Staffordshire bull terriers in suburbs?

ste15

I deleted my original message.

morganafay

That's sad that everyone assumes he'll be vicious cos of the muzzle.

Sorry, I don't know anywhere you can let him run without a muzzle (for any breed), that is technically legal anyway. Maybe if there's a field/woods/beach near you where there'll be nobody around? Or a dog park?? Don't know if dog parks exist in Ireland though!

arybvtcw0eolkf

Ah!.. Been through the same thing myself, most likely you've a neighbour reporting you (I've had the fed's to the door three times due to a neighbour complaining about my Pitbulls too :rolleyes: )

Unfortunetly your legally obliged to muzzle your Staffie out in public, I know its horrible & sad - and for the record I never muzzle my guys.

Luckily enough I live near a beach, so my guys are either on it first thing in the morning or just before dark. Winter is great because all the busy bodies aren't around to bother us, come summer and they're all out and all legal experts.

Its the only draw back to owning whats probably one of the best breeds in the world - public ignorance.

I've had the same reaction from adults crossing the street, to telling their children not to pet the "dangerous dogs".

steph1

Isn't ignorance bliss.
Beautiful dogs and very much maligned.

seamus

I had a woman actually cower in fear last night when we were walking by. I'd never seen it before. I was about to say "Hi" - I thought she'd stopped to let us pass on the narrow path - but she had actually turned and was trying to protect herself with her arms and leg. So I just ignored her. I've no time for that bull, adults with juvenile fears.

A "public place" is any place to where the public normally have access. If you know anyone with some private land, it's perfectly legal to have your staffie unleashed and unmuzzled in a field there.

The DSPCA are planning an off-lead park which they hope to have built by the Autumn, and restricted breeds will be permitted there unmuzzled.

Bill2673

"I was always aware that we should of had a muzzle on him because he is a restricted breed but I didnt put one on him because he is gentle as a lamb with dogs, children and strangers."

for "should", please read "legally required".......for "I didn't put one on him" please read, "I broke the law".....

I've young children, and one of the things that frightens me in our neighbourhood is dogs such as pitbulls, rottweilers etc. I've already had to rescue a girl myself that was attacked when the dog apparently made its way from the back garden. When I said to its owner that the dog should have been muzzled, I was physically threatened.

On another occasion I saw a pitbull actually kill a smaller dog. On that occasion, the owner (who found himself being 100% helpless to do anything about the situation) defended the dog by saying "he never did anything like that before". Incidentally, that dog was being held on a lead by its owner the whole time.

Of course your dog is different, its gentle.

Dogs are like people. 99% of the time they are nice. Sometimes they snap, the way sometimes I snap when i'm driving the car and I bollock some other driver out of it. In fact dogs are a lot better humored than humans when i think about it. Nonetheless, when they do snap they can do damage. Hence the muzzle.

andreac

Bill2673 wrote: »

"I was always aware that we should of had a muzzle on him because he is a restricted breed but I didnt put one on him because he is gentle as a lamb with dogs, children and strangers."

for "should", please read "legally required".......for "I didn't put one on him" please read, "I broke the law".....

I've young children, and one of the things that frightens me in our neighbourhood is dogs such as pitbulls, rottweilers etc. I've already had to rescue a girl myself that was attacked when the dog apparently made its way from the back garden. When I said to its owner that the dog should have been muzzled, I was physically threatened.

On another occasion I saw a pitbull actually kill a smaller dog. On that occasion, the owner (who found himself being 100% helpless to do anything about the situation) defended the dog by saying "he never did anything like that before". Incidentally, that dog was being held on a lead by its owner the whole time.

Of course your dog is different, its gentle.

Dogs are like people. 99% of the time they are nice. Sometimes they snap, the way sometimes I snap when i'm driving the car and I bollock some other driver out of it. In fact dogs are a lot better humored than humans when i think about it. Nonetheless, when they do snap they can do damage. Hence the muzzle.

There are more other non restricted breeds that attack, bite and are aggressive towards people that arent on this list but because they dont make good press they are never reported or highlighted.

