Now I've heard it all!

EGAR

I've had a phone call this morning from a lady who has found a Staffie earlier this week. She was desperate to find a rescue space for the mite as she can't keep her. She lives in a city on the Westcoast and I asked her why she didn't contact the local rescue. But she did, she said, and was told that their insurance doesn't cover *fighting dogs* so they wont take the Staffie and advised her to take her to the Pound. However, since I have taken Bull Breeds from them in the past, I was hopping mad.

Maybe I should try that line next time I get a call about a stray dog...:eek:

~Thalia~

EGAR wrote: »

I've had a phone call this morning from a lady who has found a Staffie earlier this week. She was desperate to find a rescue space for the mite as she can't keep her. She lives in a city on the Westcoast and I asked her why she didn't contact the local rescue. But she did, she said, and was told that their insurance doesn't cover *fighting dogs* so they wont take the Staffie and advised her to take her to the Pound. However, since I have taken Bull Breeds from them in the past, I was hopping mad.

Maybe I should try that line next time I get a call about a stray dog...:eek:

EGAR you online...can I PM you?

EGAR

You can.

~Thalia~

EGAR wrote: »

You can.

Sent.

fits

I've heard similar stories about lurchers.

boomerang

If the rescue operates a facility that the public can visit, rather than working through a foster network or private boarding, they're probably hog-tied by their public liability insurance, which probably won't cover the restricted breeds.

I know LAW have this problem - we can't have any sheps for example at the sanctuary so a friend of mine takes them under her wing in her own home. It sucks!

EGAR

I've had a chat with one of their volunteers. The volunteer adopted a restricted breed of them a few years back and was now told that they wont take the dog back if something goes wrong. Even if it was found straying they would place it in the pound. The dog is a GSD. That is sickening.

EGAR

I didn't mention LAW or in fact ANY names.

boomerang

I know Sarah, just giving a reason why a rescue might find themselves in this position. But there's no excuse for a rescue worker branding a staffie as "a fighting dog" - that's ridiculous. It's like describing German Shepherds as "attack dogs."

andreac

Its pathetic, why would a restricted breed be inclined to bite anymore than any other breed of dog. Most of the smaller breeds are the ones that bite, not the restricted breeds.:mad:

boomerang

EGAR wrote: »

I've had a chat with one of their volunteers. The volunteer adopted a restricted breed of them a few years back and was now told that they wont take the dog back if something goes wrong. Even if it was found straying they would place it in the pound. The dog is a GSD. That is sickening.

That is sickening Sarah - rescues have an obligation as far as I'm concerned to take a dog back if the adoption's not working out, regardless of it's breed! If the rescue can't hold the dog at their sanctuary due to PLI surely arrangements could be made to place it to a foster home, or heck, even the home of one of the rescue's volunteers.

This is a problem LAW have now... Previously, our dogs were rehomed out of foster homes or privately operated kennels, where PLI wasn't an issue. Now that we have a sanctuary that is open to the public, we are restricted by our PLI. (Pardon the pun.) So for example, a shep that would have been homed by us several years ago from one of our foster homes could not be surrendered to us at our sanctuary by the owner. It would have to go into a volunteer's home until such time as it was adopted out again.

EGAR

I have public liability not a bother. Boomerang, you've edited your post

boomerang

Yes I have, for clarity.

I've seen the letter from our insurers, so I tell no lies and have nothing to hide.

Personally, GSDs (along with collies) are one of my favourite breeds, which is why I think the whole thing sucks.

Incidentally, LAW often dogs from the restricted breeds list for rehoming. And my friend Ann (who I already mentioned) rescues sheps under the auspices of LAW all the time.

EGAR

Well, then I hope that peeps who donate to rescues who don't take in restricted breeds are being made aware of this fact. Otherwise it wouldn't be right, IMHO.

boomerang

It would be interesting to know what various rescues' policies are on this issue, Sarah... I can't believe that any educated doggy person would have a ban on rehoming restricted breeds without a darn good reason... Just off the top of my head I can't think of any rescues that have a moratorium on the restricted breeds.

~Thalia~

It's shocking, I think any rescue that operates with this restriction should make people publicly aware that this is their policy. As a rescue GSD owner I would not donate to a rescue who adopted this policy but were I NOT AWARE of it there is every chance that I would donate and I don't think that is fair.

