creatures. This problem frustrates me imensly. Some people are so busy looking into the fact that some dogs have attacked (sad as it may be) - there are far worse problems to be solved. When people are educated properly and when people start to sort themselves out, that is when the country will be a safer place to live.

Link to this comment
Sue May 20, 2009 at 4:44 p.m.

Hannah - your last sentence in the post directed to Twinkle - YES, this would DEFINITELY solve a lot of problems. One day (probably not in our time) humans WILL be extinct, because we will have destroyed our own habitat. That is the greatest of all atrocities imaginable, and we won't be able to blame animals for that!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 20, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.

To Twinkle – I have read the small blog on the think tank pages, but I don’t really understand what is trying to be said. From what I gather, whoever wrote the article is trying to say that we shouldn’t discriminate against breed types. Am I correct or have I got it wrong? I’m very sorry that your dog was attacked by a staffie. Do you agree what is being said in the blog? Or do you think that there needs to be a full ban on this breed? If you have read any of my previous posts you will probably notice that I am completely against a ban for so many reasons. I do very much sympathise with those though, like yourself, who has been involved with an attack. I do feel though that only a very small percentage of the breed can be branded as aggressive. I really feel for these dogs as they are the victims too. They are the ones who end up euthanised or in animal shelters because of the way they are treated by some savage humans. It’s so sad that because of this you do not feel that you cannot have another rescue dog - do you think that you are now afraid of staffies or just the area that you live in? I believe that some areas are bad for dog on dog attacks, because of the culture of the different places – fortunately I have never seen a dog attack in my life. I know though that if I did witness one I’d never discriminate against a breed, I’d rather look into individual cases of why an individual dog attacks. Staffies are popular with a type of selfish owner who likes to abuse their dogs into being aggressive – they are abusing not only the dog itself, but are taking advantage of it’s strength. 99 cases out of 100 I think that attacks happen because of the way the dog has been irresponsibly handled by its owner, and the dogs unsuitable environment. Obviously some dogs are naturally more aggressive than others and are more difficult to train. Some people using this site I feel like to pull the wool over their eyes - why blame a breed when it is solely human’s fault that some dogs end up attacking? Think about what Poppy said “It would be possible for you to relax if these dangerous breeds were banned”. Is this really true though? Abusive owners will continue to treat their dogs like rubbish, another breed will be used as their weapon instead. I think that Poppy has the idea that all Staffordshire’s are dangerous. This is rubbish, and many cases have begged to differ. And of course “Shep the facial surgeon” will think they are an “evil breed – all he’s ever seen is victims... this still doesn’t go any way into proving that it’s the breed at fault though. Sometimes I ashamed to call myself human! If anyone deserves to be made extinct it’s us!

Link to this comment
Sue May 20, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.

I don't believe some of the things I read on this forum. Poppy, I asked you if the dog which attacked yours was on or off lead. The point is that if it was off lead, as I suspect it must have been, then the owner was not a responsible owner as you have previously claimed, and the dog, which you have said was very well trained, clearly wasn't. The bottom line is, if that dog had been properly trained by a responsible owner in control of it, then your dog would not have been attacked. But you don't want to hear that do you? I know the incident caused you much distress, as it would me. But at the same time, there seems to be no rational basis for your claim that the Staffie which attacked your dog was docile, friendly, well trained and responsibly managed, and then a second later it suddenly became a killing machine. I am NOT saying that a dog can't suddenly turn, don't get me wrong. Nearly always, when a dog attacks, it will be sudden and unexpected, and a shock to everyone around. What I am saying is that dogs don't undergo instant personality changes. There is always a trigger, and a responsible owner is one who knows what triggers his/her pet to react, and who takes precautions to ensure that no other human or animal is harmed. So when you tell us that the owner of the dog which attacked yours was responsible, that is a contradiction which I find difficult to reconcile myself to. You blame the breed and only the breed, but it isn't that simple, because if all Staffie dogs were born killers, which could not be trained to be anything different, then we wouldn't have millions of Staffies living as well trained family pets in happy homes with responsible owners and no problems. If you were right about the breed, that would not be possible. I am convinced that irresponsible ownership and indiscriminate breeding of staffie type dogs with possibly pit bull type dogs is a huge problem which needs stamping out. I am not convinced that banning Staffies will stop people owning them. People who want to own pit bulls have ignored the ban and taken the risk, because they know that the Courts will not really punish them, and dog fighting can be big money, so it is worth it. Unfortunately, other dogs die, and so do humans as a result. I do not criticise any of you for condemning such tragedies, and as far as that goes, I am with you all, but I just don't think we agree on the best way of dealing with it, or the underlying reasons why these tragedies occur in the first place.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 19, 2009 at 8:50 p.m.

I think hannah you need to understand that yes there are irresponsible dog owners around but like poppy says dog fighting is illegal in this country and as such its time we made all fighting breeds of dog illegal too. poppy is right the thugs fighting the pit bulls ARE criminals. We will always have criminals and they if caught will be sentenced for the crime. All we want is a ban on dangerous breeds and that way next time a Staffie kills a dog its owners WILL be sentenced for illeglly owning a banned breed. Right now dangerous dogs are as poppy and londiniumgaia say damaging communities and as Shep says the cost to human life is too high. Imagine if one of us was disfigured for life by this breed.I for one would be blaming the government before the owner for allowing a dangerous breed to stay legal. The pit bull ban was good but it should have included ALL pit breeds. That way SUE , You couldnt keep blaming it on xbreeding because all of them would be classed as the same

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 19, 2009 at 8:32 p.m.

am not ignoring the fact that some thug did something illegal no but pit bulls have been banned . these thugs are criminals and will be dealt with as such. point is the pit bull could have killed many more dogs if it was legal and hasnt because its banned

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 19, 2009 at 8:23 p.m.

Poppy - you only listen to what you want to hear. Are you also ignoring the fact that a pit bull type dog has just been killed in a fight? All at the hands of his owner's stupidity? Or doesn't this matter because it isn't a breed you favour so who cares?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 19, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.

Poppy - Huh? Why do you refuse to believe that there are reasons for dogs behaviour? There is an "excuse" for everything. Well there will always be killings until idiots stop treating dogs like rubbish. Open your eyes.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 19, 2009 at 7:52 p.m.

AGAIN excuses excuses but the staffies are STILL killing on a daily basis. That makes them dangerous thats why we dog lovers want them banned.

Link to this comment
Sue May 19, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.

Well so much for the pit bull ban folks, just read the "latest news" section on this website and see that Pit Bulls are still very much around, (probably being bred with Staffies) still thugs are turning dog on dog, and in this latest fight one poor dog ended up dead in a dustbin. Thugs also use Staffie type dogs to fight, and this is where their reputation begins. Yes I DO care when a dog gets attacked by another dog, and this latest atrocity is a case in point. So are you going to suggest in this instance that the owners were responsible and blameless? Poppy, don't assume that we are not sympathetic about what happened to your dog, or anyone else's dog in similar circumstances. You have told us that YOUR dog was on a lead. You have also previously stated that the dog which attacked your dog was accompanied by a very responsible owner. So just tell us, was the OTHER dog on a lead too? Because if Staffie attacks are an almost everyday phenomena where you live, and if lots of people acknowledge the fact, and then someone comes along with a Staffie off lead when the owner knows other dogs will potentially be placed at risk, is that what you call a responsible owner? If it is, then your idea of responsible is not mine. Another thing I have noticed with dogs in my years of having one is that if two dogs meet in circumstances where one is on a lead and the other one isn't, for some reason, the off lead dog seems to want to have a go at the dog which is restrained. I don't understand why that is. I have also noticed that my own dogs, both entirely non aggressive, behave differently towards one another if we put one of them only on the lead. There has to be something in this. Perhaps other dog owners have noticed it too. We often walk our dogs off lead, but they are trained to ignore other dogs. I have noticed that my Border Collie definitely does not like it when another off lead dog comes over and starts jumping at her or sniffing her rear end, and she will show her teeth at it in warning. The dog which does this is untrained and undisciplined (however cute it may also be), and although the owners are generally very nice and apologetic, it doesn't alter the fact that they have no control over their dog. A dog which is not in the control of its owner should not be off lead around other dogs. An off lead dog which approaches another dog indiscriminately risks getting attacked by the other dog, and an owner who was careful to avoid that would train their dog properly. Similarly, the off lead dog which cannot ignore a dog on a lead without attacking it, should also be on a lead.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 18, 2009 at 11:43 p.m.

Ive just read that too. Thanks Twinkle its nice to see more people coming on that are speaking sense.Today I heard one of my neighbours dogs was attacked in the park by a Staffie. The dog is in the animal hospital fighting for his life. Hannah and Sue will say this dog like the baby in wales is JUST a statistic. Its not !!! To my neighbour its her baby . BAN ON STAFFIES NOW !!! Poppy you are right they are damaging communities.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 18, 2009 at 9:30 p.m.

twinkle my dog was on her lead too. I understand the way you felt about walking your dog again. ive never been the same either.It would be possible for you to relax if these dangerous breeds were banned. At the end of the day like so many people on here have said it is the BREED that attacks, the BREED that kills and the BREED that ruins communities not the owners. Some owners are bad but a lot of them are decent and the point is the BREED kills whether it lives with good or bad . Should have banned ALL pit breeds and any other dangerous breeds when they band the pit bull then you and I and thousands like us wouldnt have to go through what we have seen our dogs go through. Theres a surgeon on here called Shep .He operates on the many human victims of this breed and says the ban is coming soon. Think he knows more than us because he is involved in the discussions with the dangerous dogs act. I want to get another dog but know i cant protect two so until the staffies are off the street i wont. Thanks for posting that link and I hope you feel able to get a dog again soon twinkle

Link to this comment
Twinkle May 18, 2009 at 9:17 p.m.

Poppy you have my heartfelt sympathy. My dog was attacked by a staffie too.She was lucky, I truly thought she was going to die, it was totally unprovoked my dog was on her lead.
I dont think anyone realises how these attacks affect you. I was never the same walking her again. She died last year,and my heart is broken, I'd love another rescue dog but would be afraid to walk it round here.Several of my friends feel the same, and say when they lose their pets they wont have another for the same reasons. I dont know who's to blame...I have never ever seen so many staffies in rescue, its very very sad, I just know how I feel and I know you must be feeling too.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 18, 2009 at 9 p.m.

ban them please
this woman had bits taken off her not your usual bite I do not know of any other dog breed that is capable of this
there is no need for such powerfull dogs any longer never seen a bull around my neck of woods but plenty of staffies and dog fights and my dog is tougher than yours sort of attitude just because some of you live with a few and far between around you you can trust that nanny b....thing all you want ....I know better...

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 18, 2009 at 8:25 p.m.

Twinkle Hello, I have just had a look at the comments posted on the dogs today think tank you mentioned. It makes my blood boil that these dangerous breeds have still not been banned in this country. My dog was attacked by two staffies , it is the most horrific thing ive ever experienced and there are so so many dogs lose their lives to pit breeds. I think its true that people dont care when a dog kills a dog . The RSPCA certainly dont want to know !!! Thanks for posting this link

Link to this comment
Twinkle May 18, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.

Hi Hannah , google dogs today think tank. its on Beverly Cuddy's cold wet nose site... click on the BLOG. Its about fourth? letter down.. click on comments...about 6 so far.
http://dogstodaythinktank.blogspot.com/
Its not in Dogs today magazine.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 18, 2009 at 6:11 p.m.

A ban would not highlight the real problems to people??? The purpose of banning DANGEROUS breeds is to save lives. I havnt seen or heard of any serious injuries inflicted on people or dogs from pit bulls in the last two years Hannah

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 18, 2009 at 5:53 p.m.

Twinkle - I have read the latest copy of Dogs Today - but I didn't see anything on "Does anyone care when dog kills dog" in the Think Tank pages. Is this article in the June 09 copy?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 18, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.

Shep1 - Regarding your last post, this blog is to do with aggressive dogs. It has been researched and concluded that the Dachsund is one of the most aggressive breeds - so I think this point is quite relevant. People can forget that its not just staffies and rotties who are the agressive ones. (I do not believe that either of the latter breeds are aggressive).

Londiumgaia - I think in a debate such as this, you shouldn't keep coming up with the same case (the baby/grandmother case), as this can no where near justify your opinions. Are the breeds mentioned really unreliable? Are you thinking of the welfare of dogs when you go out in your steel toe caps..? So a staffie approaches you, and snaps out of the blue - and you think the best way to deal with the situayion is to kick the dog with steel toe cap boots?

Sue - The points you have said to Londiniumgaia are ones I have already mentioned - and guess what, no comments! I do not understand what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks that getting rid of obvious weapons (such as guns and knives) will solve the problems. And she thinks that staffies waste police time!? I think I am in the same boat as you - I have never really had an interest in the staffie breed (until now), and a ban wouldn't make much difference to my personal life. But a ban is wrong, and will not solve anything. I believe that this is unfair on the breed. Why should countless yobs get away with their crimes time and time again, and why should people be allowed to carry on as irresponsible with no respect for their pets. A ban would not highlight the real problems to people, it would just pull the wool over their eyes.

Link to this comment
Twinkle May 18, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.

Has anyone been reading Dogs Today Think Tank
'Does anyone care when dog kills dog?'
Makes interestinbg reading and I think most people know the answer.

Link to this comment
Sue May 18, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.

Londiniumgaia, shep and Sammy - here you are again dealing with the symptom and not even recognizing the cause! Do you really think that if certain dogs considered in certain quarters as being "dangerous" were banned, we would have no dangerous dogs and no dog attacks? Londiniumgaia - "no guns,no knives and no staffies and we would all live a better life" - do you really believe that? Do you really think that those humans who enjoy hurting others will suddenly stop doing it because their weapon of choice has been taken away? How naive you must be! Thugs will always breed dogs to be as aggressive as possible. There is a pit bull ban, but still pit bull dogs are to be seen around, and some have been bred with other dogs to get around the technicalities of the ban. This will happen with any dog which is banned. And Hannah is right, people with biased opinions based on their own experiences can't be a reliable indicator. I don't own a Staffie, it makes little difference to me whether Staffies are banned or not. I am not coming to this forum with a vested interest in retaining the breed. I have not seen an aggressive Staffie. I HAVE seen Staffie owners who do not let their dogs off lead on the field where I walk my dogs. This MAY be because the owners don't trust them around other dogs, but then I have also seen many other breeds of dog kept on lead, so I don't make assumptions or jump to conclusions. No owner of a Staffie has ever confided in me that their dog is a risk, and I have no personal experience of a Staffie attack. My views are just my views, they are not in favour of a ban because I don't think it will achieve any real purpose. Like Hannah says, more children die in road accidents than in dog attacks, so are cars to blame or drivers, and which do you want to ban?

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 17, 2009 at 11:30 p.m.

they don't get a bad press for nothing
if it was YOUR GRANDAUGHTER it would not seem so unfair to ban these very powerfull animals
they do the damage not the onwers I have never heard of anyone being bitten by the onwers... having flesh lacerated and being traumatized for life like some lady was only about a month ago in south London when she walked out of her door and was attacked by two staffies...

they are unreliable and wonderfull as you might think they are and yes of course many might be and its not their fault what they are they are still strong unrealible dogs hence the reason they are used as weapons never heard of a bad boy or girl walking around with a collie or a vicious sheltie or a fatal dealy looking corgi.. and yes german sheperds can be trained to attack but they are too reliable and not bred with os much strengh in them ..
they are what they are ....
and yet again sorry to those who feel my views unfair whose pets are staffies and rotties ...
I walk around with steel toe caps shoes if one ever goes for my dogs or me at least I can defend them better....
and they might snap out of the blue ... as they do...
and yes doxies are miniatures dobermans and yes they have their faults but they are not vicious nor anywhere as powerfull as staffies and rotties

Link to this comment
shep1 May 17, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.

Hannah the dangerous dogs act is concerned with 'dangerous' not aggressive. Lets not be having silly talk about dachunds . Staffies kill dogs and people thats why they are dangerous thats why they are being banned

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 10:02 p.m.

<3 Animal <3 - Totally agree, they are wonderful dogs. It is a shame so many peoples views are coloured by a couple of very unfortunate fatal attacks - its a good thing the number of attacks like this low, considering the amount of people who treat these dogs like weapons. I don't think they have researched these breeds at all!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 9:58 p.m.

londiumgaia - What is the evidence you talk about that has been gathered on these breeds?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.

Sammyd - Do you actually read my posts? Tabloids do not blaim the owners they tend to blaim the breed! Which is why certain breeds have 'bad media coverage'. I have never seen an aggressive staffie in my life. The only reason you might have seen one is because of the type of place you live in perhaps, I'm only assuming this because of the things you have previously said to me. The same goes with Poppy, she seems to see daily attacks in her local park. If her locals believe that this is an aggressive dog then why do they keep owning them? Nothing any of you say makes any sense to me at all. If the people that own the staffies are telling you that they can be a "bit bad", then why do they have them?! Can they control their dog properly? Have they trained it? If their dog wants to "kill" then it beggars belief why that "responsible" person still has it. Something here is not really adding up. Sammy, how many staffies are in this country, quarter of a million. How many children have died last year? Probably 2 or 3. How many irresponsible owners are there? Thousands. How many cars on the road? millions. How many children die in car accidents a year? Thousands. Perhaps you should start thinking about sensible driving instead - or shall we ban cars too?! I don't think you know much about these breeds of dogs at all. You cannot base a breed on the fact that one of them killed a baby!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 9:46 p.m.

Poppy2007 - it is very sad that your dogs were attacked, but unfortunatly your dog is a very small statistic in this matter, infact, so is the poor baby (sorry to say). Rotties are not know for their aggressiveness but are good natured - I hope you have done your research into the breed. They would only harm if they were trained to guard, which is at no fault of their own. A tiny percentage of dogs are aggressive anyway. But this can be the case with any breed. Did you know that the Dachund is one of the most aggressive dogs? Personally I wouldn't agree with Londiniumgaia on anything - considering her crazy ideas on cat curfews, declines in wildbirds caused by rotties rubbing bark of trees, pet NHS! I can argue with what Shep says, as obviously though no fault of his own, he has a one sided view as all he sees is attack victims. If an 18 year old man murders then yes he should be put in prison. You cannot compare dogs with humans! I do not blame dead babies. You do come out with some rubbish!

Why not get rid of dangerous breeds? Firstly staffies and rotties are no dangerous dogs. Secondly, the current dangerous dogs act has too many flaws to add more dogs to it. Obviously the DDA hasn't worked which is why we still see dog attacks. Owners are the problem the majority of the time. "Most irresponsible owners wont even be attracted to dogs when we only breed safe ones" - how do you think the staffie became a fighting dog then!?

Link to this comment
shep1 May 17, 2009 at 9:08 p.m.

The RSPCA is fast losing credibility on many counts.Sammyd indeed you are right irresponsible is what they are if they are still promoting this breed as good family pet. They should stick with their charity work and stop trying to get involved in politics !!! They were proven wrong when we banned the pit bull. Lessons learned? I think not

Link to this comment
shep1 May 17, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.

LONDINIUMGAIA ; You are correct. What you see and hear IS of more importance than the 'lets preserve the dangerous breed because want to' army! Thankfully I dont just see and hear I actually get to talk to the legislaters. My opinion counts for something and believe me yours should too and poppys and anyone else who has had to live through witnessing one of this breeds lethal attacks . Not long now my friends..

Link to this comment
sammyd May 17, 2009 at 5:37 p.m.

I agree with you londiniumgaia. HOW IRRESPONSIBLE is the RSPCA calling the staffie a great family pet. Is the Rspca not aware a baby was killed by thiseat family pet a few months ago !!! Im thinking like Shep. The RSPCA and Kennel club got blood on their hands? Maybe. Bet the RSPCA called pit bulls great family pets too. I think they just cant be bothered with their huge workload if a ban came into force ,,,thats what they should be doing helping to protect ALL dogs from these dangerous breeds by supporting a ban. They were wrong bowt pit bulls and they wrong bowt the other breeds that need banning.FACT!!

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 17, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.

I beg to differ what others say is not as important to me as what I see and hear with my own
as I said before the damage done by those breeds is done because they are strong dogs and unreliable and the amount of eveidence proving is there to be found
not long ago a grandmother left her trusted family pet with her grandaughter who grew up with the rottie and she is no more as the trusted family pet KILLED HER
it wasn't a yorkie or a labrador or an alsatian or a cavalier ora jack or what not!
its only the press NO DEAR ITS THANKS TO THE PRESS that we know more about these horrid dogs
and much more...
get real and responsible the RSPCA has acted with much less reposnsibility than those kids who use them as weapons
sad stuff !

Link to this comment
<3 Animalz <3 May 17, 2009 at 12:54 p.m.

Why do you all think that Staffs are so aggressive? The RSPCA wrote in a magazine that they make great family dogs and don't know why they have such a bad reputation. Any breed of dog can be aggressive, it's not just Staffs or Rottweilers. Londiniumgaia, we wouldn't have a better life without Staffs or Rottweilers. They are actualy really nice dogs. At least Hannah has some sense.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 16, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.

Poppy ,Londiniumgaia and Shep thank God we are not selfish enough to not put the victims before the breed.If I had my way these danger breeds would never have been allowed to be sold as pets. Im appaulled that Sue and Hannah dare to blame owners judged on what they read in the tabloids. ALSO i believe they are LYING. I have not met anyone who has said they have never seen an aggressive staffie. EVEN owners of them have told me they are a bit bad with other dogs or he can be a bit nasty or he doesnt like males or he wants to kill and the list goes on. Have to wonder what you see in this breed when it looks at you cos all i see is a dangerous breed thats a baby killer and not exactly a pet you can ever trust

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 16, 2009 at 1:19 p.m.

Why not get rid of DANGEROUS BREEDS first . So far we have banned 4 . There may only be another 4 then thats done. After that we can concentrate on irresponsible owners.Most irresponsible owners wont even be attracted to dogs when we only breed safe ones but there will still be abuse but a lot easier to prosecute if there are only safe dogs being bred. We can at least say its an owners fault if a spaniel attacks. and at least no more kids will be killed

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 16, 2009 at 1:12 p.m.

The point is and its the important point. My dog was nearly killed by an irresponsible owner it was nearly killed by a Staffie. If a Border collie had gone for my dog she wouldnt have been nearly dead because I would have been able to stop it. The baby that died was not killed by an irresponsible owner it was killed because Staffies are still legal in this country. The little girl that got killed by the rottie was not irresponsible either and nor were her parents but that breed should have been banned too. Now I am struggling to comprehend HOW wanting to preserve a pit breed is kind to ANYONE or ANY ANIMAL. Londiniumgaia Iagree with what you have to say,Obviously none of us can argue with the word of Shep because he is at the sharp end of what these dogs do. Sue and Hannahill look for any scapegoat because they dont want dog breeds banned .Sue and Hannah ; So if an 18 year old man murders someone we shouldnt put him in prison?? HE isnt a danger to society ? oh no if we go along with your way of thinking we would put his parents in prison cos they caused the murder not him who did it!! Your argument for preserving a dangerous breed has NO credibility. How many more dead babies are you going to blame on anything BUT dangerous breeds of dog .

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 16, 2009 at 10:50 a.m.

Londiumgaia - The incident with the off the lead rottie – firstly if the owner of this dog was responsible then they shouldn’t have left it off the lead, especially in a park with children playing. This rule applies with any breed. What do you think made the mother and her children frightened? Did it growl? If it did then it has not been trained correctly and has bad manners! With the half eaten seat incident – it is well known that staffies love to chew things, especially if it was a rubber or plastic seat. Again, the staffie/s should have been trained not to do this, and more importantly, why would the owner let the dog chew at a children’s play area. A dog doesn’t know its rights from wrongs. If the seat was half chewed, I can imagine the dog must have been there for some time. A responsible trustworthy owner?
If these kids you are talking about need to be given responsibility, then that’s something the parent/guardian needs to look into.
“would advise everyone to be on your toes with them around as well” – is this really the right attitude to help educate being to become responsible? This is the sort of things that thugs want to hear, which is where a lot of the problem lies. They want to own this breed because they want people to be on their toes!! My sister has a rottie who I quite happily cuddle and she licks my face! I have no problem, I show no fear. This dog has been trained wonderfully; at heart these dogs are not aggressive. They were originally bred for pulling and guarding. Sometimes they are still stupidly trained to guard, which is why some attack. You wonder why police time is wasted? Is it the dog who’s the time waster? Or is it the owner? Who gets arrested and sentenced, the dog or the owner?
In reply to your last comment, I expect that anyone who works for the RSPCA would look after and train their dogs properly to avoid being in this situation.
If all these breeds you say are so aggressive, then why isn’t half the population in hospital and why haven’t they been banned already?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 16, 2009 at 10:50 a.m.

Londiniumgaia – Just because you or I may not be irresponsible dog owners, there are plenty out there! These people are the main reason for the increase in staffie dogs in this country. This is because the staffie is the choice of many families and youths who think they need to protect themselves and make themselves look rock hard. They are abusing the dogs, using their strength to fight their battles. Is this fair on the dog? I think not. Should people be able to carry on treating animals this way? I think not. Believe it or not there are thousands of people who treat dogs this way. Many staffies end up in shelters because a lot of people are not able to train them to be aggressive, simply because many staffies do not want to be aggressive! Therefore they get discarded. This is why there are so many gentle staffies in shelters. The RSPCA would not lie about how gentle a staffie just to get rid of the dog to a new family, because what would happen if the dog actually turned out to be vicious! Then no-one would trust that animal centre anymore, and they would lose a lot of credibility. A lot of staffies are owned by people who just do not know how to look after them and treat them properly; they are not true dog lovers. Of course there are many people who look after them very well, and the dog will in turn be a fantastic pet. Unfortunately if people are responsible with dogs, they probably never will be. There are always welfare issues associated with this topic. As long as these irresponsible people own dogs, then there will always be welfare issues. Staffies have previously been bred to fight. This urge for having “fighting” dogs will always exist until people are educated properly, so banning staffies will not change the attitudes of people at all. I don’t understand why you think that by getting rid of weapons will change people. Using weapons is a state of mind. You don’t get someone who is pretty normal going out and knifing the first person they see. If the knife isn’t there a glass bottle may be used instead. Dog attacks are fairly rare compared to the dog population; it’s just that we always hear when a dog attacks, so everyone knows about it.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 15, 2009 at 7:10 p.m.

I'm upset and disppointed with the RSPCA for all the mistakes someone at some level have made in my view as to retifying the DANGEROUS DOGS ACT
BIG MISTAKO!!!
there are and there will always be irresponsible dog onwers but if the weapon is not there then its simply not there so if we have no guns and knifes and no sttafies and rotties
we should all live a much better life
the other day I was talking to a shop keeper down my road as I was walking my dogs
she told how when she first moved here she took her children to one of the many lovely parks we are blessed with in this area
in there a off the lead rottie frighten her and children off the park and she said she run for her life never to return to that park and that is over 15 years ago..
if I go to another litlle park down the road I see the seat of a swing half eaten by staffies one day instead of the seat might be a child ..
trustworthy dogs? some joke!!
people are more likely to have their interest at heart when saying such things than checking out the damage the devastation the traumas those breeds cause...
so many people are put off dogs becaue of them as well ....
those same kids you can irresponsible if given some RESPONSIBILITY will come up smelling roses
something for them to do that would bring pride in their activities something constructive WORK a sense of right or wrong they are as neglected as the dogs themselves..
put them to good use and do some community work they will soon forget what the poor dog was all about ...its not the onwers its the dog breed and I will never ever be able to relax around these dogs and would advise everyone to be on your toes with them around as well...
the police has enough to deal with let alone go after bad boys abd girls who use those breeds as weapons why should police time be wasted in something like that? if they were historical pets they should not have to
its not their fault they were bred as such but its ours and therefore our responsibility that they should now RIP as a breed ...
MAYBE IF THAT NOT SO BRIGHT YOUNG LADY OF THE RSPCA HAD A FAMILY MEMBER OR A CHILD OR HER OWN PETS TORN TO PIECES BY THESE BREEDS SHE WOULD FIND THEM DANGEROUS DOGS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE ONWER WHO TORE THEM TO PIECES IT WAS THE DOG
ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
FACT!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 15, 2009 at 6:26 p.m.

An interesting link -

http://dfordog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1759&pid=24364&mode=threaded&show=&st=&

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 15, 2009 at 6:11 p.m.

Sue - I don't think it would make a difference to Shep1 to listen to somebody like an accredited staffie breeder. If it's positive info then he doesn't think it will help the debate!?? (Doesn't make any sense to me).

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 15, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.

Shep1 - You say that most owners now know that the staffie should not be called the nanny dog. How do you know this? Have you spoken to all quarter of a million staffie owners? Obviously the people who you treat are going to say this aren't they? You are missing all the points I have been trying to make. I don 't think that all staffies are safe, but I beleive that they have the potential to be. You think that they are an aggressive breed so will disagree. I think most of the staffies in the country who are unsafe are owned by those who continue to treat them like rubbish and inist on taking avantage of the breeds strength by forcing it to live a life of aggression. Do you not see this? Have you never seen morons in tracksuits taunting people with their dogs? Why do you think that the government is considering a new law which focuses on irresponsible owners? I have seen plenty of aggressive staffies, and practically all of those have come from owners who are morons, and neither the dog or owner has had a decent upbringing! The point Sue was trying to make is that it would be helpful to have someone who knows a lot about the breed to have a say so that we get a better understanding of the breed as a whole. So why would it only be valuble to have a breeder who has stopped breeding? Why do you only want to listen to negative views? Do you think that positive views must all be lies??

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 15, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.

Shep1 - As I've already said (after you accused me of being on the KC commisson), I do not really know much about the Kennel Club. Do you think the KC is some kind of conspiracy? If you think the staffie is so dangerous then why do you think they are trying to promote it as friendly? What do they lie about and what's in it for them? If it's money then they could make money from another breed instead. If staffies were so dangerous then wouldn't they lose their credibilty? For someone that hates the Kennel Club you are going to say bad things about it, so I'd rather make my own mind up about it by looking into the KC myself! I've just looked on their website and they say that they are spending large amounts of time, effort and money to continue to invest to establish the precise modes of inheritance of both Syringomyelia and the heart condition Mitral Valve Disease that affects some Cavaliers (I assume that was the breed you were talking about in your last post). Do you think they are lying about this?
I don't think it is only the KC who think Staffies make good pets. If you do a search for a non-biased search for info on a staffie, then most sites will say that they will make are a good family pet. Do you think all of these sites are lying too just for the sake of lying? I'm sure you must have read books which lists most dog breeds - does it say here that the staffie is unreliable and dangerous? What I don't understand is why you can't see that there are so many staffies that are extemily friendly. If the majority of staffies that have ever lived has/had attacked at some point in their lives, then I think ther'd be a ban by now.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 15, 2009 at 3:25 p.m.

I feel it would be of more value to the debate to hear from a breeder who has chosen to STOP breeding Staffies . Anyone who is breeding them now is not going to say anything negative about the breed are they?

Link to this comment
Sue May 15, 2009 at 3:08 p.m.

Shep and Poppy - you are entitled to the views you hold, and yes, I do take on board the point that a Breeder of Staffies would probably endorse them because they have a vested interest, but questions of breeding and temperament are things they are best placed to know about. You don't accept the information given out by the RSPCA or the KC about these dogs do you? It conflicts with your own views, so all I was trying to do was to widen the debate to include people who know more about these dogs than all of us. I know though that neither of you will accept any view which do not accord with your own. You will always be calling for a ban. If Staffies are banned, it wouldn't surprise me for you to be calling for a ban on the next breed which comes into prominence as a "dangerous" breed. You could spend your lives campaigning to banish certain dogs from society, and you will do it because you think it is the responsible thing to do. But we will still have irresponsible dog owners and indescriminate breeders out there. My idea and Hannah's (I believe) is to deal with the underlying reasons why people abuse animals (including breeding them to develop vicious traits) and to encourage responsible pet ownership.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 14, 2009 at 10:53 p.m.

Is it not obvious to you that the kennel club LIE!!! They condone the cruel breeding of dogs whos brains are bigger than their sculls in an attempt to make their eyes protrude for gods sake Hannah have some sense of reality!!! The kennel club would NEVER admit they registered so so many breeders of a dangerous breed. This is why they call the Staffie a Nanny dog. Most including owners can now see this is not true. I CERTAINLY can. The Kennel club said pit bulls were safe family dogs too, and Rotties!!!The kennel club lost the pit bull fight they have no credibility with legislaters because they withheld important breed characteristics during consultation for the pit bull ban. The ly reason you think these dogs are safe is because you have seen gentle ones. I have seen Staffies that look gentle but I KNOW they can change without provoction. Poppy what you say is relevant and more importantly the truth. It is Hannah and Sue who need educating about breeds not yourself. Hang on in there we WILL have a dog friendly country eventually, it just takes time. It took many years with the pit bull but we got there and ive been told it is just formality now that this breed will go.Always a lot of red tape to go through but when the threat to life rises as it is the government moves a bit quicker. I question peoples motives for wanting to preserve dangerous breeds

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 14, 2009 at 5:29 p.m.

Poppy & Shep - Npth of you have said that staffies are unreliable killers, but if this is the case then why is the staffie in the top 10 of reliable dogs for family ownership? Obviously the poll would have been looked into in great detail and research would be accurate. Who do I believe, 2 people who have witnessed dog attacks or dog experts? Perhaps you both should try speaking to people who have had good experiences with staffies - there are thousands and thousands. Perhaps you would get an overall feel of the breed and not just have a one sided view that all are aggressive. Poppy, you only seem to speak to people who have had bad experiences with the breed, and it seems as though you only take in the opinions of those who have had bad experiences, but not those of the people who have and do have wonderful staffies as pets, who in their life time 'won't harm a fly' (figure of speach - don't take that literally). I have accepted the fact that dogs such have staffies do sometimes attack, and have the potential to kill This does not change my overall view of the breed, but gives me ideas and solutions as to what can be done to help. It appears to me also that you have not accepted the fact that there are many staffies that have live and are living now as good family pets. Have you experienced a gentle staffie? Until you do I don't think you can get a proper heads up on this breed. What makes you think that ALL staffies are potentially dangerous? Where do you get your facts to show this? If this was true wouldn't we be in a bit of trouble, and wouldn't they have been banned already? I agree with what Sue says - it would be interesting to have a reputable Staffordshire Bull terrier breeder or someone who knows a great deal about the breed to speak out. Most of the views expressed on this blog are only matters of opinion and based on our own experiences.
If we are to come up with ideas for new laws, including your idea of a complete ban, then it is most important to look into the breed in full depth. People who create laws do not base them of their own experiences and opinions. Poppy and Shep, if either of you had the power to create a law, it would be manadatory for you to look into the whole picture first meaning other peoples good and bad experiences, , expert breeders opinions (the list goes on), and then it would be sensible to to explore all other avenues before concluding a ban would be the best thing - especially considering that the current Dangerous Dogs Act has so many flaws. So if you two were to collect evidence for a total ban, where would you find the information needed?

Link to this comment
shep1 May 14, 2009 at 4:03 p.m.

Sue kennel club pedigrees are the proof that these dogs are not xbreeds. A breeder of dangerous dogs is going to pretend they are safe. Stop fishing for reasons these dogs attack. Its getting silly now.Suppose you are going to pretend your border collie has no sheepdog instinct in it next !!!!!

Link to this comment
Sue May 14, 2009 at 10:01 a.m.

I think it would be interesting to hear the views of a breeder of Staffordshire Bull Terriers on this thread. We all have our views, either for or against a ban, but we actually know less about these dogs than someone who has fully researched the breed. When I say "breeder" of course, I am meaning the real deal, a proper, registered breeder - not any oik with a Staffie X who makes a bit of money out of breeding it. I am sure, almost 100% sure that NO bona fide breeder of these dogs has anything at all to gain by breeding an aggressive dog. When I have seen adverts for Staffie pups from a proper breeder, they have usually stated that the dogs have a good temperament. I know what Shep and Poppy are going to say about this "owners are being sold a lie". But think about it, if you were making a living as a breeder, or if you had a reputation to protect, or both, and one of your pups turned out to be vicious, your business and your reputation would take a nose dive. A reputable breeder of these dogs I believe would be very careful about the choice of parents. This is in contrast to the thug looking for a dangerous dog who will deliberately breed two aggressive dogs in the hope of producing more aggressive pups. I am not an expert on Staffies and have never claimed to be. It is obvious from our posts that none of us are experts on the breed, we just have opinions based on our experience of this type of dog. All I know is that most of the people I know locally who have Staffie X dogs are people who have no money (because they are on benefits). None of these people have gone to a bona fide breeder and paid the going rate for these dogs. The dogs are cross breeds bred locally, possibly by them or their mates, and who knows what with. It is just my view, but I don't think you can say with any authority that these dogs are Staffordshire Bull Terriers. They have similar physical attributes yes, but temperament is another matter. So are there any breeders out there with a qualified view? Emotive remarks such as "these dogs were bred to kill" don't help much. Where is the evidence for this? I assume the remark refers to the original purpose of the dog, but that being so, many dogs were originally bred to fight or kill, and are not now seen as being a public menace.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 13, 2009 at 11 p.m.

Poppy you were very brave to protect your dog,I would imagine you didnt think much, went on autopiolot. Some of the most horrific injuries I have seen have been inflicted on owners protecting their beloved pets. Sadly in so many cases the dogs still dont make it.The women you met who had her dog destroyed is in my opinion a responsible dog owner , however if this breed were not available she would not have had to go through such a traumatic experience. the woman is as much a victim as the poor westie that was killed.Im confident that in the next few years we will see the erradication of one breed and hopefully the other dangerous breeds will go too. Its come too late for some people and many dogs lives could have been saved if not for the sluggish response to the BMAs reports and statistical analysis etc etc. Hang on in there families and dog lovers peace will come for us and our canine friends

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 13, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.

AND I was desperatly trying to protect my dogs head and neck and lift her up so there was no way I could have put a finger up a dogs bum ! As the law stands a dog killing another dog is NOT a crime. Which is why the dogs that attacked mine could not be ordered to be destroyed. I have met one decent lady recently who chose to have her staffie destroyed when it killed a westie.Her reasons were that she had grandchildren and could no longer trust the dog. She had owned the dog 5 years and it had never shown any aggression before apart from growling at the postman. So familiar are all these stories. No there is no safe way to own a Staffie. They are small pit bulls and they need to be in the history books.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 13, 2009 at 9:29 p.m.

Yes Hannah that is the Point. Staffies attack to kill because it is in their nature. Its what they were bred to do and that is why this breed has got to go.There is no place for dangerous breeds when we are supposed to be a nation of dog lovers. After all this talk you are STILL coming out with FEEBLE excuses for BREED behaviour, a different one every day.None of us can make a dangerous breed safe lets live in the real world. You wouldnt own one!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 13, 2009 at 8:29 p.m.

Sue - oops, I was rushing my dinner while typing. I meant - I never knew about sticking your finger in the back end of an aggressive dog would help to unlock the jaw...

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 13, 2009 at 8:27 p.m.

Sue – I never knew about sticking your finger in the back end of an aggressive work – I hope I’d never have to use this technique! Yes, I don’t walk Benny much, as he’s not my dog, but if I ever had to muzzle him, I think that I’d get used to the idea very quickly, and hopefully so would he. Especially if it was for the benefit of all dogs. I wonder, if this was made law, how would it be regulated? I really think this might be a good idea, but so would compulsory micro chipping, or another good way of registering dog with owner. I think that the staffie is not really an aggressive dog, its just that when you compare it with other breeds, then it might look aggressive. A good case is with your child hood dog, no matter how much your brother taunted it, it would not bite. But all breeds of dogs are different. Its just unfortunate that the staffie’s powerfulness gives it a bad name. I think Poppy’s argument though is that staffies will attack whether they have been trained properly, beaten or whatever, because it is in their nature. I disagree with this, but don’t really have any sort of evidence to prove my point.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 13, 2009 at 8:26 p.m.

Poppy – I honestly will say that if I witnessed a staffies attacking my own pet, I would still not call for a ban on staffies. I would like to look into the individual case of why the dog in question attacked mine. Answer this question – why do people in your area continue to own staffies when they know how dangerous they can be? If you have seen all these attacks in your park, then why do other people in your community not seem as afraid of this breed as you do?
The dogs that attacked your dog/s, you said were then apparently beaten by their owner. I wonder why they showed no pain when they were beaten? I feel very sorry that your dog was attacked.
I disagree with what you say about the media saying that it is the thug owners that are the problems. I have always felt that the media portray the breed as the problem, which is why sometimes after a dog attack, a newspaper will find the most aggressive looking dogs of that breed and print them in the paper – just to shock people. This is the sort of thing that the public buy into. I think what you say “a thick thug couldn’t train a dog to do anything” is, in a lot of cases, true. This is why many dogs owned by thugs are aggressive, because they haven’t been trained! And the favoured dog by the thug is often the powerful staffie, which when not trained properly will act like any other dog which has not been trained properly, but unfortunately for the staffie, it has very powerful jaws (which you already know), and this can cause a lot of damage.