The dogs in your neighbourhood are obviously owned by irresponsible owners so you cannot blame the dog, its the owners fault for having dogs running around loose and being agressive, not the dogs.

I own a rottie and i would never let it roam free anywhere and hes never off the lead in public when theres people around, its not because hes aggressive, its because i know most people are quite afraid of them (when theres no need to be:rolleyes:) so i am being responsible.

A lot of people that meet Cooper have never met a rottie before and cant believe how friendly and affectionate he is, as most people believe all the media hype about them which is so sad as they are a wonderful breed along with all the other restricted breeds!

Bill2673

andreac wrote: »

There are more other non restricted breeds that attack, bite and are aggressive towards people that arent on this list but because they dont make good press they are never reported or highlighted.

The dogs in your neighbourhood are obviously owned by irresponsible owners so you cannot blame the dog, its the owners fault for having dogs running around loose and being agressive, not the dogs.

I own a rottie and i would never let it roam free anywhere and hes never off the lead in public when theres people around, its not because hes aggressive, its because i know most people are quite afraid of them (when theres no need to be:rolleyes:) so i am being responsible.

A lot of people that meet Cooper have never met a rottie before and cant believe how friendly and affectionate he is, as most people believe all the media hype about them which is so sad as they are a wonderful breed along with all the other restricted breeds!

I've no doubt that your dog is a fantastic dog and I'm sure I'd have great fun playing with him.

However I just don't accept the opinion that these dogs, at individual level are without risk, and thats why I think they should be muzzled. That risk may be a 0.1% risk, but its still a risk.

And i don't blame the dogs. Its the owners legal responsbility to muzzle them. As I mentioned, in the second case, the dog was on a lead at the time. So the guy was taking exactly the same precautions as you guys take. Was his dog different to your dog?

The other argument, about non-restricted breeds, say a jack russell, being more aggressive and not needing a muzzle.....
(i) Jack Russells, and other breeds, may be more aggressive. However, I think I personally stand a much better chance in a scrap with a Jack Russell.
(ii) All dogs are legally required to be on a lead.

Its like the seat belt in a car. You may be a safe driver, unlike unresponsible car owners. You may never crash your car. But if you ever do, you will need the belt. Thats my view. Its also the law.

DBCyc

Bill2673 wrote: »

I've young children, and one of the things that frightens me in our neighbourhood is dogs such as pitbulls, rottweilers etc. I've already had to rescue a girl myself that was attacked when the dog apparently made its way from the back garden. When I said to its owner that the dog should have been muzzled, I was physically threatened.

There's no excuse for that, the owner sounds like a scumbag and a terrible dog owner. You are right, a dog like that should be kept under strict control and muzzled if necessary. However, it shouldn't be a reason to be afraid of dogs such as pitbulls and rottweillers because of one bad dog/owner.

Bill2673 wrote: »

On another occasion I saw a pitbull actually kill a smaller dog. On that occasion, the owner (who found himself being 100% helpless to do anything about the situation) defended the dog by saying "he never did anything like that before". Incidentally, that dog was being held on a lead by its owner the whole time.

I've had my dogs attacked twice by labradors. It must have been as a result of a nervous problem with the dog or one with a poor temprament for whatever reason. Still though the labrador is a fantastic breed of dog and a great family pet, as is a pit bull, once the owner is responsible.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Of course your dog is different, its gentle.

Dogs are like people. 99% of the time they are nice. Sometimes they snap, the way sometimes I snap when i'm driving the car and I bollock some other driver out of it. In fact dogs are a lot better humored than humans when i think about it. Nonetheless, when they do snap they can do damage. Hence the muzzle.

Of course any dog has the potential to snap, but in fairness a well looked after and properly socialised dog of any breed is not likely to do this. Some breeds are recognised by experts as having better temperaments than others when it comes to being trustworthy with people.

However the lazy, knee jerk reaction from the authorities here has been to put restrictions on certain breeds based on tabloid hype and lack of infromation/education.