What exactly is the issue with the Public Liability Insurance that creates the difficulty? Is the insurance breed specific and if so what are the breeds covered? Is it the 11 restricted breeds or is it narrower than that?

EGAR

Well, I am not having a pop but did LAW inform peeps when they were fundraising for their new centre that it wouldn't be housing restricted breeds?

Because that is where it starts, on the ground. I wouldn't give a penny to a general rescue (breed specific ones are self-explanatory) who doesn't take A, B or C. But I need to be aware of it first.

getz

i used to show and breed staffies i have never been bit by one --but a few young children have sunk teeth in to me -lets muzle em [kids i mean]

boomerang

As I understand it Thalia, the rescue can not have any of the dogs on the restricted breeds list (or their crosses) on a premises to which the public have access. I **presume** the insurance company believes these breeds to pose a greater risk to the public than other breeds.

Of course, to any of us who actually work with dogs, we know this is completely daft and that this list and the decision as to what dogs were to be included, is fairly arbitrary. I know that Boxers were considered for inclusion, which I'm sure a lot of people who find shocking!

Anyways to get back on topic, if a member of the public visited the premises and was bitten by a dog that is on that restricted breeds list, and they sued the rescue, the rescue would have no insurance to cover the cost of the claim, which could run to thousands of euro.

My own rescue don't have a policy that excludes the restricted breeds from their care, but they do have an issue with public liability insurance so that such dogs can't be kept on their premises. Luckily we can get around this sometimes by keeping such dogs in our private homes, but of course we can only help a few, and there are so, so many staffies for instance needing help.

boomerang

EGAR wrote: »

Well, I am not having a pop but did LAW inform peeps when they were fundraising for their new centre that it wouldn't be housing restricted breeds?

I honestly don't know Sarah if it was known in advance that we couldn't keep restricted breeds at the sanctuary - to the best of my knowledge the issue with the insurance only popped up quite recently. We did rehome staffies and staffy crosses from the sanctuary earlier in the year. We may not have restricted breeds at the sanctuary, but that doesn't mean we're not helping them full stop. Right now though we don't have space for **any** more dogs - be they on the restricted breeds list or no - we're full and rehoming is slow.

~Thalia~

boomerang wrote: »

As I understand it Thalia, the rescue can not have any of the dogs on the restricted breeds list (or their crosses) on a premises to which the public have access. I **presume** the insurance company believes these breeds to pose a greater risk to the public than other breeds.

Of course, to any of us who actually work with dogs, we know this is completely daft and that this list and the decision as to what dogs were to be included, is fairly arbitrary. I know that Boxers were considered for inclusion, which I'm sure a lot of people who find shocking!

Anyways to get back on topic, if a member of the public visited the premises and was bitten by a dog that is on that restricted breeds list, and they sued the rescue, the rescue would have no insurance to cover the cost of the claim.

My own rescue don't have a policy that excludes the restricted breeds from their care, but they do have an issue with public liability insurance so that such dogs can't be kept on their premises. Luckily we can get around this sometimes by keeping such dogs in our private homes, but of course we can only help a few, and there are so, so many staffies for instance needing help.

Does that apply across the board with insurance companies?

It really disappoints me to know that were my dog to go missing eve though she is chipped(please God & touchwood that never happens she is the apple of my eye) without her collar and be picked up that there are rescues out there that would direct her to the pound for insurance reasons, this is only something I've personally been made aware of quite recently.
I think it's important that people know that there are rescues that have this restriction. Especially people with dogs who fall into this category. I mean in this instance these rescues may as well be owned and operated by Dublin City Council! :mad:

boomerang

To be honest, I just don't know, Thalia, and I can't answer the question for you. You'd have to ask someone who runs/operates a rescue with a public premises - I'm just a volunteer with one group.

Sorry I keep editing my posts but I keep refining what I want to get across!

Vel

Does this apply to crosses of the restricted breeds too?

arybvtcw0eolkf

I posted something similar here recently after a friend of mine tried to put her Staffies in kennels while she was away on holidays, she was told the story about insurance policies and another said that other owner's had expressed concern about 'fighting dogs' in kennels and that it affected custom.