Link to this comment
Sue May 13, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.

Poppy - I forgot to say, you have said on a recent post and also on previous posts, that a thug could not train a Staffie to be aggressive. They don't train them at all. When we were kids, we had the softest mongrel dog going, but my brother used to tease and taunt him, grabbing him and pulling him to the floor, where they would roll around together, he growling and my brother pretending to growl back. They would play tug of war with towels, rags, anything they could find, and often the play got quite rough, because the dog got over excited, but he was never aggressive. I always told my brother to stop doing this because he was trying to get the dog to bite him, and it followed for me that if the dog would bite him, it would bite me, or anyone else. I did not want an aggressive dog in our house. But this dog was so soft, you could do anything to him and he wouldn't bite. I would probably pay money to see my brother try this game with a Staffie X dog, because the chances are that he would be sorry at the end, but he would only have himself to blame. Thugs don't train Staffie X dogs, they brutalise them, by treating them roughly, shouting at them, subjecting them to abuse, goading them into a heightened state of excitement and energy, then in that state, encouraging them to destroy things, at first things like trainers or cuddly toys. A dog who is constantly on the defensive because it thinks it is going to be attacked will soon learn that attack is the best form of defence, and once the dog becomes part of that cycle of abuse, it is hard to get it back to being a docile family pet again. Other ways of turning a dog nasty include beating it (and I have seen thugs whipping their dogs with the lead), and keeping it tied up for hours on end so that once let loose, the poor frustrated thing is absolutely hyped up. There are all sorts of ways and means of driving a dog mad. It is not training, it is neglect and ill-treatment. Anyone can do it. And if you are a thug, it is just normal behaviour.
Hannah - I know what Poppy has said, but there is NO law I am aware of which specifically states that a dog which kills another dog "does not have to be destroyed". There is just no law which says that it does - unless that is Poppy can quote us chapter and verse so I can look it up in one of the office law books.

Link to this comment
Sue May 13, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.

Hannah - some interesting points all round. If either of my dogs was attacked by another dog, I would not call for a ban on that breed, whatever it was. My dogs exercise off lead but they don't approach other dogs, unless they know them. That is how I have trained them. So if an aggressive dog, off lead, approaches my dogs, and then attacks, I would be livid with the owner for not having any control over an aggressive dog, which, if it is aggressive, should be muzzled and not let off the lead in the first place. I can understand what you mean when you say that you would not want to muzzle Benny. I felt the same with Mollie. At first, with the muzzle on, some people gave her a wide berth, which made me sad, because she is such a friendly dog, but after explaining that we only muzzle her so she can't eat dead rats and dog c**p, they sort of got used to the idea, as did she eventually. It is like a stigma which attaches to your dog, and more so with a Rottie, but I suppose the way to look at it is that if Benny ever had to be muzzled, at least nobody could ever accuse him of biting them could they?
Poppy - something you said in your last post caught my attention. You said you feared the Staffie breed before they attacked your dog. You probably know that dogs smell and sense fear, and it can be a trigger for them to attack. Not that I would know because I have no fear of any dog, and never have. My fiance also listened to a radio programme about dog attacks and someone on that said that one sure fire way of getting a bull type dog to release its jaws is to stick a finger up its back end!! Gross or what? But, if you've ever seen them react to having their temperature taken rectally by the vet, it makes sense. Of course, they would probably turn on you then, but I am just passing on what I have heard. Rubber gloves at the ready for the next walk eh?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 12, 2009 at 10:28 p.m.

Hannah. Im sorry if you think I dont answer all your questions. I try to. I honestlt think if you saw one of this breed attack you would change your views. Ive met owners of the breed who have taken their dogs to shelters having witnessed them attacking other dog . These are decent people but sometimes grandmas etc who needc to feel their family are safe.I do see staffies in thepark that SEEM gentle like you say but the dogs that savaged my dog were gentle 5 minutes before they attacked. Apparently after thyey had been beaten to which they showed no sign of pain they were told to sit and stay and obediently obeyed then went straight back to APPEARING gentle. The owner was mortified, my dog was almost dead and the hospital I took her to before taking myself to hospital said it was a miricle she was still alive. Hannah I feared the breed before this and I fear them even more now but what annoys me is the media like yourself always think its thug owners when quite clearly mosty attacks are from dogs with decent owners. the thugs are guilty of the illegal dog fights but thats probably what the dogs enjoy and at the end of the day a thick thug couldnt TRAIN a dog to do anything so that PROVES fighting is INBRED

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 12, 2009 at 9:59 p.m.

Something I didn't realise is that it can be legal to own a banned breed listed on the Dangerous Dogs Act. As long as it has been registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs. It also has to be neutered, muzzeled, insured and microchipped/tattooed. The dog also has bear no risk to the public.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 12, 2009 at 9:50 p.m.

Sue - Some more interesting topics have been raised! Something that Poppy said caught my attention. She said to you that if your whippet or collie was attacked by a staffie then you would probably be calling for a ban too. Do you think this is the case? If I owned a dog, and it was attacked, I don't think I'd be calling for a ban. It is easy for me to say this as I have not been in the situation, but if I was to call for a ban, then I'd be going against everything I believe in in regards to this tricky subject! I've NEVER been able to generalise a animals or people. It's just not what I do. I have always been one to look into the ins and outs of any thing like this. I do not like to judge unless I know the whole story. I get very irritated when people make comments like "americans are stupid" or "all bmw drivers are idiots"! People can be very quick to make assumptions like these, and sometimes I think things like this too, but I always correct myself quickly and think about matters properly! I feel as though I have given up asking Poppy things as she never seems to answer my questions and always seems to be on the defence! I do wonder how she knows that the dogs that attacked her dogs were VERY well trained. Perhaps she knew the owners well, but I'm sure she can't know all of the owners from her local park, where there seems to be daily incidents. Muzzling seems to be a good idea, and in theory it should almost definatly reduce dog attacks, though I believe that it can be a little contraversial to some. I think that a lot of owners will ask questions such as why should they have to muzzle their dog when they think it is perfectly safe. My sister has a Rottie, Benny, he is one of the loveliest dogs you could wish to greet. I feel almost completely relaxed around him. Though due to what I have seen and heard about the breed, there always seems to be a tiny thing in the back of my mind telling me to be a little careful. But then I think to myself that this is ok, because rotties are strong dogs with large jaws so it only seems right to be extra careful even if he is a very gentle dog. Without sounding arrogant, I think that I would be a little put-off if I had to muzzle him, but I think this is because the publics perception of a muzzled dog is that it must be aggresive, and I wouldn't want people to think that this was the case. I'd definatly comply though if it was compulsary. I think though that if muzzling became law, then peoples views on the matter would obviously start to change for the better. But in general yes, muzzling dogs in public will make a positive difference.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 12, 2009 at 9:50 p.m.

Poppy2007 - I'm not sure why the law states that a dog who kills another dog does not need to be destroyed. I think its sad that any dog should be destroyed for any reason. It's a tough one, and a different arguement altogether. I obviously do not agree that a staffie is a dangerous breed. I do think that they are near the top of the list when it comes to strong dogs with the ability to kill. But in my opinion that doesn't class as dangerous. Humans have more of an ability to kill than any dog, and when provoked, some will kill, just like dogs. But I think dogs have more of an excuse - the fact that they are dogs and not humans, and as Sue says, they do not reason with other dogs before they attack, and they don't think of the consequences. I think that eventually, if staffie breeding is regulated, and people become more responsible as owners, then attacks will reduce, and with a bit of evolution, the staffie may become as docile as a ladrador, for example. I just think that they deserve a bit of time to prove themselves, and get away from the media spotlight.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 12, 2009 at 9:07 p.m.

Poppy2007 - It would be great if you could clarify what makes you think that you know the behaviouristics of all 250 thousand staffordshire bull terriers in the country (not to mention all of the cross types), just because you have sadly witnessed some attack?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 12, 2009 at 6:17 p.m.

we DONT want dogs whos nature is to fight so I think if a Staffie kills another dog it SHOULD be destroyed. If muzzling of Staffies was compulsary the penalty for not doing so should be the dog being seized.Truthfully I believe the way forward is a ban now because these measures should already be in place with ANY breed we know to have killed. There really arnt that many of them

Link to this comment
Sue May 12, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.

Poppy - as you know, because I keep mentioning it - I have 2 dogs, of a non aggressive type, and I love them absolutely to bits. But I also love dogs (and in fact all animals) in general. When my dogs are out on a walk, they never show aggression towards other dogs, and they ignore any dog they don't know. If they see a large or intimidating dog, they come and stand behind me, on the basis I suppose that I am their pack leader and it is MY job to show the other dog who is in charge, not theirs!! (or maybe they are just cowards). If I had a Staffie type dog, a GSD, a Rottweiler or something with a reputation, it would be muzzled. I wouldn't need a law to tell me that this was a good idea. I would do it regardless. It would not be muzzled because I necessarily thought it was going to be aggressive. It might be the softest dog on earth, but I would not take the risk. This is because if my dog hurt another dog, I would never be able to forget it, and if my dog hurt a child, my dog might end up being destroyed, even if something the child did prompted my dog to attack. When you take precautions to prevent your dog from attacking anything or anyone it meets, you are in effect not only protecting other people from your dog's potential acts, you are protecting your dog from the consequences. So even if I was the sort of person who didn't care about anyone else, I still care about my dog, so I would take precautions for his/her benefit. It doesn't matter why I do it, as long as I do. If muzzling specific breeds was compulsory, then everyone would have to comply because if they didn't and the dog attacked, the owner would be liable, assuming of course the owner could be traced. I have to concede that yes, there would be people, just like there are now, with no respect for their obligations under the law and no thought for their dogs, or your dogs, but I suspect most would comply, and I do think that it would mean a reduction in dog attack injuries. I am aware of your view that if a dog kills another dog, it should be destroyed, but fighting between dogs is normal dog behaviour and in the wild, the strongest survive. It is the law of nature, so I can understand how you feel but we would be punishing animals for behaving like animals, which seems a bit unfair given that they can't be expected to do anything other than behave as nature taught them.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 12, 2009 at 3:01 p.m.

The dogs would have to be muzzled when around any humans or animals to effectivly be a non dangerous breed again. I think owners would not do this because they might not think they need to

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 12, 2009 at 2:58 p.m.

Sue, Im in favour of muzzles beins the law for named breeds. I also feel if a dog attacks in the way my dog was attacked it should be destroyed.At the moment the law states that a dog can kill another dog and the killer lives. I dont agree with this.

Link to this comment
Sue May 12, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.

Hannah - thank you for your support. I feel for Poppy and her traumatic experience with her dog, and clearly, Shep spends a lot of his working life dealing with the aftermath of dog attacks. I really feel that their perception of things has to be heavily influenced by those experiences because that is a normal human reaction. I think sometimes that people like us who are lucky not to have been in that situation can take a step back and see things in a more objective light. If I ever had a Staffie, knowing the reputation they are gaining, and listening to what the likes of Poppy and Shep are saying, I would probably now never take it out without a muzzle. My greyhound X has a muzzle on each time she goes for a walk, but not because she is aggressive. It is because she eats anything disgusting she can get into her mouth, and then she is ill afterwards. At first she didn't like it and tried to paw it off, but now, she waits for it to be fastened on, and it has done the job. So it isn't cruel, but it is a measure which could reduce the incidents of attacks. It falls short of a ban, but realistically, even if there were ever to be a ban, it would take years to implement, and by educating all Staffie owners (and indeed other breeds with a reputation) that it is in their interests to muzzle their dogs, we might succeed in curbing this apparent epidemic of dog attacks. I do not agree with Londiniumgaia's proposals for a pet NHS, but the RSPCA and PDSA, with some government or other backing, might be persuaded to issue free or heavily subsidised muzzles to the owners of certain breeds of dog - particularly if it was made compulsory. What do you reckon?

Link to this comment
Sue May 12, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.

Poppy - Sorry if I was rude, but you were rude to me, so what did you expect back? All you do in your posts is to repeat the same mantra. "Staffies are evil, Staffies attack for no reason, Staffies tear flesh, Staffies should be banned". In recent posts, I talked about how dogs regulate their society in the wild, because a lot of dog behaviour which humans don't understand can be traced back to their wild ancestry. Your idea of a responsible, caring dog owner may not be quite the same as mine. You say that the dogs you know of who attacked were well cared for by responsible owners, and the attack was completely unexpected. I do not doubt for one second that this attack was traumatic in the extreme for you and your dog, but I have to say to you that I find it almost impossible to accept that the owner(s) of the dogs which attacked yours had absolutely no idea that the dogs might be aggressive. Oh yes, the Police will tell you that this is a pattern, because what owner of a dog in this situation would admit that the dog had previously shown aggression? This could result in an order for the dog to be destroyed, so NO owner is going to make such an admission. These dogs could not have attacked your dog if they had been under the control of their owner. Clearly they did not respect the authority of their owner, their owner was NOT in this instance seen by the dogs as pack leader, they were not muzzled, and from your description of them attacking your dog, it is not clear that they were even on leads. But STILL it is your perception that the owners bore no responsibility here for what happened. I know your view that these dogs once they attack CANNOT be controlled. Okay, like you say, I have not witnessed one of these attacks, but I believe that all dogs CAN be controlled by the owner with the right attitude and experience. They just can't be controlled by every Tom, Dick and Harry who decides to own one (which incidentally is why I do not agree with Londiniumgaia's idea that it should be everybody's "human right" to have a pet). I also do not accept that dogs attack for no reason. There MUST be a reason, or a trigger for an attack, it is just that people do not always understand what it is. Perhaps if all these dogs were muzzled when out in public or around children, which is not cruel to the dog, then we would see a decrease in these attacks. How about that? A responsible dog owner with a dog which carries a reputation, justified or not, might be expected to take all reasonable precautions, such as muzzling the dog and/or keeping the dog on lead when other people or animals are around. If the person whose dogs attacked yours had done this, your dog would not have suffered the injuries it did. The dog isn't going to muzzle itself, so I really don't know how you reach the conclusion that the owner bears no responsibility. Please explain.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 11, 2009 at 10:19 p.m.

And HAnnah .I have witnessed Staffie attacks therefore my perception of the breed is worth a LOT more than yours !

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 11, 2009 at 10:15 p.m.

Sue..How rude. I am in my forties so I think I have experienced life a bit. People on this site have SEEN more than you have as regards dangerous dogs is what I am saying.Am sure if your whippet or border collie was left almost dead by one you too would be calling for a ban. I know you will keep saying its the owners fault but its not the case with a dangerous breed sue,.I believe as you do that there are bad owners of ALL breeds of dog out there andhat is a case of animal cruelty and is a disgrace. However as with the pit bull and other dangerous breeds no amount of training will stop their instinct to kill when it takes a hold. The dogs that attacked us were VERY well trained very well cared for and very much loved and wanted,had never shown aggression. The police who dealt with it said this is a common pattern and in no way in many cases did they see it being down to the ownership of the dog its just a case that at a certain point in their lives they will get a taste for blood and take it. The dogs were drinking my dogs blood wagging their tails and making no ferrocious growling sounds. When they were severely beaten by 3 men it took several blows before their jaws unlocked. THIS needs banning because people who buy dogs want to take them out and let them enjoy other dogs company.MY dog matters more than any pit breed that destroys communities .Back the ban !!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 11, 2009 at 6:47 p.m.

Poppy - You have witnessed staffies attack. Therefor your perception of this breed is that they are dangerous. There are many people all over the country who are attacked by various breeds of dogs. The fact that staffie attacks are more common is simply because there is a higher population of that breed, and because they are more common with the anti-social type person - a match made in hell! You cannot judge a quarter of a million dogs on Shep's or you own experiences. He says he is a facial surgeon who treats dog attack victims, so law of averages says he will see the victims! It is also natural for him to assume that because he witnesses the damage caused by this breed, that he will think that they are dangerous. It is also natural for you, because you live in a community where there appears to be a anti-social/dog problem, that you are going to feel the same way as Shep. You are 2 people who have witnessed attacks, which is probably why you are voicing your opinion on this website. You are telling Sue that Shep says bull breeds "tear" flesh. Well she already knows this, as do I. They have the ability to "tear" because of there strength and jaw size. This does not mean that because certain dogs have this feature, that they will use it to attack. I think Sue has done well to highlight how dogs live within the family. And a lot of it has to do with hierarchy of each person within the family, and how the dog is trained to fit in within the family. Staffies are not "born to kill". They have the ability to, just like many other breeds.
I think that Sue does listen to the opinion of Shep, the facial surgeon, but she also has her own ideas which she has gained from experience just like everyone else here. It is not important to own a staffie to know about the breed. To be honest I think Sue's opinion is more varied than yours and Shep's, as she admits that dogs attack, she knows the backgrounds of various things relating to the breed, she comes up with long-term solutions, and she also realises that a very most staffies brought up in suitable housholds with suitable owners turn into very reliable pets. She has an overall more varied opinion, therefor can come up with sensible solutions that will work. Can you explain what makes you think that out of a quarter of a million staffies, non are reliable and all are "born to kill"? Where are your facts to show what you think?

Link to this comment
Sue May 11, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.

Poppy - for your information, I have had dogs all my life, and I suspect that spans many more years than your lifetime. I didn't fall down to earth with the last shower of rain. What makes you think that I don't know the difference between a simple dog bite and a savage attack? Of course I do! Unfortunately you only see things from your own very narrow perspective, which is a telltale sign of immaturity. The dog attacks would reduce if people stopped getting Staffie dogs as family pets. If they are the scourge of your neighbourhood, why do people have them? The attacks would reduce if people didn't take unnecessary risks. There is a growing number of people who take dogs on and then behave towards them as if they were human. Then in return they expect the dog to act like a human. Anyone who gets a dog and allows it to become the pack leader in their home, whatever the breed, is asking for trouble. If it happens to be a breed with the capacity to inflict serious injury, then the worse the trouble is going to be when it happens. But humans are in control here. THEY choose the dog, THEY decide how the dog will be trained to behave, if they have children THEY decide what access they will allow the dog to have to their children, so the outcome is in the hands of the dog owner, not the dog - unless of course the dog is in charge! As for dog on dog attacks, yes, this must be an awful thing to happen to your dog, but somewhere along the line, the dog which attacks is a dog which has assumed control. If you own a dog, YOU have to be in control. Okay so my dogs are not vicious and are never likely to be, but by God, they KNOW who their pack leader is. It is ME - no questions and no quibbles. All it takes is a look, and they will sit down and stop whatever they are doing. I have 7 cats and a greyhound X - bred for rabbiting, but there is NO way she would dare even look at one of the cats the wrong way in my house. Yet I have never hit my dogs, I have never mistreated them. That is not the way to earn their respect. That is just the way to brutalise them. Staffies are no different to most dogs, but in the wrong hands, with the jaw configuration they have, yes, they can be dangerous, and you need to be a very experienced owner to be able to handle them. One of the problems I feel is that so many people now have Staffie x dogs, with no real understanding of them, and the more people who have them, the more chance there is that there will be attacks. If every family dog of choice was a GSD, then you would see loads of similar publicity about GSD attacks. I DO take the point that if you were going to be bitten (oh sorry, torn) by a dog, you would want it to be almost any other breed than a bull breed, but basically, all dogs are within the control of humans who know how to handle them. The problem is the millions who don't respect what they are, but still take them home into their families and treat them like humans with fur.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 11, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.

SUE you dont understand what your saying . Its not about dogs that bite.!! Listen to the surgeon who KNOWS! He keeps telling you PIT breeds dont bite they tear through flesh. its different from a dog that bites cos its not been brought up properly. Why do you NEVER listen to e people who know. You dont own one and you havnt seen one attack yet

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 11, 2009 at 2:13 p.m.

But Hannah I love dogs for being a family member. I dont LOVE BREED when it ruins family life.

Link to this comment
Sue May 11, 2009 at 1:04 p.m.

Having just posted on this thread, I realise that my post did not address the specific issue of dog attacks on apparently defenceless children and why they happen. If you choose to have a dog as a member of your family, the first and cardinal rule I think has to be that you never forget that it is a dog, not a human. This is a rule lots of people break right from day one. In the wild, the pack will fight to establish a system of heirarchy and every dog will eventually know their place in the pecking order. So the pack leader walks in front, the pack leader eats first etc. If a new dog wanders in, there is an immediate issue as to where that dog fits into the heirarchy and this is an issue not only for the already existing pack, but also for the new dog. So you can probably expect some fights while the new dog and the pack try to re-establish the order. This is no different in your family (so far as the dog is concerned at least). The dog may (or may not) know where he stands with you, depending on whether he has been trained to see you as his pack leader. But then you introduce a child, be it your own, or a grandchild. The dog is then confused, and your behaviour towards the dog and the child may well confuse the dog even further. For example, you feed the child before you feed the dog, you give the child attention and shoo the dog out of the way, so the dog feels that his place in the general pecking order of your family, which is his pack, is under threat. The dog isn't going to tap you on the shoulder and ask "can we discuss this?" The dog will just bite, and for the dog, this is a perfectly normal way to resolve the issue. This is why I have previously made the point that dogs and children should never be left in situations where such a tragedy can occur. Many parents have no authority over their own children, so they stand no chance of establishing any pack leader status over their dog. Having said this, by just being careful, they can avoid a tragedy. All it takes is a basic understanding of the psyche of a dog, and an acceptance that a dog does not think as a human does. Yes, they can be very intelligent, and with some dogs, which may have very submissive natures, the heirarchy thing is much less difficult to deal with, because the dog will almost automatically accept the humans in the household as pack leaders. It is the ones that don't where we have a problem, and I don't think the problem exists only in one breed, though I accept that one breed has been highlighted on this forum because they have become particularly popular.

Link to this comment
Sue May 11, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.

I believe that dogs are very much like people in the sense that they are all different. If you take a child, place it in an abusive home where it is beaten, starved and never shown affection or given the attention it needs, then you have a much higher percentage chance that the child will grow up into an abusive adult. This is not always true, because people are all different. I was abused for 9 years and taken into care eventually, but I won't even kill a spider in my bath! If you do the same to a dog, you will get the same result, except that a dog doesn't have the ability to reason, there are no thoughts as to consequences, and a dog which has been brutalised will just attack. Some dogs, just like some people seem to have been born with a nasty streak. You often see patterns repeating themselves in families. Interestingly, you sometimes see children who go on to develop the same negative traits as their natural parents when they have in fact never lived with them. Conversely, sometimes the opposite is true. You will never stop dog attacks. There will always be dogs that bite because it is natural dog behaviour to sort out all their heirarchy issues by fighting with each other. That is how animals behave in the wild. This is how packs of wild animals sort out who is the leader and who is the follower. My view is that an animal who sees the human as the pack leader will usually defer to that person. An animal who sees itself as being the pack leader will behave as it wants. When humans can't control their dogs, it is usually because they have not established a pack leader relationship with the dog, and therefore they have no authority over the dog. This is why dogs get out of hand. If you look at humans and their relationships with their own children, you will see that we live in a society where there is little respect for adults displayed by young people, and that discipline appears to have broken down all around us. You don't have to be cruel to be in control. Those who are cruel are often cruel because they are NOT in control, even of themselves, let alone a pet. So ban what you like, though I wouldn't see it as the answer, but you will not rid the country of the problem, which is basically that humans very often take on dogs without forethought and with little understanding about the dogs' needs. This will never stop, unfortunately until people learn to make responsible choices. I think education will go much further than a ban.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 10, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.

Poppy2007 - I actually think that there are thousands of gentle staffies. The population of staffies in the UK is in the region of 250,00 (way too much for my liking). I know that there are some very vicious dogs out there, but I think that the gentle dogs outweigh the vicious by far. I think this mainly because people in general just don't hear about staffie attacks, this obviously isn't the case where you live, but I do ask myself why there is such a high figure of attacks in your community. I suppose Shep must see a lot of cases, but I expect his patients come in from wide and far? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be a very surprised if there was a facial surgeon who operated on victimes soley from the area of his surgery. Yes, staffies were originally bred to bull-fight, but at the same time they were bred to be trustworthy and loyal with families and people.
And to your last comment - of course I am a dog lover, I love all dogs. I care for the victims of dog attacks. I don't believe you are a dog lover, if you were a true dog lover you would love all breeds.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 10, 2009 at 2:08 p.m.

Shep I can believe chidren are dragged out of their parents arms by this breed . I am 5ft 8 and when my dog was attacked by two staffies I had picked her up and one of them managed to drag her out of my arms very quick. the breed is disgusting it is ruining communities and it needs to go now.I dont agree with hannah that they are thousands of gentle Staffies in this country . They were not invented to be gentle they were invented to fight with bulls for goodness sake!!I think the kennel club are a disgrace on many counts. what they deem ok is ALWAYS cruel to the dog anyway. They have very little credibility amongst REAL dog lovers.As do dangerous breeds. Im glad there are so many more people coming on here that feel for dogs needs because for a long time I was on my own sticking up for the victims of crime. Our beloved pets will not be safe until this breed is where it belongs in history. after that can we please get rid of ALL the dangerous breeds that remain in this country. Those Rotties should have been banned YEARS ago. Hannah and Sue why dont you care about all these innocent dogs that lose their life to what is JUST a breed created by us.I find it hard to believe you are dog lovers too

Link to this comment
shep1 May 10, 2009 at 11:17 a.m.

Hannah in answer to your question. I do not see the Staffie as a gentle breed obviously. I see owners that tell me their dog has always APPEARED gentle and has never attacked before and hear comments about uncharacteristic behaviour etc which I have no reason to doubt. The main problem here and now is that the breed is causing the same damage that we saw with pit bulls.They are not reliable as a BREED to live harmoneously alongside other dogs and people.Some of the injuries I see are horrific and its just not reasonable to keep making excuses for it. If I truly believed it was just a case of the wrong owners with the wrong dog there may be some other course of action to take but in the interest of public safety and AS importantly canine safety a ban under the dangerous dogs act is a good enough start for me. I agree it is not an End but its a step in the right direction.Humans are evil at times and banning this breed will show that we do not tolerate dog fighting in this country too. The pit breeds contruary to what you may believe cannot have their desire to fight removed from them. Intensive cognitive behavioural therapy ,castration etc can curb the desire a little but like a sheepdog will crouch in the herding position a pit breed will always want to kill. They look evil because that is what they are

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 10, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.

Sammyd – This is not about who has and who hasn’t seen a staffie attack. At least Shep1, who I also disagree with has a bit of common sense on this subject! Like I’ve said hundreds of times, I DO know that staffies attacks can be a problem, I have never seen one, I know they happen. My father has been attacked by a rottweiler though, which was used at a guard dog at a local-ish pub. This has not tainted my view at all, in fact we have a rottweiler in the family, but it hasn’t been trained into a guard dog! If I did see a staffie attack, I might make a basic judgement at the time. But I could never be for sure about what I think, as I wouldn’t know the background of the dog would I. Time I showed care for the victims? How do you know that I don’t already? The kennel club have not sold me a lie, I don’t really know anything about the Kennel Club! I make my own judgements based on everything I have seen and all of the dogs I come across daily, and I look into the figues of the population of staffies, the type of people they are often owned by etc. This is where I get my opinions from.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 10, 2009 at 9:34 a.m.

Shep1 – I just think that the main concern in this country will always be some of the people in it. I’m not scared of dogs; I’m scared of people (I’m not mad, I just mean certain people you see can look scary!). Humans are the ones that create the real damage here. I feel sorry for the dogs that have been and still are caught up in this mess. Do you disagree that there are and has been thousands of gentle staffies in this country?

Link to this comment
sammyd May 9, 2009 at 11:33 p.m.

Hannah you say you have not seen a Staffie attack. Therefore you think they are nice dogs.When you see one and I hope to God you dont you Will not blame the owner you will see it is a breed of dog that is unreliable in todays world.Time you showed some care for the victims. A breed isnt a victim its a cock up by humans that made it. Shep I agree the kennel club have got blood on their hands they sold people like hannah a lie saying this was a nice dog its evil and i want it off the streets so we can walk our dogs without worrying if they going to die

Link to this comment
shep1 May 9, 2009 at 10 p.m.

maybe not. There is nothing to stop humans creating more fighting breeds in the future no I agree with you. But the problem is in the here and now as it was with pit bulls. It was right to ban that breed and it is right now that this breed goes. We dont need pit breeds in the Uk as pets

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 9, 2009 at 2:40 p.m.

Shep - I do see your points, but, we obviously have very different opinions on where the blame lies. I think its mainly how the dogs are brought up. Though I do agree that staffies are stronger and therefor are more "dangerous" than other dogs because of their stength - but I feel this shoudln't be a problem if they are handled correctly from puppy age. You obviously feel that the only solution for the problem would be to ban the breed, and I feel that this in the long run will not solve the problems, because what is there to stop human's from creating more "fighting dogs" over a long period of time. I also believe that if staffies were trained and have evolved over the years to be fighting dogs, then that evoltion can be undone to make them non-fighting dogs, back to how they once used to be. Why shouldn't be put the effort to helping one of the nations favourite breeds? I don't think we'll ever agree!!

Link to this comment
shep1 May 9, 2009 at 12:57 a.m.

Hannah you missed the point I was making with the kennel club.tongue in cheek thugs with replacement monster!!! The Kennel club promote the Staffie as a family dog good with kids ,the nanny dog...They are liars. It was made smaller and smaller over the years to be a small family dog. What the kennel club dont promote is it has lockable jaws is a pit breed that can pull 30 times its body weight and is as dangerous as the banned pit bull.Think the thugs are attracted to the breed origionally having seen the family pet tearing other dogs apart in the parks. It was the kennel club that marketed the beast as a family pet.They have been proven unreliable

Link to this comment
shep1 May 9, 2009 at 12:45 a.m.

Far be it from me to argue with forensic evidence/inquest findings. I am just a surgeon. In my field of work have encountered children being dragged out of the arms of adults so nothing suprises me with this pit breed. Also as is with all the pit breed attacks i have heard of there is NO warning and very little noise as the dog savages its victim . Horrendous. Am looking forward to the ban. Hannah my views are not tinted by the media .I find the media very rarely report dog attacks.I wish they would but we only hear of human fatalities and then the media are like yourself usually pointing the finger at the owner.Pit bull attacks have dramaticaly decreased.I agree there are still pit bulls around but when a breed is illegal you are not likely to get as many attacks.When the Staffie is banned we will see a dramatic decrease in injury and death.If other dangerous breeds such as Rotties then become popular again then injuries will rise again.Its a numbers game . There really arnt THAT many breeds that want to kill and it really is the right move for a country of so called dog lovers to have their best friends safe.These dangerous breeds are NOT safe pets and I do feel the kennel club has blood on its hands there. I always tell my patients and their families they are not to blame the dogs should not be available as pets

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 8, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.

Shep1 - You like many other people do not hear about all the other staffies that keep themselves to themselves. The other day I was talking to a girl about rottweilers, and she said "aren't they all aggressive?" so I asked her what made her think this and she said she didn't really know. This goes to show that peoples ideas about things are tinted by what they see and hear particulaly in the media, without discovering for themselves the true opposite. I cannot believe that you don't think that there are any nice staffies out there. I'm sure if staffies had the choice, they would have a ban on humans for treating them like rubbish, and hurting eachother and other animals. You cannot tar all dogs with one brush.
It has already been proved that there are major flaws in the pit bull ban (and Dangerous Dogs Act), which is why there are still pit bulls around today, and why dog attacks have no decreased, instead they have increased. The changes that need to be made are in human behavior - this will hopefully result in a decrease of breeding of staffies and other dogs, a decrease in backyard breeding of ALL dogs, a decrease in dogs being owned irresponsibly (ie by thugs), a decrease in anti-social behavior. This will overall be a decrease in dog attacks, Banning the staffie will not solve anything in the long term. Why can you not see this?
Also I'm interested why you think the Kennel Club are keen to provide thugs with a replacement pit bull? If this is what you really think, then if we ban the staffie, would the KC not just find a new breed to throw at the thugs? Bringing in a new law would put a stop to all of this. Banning staffies will only ban purebreds (a small population of the dogs), not cross breeds.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 8, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.

Shep1 - I have never seen a dog attack and I do not dispute the fact that dog attacks happen - because I know they do. There are approximatly 15 million dogs in the country, so of course there are going to be attacks, fatal or not. It appears to me that you keep highlighting a couple of fatal attacks which have previously happened, and dog attacks on your patients - I could sit here and highlight all of the non-aggressive staffies that have ever lived. How many dog attack injuries would you say you see on a monthly basis? In a way you are right, sometimes you can't always "blaim" the owners. There are many scenarios in which it may not be the owners fault, such as aggrivation towards the dog from another person, or perhaps the dog was previously owned by someone who mistreated the dog or simply did not train the dog correctly. I also agree that thugs are probably too thick to train their dogs properly, but they do seem to be able to train them to be aggressive. This is because they are tough and mean looking dogs, they are also very strong and powerful, not like some other breed such as a poodle for example. Compared with other breeds, they are probably easier to train to be aggressive - but one of them have to be at the top of the list. There will always be a breed of dog that is the strongest and toughest looking. If the staffie goes it may be the alsation.
I'm not sure whether your opinion is that all staffies are aggressive. I can see why you might think that this is the case, because all you must see and hear from your job is that staffies attack.

Link to this comment
Sue May 8, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.

Londiniumgaia - you talk about it being a waste of RSPCA time and money trying to teach people to be responsible pet owners, and a waste of police time and money. Firstly, whose money do you think is being wasted? Yours? It is for the people who contribute by paying tax to decide if their money is being well spent. I pay tax, and assume so does Hannah, and we agree that promoting responsible ownership of pets is key to resolving many of the issues which we are so hotly debating here. It will not resolve all the issues, but it would be a realistic start -unlike your pets NHS idea, which only a child could have dreamt up! People waste police time and resources, not Staffordshire Bull Terriers. I haven't read about a Staffie crimewave in this country yet! Where do you get your "facts" and your ideas from? What DO they teach in schools these days!!!!

Link to this comment
Sue May 8, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.

Shep - a 5ft high dresser would be out of range for a staffie, which are generally short, stocky, heavy dogs not known for their ability to leap 5 feet. My Border Collie, who is extremely agile, could not reach anything on a high dresser, however much she may want to. My greyhound x - a tall dog, who will go to the most extraordinary lengths to pinch food, would not be able to access a plate of food if I left it on a high dresser all day and left her in the room alone with it. Somehow the facts of this story do not stack up. I am not suggesting the grandmother was a bad person, an irresponsible person, or anything like that, but somehow, the fact that the dog was able to reach this child indicates that the child was not placed "out of reach". That much is blatantly obvious isn't it? You are an educated man, it isn't rocket science. I am 100% sure that the grandmother in this case never expected what happened, never thought it would happen, and is absolutely destraught by the fact that it did. I am a mother and grandmother, and my heart goes out to her in her grief. But human error of judgment had to be a factor here if the child was within reach of a dog. The dog would have to have been jumping up at the child and showing an interest in it for a little time prior to actually managing to get hold of it, and surely this would have been obvious to anyone who was keeping a watchful eye on the child and/or the dog. So something here isn't quite adding up is it?

Link to this comment
shep1 May 7, 2009 at 10:30 p.m.

Hannah and Sue . The baby in wales had been placed on a high dresser in a moses basket so as the dogs couldnt lick it etc. With this breed of dog when they attack NO AMOUNT OF TRAINING can stop the frenzied attack. Londiniumgaia is not wrong in his observations of Staffie attacks. As the two of you have yet to SEE one you are not in a position to blame owners. YES they are a weapon of choice for thugs because thugs are too thick to train a dog to be aggressive. With this breed they dont have to.Hannah, Poppys comment about Staffies attacking children when responsible owners are present is NOT a contradiction. It is fact. I treat the victims of Staffie attacks. I have heard the stories they tell and its of an instinct to kill. Once the jaws are locked as only happens with dangerous breeds NO amount of training can release them. The bullfighting dog will rag its victim until it is satisfied . Fortunatly for many human victims this isnt death. For our canines it often is. Sue and Hannah The RSPCA was opposed to the pit bull ban. They may be opposed to this ban but it IS going to happen and I truly believe a dog lover would embrace it. Ive seen a pit bull tear a little dog to shreds in a park. It reduced me a grown man to tears. What it did to the elderly owner I cannot imagine. Staffies are a revolting breed made popular by the kennel club keen to provide the thugs with replacement pit bull. Another thing I would say 80 percent of staffie attacks I see are pure bred and 20 percent pit bull crossed

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 7, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.

londiumgaia - the RSPCA is not in favour of a ban, so there's no point begging - especially when they are in favour of the new act (see RSPCA website homepage).
Whether you think that the breed is "what it is", teaching people how to be responsible to still have a huge effect. Do you really think that thugs will stop the use of dogs as weapons anymore just because of a ban on staffies? This is about dogs welfare too.
What about all the other breeds of dogs, which are still used today such as dogs for badger baiting, chasing and killing foxes, dogs used for hunting pheasants? In the past, at the same time staffies were bred for fighting, they were also bred to be good family pets - this is what has made them the dog today, Stong minded, very friendly and loyal. The thing is, people only seem to pick up on the negative points, especially considering that bad news travels far. So of course your not going to hear about the thousands upon thousands of staffies that have and still do make wonderful family pets.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 7, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.

Sue - Your first sentance is exactly what I was thinking. "Responsible Grandma leaves baby on 5ft high table" - sounds to me like a news story in itself. I think we are arguing against 3 people who fail to realise that there is a very large problem happening in this country with specific breeds of dog being used as weapons. They also seem to keep contradicting themselves with opinions like "9 out of 10 dog attacks happen when the responsible owners are there" and "staffies were bred to be aggresive by humans, now ban the staffie - it's not the human's fault it is the breed's fault because staffies are thugs" and "dogs such as labradors and collies cannot be trained to attack" (even though staffies can?!) and "ban staffies, then the next breed of dog that becomes aggresive - ban them too!" - even though they say that once staffies are banned then everything will be fine, and that breeds cannot be trained....???! I feel a bit dizzy!

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 7, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.

TOTAL BAN ON STAFFIES AND ROTTIES PLEASE RSPCA

ASAP

no ifs no buts
please do not waste your resources and energy on teaching people how to be responsible when the breed is what it is
and the amount of police waste of time and money because of these dogs as well?
ENOUGH
those are strong unreliable breeds well known to all of
us who live with them around us
not all staffies and rotties are bad but those who are and they are the marjority made their reputation what it is if staffies were bred originally for bringing a bull down by their nose ...say no more or for fighting later on..
they are agressive in nature and the sheer power of these dogs is enough to have them banned
I have seen onwers desperate to stop their dogs that WOULD NOT OBEY no matter how well trained they were just 5 minutes before that kicking their dogs to stop them from tearing the other dog to bits
ENOUGH !!
and people plenty !!
ENOUGH

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 7, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

Poppy2007 - You said to Sue "staffies DO attack children AND dogs when they are supervised by responsible owners". This sounds like you are contracting yourself. If you cannot control your dog, in my eyes that makes you irresponsible. Again, just because I haven't seen a staffie attack does not mean I know nothing about it, I know they happen. And how do you know I know nothing about the breed? I think you need to stop making personal assumptions of people who you do not know on a personal level.

Sammyd - The same with Poppy, you need to stop making personal comments about people, such as who loves and cares for dogs and who doesn't. This is where you are wrong, because I love all dogs, which is why I am on the dog's side, and think that it is people who need re-training not dogs. I don't make judgements about how much I think you love dogs. You think the staffie is a "thug". Thug is a word to describe humans, not animals. Staffie's do not have bad attitudes, nor do they purposely go around in gangs hurting, harrassing and menacing people. This is where you appear to be getting mixed up, it is often the owner of the dog who has these charateristics. You keep mentioning the baby in Wales. This sounds harsh, but when it comes to dog attacks, that baby is now a statistic. Death by dog is extemily rare. You cannot keep bringing up the same case over and over again, you need to see the wider picture.
In responce to your 5ft table (very big I must say), why would anyone leave a baby on a 5ft table! And how did the dog manage to jump onto a table that high? Can I also add that you seem very sure about what happened in these incidents, but remember that you will never know the truth, and this is where your comments are flawed. Obviously any parent of an attacked child will say that they were there when it happened, because 9 times out of 10 they probably aren't going to admit that they left the dog alone with the child are they? And no, I do not work for the Kennel Club.

Shep1 - First I work for the KC commission, then I don't care about dogs, now I don't know anything about dangerous breeds... make your mind up!

Link to this comment
Sue May 7, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.

What a lot of rot I am reading today! If 9 out of 10 responsible parents/dog owners are indeed present while their children are attacked by the family pet, isn't that a contradiction? I'm also intrigued by this 5 ft high table which granny left the baby on whilst she was in the house. Of course, if it was a 5ft high table the dog would not have been able to reach the baby, but I am 5ft 2" tall, and that would place the table somewhere just above my eyes at standing height. I have never seen a table that high. I have never eaten lunch off a table that high - well it would be a bit difficult wouldn't it? I don't know this case, or any other case, and I appreciate that tragedies happen. I know people make errors of judgment which they may regret bitterly later. The occasional error of judgment doesn't make us irresponsible or bad people, but there has to be some human error if the dog ever managed to get close enough to the baby to attack it in the first place. As I say, that does not necessarily make the parent a bad parent, or a bad dog owner, but if you have to leave a baby unattended, even for a short time, why even have a dog in the same room? Most houses have more than one room. My dogs are not allowed in the living room or upstairs, only the dining room and kitchen, so if I wanted to leave my baby grandson in his carrier on the living room floor, I could quite safely do so, knowing that the dogs can't get into the room. As for Staffies and the Kennel Club - they deal in purebred Staffies, the problem dogs we are really discussing are the hundreds of variations of Staffie cross breeds, which are not the same thing. The "bad boys and girls" you talk about want to look tough and mean, so forgive me if I seem a bit out of touch here, but your average King Charles Spaniel hardly fits the bill that well does it? Of course the dog of choice is going to be a Staffie X dog, because it is the nearest in appearance to the outlawed pit bull.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 6, 2009 at 9:17 p.m.

Hannah you dont have much knowledge of Dangerous breeds full stop so I wouldnt expect you to care what the kennel club do.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 6, 2009 at 9:12 p.m.

Poppy thats a good point you raised. Of the times kids have been killed by the pit bulls rotties and staffies the owners hadnt left the kids alone with them. the baby was on a 5 ft high table while the grandma was in the house. ONLY a dangerous breed would be wanting to kill a baby. ITS THE BREED!!!!Thats why pit bulls were banned. None of you on here would own one !!!

Link to this comment
sammyd May 6, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.

I STILL cant understand why some SO CALLED dog lovers dont care that dogs are being savaged on a daily basis by thug breed of dog. YES its the BREED thats a thug not the owners. They wouldnt buy it if the kennel club didnt rave about it.NANNY DOG?? Try telling that to the parents of the baby killed in WAles. Hannah you dont seem to care about dogs at all. Shep your right shes on commission from the kennel club!!! roll on the ban !!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 6, 2009 at 8:26 p.m.

Im pleased to see so many on here that care about our pets and people being attacked. Shep and Londiniumgaia am in full agreement with you both. I have always believed it was not the owners fault. I spoke to a police constable today and apparently they as well as yourselves shep1 are in consultation on the staffie breed ban. Sooner this breed is gone it should be the rottie next. That breed should have been banned the FIRST time it killed a child. By the way Sue Staffies DO attack children AND dogs when they are supervised by responsible owners. Once a gain you are talking about something you have NEVER seen. I would believe what the doctor says after all HE operates on the victims of this Breed you know nothing at all about

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 6, 2009 at 7:05 p.m.

londiniumgaia - for someone to speak to highly of rights for all animals, why do you say that staffies, for example, are a waste of time and energy? And well done, have you finally realised the chosen breed of "bad boys and girls" (as you put it!)? This is not a coincidence, this is why there is such a high population of this type of dog, and why some are aggresive - because they are constantly being trained incorrectly and irresponsibly by "bad boys and girls". So no, I don't have my head in the sand - this is what I have been saying the whole time!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 6, 2009 at 7:05 p.m.

Shep1 - It is ludicrous when a specific breed ban will ntot solve the problem - which is why the Dangerous Dogs Act id being reviewed a possibly replaced with a new act to target irresponsible ownership. Kennel Club evil? Interesting opinion. And no I do not work on the Kennel Club commission! In fact I don't really know much about the KC apart from the fact that they deal in pedegree dogs.
All dog breeds are subspecies of the gray wolf - so they have all evolved from hunting pack-animals. All breeds of dog have one way or another been bred, by humans, into what they are today. "The domestic dog has inherited some predispositions from the gray wolf, but many of the salient characteristics in dog behavior have been largely shaped by selective breeding by humans". So doesn't this mean that eventually any dog (even a little yorkshire terrier or labrador) can be bred into an aggresive dog?
Dogs attacks will always happen, even if staffies are banned. By introducing a new law, which will aim to combat irresponsibly ownership, dog attacks will be greatly reduced.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 6, 2009 at 5:11 p.m.

9 times out of 10 owners of dangerous dogs ARE present when their children are attacked. It is not their fault

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 6, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.

I have to laugh as a sense of humour is needed
there goes the director of one of the RSPCA hospital on a talk aimed at bad bad bad boys and girls and their dogs which by some NOT so strange coincidence happens to be staffies
I am the one who is pie in the sky with my head bury in the sand
imagine that!!!!!
perhaps he should start by having a long chat with the dogs and ask them please make you jaws smaller and not so powerfull please change your teeth so not to lacerate human and other's people's pet's flesh could you please become reliable and responsible dogs and stop snaping and doing what you please regardless of what you onwer says?
could you please jusy become ANOTHER BREED OTHER THAN STAFFIES?

and they say
NO NO NO
and the onwers says
they are what they are ....
BAN THEM ASAP
and I yes i love them too as our fellow creatures but not around me .... sorry

Link to this comment
Sue May 6, 2009 at 10:09 a.m.

Shep - you say your dog would NEVER kill a child. Probably you are right in that assessment, and I hope you are. But it has always been my belief that ANY dog in the wrong circumstances is quite capable of killing a child. I am confident that my dogs would never kill a baby either, but there is no way on this earth that I will ever find out because my baby grandson will NEVER be left unsupervised in the same room as either of my dogs. Young babies should NEVER, even for a matter of seconds, be left alone with a dog, any dog. Mags is right. Terriers can kill badgers, which are known to be vicious fighters themselves, so do you really believe that a terrier could not kill a baby if given the chance to do so and the trigger factors were all there? Would you risk your child or granchild to find out? I wouldn't! The common thread in cases where children have been attacked by dogs is that the person in charge of the child and the dog has made an assumption (justified or not) that the child is safe with the dog. That is an assumption none of us can afford to make because a dog is a dog. A dog is not a human with human logic. Dogs act on instinct, they don't attack with malice or out of spite. People do that. Dogs don't reason and think through the consequences of their actions. The only way to avoid dog attacks is never to take the risk by allowing the dog access to a vulnerable child. This is safest not only for the child, but for the dog, who will nearly always be destroyed afterwards. And as for owners of Staffies who have attacked them or their children having been "sold a lie" - well, we mostly have a choice about what dog we introduce into our family. Most pure bred Staffies have proved themselves over many years to be good family pets, but Staffie cross breeds are coming in for a lot of bad press. Some people have them because of this, and some people get them in spite of it. At the end of the day, remember that WE choose the dog, the dog doesn't choose us. People who want to make a responsible choice to suit the dynamics of their family need to do their homework. The problem these days is that people do so much on impulse, without looking into things in any depth. If you have, or are likely to have young children in your house, you may be quite happy with a Staffie, but you would probably be better advised to pick something a bit more child friendly and less likely to pose a risk. You wouldn't buy a crocodile and then complain when it bites you, so why do it with a dog?

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 5, 2009 at 11:01 p.m.

HEAR HEAR
shep1
why should resources be wasted some have said?
the amount of extra policing extra time and energy the RSPCA and other animal charities put in place for those breeds is juts that a waste indeed
why should people live in fear?
I love them as animals and we created them and bred them this way now we have to say goodbye to them in a kind way and ban the breeds
they should be history ALL FIGHTING BREEDS
in my list staffies and rotties should go first

Link to this comment
shep1 May 5, 2009 at 10:06 p.m.

There is nothing Ludicrous about banning dangerous breeds of dogs.As for the kennel club NO they are NOT dog lovers. They are EVIL.Once ALL the dangerous breeds have been erradicated there will be no worries. Your comments about Labradors are ridiculous. DANGEROUS breeds are BRED.Irresponsible owners are just that but they cannot put characteristics into a breed that arnt there. At worse they could make a dog bite out of fear. DANGEROUS breeds DONT bite they tear through flesh in the same way a lion eats meet. Any true dog lover would not want to preserve this they would have more of an interest in the welfare of the growing number of dogs that are being pointlessly killed.The purpose of the dangerous dogs act is to protect humans but it goes a longer way to protect our canine friends. Not long now for those of you who actually CARE about dogs.Hannah I think you might be on commission from the kennel club !!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 4, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.

Mags53 - exactly the points I have been trying to make. Getting rid of one breed will make no difference to anything - it's people that need changing. Londiniumgaia, Poppy and Shep1 all believe that whatever breed becomes next on the "weapons list" should be banned too - absolutely ludicrous. Your point about the DD Act being changed - I have also mentioned this. I truely hope it will be replaced with something that deals more with irresponible owners.

Link to this comment
Mags53 May 4, 2009 at 10:44 a.m.

By the way, I understand that the DDA is being reviewed and is likely to have breed specific sections changed so that it is the deed not the breed that is core.

Link to this comment
Mags53 May 4, 2009 at 10:43 a.m.

Interesting posts about Staffordshire Bull Terriers being banned - if the arguements for this are valid then you must also ban the Bulldog; the Bull Terrier; and any other breed originally bred for baiting. Then what about terriers, bred for the purpose of killing other animals - what about hounds bred for chasing and catching other live animals. I'm ok Jack as I have gundogs, the killing for these breeds is done by man. What about guarding breeds? The GSDs who have inadvertantly caused the death of the man in the news at the moment, Alsations were the Staffie's of the '60s. What about Rottweilers? They have probably attacked and killed more often than Staffies. The bottom line is that ANY breed of dog is capable of causing dreadful damage to a child - especially if the child is allowed to do what they want to that dog and the adults in charge are careless or just plain useless.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 4, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.

Shep1 – You think staffies have evolved into a dangerous breed by humans (like you say – human created the monster, now humans can get rid). There is obviously a demand to own a “dangerous breed”, so if staffies are banned, what’s to stop humans from evolving more breeds into dangerous and aggressive dogs such as Labradors for example – which are as docile as staffies used to be? (I’m basing this on your theories - In my opinion most staffies are pretty docile now anyway). How do you know that spaniels won’t become in demand for thugs? Once all the staffies, rotties, GSDs and not to mention the millions of cross breeds and mongrels which have these breeds mixed in, where will the demand for dangerous dogs come from then? Its not going to suddenly disappear!
“A true dog lover would embrace a ban on dangerous breeds” – what about the kennel Club and RSPCA, do you not think that these are true dog lovers? Its easy for you to say this, as someone who doesn’t like staffies. Think of the thousands of people who do love staffies. They are true dog lovers too.
Unfortunatly we cannot come to an end for “killer humans”, we can only change the attitudes of people – the same goes to “killer dogs”, to end this the attitude of people need to change.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 4, 2009 at 12:49 a.m.

Consultations between the BMA and the government. The Staffie is going to be banned under the dangerous dogs act fairly soon. Data is being collected. As for the other act you mention I too hope this comes in although I feel policing it may present a challenge. Once the Staffie is banned I would imagine another dangerous breed will take its place, be overbred and the injuries will come flooding in again. The point is Eventually we will see an end to ALL aggressive breeds being bred which is what we should all want. A spaniel for example is NEVER going to kill a child its not a worry. A true dog lover would embrace a ban on dangerous breeds because this way ALL our dogs are safe from being killed and families wont have to come to terms with the terrible disfigurment of loved ones. Its a good thing that we end the barbaric breeding of killers. I only wish we could do the same with killer humans

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 3, 2009 at 11:09 a.m.

"Shep1 I agree and am so pleased this breed is going"... hmm where do you get this information? Are you sure your heads not burried in the sand? I you sure there's not just going to be a ban in your staffies hotspot "community"?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 3, 2009 at 11 a.m.

Shep1 – If that’s the case then why might the Dangerous Dogs Act possibly be over-ridden with a more appropriate act which will aim to sort out irresponsible owners instead?
Also, I agree, not all dog attacks are caused by “thugs”. But the majority are. Dogs are dogs, and sometimes will attack anyway, all breeds are the same, except the staffies will inflict more damage – but not purposely, I suppose it’s just the risk you have to take by owning an animal that was once used to hunting in packs. These dogs were once a pet. They were bred for fighting, but at the same time they were bred to get along with humans, as they were to be kept as pets too.
Referring to your comment to Sammyd – no I have never seen or heard of any staffies attacks in my area, but I have heard of a Great Dane attack (which involved a family friend- and didn’t affect that person in anyway or his relationship with the dog), my father has also been attacked by a rottweiler, this has not affected his life in any way either (but that’s because it was not a serious attack, just bites to the arm). The rottweiler in this case was used as a guard dog!

Poppy2007 – It is irresponsible to leave any dog with a baby. My work in animal welfare doesn’t really involve me working in “dangerous dogs” type work. I just work with a lot of dogs that happen to be staffies who all happen to be very pleasant, and can be re-homed with families. I don't think I have my head in the sand.
The lady you spoke to who works for the RSPCA is entitled to her opinion. What does she volunteer as?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 May 3, 2009 at 1:11 a.m.

Shep1 I agree and am so pleased this breed is going. I could leave my dog with a baby too and KNOW it wouldnt kill because it was bred as a pet and doesnt have the instinct to kill. Hannah I have to say if you work in animal welfare you have learnt nothing about dangerous breeds. I think you have your head in the sand. I spoke to a lady who volunteers with the rspca this week and she said staffies are out of control and shouldnt be rehomed due to their agression.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 2, 2009 at 10:51 p.m.

Sammyd 6 incidents in a week is common in most towns today. I find it impossible to believe Hannah has not heard of any Staffie attacks.

Link to this comment
shep1 May 2, 2009 at 10:47 p.m.

Dog attacks are very rarely reported in the media but judging by the rise in injuries we are seeing by this breed they are indeed common.{I am a facial surgeon}. Am afraid to say Hannah we have gone way past the times of thinking owners are the reason for these attacks. Their was a high incident of attacks from Pit bulls. Following the mostly sucessful ban on this breed Staffie breeding was considerably high but these dogs were sold as a good family pet great with children, the nanny dog etc etc. As Londiniumgaia and SammyD pointed out in their posts these owners were sold a lie. The Staffie is just a smaller version of a pit bull, bred to fight and with the strength to tear through flesh and indeed the desire to do so with great ease. Most of my patients are attacked by their own dogs or dogs belonging to extended family. They are not the thugs that the media portrays as staffie owners and are very responsible dog owners who cannot believe what these dogs have done. Many lives are ruined by this breed every month and thankfully the BMA are being consulted. When this breed is banned suddenly you will see how many dogs have lost their lives and how many peoples lives have been changed forever. Many people having been attacked suffer for the rest of their lives. The breed should not exist now. I agree with Londiniumgaia that it belongs in the history books. Dog fighting and Bull fighting are illegal in this country there is no need for this poor creature to exist .One more thing. These dogs were never a pet. They are not happy and have never been truly tamed as other breeds who were bred to be mans best friend. My own dog would NEVER kill a baby. A baby is a pack leader to the majority of breeds in this country. Not much longer now folks. Those who really care about animal welfare ..hang on in there

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.

Sammyd -
These 6 incidents have not been in the media, so are they in your local area? It sounds like there might be a problem in your area (perhaps notify your council if not already done). I never hear of dog attacks where I live, and believe me, there are plenty of staffies! I do care for all dogs (why do you insist on thinking that I don’t care for dogs, just because I’m not in favour of a breed-specific ban?), though my views on certain breeds have not been coloured by incidents such as dog attacks, purely because I never see them, and neither does anyone else I know. I’m not saying that I don’t believe you when you say you’ve heard of 6 this week, but that is a high figure, and as I’ve said already, perhaps something needs to be done in your area - (assuming that is where the attacks have happened). I realise that you have seen these things happen, but the majority of people in this country have not, which is why a ban on staffies I guess is not favoured by most people – which explains why the breed hasn’t been banned.
Agreed, there are probably more responsible owners than not, and I will use my judgement and say that the majority/high percentage of irresponsible owners have a dog such as a staffies or some other tough looking dog – because they don’t care about the dog, only their own “image”. I’m not saying this is true of all irresponsible owners either. Some are just irresponsible because they get a pet and simply cannot be bothered to look after it, or cannot afford vet treatment when needed for example.

Dogs attack when they don’t know their rights from wrongs, just like people. A dog also has the instinct to kill (to eat/defend), and unfortunately this instinct sometimes comes out, especially when they haven’t learnt simple training such as “rights and wrongs”. This is why staffies/crosses are often seen in a bad light – because many irresponsible owners chose not to teach “rights and wrongs”.

Link to this comment
sammyd May 2, 2009 at 9:41 p.m.

im not exagerating anything . Ive heard of 6 dogs being attacked by that breed this week one of which was critical. None of this ever makes the papers . The only time you see the breed in the news is if a baby dies or someone like yourself is blaming the owners .I dont think you care much for dogs if you did you would see as Londiniumgaia does that the kindest thing would be to stop breeding fighting breeds. Kind to the dogs that cannot fight back, kind to the humans that have multiple injuries and severe psycological damage from what they see or go through and kind to the breed of dog that has no place in what is supposed to be civilised family life. Remember a dog is part of a family which means the family should not EVER be harmed by it and nor should it destroy other families. There are hundreds of breeds that dont and just a handful that do . Just as there are more decent owners of dogs than irresponsible ones.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 9:15 p.m.

Sammyd-
"This breed has got to go too many dogs and children are dying or disfigured for life just as was happenning with pitbulls"

If it was really as bad as you have exaggerated here, then staffies would be banned already.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 9 p.m.

Londiniumgaia - I couldn’t agree more, irresponsible owners do come from all walks of life, rich or poor. And yes many breeds are used as weapons, and will continue to be until these irresponsible owners are sorted out.

Sammyd – I don’t know about everyone else, but I adore all dogs.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 2, 2009 at 8:22 p.m.

true SammyD
those breeds require knowledge that is beoynd most not everyone is a dog whisperer sort of thing even they are well aware of the danger they represent
sad as it is the kinder thing is to ban them
if they are not avaiable as guns are not avaiable they will not be used as such for as long as they are they will be used and abused ...because we have it in our genes to fight and they will continue to be used as weapons ....

Link to this comment
sammyd May 2, 2009 at 5:53 p.m.

coulnt have put it better myself .This breed has got to go too many dogs and children are dying or disfigured for lofe just as was happenning with pitbulls. Londiniumgaia why does nobody else care about dogs on this site. Dogs lives are being ruined and all these on here care about is blaming owners for the fact that a dangerous breed hasnt been banned!

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia May 2, 2009 at 1:17 p.m.

just because someone works with animals that does not count nor means anything at all

I think its important for people to realize that they should treat their frustrations and angers and other personal problems and not use those who are vunerable as a punch bag for their shortcomings

having said that

irresponsible people are in all walks of life doing all sorts of jobs its not only pet owners

those breeds should be historical memories by now full stop
from now on you see them only in victorian engravings
its not about the onwers its about the breed
fact...
they are going the same way as pitbulls
and why this has not happen till now remains a mystery to all those who have witnessed their vicous attacks and to those who have suffered them and their pets...

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 10:04 a.m.

Silly me, I addressed a post to myself, the last one was meant for Sammyd.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 10:04 a.m.

Hannah – I do care, and I greatly love all dogs. It is not my fault if staffies, for example, are bred uncontrollably and looked after by the wrong kind of people – do you not see the problem on the streets with these dogs? The majority of rotties and staffies are pleasant dogs who do not attack.

Sue – I’ve heard some news that the Dangerous Dogs Act could be overridden with a new act looking into irresponsible ownership – this would be a great step!

Link to this comment
sammyd May 1, 2009 at 10:26 p.m.

Hannah there is LIFE of pet dogs and disfigurment or death of humans to be LOST by breeding dangerous dogs!!Why dont you CARE!!Poppy i too have relatives all over the country who have heard or seen this breed tearing chunks out of other dogs and killing them. What I dont see is it being reported in the newspapers. It should be but we only ever hear if they kill a child like the one in Wales.And Sue according to you its the owners to blame every time a dangerous dog attacks??? What rubbish. Show me a breed thats not dangerous thats killed a child...you cant its alwats going to be a rottie a pit bull a staffie thats what they do and thats why they should not be bred as pets. That Grandma had put the baby on a table that the dog had never got to before . She was out the room for a second had no idea her pet was a killer breed because people like you say they wonderful family pets etc. And of most of the killings that have been reported over the years here and in america owners have been present and unable to get the locked jaws off the person.ITS A FIGHTING BREED> you fight to preserve it and you have got blood on your hands too. My friend lost her best friend her dog to a staffie. she saw it rip the life out of it and SHE doesnt blame the owner,It never made the papers and she is STILL on medication for the way she feels about what she saw. What about the Grandma of that baby. SHE wasnt irresponsible the BREED was unreliable. I never worried about my dog near my kids but i wouldnt let them near a dangerous breed cos i now know the kennel club and the rspca and people like you got it wrong when you say its the owners at fault. You think a bad breed is down to living on a council estate thats because you havnt seen one of these in actiopn . You will unless they are banned

Link to this comment
Sue May 1, 2009 at 3:50 p.m.

Poppy, I know your views about Staffies and I am not going to argue with them because they are your views and you have a right to them. Whether I agree or not is not the point. I live in North Wales. I am not saying that dog attacks in North Wales are non existent, but in my particular neighbourhood, which is in the Denbighshire area, thankfully we rarely see or read about them. I do read all the local papers and they cover quite an extensive area. Dog attacks on children always make the headlines, so I am quite confident in saying that we do not seem to have the same problem here as in your area. One thing you said in your post I do want to comment on. You said you didn't want to see another baby die because people like Hannah (or indeed myself) were blaming the owners. Responsible parents do NOT leave babies unsupervised with dogs, even the most gentle dogs. So if you read about another baby which has died, it won't be because we are blaming the owners, it will be because someone has allowed a dog access to a vulnerable child and has not provided the child with adequate or effective protection from the risk of harm. I have two of the softest dogs you could hope to meet, but if my young grandsons come to visit, there is NO way I would leave them alone with either of the boys. Although I am certain they would never attack, nevertheless, as a responsible person, I just wouldn't take the risk - end of story. And if you read about a child who has been left unsupervised with a dog which has attacked it, then responsibility lies fairly and squarely on the person or persons who made that choice - because it is a choice. Of course, no parent wants to see their child or grandchild come to harm, and I feel as sorry as anyone else when tragedies like this occur, but the sad and inescapable fact is that many of these tragedies are avoidable, and it is for the humans to take the precautions to avoid them.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 30, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.

Hannah i cannot speak for others but the reason I keep coming back to this thread is because that breed has ruined my community. I feel scared when I see this breed because ive seen them tearing flesh out of my dog ..unprovoked and suddenly and i KNOW the dogs were from a responsible home and the owner shocked and as upset as myself. Until you have seen the breed as it is I dont think its right for you to say they are like that because of owners or they have bad press in media. All I ever seem to read is that they make wonderful pets or that they are only aggressive when owned by thugs that live on council estates and are cruel to them. What you fail to understand is thugs are cruel to other breeds of dog but those dogs arnt bred to fight so you wont hear in the media of cocker spaniels killing babies. Plus a thug is attracted to a fighting breed it used to be pitbulls . The reason you cant stand the thought of no more staffies on the street is that you dont want a breed wiping out . What a strange reason and I wonder if one killed your dog you may feel different. I agree with Londiniumgaia there IS NO smoke without fire . I dont want to hear another baby has died because people like yourself are blaming the attacks on the owners.There are only a few breeds in this country we cannot trust. At the moment the Staffie is top of the list and whether you like it or not they need to go now

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 30, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.

I would like to stop breeding STAFFIES first. I feel this is a better alternative than imposing a ban similar to the one with pitbulls. I would imagine it is the most common breed in dog shelters today.Apart from the few working breeds in the uk I think the streets would be safer with out the dangerous breeds especially fighting breeds. The thugs cannot turn spaniels or shizus etc etc into killers they really dont have to do much to get a staffie to attack just allow the dog to do what it wants to do. Or what it was BRED for.Where do you live Sue. I travel around the country and hear about Staffies attacking dogs everywhere ive been in the last year ?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 30, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.

Sammyd - are you Poppy2007 in disguise? It just seems a little odd to me that countless people are visiting this thread only to post comments on the fact that "staffies and other 'dangerous breeds' need to be banned before the situation gets worse" - when the topic is about whether dogs aggression can be blaimed on the owner. I have to agree with Sue, I also come from a place where dog attacks do not exist. Why do we never hear of friendly unaggressive staffies? Its because they aren't plastered allover the media. My beliefs will always be that we need to cut down on breeding, and teach people how to train and look after their pets properly.

"there is nothing to be gained from continuing to breed staffies or any other dangerous breed" - and there is nothing to be lost. Dog attacks will always be common until peoples attidues are sorted out. I also think that there are other, more important, things that can be done to prevent loss of people's and pet's lives - ie safer roads, less crime.

Link to this comment
Sue April 30, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.

Like Hannah, the only experience I have had of dog attacks in 50 years is reading about them in the media. I agree that for people who have witnessed such a thing, it must be a traumatic experience. Some of the posts I have read paint a picture of a society where nobody dare walk their pet without fear of it being attacked and seriously injured and killed by a Staffie type dog, or similarly aggressive breed. Again, I have not had this experience, and I have never lived in fear of any breed of dog. My dogs walk off lead at all times when they are in places where this is permitted, and when we are not close to a public highway, and I have never had an issue with other dogs. When we do meet other dogs, I am fortunate in that the owners are generally sensible and in control of their dogs, so although we have come across the odd anti-social exception, there have been no incidents. I am not saying that these things don't happen because of course they do. I am just saying that they are not typical. I do sympathise with anyone who is living in a part of the country where this sort of thing is commonplace, but it just isn't something which goes on where I live.

Link to this comment
Sue April 30, 2009 at 1:48 p.m.

I am not in favour of banning Staffies because I don't think a ban will make much difference. I am in favour of controlling and restricting breeding of dogs generally while we have more dogs than homes to send them to. This strategy would not involve any dogs having to be destroyed because they are members of a prohibited breed. It would simply mean that in the fullness of time, there would be much fewer of them around as they all expire from natural causes. This I might add is my view as to all breeds. If we ever get to a point in this country where we are in the happy situation of having queues of responsible and caring potential dog owners outside our animal shelters, with a waiting list for available dogs, THEN is the time to consider whether we need to be breeding more. Certainly that is not the case now. Breeding is just not necessary except possibly to fulfil the demand for rare breeds. People who really want a dog will find the right one without going to a breeder. There is no shortage is there?

Link to this comment
sammyd April 29, 2009 at 10:55 p.m.

there is nothing to be gained from continuing to breed staffies or any other dangerous breed . its cruel to the dogs and its cruel to the victims which are mainly other dogs but sometimes people.I think the people on here who want to keep breeding dogs that were bred to fight dont really care about animal welfare. am sick of hearing another dogs been killed or seriously injured because the dangerous dogs are being bred as pets . its not fair on the decent owners of staffies either. they were sold a lie when they were told a fighting breed would make a good pet. If theres anyone out there who hasnt seen a staffie attack it wont be long before you do and believe me its horific what they do to other dogs. time they were banned before more babies die. and rotties too

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 29, 2009 at 6:59 p.m.

Sue - I think some people need to see the reality of things - sometimes it can hurt (re. pet NHS etc)! My job brings me into contact with mant kinds of dogs everyday, and the only ones that are aggresive have come from seemingly unfortunate backgrounds, so I guess this would also colour my perceptions - then again though, I never really hear about dog attacks anyway, apart from in the media. So I'm not surprised about some of the peoples views on this site who dislike staffies, when all they see is dogs fighting in the local parks, continuous facial injuries and generally being afraid to walk their own pets where they live.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 29, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.

Shep - agreed, staffies are being over bred. But - not all staffies attack! How many staffies do you hear of that don't attack? None! Because they are not spread all over the media and publicised! Not all staffies want to kill - if they all did, then they would have done so by now, and if they did this country would be a rather messy place.
You don't blam dog attacks on "socio economic factors", so how do you explain why you think dog attacks are on the increase?

Link to this comment
Sue April 29, 2009 at 11:07 a.m.

Hannah - think I might have hit a raw nerve with Londiniumgaia with my comment about banning dogs on Council estates!! And I am not a snob here. I grew up in a council house, and so did both my parents. My job brings me into contact with many families on a daily basis who live in social housing, who are fit for work, but do not work, who in many cases have never worked, who do not want to work, and who have lots of children and pets. I only come into contact with the families where there is a problem, just as Shep in his/her job only sees people with injuries which need treating. Experiences like this MUST colour your perceptions. When money is tight, the family pet is the disposable item, and we are seeing increasing numbers of family pets being dumped due to financial pressures on humans. Of course, you don't HAVE to be living in social housing to be out of work and hard up, but there is without doubt a much higher percentage of tenants in social housing who ARE unemployed and living on benefits. My (slightly tongue in cheek)suggestion of banning ownership of dogs on council estates was made on the premise that if this happened, then the people least able to afford the cost of caring properly for a dog would not have them, and the corresponding rise in animal welfare issues on large estates would be diminished. I was thinking purely along animal welfare lines. Of course, it will never happen, and people will continue to indiscriminately take on multiple pets who will end up being neglected or abandoned because they have become too expensive. Private landlords very often stipulate "no children or pets". This is not intended as an attack on anybody's right to choose to have a child or a pet, but is about the landlord taking all steps to ensure that his/her property is going to be well looked after and not trashed by someone's errant children or chewed or urinated in by someone's errant dog. If the Local Authorities adopted a policy of prohibiting or at least limiting dog ownership on estates, it might help tackle the issue of backyard dog breeding, dog fighting and limit the potential for attacks on people in these often overcrowded and volatile environments.

Link to this comment
Sue April 29, 2009 at 10:31 a.m.

Londiniumgaia - I have already responded to your post on another thread of this site.
Shep - your comment that "certain breeds of dog WANT to kill" is interesting. I have no doubt that certain breeds of dog may be more predisposed to being aggressive because originally they were bred as fighting dogs. I also have no doubt that with its ability to lock its jaws down on its victim, a bull terrier type dog is likely to inflict more serious injuries than some other breeds. But this does not explain why this problem with aggressive dogs has suddenly become prominent in our society. I have always lived in a home with a dog, for nearly 50 years, and I have seen the reports of dog attacks increase over the years in line with the increase in violent crimes by humans towards other humans. We do without a doubt live in a much more violent society these days. But years ago, this problem barely existed. If these dogs, which have been around for a very long time, are born "wanting" to kill, then why have they waited so many years to get started? I am not saying we need to keep breeding them, because we definitely don't, and on that point, I am not against you. I just think that banning them will not address the underlying problem that certain people like their dog to look and act mean. If they can't find a Staffie to look and act mean for them, they will find something else. I do take your point that these dogs can inflict massive tissue damage when they do turn bad though.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 29, 2009 at 10:06 a.m.

Dear Suethis is really something very close to my heart and infuriates me when some have the nerve to think of themselves as judge and jury of the who is who of the should have a pet at all
people are free to make choices they often do some are lucky to be in a place where its possible to have pets I am one but in reality there should be legislation in place to make sure EVERYONE SHOULD BE ENTITTLED TO HAVE A PET
if their acomodation met a minimum size criteria FULL STOP

why do we have NHS for humans and not for pets?
why are those animal hospitals not run like the human NHS

ON WHAT GROUNDS SOME THINK THAT HAVING A PET IS PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT ?

it should not be

that would encorage responsible ownership too
The NHS for pets would open doors to have much more come to light than being hidden underground

the elderly can have and afford pets which sometimes can mean much more than most imagine to them
old people's home should too allow people to come in with their companions no ifs or buts about that

we should too have lesgislation in place to make sure those absurd prices charged by a private vet is no longer possible
to some being a vet seems like winning the lottery WRONG!!!
then the pet insurance con
sure pet insurance is all very well yet again for those who can afford it NOT many can in my area for example N 19
DOES THAT MAKES US LESS HUMAN AND NOT ABLE TO HAVE PETS?
no
the whole pet insurance vet colluding palaver is well knwon by now

in all this discracefull behaviour the pet remains something between a dear one and a gold mine
WRONG

when we learn to treat those vunerable with compassion dignity and respect then we can call ourselves truly civilized
some way to go yet

today many will loose their pets although no fault of their own
this should no longer happen....
NHS FOR PETS.
there is money there for it and what it lacks is the will come on the RSPCA and the public give this thought and cause your voice ...

Link to this comment
shep1 April 28, 2009 at 10:18 p.m.

Hannah, I personally think the rise in damage to human life is due to the fact that the staffie is being overbred. When there are LESS dangerous breeds around we see less attacks. I see less Rottie attacks these days but still see them. When Staffies are banned I would imagine Rotties will increase in number again and I will be treating many victims of this breed. This is why I say it is a problem. Im sure your heart is in the right place but what you have to realise is certain breeds of dogs WANT to kill . Its what their breed does and is in the interests of the whole country that we stop breeding them. Your perception that PEOPLE can change BREED into pet dog is not accurate. As I have said before I can only recall one Staffie attack in the last three years where the owner was what you may call irresponsible. I think blaming dog attacks on socio economic factors is wrong. These people may be attracted to a dangerous breed but they didnt create it

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 28, 2009 at 9:28 p.m.

Sue - small steps like you've mentioned will go a long way. Problems may be tackled with more ease if councils were put in charge of their own areas - possibly by having more regulation regarding council houses etc etc. I agree, people will always find a way around a ban, especially those who are irresponsible in the first place. We will end up with more and more staffie type crosses, and not the staffie pure-bred, which is more popular with the responsible and true staffie lover. So I guess you are right in saying that a ban on "staffies" will not address the issues. I also feel lucky, I know many staffies and a couple of rottweilers, and I have not known of any serious dog attacks in my area.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 28, 2009 at 9:17 p.m.

Shep1 - this isn't a competition on who knows the most, or who has seen the most dog bites and injuries. You don't have to physically see a wound to know it happens. You keep mentioning all these facts that are backing up your side of the arguement, but you don't say what they are, apart from the fact that you see bites on your patients and other places. What is the "data" you are talking about which "proves otherwise"? Yes the staffie may go the same way as the pit bull, but unfortunatly it if does, nothing will be solved. It is not the RSPCA's job to combat dangerous breeds. It is there to promote welfare to all animals one way or another. Why is it you say that the risk the human lives are rising? Is it because the dogs, some how on their own, are becoming more and more aggresive? Or is it because they are becoming more popular due to people overbreeding them, and more are frequently becoming involved in crime/fighting? If what you say is true, and dog attacks are on the rise, then surely this must be at the fault of human behaviour, which indicates that we do have a problem that needs sorting out - on the other end of the lead (I'm taking about humans). Unfortunatly, the same applies to you, as I have said to londiniumgaia - you won't be able to walk your dog without worrying until irresponsible dog owners are no more. I haven't stated reasons of why we should keep the breed, but I have stated plenty of reasons throughout my many posts on why there is no need to ban the breed.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 28, 2009 at 9:16 p.m.

Poppy - What counts to you as a "dangerous breed"? I guess you would say staffies, rottweilers etc etc. What about collies, only recently I heard that one suddenly ripped a young girls face - could have been fatal, what about great danes (very powerful with quite a bad temperament), what about alsations - used by the police, can be trained to do attack. You cannot tar all dogs in one breed with the same brush. There are many more charming staffies and rotties than bad - the same with most breeds. If this wasn't the case then I think we'd be in a bit of a crisis, which we obviously aren't. I feel very sad for those who have been hurt by any dog, but it is only a miniscule percentage of the population - fatal attacks on humans are extremily rare, fatal dog attacks are rare in most places, but common in some places, mainly where there are problems with irresponsibilty. It appear to me that your area may be one of these - I'm not saying people are irresponsible, but something is not quite right. 99% of attacks are caused by humans some way or another, 99.9% of these aren't fatal. I like to try and look behind WHY dog attacks happen, not at just the fact that they have happened, when you figure out the reasons behind things, you can then come up with some sensible solutions. For some reason if staffies were wiped of the face of the UK, then dogs attacks would go down, but not by much. Eventually dog attacks will go back up again after a new breed/cross breed has populated the country, laws will also be broken over and over again. Law of averages tells me that out of the number of staffies in the country, little of them ever attack, and the ones that do in general have not been trained correctly. Most of the dogs that "frighten people" are owned by thugs. I feel this is partly where the scary image comes from.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 28, 2009 at 9:16 p.m.

To Londinumgia - yes I agree about giving those who use dogs as weapons some sort of jail sentence. Perhaps this would discourage people irresponsibly owning dogs in the first place. Do you not think it would be a good idea to bring in laws such as this first, and perhaps compulsary microchipping (for example) before completely banning a breed of dog? Banning staffies and rotties will not change the attitudes of owners of these breeds. In the long-run, wouldn't this be the most important thing - to change people attitudes towards dogs? By just banning a breed of dog we are letting these criminals get away with animal abuse time and time again, and in a few years time I guess that we will just end up back at square one, but with a different breed of dog as the "problem", such as GSDs. Unfortunatly until the "people" side of this is sorted out, you probably won't be able to walk your own dogs in peace.
Regarding your comment "as much as I would teach my dog from day one to go and bite and fight to death another dog or person I promise you I would get nowhere with it" - I'm not sure what breed you have, and I'm sure whatever it is it is a lovely dog and it is lucky to have a caring owner such as yourself. What would have happened if your dog was brought up from puppy by a different person, and tought wrongs from rights differently?
You also mention that these "monsters (staffies) that we have created". Would banning staffies change our attitudes to stop creating more "monsters"? I will say again though that most staffies are certainly not monsters (that is my opinion though, and understand you believe differently.
Refering to your other comment - "as long as staffies are around this will exist" - I guess you were talking about the appauling ways in which some dogs are treated. Are you saying that banning staffies will stop these people from abusing the next dog they can get their hands on?

Link to this comment
Sue April 28, 2009 at 1:09 p.m.

Just read all the most recent posts! Some good arguments and some silly ones. Perhaps one way of getting around the problem would be for Local Authorities to impose a ban on the owning of a dog in their rented properties, which would include houses and flats, to be implemented gradually, so that those tenants who had a dog could keep the dog for the remainder of its life, but then not be allowed to replace it with another one. And before anyone accuses me of being a snob, no I am not, but I know that most of the Staffie X breeds in this area live on the local council estate, and I know for a fact that there are people on the estate breeding them. So if the Local Authority had rules about dogs, and the penalty was eviction, then eventually the hope would be that the breeding would become a risky strategy for the owners. Hannah, in response to your comments immediately following my last post, I remember that when the pit bull ban came into force, and pit bulls were seized for destruction, there were some cases being argued in court by owners who said that their dogs were NOT pit bulls, because they were crossed with something else. The argument was that they did not come within the ambit of the ban. Some of these arguments were successful, and there were so many different cross breeds around that nobody was quite sure what was or was not a Pit Bull. These arguments I have no doubt will also be applied to Staffies, or indeed any other breed if there is a ban in the future. I suppose what I am saying is that a ban on pure bred Staffies will not necessarily address the issue most contributors to this thread have with the Staffie (or more likely the Staffie X). Reading the recent posts, I feel I must be amazingly lucky. I walk my dogs twice daily, off lead, in a field behind the local council estate, where most people let their dogs off lead, and there are Staffies being walked there on a daily basis. I am not wary of any of the other dogs, although my two dogs are a bit unsure of GSD's and will come back and hide behind us when they see one. Dog fights on this field are rare. I have never seen or heard of a fatal or serious dog on dog attack, and my dogs have been walking on this field for the past 6 years.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 28, 2009 at 9:57 a.m.

SHOCKING ABSOLUTE dismay
I just watched the video done by Mr.Grant and why on earth have this people not been stoped arrested and charged ?
worth the time consuming paper work by the police I would say
these poor creatures deserve better ....
as long as satffies are around this will exist
beliving it will not is spiting against the wind...
chaging people's nature's is too spiting against the wind by the looks of it ..

shoking I have seen staffies in this condition and it is sickining not to me alone or the poor vets and nurses who have to face these animals but mainly to the animals themselves
its unforgivable that this should go on in this day and age
multilated animals and people
honestly why is the RSPCA not taking a firm stand on this and ask for these breeds to be banned if only for their own sake

I have no doubt if that this is what goes on in the open I can only comtemplate what might go on at night in our parks or in private...

enough !!!
these kids will kick someone's head same as they kick the dog's it follows
shocking !!!