ISDW

I own a boarding kennel and have PLI. All breeds on the restricted list have to be on a lead and muzzled while in public areas, but thats it, there are no clauses that say I can't have any in the kennels.

It also says that these measures apply to any dog that appears 'dangerous' (sorry, can't remember the exact wording at the moment), whether their breed is on the restricted list or not.

EGAR

And this is what you have sentenced to death simply because of the way she looks: Little Lisa, who adores children and is frightened of life. Who's only *crime* was to stray in the wrong city:




SHAME on you!

Don't call yourself Animal or Dog Rescue if you don't mean it!! :mad:

arybvtcw0eolkf

EGAR wrote: »

And this is what you have sentenced to death simply because of the way she looks: Little Lisa, who adores children and is frightened of life. Who's only *crime* was to stray in the wrong city:


SHAME on you!

Don't call yourself Animal or Dog Rescue if you don't mean it!! :mad:

EGAR

Why ?

My post is addressed to the *rescue* I mentioned in my OP.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Just saw this thread on the main page.

'Staffies'? As in Shaffordshire Bull Terriers? Those snarling beasts that Anto and Decco brandish on chains to frighten people? Those powerful, heavy dogs that cannot be pulled from a small child? Should be illegal IMO. All dangerous dogs should. Sure, it's the 'little' dogs that may bite more often, but once a 'Staffie' decides he is going for the kill, there is no stopping him.

Can't believe those photos TBH. What sort of parent would allow a small child near a dog like that? "Ah he won't bite - he's a friendly thing!" Famous last words.

If banning those dogs from our society saves just one child, it's worth it.

EGAR

Oh Lord, let it rain some brain, the ignorant peeps are on the loose again.

OK-Cancel-Apply

EGAR wrote: »

Oh Lord, let it rain some brain, the ignorant peeps are on the loose again.

Great contribution.

boomerang

He's just a troll... I hope! Surely he cannot be serious!

@ OK-Cancel-Apply:

http://limerickanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/2008/02/ruff-deal-for-staffies.html

OK-Cancel-Apply

boomerang wrote: »

He's just a troll... I hope! Surely he cannot be serious!

@ OK-Cancel-Apply:

http://limerickanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/2008/02/ruff-deal-for-staffies.html

Pretty early to be calling me a TROLL! For having a damn opinion?

Great, keep posting pictures like that. We wouldn't have neglected 'staffies' if they were not allowed in this country.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but these types of dogs seem to savage a child to death every few weeks. It's in the news all the time. What do you say about that? Do you care about humans at all? And you can bet, that the owner would have simply said, "Ah he's harmless" the day before the attack.

What on earth are these dogs FOR btw? Aside from intimidating other people? I was walking down my road about a month ago, minding my own business, when TWO of these dogs decided they didn't like the look of me, and CHASED me back to my house! This was on a day when my young nephews were due a visit. I only thank f**k that they had not been there, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if I had been with them, I would not have been able to overpower those dogs. <- read that 3 times.

I heard the owner shouting after the dogs. I do wonder why they were not muzzled. Is there even a law about muzzling these dogs in public?

These animals have been bred to attack, kill, maim and intimidate. They serve no other purpose. Why should another toddler have to be savaged? Shouldn't something be done about these beasts?

Go on, keep calling me a 'troll', or telling me I'm ignorant. Or maybe you could educate me as to why these dogs should be allowed in society...?

Killme00

Could you pull off a labrador?, a collie?, a lurcher?, this list goes on. You are probably not trolling but it is evident that you dont have a clue wtf you are talking about.

Show me the evidence where it saws staffies savage a child to death every few weeks? How many have they savaged in the last month?, three months?, six months? year?

Also in relation to your question what are these dogs for? What are any dogs for (other than working dogs)

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Pretty early to be calling me a TROLL! For having a damn opinion?

Great, keep posting pictures like that. We wouldn't have neglected 'staffies' if they were not allowed in this country.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but these types of dogs seem to savage a child to death every few weeks. It's in the news all the time. What do you say about that? Do you care about humans at all? And you can bet, that the owner would have simply said, "Ah he's harmless" the day before the attack.