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 28, 2009 at 7:13 a.m.

HEAR HEAR !!!!
could not put it better .... thank you for sharing your expertise here Shep1
people get sentimental over animals but this is not part of nature it was created by mankind and as such we have to act responsibly and for their sake and ours unbuild or end the existence of these monsters we have created that are now outdated in their purpose to say the least
ban those breeds please its kinder all around
as much as I would teach my dog from day one to go and bite and fight to death another dog or person I promise you I would get nowhere with it
facts are facts ....
time to call for a complete ban on staffies and rotties and other fighting breeds if need be
enough!! this is the twenty first century not the dark ages any longer ....

Link to this comment
shep1 April 27, 2009 at 11:16 p.m.

Poppy it would seem Hannah indeed has little or no knowledge of the damage this breed causes both to man and dog.She is not alone. Most of my patients who have been disfigured by this breed were led to believe that with the right training a staffie made a wonderful pet. Im afraid the RSPCA and the Kennel club may have to answer some very difficult questions shortly. Not least as to why they promote a breed as trustworthy and safe when they have ALL the data at hand that proves otherwise.The RSPCA CHOOSES to ignore BMA reports and is beginning to lose some credibility because of this.Hannah this breed WILL go the same way as pitbulls because the breed will be included in the next ammendment of the dangerous dogs act. The fact that you say to poppy you have never heard this is irrelevant. You will remember a few years back the RSPCA saying there would be no ban on pitbulls.The RSPCA are proven as unreliable at tackling the problems of dangerous breeds of dog as the breeds they want like you to preserve.The majority of breeds even if badly treated cannot physically cause the damage that dangerous breeds can. It is in the interest of dog lovers and families everywhere that we accept a ban on breeds when that ban arrives.The legislation is there when the cost to human life is rising. Hannah YOU have no valid argument for preserving a breed. Londiniumgiaia, Poppy,Dogs everywhere,victims of savage attacks both human and canine, YOU have a valid reason for this breed to be banned and rest assured it wont be long. I pray every day that my dog will not be the next victim and look forward to a time when that is not a worry

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 27, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.

yes thats true. A shizu never ragged a child round a room or killed another dog. Totally uncapable. All pet dogs should have a pet temperament. You are SO right. No smoke without fire. Lets love our dogs by supporting a ban on ALL dangerous breeds

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 27, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.

ban those unreliable breeds like staffies and rotties and give those who use them as weapons a very long comnnunity service or jail sentence ...
yes ban them there is no smoke without fire if they have a reputation its for a reason
never heard bad news about shih tzus ...
FACT!

Link to this comment
worldtuner April 27, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

Well this is a good question, for some dogs are breed to be violent and aggressive there's not much training can do in this situation, so to start with we must look at the breeding World of dogs and start there.

When it comes to owners sure there are quite a few that teach (not train) a dog to be aggressive, to frighten neighbours, locals at the pub, to guard their homes etc, etc, in most of these cases the dog always turns out to be more intelligent than the owner, last Sunday I went to a local car boot sale when 2 guys walking 2 dogs which resembled pit bull terriers, the dogs dribbling from the mouth and grutting has they walked clearing the way for their owner/s I stop and looked at the guys, their faces also resembled the dogs, dribbling included, so yes owners are to blame in every case, in fact we should have a compulsory written test by the owners to find out if they are fit to own a dog.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 27, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.

Poppy-
It beggers me why your "community" is full of staffie type dogs? If they as bad as everyone says they are, then why are the people in your "community" continuing to own them? Perhaps THEY have little knowledge in these breeds which is why they keep attacking everyone. I do know the sort of damage that staffies/rottweilers can pose, its a shame that irresponsible people didn't own them, then none of this damage would be happening. My father was once attacked by a rottweiler, which was used as a guard dog at a local pub where he used to deliver papers by car. Luckily it wasn't serious but he did have to see the dr for a jab. After continuously provoking his great dane, my father's friend was also attacked. Neither of these "experiences" were serious, fortunatly, and neither have ever put a doubt in my mind about either of these breeds. One was obviously trained as a guard dog (owners fault) and one was provoked. In your case though, dogs by the dozen seem to attack in your area, I can't quite put my finger on why though.
"Shep im very pleased to hear that the breed will no longer exist"... that's odd because i've never heard this :-o

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 27, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.

Dear londiniumgaia -
Staffies are not my favourite breed at all, if any other breed of dog was in this situation then i'd defend them too. I think this whole thing can be resolved by human beings having more respect for ALL animals/dogs. Out of the 250,000 staffies in the UK, a lot are treated with little respect, and all are made to look aggresive and evil by the media, who will fast spread the news of any attack. I do know that some dogs are aggresive, just like humans, and are this way because of their upbringing/environment - just like humans. We need to sort out the thugs who turn dogs to this violent lifestyle, which I know would be a tricky process as the government has little time and money to spend on carryig this out.
The human did not "invent" the dog, or indeed the staffie, but has merely evolved it, as with all dogs. Unfortunatly in previous times the staffie has evolved somewhat into a fighting dog because of its wide jaw and stocky build. Fortunatly there are plenty of people who are breeding these dogs to be wonderful pets, without an ounce of aggression, and who are brought up to be docile dogs. Unfortunatly, there are also plenty of breeders who are still "developing" staffies, mainly by crossing them with any vicious looking thing they can get their hands on. No-one has the right to take advantage of dogs this way & no-one has the right to completely wipe-out a breed. Staffies and any other breed should not all be tarred with the same brush. We are NOT superior to other species. But, I suppse, we are "in charge" of the planet, which is why its beyond me that we cant seem to look after our own race, yet decide which animal should and should not exist! Until the government decide to sort out youths hanging about on council estates (for example) with their dogs that make them look 'cool', threatening every person that walks by, then there won't be much of a decline in attacks.
(I hope you took the time to read my link to the independent website) Thanks

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 26, 2009 at 11:35 p.m.

Dear Hannah67
it maybe true that if one person owns a sttafie to be used as a weapon then others will too to protect themselves but two wrongs never made a right kids carry knifes to school because if the other kids find out that he/she does not have one he/she could be targeted there has been so much increase in violence as it seems nobody cares to put things to right anymore but things will change I supose if my favorite breed were to be staffies and rotties I too would be upset but if you look at the choice made say by the police force
they chose to train german sheperds as they are obedient and reliable not staffies or rotties for a reason sorry if this upset those who love their dogs that happen to be staffies and rotties but if the weapon is not there it cannot be used if they become unavaible some thugs and I live with some upstairs and down the corridor would have a hard time traning other breeds with such ease but then again it is possible to do so
I heard of a place that only rescues rotties and this lady showed them at one stage as well and absolutely lives for the breed and knows all there is to know about them and not long ago she lost her arm when one which the council had found worndering came in to her rescue and bit her arm so badly that she had to have it amputated
sorry again but there are plenty of evidence that staffies and rotties are not reliable and may snap on anyone at any given time but so do other dogs some say like yorkies chiahuahas ect
sure but people don't die of their bites or loose limbs or other dogs if any of these dogs decide to bite mine they are as good as dead...
and the dog fights still going on after midnight in some places around here ... we need more kindness and kids have to be taught right from wrong and parents need more power to discipline them not to be punished for doing so...
I still think that banning them is best
I have seen plenty too with horrid wounds ..its their nature and people will take advantage of it either for prestige or money ..
may not be your case as I have no doubt that there are plenty of resposible staffie/rottie onwers but still ....I do not undertand how can anyone relax when having them around...
again I have not researched into the breed at all only on hear so I base those opinions
humans bred staffie and rotties so we carry the responsibility too for creating these breeds perhaps we too should now put this to right for their sake and ours ....
thank you for your attention
warm regards
paula

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 26, 2009 at 7:16 p.m.

Hannah as you have little or No knowledge of the damage this breed causes to communities theres no point arguing with you. Shep im very pleased to hear that the breed will no longer exist. Londiumgaia I agree banning the breed is in the interest of kindness to dogs and families but I need to tell you the staffie problem is not confined to deprived areas anymore. I live in a fairly affluent area. This breed is causing the misery that used to be caused by Rotties back in the day. And finally I would like to assure Hannah that with many breeds of dog the nastiest thug in the world cannot TRAIN AGGRESSION into them. All thugs can do is maybe make the dangerous breeds WORSE . It is for this reason they are the weapon of choice. Once the staffies are banned I would imagine the other Dangerous breeds will be overbred again and we should eventually see a ban on all killer breeds. our pet dogs will then be safe and the minority thugs probably wont own dogs either which can only be a good thing

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 26, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.

I think everyone should have a read of this link -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-did-the-staffordshire-terrier-fall-in-with-the-wrong-crowd-406915.html

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 26, 2009 at 11:38 a.m.

To londiniumgaia - I'm not sure whether your last comment was aimed at me or Shep1.
Your situation was that the lady was threatening your dogs with her dogs. This behaviour is completely wrong, and in my opinion it is people like her that are giving dogs a bad image (I don't think you mentioned what breed she has). Obviously I don't know, but her dog could either be vicious or she could have been threatening you with a perfectly docile dog, which may look vicious. Either way, this is not the sort of person who should be owning any dog. It sounds like her dog would be a lot more suitable in someones hands who has respect for all dogs. I believe that staffies can be killers in the wrong hands. But in the right hands, and when trained from puppy, can be wonderful family pets. Though I wouldn't go as far as to call any dog a "good babysitter" as they are dogs not humans. Dogs may be protective but can be unpredictive even if that means playing too hard and hurting a small child.

It is very unfortunate that you feel you have to avoid these dogs when you go on your walkies.
I'm not trying to come across as snobbish or disrespecting, but you say you live in a deprived area where you see alot of staffies, crosses and pit bull looking dogs, and I will use my judgement and say that I bet the owners use them mainly for "status dogs" - therefor I suppose they probably would be trained to frighten other dogs. Owners like this also train their dogs to be almost "overly protective", taking advantage of the fact that dogs such as staffies have a very protective nature (which I add is a good trait if trained properly). So I think I'd be very cautious of walking my dog in your area too. I agree, violence breeds violence, and the more
people that own a dog like this in an area, the more people will feel the need to also own adog like this, to "protect themselves".
I do not believe a ban on staffies is the answer, I'm thinking more towards the lines of
responsible dog ownership.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 26, 2009 at 11:18 a.m.

Shep - yes I have seen some of the damage caused, but only in newpapers/on tv - which I know isn't them same as seeing it in real life. But I have seen hundreds of these dogs first-hand, and know how great they are. I know that there is an over-population of this breed in the country, which is one of the reasons why you see more of these attack. I also realise that the majority of the dogs are very docile. The dangerous dog act should be changed to "irresponsible owners" act.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 26, 2009 at 11:12 a.m.

Shep - I respect your opinions (though do not agree with them). You should respect my opinions and stop character assasinating as I do have a democratic right to my opinion.
The title of this arguement is "does the blame lie with the dog or its owner" you think neither. I think its the owner. Obviously we will never agree. If this breed ever ends up being banned, then its because the regulaters/government are taking the easiest option, reflecting the ban on the outlawed pitbull. Statistics show that banning the pitbull has made no difference, because now thugs are turning to the innocent staffie, and giving them negative and irreparable press. I do not 'look down my nose' at anyone apart from those who are making staffies look the the baddies, such as some of the people that own them. Statistics show that the staffordshire bull terrier is one of the
most suitable family dogs, and statistics also show that socio-economics has everything to do with it. I have read one of your previous posts which says
"The human bred the problem and needs to now stop this breed.If the same thing happens with other breeds then there will have to be a ban on these breeds too". So why would this happen if there isn't a
"social-economic" problem??

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 25, 2009 at 8:08 p.m.

freedom of speech pal and respect for other's opinion can go a long way...
I may disagree with what you say but will fight to death for your right to say it ....
pettiness apart staffies as far as I know were bred for fighting I have had an incident in which a young lady at a certain animal hospital made clear if my dogs do not stop barking at her dog she would set her dog on them
two small terriers/terrors at times :) but litlle dogs will be litlle dogs and what if she did? there was nothing I could have done and if my two dogs which I adore were the victims of this sick person shooting her was too good for her but hey .... they are strong dogs and proved unreliable as rottties are... however some people swear by the breed as so relaible as to be good baby sitters I am no expert ... noses apart let us work towards a solution for a growing problem as violence generates more violence and without any doubt we all love our fellow creatures in here and care for them
banning these breeds seems to me to be the kindest thing to do for the animal's sakes and people's
I live in a deprived area and when I see a dog that is not a staffie or a mix one or some pitbull looking one I have to look twice as I hardly belive my eyes ...
I never had one attacking us thou so far but I avoid them which makes our walkies rather interesting to say the least ... never boring .. but oh how I look forward to some boredom .... rather sooner than later ....

Link to this comment
shep1 April 25, 2009 at 3:43 p.m.

Hannah stop looking down your nose at people. Staffie attacks are on the increase in ALL parts of the country. Fact. The reason we know they are Staffies is because they have pedigree papers.Socio economics has NOTHING to do with Dangerous dogs being bred and sold nor does it have anything to do with a BREED being unsuitable to mix with other dogs and humans . It is not the dogs fault OR the owners fault.It is certainly not my patients faults when their lives are ruined because people like YOU want to preserve a BREED!!! For you to talk this way you must have never seen the damage this breed and indeed some other breeds have caused. There are others on this site who have witnessed an attack such as poppy. You have no idea what people go through watching their loved ones being held and ragged about by jaws that were designed to tear through flesh in a way to kill.A true dog lover would not want a breed like this around other dogs. you have made it clear you dont care much for human life and seem to think everyone that lives in social housing is responsible for dangerous dogs. Your comments are beginning to sound ridiculous now

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 25, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.

In most cases its not the pure bred staffies that cause problems, its staffie cross breeds (which look practially the same as pure-breds). This is because they are cheaper to buy, therefor anyone can own one. You'd never see a 'poor' person (jobless/on benefits for exmaple) owning a purebred staffie as they would be too expensive. Therefor, its these people who can't look after the dogs properly - therefor don't they don't get the right amount of training and disipline. This is why back-street breeding needs to be sorted out.
I'm not saying that staffie cross-breeds are a problem either - I will always believe the owner is at fault.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 25, 2009 at 11:09 a.m.

To londiniumgaia & Poppy - Dog attacks are vertually unheard of where i live. I believe that something needs to be done social-wise in the areas you live in. These problems seem to happen in places like London, and that's because of the certain types of people who live there.

Link to this comment
londiniumgaia April 25, 2009 at 1:21 a.m.

I live in the N19 area of London everyday when I go out to walk my dogs I count my blessings when we get back home alive and in one piece and since new laws have been passed for dogs to remain on leads all of the time things got a litlle better but still..

nothing is either black or white every case is what it is but from experience staffies and rotties are not what I would call reliable dogs they can snap and turn against my dogs and myself at any time FACT
when are they going to be banned ought to be the question
as if these breeds were not avaiable there would be much less chance of attacks happening an dogs being used as badges of honour .
in truth I never had a problem with these dogs and their owners but the WHAT IF is always there
we are on our toes when out and about not the most relaxing of walks either ...
and not exactly a pleasure to have them around and my apologies for all those who do not agree and hold their pets dear if they happen to be a staffie or rottie

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 24, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

I dont live in an area where there are tatooed thugs walking round with staffies no . As I have stated before the owners of these dogs are no different than you or I. The breed of dog is the cause of the attacks.My vet told me that the staffie is out of control all over the country. The media doesnt report very many of these attacks. According to my vet the media should be and arnt. I have family and friends down South and up north and the one breed of dog they see causing the trouble AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME is the staffie, Sorry Im sick of the sight of injured dogs and people scared to let their dogs off for fear of them being killed. Lets STOP the breeding of ALL dangerous breeds now because these are the same as pitbulls. People Should care more about dogs than they do on this site

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 24, 2009 at 5:11 p.m.

Shep - yes of course the RSPCA sees any damage that is caused. They probably see it the way everyone else see's it - through the media. The only reason the media (eg newspapers) do this is because they want to sell. The RSPCA realises that staffies are not aggresive as made out to be, and are trying to promote this, so why would they want to broadcast an attack? This would only be going against what they believe - which is that staffies and other breeds should stop getting the unfair press that they do.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 24, 2009 at 5:02 p.m.

Sue - Regarding the government, it does all boil down to money. I have read your "crisis at animal hospital" posts. I agree that the 'problem dogs' are more likely to be staffie crosses, not pure breds. Therefor banning staffordshire bull terrier (pure breds) would not solve the problem. Does this mean that it would still be legal to breed staffie cross breeds? People will find many loop-holes in this law, reflecting what has happened with the pit bull ban (I note you said you think you still see pit bull/crosses around).

How would the government ever be able to come up with a law that would ban all staffie/crosses? Where would the money come from to administer this? How would it be possible to monitor and follow the millions of dogs and owners in the country? How would breeding be monitored? Then what would be done with the thousands of people who refuse to follow the law? What would happen to the staffies already in animal shelters? What will happen to all the staffie crosses?! What about all the other cross breeds which have staffie genes in them? It just goes on and on.
As long as we have irresponsible dog owners in this country, then these 'problems' will unfortunatly continue.
Ideally, I think this is what should happen -
1 - Carry on breeding pure bred staffies responsibly, by reputable owners in a controlled way so as to try and keep the overall population of the breed down.
2 - Stamp out irresponsible breeding, irresponsible owners.
(in our dreams maybe!)
Simple (ish)

Link to this comment
Sue April 24, 2009 at 9:47 a.m.

Poppy - can't help thinking that there is something not quite right in your area when there are so many people and dogs being attacked by "staffies" (which I suspect are actually not true purebred staffies). When I say this, I am NOT suggesting you are exaggerating the extent of the problem in any way, but I suspect instead that there may be some irresponsible (back yard) breeding going on in your locality, which is where the pups will eventually end up. I asked two vets in my area, both friends, how many of these cases they had come across in the past year, and yes, they have had the odd fighting injury to deal with, but nothing out of the ordinary and not involving any specific breed. I was walking through town yesterday and there was a couple, maybe in their 30's, rough looking, covered in tattoos, cigarettes hanging out of their mouths, just sitting there begging in the doorway of a closed down shop with a baseball cap on the ground, and a brown Staffie type dog! Well, it looked like a Staffie, but I can't imagine these people going and paying a few hundred quid to a Staffie breeder. These are the sort of people who shouldn't have dogs, but they all have them, and they are usually of the Staffie type. It seems to be a bit of a fashion thing with people, the Staffie type of dog seems to be the dog to be seen out with for many people here, and clearly not just here. I didn't give them anything, but I felt sorry for the dog! You also said that it is becoming quite common for owners of Staffies who attack to report that the dog has never done it before. Maybe they havent, but if that was YOUR dog which had bitten a child or someone else's pet, would you want to admit that the dog had shown aggression in the past? That would be an acceptance of personal responsibility. Lots of people have Staffie type dogs for no other reason than they think they make great pets, but lots of people also have these dogs because they want a dog with a mean attitude. If you are walking round with a dog like this, nobody is going to mess with you, but would you ever admit to that if the dog attacked a third party? I am not saying that people who own Staffies are all bad people, but true Staffies are not (so far as I am aware)known for their unpredictability. I would imagine if you got a mean one as a result of irresponsible breeding, you would have at least some inkling of it. It is a bit like being in the police station with a juvenile who has been arrested and being confronted by the mother saying "he's never done anything like this before".....right!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 23, 2009 at 11:01 p.m.

And Hannah . It is NOT extremely rare for fatal dog attacks to occur. My vet failed to save the lives of 6 dogs in the last 10 months that had been attacked by Staffies. Time you showed some compassion for animals that suffer instead of bleating on about a BREED that should never have been made...BY HUMANS!!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 April 23, 2009 at 10:56 p.m.

Shep I couldnt agree with you more. The injuries you must have seen in your line of work I cant imagine. My dog was attacked by Staffies , nearly died and I know at first hand the breed is a killer. I agree that the breed should no longer be licenced. Last week a little girl was attacked by one in the park and their family dog was in a really bad way. The owner of the Staffie was mortified said the dog had never done it before. From what ive heard this is a common reaction and I dont blame the owners either. They bought a dog that many people say are safe. Its getting out of control now. I hope you are right that this breed will go the same way as the pit bull and any other breed thats going to damage dog and family communities.Its not the dogs fault but there is a real reason to stop the breeding of dangerous dogs . A lot of people are opposed to it. I would imagine if they ever saw one of these beasts in action they might realise how wrong it is to keep breeding them. I still have flashbacks of the attack on my dog. I cannot imagine what your patients and witnesses to their attacks must go through.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 23, 2009 at 7:56 p.m.

Comments about Staffies making wonderful pets are the reason so many lives are destroyed by this breed. The RSPCA does see the damage this breed causes and CHOOSES not to publish it . This is why they do not have the say in which breeds get banned in this country. The RSPCA are also opposed to the dangerous dogs act.They would rather preserve a dangerous breed ...VERY worrying

Link to this comment
shep1 April 23, 2009 at 7:51 p.m.

Hannah . It is YOU twisting words. I have not said it is irresponsible to own a Staffie. Many of my patients have been responsible Staffie owners. Continuing to breed more of these dogs IS irresponsible when statistics are proving they are a dangerous breed. I personally as a dog lover would not want to destroy existing staffies unless they were a proven danger to society ie they had attacked and seriously injured other dog or human. I just want to illegalise the breeding of this dangerous dog in the interest of public and canine safety. The Human made the problem by creating the breed we have on our streets and I DO agree with a lot Sue has to say.

Link to this comment
Sue April 23, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.

Hannah - just read your post. As I have said to Shep just, I think the dogs who are largely responsible for any attacks on people are cross breeds, not Staffies, although they may have some Staffie in them. To get rid of these dogs, you would need a ban on mongrels, because in effect, that is what these dogs are. A ban on mongrels would wipe out about 80% of household pets in the UK. A ban on Staffordshire Bull Terriers would affect the pure bred,the "true" Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which neither you, I, or indeed the RSPCA accept is an inherently aggressive breed. So to me, it makes no sense. Having said this, I can't help thinking that at some point, things could get to the stage where a ban on all dogs of this general type might be something the government would be pressured into considering. Controlling backstreet breeding would make a lot of sense, but how you start trying to control something which is already out of control is, I have to say, beyond me. Whilst not wanting to appear flippant, if gun ownership was legal in this country, I could solve a few of these problems for the government at no cost, but it wouldn't be dogs I'd be shooting!!

Link to this comment
Sue April 23, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.

If my theory, set out in my last post is right, then I am sure that the RSPCA will be one of the first organisations to acknowledge it. From what I can glean from various sources for now, the RSPCA does not appear to think that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are inherently vicious or dangerous dogs, and they may not be in their pure bred form. However, if what I suspect is actually happening, then a lot of the dogs we see which have all the appearance of being what I could call "Staffie type" dogs may easily have had aggression deliberately bred into them to make them appealing to a certain type of person. This will of course make them potentially dangerous, but you have then also got to ask the question - are they actually Staffordshire Bull Terriers? I suspect they are something quite different. You see, I am not an expert on Staffordshire Bull Terriers and I don't know how long the breed has been in existence, but it only seems to be since the ban on Pit Bulls that Staffies have come into prominence, largely on council estates with a high proportion of residents dependant on state benefits. To my mind, these are not people who have gone to a reputable breeder and chosen their pup with care. These are people who have pushed a couple of dogs into a back yard and let them get on with it. So we don't really know what the breed background is with these dogs. I have said previously on this or one of the other forums that I don't believe that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog inherently, but I am of course referring in saying this to the pure bred variety. I would suspect that most of the dogs who attack your patients are cross breeds. Most of my clients on benefits have a "Staffie", but many can't afford to feed their kids. They havent paid good money for a pedigree dog. So when we talk about "Staffies", we may not really be talking about Staffies at all, in which case a ban on Staffordshire Bull Terriers will target only pure bred Staffies, which I do not believe are inherently aggressive and the aggressive cross breeds may well slip through the net.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 23, 2009 at 4:50 p.m.

To Shep -

"Hannah how is the dog being punished!!"
What I mean is you are punishing the breed that deserves to exist, just because a few of the dogs are aggressive all from the fault of humans. You say that stopping the breed will only be punishing to humans, but why should the responsible owners be punished? I think it is selfishness beyond belief to simply get rid of a breed. THere are thousands of people who love staffordshire bull terriers, so it is not as simple as "just get another pet".

Why do you feel the need to twist Sue's words in order to agree with your own? Sue thinks that we are in this situation mainly because of human behaviour around the dogs - because of cross breeding (humans fault), not being trained and treated properly (humans fault), because they are used as weapons (humans fault). I haven't seen you agree with any of these points so why do you say "I agree with Sue"? You think it is humans fault in a different way, which is - staffies shouldn't be bred and owned in the first place and that anyone who owns one is irresponsible for just owning one!
Sue and I believe that banning the staffie would cause no solution at all, but would only encourage thugs to turn to other breeds (GSDs Akitas Rottweilers - where will it end?) Therefor the sensible, yet long term solution, would be to sort out the disfunctional morons who use dogs as weapons. You think that there SHOULD be a ban on these dogs, and if the same thing happens to other breeds then ban them too! Your theory seems rediculous especially coming from the person who says "people opposed to the ban of staffies do not see the whole picture".

Out of the total population of staffies in the country it is extremily rare for fatal dogs attacks to occur. I think that people should be able to walk the dog of their choice. We would never be in this situation if we didn't have all the half-wits with threatening behaviour, hanging around with their "weapon" dogs on chains.

Have you ever thought about the huge number of greyhound attacks on family cats and other small mammals because they have been trained by their owners to chase and maul their victims? You never even see this in the media.

Refering to your last point - no, the RSPCA would be totally opposed to a ban on staffies and I imagine wouldn't ever consider publishing pictures of dog attacks to the public "to show how unsafe they are" - especially when they are trying to prove what wonderful pets they can make.
It is the media's job to show this type of picture on a large scale to shock, and to sell newspapers.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 22, 2009 at 10:22 p.m.

I agree with you Sue. The underlying cause is the human. The human bred the problem and needs to now stop this breed.If the same thing happens with other breeds then there will have to be a ban on these breeds too. You said innocent families may end up with one of these pups. Sadly this is what I am seeing in the operating theatre on a regular basis. The trouble is these dogs APPEAR docile family pets for years and then attack in a viscious unprovoked and as every family I have met states completely out of character way. We CANNOT tolerate a breed like this living in communities where families consider they have a safe family pet. Statistics show that this breed WILL go the same way as the pit bull. The damage to human let alone canine life is becoming too high . Nobody should be worried about this as no dogs will suffer infact many dogs lives will be saved as have been in other countries where breed bans have gone a long way to improve quality of life for both dog owners and their treasured pets.People opposed to a ban on BREED worry me. They dont seem to understand the whole picture. Maybe the RSPCA should start publishing pictures of Staffie attack victims and how their owners feel about being lied to that the breed was a safe pet in the right hands. UTTER RUBBISH

Link to this comment
Jess_loves_animals April 22, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.

I think the owner is to blame for a dogs behaviour. If you bring a dog up the right way wih plenty of love, affection and disipline the puppy will grow up into a wonderful adult dog with lots of love to give back. It isnt fair on certain breeds that get labelled 'agressive.'

Link to this comment
Sue April 22, 2009 at 10:04 a.m.

If you want an aggressive dog, (although not a person who has any personal interest in or working knowledge of dog breeding), I would imagine all you would have to do would be to take a large powerful dog, perhaps not one you would normally classify as "dangerous", and breed it with the most vicious animal you can lay your hands on. As I say, I don't know what the outcome would be, but I would imagine the pups would be a mixed bag, with some being fairly docile, but the odd one having the mean streak you bred it for. Then when that pup is older, you can breed it with another vicious dog. Maybe Mags you can help me with this - what would be the outcome? You see, I suspect that this is what has been happening to Staffies. They don't look dissimilar to the outlawed pit bull, and they have the same jaw strength, so they are the obvious second choice for the same thugs who used to strut around with a pit bull. And pit bulls are still around. I seem to recall that when the legislation to ban pit bulls was introduced, there were all sorts of legal arguments about when a pit bull is a pit bull, and when it is a cross breed. Could the practice of trying to breed pit bull characteristics into the formerly fairly docile Staffordshire Bull Terrier account for the increasing incidents of aggression being widely reported in the media these days? You see, Staffies have been around for decades, but you rarely heard about a Staffie attacking children, then suddenly the pit bull gets banned, and Staffies all over the country turn vicious! Is it me, or are there others out there who feel that Staffies are being deliberately targeted by pit bull enthusiasts? The awful thing is that if this is actually happening, then any innocent family with young children could end up with one of the pups, not really being aware of the breeding history. Scary stuff!!!! If you then ban Staffies, what will it be next, the GSD again, the Rottie, the Bull Mastiff, the Japanese Akita? This madness will never end until you deal with the underlying causes, which sad to say are human.

Link to this comment
Mags53 April 21, 2009 at 8:04 p.m.

shep1 - I think that you should punish the deed not the breed. I know of many people who have kept bull breeds and guarding breeds (GSDs included) and they have been gentle and loveable pets. I also think that many of the dogs that turn on humans have been badly bred and used by the humans in their lives. I can remember the time before Rotties/Staffies, etc. were the "demon" dogs and GSDs (Alsations as they were then called) were the ones causing problems, usually because they were trained to attack - aka police dogs. Having said all of that, I help to run a training class and I must say that I find the stare that you get from Rotties/Staffies, etc. a little unsettling - like being stared at by a shark, you often cannot read what they are thinking of doing next.

Link to this comment
ArcheyTheGreat April 21, 2009 at 7:18 p.m.

But dogs can change, although it's natural for some dog breeds to be vicious. As long as you treat the dog nicely it may change, a whole breed of dogs should not be banned just because a few of them are viciuos and the reason of that maybe because they weren't cared for properly.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 21, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.

Hannah How is a dog being punished!! Stopping the breeding of dangerous breeds of dog only actually punishes PEOPLE. The people who want to own a dog of a breed that has been banned. Pit Bulls wernt punished were they .For Goodness sake its JUST a breed MADE by MAN. There are hundreds of other safe breeds out there to choose as a pet. I agree with Sue that we shouldnt be breeding anymore puppies whilst there are so many unwanted dogs around but if people want this then lets at least breed dogs that arnt killers !!!

Link to this comment
ArcheyTheGreat April 20, 2009 at 8:31 p.m.

Like Hannah67 I do aswell believe the dogs should not be punished, although their act of violence could be both the dog's nature and how the owner(S) care for it.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 20, 2009 at 5:02 p.m.

I still believe that dogs should not be the ones who are punished which would be the easy option. This country will continue to be a mess when it comes to staus dogs etc.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 17, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.

like you so rightly stated dogs dont breed dogs people do.The human created the problem of dangerous dogs and the human must now address it .This is why we have a dangerous dogs act

Link to this comment
shep1 April 17, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.

Sue; I agree with you on some points . Most importantly that yes human created the problem and it will be human who ends it. The answer is simply that in view of the breed characteristics of the staffie falling into the same catergory as the outlawed pit bull there is an immediate ban on any further breeding. I agree that it makes no sense to continue breeding dogs when supply outweighs demand too

Link to this comment
Sue April 17, 2009 at 2:32 p.m.

Shep - one thing I forgot to agree with you on, and that is that eventually, I do think Staffies will end up following in the footsteps of the Pit Bull and being classified as dangerous, and possibly ultimately being banned. I am not saying that I would agree with a ban, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter a great deal what I think. Given free rein, there are many things in this country I would ban, but dogs are fairly low priority on my list. I do think the root problem is human. I suspect, because of what I see in my own immediate area, that there are certain people who are seeking to promote the Staffie as the next Pit Bull, and who are breeding them indiscriminately without any knowledge, understanding or in fact concern about the end result. I still see pit bull type dogs around, and again, this is only my suspicion, but I think there has been some cross breeding going on so as to breed some of the pit bull aggression into Staffie type dogs. Havent you noticed that there is a growing number of Staffie X breeds around? These are not really Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and I assume those who talk about Staffies in general mean purebred Staffies, which is the type my family once owned. Young thugs seem to like their dogs with attitude, and I have seen Staffie type dogs being walked around with scars suggesting that they have been used for fighting. It is because of these observations that I suspect you are right about the inevitability of a ban at some point in the future. But I do not agree that these dogs are inherently aggressive as a breed. If they are, then they have always been this way, so why has there been such a marked increase in the incidence of attacks in recent years? No, I think if these dogs are evolving to become more aggressive, it is because some sub-human element in our society wants it that way, and that the dogs are being cross bred with the sole purpose of emulating the pit bull. Then when these dogs are bred on, depending on the hands they fall into, then it may be that some innocent owners will get a nasty shock. But dogs don't breed dogs, people do.

Link to this comment
Sue April 17, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.

Shep - No, I have never owned a Staffie. Close family members have, and they had him from a pup till he died of old age in a home with young children. He was a fabulous pet and they never saw an ounce of aggression in him. I do accept that once a Staffie becomes aggressive, it will, if it bites, inflict far more serious injuries than most other breeds of dog simply because of the power in its jaws, which I would imagine is similar to that of the outlawed pit bull. As for a ban, we have bans on a lot of things, yet I still see pit bulls being walked around, I still see and hear about people carrying knives, we read of shootings almost every day. Bans are only ever as good as the will to enforce them. I do not oppose the idea of tight restrictions and control on the breeding of dogs generally, because as I have said previously, the supply outstrips the demand by a long way. This may well reduce the number of attacks you have to deal with. There are those who argue that Staffies are an inherently aggressive breed, but the fact remains that by far the vast majority of these dogs are living perfectly harmoniously in families all over the UK as family pets. We don't get to read about the millions of gentle Staffies in good homes because these don't sell newspapers. You only ever read about Staffies when there is a problem. You are on the front line when this particular problem arises, so obviously, you see more of it than the average Joe. I work in family law, but just because I deal with the fallout from dysfunctional families all day every day doesn't mean that these represent the norm in society. Bad news always travels faster than good, and if the media was to be taken seriously, we wouldn't go much further than our front doors would we? Bans on things don't always provide the answer, you ban guns, people use knives, you ban knives, people use screwdrivers, glass, anything. You ban Staffies, Rotties or Bull Mastiffs will become the new Staffie, just as the Staffie is gaining a reputation as the new Pit Bull. Then people will be shouting for a ban on these breeds. Where will it end?

Link to this comment
shep1 April 16, 2009 at 10:37 p.m.

For Goodness sake !! Sue, Hannah ; Its about BREED. Hardly any of my patients have had their injuries inflicted by dogs that have been badly treated or live on council esteates where thugs use their dogs as weapons. Infact in the last 3 years I can only recall one such case. You two are deluded if you think the blame lies with the owners. I operate on the owners of these dogs and can assure you they are not thugs who train aggression into their dogs. They are victims of buying a breed that shudnt be for sale. You have NO evidence to support your ridiculous claims. This breed of dog WILL be banned as was the pit bull. The sooner the better. I would imagine neither of you have ever owned one

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 16, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.

To Sue - Sorry I normally try not to generalise people like that. So I do agree, of course there are plenty of decent people who live in council estates and the other places I mentioned too. (I was just trying to give ideas of different types of areas). I think there could be a lot more done by the individual county councils to help certain areas, which do happen to have these types of problems. In my opinion this is a very tricky subject, and there doesn't seem to be any easy answers, especially when peoples opinions on this differ so greatly. If we do come to any sort of conclusions, which would be in favour of these dog breeds, then I can only imagine that it would take years to get back to how is was in your grandparents time. I do hope that they don't go for the simple easy answer which would be to ban the breeds, it just wouldn't make any sense. It wouldn't help crime, it wouldn't make any difference.

Link to this comment
Sue April 15, 2009 at 2:04 p.m.

Hannah - you make an interesting point. I live next to a council estate. I don't mean to come across as snobbish here, because I was raised in a council house and my grandparents lived on a council estate. They were respectable people and there is no shame in living on a council estate. The problem these days is that we live in a different culture, where drug and alcohol abuse and violent crime are becoming daily news. I don't know if it is just my perception, or if councils have a deliberate policy of concentrating problem families in one place. By doing this, ghettos are created where even the police are reluctant to venture after a certain time of night. Experience has shown that violence breeds violence, and if you put like minded people together, you end up with thugs competing for status, with the most violent literally beating their path to the top of the pecking order. You get gangs, you get drugs, you get knife crime, you get protection rackets and the family dog is far from being exempt from the cycle of abuse. The difference with the family dog is, it doesn't have a voice, it can't complain, it can either suffer abuse in silence, or it can attack with the only weapon at its disposal - its teeth. When this happens, humans are up in arms, blaming the dog without considering the environment and its effect on the dog. This may be because we have become much more tolerant of the dysfunctional society we live in, and which in my grandparents' day was almost unheard of - as incidentally were dog attacks. Interesting coincidence?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 14, 2009 at 5:19 p.m.

Shep - I do agree some what - there is no denying that there is a problem with dog attacks in certain areas. But, what sort of areas are these? Council estates in London, cities, and mainly areas with low quality of lives. Now think about what sort of people we have in these areas, why they chose certain dogs breeds, and how these dogs seem to act more aggressivly than they do any where else.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 14, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.

Sue - Like I have mentioned before, it is very unfortunate for those who have had or seen pain inflicted by dogs, and it must be difficult for those people to have any trust in those breeds. Fortunatly, not all dogs are "killers", and dogs attacks which seriously maim are rare, and by far a lot less common than human attacks i'm sure! I find it very sad that a lot of staffies are treated the way they are. Owned by thugs, treated badly, either killed, dumped or left to an animal shelter, only then to be seen as aggressive dogs by a lot of people all through no fault of their own. To have a complete ban would be a serious blow to all the people who genuinley love these dogs as a breed, it would obviously not solve anything either. When will a lot of people and the government truely realise who are to blame! I wonder what will come of the Status Dogs Summit which wil be held this summer (I think). If you look on politics.co.uk, it has a bit on info on this.

I think I'll be blogging on this thread til I know I've got all my points across!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 14, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.

To Shep - do you believe that dogs aggression lies with its owners, or do you think it is down to the breed of the dog?

Link to this comment
Sue April 14, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.

Shep1 - obviously we all have different life experiences, and I have to respect your professional experience in dealing with victims of dog attacks. My professional experience is in family law so I get to see the dysfunctional family set ups where very often, in addition to the feral children, there is an equally feral family pet. The pet, like the children, is a victim of circumstance and has all the potential to turn bad. I do not believe that anybody breeds a Staffie or a Rottweiler "to kill". For the backstreet breeders it is to supplement their benefits income and nothing else. For the responsible breeders, it may well have more to do with an interest in the breed. My view is that since the availability of all breeds of dog far outweighs the demand, we don't actually NEED to breed ANY dog. Banning them is another matter, which ignores the fact that most Staffies who are lucky enough to fall into the right hands make wonderful family pets. You could extend that argument to any breed of dog, and you can certainly extend it to people. Most violent adults who go on to kill and rape and maim at some stage in their lives have come from bad homes or been subjected to some sort of abuse, and the same applies to dogs. There will always be exceptions to the general rule, but on the whole, the pattern is well established. David Grant feels (as do I) that we need to deal with the cause, and not just the symptoms. That is what I believe Hannah was getting at in her last post about "getting rid of the guns". She wasn't being silly. She was making a valid point.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 13, 2009 at 11:40 p.m.

Staffies and Rotties are 'Fab' at disfiguring children and ruining families lives. Same as the Pit bulls and any other dangerous breeds.When will you people realise there is NOTHING good about PRESERVING a breed when we are talking about family pets savaging humans and indeed other breeds of dog who dont have these instincts in them . And YES I would say get rid of the guns AND the criminals that use them . Lets not be silly this is a serious subject and as usual the do gooders have their priorities upside down. If you saw what injuries are inflicted for life on innocent dog lovers who loved and cared for their attackers you still wouldnt change your views because none of you want to admit MAN got it wrong BREEDING killers for pets. A TOTAL ban on ALL dangerous breeds is needed now. Non dangerous breeds dont have the function to tear flesh in the way of the dangerous breeds.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 12, 2009 at 9:34 p.m.

To shep 1 -
Situation - idiots with obvious upbringing problems running loose on council estates with guns, threatening and killing inocent neighbours.
I can imagine your solution would be "get rid of the guns".

Link to this comment
Hannah67 April 12, 2009 at 9:31 p.m.

To shep1 - Staffies and rotties etc make wonderful family pets and are fab with children. Listen to the interview with David Grant. It is common knowledge that dogs/puppies, just like children, adapt to their environment. You seem to have little knowledge on this and should realise that "banning bull breeds" is not the answer - facial surgeon or not!!

This is such an obvious argument. You mention that these breeds are "bred to kill", but what type of people do you think breed for these reasons - thugs who want to use them for weapons! Do you think that responsible dog owners breed for these reasons? So there you go - answer in a nutshell.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 12, 2009 at 1:10 a.m.

the only answer is to STOP breeding bull breeds and any other killer breeds . Nobody or no dog would be scared for life dead or disfigured by most breeds of dog. Even a complete bastard couldnt turn a non killer breed into a staffie , Rottweiler, Sharpe, ETC. Lets just breed dogs that would do as pets now and end the sufferrring to other dogs and humans

Link to this comment
lyonesse April 11, 2009 at 2:23 a.m.

how many times do I see dog owners with a dog that does not match their lifestyle its untrue. I think buying dogs for the wrong reason such as looks and status should be monitored to prevent pet cruelty. For example how many bull breed dogs I see these days in young lads hands walking around as some type of status symbol possibly worse it really makes me angry. These types of dog owners purchasers should be targeted for monitoring. If you watch ceasr millan it just shows you that dogs have an aggressive side but only when it comes to dominance and it does not last for long usually any dog exibiting really aggressive behaviour in my eyes has been trained to be that way with a tiny enhancement by breed characteristics.

Link to this comment
ChloeR649 April 10, 2009 at 3:31 p.m.

Dogs are completly not to blame! When the owner first picks up or buys that dog, the dog is like anyother dog, happy, healhy and wanting love and guidence. But then the owner teaches it things which the poor dog doesnt know is wrong, like biting, scratching, tearing flesh...basicly dog fighting. This type of behavior is unacceptable in modern society and will not be tolerated. The dog doesnt know any better and this dog fighting starts to be the only thing it associates in its poor life. But when people look at these dogs they think that it is the dogs fault! But if you remember back at the start when it was just that tiny, helpless lttle puppy, it didnt know that its cruel owner would turn it into a fighting, biting, dog killing machine...Owner or dog...The owner is to blame.

Link to this comment
claireprefersanimals April 9, 2009 at 4:42 p.m.

Animals are like kids they need rules.
If a animal goes astray its failed pet ownership.
Of course its the idiot owners fault.

Link to this comment
shep1 April 8, 2009 at 10:40 p.m.

I think some people are losing sight of what matters. When a dog is bred to kill there are consequences. As a facial surgeon unfortunately I see the damage that dogs can cause. In recent years there has been an increased amount of injuries inflicted to humans from staffordshire bull terriers. The way this breed of dog tears tissue results in permanent damage and believe me if you were to see the photographs of these injuries you would not be ranting on about preserving a BREED. I am a dog lover and this is reason enough to ban breeds when the cost to human life is getting too high. This is what happend with pit bulls and rightly so. Although we still treat pitbull attacks they are very rare. The Staffie will be banned. The BNA had a huge say in the pit bull ban and is gathering statistics now for the staffie ban. My collegues and patients have rights ,our dogs have rights but a

Link to this comment
Naturegirl April 8, 2009 at 7:09 p.m.

Sue will you look at my Puppy trafficing comment.(You will find that its a very good speach.)

Link to this comment
Sue April 8, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.

May I suggest, with the greatest of respect to all the views expressed on this forum, that you go to the video diary and listen to what David Grant, vet and director at Harmsworth Hospital for animals has to say on this subject. His comments are both relevant (because of his obvious experience) and intelligent, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. I have submitted a number of posts on this forum. I know that certain people support a ban on Staffies, and I understand why, even though I do not agree that this would end the problem. There have been some well reasoned, balanced and intelligent views expressed on the forum, but for every one of these, we get half a dozen of the other kind, and we end up going round in circles and getting nowhere. What I said in my last post sums up what I see every week of my working life. From the day a dog is born, its life is in the hands of humans, just like a human baby. The environment will determine the dog's development just as it would determine a human child's course through life. These are the "underlying causes" which David Grant talks about in the video, and unless and until these are addressed, none of the issues discussed on this forum will ever be resolved and we will just end up being a talking shop.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 31, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.

To jojojo -

"staffies should be banned like pit bulls. The damage they caused in last two years is the same as the damage pit bulls were when they were banned."

What will happen if staffies are banned? What breed will be used next as weapons? What happens in the next few years when a these next breeds (eg alsations) becomes "status dogs"?

I think everyone here needs to look out for and read up about "the status dogs summit" in june.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 31, 2009 at 5:48 p.m.

The problem is most certainly not the breed but the moronic thugs who think that abusing an animal and making that animal confused, angry & aggresive - somehow makes them (thugs) more tough or manly.

Link to this comment
Rocketcatz March 29, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.

It all boils down to the owner, you cannot blame an animals instincts. You need to know how to handle the specific type of dog you have, bringing it up thinking it will sort itself out just goes to show human ignorance is to blame.
It doesn't really matter what breed it is. Never trust a dog no matter how well you think you know it, never leave it alone with children.
I think that because Dogs are able to be abused and used as a weapon in themselves, there should be licenses for ownership. Dogs are like guns with a personality, in the wrong hands they can cause a lot of damage.

Link to this comment
jojojo March 29, 2009 at 11:25 a.m.

Ive been snapped at and growled at by many breeds of dog too but believe me when pit breeds attack theres no warning no growling and once their powerful jaws lock no escape from near death. we were very lucky with my neice but the surgeon at the hospital where she was treated explained that we got the dog off just before the jaw locked and had he manage to lock on which is a breed capability she would have been shook around for a long time .He said he had seen many patients disfigured by this breed in recent times and by no means was it due to the owners . This was what made me realise i had to have my dog destroyed which was hard because i loved her. Ive heard of people blaming humans for dogs behaviour but its not the case with pit breeds.I can see why nasty people are attracted to them but I dont think its fair on other breeds of dog or families to lose their lives or be disfigured because some so called dog lovers want to preserve a breed that is as one person on this site has stated damaging our communities

Link to this comment
twitchyme March 28, 2009 at 4:56 p.m.

l have to say l am still sceptical that it is a natural thing for any breed to attack without reason, there are thousands of these dogs that do not attack anyone living to old age. lve had dogs for 5oyrs, alsation, whippet
springer spaniel, collie, all lived to old age and never bit anyone, the whippet snapped at my brother, because he was drunk, stupid and in the dogs face. Sometimes children can pull, nip, poke, hurt a dog, and some will turn,and snap, so we need to watch any dog when in the company of children. l have seen so many aggressive dogs, with owners that have trained or encouraged them to be that way.
Sorry for your niece, but still believe that any breed of dog can be brought up to be good natured.

Link to this comment
jojojo March 28, 2009 at 3:55 p.m.

staffies should be banned like pit bulls. The damage they caused in last two years is the same as the damage pit bulls were when they were banned. I had to have my staffie put down when it attacked my neice.It had shown no aggression before towards people but i couldnt trust it after my neice was scarred for life.Im in favour of the ban and wish people were told beforehand that pit breeds no matter what people say were bred to kill and that instinct doesnt leave them. I also have a yappy jack russell

Link to this comment
twitchyme March 28, 2009 at 3:34 p.m.

Of course there are dogs that have more of an instincts to chase, hunt, snap, bite, and kill than other dogs. Some small dogs like jack russel and yorkies can be quite agressive and nippy, l have personally only been nipped twice both times jack russels,l have owned a whippet and love the breed, very affectionate, but like greyhounds have a chase and bite instinct,. But generally big or small it is how the owners treat and train them, l have known friendly placid staffies, akitas rotties,alsations, unfortunately for the staffy it is the choice of the rough and moron elament also, now way ahead of the rottie and alsation, l live on the edge of a council estate and it is by far the most commonly seen dog, some are ok, some not. As we know many are crosses and used for illegal fights, they have a miserable existence, an extention of the aggressive people and attitude in society.
So if these people could not own and train a staffy to be aggressive, hunt, fight, kill, would they give up with dogs alltogether, dont think so, they would just choose a different powerful breed to do the same, be it a rottie, doberman, alsation, akita, boxer, all manner of large dogs can be trained or illtreated into being aggressive, attack, injure and kill.
So are we going to ban all these breeds also, and why do the majority have to be frequently penalised for the behaviour of the minority, in all walks of life, its giving in and letting the idiots and morons decide laws.
l do think the law about keeping a large dog muzzled in public should be enforced, tough again of the harmless dogs, and again very difficult to enforce law amongst the lawless.
If these dogs do attack and harm, or kill, put the owners in jail, not just kill the dog.
l guess this will be classed as a childish rant also, but the rspca state its the owners.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 22, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.

Shep - I hope this is not a "childish rant" too. This blog is share views on whether aggresive behaviour lies with the owner or the dog. The RSPCA believes that it mostly lies with the owner. I don't understand that when people don't like what they hear they start accusing people of being "childish"! It is just a way to side-track from the arguement.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 22, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.

ps - the rspca has a huge say in what happens with animals in relation to government policies, therefor I believe (and hope) that this breed will never be wiped out. It is also not in many peoples interests for this to happen. If it was, then they would be long-gone by now! If we change people attitudes towards these dogs (as in not using them as weapons, then this will greatly cut down the majority of dog attacks, so that is what we need to do. This is what the RSPCA believes, as does the government.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 22, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

Trust me Poppy, I do think of ALL dog's welfare, it is part of my job. Poppy, why don't the people that live in your area stop owning this breed as there is obviously a problem with peoples attidudes towards this breed. It sounds to me like they do not know how to treat these dogs properly and give them the correct training that they need. Do they have any common sense?

Shep- being a facial surgeon must mean that you do see a lot of various accidents and dog attacks. This must be hard for you. You must be intelligent enough to realise that just because you might see this on a weekly basis (or whatever), its not as common as you think (considering how many staffies and people there are in this country!!)

Link to this comment
poppy2007 March 21, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

Shep I agree with everything you say and I hope youre right that this breed will go the same way as pitbulls. I only logged on to say I heard of a dog this morning that almost killed a little dog last week in the park. Both the little dog and the staffie were on leads but the staffie wasnt muzzled and the jaws locked and it took 3 grown men to beat the dog.This is what happens when man breeds and sells to the public an animal thats inbred instinct is to fight to kill. Hannah instead of bleating on about preserving breed why not think of dogs welfare.Our dogs arnt safe because this breed hasnt been bannede under the dangerous dogs act.

Link to this comment
shep1 March 20, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.

A breed doesnt have rights and the government is responsible for legislation not the RSPCA. I thought we were having an intelligent conversation about dangerous dogs not some childish rant. You work in animal welfare . Im a facial surgeon and believe me this breed WILL be banned as the figures for serious injury to human life from this breed have risen considerably of late. The breed will go the same way as other fighting breeds have gone mark my words

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 20, 2009 at 7:44 p.m.

Shep, I am here to defend a breed which has its rights. I have worked in animal welfare for several years and do see the ins and outs of staffies and other bull breeds. It is a shame that a lot of people's views are tainted only by the bad press that they have seen in the media.
Staffies are wonderful dogs with adults, children and other pets if they are trained properly. But can be dangerous in the wrong hands. This is why it is so important to educate people correctly on this subject, rather than diminishing a breed. There have been a record of about 4 deaths by staffies in about 8 years. And by the looks of it the people that owned the "guilty" dogs seem to be the "council estate thugs" type.
This breed will never be made "extinct" by not breeding, the RSPCA would not allow this, and there is not big enough reasons for it. If they really were as dangerous as people make out, then they would also be banned from this country! Anyway, staffies rule! I hope to rescue one from a shelter when I myself have suitable accomodation.

Link to this comment
shep1 March 18, 2009 at 11:22 p.m.

personally I feel Poppy has some very valid points. There is no reason to carry on breeding any dogs that have to have aggression traits continuously trained out of them. Too many family pets are victims of a breed problem . The only answer is to stop breeding them. It would be no great loss for a few aggressive breeds to be erradicated. As for euthanising those in Shelters it would depend on whether they could be rehomed to people who were prepared to see a dog psycologist and learn how to train the breed out of the dog. This is possible but is an ongoing commitment for the dogs life and does take a lot of enjoyment out of what should be a happy experience. I have seen the heartache these dangerous breeds of dog cause. Its time something was done to protect mans best friend and I dont understand your desire to keep breeding dogs that arnt happy if they cant fight to kill.You can see that pit breeds are not fulfilled just being family pets. They were always bred to kill.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 15, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.

Yes it should be addressed soon. So many staffies end up in shelters because of people owning these breeds who do not know how to train and look after them properly. Though Poppy's solution to this is to "stop breeding the staffies (and rottweilers), and to euthanise all staffies which are in shelters, and completely irradicate the breed". She also said that she doesn't see why this solution would bother anyone. I completely disagree with everything she has said.

Link to this comment
shep1 March 13, 2009 at 11:42 p.m.

I dont think its about making a staffie look good or bad . It is correct to refer to the function of a breed when discussing the reason for aggression in some dogs. In the case of pit breeds aggression needs to be trained out of the dog by its owner. Sadly most people who own these breeds do not realise how much work they need to put into them.It is why so many of them end up in shelters and even when they are rehomed very rarely do people get told that the aggression that comes with being a pit breed needs training out of them in an extremely intense way. We all lead busy lives and unless we are a 'caeser Milan' type this is not a good choice of dog. Personally I would opt for a more managable breed that I can relax with and not worry but they seem to be getting more and more popular with all except those who have been on the receiving end of their jaws! Its a problem that should be adressed soon.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 8, 2009 at 9:23 p.m.

Thanks shep, I understand what your saying. Though the terms "pit breed" or "working dog" is more the function/group type of the dog. Technically a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a "bull" dog in the terrier group. I was arguing Poppy's point of "A staffordshire bull terrier is one of the pit breeds of dogs actually. FACT"
She was almost trying to hide the fact that the Staffie is a terrier breed, and naming it only as a "pit breed" thus trying to make the staffie look bad, again.

Link to this comment
shep1 March 8, 2009 at 2:03 a.m.

pit breeds are fighting dogs . The pit is where they fight and indeed the staffordshire bull terrier is one of the named pit breeds mentioned in the dangerous dogs act although it is not a banned breed. It is a term used to describe a dogs characteristics as in when we call border collies a working breed. Hope that answers your question

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 1, 2009 at 7:17 p.m.

Poppy - Please clarify what a "pit breed" is.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 March 1, 2009 at 7:09 p.m.

The staffordshire bull terrier is a member of the terrier group. What is a "pit breed"??
I have to say I have never heard of this.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 28, 2009 at 10:18 p.m.

A staffordshire bull terrier is one of the pit breeds of dogs actually. FACT

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 27, 2009 at 6:19 p.m.

The stafford is a "terrier" breed, not a "pit" breed.
I have been in animal welfare for a large part of my life now, and disagree that I am letting my "loving heart" rule. Yes i love animals, but because I have been in this industry for a long time now, I do see all sides of everything that happens with this particular type of breed.

Where have you looked into this breed? In the bite register? By reading bad press in the newspapers? By speaking to the locals in the park of a community where there is obviously a problem with peoples attitudes towards dogs? And not to mention your unfortunate own experiences. So how can YOU have an overall view of a breed that you have only had bad experiences with? Do you even realise that 99.99% of these dogs don't ever attack, and have good lives living in places where people will look after them with the love that they deserve?

Staffies also get on great all types of dog. So no it would not be fair on other breeds to irradicate the staffie.

There were approximately 6.8 million dogs in the UK in 2004 and 60.2 million people. During 2004 there were 350 convictions under section 3.1 of the DDA involving ‘injury’ to a person. The number of dog BITES per year is not centrally recorded.
During a six year period from 1999 to 2004 there were on average 2.3 fatalities a year due to being bitten or struck (data was not separated from 2001)by a dog compared to 63 people who died from suffocation due to a plastic bag in 1999, 77 fatalities due to falling from a ladder in 2000 and 20 people who died as a result from being thrown from an animal in 2003.
In 2004 there were no fatalities attributed to being bitten or struck by a dog but eight people died due to hornets, wasps and bees, three people died from using powered lawnmowers and one person died from being struck by lightening. In 2005, 3,472 children were seriously injured in road traffic accidents with 141 children killed on the roads.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 26, 2009 at 9:23 p.m.

Hannah I have looked into the breed . They are a pit breed and as with the outlawed pitbull are damaging our communities. I think you are letting your animal loving heart rule your head and it is yourself that may benefit from a little more understanding of the breed. It is not fair to the other breeds of dog to continue breeding any animals that are a DANGER to others. Not the dogs fault I agree but stopping the breeding of them is not going to cause any harm to the staffies already alive its just going to improve quality of life for ALL dogs and communities they live in and more importantly save many lives long term

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 26, 2009 at 8:17 p.m.

Poppy - do not assume that staffies etc all have an "instinct to kill". This is completely untrue. What makes you think this? Because you have seen it on the news? And you have spoken to some people in the park?
Once again I need to repeat myself. Dogs such as staffies behave in such a way that reflects the people that own them and their environment.
They were originally bred for dog fighting, but were also bred for family pets and badger hunting. Poppy, you must look into the characteristics of this breed further. The only information you seem to know on the dog is all from negative press. So how does this give you a wide enough view of the breed?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 26, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.

And NO laura a westie is not a dangerous breed it is unable to pull 30 times its body weight and does not have the jaw to kill. I too have been bitten by a westie it seemed very insecure.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 26, 2009 at 5:45 p.m.

Put it this way then. Other breeds of dog may bite another dog or growl at it etc and yes that could be due to how it has been raised by the human but a dangerous breed attack on another dog is something quite different. The instinct to kill takes over all else.I dont worry so much if a dog growls or barks at my dog as this is quite often just insecurity. The dangerous dog attacks I have seen the dogs give no warning

Link to this comment
Laura H February 26, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.

Poppy - can you describe to me what a soft dog is? All dogs have the potential to hurt.

My dog was bitten by a Westie - does that mean we have to destroy that breed too? In fact some of the worst tempered and 'snappy' dogs I have seen are the small 'soft and cuddly' variety...why...because they are let away with this behaviour because everyone thinks it doesn't matter because they are too small to cause damage. But the moment a dog of a certain breed does this everyone is in an uproar.

I agree that dog attacks are distressing for everyone involved as I have been myself. But I also believe in alot of cases NOT ALL but alot of the time the human is at fault for not foreseeing a situation.
There seems to be a bit of debate on this site in regards to children being bitten but 1 of the cardinal rules is that you DO NOT leave children unsupervised with animals as they can make quick and random movements which the dog does not know how to understand so it lashes out.
i.e it makes the dog nervous and leaves them in an unstable frame of mind.

But we as humans even after all this press coverage still continue to do this!? But it's ok because we can destroy the animal and the problem is solved, right? Wrong, it solves nothing because people don't learn from it!

In regards to dog on dog attacks, dogs are animals! In the animal world, fights are how they sort out their differences but as humans this upsets us and so of course we want to prevent it. Again, I am not saying this is the case in all instances but usually when it is not, the human is at fault.

Link to this comment
Sue February 26, 2009 at 10:09 a.m.

Hannah - I totally agree with all your comments, directed at myself and Poppy. I do feel very sad that Poppy and bethany-kate have had such negative experience of this breed of dog, and you can only sympathise with their position. It must be very difficult to put something this terrible behind you and not let it colour your perceptions. I have worked in animal welfare like you. It can be a mixed bag of experiences as you will know, some heartwarming and touching, and others which make you boil over with impotent rage at the people who use animals for their own selfish ends, often with devastating effect on the animal. My work brings me into contact with dysfunctional families, and these are not always people you would call cruel - ignorant and lacking in insight yes, and it is surprising how many of them have a dog when they can't even manage their children. The dog then lives, often in filth and chaos in a home where the family has no routine for themselves, let alone the pet. Not many of these people will be seen taking the dog for regular exercise, so dog mess in the house is often something we see in Social Workers Reports. In homes where the children are physically abused, that abuse often extends to the family pet too, but even if it doesn't, the dog suffers from the same lack of stimulation as the children, and eventually if left can end up being just as dysfunctional, not to mention unsocialised and not house-trained. These dogs then need a lot of work and support before they will integrate successfully with a replacement family. Yet in many of these cases, you would not necessarily see the dog as an abused pet. As I suspect you know only too well, dogs can be very sensitive to their surroundings and the dynamics in the home. A quiet, caring and happy household will produce a more well balanced dog than the alternative I have just described. That should be common sense, but lots of people don't give it a second thought. Dogs can't tell us that they are sick of living in a pig sty, or listening to us fighting, or that the stereo on full blast is hurting their sensitive ears, or that they are desperate for a routine and going mad for want of a walk. All these things contribute to a dog's responses, and anyone who thinks they don't should never own a dog. Where Social Services become involved with the children, therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists in appropriate circumstances will be drafted in to address the psychological issues for the humans, but the dog just ends up in a rescue, or euthanised or worse with no allowance being made for the mental anguish the dog has suffered. I am a firm believer that dysfunctional dogs are the product of dysfunctional humans. Few dogs were born this way.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 25, 2009 at 9:55 p.m.

Sue – this is, as quoted by the chief vet, a problem caused by the person at the other end of the lead! I find it very sad and unfortunate that people have witnessed or been indirectly involved with a dog attack, and are not willing to see the real side of these wonderful breeds. Though I do understand it must be difficult to see the greener side.
I have always believed that all dogs are influenced by their surroundings, and the people around them. Though dogs shouldn’t be treated like humans, everyone needs to realise that they are intelligent creatures that have individual needs, feelings and personalities.
If I do ever witness a dog attack, I would never blame the poor dog, who would probably end up euthanised, all because of the way it has been brought up by humans. It’s very unfair.
I agree about the fact that many staffies are discarded in animal centres, which I have also seen, because people either want to swap them for a cuter dog/puppy, or are not able to/ or cannot be bothered with training the dog properly, which is typical of the type of people who buy them in the first place.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 25, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.

Poppy - I'm interested to know why that if so many people in your area know how "dangerous" these dog breeds are, then why are there so many in your community?
Also, why do you think that dog attacks are so popular in your area, and not popular, for example, in Sue's area, where dog attacks are practically non-existant (bearing in mind that there is a large population of these dogs where sue lives too).
I believe that my comments on abuse of staffies are not so much "childish", but very realistic. I have worked in the animal welfare industry for 7 years, and this is something that is seen on a regular basis, and is the main reason for dog attacks. As Sue states, these breeds are favoured by certain types of people because of their stocky build. They are then often subjected to "mild" abuse by the owners, which will effectively cause the dogs to react in the way the owner desires. This is of course for the benefit of the owner, who is on most occasions not interested in the well-being of their pet.

"Ive seen countless staffies being aggressive that havnt been abused" Think about what solid evidence you have for this comment. Abused can mean anything from not giving your pet the love and attention they need, to having your pet in an environment that will make them unhappy, and also failing to train your pet properly etc.

I do on the otherhand agree that releasing tigers into the neighbourhood would be ludicrous!!

Link to this comment
Sue February 25, 2009 at 3:11 p.m.

Poppy - I don't think we are going to agree on this subject, we can only respect one another's right to our own opinions. You believe, quite strongly that the Staffie is an inherently aggressive breed of dog which we should stop breeding because of what you say is the increasing incidents of attacks by them on other dogs and children, some of whom are killed as a result. You do not consider that there is necessarily a direct causal link between the aggression and the way the dog is treated by its owners, because you consider that the aggression is inbuilt into the breed to begin with.
I believe, again quite strongly I suppose, that there is always a link between canine behaviour and management, good or bad. I do not believe that the Staffie is an inherently aggressive breed. I believe that some owners who want an agressive dog are targeting them because their muscular appearance tends to project a tough image, much like that of the outlawed pit bull, which of course they cannot any longer have.
Once you have an aggressive Staffie, of course, the strength of this breed makes it a formiddable opponent compared to some other breeds. I accept that much, and I also do not see any need for them to be bred in such numbers. Nearly every advert I see in our local papers for pups for sale are Staffie pups.
But my aunt had a Staffie who was a lovely gentle dog all his life. He made a brilliant family pet, he was raised in a home with young children and he was fabulous with them. I can honestly say that I would not be put off having a Staffie because of anything that has been said about them on any of the posts on this forum. I judge people and animals as I find them. I do feel genuinely sympathetic towards people who have had negative experiences with these dogs. But I also know women who have been raped by men. I wouldn't suggest that they should go through life treating every man as a rapist because they once met one who was. In the same way I can't go through life branding every Staffie a killer on the strength of what I have read, particularly when I have personal family experience which satisfies me otherwise. And my Aunt's Staffie is not the only Staffie I have known which made a great family pet either. So I will not be joining the call for Staffies to be scapegoated and held to blame for what essentially are human failings. To echo the quote from the RSPCA Chief Vet in Hannah's post, I think you are looking at the wrong end of the lead for your solution.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 24, 2009 at 11:22 p.m.

You all need to realise theres a difference between a dog that snaps because its been abused or not trained or looked after properly and BREED.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 24, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.

Your Wikipedea Quoptes are totally irrelevant to owners of this dangerous breed who have witnessed their aggression and even more irrelevant to the owners or families of the dead and injured.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 24, 2009 at 11:17 p.m.

Sorry I meant Hannah that made those comments not Sue, Sorry sue

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 24, 2009 at 11:15 p.m.

I live in Lancashire but have connections with the north east and yorkshire where I see similar things although do not talk with dog owners on a regular basis so cannot say for sure if certain breeds are damaging communities.I do not believe that staffies are the way they are because of the way humans behave around them. most of the population of dog owners dont get it right all of the time because at the end of the day we are human and we react like humans. Unless a dog is being abused there should be no breed living within our communities that can not be civilised. if there are breeds that are unsafe around other dogs or humans it is in the interest of the whole dog population to stop breeding them. Why would anyone want to preserve a breed that is a danger to others .its like letting the tigers out of the zoos and into our neighbourhoods.ludicrous. Ive seen countless staffies being aggressive that havnt been abused and I think for you to say if a staffie is aggressive its been abused sue is far more childish than any comment bethany kate has made, . Ive met people in tears because they cant control their dogs aggression . When will they learn that staffies are NOT a breed you can make soft.Soft dogs dont kill

Link to this comment
Sue February 24, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.

Hannah67 - I like Staffies, I like all dogs. I do not want to see any popular breed die out. My comment about us not needing to breed dogs, including Staffies was more to do with the fact that I see at close hand the number of abandoned and homeless dogs languishing in kennels, and I wonder, how many of these dogs are discarded in favour of a cute puppy, which one day in turn will be discarded in favour of another cute puppy. I saw your last post describing the character of the Staffie, and I do think that it is their overriding need to please which makes them vulnerable to abuse at the wrong hands. We all have different views of what constitutes abuse. As you seem to realise, you don't have to hit a dog to abuse it. Abuse can range from overfeeding to failing to exercise, failing to train, failing to set boundaries, confusing the dog by mixed messages about what you expect from it, showing indifference, when the dog needs attention and stimulation - all these things fall short of hitting the dog, but can cause it to show aggression or disturbed personality traits. Some homes where there are constant arguments and volatile relationship dynamics can stress out a dog, even if the dog is never the direct focus of any aggression. It would affect you or I if we were constantly exposed to the people around us fighting. Abusing the dog directly by teasing, shouting, rough handling and beating will induce some sort of reaction because the dog has an instinct to defend itself, and constant use of these tactics will eventually result in a dog which is indiscriminately aggressive. But this in my view is not the normal trait of the Staffie, or any other dog. I still maintain that a dog in the right hands with the right handling is a joy to its owner for life. Their loyalty and affection is unconditional and all they want is for us to treat them well and show them how they can please us. I don't know many humans like that!

Link to this comment
#1 Doggy Lover February 23, 2009 at 6:13 p.m.

Its obvious that its the onwers fault with proper care and nice treatment dogs are loving creatures.
the other day some people i know were walking their dog and the found the dog from accross the road loose. they got its owner who came and shouted for it to come over the road when a car was coming. luckly the dog didnt go. when the cars had gone the owner walked into the road and shouted for the dog to go.

THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO TREAT YOUR DOG!!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 23, 2009 at 6:13 p.m.

Some non-bias comments off wikipedia -
Although individual differences in personality exist, there are some things that you can expect to find in the personality of every Stafford. From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog.

"No breed is more loving with its family" and it has been nicknamed the "Nanny Dog" due to their unusual affinity and affection towards children.

The breed is naturally muscular and may appear intimidating; however, because of their natural fondness for people, most Staffords are temperamentally ill-suited for guard or attack-dog training.

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier appeared in the top 10 breeds most suitable for families and especially children in a report researched and published by Southampton University in 1996[5]. This breed is highly intelligent, eager to please and very people friendly. It has a special empathy with children[dubious – discuss] and it is for this it is best known. It adapts readily to most situations making it the foremost all purpose dog. Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppies are very easy to house train.

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression".

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 23, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.

Sue - I agree with all your comments and thank you for understanding what I have been trying to say. You said "I agree we don't need to breed more Staffies". Obviously if we stop breeding staffies alltogether, then the generation of staffies that there is at the moment will eventually die out... so do you think that we should only breed these dogs in a very controlled way. The governmemt (or whoever) needs to crack down on all those that are breeding these types of dogs. They should then only be bred by registered breeders, and then very carefully sold to only the ideal owners. Obviously this would only happen in a dream world because many breeders are just in it for the money. There are so many more issues to be tackled here, not just, "ban staffies and rotties and everything will be fine".

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 23, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.

Bethany-kate - If you ever have a chance to move to a different part of the country where dog attcks are not a problem, then you will see what lovely breeds these are. You need to remember that there are many cultures, and unfortunatly, it seems like in a lot of areas it is normal for some youths and thugs to have these dogs as accessories, and to abuse them in such a way that they will become aggressive and attack. When I use the word "abuse", I am talking about everthing that Sue has mentioned, such as not showing affection towards the dog, teasing the dog, provoking the dog, not letting the dog be happy in its environment, not giving the dog the exercise they need. These are all the things that contribute to dogs being aggresive. And it is ABUSE. Bethany-kate, when you take your dog/s for a walk, and you see a staffie or other breed acting aggresive, it is because it has been ABUSED. And for a dog lover, you should be doing all you can to help these dogs.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 23, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.

To poppy and Bethany-kate, it is quite obvious that you both live in areas where dogs are a problem. Poppy, you say that about 80% (4 in 5 people) of locals in your park have witnessed a dog attack of some kind, and many of these people have lost dogs to it. So I ask, why do people IN YOUR AREA, still continiue to own these dogs when so many people know how dangerous they are? If around 80% have witnessed these attacks, then its inevitable that all of the people in your area know that these dogs are as bad as you say they are, because of gossip and word-spreading etc. If there are still so many of these "nasty" dogs around where you live, then surely its the people who just don't care about others that are owning the dogs, other wise why would they own them! I think you said that it is mainly "decent" people that own these dogs... but WHY, if everyone knows how dangerous they are? I don't really understand... so please could you help me understand this?
I know that staffies etc are can be dangerous. but only in the wrong hands! I wish you could see that there are so many of these dogs that are lovely and affectionate.
I'm not sure about this but, these days aren't many dogs that attack-to-kill euthanised? In which case, if all staffies attack, then why are there still thousands around. Animal shelters would not take dogs that are so dangerous that they might kill.

Link to this comment
Sue February 23, 2009 at 4:19 p.m.

Hannah, Poppy and bethany-kate - I live in North Wales. It is not a particularly rough part of the country but we have our problems, like anywhere. There are a LOT of Staffies in this area. Our local animal shelter seems to be full of Staffies, nearly every shifty looking thug you see with a dog has a Staffie. On the field where we walk our dogs, you nearly always see at least one Staffie, sometimes more. Staffies definitely seem to be a popular family pet compared to other breeds here. Yet, although you occasionally get complaints about dogs here, they are nothing compared to your situation bethany-kate. Our local animal rescue does warn potential adopters that some of its Staffies are not suitable to be rehomed with young children, sometimes other dogs and cats, unless they know otherwise. Where the Staffie has come from a home where it has been fine with children and other pets, obviously they say so, but if they don't know, it is safer to err on the side of caution. Staffies are definitely gaining a reputation. Lots of people seem to be abandoning Staffies, but the sort of aggression you have witnessed bethany-kate does not really seem to be typical of what is happening in other parts of the UK. Hannah makes a valid point, if you live in a part of the country where a particular problem, like knife crime, is prevalent, you tend to see it as a national trend, because it is all around you. If you live in a leafy suburb somewhere where everyone is friendly and you can go to bed at night without locking your doors, you can be in for quite a culture shock if you visit an area where you are likely to get mugged for your bag of chips or the few coins in your purse. There is plenty of crime where I live, but it is mainly drug and alcohol related, and we don't hear too much about local children being killed by dogs. In some areas, children are more likely to be killed by members of their own family, or on the roads, depending on where you are fortunate or unfortunate enough to be living. We all respond according to our environment, as in fact do dogs. All I can say is that I feel for bethany-kate, and what she has been through, also Poppy. I am very lucky that this has never happened to me, or to anyone I know. I would mention that my brother lives in the Liverpool area, and from things he tells me, animal cruelty seems to be more widespread there than it is in my part of the world, or maybe it is just more visible because it is a heavily populated area where people live on top of each other. I do disagree with some things said on the posts I have read, but we all have to respect each other's opinions, even if they differ from ours. We have all seen different things and have different perspectives. I agree we don't need to breed more Staffies. I just think we don't need to breed dogs at all when so many are languishing in kennels without homes.

Link to this comment
Laura H February 23, 2009 at 9:46 a.m.

I think what needs to be understood here is that as much as we love our pets any dog of any breed is an animal and capable of causing injury when provoked or scared. All dog owners need to be aware of this.
Staffies seem to ne mentioned alot in this discussion but does anyone think perhaps the reason why they are in the press alot is because there is such a high number of them and unfortunately with the wrong owners?

Bethany Kate - When these attacks happen are the staffies on or off the lead? If they are off then surely it is the owners responsiblity? You say that this is a man made problem so why do you then insist on punishing the breed for man's mistake?
Originally this breed was bred for bull baiting but did you know that they are also known to be highly intelligent with a deep desire to please their owners. And they were voted in the Top 10 family pets list a few years ago. Unfortunately, this need to please works against them when an owner is forcing them to be aggressive. There are so many plus's to this breed that I could not even start to list them here but because of their naturally muscular build this is probably why those unsuitable owners have them because they know the breed can perhaps look intimidiating.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 22, 2009 at 9:33 p.m.

Bethany kate - Do you see that Sue is disagreeing with what you are saying? Some of your points are fair. Some aren't. Once you have grown a little older you will see the whole picture.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 22, 2009 at 9:31 p.m.

Bethany kate - I realise that staffies are being bred a lot, and breeding should be more strict, but not cut completely out. I also understand that most injuries etc registered are by these breeds. What both Sue and I agree on is that staffies are like this because of the way humans behave around the dogs. Why do you not understand this? Staffies are so popular with a lot of people because of the way they look. I'm finding this difficult explaining this to you time and time again. Move to an area of the country where thugs do not act like this with dogs and you'll be fine.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 22, 2009 at 1:34 p.m.

POppy I agree with everything you say .You are an inspiration to me.I thank you for your comments and hope one day we can all walk our dogs without fear. Thats what being a dog lover is all about

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 22, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

SUE Thank you for your understanding.I am trying to put my point across in a more adult way in the hope that others on this site will understand the issues I am trying to raise. The human to animal cruelty you describe is something I am disgusted with,I know it goes on and Im thankful that I have not witnessed it but I feel for you if you have. The story of the poor dog wagging his tail had me in floods of tears. This is worse because us humans havnt been bred to kill .When humans do this they are sick and evil. I dont think dangerous dogs are sick and evil but like Poppy says they are damaging our communities. The blame lies with humans who created a dangerous breed. I dont see human cruelty towards the viscious dogs in the park. They seem to be decent owners.I have seen the odd chavy people with them but the behaviour of the dogs is the same if not a little bit more exciteable with the chavy types. Thanks for your comments

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 22, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

HANNAH: I live in the North west of England.Staffies, King Charles Spaniels and Yorkies are the most common breeds of dog I see out on the streets,in the vets and in the huge park and other woodland walk areas. Whenever theres staffies at the vets its always a big drama with other dogs having to be moved to other rooms at the request of the vets which we are grateful for I must admit. Funnily enough we dont see many German Shepherds around here.There are some and Ive only seen one or two off lead but they arnt damaging our communities that i can see. Theres a huge difference between a dog that snaps at another dog and the frenzied attacks that go on that you have not witnessed.Its not a bite its an intent to kill.I think the term aggression is open to interpretation and it makes more sense to discriminate between aggression and dangerous. I find it frustrating when people compare the aggressive behaviour displayed by a cocker spaniel and that of a pit breed because if you ever see it and anm sure you will there really is no comparison. I too am an animal lover and these dogs cannot help what has been bred into them. They are a man made breed. Im not suggesting we should have them all put down . Im suggesting we should stop breeding them.Try looking up Staffie breeders and compare it to another breed {I did this with cairn terriers} and you will see the hugely unnesscesary amount being bred out there.More than half of them will probably end up in shelters before they turn two.I neet many good owners of this breed. Their dogs may be muzzled but they cant get rid of them because they love them and whilst they are well trained and loved they cant trust them and so the enjoyment is lost.Its the same for owners of other dogs who cant relax when out for fear of theirs being seriosly injured or killed. I used to walk my dog four times a day and its down to one stressful one for me now. The worst damage this breed has caused is to the elderly with their little dogs. An old man near me whos shizu lost both eyes to the same dogs that attacked mine Never walks his dog anymore.That is his contact with the outside world more or less gone now. Ive met countless people in the park who have or know of people who have lost their pets to staffies and the majority of injuries inflicted on humans have been by the same breed. The bite register backs this up.I could go on and on but it wont get me anywhere.Knife crime is spreading across the country so I see no reason why dangerous dogs wont. It happened with pit bulls and history will repeat itself. Man created this problem not dog and man should do something about it before we lose another baby

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 22, 2009 at 10:18 a.m.

Poppy- I think we can agree that I probably live in an area different to you.
Somewhere in the south west.
Why do you think staffie killings are common in your area? I'm not sure
where Sue lives either, but she says she works in animal welfare/(or did, I
can't quite remember) and has never seen a killing or attack before. If you
say that 80% of people in your area have witnessed this, then I'll have to beleive
you. Do you think that this could be the type of area you live in and certain
peoples attitudes towards staffies? It's a bit like me living in london and saying
Knife-crime is everywhere in the whole country, on the same scale as it is here.
This is not true, it's just that I wouldn't know any better as I haven't lived
anywhere else. I'm just trying to understand why these sort of dog attacks happen
in your area so frequently. If staffie dogs are so common where you live, then why do
people carry on having them as pets in your area? And what are the type of people that
own them? People have them a lot as pets where I live as attacks and killings are
practically unheard of (and I'm telling the truth here).
I do understand that you have witnessed this, and to your own pet must have been awful.
I can imagine, as I love all my pets. I also love all animals, and work in animal
welfare.
Also to clear something up, I meant staffies killing people is extremily rare.
Another point- Every other day I take my sisters rottie for a walk. She is excellent
to walk and I never have any trouble. She doesn't show any aggression, and I've never
seen her growl at anything. A short while ago we were walking along the road and were
appraching a GSD, who, pulling towards us, barking and showing teeth. Our Rottie cowered
behind me and was clearly frightened, she is about 3 years old now. I know that GSD's
are wonderful dogs all the same.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 20, 2009 at 7:46 p.m.

SUE:I think you have raised some good points with Bethany Kate and believe me if she has seen a Staffie kill as I have she has every reason to want the breed banning and every right for her opinions to be heard and not called childish as one ignorant person did last week. My heart goes out to anyone who has lost their pets like this and the thought that all these lives dont count because we humans who created the breed are saying we cant end producing more of the breed does hurt me a lot. As a dog lover I feel we need to STOP breedig killer dogs now. I worked for the PDSA on a voluntary basis as a teenager and pre children and I agree with you regarding the fact humans commit the worse attrocities. That story you told Bethany Kate reduced me to tears too. Cruelty to an animal by human beings is unforgivable and there may be some humans who make their animals aggressive through cruelty. I too have seen the thugs with the staffies goading them to fight. The problem ive tried to bring to light through this site is the BREED aggression that had nothing to do with ownership. I think Bethany Kate has witnessed what I have

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 20, 2009 at 7:28 p.m.