What on earth are these dogs FOR btw? Aside from intimidating other people? I was walking down my road about a month ago, minding my own business, when TWO of these dogs decided they didn't like the look of me, and CHASED me back to my house! This was on a day when my young nephews were due a visit. I only thank f**k that they had not been there, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if I had been with them, I would not have been able to overpower those dogs. <- read that 3 times.

I heard the owner shouting after the dogs. I do wonder why they were not muzzled. Is there even a law about muzzling these dogs in public?

These animals have been bred to attack, kill, maim and intimidate. They serve no other purpose. Why should another toddler have to be savaged? Shouldn't something be done about these beasts?

Go on, keep calling me a 'troll', or telling me I'm ignorant. Or maybe you could educate me as to why these dogs should be allowed in society...?

boomerang

Right, well we've established you're not a troll. It's just to come into an animal and pets issues forum with such clearly uneducated views led me to believe you were simply being deliberately disruptive and trying to provoke a response.

OK, well, why not start by giving us some links to news stories about staffies that have savaged children to death in just the past few weeks? No need to put you to the trouble of searching back any further than that - I mean, it's in the news all the time, right? So maybe give us a bit of evidence and you might begin to change our minds here. (We'll disregard the fact that media reports on dog attacks are unceasingly overblown and sensationalist because it makes for good reading.) You know, I'm amazed seeing as you were chased by two of these beasts that you're still alive - wow, you really beat the odds there didn't you, seeing as they're bred to attack, kill, maim and intimidate? You must feel lucky to be alive! What a rush!

Did you read the content of the link I posted? It's not about neglected staffies, it's about the history and temperament of the breed. It might answer some of your questions.

Edited to add: I was chased down the road once by a black Labrador, when I was a child. He didn't like the look of me. In fact, he bit me over the eye. I reckon they shouldn't be allowed in society either. Let's have a complete ban on black Labradors before another child gets savaged, is what I say. I mean, what on earth are black Labs for, anyways? Aside from intimidating small children like I was?

OK-Cancel-Apply

boomerang wrote: »

OK, well, why not start by giving us some links to news stories about staffies that have savaged children to death in just the past few weeks?

I speak of ALL breeds of dangerous dog. Go to google news and type in some keywords like 'Child' 'attack' 'dog'.

You know, I'm amazed seeing as you were chased by two of these beasts that you're still alive - wow, you really beat the odds there didn't you, seeing as they're bred to attack, kill, maim and intimidate? You must feel lucky to be alive! What a rush!

Don't know what you are getting at here. Yes, I'm probably lucky to be alive. Well observed! It was no joke I can tell you! Luckily I was only metres from my house. The dogs turned to me, started barking...walking..and then DASHING towards me while barking! These were 'staffies'. Like I said before, my nephews were due to visit that afternoon. What would have happened to THEM had they been there???

Did you read the content of the link I posted? It's not about neglected staffies, it's about the history and temperament of the breed. It might answer some of your questions.

Right, why not just post that info to the parents of the 11 year old who needed plastic surgery after his attack?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2280565.stm

Edited to add: I was chased down the road once by a black Labrador, when I was a child. He didn't like the look of me. In fact, he bit me over the eye. I reckon they shouldn't be allowed in society either. Let's have a complete ban on black Labradors before another child gets savaged, is what I say. I mean, what on earth are black Labs for, anyways? Aside from intimidating small children like I was?

You're correct. Animals are animals. They are unpredictable. There should be a law that demands mandatory muzzling of all dogs over a certain size or weight.

If a poodle had attacked my nephews, at least I could kick it sky high. If a Staffordshire Bull Terrier attacks them, there's nothing much I can do except have my face torn to shreds trying to wrestle it off.

Here's a question for you, or anyone else who loves these beasts:

What do you suggest we do to prevent another small child being savaged or killed by one of these big dogs?

boomerang

I'm off to bed now, quietly laughing. Thanks for the chuckle!

Edited to add: So now we have one piece of evidence - in 2002 a staffie bit a child in Belfast; the owner was convicted of not keeping the Staffordshire bull terrier dog under her control.

There were 12,167 Staffies registered with the UK Kennel Club in 2007 alone, so I'm sure you can come up with more recent media coverage of these big savage beasts attacking children? They're colloquially known as "Nanny Dogs" and are reknowned for their affection and patience towards children, so that proximity ups the odds of an attack, surely?