BETHANY KATE: I do understand that once you have seen one of these aggressive dogs kill it is very very hard to not feel the way you do. I would say that you are more honest about the breed than a lot of people using this site and you seem to care for the welfare of dogs who cannot defend themselves against such dangerous breeds. HANNAH: I dont know what part of this country you live in and whether things are different where you live to where I am but Staffies killing or almost killing other dogs is VERY common here. I myself have witnessed it ,my vet has told me there have been more died than survived Staffie attacks. Id say around 80 percent of people I meet at the park have witnessed staffie attacks and many have lost dogs ,have injured dogs or injured children because of them. Once you see these dogs displaying what can only be described as an instinct to kill and start their frenzied attack it never leaves your mind. I am a grown woman and still have flashbacks now, Im scarred for life on my hands and arms,.My dog almost died infact I got on top of her to save her life but she still had almorst 100 Stitches repair to stomache and was in the operating theatre for 5 hours. My children still have nightmares of seeing me covered in blood with their pet dog in my arms.I could go on and on but the point is Ive meet dog owners every weekend who have all got similar stories and its always the same few breeds but Usually staffies .The police who dealt with me after my attack told me almost all the dogs on the bite register were staffies so no Hannah I cant accept that Staffie killings are extremely rare and I would imagine you have upset Bethany Kate with that flippant untrue comment

Link to this comment
Sue February 20, 2009 at 6:08 p.m.

Hannah67, KittyKat14 and Laura H - I agree with you all. My brother has a soft Rottie and a geriatric and soft German Shepherd. If you have read the previous posts on this subject you will see I have been challenged about this from various quarters, but I agree with you. Although certain things can trigger aggression in some dogs, most well trained, well handled, well kept dogs, whatever the breed are capable of living out their lives as family pets without any problems whatsoever. Responsible and caring owners are just as likely to have problems as anyone else, but the difference is that the kind, responsible owner will persevere to correct the problem, as it seems that you, Laura, seem to be doing. I hope your dog recovers. My dogs have been snapped at now and again during walks, it can't always be avoided, but luckily so far they have never been attacked. The dogs that snapped at them were GSD's (sorry). This could have been because the GSD's were on their leads, and my dogs were loose. One of the GSD's owners was a guy who kept his dog in the back of a transit van because he was not allowed pets in his rented home!! So the poor dog was probably frustrated as hell and itching to run free. You will be pleased to learn that he has since been rehoused and his dog is now allowed in his new house. The other three were all together, and so I suppose pack instinct takes over. I always find that dogs tend to be more aggressive towards other dogs if they are in a group. Most GSD's I have known are friendly and gentle. My fiance grew up with GSD's and never had an aggressive one.

Link to this comment
Laura H February 20, 2009 at 1:45 p.m.

As the owner of 2 German shepherds I am very aware of people perceptions of this breed and others. But what I also know is these dogs are mainly used for intimidation not because of their viciousness but because of their appearance and unfortunately this is the case for many large breeds. Both my dogs are extremely well behaved as that is the way I expect them too be, I did not go into this half heartedly and read many books and articles concerning the breed before I got them so I knew what to expect.

Both my bitch and my dog are great dogs and I feel privileged to call them mine but unfortunately not long after I had my male he was attacked by another dog through no fault of his own and since then has had a fear of other dogs which does cause him to react aggressively.

Of course I do not accept this and so he is muzzled when we are out and never off the lead. He's been to training classes although this is was more for the purposes of socialisation rather than correct anything else about him.

While I understand there are some people out there making there dogs this way I can assure you I am not one of them, I know how frightening he must look from an outside view but deep down he is just a scared dog reacting to a situation he doesn't know how to handle. Of course when this happens I correct him and through patience and determination he is slowly but surely getting better but it has been a long road and we are not all the way there yet. So I think it is unfair to blame the owner or dog unless you are completely 100% aware of what the situation is. 1 unstable dog belonging to an unsuitable owner is not enough reason to tar an entire breed, they are animals and are looking for and need our guidance but unfortunately some people are too short sighted to see this.

Link to this comment
KittyKat14 February 19, 2009 at 10:42 p.m.

I think that it depends on the owner of the dog, as any type of dog is capable of biting,or even in specific cases killing people, as all dogs decend from wild dogs such as cayotes.
However, many people that have 'dangerous dogs' look after their dogs properly and responsibly. Those people that do have aggressive dogs and do not treat them with love and respect, or even raise them to fight other dogs; this leads them to become violent to humans.
I'm open to other opinions.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 19, 2009 at 7:43 p.m.

Bethany Kate- remember that just because YOU have seen a staffie kill, this doesn't mean that it happens all the time. It is extremily rare.

Link to this comment
Sue February 19, 2009 at 10:52 a.m.

bethany-kate - it is very sad that you have witnessed such horror at such an impressionable age. I have never seen one dog kill another in all my years, many of which have been spent in voluntary animal welfare work. I have witnessed some truly horrific sights which would make you sick, but mainly these have been to do with human abuse of animals. I know that some dogs are fine with humans but really aggressive towards other dogs. People who train dogs to fight are encouraging their dogs to be this way, and in our area I strongly suspect that there is a dog fighting ring. I don't know who they are, but if I find out, I will report them to the police and the RSPCA. There is a local woodland area near our home where all sorts of people walk their dogs, including us. It is a place where we can let our dogs off lead. Our dogs (Border Collie and Greyhound X) are dogs which need to be allowed to run free. But some people on the field have really nasty dogs. I haven't come across a nasty Staffie there yet, but some of the German Shepherds are quite aggressive. We walk with one dog, a small but vociferous little terrier who is great with our dogs if her owner lets her off the lead, but once she is back on her lead, she turns aggressive towards them. Maybe she feels vulnerable once she is restrained. In the wild, dogs fight for territorial rights and to assert themselves in the pack hierarchy. This is normal behaviour. Domestic dogs still have that pack instinct somewhere in their psyche, but in a majority of domestic dogs kept as family pets, it is suppressed. Where it is not suppressed and comes to the surface, you have a dog which is not safe to have around other dogs. I am really sorry that you had to go through the experience you did, it must have been awful for you. I hope you never have to experience anything like it again. If you go on to work in animal welfare as I have for any number of years, you will see a lot more of the other side of the coin. You will see the human brutality that brings out the worst in dogs. And you will also see mindless, sadistic cruelty which will turn your stomach, inflicted on passive, friendly dogs. I have seen footage of a dog wagging his tail as he was being butchered in a last feeble attempt to ingratiate himself to the man who killed him. That reduced me to tears of rage, and I thought I had seen most things. You have seen more than is good for someone of your tender years, but it is a cruel world we live in, and you will find over time that by far the worst atrocities in the world are committed by human beings.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 18, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.

Sue I may only be fifteen but I have seen a staffy kill a dog and seen loads of injured dogs

Link to this comment
faithrose30 February 18, 2009 at 12:54 p.m.

Its down to the owners not the dogs!!!
I own 2 alaskan malamutes and i checked out everything before we bought them and we havent had a single problem with them

Link to this comment
Sue February 18, 2009 at 12:52 p.m.

Pennkate - I like your idea about anyone wanting to own a dog having to undertake a course/training and Galadriel, I agree with everything you say on the subject too. You would not be allowed loose on the roads without passing your driving test after all. But, how would anyone keep track of everyone who owns a dog, or who had been on a course? A lot of the sort of people we would probably agree should not be allowed anywhere near a dog are also the sort of people who have no regard for their obligations under the law (or indeed for the dog itself). They will casually buy a dog in the local pub and nobody is any the wiser. If stopped by anyone official they would deny ownership of the dog. Unless the dog is microchipped (and the microchip has been kept updated) you would never be able to conclusively prove ownership one way or the other. I am a lawyer, so I know that whenever someone is prosecuted, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. That is quite a heavy burden of proof, so laws have to be watertight or they are unenforceable. An unenforceable law is a nonsense as most sensible people will appreciate. But there must be somewhere a workable variation on the theme you suggest, because most of the "problem" dogs are the result of bad management. This is not necessarily because the owners are cruel, they may simply be ignorant or inadvertent. Lots of people have no idea how to relate to dogs. You can't apply human logic to dog behaviour. It does not compute. You have to understand DOG. I also agree with Cambstreasurer and Pennkate that dogs are affected by their surroundings, and their background. When I first got my greyhound X from the rescue, she would cower under the table and cry when I got out the dog lead. That is not normal dog behaviour. She was making an association, and for her, the lead meant something bad, something that scared her. Clearly some previous owner (she was picked up by the dog warden as a stray) had been hitting her with a dog lead or a chain. Now when we get her lead out she comes to us and sits down with her tail wagging madly to have the lead put on. Her lead now means fun and walkies. This goes to show how dogs respond to their treatment by humans, and anyone who thinks that this treatment is somehow the fault of the dog is plainly misguided and not very bright.

Link to this comment
Pennkate February 18, 2009 at 11:50 a.m.

Cambstreasurer is correct, dogs are very much affected by their surroundings and will react accordingly. I have 1 rescue dog who hides if things get noisy around the house. The other gets overexcited and starts prancing around, and as he is very large it becomes a problem.

I have owned dogs for years and have had all sorts of different types. We've owned a Dobermann, a Weimaraner and a few mongrels. We had the pedigree dogs and 1 of the mongrels from puppyhood and the 2 we have now are rescue dogs. It has become clear to us that adopting a rescue dog requires a lot more effort as you don't know what has happened to the dog in the past. They are like humans, they are affected by what happens to them in childhood. My present Labrador/Weimaraner/Irish Wolfhound is a super dog but we had to have him neutered as he had obviously been trained to fight with other dogs and we couldn't walk him near other males. The males we had from puppyhood were never aggressive as we had taught them not to be. He is also very jealous of my grandchildren and we have to be vigilante when they visit, just in case. He now knows it's unacceptable but how can we know what an animal is thinking.

The people who own these 'dangerous dogs have them for status,to look rough and tough. I think no-one should own a dog until they have been through ownership courses and training.

Link to this comment
dorothy20 February 18, 2009 at 12:46 a.m.

There is no such thing as a 'bad dog'! It's the owner's of these poor unfortunate dog's who are 'Evil"!! And need educating on how to " Love and Care" for our loving and loyal dog's!! It's definetly 'not' the dog's who are aggressive, but the people who own them. And if someone is taken to court for cruelty,to any animal, they should be banned for "LIFE"!!!!!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 17, 2009 at 6:28 p.m.

Well said Galadriel!! It sometimes is the owners that need training not the dogs!! If you know your breed, they will be perfect pets!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 17, 2009 at 6:25 p.m.

Poppy - Of course everyone cares, but this site is not about greiving. You shouln't make rash judgments that because we care for the dogs, that we don't care for the very few victims and their families. Instead of just taking more interest and care in dogs "that cause no harm" (your words not mine), we need to look after the welfare of ALL dogs. Being an animal lover yourself I'm sure you know this anyway. You go on and on about "staffies ruining communities" (in my opinion this is a bit exagerated) , like I said to Bethany-Kate, killing incidences are so very rare. Think about the thousand of people each year that are killed on our roads by thoughtless drivers, who will get a few years in prison for it. Have you been up to the owners of the dogs that you see in the parks and ask them why the muzzle their staffies?
You need to realise that Staffies and rottweilers are not dangerous dogs, neither are they fighting dogs. They do have a slightly aggresive streak that can be brought out with some intimidation, and this is in their nature. These dogs are favoured by "thugs" because of the way they look, and they do not look after the dogs and they purpously bring out the aggresive streak. All dogs are the same in fact, they can all get aggresive (just like humans can). If we got rid of Staffies and rotties, then there would be another dog on the top of the "aggresive" list, such as german shepherds. These will then be in favour of the thugs. It would go around in circles.
Like with Bethany-kate, I understand that you have had a bad experience, which is why you have so much hate for these breeds. You have probably picked up all the bad things in the media as well to back up your thoughts.
For an animal lover, I'm very surprised that you would like to see the hundreds of helpless staffies in animal shelters be euthanised. And I think it's pretty obvious that this would definatly bother a lot of people! We have no right to control what breeds exist and which don't.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 17, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.

Bethany Kate - you do make interesting points. The only reason that someone has called you childish is probably because you seem to be showing very extreme one side views, showing that you are obvlivious to everything else. You should stop saying things like "my views make more sense than yours". I realise that you and possibly your family have has bad experiences with these breeds in the past, and that you obviously dislike them. But you need to reaslise that the majority of people do like the dogs, and that it is extemily rare for these dogs to kill. I think that with your own bad experience, and what you have seen in the media, that you have come to the conclusion that these breeds are BAD. You are one of the unfortunate ones that have seen dogs like this so I do understand. I believe that you and Poppy are both animal lovers, and because of this you need to both start seing the situation in a different light. It would be immoral to, as humans, irradicate a breed. This seems like a an easy way out, but isn't. The majority of staffies you see in animal shelters have been left there by indecent people who fail to look after them properly. So, if we taught people to look after these breeds properly, then we will see a fall in shelter cases. I think if staffies and rotties really were "dangerous", then something would have been done about this a long time ago.
People do buy rotties knowing that they ARE good-natured dogs. They are very well-behaved, if you give them the proper attention and training that they need, which many people are willing to do. Perhaps you and your mother could find a book on ALL dogs breeds, and you will then find non bias info on the dogs. Perhaps that your mum found an anti-rottweiler book which is where she got the info from previously? You would be able to read that rotties are good-natured with good temperaments, and are very loyal. It will probably tell you not to wind them up as well, because they may get aggitated. But don't mistake this with aggressive. I don't know where you get the idea that they all snarl either, or try to kill you if you take their food away!! Are these things that people have told you? About muzzling, rotties in general don't need muzzling, unless its for a different reason, or medical/health reason. You are right in saying that you can't easily change a dog to make it "soft", so it's best that they are well trained from when they are puppies.

Link to this comment
Galadriel February 17, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'bad' dog.

There are, however, (...amongst those of us who know what we're about with dogs)... very many bad, inexperienced or just plain stupid owners, most of whom have never learned the psyhcology of dogs or read a book on training them.

When people buy a car or a washing machine, they expect to get a handbook of some sort to help them use and maintain these machines but most people are arrogant enough to think they don't need to read up on this living , sentient being, can just buy the dog, hold a conversation with him, cuddle him occasionally, but not bother to walk him if it's raining or if owner is 'tired' after work.

Considering the way some people bumble along with their dogs, it's a wonder they are as good as they are - a testament to the intelligence of our canine friends!

There is, of course, a certain amount of truth in the fact that some breeds were bred, over many generations, to do certain work and this does often influence certain behaviours or predispositions in those breeds, but all the breeds I've come across, with the correct amount and type of exercise, correct mental attitude and behaviours from the owners and correct feeding and training routines do not develop problems.

It's mostly the owners that need the training, not the dogs and what's more, the dogs are quicker and easier to train!

I've had dogs all my life and love, respect and understand them enough to allow them to actually be dogs, not small furry people!

I still talk daft to mine, but that's for MY benefit, not his! I don't talk daft when he knows he's 'on duty' though - daft talk is for down time!

Galadriel
x

Link to this comment
marion231960 February 17, 2009 at 2:51 p.m.

Hi, I got a lot of experience in my life with dogs and I must say every dog can be made aggressive is it a big Rottweiler or a small Yorkshire Terrier. It's always the fold from unknown and inexperience owner when a dog became aggressive. So it would be a good idea, so it's a new law in Germany, that everybody who wants to buy a puppy or elderly dog should make a license for a correct handling and caring for a dog. But I must say too that I had never seen before in Germany so a lot of friendly dogs as in UK. Then here in Uk they have a lot more Environment with a lot of space where they can play together,and that's fine then that's a point what a dog needs to have. So please don't blame with the dogs please blame with the inexperience owners. NO DOG IS BORNE AGGRESSIVE!!!!!!

Link to this comment
Sue February 17, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.

Hannah67 - difficult one isn't it? I must admit that Staffies look a bit like the outlawed Pit Bull and it is possibly their physique and appearance that attracts thugs. Rotties look mean. Not many people would argue with you if you had a big Rottie at your side!! Licences? We used to have them, and it didn't really work, because how do you keep track of dogs? If Licenses were re-introduced, I suspect the cost of administering them would be prohibitive.
bethany-kate - my brother has a Rottie, but although it lives in his house and he has assumed responsibility for it, along with the other family pet, it actually belongs to his adult stepson, who bought the dog some years back as a cute little puppy. Cute little puppy is now 10 times bigger and eats for Britain, so the stepson has lost interest - typical! I don't know if my brother would have chosen a Rottie, possibly not. Fortunately, this Rottie is soft as a brush. He may have the capacity to be aggressive, but he is not displaying any aggressive characteristics and I am not in the least wary of him. Poppy, you say you have spoken to "very decent" owners of Staffies who said they didn't know how aggressive the breed can be. Well, how do you know firstly that they are all decent owners? You have seen them and spoken to them and they seem okay, but can you know everything about people from that? What do bad owners look like? I muzzle my greyhound X on walks and you should see people jump when she ambles over for a sniff! She is only muzzled because she has an unfortunate tendency to eat anything she finds in the field, and believe me, I do mean ANYTHING. So to prevent her having an upset tummy later, we muzzle her. But it is amazing how people who do not know us or her simply assume that she is an aggressive dog. Bethany-kate - sorry people have called your views childish, but by your own admission, you are still a child. Most of the people posting on this forum are older, and some of us have spent many years working in animal welfare. That doesn't make our views more important than yours, and it doesn't make us better people, but as you experience more of life, and witness more of the sorts of things many of us older ones have seen, your views will change with that experience and you will come to realise that nothing in life is simple, black or white. Very sadly, there are no easy solutions to the problems that bother you - at least not ones that are likely to actually work if they were put into practice. Sometimes, we can't change situations we don't like, and we have to make do with damage limitation - hard to accept when you are young and wanting to put right all the wrongs in the world - but there it is.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 16, 2009 at 11:27 p.m.

BETHANY KATE; I dont think your views are childish. At least you care about the victims which is something I havnt seen much of on this site.It all seems to be about the rights of dangerous dogs when I feel more interest and care should be given to the rights of dogs who cause no harm to communities and indeed the general public. I can see you are an animal lover and feel passionatly about this very serious subject.
SUE.I agree with your comment about thugs who brutalise dogs having no interest in responsible dog ownership and have seen programmes about dog fighting but on the main the Staffies that are ruining our communities do not seem to have bad owners . I see more and more muzzled every weekend in the park and hear from their very decent owners they did not know how aggressive the breed would be .I DO lay the blame on PEOPLE but not always the owners .I honestly think if we dont stop breeding some breeds there will come a time that as happened in parts of the USA children will be killed or disfigured for life on a daily basis in parks.The warning bells have been ringing for a few years now. I personally still have flashbacks of the two dogs who nearly killed mine and can imagine how powerless and distyraught people feel watching their children being attacked .When these dogs attack they are not pets anymore.All we have to do is stop breeding more rehome or euthanise whats in the rescue and make licence law for those already in ownership of them.IN around 5 years we should see some sort of drop in the numbers and probably down to almost erradication in ten years. I dont see why this would bother people

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 16, 2009 at 10:40 p.m.

And Hannah nobody would buy a Rottie thinking it was a good natured dog.They snarl at everything that moves they are used as guard dogs BECAUSE they will attack to kill .A lovely good natured dog is one that you can take its food away and it wont try to kill you that you can walk off lead without it trying to kill another dog ,one that never needs a muzzle and wouldnt know HOW to kill a child cos it wouldnt cross its mind. All the dogs my family have ever owned have been like this because my mum researched breed characteristics,It would never be an option for us to bring any dangerous breed into our home we would see that as heartache. Not everyone is as intelligent as to research breed.some people believe they can change dogs make them soft etc. time and time again with every dead dog every disfigured human and every dead child breed is proven to be the reason

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 16, 2009 at 10:27 p.m.

Everyones got it in for me havnt they.Well im sorry if I sound childish but I am still at school however that doesnt mean I dont know what I see . Vegan chick you said owners of aggressive dogs should go to prison.The grandma of the baby owned an aggressive dog it killed her grandchild so you ARE saying she should go to prison arnt you. Also I am an animal lover and think dogs that kill other dogs are as disgusting as people who kill other people.Dont know how old you are but my views make more sense than yours. Have you never seen one of these aggressive breeds turn on a nice breed for no reason and rip it to death ? I have and thats why anyone who says we should carry on breeding these types when theres loads of decent types to have as pets is showing no respect for anyone whos suffered loss .The vile peple are the people who have the power to add breeds to the dangerous dogs list and havnt

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 16, 2009 at 8:24 p.m.

Sue - and perhaps if these "dangerous" breeds of dog were promoted well to be un-dangerous and what they really are like, and also people were well-educated about them, then they wouldn't be seen as "cool and dangerous" any more to thugs. The media should also stop portraying these breeds as dangerous, this is also making the dogs look "cool". All in all, everyone needs better education on different aspects of dog ownership, types of breeds, training etc. And even though this suggestion is unfortunate for the genuine breed lovers, possibly bringing in some sort of licence, though contrary to what I have just said, this could backfire and make the dog look dangerous anyway because you need a licence to own one. But then, having said all this, if the bad owners decided they no longer want to own rotties etc, then they will possibly find another breed to use as "weapons" etc.

Link to this comment
Sue February 16, 2009 at 7:54 p.m.

Hannah67 - I agree, even if everyone wanted certain dogs banned in this country, someone would find a loophole to exploit and these dogs would still be around, but they would be driven underground with EXACTLY the sort of people who should not own them. The answer is to promote responsible dog ownership, but the difficulty is that the thugs who brutalise dogs for their own ends don't have any interest in responsible ownership, only in what suits their own selfish and sadistic purposes - hence we have dog fighting.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 16, 2009 at 7:36 p.m.

And sue is right, there are so many dangerous things such as cars, and its not in most peoples interest to ban them. All we can do is make things safer.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 16, 2009 at 7:33 p.m.

I agree with Shrike, even though he/she was talking about pedegree dogs, but some of these rules would work if they were applied to owning dogs or certain breeds of dog. Unfortunatly for Poppy and Behtany-kate, Staffies and Rottweilers will never be banned in this country. It is up to the owners of the dogs to be responsible owners and know the breed well, and train them well. These things are what makes a dog safe.

Link to this comment
Sue February 16, 2009 at 7:31 p.m.

Bethany-kate and Poppy. I appreciate that your sentiments and beliefs are well intended, and in general, I do not see the need to breed ANY dogs where the supply far outweighs the demand, because what we have as a result is rescue centres crammed full of dogs. I take issue with the demonizing and ostracising of certain dogs based on their breed. I do accept that the Pit Bull was a breed with some aggressive characteristics bred into it, but even banning it has not resulted in there being none around. I can accept that there may be people sick enough to try the same thing with Staffies and other breeds such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, GSDs, but you lay the blame on the breed, not the people who make it what it is. In many cases I see the dog as being as much of a victim of the throwaway society as the unfortunate victims who are maimed or killed by them. I do not blame the parents in these circumstances, because it would be the same as blaming a parent whose child ran out in front of a car, for not teaching them road safety, or the parent whose smouldering cigarette triggered a house fire which resulted in the death of a child. Accidents and Catastrophes happen. If we want to really avoid them, we could do what my sister does, never goes out. And no, she doesn't have a dog, or a baby. These statistics do make distressing reading, but lots of children die in road accidents. I don't hear anyone calling for a ban on cars. Instead people call for safer drivers, and I call for more responsible dog owners, not thugs who want a dog everyone is scared to approach.

Link to this comment
Shrike_xX February 16, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.

And I've just realised that this is NOT the pedigree dog chat, oops lol *feels a little silly now* :D sorry to add confusion!

Link to this comment
Shrike_xX February 16, 2009 at 4:58 p.m.

Ok. A lot needs to be done to help dogs, but the same principles apply to all pet animals. And all of the following would go along way to solving alot of issues:
* It should be made law to get your animals microchipped with a finger print of dna to trace the animal back to it's owner.
* I think the age for buying a pet should be 21 or 18 with written consent and a contract that if anything goes wrong the parent ot guardian is held responsible
* You should be made to spay or neuter (sorry can never spell that lol) your pet, unless your pet is on some kind of book (like they have in zoos) to make sure it's not mating with a related animal, and that the animals already have a GOOD home to go to, before the animal is allowed to breed, and this should be the responsibility of rspca officers for which more jobs should be made available, or they should introduce the same principle as Special Constables for the Police Force.
And for this post...
* The pedigree dogs need to stop being breed until dna tests are done to work out who's related to who. There also needs to be some crufts judges sacked for imposing such ridiculous ideas of whats ok. Did you know bloodhounds have to have their eyelids now have to be tucked in to make them look acceptable even though they've been breed to be so droopy looking?!

Tell me what you think :)

Link to this comment
VeganxChick February 15, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.

bethany-kate - You sound very childish. Incase it had escaped your small mind, this is an RSPCA site, for people who love animals to talk about them. Not for you to say you 'hate rotties' and I think you will find they are called rottweilers!

'How dare you suggest that poor grandma should go to prison cos she bought a dog that you dont want banned'

So now you are making it up as you go along! if you could be bothered to read what I wrote, you would know that what I said was, that owners of aggressive dogs deserve to go to prison.

In this country all the problems are because of various vile people! NOT DOGS!

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 15, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.

Bethany-kate - I wasn't calling the granny irresponsible. I was asking you if YOU thought she was being irresponsible. The only people in my opinion that do own this breed of dog that are irresponsible, are those who use them as status simbols and protection. As with what I said to Poppy, I think you both over exagerate. I agree that rotties and staffies kill, and have done in the past and probably the future, I can't deny this because we see it on the news. How can you prove that all these breeds of dogs are ALL aggresive?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 15, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.

Many people own rotties because they are lovely good-natured dogs. I agree they can have a firey temperament if provoked, as do most dogs. I do feel sorry for the family of the baby, but that isn't what this is about.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 15, 2009 at 9:41 p.m.

Poppy - I think you exagerate. There are probably thousands of rottie and staffie dogs in this country. How many of them do you hear have killed a person or another animal? People are far more aggresive than dogs will ever be. It is selfish to assume that these types are all aggresive, and therefor should be erradicated. What right does Human have over dog anyway?

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 15, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.

I dont agree that the rspca knows best. it wouldnt be asking the question if it had all the answers would it? !I think its very cruel to think the grandma was being irresponsible.If you are going to call her that then you should call everyone who bought a staffie irresponsible and you arnt.Most of the dogs who have killed children and other dogs are not alone but theres not a lot you can do to get them off once their jaws lock. If anyone is to blame for this its people like you and the kennel club calling them nanny dogs promoting the idea this is a good breed to have around children.If the grandma had been awake you would have said the dog wasnt looked after properly. Then ask yourself how come is it always the same breeds that cant control themselves where killing is concerned. Do you have any idea the hell that and loads of other families go through cos they bought a dog that should be illegal.Do you even care? And so you dont think the word disgusting is factual enough ok then how about killers that is a fact .Rotties kill dogs and people. FACT>
As for your other question would i leave my own dog alone with a new born baby.In our house our dog is a part of the family but the new born baby wasnt left on its own and the dog follows the humans round the house cos like i say we got her as part of the family and would never have considered any breed that had been bred for bull baiting etc so there was never any worries about chilren getting hurt. The only worry with a non aggressive breed would be germs but our dog wasnt really interested in babies was more into people who could walk her or play ball in the garden. Our neighbourhood would be so much nicer if we just got rid of staffies and rotties for now sop we could walk our nice dogs without being scared all the time

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 15, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

I agree that there seens very little respect on this site for the welsh babies family and people getting worked up about the word 'disgusting' is not what this debate is about. The question is 'Aggressive behaviour in dogs does the blame lie with tne dog or its owner' I keep saying that in the case of certain breeds [and we all know which these are]we cannot blame the dog or the owners. The aggression is there in the breed and we can try and train it out but its always going to be there which is why we should STOP breeding at least the breeds of dog known to kill children.We have made a start with Pitbulls which is a lifesaver for other dogs and children but we need to do more. Staffies ARE damaging communities and families. The two Staffies that savaged my dog were well looked after well trained and had never shown aggression before. the owner was a very good owner who now knows the breed of dog he owns is dangerous.Hannah I didnt say that all owners of Rotties only have them for protection I said why would anyone buy a breed like that other than for protection? Its a question .I have NEVER seen a friendly one on a lead in the park, the owners look in pain trying to hold them back from getting near other dogs and I can not imagine going out and choosing a breed of dog that is known to have killed chilren.I just dont understand what attracts decent people to these breeds maybe someone could tell me.I can understand why chavy people own Staffies but there seem to be more decent people with them lately who are mortified when they attack to kill dogs and children.I feel its time to stop giving people a choice.If something is dangerous we need to act.We arnt legally allowed to own a gun.Dogs like mine should be able to go for a walk on a lead without being nearly killed by a breed of dog that is the same as a pit bull

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 15, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.

Another question for Bethany-kate - Would you leave your family dog in a room alone with a new-born baby?

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 15, 2009 at 11:20 a.m.

Bethany-kate - Also, using words like "disgusting" to describe a dog and person is not factual enough for this debate. I understand that you may dislike Rotties, but your comments also show that you only have a personal opinion because of whatever may have happened in the past, and have not looked into this properly, especially if "disgusting" is the best word you can come up with.

Link to this comment
Hannah67 February 15, 2009 at 11:08 a.m.

Bethany-Kate - I have read all your opinions, so do you not think that the grandmother of the baby was being "irresponsible" by leaving her staffie alone with the baby? Also, the RSPCA exists for all breeds of dog's welfare, including staffies and Rotties. The RSPCA would completely disagree on a ban of these 2 types of dogs, as they know that both breeds are in most cases very good natured animals. On their main website, they suggest that rather people looking into re-homing a, what you would call an "undangerous" dog (such as a labrador etc), they should instead try looking into getting an unwanted staffie or Rottie. The RSPCA promotes the ownership of staffies very well, but only to the right owners, and also beleives that a lot of people are misguided into thinking that these breeds are bad dogs because of how they are portrayed in the media. I'm sure that you'll all agree that out of everyone on this site, the RSPCA knows best.
Poppy - I think it is very immature of you to say that all owners of Rotties only have them for "protection". This just goes to show how uninformed you are of this whole subject.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 14, 2009 at 11:56 p.m.

How dare you suggest that poor grandma should go to prison cos she bought a dog that you dont want banned. That staffie killed the baby cos it was bred to. you are disgusting. a baby died last week where is your respect and dont tell me i dont deserve a dog either cos my dog is part of my family we would never choose a dangerous breed that kills children

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 14, 2009 at 11:51 p.m.

Vegan x chick no the RSPCA exists for animals welfare like my dog that had &0 stitches in it from a breed of dog that killed a baby last week.And how disrespectful are you to the children who have been killed by rotties. How dare you say its the childs fault its the fact that the goverment have opnly banned a few breeds of dog . I love my dog and dont see why i shud be scared to walk it incase a aggressive breed that should be banned from sale is going to kill it

Link to this comment
VeganxChick February 14, 2009 at 11:05 p.m.

R.E bethany-kate

'disgusting rotties that should have been got rid of ages ago'

Its because of people like you that charities like the RSPCA exist. Your comment regarding rottweilers is disgusting! I sincerely hope you do not have any pets. People like you do not deserve them.

And dogs which 'attack children', I use the term loosely as the vast majority of the time it is the childs fault. And the poor dog gets 'destroyed'. Its about time people stopped taking the 'easy' option of ending a dogs life, and send the owners of agressive dogs to prison. After all, dogs only become like that when they have been mistreated by their so called owners!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 14, 2009 at 1:28 p.m.

And trigger animals are NOT like children.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 14, 2009 at 1:21 p.m.

TIGGER:I think that was a bit harsh to say bethany kates comment stupid. Maybe she meant that Rottweilers are a disgusting BREED. I cannot argue with that as Im sure the families who have lost children and much loved dogs to them would also agree they are a disgusting breed. Personally I have Never said its the dogs fault.Nor have I ever said it is the owners fault.Rottweilers should have been banned under the dangerous dogs act years ago.Why wernt they and why are people so keen to keep them around.Why would anyone buy a breed like that other than for protection.Its time the lovers of aggressive breeds took some responsibility for the communities they are ruining. There is no respect for the victims on this site which is far more stupid than someone calling a killer menace to society breed 'disgusting'.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 14, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.

BETHANY KATE: I agree on a very very high anual licence fee for owning one of a named dangerous breed. I think to start with the highest licence fee should be for a list of breeds who we know have killed children.I would prefer a ban on continuing to breed them myself and I think we could only impose the licence on newly purchased dogs . It could lead to an erradication of a few breeds over about 20 years which is better than doing nothing and just sitting around blaming owners.

Link to this comment
Tigger058 February 13, 2009 at 10:04 p.m.

Your comments about rottweilers being disgusting is such a stupid comment to make, yes they have a bad reputation, but thats not their fault.
most dogs born i am sure are capable of killing whether it be a small animal or a baby, it all depends on who is their guardian, animals like children need good nurturing, firm handling and love...and the more strong willed the firmer the handling.
And i think if animals could speak they would say please ban certain humans from looking after us.
Firmer laws aginst unlicensed and uncaring breeders may help.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 13, 2009 at 3:08 p.m.

And its prison if you get found breeding a pit bull so thats not to worry bowt. its staffys that are the legal killers at the moment and those disgusting rotties that should have been got rid of ages ago.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 13, 2009 at 3:04 p.m.

yes good idea .Start the licencing with Staffies and Rottweilers at 1o Thousand pounds a year. Id be happy with that as it would more or less put an end to breeding without enforcing a ban on breeding that everyone on this site seems for some strange reason to have a problem with. This way in around 16 years these breeds should be extremely rare and people will feel a lot safer in their neighbourhoods to walk their dogs

Link to this comment
tarka February 13, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.

How will banning staffys help? Pit Bulls are still being bred and their banning makes them even more of a status symbol to the people who own them. Banning breeds will only increase the problem.If you want to campaign about breeds campaign to get some sort of licensing for breeders and owners.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 12, 2009 at 11:40 p.m.

I agree with you. Ive watched these dogs kill other dogs and can not imagine what people go through watching their kids be killed by them. im disgusted at the idiots using this site defendin a breed of dog that was born to kill. No wonder nothing gets changed with do gooders like this around. you are not animal lovers at all

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 12, 2009 at 10:03 p.m.

And stop making light of this serious subject by talking about cocker spaniels and yorkshire terriers.A baby was killed at the weekend by a breed of dog that should be banned under the dangerous dogs act. Have some respect

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 12, 2009 at 9:58 p.m.

SUE:I doid not say you used big words and have no problem with the English language.I do however find you contradict yourself a little from time to time but my main problem with your posts is your lack of understanding of what constitutes a dangerous dog.A Rottweiler in the wrong hands could kill and therefore should never be sold as a pet because no he is NOt any more under control than the staffie thatb killed the baby at the weekend.Do you honestly think your brother could stop that dog killing if it got the urge.Hundreds of dogs have been killed while the owners of the dangerous breeds have been with them unable to do anything about it .The same dogs who have excelled at obedience classes etc.Time you stopped blaming owners and directed the blame where it lies with the kennel club and breeders.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 12, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.

BETHANY KATE:I agree with you that defending a breed that kills and causes serious damage to communities is not the definition of an animal lover.Sue is like so many on this site who seem to think that all dogs are the same and again we have to hear the 'never shown an ounse of aggression' that we hear Every time one of these dangerous breeds kills another dog or child .Its time we hear from people who care about the communities they live in.At the moment many are over run with the breeds of dog who we cannot trust not to kill other dogs.I think people need to realise the difference between a badly owned dog that may bite somebody or indeed another dog.{ I have myself been bitten by a bearded collie and a king charles spaniel} and the savage attacks with intent to kill displayed by the dangerous breeds.Comments about viscious yorkies are at best stupid but more importantly take the debate away from the serious issue of safeguardig people and animals.There are only 3 or four breeds of dog banned under the dangerous dogs act in this country and this needs looking at again.A good start would be to Stop the breeding and sale of all pit breeds and Rottweilers.These are KNOWN child killers and we as a society dont Need them

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 12, 2009 at 8:56 p.m.

you said your brothers rottie in the hands of the wrong person could kill without question. that is why you make no sense when you then say its under control. a baby has just been killed by a breed that kills that you dont want banning.That isnt being an animal lover at all. If other breeds kill add them to the list but they havnt.The jack Russell in the house with the baby had no blood on it.Did your brother buy his rottie knowing that breed had killed children before?

Link to this comment
Sue February 12, 2009 at 11:15 a.m.

Poppy2007 and bethany-kate - have you actually read my posts? I don't use "big" words. I speak English, which I learned at school like everyone else. Does anyone else have a problem understanding what I write? I can't take anything you say seriously any more when you are so blinkered that you have to twist the wording of my posts to suit your arguments. I do NOT own a Rottweiler! I do have a border collie and a greyhound X (and 7 cats). Two more docile dogs you could not hope to meet. I do NOT have a baby! My grandsons visit occasionally(not quite the same thing is it? My brother has a Rottie. (and actually he also has a 14 yr old German Shepherd with no teeth potentially capable of inflicting a nasty lick!) He and his wife do share in the care of their grandson but mainly in his own home, so the baby and the dog rarely come into any contact at all. His dog is admittedly from a breed you would seek to outlaw as a dangerous breed, but I have already pointed out on my posts that the dog is a) under control and b) supervised. I did NOT say my brother's dog WOULD kill. I conceded that in the wrong hands, this dog could potentially kill (in saying that,I meant of course a dog of this breed rather than this specific dog - This specific dog in fact has never shown an ounce of aggression). I have also stated my view that ANY dog in the wrong hands could potentially kill. I have agreed with some of what you have said, but it seems to be just black or white to you, blinding you to the wider picture. So what are the breeds on your Elimination List exactly, Staffies definitely, Rotties most likely, any more takers? I have come across some nasty little Yorkshire Terriers in my time, oh and some vicious little Cocker Spaniels (I still have a scar from that one on my hand). I also once got bit by a labrador when I went into a hovel of a flat with an animal rescue group to get the animals out. The dog was traumatised of course by its treatment at the hands of humans, and starving, but hey, no excuses! I once got bit by a Great Dane tied up outside a supermarket when I stupidly went to stroke his ears. Big powerful dog - could've killed. On the other hand, I have seen what people do to these dogs, big and small, I have knelt by the bodies and wept, I have seen horrors inflicted by humans on animals more times than I care to remember. I have seen what makes dogs vicious, and have come up against the sort of people who encourage this aggression. I have no sympathy with people whose knee-jerk reaction is to lay all the blame at the dog's door. It is the easy and the lazy way out. You get rid of the dog, you deal with the symptom, but the disease is human, and lives on in all people who get high on the belief that they have the right to dominate lesser species. A man named Adolf Hitler once thought this way. This is supposed to be a forum to promote animal welfare. Can we hear from some genuine animal lovers for a change?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 11, 2009 at 11:32 p.m.

SUE i cant take anything you say seriously since you told me your Rottweiler would kill ion the wrong hands. You contradict yourself time and time again in order to defend the fact you have a very dangerous breed that has killed a few children over the years.Why are you so keen for this breed to not go the same way as the pit bull

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 11, 2009 at 11:26 p.m.

Amywillison; If a dog needs to be muzzled then it shouldnt have been born in the first place. A dog is supposed to be part of the family in which case should not be wanting to kill other dogs or family members.If we got rid of the very few aggressive breeds we still have in this country there would be no choice but to stop the killing.Yorkies have never killed children or dogs so dont be making ridiculous statements like that

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 11, 2009 at 11:18 p.m.

sky bio6; How the hell can a sleeping baby provoke a dog to kill it.I can agree with you that dogs are the way they are because of humans; Humans bred aggression intio Staffies and Rotties,. Its not the dogs fault they want to kill but they are ruining communities. The Staffie didnt kill the baby because the grandma mistreated it. Why would any decent person defend the right to carry on breeding these viscious animals when we could stop now.Many dogs and human lives have been spared by banning pitbulls and we need to stop breeding around four other breeds now . Your comment about banning cocker Spaniels is making light of a very serious subject.Rottweilers, Staffies etc want to kill. Owners good and bad have no say in what they do. The two Staffies that savaged my dog and left her for dead were not provoked were never badly treated and were very well trained. Truth is that breed was born to kill.My vet has had to operate on 34 dogs in the last 8months all been attacked by Staffies with the exception of 3 which were attacked by Rotties another aggressive breed. It saddens me that you have no compassion for the communities damaged by these breeds being legal.Seatbelts became law for a reason and these dogs have no place in a civilised society

Link to this comment
amywillison February 11, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.

how can anyone say that any dog that has EVER attact or killed another dog or person or has the potential to sould not be breed ? if that were the case then would there be any dogs left ? a yorkie can very easily rip out a babies throut. it realy does annoy me when people say that all staffies or GSD's or any other breed with a bad press are all killers and can turn on you at any time because that is not the case. yes some breeds are more likly to be agresive but cocker spanials have a genetic tendency to be agresive yet because they dont get the press and have a good press you dont get the same pregudic and im not saying that ALL cockers are agressive, im simply making a point that you cant just blame the more powerful breeds. i think that it was mentioned about the statistics of dog bites and that breed of dogs which they were caused by i would like to make a point that if you are looking at these figures you also need to look at the number of those breeds in the UK because naturaly if there are more of a breed there will be more insidents. it is not the dogs folt if it has been brought up to act agresive or if there owners do not take steps to solve any agression problems if a dog has agression problems then it should be muzzeled. its the owners responsability for there dog although its not always there folt if they have agression problems then aslong as prober steps are taken to resolve the problem and to provent harm to other people or dogs then why should they be persiculted for the minority of owners that dont give a damn about other peopel or dogs its those people that should be punished not the dogs.

i would also like to say sorry for any spelling mistakes its not my strong point

Link to this comment
skybi06 February 11, 2009 at 8:09 p.m.

Bethany Kate you are talking rubbish.... So open minded arnt we!

Link to this comment
skybi06 February 11, 2009 at 8:08 p.m.

Poppy whether or not I am going to upset the parents/family of the young baby is totally irrelevant to the opinion I am making.

I am not saying that they killed their baby, I am saying that it is not the dogs fault that it carried out the attack, it is whoever has influenced it to be this way, whether it be on purpose or not, previous owners, owner of a hunter, mistreatment etc its humans that need to take responsibilty of knowing how to properly treat and train dogs!
Also If people are so unsure of dogs and they are so 'agressive' so you say... then children should not be left alone with any dog like the case in hand!
My friend had her face bitten badly by a cocker spaniel when she was younger because she was hurting it! 'Oh well lets ban cocker spaniels too shall we?' Difference is these dogs dont get the media coverage that rotties and staffies do.

Just a point i am not biest either I own a Springer Spaniel.

Link to this comment
Tigger058 February 11, 2009 at 7:18 p.m.

My chaining myself up was not to ban staffies, it was more along the lines of making humans more responsible for their dog, by ie licensing, dog training classes and puppy socialising clubs as law.
also banning the willy nilly breeding of dogs. after all there r laws to adoption of children, dont we love our dogs as they were part of the family.
well where r their rites to a good balanced upbringing, to be the voice of a dog, would to be to go straight to the only source, and that is the one that can change the law, campaign to the goverment (BARK LOUD ENOUGH AND THEY WILL HAVE TO LISTEN)...

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 11, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.

Tigger i will chain myself up with you if its to get staffies banned.sue ive read your posts and you use big words but what you saying is rubbish .you even got an aggressive dog and have it near children. nothing will ever change if anyone listens to you.tou should listen to poppy and trigger they care about dogs and people not being killed all you want is to keep a rottweiler that you already said cwould kill if it could. we need to hear from more people who actually want the law changed like i would

Link to this comment
Tigger058 February 11, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.

I have posted 3 voting polls on a dog networking site, to see opinions of dog owners on 1 what the government can do about dog breeding issues, 2 should we ban staffs 3 what can we do to make dog owners more responsible.
I will let u know results in the near future. The way i see it the only way to help dogs and be their voice is to get enough people willing to tell government official bodies what we want changed in the law, less talk more action thats my motto lol. I am willing to chain myself to the gates of downing street (in the summer). Sue i will post dog prayer next time..

Link to this comment
lauren 1 February 11, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.

i am always scaird when my dad goes out with my dog because she could get beten up im also scaird of her in the garden.i am watching tv and the blue cross advert was on and i am crying love l xx

Link to this comment
Sue February 11, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

Poppy2007 - I respect your right to your opinions, but they have to be balanced. You think I contradict myself because I can see more than one point of view, and because I do not see the situation in black or white. Simply labelling certain breeds inherently aggressive and calling for a ban on breeding them is not the answer. We still have Pit Bulls in spite of all the legislation, so what makes you think that the dogs you want to outlaw would simply disappear? Then there are people who will cross breed - there have already been countless arguments about when is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull? The same would be true of Staffies, you would have all sorts of new variations on a Staffie being bred to get around breeding restrictions. Such a move would take years before Staffies would be bred out of existence. Even my own view that responsible ownership is the answer does not really further the debate much, since we are always going to have people in charge of dogs who use and abuse them as a weapon of aggression. Since the outlawing of Pit Bulls, Staffies have become the new Pit Bull. If you outlaw Staffies, thugs who need an aggressive dog to project a tough image will latch on to another breed instead, it might be the Japanese Akita, a fighting dog, or it might be the Doberman, or another large, strong breed such as the German Shepherd. I would love to to live in a world where no human was cruel and no dog bit. But that world will never exist. All we can achieve is damage limitation. We can't educate dogs to do that so it is our responsibility. If educating people towards being responsible and kind dog owners leads to fewer animals turning aggressive, then this means fewer victims, both animal and human. This is my preferred strategy. Whereas if you simply outlaw certain breeds, you will never know where to stop, because you will always have thugs who brutalise dogs. The image of a thug with an evil looking Jack Russell on the end of a lead doesn't really fit, but if a Jack Russell can kill a badger, it can also kill a child, so potentially no dog breed is safe as long as you have these people who want to bring out the worst in them. Tigger058 - no, haven't heard the Dog's Prayer - please post it if you think it would not offend anyone.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 10, 2009 at 9:52 p.m.

Tigger058; That is an extremely aggresssive breed mix you have got.I think what you have to say is very important in this debate.Basically you love your dog and are doing all you can to prevent it causing damage to man or beast and I applaud you for that.AS importantly unlike the others on this site you RECOGNISE the BREED in your dog and if you had known what Hard work it was going to be would maybe have chosen one of the non dangerous breeds.You are far more clued up than most of the users of this site.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 10, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.

Sue .Again you are making light of a very serious subject.Also you keep contradicting yourself.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 10, 2009 at 9:36 p.m.

PHYLLISPHOENIX; I understand what you are saying but we do not live in an ideal world. Do you not think the answer would be to stop breeding all forms of aggressive breed make dogs pets rather than a form of protection and no longer have the worry.There are only Three or four breeds of dog banned in this country and its not good enough.The way the law workr is that if a dog kills another dog it is not considered a danger to humans so is not destroyed.However the Rotties that killed children had attaked dogs before.One had killed a puppy.Why are these dogs still being bred.And what is the government going to do about the Staffie problem in light of the babies death in wales.It is not a coincidence that its the same breeds time and time again.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 10, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.

skybio6 ; your comments could cause serious offence to the grieving family of a three month old baby.The dog that killed the baby did so because that is what it is bred for.It was not the owners fault> Staffordshire Bull terriers are pit dogs same as pit bulls and can pull about 30 times their own body weight.This coupled with their inherent aggression and desire to kill man and beast is why as long as the kennel club are disgustingly calling them NANNY DOGS we cannot possibly blame owners such as that poor grandma.She is no more to blame for her dogs than any of the other misinformed users of this site.The ownership of dangerous dogs is ruining communities.

Link to this comment
Tigger058 February 10, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.

Can i just say, i have tried to read as many comments as i can, and i dont know who would agree with me, but i dont know why the government does not stop just anyone selling puppies, and for now obviousely until dog rescue centres have albut run out of animals looking for good holmes. Make more stringent laws on dog breeding, and make dog licensing and owner responsibility no.1 priority, after all, dogs may not be human but they deserve to be taken care of as if they were, they have feelings and we love them.Sue (i love your comment about the dog god thing, have u read a dogs prayer to god it goes along the lines of *Dear god*
When i get to heaven can i have my testicles back please....and will i have to apologise to the postman...there is more if u want to hear the rest let me know lol

Link to this comment
Sue February 10, 2009 at 5:37 p.m.

Phyllisphoenix - I agree with you. It is never completely safe to leave young children and dogs alone together. Even if the dog has been as good as gold so far, there may be triggers which hark back to the dog's previous life, maybe in a rescue centre, maybe with previous owners, which could just cause the dog to turn on a child. Children, as you say, create their own energy and can quite unwittingly cause a dog to get over-excited, which again, can result in tragedy. You can be sure that the dog never intended it, they don't act with malice, their actions are governed by instinct. One of the biggest problems I feel is when humans expect dogs to be humans, to have human emotions, and to be capable of rational thought and reasoning. Most responsible dog owners do their homework and take the trouble to find the best type of dog for their particular circumstances. Irresponsible dog owners don't, and this is why we get people with one or more large dogs in small flats, where they can't exercise and where in frustration they chew the furniture. Of course, it ends up being the dog's fault. I am against the idea of dogs as "guard dogs" because training a dog to be territorial and aggressive is just asking for trouble, particularly when as in some cases the dog doubles as the family pet and you introduce children into the household. But people don't stop to consider the consequences of what they do. I don't know if it is because they are plain dense, or if it is down to the modern throw away mentality which means that if a family pet doesn't tick all the right boxes, you just abandon it and get one that does. What is it with people? Certainly whatever it is, I don't get it. My dogs are companions for life, for better or for worse. I never treat them in a way I would not like to be treated. I consider beforehand the effects of my words and actions on them, just as I would a human family member. I can't understand anyone who can treat animals with callous disregard, let alone outright cruelty, but it is going on all around us, and all over the world. My conscience will be clear if I ever end up in heaven to discover that whoever translated the bible was dyslexic and that GOD is actually DOG!

Link to this comment
Tigger058 February 10, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.

As an owner of a half rotweiler/Akita bitch, neary 3 years old now, i have to say although a great family pet, she does have an aggressive side, especially towards other bitches, even though she was socialized well as a puppy, once she reached about 1-2 years she was not as friendly.
I was a bit upset because i have never owned a dog with aggression problems before, and nearly took the option of reholming her, well i am glad now i dident, its not been an easy road, but i try to be one step ahead when we go for walks, i always muzzle her off leash, and that allows her some freedom. i watch Cesar Millans training techniques and follow a lot of that. I didnt realise until i got Sasha just what hard work some dogs could be. But she is worth it, we love her to bits. At the same time i would never 100% trust any dog as ceaser says they are animals not humans.

Link to this comment
phyllisphoenix February 10, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.

Every time this subject comes up i have to share my view. I feel that if owners have children and dogs they should never be left alone as 100% trust should not be left in a dog. Chldren tend not to no when a dog wants to be left alone when they are giving the signs also children can tend to get excited and dogs can feed off this energy as well creating them to get over excited and not no when to stop as some dogs cant take a child seriously. Owners should no more about the dogs they are adding to their family and should research into the background of the breed.

I also think there is a problem starting with people around my age and maybe older are starting to use the fighting breeds of dogs as protection and another weapon out there as they no what these dogs are for and i sometimes worry for the own safety of my dogs and peoples as well with these people with these dogs around.

i really would like these sort of dogs to end up in environment with a owner who knows about these sort of dogs and how they should be dealt with as they are aware of their background. I feel this cos when browsing at dog rehoming centres these are the sort of dogs that normally end up there.

Link to this comment
Sue February 10, 2009 at 1:22 p.m.

Another child has died as a result of a dog attack. This is sad and my thoughts are with the family who must be feeling terrible. My views are well aired on this site, I believe, and will always believe that poor understanding and irresponsible ownership of dogs creates most of the problems everyone is debating over. I don't necessarily think that ALL aggressive dog behaviour is the result of bad human management, because for every rule there are exceptions, but if you understand dogs (and bear in mind that being a dog lover does not necessarily make you a responsible dog owner)it should be possible for you to have a dog as a member of your family for the whole of its life without ever having to deal with aggressive traits. Having said that, if you are also a parent, then however much you may feel you can trust your pet, it is always better to be on the safe side by ensuring that both children and dogs are effectively supervised. We tend to blame bad parenting for unruly children automatically. Well brought up children, it is commonly accepted, are less likely to be hanging around on street corners with knives or robbing off licences, so why when dogs turn bad do we blame the animal? Probably because as humans, we find it difficult to accept blame and responsibility. The bottom line is that there are those who think certain dogs are born killers and there are those who think we as the owners are the bigger problem. Neither side are likely ever to completely agree. I can go so far in accepting that certain dogs have characteristics bred into them which make them more likely to be aggressive, but responsible breeders of these dogs are not aiming for that outcome. If they were, then they would not be responsible dog breeders would they? There are individuals who for reasons I will never understand want their family pet to be vicious. It might be just the guy who likes to go rabbiting at the weekend with his Jack Russell and his gun, thinking nothing of it, but what happens then when his Jack Russell is left alone with the guy's baby? Maybe the Jack Russell never showed aggression toward humans previously, but the dog doesn't understand the difference between human baby and the prey he is encouraged to kill by his owner at weekends, so who is to blame in this type of scenario? For me, sorry, but it is the owner, not the dog, but as a society, we react by destroying the dog,it is the easiest get out, we are taking away the problem we have created. There is nothing stopping the owner getting another dog the next day having learned absolutely nothing from the experience, so we don't deal with the cause, just the symptom. We will never stop these attacks until we accept that the way we treat animals has a direct bearing on their behaviour. The same goes for our children, which is why we seem have an epidemic of stabbings at the moment. But that is a different debate and not one for this forum.

Link to this comment
skybi06 February 9, 2009 at 10:56 p.m.

Oh come on guys regarding your comments POPPY that really is the most ridiculous thing ive heard.

Dogs are the way they are because of us!! humans!! Rotweilers are lovely dogs and so are staffies!!

The ones that arent are ones mistreated or trained for it, therefore more should be done about who these dogs go to!

Staffies will be banned just like pitbulls then we'll find some other breed to turn into a vicous animal, it will just be a vicous circle.
Why do we have rights over what animals can stay and ones that cant, we made it this way We made our bed its time to lay in it! And sort the problem out by watching where these dogs are ending up and how their being treated! Just like you would a child you wouldnt just abandon it cos its bad!

As I said we are the monsters not them! Wake up!

p.s and a tiger is a totally different subject!

Link to this comment
skybi06 February 9, 2009 at 10:30 p.m.

In my opinion, Most of the time the owner or previous owner is to blame!! They have either been poorly treated, trained to be such a way or had a mental illness when born which is not that common!
Just like humans if they arent bought up well they will misbehave unless they have autism etc which they cant help!

Take for excample on the news a baby was just laying in its moses basket and 2 dogs 'just decided to attack and kill it', Im sorry for it but something must have provoked it to do that or it had been trained or mistreated to do so.
I think people that do this with dogs are horrible. If they have something to guard and it is a working dog well fair enough! If not it is the dog that gets it in the end if it hurts someone when it should be the owner! They can be trained not to! Even the most agressive of dogs!

There were probably the same amount of attacks 10 years ago but because the media are covering every little one that happens, people think it is happening all the time, they are to blame for fear people have of these lovely animals.

Call them monsters! its humans that are the monsters!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 8, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.

NATUREGIRL: When you say it is the dog to blame do you mean the inbred charachteristics of the type of dog. Do you agree with the pit bull ban for example?

Link to this comment
Naturegirl February 8, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.

Poppy2007: then it is the dog to blame or the people around the enviroment of the dog.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 8, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.

Bethany Kate:MY thoughts are with that little boys family today.This sort of tradgedy can only be prevented by stopping breeding ALL dangerous breeds.We need people who care about communities using this site because its biased.WHERE is the voice for the victims.HOw dare the kennel club continue to promote breeds such as the Staffie as a NANNY DOG.We owe it to the latest victims family to put a stop NOW to the breeding of ALL dog breeds that kill other dogs and children.WE all know which Breeds we are talking about.We have made a start with pit Bulls now its time we moved forward with the other breeds.Should be PRISON for anyone found breeding Rotties or Staffies for a start.Dog Shelters are full of them.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate February 7, 2009 at 11:05 p.m.

To everyone on here defending Staffies and other dangerous breeds. A baby boy died today .The law needs changing now

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 7, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.

NATUREGIRL: What if the owner DOES love and care about the dog ,walks it ,diciplines it ,showers it with affection and one day it goes and visciously attacks a human being or another dog.Who would you blame for that?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 7, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.

SUE Thank you for your response.I need to correct you on a couple of points.Firstly my dog did not die when she was attacked by the two Staffies and secondly my views are not coloured by the fact my dog was ripped to bits.I have held these views for a long time which is why myself and many others like me would like to put a stop to the breeding of all dangerous dogs.I dont NEED to specify which breeds these are because its not exactly rocket science. I noticed you made no comment to the mention of the little girl in scotland who lost her life to a rotweiler.Having made the comment you previously did that in the wrong hands your brothers rottie would kill how can you possibly think this is not an aggressive dog.I can go along with you about training and chavy people owning certain breeds to look hard etc but you cannot keep comparig doga to people either its ridiculous.There are many breeds out there to choose from that in any hands at all could not kill dog or human.Dangerous dogs ruin communities because other dogs and people never know when a dog is going to turn.When a Pit dog or any of the other powerful breeds out there turn there is a very high chance of loss of life.I would be interested to know what really attracts people to any breed that causes so much fear in others and why people choose say a rotwieler as oppose to say a golden retriever for example.?

Link to this comment
Naturegirl February 7, 2009 at 1:48 p.m.

I think that if he/she doesn't care and love the dog it gets very aggressive and cold hearted. So the owners to blame for making it depressed and angry at people, because of the owners bad caring to the dog.

Link to this comment
Sue February 5, 2009 at 4:59 p.m.

Oh, and I forgot to say in my last post (as I was rushing to go for an appointment), I agree with Poppy2007 that for some reason the local animal shelters seem to be overrun with Staffies, but I don't agree with her analysis of the situation when she speculates that it may be because "Staffies are ruining communities". I think there are a few reasons. One may be that Staffies look a little in appearance like the outlawed Pit Bull, and have occasionally been mistaken for them, creating an unwelcome stigma and perpetuating the idea that they are inherently a vicious breed. Secondly, they seem (possibly for the same reason) the weapon of choice of young lads wishing to project a "hard" image, so people who want a gentle family pet may be put off. Thirdly, some Staffies have been encouraged by irresponsible owners to be vicious, and ARE in fact vicious, so they are not likely to attract a new owner easily and lastly, bad publicity for the breed on forums such as this one will not encourage people to offer homes to these dogs. This to my mind is unfair because whilst Poppy you have had a most traumatic experience, which has left you scarred and bereaved, you can't just label every Staffie a vicious killer. I agree with you that too many of them are being bred, but I think too many dogs are being bred of all but the most rare breeds. Why breed loads of dogs when shelters are full? As usual, people are the problem. It is not only bona fide breeders. It is private individuals, people just making a fast buck out of the family pet to supplement the state hand-outs. It happens all the time where I live. When I take in a dog or a cat, neutering is the very first thing I do, and at the very first opportunity, but others have more of an eye to a profit, and the result is more unwanted animals roaming the streets and clogging up the animal shelters. Problem people are breeding problem pets. Half these people can't control themselves or their children, so what hope have they got of raising a well adjusted family pet? They should make neutering compulsory (Animal shelters already do, in effect). Have you ever watched "Dog Whisperer" on TV? How often has he found that the problem with the dog lies primarily with the owner? I rest my case - for now!!

Link to this comment
Sue February 5, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.

Poppy2007 - there you go again - with the basic presumption that our dogs are killers unless we work hard to eliminate some sort of inherent aggression. NO! Our dogs are not aggressive, my brother's dog is not aggressive.
Any dog has the capacity to be aggressive, as has any human, but not all dogs are, in just the same way as not all humans are. Why should my brother get rid of his dog just because his stepdaughter (severely disabled)can't care for her baby without help since her husband walked out on her? The dog is non aggressive and is under control. I have two grandchildren aged 3 years and 5 weeks respectively. If they have a problem with my dogs, they stay away, simple. As it is, the 3 year old loves the dogs, and the dogs are gentle with him. Of course I am not stupid enough not to know that dogs can react unexpectedly, and I wouldn't leave my grandchildren alone unsupervised with the dogs, but frankly, I have to say that this has as much to do with wanting to protect my dogs as anything. Little story. An elderly lady in Cornwall once reluctantly agreed to have her elderly German Shepherd destroyed at the insistance of the mother of a young boy he apparently bit. The old lady was heartbroken but could not understand why a previously placid and friendly dog should bite. So she had a post mortem carried out. Result? A pencil rammed viciously into the poor dog's ear canal, by said "victim" before he was bitten - suffering I might add very minor injury. No doubt we could go on all day citing individual cases of blame attaching both to people and to dogs, but what I find difficult about your views is that you are publishing on an animal welfare website opinions which (if they were qualified - and they are clearly not), might put people off having a dog at all, and this at a time when animal shelters are brimming over with abandoned dogs who just need sensible and responsible people to give them a fair chance. The potential for agression is there in all mammals, human and animal. Certain conditions will bring it out from time to time, again, which is why some people kill and some dogs kill. My view is that aggressive people who deliberately brutalize their dogs to bring out their worst and most negative characteristics will achieve that, whereas kind and sensitive handling will nearly always succeed in suppressing any urge to be aggressive, if indeed it was there to begin with. You can't generalise to the extent that you do. It is dangerous and irresponsible. I deal with very aggressive and dangerous people in my job, but I don't go round assuming that everyone else is the same, and you can't do it with dogs either.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 4, 2009 at 10:05 p.m.

I stand by my view that we should no longer be breeding certain breeds.I dont doubt that with intensive ongoing care and training the negative characteristics in a breed can be supressed and clearly you two people are working hard with your dogs on a daily basis to eliminate the aggression.The problem I have and many opther people i speak to have is the majority of people dont work that hard with their dogs and even when they do out of the blue breed specific aggression takes a hold.The law is all wrong too because when a dog kills another dog it is not destroyed.I think if you had a look at the dog bite register for last year you might change your views on 'any breed can be aggressive in the wrong hands'Sue you said your brothers Rottie would kill in the wrong hands.I do stand by my view if that is the case you are very irresponsible to keep him.Children have had their lives lost to dogs like that.IM sick of nobody standing up for the victims.I have said I dont blame the owners I blame the breeders and I hope breeding dangerous breeds will stop so we can all including yourselves enjoy our dogs as not only part of our family but as part of a community.At the moment Staffies are ruinig communities which might explain why the dog shelters are overrun with them.

Link to this comment
Sue February 4, 2009 at 3:26 p.m.

Poppy2007 - I am sorry but I think that your views are somewhat unbalanced and coloured very much by your bad experience, for which I am truly sorry as I love all dogs. I respect you for caring but I get the idea that you tar specific breeds of dog with the "dangerous dog" brush, when I agree with Schmemily that ANY dog in the wrong hands can be dangerous. You make comparisons with strength and jaw sizes etc, but if a young child is attacked by a dog, then even a small dog is capable of inflicting the most horrific injuries. My aunt had a Staffie for 14 yrs, till he died, and throughout his life, he endured my 3 young cousins mauling him, he lived quite peacefully with a succession of cats and kittens, and not ever did he show aggression. You would be right if you said that this does not prove that Staffies are not dangerous, but neither does it prove they are. Schmemily, I feel your views are the more balanced (sorry Poppy!). And when referring to my brother's Rottie, how was I "making light" of him possibly being a dangerous dog? I acknowledged that in the wrong hands he would be. The fact is that my brother has been careful to train him properly because my brother and sister in law are sharing the care of their baby grandson. OK, you might question the wisdom of having a baby and a Rottie in the house, but the Rottie came first, and we have always been a family who stand by our pets and commit to them for their lifetime, not just when it suits. I stand by my view that irresponsible ownership breeds aggression into dogs which otherwise might have made perfectly harmless family pets. I agree that there is no need to keep breeding Staffies, or any dog for that matter while the rescue centres are stuffed full of dogs waiting for good homes, but I do not think it does dogs any favours when people demonize them on a widely read website. All prejudice is born out of fear, and you are clearly expressing prejudicial views based on your unpleasant experience, for which again I sympathise. Isn't it is a bit like saying that all teenagers are thugs because a small minority carry knives and rob old ladies? I personally think that there are much more dangerous people than dogs roaming this planet, but that is another subject altogether.

Link to this comment
schmemily February 3, 2009 at 10:50 p.m.

I wasn't trying to make light of an emotive subject, its something I feel very strongly about. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that any dog treated badly can become aggressive. Its tragic that you lost your dog in such a horrible way and I really am sorry for the loss of your family pet.

My main problem with your posts was the fact that you pretty much accused me and all to other responsible bull-breed owners of being an irresponsible person and a disgrace to society - I felt there was no need for that.

As for those people that avoid my dog, I think a vast majority are more scared by what they've heard through the media than through personal experience. If I ever do get to talk to and reassure those people (which I try to do at every opportunity) they are usually surprised by the fact that she's a nice dog. Many of them admit to avoiding all staffs they come across without ever actually having properly met one. I'm also not trying to say there aren't any aggressive dogs out there... Of course there are, but my belief is that its not the dogs that are to blame. Its the fact that they are very popular with a certain kind of person that encourage aggressive behaviours. I would avoid any dog owned by that sort of person, regardless of breed.

Nobody should be breeding staffs at the moment - there are far too many in rescue. There is just no need. So I'd actually agree with you on that point (although not for the same reasons!). Having seen the ineffectiveness of breed specific legislation in this country, I just don't think that banning breed types (even if it was something I was for, rather than against) is ever going to be effective. I think its the human element that's the more important factor.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 3, 2009 at 10:05 p.m.

Schmemily.you are defending the breed because you own a staffie which is understandable.The owner of the 2 staffies that ripped my dog apart was also a responsible owner.HE did not teach his dogs aggression they had been trained had never shown aggression before etc etc.IM not saying we should have an amnesty im saying there are dangerous breeds that we need to erradicate.ALL we need to do is stop breeding bull baiting fighting and aggressive breeds.We ALL know which breeds these are and your comment about cocker spaniels is making light of a very serious subject and I think people who have lost loved ones at the end of aggressive breeds could be very offended by your lack of compassion or understanding to the more important side of the debate ; Im on the side of those you see who tell you to muzzle your dog ,pik their dogs up and cross the road etc. Have you never stopped to wonder why those people are so afraid .Where I live little old ladies are afraid to walk their dogs.IN many cases staffies on leads savage other dogs.Its not the dog owners that are to blame if the dogs wernt bred there would be no choice but to buy a more socially acceptable breed

Link to this comment
poppy2007 February 3, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.

SUE: Of course there are different levels of aggression in different breeds how can you possibly think there isnt.You need to do a little more research.More importantly there is a huge difference in the jaws and strength of different breeds resulting in the different amounts of damage that can be done.IM sure you will have seen the aggressive barring of teeth and yapping displayed by chihuias .They couldnt kill you.Pit breeds have the lockable jaw and the fight to kill instinct to go with it which combined is frightening. As for your brothers Roti who you say in the wrong hands would kill and make light of saying you suppose he could be considered a dangerous dog that is exactly the point .OF COURSE your brothers dog is dangerous. Imagine the carnage he could cause to man and dog were he to escape from his garden.Have you all forgotten the little girl in Scotland who had her throat ripped out by the family pet Rottie for giggling.That dog had never shown any aggression before.We owe it to that little girls parents and to anyone else whop has suffered at the end of dangerous breeds including the thousands of pets ripped apart each year to STOP BREEDING all pit breeds and all other breeds that have ever killed.The kennel club is a disgrace I dont blame the owners I blame the breeders

Link to this comment
Sue February 3, 2009 at 3:36 p.m.

I do not believe that any one dog breed is aggressive any more than I believe people with blonde hair are stupid or people with red hair are bad tempered (though they may be!) It is the old nature or nurture argument, and I do think that what a dog experiences from its owners makes a huge difference. Dogs are very like children in some respects. Be kind but firm, and they will respect your authority. Be weak, and they will exploit your weakness and assume leadership. Show them aggression and violence and they will respond by being aggressive and violent. I believe any dog can be trained to become aggressive, just as any dog can be trained to be passive and obedient, and it is all down to us as the owners. Of course, as with people, there are dogs with personality defects which mean that the normal rules do not necessarily apply, and it may be that these personality traits are more likely to be found in certain breeds of dog. Still, I think demonizing one breed is irresponsible and wrong. I have seen vicious Yorkshire Terriers, Jack Russells, Spaniels, Border Collies, Alsations, Rottweilers, and I have also seen very gentle examples in all breeds. My brother has a Rottie who will lick anyone to death, but the same Rottie in the hands of the wrong person could kill without question. Is this then a dangerous dog? Well, potentially yes, but it depends on the handler and the methods used. My two dogs are the softest things going, but when there has to be a boss, make no mistake it is me!! This is what they respond to, kind, firm discipline, boundaries which leave them knowing where they stand and how far they can go. They want only to please their leader, and I have no discipline issues whatsoever with my two girls. I can take them anywhere with confidence that they are under control and that if the unexpected should happen, I can deal with it. I have never used cruel or aggressive methods, you don't have to, and believe me, like children, they pushed to see how much I would put up with before they accepted me as their leader. The key to an obedient, happy and compliant dog is kind, firm and responsible ownership. There is no other way, that is it, and when dogs go out of control, as when our children do the same thing, it is down to us. We can't transfer that blame on to the dog. And in answer to Cambtreasurer, I am sure you are right. The local dog shelter is full of reject dogs from chaotic home backgrounds where there are no rules, no boundaries, no support, no discipline, and where the children, let alone the pets, are feral. It is a sad indictment of our society that we even have to have this debate, but at least everyone reading this wants things to change, which is a start.

Link to this comment
schmemily February 2, 2009 at 10:47 p.m.

To continue(because I seem to have written an essay- if you’ve got this far well done!)

Breeders in recent times have worked to breed out that dog aggressive trait and with the right upbringing staffs and other bull breeds will also be dog friendly. On our last walk Bailey happily said hello to a wide range of dogs, from two Chihuahuas to one MASSIVE St. Bernard and she often goes on walks with doggie friends. In fact she has been on the receiving end of dog-aggression recently, once from a Jack Russell, once from a Cocker Spaniel. That annoys me too when, as someone who is repeatedly told to keep their dog under control (and who does), other owners blame my dog for their dog’s bad behaviour.

I don’t believe the legislation for section one of the dangerous dog’s act (banning of certain breeds and type) works. It was brought in in 1991 and there are still pit-bulls around and still dog attacks do happen. I’m not saying we should re-legalise those banned breeds but the legislation instead needs to focus on the culture around keeping dogs as weapons and status symbols. Dog amnesties are a great example of where they’ve got it so wrong.... Anyone who owns a dangerous dog is clearly not going to turn it in to the police, instead responsible owners confused about the fact that a dog can be seized as “pit-bull type” (I’ve read cases where cross breed dogs are seized because they look like a pitbull – when they are anything but and parentage can be proven), get their dogs taken away after thinking they are doing the right thing.
“Blame the deed not the breed....”

Link to this comment
schmemily February 2, 2009 at 10:45 p.m.

Commenting on public forums is not something I do often and I’m not sure where to start, but as someone who has effectively been labelled as an “irresponsible dog owner” and a “disgrace to society” I felt I had to comment. Poppy2007 I have found your comments to be very offensive and upsetting. I am Veterinary student, have worked with a top dog behaviourist in this country and I’m a responsible Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner, so I’d like to think that my following comments do come from some educated experience.
Firstly all dogs are individuals and so to say that all pit-bulls are mindless killers, all collies hyperactive or all Labradors food hogs is a huge and, in the case of scapegoated breeds, possibly very dangerous generalisation to make. Of course breeds do have certain character traits, which is why anyone looking into a particular breed needs to do careful research. Do you think for one minute that somebody who wants to own a dog as a status symbol/weapon will take more than 5 minutes to research into the best way to handle/approach/exercise or discipline their chosen breed? Of course they don’t. So what happens is you end up with aggressive people, who view their dog as a weapon and encourage aggressive behaviour. I honestly think that any dog that grows up in an aggressive environment has the capability to become a dangerous dog. If you went out and told those same people that are attracted to bull-type breeds that a cocker spaniel was the next “hard” dog, you’d get an increase in the number of aggressive cockers out there. Not long ago I read an article that suggested that of all breeds tested, based on personality tests (however you’d carry those out on a dog!), Chihuahuas were amongst the most people aggressive.
What irritates me as a responsible owner is that because of my choice of breed I am tarred with the same brush . We have a rescue Staff and I’ve lost count of the number of times I have been walking her and people have picked up their dogs, crossed over to the other side of the street, told me that my dog should be wearing a muzzle or been told that I should not be allowed to walk my dog where there are other people, dogs and children about. We now do not let her off-lead in public parks both for her own safety (she gets “selective deafness” if she see’s something more interesting than me and she’s got no road sense!) but also because of the attitude of other people. Instead she is walked on a 10 meter long line. Bailey is great with children, she knows the difference between greeting teenage boys and small children, she is very gentle with the latter. In fact Staffordshire Bull Terriers are one of two dogs designated as “totally reliable” with children by the Kennel Club – hence the nickname “Nanny Dog”. Staffs were always bred to be family dogs, even when they were still used in fighting. They were the working man’s fighting dog and so had to fit in with family life too.

Link to this comment
bethany-kate January 31, 2009 at 7:39 p.m.

i agree with poppy2007, my dog was attacked by staffies and i have completely stayed away from them when i walk my dog. i used to love walking my dog, but now i have to look round everywhere and im sure that my dog does not enjoy it as much as she used too. it is very rare that staffies can be trained out of being aggressive and only silly owners buy them to look hard. we should stop breading them because it is unfair to everyone who is scared of them because we cant take them for as many walks as we used too and it is not fair that we can not have fun taking our dogs for walks!
today i saw a couple in the park wth 2 gorgeous labradors and they had to go home because they saw some staffies/pit bulls coming up to them. the owners looked horrific! and they had the cheek to let them off the lead. its horrible to not know if your safe and not and i think you will only understand how strongly i feel against staffies if it ever happens to you. it disguits me how dogs are not put down if they nearly kill a dog, my dog only just survived and if she hadnt there would be nothing done about it! this is terrible, so either stop breading the filth or change the law!!!!!

Link to this comment
lauren 1 January 31, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.

my dog died of brain damage and mental problems
i cry alot when i see adverts like rspca and dogs trust i would like to have her back now we have a new dog but nothing can replace her!! it was not her fult!if a owner trains a dog to kill then it is the owners fult if it is born to kill then its not the dogs fult dogs do not deside to have problems
STOP CRULTY NOW !! IT HURTS YOUR HEART AND THE DOGS HEART

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 31, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.

dcbpt;Thats just the point though a staffie wanting to kill another dog isnt a behavioural problem caused by the owner it is its basic instinct and if you want to look after a dogs needs then please recognise that a pit dogs need is to fight which brings me back to why are we still breeding a dog that shudnt be a family pet.we cant keep blaming owners just because they wernt bright enough to research a breed before they bought we need to make sure these breeds are no longer available to buy

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 31, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.

Autumn we keep lions in cages because they are dangerous. we breed dangerous dogs to live in houses with us and that is the bit the kennel club have failed to adress

Link to this comment
Autumn1991 January 31, 2009 at 12:53 a.m.

There is no dog on the planet that cannnot be properly trained, and if not entirely trainable, it should wear a muzzle when out in public, or live somewhere where there are not young children or people it could harm.

WE KEEP LIONS IN ZOOS IN THE MIDDLE OF CITIES.
Surely if lions can be tamed enough to be kept in cities full of people, then these owners can get their acts together?

IT IS THE FAULT OF THE OWNER.

(only my opinion)

Link to this comment
dcptb94 January 30, 2009 at 4:20 p.m.

Just another case of uneducated owners. If we are to have pets that depend on us for all their needs, we at least owe it to them to look after them responsably. We should clue ourselves up so we can provide them with a good quality of life and not turn them into monsters. Some dogs end up with lifelong behavioral problems that could potentially lead to someone getting hurt or for the dog to be destroyed.

Link to this comment
tarka January 30, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.

Dogs that were originally bred for fighting are not bred by responsible breeders for those traits any more. Of course there are people out there who dont breed responsibly but that is not the dogs fault. people need to stop singling out staffys any dog not socialised with dogs properly will of course have behavioral problems.

Link to this comment
UKLFC January 30, 2009 at 12:33 p.m.

It's not the animal's fault, and nine times out of ten, it's not the owner's fault. Conditioning with animals happens up until they are 14 weeks old. If they are used to people and other animals, they are usually sociable animals, unless there is an underlying problem (either pain, illness) that means they will lash out. Like most of us.

However, there are owners who give everyone a bad name. Not all Staff/Bulldog/English Bull terrier owners own their dogs for fighting VeganxChick, so you really need to get your facts right before having a go. My aunt's got two Staffies, they're scatty but they're loyal and calm, specially around my cousin who has learning difficulties.

It doesn't matter what breed of dog it is, mistreatment at any stage of it's life can cause it to turn on it's owner or anyone else it sees as a threat. It's happened to me, I didn't ask or provoke a dog to attack me when I was 7, but it did.

(Off-topic, alasatians and german shepherds are one and the same breed, just different names.)

There are people who breed dogs for fighting, but luckily the number is few and far between. There are also people who mistreat their animals, but since the animal has had different conditioning at the important 0-14 week old phase of their life, they are less likely to snap out. And that is more sickening

Link to this comment
Mags53 January 29, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.

Every one going on about Staffies (and I don't have one, I keep gundog breeds) - why? I see lots of breeds (I help to run a training club for dogs and am on commitees for dog clubs) and I would have a Staffie ANY day over a Rottie - now they are unpredictable, you just cannot read them, they have unemotional eyes and are very focused and persistant. Don't forget the little girl in scotland a few years ago who had her throat ripped out by her frineds two Rotties - because she was giggling!! If you are going to go down the route of breed specific bans then Rotties will need to be included.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 24, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.

Shakeyjake. If your dog gets aggressive with other dogs and no amount of training will stop this then one day it could kill a smaller dog. I sincerely hope you keep it mussled and on a lead and it would have been easier to live with a dog that wasnt bred for bull baiting wouldnt it so maybe you should ask yourself why you chose that breed.VERY irresponsible of you.Why not choose a breed whos instinct is to retrieve and not to kill.Much more fun to throw a ball to a dog in the park than have a dog that wants to attack and isnt allowed to.How cruel

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 24, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.

Rotties 4eva you are actually the first person on this site that understands the problems.Its good to hear your voice

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 22, 2009 at 9:35 p.m.

The Owner of the two staffies that savaged my dog had not made them aggressive.It wasnt the dogs fault they wanted to kill.That was what they were bred for.They will never be destroyed if they only kill dogs .Why dont we just put an end to breedig as we have with pit bulls .Think of all the lives we can save by ridding the street of the most popular pit breed around or do we wait for a few more babies and kids to be savaged first like we did with pit Bulls. Im disgusted with the kennel club cant blame the owners,If they wernt available to buy they might buy another breed

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 22, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.

rottie. I can well believe your dog was savaged by two staffies. You are VERY lucky he lived. Time we put an end to the breeding of all pit breeds of dog .If we could make a start with staffies that would be good They are ruining communities where decent family pets are being killed and mained and these dogs that do it only get put down if they seriously injure a human, Im sick of hearing staffie owners defending the breed >Im here to defend the hundreds of non pit breeds who should be safe to go for a walk with their owners and ARNT!!

Link to this comment
rotties4eva January 21, 2009 at 10:13 p.m.

hi, i have owned a surposed dangerous breed and have also been at the end of a staffie. i had a rottweiler who was set apon by 2 staff bull terriers at the age of 14weeks of age, they pinned him and only by luck i pulled my rottie pup out of their jaws and prob saved his life, the staff owners were as good as kids who thought it was funny, i don't blame the dogs or the breed i blame the humans. any dog can do what they are capable of, my rottie had this bad turn that made him 'funny' with other dogs was nothing to do with me but i knew how to control him. i have owned a staffie aswell, they are lovely dogs IN THE RIGHT HANDS i think the staffs that are around at the moment are being very over bread and to many are being crossed with pit balls or even now people are putting staffs on any bitch in heat i have seen them crossed with rotties, bull mastiffs, german shephards, boxers even labradors. i went to battersea dogs home and it makes me so sad as there are so many staffies and crosses there who were once status dogs no longer wanted :o(
i belive any dog can be dangerous and people who breed staffs at present are only money hungary cashing in on a over bread dog which is doing the breed no help. the sad thing is that rottweilers are becoming part of this status breeding and now i would not own another rottweiler due to this.
so i agree with both sides but in personal choice i would never own a staffordshire bull terrier again due to now the bad breeding!
i have heard bad things about akitas german shephards rottweilers even jack russels any breed is dangerous its the owner who can either have a lovely pet or bring out its bad side.