A little bedtime reading for you:

http://limerickanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/2008/06/staffies-top-unwanted-dog-list.html

lightening

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yes, I'm probably lucky to be alive. Well observed! It was no joke I can tell you!

Classic, you outran two terriers? Sure...

If the story is true (which is doubtful as you have proven to tell fibs with your children getting savaged to death every week gem) The dogs were most likely panting, wagging their tails and dying for a scratch on the belly.

You have no experience with these dogs, you are going on what you have read in English tabloids.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Yaawwnn


On a more serious note..

Lightening are you up around Portmarnock beach this morning, I fancy bringing my two potential killers for a walk (and blow off an impending hangover).

OK-Cancel-Apply

boomerang wrote: »

I'm off to bed now, quietly laughing. Thanks for the chuckle!

Edited to add: So now we have one piece of evidence - in 2002 a staffie bit a child in Belfast; the owner was convicted of not keeping the Staffordshire bull terrier dog under her control.

There were 12,167 Staffies registered with the UK Kennel Club in 2007 alone, so I'm sure you can come up with more recent media coverage of these big savage beasts attacking children? They're colloquially known as "Nanny Dogs" and are reknowned for their affection and patience towards children, so that proximity ups the odds of an attack, surely?


A little bedtime reading for you:

http://limerickanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/2008/06/staffies-top-unwanted-dog-list.html

You are laughing after the article I posted about the child needing surgery? Such is the mentality of these dog owners I suppose.

These are animals. You don't know when they will choose to bite the face off somebody. Had you asked any of the owners whose dog attacked a child, they would have told you exactly the same thing, "He's harmless".

Your Article wrote:

Dog owners cause of problem - not the dogs

We can't muzzle the OWNERS. We can't outlaw or put down the OWNERS.

lightening wrote:

Classic, you outran two terriers? Sure...

If the story is true (which is doubtful as you have proven to tell fibs with your children getting savaged to death every week gem) The dogs were most likely panting, wagging their tails and dying for a scratch on the belly.

You seriously think I made this up??? This is the whole reason I know a 'staffie' when I see one! I went straight to the internet to find out exactly what these beasts were.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. I was only metres from my house. The dogs were further down the road, standing around, unleashed, unmuzzled. They were not panting/wagging. They took a look at me (maybe the smelled my lynx..who knows), decided they did not like me, and DASHED at me, barking loudly. Their owner shouted after them from somewhere behind the scenes. I was able to run back to my house. They slowed down when they saw I was 'leaving'. BUT HAD MY NEPHEWS BEEN THERE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVAGED. LAUGH AT THAT.

I saw these monsters again a few days later, pulling their owners along down the road. They were 2 small women who definitely would have been utterly powerless to control the dogs.

If I 'meet' these dogs again, is it reasonable to assume they will take the same 'dislike' to meet? Should I walk around in full body armour?

You have no experience with these dogs, you are going on what you have read in English tabloids.

1) Yes, I've had other experiences with dogs. I know someone who owns a collie that almost bit their face off. They still own it. I can't imagine why. The dogs barks its throat out when someone enters the house and charges them. The owner has to calm it down every time. Sure, the dog is MOSTLY friendly (brings soggy toys over to me), but again, animals are unpredictable. I'm sure nobody SETS their dogs on children!

2) The news item I posted was one of many, MANY I found with one search on google news. And it wasn't a tabloid, it was the BBC. Search for yourself. You can use a multitude of keywords, "Dangerous Dog" "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" "German Shepherd" "Attack" "Kill". Try them.

You people are in utter denial that these dogs are even the slightest hazard. You don't care about child attacks. You laugh. You probably have these snarling, salivating beasts near your own children. You would not be laughing so hard if you had to pick up THEIR faces to hand to the plastic surgeon.

I'll try and ask this question once more:

What do you suggest we do to prevent another small child being savaged or killed by one of these big dogs?

Would you at least agree they should be muzzled in public?

boomerang

I have nothing to add here - like Mairt said, YAWN.

Maybe someone else will take you on, but quite clearly, you're not going to listen to reason.

I have to go feed thirteen savage, unpredictable, snarling, salivating beasts now.

(But don't worry I have full body armour.)