Link to this comment
VeganxChick January 20, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.

If a dog becomes aggressive then the blame lies 100% with the owner. There are too many stories on the news of dogs 'attacking' children and then being destroyed. If a dog is aggressive, then it is the owner who makes the poor creature this way.

The dogs who get the bad press are mainly bulldogs. These are the same dogs who spineless individuals do dog fights with. It is just appalling. Anyone caught doing this should get a minimum 3 year prison sentence and be banned from owning animals for life. In an ideal world any cowards who abuse animals should get a life sentence, and life should mean life!

Link to this comment
shakeyjake January 14, 2009 at 3:24 p.m.

Can i just say that i also beleive it is not the dog breed at fault, it is the socialisation and training given by the owner.
I am owned by a very sociable boxer - that is until he meets other large dogs at which point he becomes extreemly aggressive. He is a rescue dog but is getting better with a lot of consistent training and no mixed messages.

Nobody really talks about breeds that they see as "pets" being agressive, but boxers were initially bred as bull baiting dogs and then used as guard dogs by the german army - my point is that all dogs can be agressive if not socialised and trainied properly.

Liz

Link to this comment
shearer January 14, 2009 at 12:28 p.m.

I used to have a dog, and she wasn't nasty, but if made nastly by my parents, she would be horrible. I think dogs behaviour is based on its owner and if the dog needs to, they will be nasty. As to many dogs are given a bad name.

Link to this comment
malibu January 13, 2009 at 11:34 p.m.

twils3 - In response to your posting, which made me smile :) I had 3 cats, on has unfortunatly been killed by a car, and the cats have always been treated like royalty by my two staffies. They will even stand aside their food bowl, while the cats pinch a dog biscuit or two. My oldest Staffy even cries when the cats are play fighting!

Link to this comment
twils3 January 13, 2009 at 10:13 p.m.

I was surprised to see all the comments about staffies I have one a bitch who is now nine yrs old I have never had one hapeworth of trouble with her she only sticks her heckle up if other dogs come sniffing round and then it is a yap or a bark I also have a black labrador who is twice the size of my staffie but she takes every toy off him and he never even curls his lip he lets her do has she pleases But if you have a dog and every time you pass it and poke it with a stick that dog is going to be waiting its chance to make you pay and good luck to it

Link to this comment
malibu January 13, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.

And to add to my statement, I would like to say to POPPY2007 that I am sorry to hear about your. Unfortunatly there are a number of Staffie owners who own their dog due to some sort of status they believe it gives them. I can assure you my dogs were not bred to fight or kill. Infact the breeder wanted to check I just wanted a family pet. I have an interest in animal behaviour, and a degree in zoology, and can assure you I read many books and did countless hours of internet research. I chose the breed due to my experience with the breed in veterinary practice, and due to the more positive characteristics. It is sad that Bull Terriers were historically bred for fighting, but that is no different to the fact that German Shepherds were bred for their intelligence and stealth, traits making them good police dogs, and countless other dogs for hunting rabbits etc. Would you rule out a Beagle as a breed because they have been used to track and kill foxes?? All dogs have an amount of animal instinct, whether that be for hunting or other. I think it far more disgusting that breeds such as the British Bulldog have been so overbred, they need operations to assist normal breathing, and are no longer to give birth naturally

Link to this comment
malibu January 13, 2009 at 5:26 p.m.

I was upset to join the site today to find Staffies in the recent discussion topics. I own 2 Staffies who are extremely friendly and sociable, not just with humans. They are well known amongst my large community of friends, of all ages, some dog owners themselves, as being very chilled and friendly. I have worked in Veterinary practice for 5 years, and have seen many clients bring in a dogs that have been injured in a fight. 99% of these were non serious injuries, and the instances of a Staffie being the culprit were no more common than any other breed. I believe socialisaton at a young age is inperative for any breed of dog, not just the 'bad-press-breeds'.
Dont get me wrong, Staffies are hard work, they are more intelligent than they look and do require a firm hand, but I believe most breeds do. I am deeply saddened recently to see so many Staffies in rescue. I believe many people take on a puppy for its 'look' and 'status' and are unable to deal with common doggie behaviour, such as desruction anxiety. Owning a dog is a responsibility which no-one should take lightly. Although my dogs are well socialised I accept there is a small amount of behaviour due to instinct. This will never change as they are pack animals, and will always be

Link to this comment
tarka January 13, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.

Poppy without the right training and socialisation any dog can attack another dog. Staffys are powerful breeds with strong jaws so will cause more damage than smaller breeds but there are other breeds out there that are just as powerful and could cause just as much damage.

Link to this comment
Mags53 January 12, 2009 at 10:53 p.m.

In a way both sides of the argument about staffies are correct. They do make super pets and are VERY sociable to humans. They were originally bred to fight (not necessarily other dogs) and so have a very efficient bite that is difficult to break once they have "locked-on" But, just because they were once fighting/baiting dogs doesn't mean that they have to be vicious now It seems to me that some unsavoury human types want a dog that is vicious and dangerous - all they have to do to breed this into ANY breed is to select sire/dam with bad temprement, breed, then breed into that again and again - result, puppies pre-disposed to vicious temper. That can be done with any animal - bull breeds are heavy, muscled dogs and so are potentially more of a problem than a less powerful dog who takes to nibbling people and pets.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 11, 2009 at 2:36 p.m.

Tarka I didnt say they didnt make a good pet I said they have been bred to kill and the staffies that rip other dogs to shreds are very rarely trained to fight nor do they have what you might term bad owners. On nearly every occasion this happens the owner will say he or she had never shown any aggression .Why do you think Pit Bulls were banned from being bred Tarka? IT will take years to erradicate all pit breeds but a start would be to ban the breeding of them.That way we can choose from the hundreds of other breeds that man has created without the physical and instinctive traits bred into them to tear our beloved family pets to shreds and destroy families and communities, Where I live the Staffie is a common sight.At least 4 other families have lost their decent dogs to these monsters.Even on a lead they can cause irrepairable damage.Family pet? No community nightmare to everyone elses family pet

Link to this comment
HelpingAnimalsGirl January 10, 2009 at 4:03 p.m.

I think it is how the owner treats the dog if the dog is bad and the owner doesn't tell it off it might carry on and the problem may get worst.

Link to this comment
Sazzii January 9, 2009 at 6:38 p.m.

all dogs have the posiblity 2 attack another it just stopped by the owner. they would fight in the wild 2 but its a good job that owners socialize them and that most of there wolf insticts have been wiped out. and yes staffies can be goood family pets as long as they are trained properly.

Link to this comment
tarka January 9, 2009 at 1:51 p.m.

Poppy I have done plenty of research into staffys. If you had you would see plenty of facts to show that they make great pets when properly trained but that is also the case with all dogs.

Link to this comment
kara.moore January 8, 2009 at 11:06 p.m.

I am reading everyone's comments but i have to agree the nature of a dog lies with the owner. Everyone sterotypes a staffie beacuse of the way it looks and the history of the dog. If you treat the dog in a mannar to fight then they will fight just as a human would. I have a staffie who is the most lovin friendly dog that anyone could ask for and i just think people are so easy lead by others opnions.
If you ask me then other dogs can be just as harmful!!!

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 8, 2009 at 10:19 p.m.

trigger. I am voicing the opinions of hundreds of people whos dogs have been savaged by staffies. Staffie owners always say 'i dont understand why he did it hes never done it before and hes a great family pet etc etc' I just want an end to the breeding and sale of pit type dogs.The owner of the two Staffies who savaged my dog thought he was responsible but at the end of the day if he was responsible why did he not get his dogs put to sleep.I hear time and time again of families grieving over the loss of their beloved dogs and nine times out of ten killed by a pit breed who has no choice but for its jaws to lock round its target.There is no such thing as a sweet staffie where the domesticated house dog is concerned.im in favour of a complete ban on all pit breeds .I think you have done absolutely no research on staffies.When you have we will talk again.

Link to this comment
Sazzii January 8, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.

and staffies given the right owner and environment they are great dogs just like all the other breeds

Link to this comment
Sazzii January 8, 2009 at 9:22 p.m.

For god sake people these dogs have been bred to ddo this by there stupid pratts of yob owners these dog do have the potential to kill another dog by the way it attacks but if they are socialised at a young age they dont get this problem also it helps if they havent been trained to do so. I hate these people id love to see them in ring with the best boxer in there with them and watch them fight. yes they do pick up things the owners do but they dont pick up evreything. Bring on a change of law!!!! People who do this are a******s so they should go 2 hell. The quicker the law changes the better. I hope the law gets rid of horse and dog racing too!!!!!

Link to this comment
pupmadteen January 8, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.

In my opinion, a bad dog is only bad because we say it is, it is bad in OUR opinion. Part of being a responsible dog owner is teaching your dog what is and isn't acceptable!
If these owners are ignoring their responsibilities, they should suffer the consequences not their dogs!!!
It can't be the dogs fault either because this behaviour may be bad to us but it is instinct to them. Staffie's are sweet dogs when given the right care and owner. They are usually friendly, playful and energetic.

I just have one concern though: how do we actually stop this from happening? Is it possible to police it?

Link to this comment
trigger January 7, 2009 at 7:37 p.m.

Poppy - In response to your posts - what planet are you honestly on? I can only imagine you are posting to get a reaction, how you can say there is no such thing as a responsible staffie owner is beyond me. The truth of the matter is you would find it hard to find a more loyal and trustworthy pet than a staffie if treated with the respect and care the breed deserves, trust me I know. There is no such thing as a bad dog only bad owners, and owners need to be held responsible for the actions of their pets be it any type of animal.
All dogs need to be licensed with proper regulations and these sick pathetic idoits that harm these dogs, fight them, or fail to look after them should face serious legal repercussions

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 7, 2009 at 7:07 p.m.

in response to tarka you are typical of the many many staffie owners making excuses. I say to you you should do a little bit more research cos pit breeds kill dogs

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 7, 2009 at 7:03 p.m.

wolstie. If your dog had been attacked by a pit breed we wouldnt be talking about few puncture wounds.My point is the collie that hurt your dog was not trained properly and the owner is at fault wheras a staffie is bred to kill and no owner could do anything to change that. i wish my dog had been attacked by a collie and not a staffie.Pit breeds destroy communities and cause heartache within families who chose a dog as a family member

Link to this comment
poppy2007 January 7, 2009 at 6:46 p.m.

In response to Marnie. The pit breeds such as staffies have had the instinct and the nescessary physical characteristics BRED into them BY Humans!! The breed were never intended to get on with other dogs which is why time after time peoples prescious family pets are ripped to pieces.Its time this country stopped breeding this type of dog.It is damaging communities and there are hundreds of other breeds to choose from that dont kill dogs or injure people.People who choose staffies have either not researched the breed or do not give a damm for other peoples dogs.In both cases are irresponsible.There is no such thing as a responsible pit dog owner cos a dog lover would choose a family pet that wasnt bred for fighting

Link to this comment
missanimallover15 January 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

How can people do these things too animals?They have a right to live in comfort-just as we do.Its never the dogs fault when it fights in these circumstances.These owners should be ashamed of themselves.

Link to this comment
wolstie January 6, 2009 at 1:02 p.m.

I believe that there are some dogs which are just naturally aggressive. Although, very rare! Mostly its ignorance of owners, and sadly owners who want a dog to make them look 'hard'. A lot of problems arise when an inexperienced owner gets a breed that is meant for working, guarding etc. They have no knowledge on how to train and handle them, and no laws in place to insist they take classes with their dog, or before buying one. If laws like this were in place, any responsible person would be quite willing to go along with it so as to have a happy and contented pet. Any person found to be mistreating an animal of any kind, should be banned for life from keeping them, especially when it is a possible threat to the community. This can be any breed, not just the usual suspects. No dog should ever be left unsupervised with children, or off lead and out of site running around, as was a collie that recently attacked my ridgeback, the owner was about 200yards away, round a corner and on a lower level path, my dog was on the lead. When the owner arrived, she blamed me because my dog had of course tried to defend herself (and me), her dog had come round the corner full speed straight at my dog.

Link to this comment
wolstie January 6, 2009 at 12:55 p.m.

Just to add, my ridgeback did have puncture wounds from this, minor but still unacceptable. Her collie was unharmed. If I see this person now, she gives me 'the evil eye' her dog is still left to its own devices, although it stays away from my girl now. I always put my dog on her lead when I see others coming, not because of her behaviour, but you just never know with other people.

Link to this comment
wolstie January 6, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.

I believe that there are some dogs which are just naturally aggressive. Although, very rare! A lot of problems arise when an inexperienced owner gets a breed that is meant for working, guarding etc. They have no knowledge on how to train and handle them, and no laws in place to insist they take classes with their dog, or before buying one. If laws like this were in place, any responsible person would be quite willing to go along with it so as to have a happy and contented pet. Any person found to be mistreating an animal of any kind, should be banned for life from keeping them, especially when it is a possible threat to the community. No dog should ever be left unsupervised with children, or off lead and out of site running around, as was a collie that recently attacked my ridgeback, the owner was about 200yards away, round a corner and on a lower level path, my dog was on the lead. When the owner arrived, she blamed me because my dog had of course tried to defend herself (and me), her dog had come round the corner full speed straight at my dog.

Link to this comment
Tammeazile January 5, 2009 at 8:46 p.m.

Of course the fault doesnt lie with the dogs it's either the owner's, as many have already said, or it's the body language of the people around them. Some dogs used to be bred for fighting years ago so it's kind of what they know and you can't blame them because again it's our fault for breeding them like that. And then if they do attack people the dog gets put down. Can't we help this dog? Teach it not to do it again? We don't kill people when they take lives (and some dogs are put down if it's just a bite and nobody's killed it happened when my friend was biten) I'm not saying we should kill people whenever they kill another that's barbaric and then it makes us no better than them. It's a proven fact humans are animals, and it's our fault no matter what the sircumstance but it's the dog that gets killed. And then I ask you if you look at the facts, what is it that's so different from us to dogs which means they get killed and we get put in prison for the same offence? Apart from the appearance but if we're all animals, all mammels. What is the big difference? Why can't we treat them the same. OK maybe I'm going a bit far we can't treat them like humans because their not, member of the family yes but not eactly the same as us. I'm just trying to say that I don't think it's right that dogs get put down and humans just get put in prison.

Link to this comment
tarka December 31, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.

Any breed can become aggressive to either other dogs or people without the right amount of socialisation at a young age so owners do need to take responsibility for the behaviour of their dog. I have fostered a number of rescue dogs including many staffys and staffy crosses and any problems can be rectified with the right training and socialisation. I have never encountered any staffy which I have fostered which has had any aggression problems towards people even when they have been prev cruelly treated they have all been extremely affectionate and love to please so are v easy to train. people need to realise all terrier breeds were bred to kill not just staffys and pit bulls plus there are dogs such as bulldogs and the sharpei which are fighting dogs. However all dog owners no matter what breed need to be responsible i have seen many small breeds treated like babies that have become extremely aggressive.

Link to this comment
Marnie-x December 29, 2008 at 6:08 p.m.

I don't think it's anyone's fault. Sure the owner might of done something wrong and people are saying stop breeding dogs with a instinct to kill but man was born to kill so should we stop having babies?

Link to this comment
poppy2007 December 23, 2008 at 9:40 p.m.

and if you research the breed and find that staffies are bred to fight and kill do you think its right to own a dog like that sophie?

Link to this comment
Smiley Sophie December 22, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.

I mostly think it is down to the owner, they should pay more attention to the dog and it might be aggresive because of the way its been brought up. When you see children becoming murderers it is often down to bad parenting or bullying. Having said that, you do seem to see more dog breeds like staffies being bad, so it probaly also has a bit to do with genes, but the owner should be able to handle that and train it to be nice. Always research the breed before you buy it, and research the breeder you get it from.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 December 20, 2008 at 2:15 p.m.

At the end of the day lets just put an end to breeding staffies.They are ruining communities. We wouldnt be having this debate about whether its the owner or dog at fault if dogs bred to kill ie stffie types were no longer bred.The Kennel club should also take responsibility

Link to this comment
poppy2007 December 20, 2008 at 2:10 p.m.

the breed should be treated in the same way as pitbulls. There are No responsible staffie owners. If they were responsible they would choose one of the hundreds of other breeds who were not bred to kill.Only then can decent responsible dog owners walk the streets without fear of their beloved family member being ripped to shreds!Staffie owners who have researched the breed before purchase are a disgrace to society

Link to this comment
jerryandlucky December 19, 2008 at 10:11 p.m.

I feel sorry for these poor dogs who are ill treated by their owners, but I agree dogs with the instinct to kill should not be bred. Although I would congratulate those responsible owners of Staffies who have contributed to this site. Staffies seem to get bad press, but my whippet and I have met a fair mixture of friendly ones and aggressive ones, although I must admit I put my dog on his lead when I see one. In my own experience Alsations and German shepherds frighten me more, having been attacked by twice as a child and having suffered losing my dear cat to a pack of the b*stards in 1989. I think dog owners should take full responsibility for their dogs and as a first time dog owner I have found my whipper puppy to be an ideal family pet, he chases rabbits but has never killed one and he plays with my cat like he did his litter mates ie nibbles but doesn't bite and gets a claw clout and a paw punch for his trouble.

Link to this comment
poppy2007 December 19, 2008 at 10:43 a.m.

there is a REASON why Chavs are attracted to the breed

Link to this comment
poppy2007 December 19, 2008 at 9:17 a.m.

i think we shouldnt forget breed in all this. staffies ARE a fighting breed and the instinct is to kill.Even with the best owner in the world one of these dogs can escape from a garden and if they do chances are somebodys pet is going to get ripped to shreds. i know this to be true as it happened to my family pet who was being walked on a lead.many people have had their family pets mauled by staffies.Its not the dogs fault its the fact that people are allowed to buy a breed that was always bred as a fighter and not a pet. There should be a complete ban on owning an animal who cannot help its inbred instinct to kill.come on would we bring a tiger into our homes and call it a pet !!! Staffie owners will always defend their dogs but they are irresponsible in their choice of breed.Why when there are so many non fighting breeds out there do peoplle continue to bring these viscious breeds into their homes and cause so much heartache to people whos beloved family pets are killed or seriously injured by them.Its time staffies were treated the same way as pitbulls. they are a pit dog always have been and always will be

Link to this comment
Charley December 8, 2008 at 10:57 p.m.

The blame always lies with the owner as, if a child is naughty the fault lies with the parents, WHAT IS THE DIFFENRENCE? dogs are only as nice as they are treated if you love and respect your dog then you will have the best dog on the street.
I GIVE ANIMALS A VOICE!

Link to this comment
staffysvoice December 6, 2008 at 6:58 p.m.

we also have " Chavs" in our area who sadly give staffy's a bad name. it's just another blame the breed not the monster at the other end of the lead.

in our area THE RSPAC have DONE NO FAVOURS TO THE STAFFY NAME because more people now think staffys are owned by low life.

cheers 4 that !! weapon of choice dosen't exactly go down well with ignorant people who blame the breed.

Link to this comment
staffysvoice December 6, 2008 at 6:48 p.m.

I can never understand the mentality of anyone who could possibly blame a dog for the actions forced upon it by it's OWNER !!. how can a dog be to blame?? what does it do think i know what when i grow up i'll get ripped to bit's for fun?? you hear people say they are born evil WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE USE FOR A BRAIN.??. i own staffys and i 100% take full responsibility for their actions because i know if they do wrong that's because i haven't taught them right. i love my dogs with every beat of my heart, they cause no problems, do not attck other animals do not bite people and love kids why?? because i have not taken away their gentle nature. i have not abused them and caused them pain and tourture of another dog attacking them. i have not trained them to fight so i blame ownership. i do understand some people take on rescue dog's that have been abused so the new owner is not at fault the past the dog has had will leave scars and some dogs just can't adapt to living with other animals but that's because of the mental cruelty aswell as physical abuse. one of my staffys was attacked and hurt by another dog i have seen the mess another dog can do and belive me it's not only staffys that can fight other dogs can cause damadge but they are allowed to in the public eye if it ain't a staffy, pit or rottie attacking it isn't good enough to make the headlines!!.

Link to this comment
Horse Love December 5, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.

Due to dog cycoligy dogs rely so much on they're owners as they regard them as pack leaders like they would have in the wild. Pack leaders r chosen by the rest of the pack for they're wisdom & leadership qualites. It must be so confusing for the dogs if they're owners make them do things that hurt or give confusing messages, no wonder if they become vilant

Link to this comment
Horse Love December 4, 2008 at 3:21 p.m.

I think it's so sad when bullys drag other people into they're trouble and this is even worse particuarly if the dogs get hurt or punished as they don't know they're doing anything wrong. I think the vidio was completely out and the images r awful. Thank god for the new law so they can be taken away before they start to suffer. Why do people do these things? they do so much harm to other animals & themselves. I will deffo join in the campaign. something should be done about it!

Link to this comment
bryony December 2, 2008 at 6:57 a.m.

just watched the video and OMG. how can people treat dogs like that. it's so wrong.

Link to this comment
henrys mum December 2, 2008 at 3:02 a.m.

I have always had the belief that a dogs behaviour is the result of their owners behaviour, or lack of instruction. A small percentage of behaviour of any kind can be apportioned to their parentage and general breed instinct, BUT a pup with aggressive tendencies, can be trained out of this when young with gentle but firm handling which instructs it that this behaviour is unacceptable.Remember! Aggression begets Aggression!! A tired dog is much less frustrated and will have less 'issues'. Many supposedly imbalanced/problem dogs are dogs with pent up energy that have no outlet for it, they are permenantly on edge, and this is due to their owners lack of commitment. They haven't the time, energy or will to care for its physical and mental needs.
I used to judge certain breeds of dogs because of what I'd read/heard about them. But having got to know many dogs and crosses of these breed, I've come to understand that there is no such thing as an aggressive breed.Some breeds were bred for aggression so without proper care and training these breeds have the potential for their instincts to reappear, but again this is the humans fault, we bred certain dogs to do specific jobs, some useful others just stupid but they had control of these dogs because they always respected their potential. They afforded the dog respect, yet kept them under control, and ensured they 'knew their place'. In the majority of cases a dog will only act aggressively towards another dog or person if he has either been trained to do so, or has had a frightening experience even then the dog in general would most likely flee rather than attack unless they have not been given that option. Many people get dogs not even knowing what that breed initially was bred to do. There are people buying dogs bred to attack bulls and fight other dogs,yet do no training to ensure it knows its place and understands its modern day duties. Just because a breed hasn't done the job for centuries, doesn't mean that the instinct to do the job has dissappeared entirely. Many dogs today wouldn't know what to do in their original environment, but the instinct is still there. If provoked into acting aggressively, or if allowed a dog can soon understand that aggression gets them what they want, and each victory reinforces the behaviour. Most dogs that are aggressive have been taught to act this way. I believe that the government should bring back some sort of licensing to ensure that dogs are in a good home, well cared for and controlled, and only licenced breeders are allowed to breed dogs to eliminate the possibility of breeding a dog predisposed towards violence, and to ensure that the owners know fully their breeds characteristics, and what general problems they could face with each breed. Also most reputable breeders won't let a pup go to a home where they fear the dog is going to be encouraged to become aggressive, or not be cared for correctly.

Link to this comment
x_jenny December 1, 2008 at 9:03 p.m.

Unless the dog has a mental problem,
then it is always the owners folt.
Alot of people don't understand dogs,
treat them in aways that makes the dog aggresive, and the dog sees this behaviour as normal.
Yes, there are certain dogs that have it in there nature to be aggrestive, but if those dogs are brought up in the proper enviroment then they can make the best of pets.

Link to this comment
timbof November 30, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Some dogs are naturally aggressive. I have a Staff; generally he is submissive and well-behaved, but he has been known to respond assertively when under duress.

As a responsible owner I always seek to maintain good control over him and remove him from any potentially challenging incidents.

At the end of the day, all good owners should do this. Too many young men do not do this and, ergo, problems are maximised. Some are also downright cruel (i.e. so called "gang members" - I prefer to call them brainless deadweights who can't think for themselves). They should be neutered along with their dogs, who should be removed from them.

I fully support any campaign that seeks to stamp out dog fighting, exploitation of dogs and cruelty. I might also support a campaign that seeks to stamp out spiteful, moronic youths with no more than two brain cells! This, however, is a wider social issue, one that UK plc is failing to tackle and will ulitmately create major problems for the future.

Link to this comment
WolfGirl November 30, 2008 at 4:41 p.m.

Its the owners fault as they are treating the dog in this way and the dog wont know any better than to fight as it what the owner wants them to do. Dog fighting is horrible and cruel and some of wounds they have to bare... its disgusting! The poilce and MPs should take more action to stop people doing this to dogs.
It's mostly young boys who want to seem tough and dont want people to 'mess with them'. I saw a gang of boys with a husky and when I walked by the dog started growling and snapping at me.

Link to this comment
kitten November 30, 2008 at 12:43 p.m.

dog fighting is so cruel and more should be done about it . its only the low life of our society who enjoy this evil .i once reported a dangerous dog to my local police station the police did nothing about the dog . this dog attacked every animal it saw. i also found out how the low life owner of the dog let it attack a cat . the owner of the cat could not do any thing to stop it they stood and screamed as there cat was killed . the dog its self was very badly treated by its scum bag owners and they used the dog as a weapon against each other and thats how the police finally got the animal and it was destroyed as it was a band breed .the police raided the house got the other dog they had but they gave that back to the low life family it walks around the streets now iam scared now for my own pet if i report this dog i know nothing will be done.so i would say the owner is to blame

Link to this comment
rspca under 8teenz November 30, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.

Of course its the owners! If they trained them properly no agresion would be presented to dog or human or any other living thing or object.If the dog has a mental problem then it would not be the owners fault but this case does not occur in many of the agresion problems.If you get dogs from rescue homes agresion may develop from being mistreated. People have posted about their staffys but they are not the worst cases.The otherday though my dad walked my belgian shepherd cross a staf was running at her agresively but where was the owner?! nowhere to be seen! In most cases it is the owners fault.People may disagree with me but this is my opinion.

Link to this comment
voice November 30, 2008 at 9:40 a.m.

I agree with 'dobiegirl' post about there are other factors involved. maybe not all chav owners beat there dogs to make them aggressive and the aggression is related to dominance and fear. But I believe that all dog owners have a responsibility to have a basic understanding of dog behaviour and that way dominance and fear aggression can be solved.
To own a happy balanced dog an owner must:
Understand their pack structure so they can replicate this in the family home. this involves discipling the dog (NOT PUNISHING!). A dog who knows his boundries is almost always more relaxed because he is not carrying the weight of the pack resposibility on his shoulders. A lot of aggression towards other dogs and disobedience is branched from the dog thinking that it is the pack leader.
Understand the importance of socialisaton.
Understand the importance of frequent training and exercise.
Understand the importance of neutering. (THERE ARE TOO MANY UNHOMED DOGS TO HAVE MORE LITTERS!)

Unfortunately many teenagers these days a raised by teenagers and im sorry to generalise but it does seem to be 'chavs' that are bringing the country down in many areas.
If by law owners needed to show a basic understanding of dog behaviour and general care, particularly those who own powerful breeds, maybe we can eliminate poor owneship.

Link to this comment
Sxc-ShanniieXx November 29, 2008 at 10:03 p.m.

I think the owners are to blame! The dog has no control over what he/she is trained to do, its only acting like its owner is acting. The lack of responsibility is appalling. With some people once they've had the dog for a while they dont care anymore && get bored. And they decide to train it to attack other animals && people. I find it disgusting. These dogs end up dying from extreme injuries & shock, I dont understand how anyone can actually stand to see this happen or do it themselves!
More care should be taken!!

All my heart && soul Shannon, 13yr old!

Link to this comment
animallover57 November 29, 2008 at 6:43 p.m.

I think the owners are to blame - the dog is only acting like the human. The lack of responsibility is appalling. Once the novelty has worn off, the owner just treats them like dirt! More care should be taken and the owners should treat their pets with respect.

Link to this comment
Dobiegirl November 29, 2008 at 2:53 p.m.

I think there are a lot of factors that make an aggressive dog, yes, ok it can be due to negligence and abuse from the owner. But also it can be from domination from another dog in the house, or picking on by children who are doing this without the owners knowledge.

I have 2 Dobies, both well behaved and balanced. However a year ago when we rescued our male Dobie I found my girl started to become aggressive towards children. When we got on top of the male Dobe's bullying behavior, she started to become OK around children again. However less experienced people may not notice this happening and it could become worse, to the point of no return with aggression.

I hope that makes sense, im just trying to say its not always the owners, there are other factors too.

Link to this comment
bonzocs November 29, 2008 at 1:33 p.m.

In my opinion its most definitely the owner, and to put these dogs in a position of risk of injury as well as the mental torment they must go through is terrible. Just like people, dogs will obtain the social behaviors of their environment. This type of thing really shows what kind of people own these dogs and personally they should be prevented from owning pets at all.

As stated by Rae Rae 'there are no bad dogs just bad owners'

Link to this comment
snowyangel November 29, 2008 at 1:15 p.m.

i think it is the owner's fault if their dog becomes aggresive and injures and kills other dogs because if you bring up your dog with love and affection you will get it back but if you treat it aggressivly and beat it and train it to fight then you are automaticly making it aggressive toward other people and dogs.

Link to this comment
Rabbit crazy November 29, 2008 at 11:51 a.m.

to be honest i do like dogs but not aggresive ones.
The problem with aggresive dogs is their owners, the owners beat the dogs and treat them very aggresivley which is what makes the dogs aggresive to other people because the dogs are brainwashed in to thinking being aggresive is good, its not!
I have read in a newspaper that a dog actually attacked a mother and a baby in a park in Edgware.
I cannot believe that some owners would actually let their dog become, how should i put, possesed into thinking violence is good!
Owners who are caught doing this should be banned from having dogs or prosicuted severley!

Link to this comment
staffylover November 29, 2008 at 10:27 a.m.

I own a staffordshire bull terrier and he is the most affectionate dog I have ever had, there isn't a bad bone in his body. The environment in which you raise a dog has an immense impact on its nature. If you care for your animals appropriately and show them love and affection you will receive that in return. I whole heartedly believe that it is very much up to the owner. If owners abuse their dogs then it is obvious you would get the worst out of them, I hope that the government take harsher action against individuals who abuse and neglect their dogs in this way. Regardless of breed any dog has the capacity to be agressive just as any individual has but it is the environment that drives this as well as experience/treatment. Dogs in the care of abusive owners should be removed immediately and those who use their dogs as "weapons" should have legal action brought before them, afterall you would expect individuals to know better through sheer reason and common sense.

Link to this comment
Gina November 29, 2008 at 8:31 a.m.

My dog (a Staffordshire Bullterrier) is the most affectionate animal I've ever owned. We've had him from the age of 8 weeks and treated him with love, affection and respect. All dogs are affectionate, willing and able to please their owners. If you abuse animals or treat them with disrespect, they will be frightened and will instinctively try to defend themselves by attacking humans or other animals.
It's astounding how these poor dogs are used and abused in the UK. We are part of a 'first world' society. Unfortunately our behaviour does not reflect that.
I believe dog-licensing laws should seriously be reviewed and extra policing enforced to put a stop to the serious abuse of these innocent dogs.
I believe that even when someone has been found guilty of appalling atrocities against animals, their sentences are not nearly severe enough. Therefore, they walk free to simply continue with their outrageous habits and violent behaviour towards animals.

Link to this comment
stevepage November 29, 2008 at 6:15 a.m.

If you were repeatedly attacked by an animal might you eventually become aggressive towards it when it approached?

So is it any surprise than when an animal is repeatedly beaten and attacked that it becomes aggressive towards all humans?

Nothing is simple and some animals can be de-programmed with enough love and care, while for others, the damage may, sadly, be too deep.

If you see or hear the abuse of an animal, dont sit on your hands, do something about it. If it were a child, would you do something then?

Link to this comment
xspiritwalkerx November 28, 2008 at 7:51 p.m.

honestly i think it depend if the dog was originally bred for agresion or is naturally agressive(i.e pitbull) then i think with training than this agression can be opressesed but there is nothing to stop any dog going back to its roots because in nature dogs would have to hunt for food even though ther domesticated doesnt mean they dont have that old spark in them

Link to this comment
drummercat November 28, 2008 at 5:13 p.m.

it is completely the owner's fault!!

it drives me mad how some people treat their dogs. whenever a dog does something wrong it gets put down but no one ever considers the situation that dog has been put in. when dogs are threatened or scared they will sometimes attack but it very much depends on how they've been treated. the owners should be punished not the dogs.

dogs act the way their owners act, they are loyal animals. in this circumstance, too loyal.

i agree with rae rae: "there are no bad dogs just bad owners"

Link to this comment
Jadee =] November 28, 2008 at 5:07 p.m.

The owner is to blame for their dogs aggresive behavior. If you are aggresive towards your dog, then the dog will be aggresive. If you put it in a fight with another dog, it will also make it aggresive.
I just don't get why you would wanna do this to your dog, it's people like gangs and stuff that are making the world a much worse place to live.

Link to this comment
clgoh November 28, 2008 at 12:11 p.m.

In my opinion, the blame lies with the owner.

Dogs are normally ambivilant in nature.

They may learn the aggressive behaviour by imitating people who are significant in their lives such as their owner's behaviour.

Also, it can be due to learning through consequences. Dogs maybe aggressive to minimise punishments and defend themselves. For example, if the dog has been constantly abused by people, the dog might associate people with danger and attact a person whenever it comes close to them to prevent getting abuse.

Link to this comment
rookie November 28, 2008 at 12:01 p.m.

I Feel sorry for the Dogs, its not their fault that they have bad owners that train them to fight with each other, i think it should me made neccessary that all dog owners have a licence for their dog and they should be fully vetted befor giving one to them, the people doing this are sad people that have nothing better to do wiv their lives, and unfortunately other dogs/people are getting harmed as a result!! it needs to stop

Link to this comment
Genie November 28, 2008 at 11:29 a.m.

I think that it's down to the owners cause just like children dogs are influenced by their owners just like children, so if you're aggrsive towards a dog then it'll be aggresive towards you because that's how it thinks it should react.

Owners need to think about what they are doing to their Dogs and what they do around them because it will effect the way that the dog lives and how it is towards other people!

Link to this comment
Rae Rae November 28, 2008 at 10:40 a.m.

Realistically this issue isn't black and white but if I have to pick a side I'd say the responsibility lies with the owner. All dogs I've ever known have been responsibly trained and looked after by their owners which means they make great companions.

I have great memories of growing up with our dog as a child and I look forward to the day when I can be a dog owner.

At this point a famous phrase springs to mind: 'there are no bad dogs just bad owners'

Link to this comment
PlaygirlNix November 28, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.

I feel that alot of the problem is trough the lack of control, training and precaution by the Owners.

The dog can't be blamed if it is just being left to its own devices but i also think that the atmosphere around the dog is crucial, if you have a nice calm quiet atmosphere then the more likely its is that the dog will be calm as there is nothing to get it over excited. The same as if the dog is exposed to childeren at an early age its less likely to be a problem when they get older.

I have to wonder about the recent incidents of childeren being mauled and killed by dogs, never do you hear what the child was doing, or where the childs parents were when it happened, even if you have a dog that you are 100% positive is happy around childeren, you should never leave them alone in a room, just incase, if the child provokes the dog then no matter how friendly the dog is, its going to get annoyed and bite back.

Link to this comment
LucyOB November 27, 2008 at 7:28 p.m.

I completely agree that the blame of a dog's aggressive behaviour should be placed on the owners, however my only argument is that animals have their own personality just like humans. My main worry is the lack of research into possible owners of dangerous dogs (Stafordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers ect), on behalf of the breeder, the dogs well being is not the key interest in the breeder, the money is! I constantly find myself seeing council estate occupants with these sort of dogs, u might say their your typical 'chavs' accessory. I personally have been attacked by a staff whilst riding my horse and the damage it inflicted was obscene, no penalties were placed on the owner and therefore I just feel their free to do what they like. My point being more care should be taken on whom should be the owner of such a dog.

Link to this comment
Everythingmanga November 27, 2008 at 7:23 p.m.

Ive always known Staffie dogs to be called 'nanny dogs' because they are good with children! I beleive that the dogs act the way their owners act.

Link to this comment
Cambstreasurer November 27, 2008 at 4:38 p.m.

I wonder how much dogs are themselves affected by "chaotic" family circumstances in the same way as the (often very young) men who own them. I've sometimes been quite shocked by the lack of support given by parents to teenage owners with ill or injured dogs brought to our branch clinic.

Social interaction with humans is so important for development of normal dog behaviour. It must affect dogs if the people around them are permanently drunk or being aggressive to one another.

Link to this comment

Give animals a voice!

Your voice

Sign up to share your voice

Weapon of Choice?

Post: Aggressive behaviour in dogs – does the blame lie with the dog or its owner? by RSPCA

Comments

GemmalGD June 26, 2010 at 12:57 a.m.

Rachel1992 April 20, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.

Rachel1992 April 20, 2010 at 8:06 p.m.

shen March 2, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.

animalrspca February 18, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.

Thumper February 16, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.

animalrspca February 10, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.

tressie January 22, 2010 at 1:02 a.m.

londiniumgaia January 18, 2010 at 7:02 p.m.

Sue January 8, 2010 at 10:46 a.m.

tressie December 2, 2009 at 12:30 a.m.

bassa November 26, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.

Hannah67 November 23, 2009 at 9:33 p.m.

londiniumgaia November 20, 2009 at 11:55 p.m.

shep1 October 18, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.

maren October 9, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.

dpinn1 October 4, 2009 at 7:35 p.m.

tattooedgirlie September 20, 2009 at 11:50 p.m.

Sue September 18, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.

Hannah67 September 16, 2009 at 6 p.m.

poppy2007 September 16, 2009 at 5:33 p.m.

bilbo September 15, 2009 at 10:03 p.m.

Sue September 15, 2009 at 10:51 a.m.

bilbo September 14, 2009 at 10:02 p.m.

Sue September 14, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.

Hannah67 September 14, 2009 at 1:21 p.m.

bilbo September 14, 2009 at 1:39 a.m.

Hannah67 September 13, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.

bilbo September 12, 2009 at 4:46 p.m.

Sue September 11, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.

bilbo September 10, 2009 at 11:28 p.m.

Sue September 8, 2009 at 6 p.m.

bilbo September 2, 2009 at 10:44 p.m.

Hannah67 August 28, 2009 at 6:20 p.m.

sammyd August 26, 2009 at 7:31 p.m.

Hannah67 August 26, 2009 at 7:17 p.m.

sammyd August 25, 2009 at 5:37 p.m.

sammyd August 25, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.

Hannah67 August 20, 2009 at 7:13 p.m.

sammyd August 19, 2009 at 8:47 p.m.

poppy2007 August 19, 2009 at 8:16 p.m.

Hannah67 August 19, 2009 at 7:31 p.m.

poppy2007 August 19, 2009 at 2:24 p.m.

Hannah67 August 19, 2009 at 7:21 a.m.

Hannah67 August 19, 2009 at 7:11 a.m.

poppy2007 August 18, 2009 at 8:08 p.m.

Hannah67 August 18, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.

poppy2007 August 18, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.

poppy2007 August 18, 2009 at 4:05 p.m.

kinkiii August 16, 2009 at 11:40 p.m.

Hannah67 August 16, 2009 at 10:22 p.m.

kinkiii August 16, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.

poppy2007 August 16, 2009 at 9:03 a.m.

lhasso August 15, 2009 at 12:30 a.m.

jojojo August 14, 2009 at 10:19 p.m.

sammyd August 14, 2009 at 6:09 p.m.

Hannah67 August 14, 2009 at 4:58 p.m.

jojojo August 14, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.

Sue August 14, 2009 at 9:32 a.m.

Hannah67 August 14, 2009 at 7:25 a.m.

playdo August 13, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.

Sue August 13, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.

jojojo August 13, 2009 at 2:02 p.m.

Sue August 13, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.

jojojo August 12, 2009 at 11:07 p.m.

jojojo August 12, 2009 at 10:58 p.m.

Hannah67 August 12, 2009 at 9:47 p.m.

Hannah67 August 12, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.

poppy2007 August 12, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.

poppy2007 August 12, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.

harriet August 12, 2009 at 2:22 p.m.

Sue August 12, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.

harriet August 11, 2009 at 10:04 p.m.