Actually, to be serious for a minute, I do feel for you, because you are clearly uncomfortable around *any* dogs and don't understand their signals. Perhaps you have a phobia about dogs, or maybe a bad experience with a dog when you were small. With that distrust, you're buying into a tabloid media frenzy. If you want facts and figures, there's a great book by Janis Bradley:

Dogs Bite: But Balloons And Slippers Are More Dangerous

Here's the blurb on the back cover:

Dogs are dangerous. And they are more dangerous to children than to adults. Not as dangerous of course, as kitchen utensils, drapery cords, five-gallon water buckets, horses, or cows. Not nearly as dangerous as playground equipment, swimming pools, skateboards, or bikes. And not remotely as dangerous as family, friends, guns, or cars.

Here's the reality. Dogs almost never kill people. A child is more likely to die choking on a marble or a balloon, and an adult is more likely to die in a bedroom slipper related accident. Your chances of being killed by a dog are roughly one in eighteen million. You are five times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightening.

The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don't actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the band-aid level.

Dogs enhance the lives of millions more people than even the most inflated estimates of dog-bite victims. Infants who live with dogs have fewer allergies. People with dogs have less cardiovascular disease, better heart attack survival, and fewer backaches, headaches, and flu symptoms. Petting your dog lowers stress and people who love with dogs just plain feel better than people who don't.

Yet lawmakers, litigators and insurers press for less dog ownership. This must stop. We must maintain perspective. Yes, dogs bite. But even party balloons and bedroom slippers are more dangerous.

ISDW

Well, for a start, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are NOT big dogs. I don't own Staffies, so I think that I can talk from a neutral point of view. Yes, I own dogs and I never leave my dogs alone with children, because yes, they are animals, and so are unpredictable, but this is also true of cats (I have seen babies and small children with nasty scratch marks). So should cats also be muzzled?

It is the owners that are to blame, not the dogs. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who believe as you do that Staffs, EBTs, Rotties etc are dangerous and so buy them to make themselves look hard, these are the owners that cause the problems. As you have been told, Staffs are known as the 'nanny dog' because of their disposition around people, in particular, children.

Why don't you now google knife attacks, knife deaths etc etc. How many people have been killed this year by knifes? Yet they are not banned. Again, google car deaths, how many people are killed every year by cars being driven irresponsibly? Are you advocating banning cars? Or, how about putting speed restricters on them, this I think would be on a par with muzzles on dogs. A child has a chance if they are hit by a car at 30mph, but not at 40, 50 or 60, so lets 'muzzle' cars.

sorella

Many dogs can sense those who do not like them or are afraid of them.

Our rescued collie is the softest dog, but one neighbour is terrified of her and the dog reacts accordingly. Gets close to the neighbour

and she also knows when someone who is potentially a threat to me.

But she is trained and obedient. And she would never attack anyone; with children she is a beauty.

But the anger of the poster would irk any dog.?

OK-Cancel-Apply

boomerang wrote: »

I have nothing to add here - like Mairt said, YAWN.

And then you proceed to add something...

boomerang wrote: »

Maybe someone else will take you on, but quite clearly, you're not going to listen to reason.

I have to go feed thirteen savage, unpredictable, snarling, salivating beasts now.

YOU people are the ones not listening to reason, and I'll get back to that further down.

boomerang wrote: »

Actually, to be serious for a minute, I do feel for you, because you are clearly uncomfortable around *any* dogs and don't understand their signals. Perhaps you have a phobia about dogs, or maybe a bad experience with a dog when you were small. With that distrust, you're buying into a tabloid media frenzy. If you want facts and figures, there's a great book by Janis Bradley:

After years of being 'cautious' around dangerous dogs, after years of hearing story after story about adults and children being attacked by them, after years of being barked at by dogs ON A LEASH whose owners said, "Oh he's harmless really"... after all that, I finally found out for myself just what these dogs can be like! Like I said, that day, my SMALL twin nephews were due to come around. They were late arriving, thank CHRIST.

boomerang wrote: »

Dogs Bite: But Balloons And Slippers Are More Dangerous

Here's the blurb on the back cover:

Dogs are dangerous. And they are more dangerous to children than to adults. Not as dangerous of course, as kitchen utensils, drapery cords, five-gallon water buckets, horses, or cows. Not nearly as dangerous as playground equipment, swimming pools, skateboards, or bikes. And not remotely as dangerous as family, friends, guns, or cars.

Here's the reality. Dogs almost never kill people. A child is more likely to die choking on a marble or a balloon, and an adult is more likely to die in a bedroom slipper related accident. Your chances of being killed by a dog are roughly one in eighteen million. You are five times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightening.

Are you seriously going to insult me by telling me of the dangers of BALLOONS and kitchen knives??

People don't allow their children to play with kitchen knives the last time I checked! Neither balloons nor kitchen knives have minds of their own!

Nasty dogs, with mouthfuls of 'knives' DO have minds of their own. In the United States, the gun lobby says, "Only irresponsible gun owners allow their children to be shot".

We don't let people walk around with guns, or knifes, or swords. But we do see people brandishing nasty dogs on steel chains! I might add that inanimate objects like guns and knives cannot choose to attack somebody - they must be operated.

boomerang wrote: »

The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don't actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the band-aid level.

So you think the media stories are hyped up? By whom? The anti-dog lobby? The news organisations themselves?

What about the stories of disfigured children? Dead children? Do you even care about humans?

boomerang wrote: »

Dogs enhance the lives of millions more people than even the most inflated estimates of dog-bite victims. Infants who live with dogs have fewer allergies. People with dogs have less cardiovascular disease, better heart attack survival, and fewer backaches, headaches, and flu symptoms. Petting your dog lowers stress and people who love with dogs just plain feel better than people who don't.

Cost/benefit. If I found out my neighbour allowed their small child to play with a Staffordshire Bull Terrer, a Pitbull Terrier or a German Shepherd I WOULD REPORT THEM TO SOCIAL SERVICES.

boomerang wrote: »

Yet lawmakers, litigators and insurers press for less dog ownership. This must stop. We must maintain perspective. Yes, dogs bite. But even party balloons and bedroom slippers are more dangerous.

Yes, balloons and slippers.... the REAL problems. I sense a 'Primetime' about that in the pipeline.

ISDW wrote:

they are animals, and so are unpredictable, but this is also true of cats (I have seen babies and small children with nasty scratch marks). So should cats also be muzzled?

Cats? CATS?? Cats are small, weak animals. If a cat attacks my nephew, I can lift it off easily. When is the last time you heard of a child in the ICU due to a CAT bite or scratch??

It is the owners that are to blame, not the dogs. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who believe as you do that Staffs, EBTs, Rotties etc are dangerous and so buy them to make themselves look hard, these are the owners that cause the problems. As you have been told, Staffs are known as the 'nanny dog' because of their disposition around people, in particular, children.

We cannot muzzle, outlaw or put down the OWNERS. Just like the gun lobby. "Guns don't kill people - people kill people".

Yes, if I see a 'rottie', I am crossing over to the other side of the road. Anto knows that, and that's why he brandishes one.

Why don't you now google knife attacks, knife deaths etc etc. How many people have been killed this year by knifes? Yet they are not banned. Again, google car deaths, how many people are killed every year by cars being driven irresponsibly? Are you advocating banning cars? Or, how about putting speed restricters on them, this I think would be on a par with muzzles on dogs. A child has a chance if they are hit by a car at 30mph, but not at 40, 50 or 60, so lets 'muzzle' cars.

Muzzle cars? WTF are you talking about? We have separate laws regarding cars, knives and guns. None of that has any bearing on the issue of DOGS.

cowzerp

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

And then you proceed to add something...




YOU people are the ones not listening to reason, and I'll get back to that further down.



After years of being 'cautious' around dangerous dogs, after years of hearing story after story about adults and children being attacked by them, after years of being barked at by dogs ON A LEASH whose owners said, "Oh he's harmless really"... after all that, I finally found out for myself just what these dogs can be like! Like I said, that day, my SMALL twin nephews were due to come around. They were late arriving, thank CHRIST.



Are you seriously going to insult me by telling me of the dangers of BALLOONS and kitchen knives??

People don't allow their children to play with kitchen knives the last time I checked! Neither balloons nor kitchen knives have minds of their own!

Nasty dogs, with mouthfuls of 'knives' DO have minds of their own. In the United States, the gun lobby says, "Only irresponsible gun owners allow their children to be shot".

We don't let people walk around with guns, or knifes, or swords. But we do see people brandishing nasty dogs on steel chains! I might add that inanimate objects like guns and knives cannot choose to attack somebody - they must be operated.




So you think the media stories are hyped up? By whom? The anti-dog lobby? The news organisations themselves?

What about the stories of disfigured children? Dead children? Do you even care about humans?



Cost/benefit. If I found out my neighbour allowed their small child to play with a Staffordshire Bull Terrer, a Pitbull Terrier or a German Shepherd I WOULD REPORT THEM TO SOCIAL SERVICES.



Yes, balloons and slippers.... the REAL problems. I sense a 'Primetime' about that in the pipeline.




Cats? CATS?? Cats are small, weak animals. If a cat attacks my nephew, I can lift it off easily. When is the last time you heard of a child in the ICU due to a CAT bite or scratch??

We cannot muzzle, outlaw or put down the OWNERS. Just like the gun lobby. "Guns don't kill people - people kill people".

Yes, if I see a 'rottie', I am crossing over to the other side of the road. Anto knows that, and that's why he brandishes one.

Muzzle cars? WTF are you talking about? We have separate laws regarding cars, knives and guns. None of that has any bearing on the issue of DOGS.

Most ignorant post ever, ignorance is bliss.

ISDW

WTF am I on about? Yes, we have laws about cars, and people break them every single day. We have a 50kph speed limit past our local national school, yet we see cars travelling in excess of 80kph every single day. Surely that is more dangerous than a dog????? My point, if you had the intelligence to see it was that we could limit the speed at which a car travels, so that it stays within the law but we don't.

You obviously are a troller and I hope that you've had lots of fun with this thread. You've certainly kept me entertained.

lightening

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yes, I've had other experiences with dogs. I know someone who owns a collie

Ah... extensive experience in the canine world then.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You seriously think I made this up???

Yes.

lightening

Mairt, headed in to town, going to dollymount right now! Was there waves in Portmarnock? Did your dogs attack anyone?

arybvtcw0eolkf

lightening wrote: »

Mairt, headed in to town, going to dollymount right now! Was there waves in Portmarnock? Did your dogs attack anyone?

I decided against Portmarnock and brought my daughter down to feed the ducks and swans in the Stardust Memorial Park instead.

Here's a photo of us down there..




OMG, you shudda seen what happened. The two dogs ATE through the leads and chased this chap down the road. I thought 'Sweet jesus their gonna eat his face off, but he ran like the wind(y) fecker that he was and just before getting through his front door he threw his nephew into the dogs path..

It was a terrible sight, instead of ripping the kids face off like they've been taught they LICKED his face and waggled their tails in a threatening manner.

Phew, it was a close one.

OK-Cancel-Apply

cowzerp wrote: »

Most ignorant post ever, ignorance is bliss.

A post dismissed in its entirety like a piece of modern art. If I'm ignorant, then address my points and educate me.

You just like walking around with your big dogs don't you? Fine, but other people shouldn't have to walk around feeling threatened or intimidated by them. Muzzle them FFS.

ISDW wrote:

WTF am I on about? Yes, we have laws about cars, and people break them every single day. We have a 50kph speed limit past our local national school, yet we see cars travelling in excess of 80kph every single day. Surely that is more dangerous than a dog????? My point, if you had the intelligence to see it was that we could limit the speed at which a car travels, so that it stays within the law but we don't.

You obviously are a troller and I hope that you've had lots of fun with this thread. You've certainly kept me entertained.

Cars are under the control of humans. They are MACHINES. Dog are NOT. Leave a child with a parked car, nothing will happen. Leave a child with a rottweiler and they may get seriously injured. All the child has to do is innocently poke or prod the dog the wrong way.



Go on, laugh some more.

You people do not give 2 s**ts what dogs do to humans. You don't care about muzzling them. You insist that it's all the owner's fault, and that dogs are no more dangerous than balloons.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Quote:
Originally Posted by OK-Cancel-Apply
You seriously think I made this up???

Yes.

---

Understandable, as your pro dog arguments are so weak, you have to at least claim you believe I made my story up.