I have no problem with restrictions being placed on certain breeds but the restrictions should apply to the owners rather than mandatory muzzling etc. of all dogs of a particular breed. It would make more sense if there was a mandatory interview/home visit for potential owners of certain breeds to assess their suitability - much like those that a rescue centre carry out before re-homing.

seamus

Bill2673 wrote: »

However I just don't accept the opinion that these dogs, at individual level are without risk, and thats why I think they should be muzzled. That risk may be a 0.1% risk, but its still a risk.

All dogs, at an individual level, are a risk. However, the risk is minimal. How many members of the public (not dog owners) are attacked by *any* dogs in a given year? The muzzle laws are supposed to protect the public from dangerous animals, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that these animals pose any threat to the public. In fact, there's little evidence to show that dogs in general pose any kind of threat to the public at large. The vast majority of dog attacks (regardless of breed) occur within the home.

It's been proven that seat belts save lives in the event of a crash. Where are the statistics to show that dog attacks have dropped since muzzles were introduced? In fact, where are the statistics to show that dog attacks were a serious issue in the first place?

As I mentioned, in the second case, the dog was on a lead at the time. So the guy was taking exactly the same precautions as you guys take.

But he clearly wasn't. Because if he was being responsible, lead or no lead, he would have reacted correctly and in time. It is rare - very rare for a dog fight or attack to be finished in one blow. Staffies, for example, have insanely strong jaws, but in order to kill another dog so quickly, they would need to latch on with the first attack. I've seen a yorkie which took a sustained savaging from a full-grown rottweiler and come out alive. Any owner who is watching what is going on should have sufficient control and reflexes to pull the dog away at the first sign of trouble.
In the case you mentioned, the owner clearly stood there and watched in panic and failed to take the proper action. That doesn't mean the dog inherently possesses any kind of super powers of death.

The other argument, about non-restricted breeds, say a jack russell, being more aggressive and not needing a muzzle.....
(i) Jack Russells, and other breeds, may be more aggressive. However, I think I personally stand a much better chance in a scrap with a Jack Russell.
(ii) All dogs are legally required to be on a lead.

For a start, all dogs are not legally required to be on a lead. They are only required to be under control. If your (non-restricted) dog is adequately trained such that they will recall every time, you are not legally bound to keep them on a leash.
How does that factor into your "every dog is a risk" idea?

Whether you think you stand a much better chance against a Jack Russell is irrelevant. How many people have been killed through attacks by dogs, in a public place, where the dog and the person were not related? Any figure at all would be good.

Now, how many injuries, and this is the kicker - all dogs are equally capable of causing a serious injury to a human being. They're the same species, so they have a similar dental makeup consisting of teeth designed to shred flesh. Regardless of the breed of the dog, if the catch you right, they'll tear a hole in your arm.

So by your logic, since every dog presents some risk, then all dogs should be muzzled in public, right?

Bill2673

Clearly in one of those situations where neither of us will agree.

There are too many points there for to me respond to all of them;

A few points

(i) Legally, owners are certain breeds are obliged to muzzle their dogs. (As a citizen you are not entitled to disrespect that just because you don't agree with it).

(ii) Even if those dogs (which are required to be muzzled) are 100% safe (which they aren't), people/ citizens/ pedestrians do feel threatened by them and do feel safer when they are muzzled. By not muzzling, you are putting the comfort of your pet above the comfort of your neighbour.

(iii) as regards responsible owners vs irresponsible owners......are you suggesting that the lawmakers enforce muzzling for dogs of the irresponsible owners, but for the rest of you guys its ok, no muzzles required...? That makes no sense.

(iv) I don't have statistics to say you are wrong; equally, you don't have statistics to say I'm wrong.

(v) on your point of the risk being mininimal, well whats minimal? Is it 1 in 1000 or 1 in million? I don't have the stats, neither do you. If there are 50 dog attacks in Ireland in a year, that would warrant muzzling in my view. If there is just one dog attack, it wouldn't. IMHO.

Personally, I don't see a grey area here. Its black and white for me. I don't see how any of the first three above can be disputed.

andreac

Bill2673 wrote: »

Clearly in one of those situations where neither of us will agree.

There are too many points there for to me respond to all of them;

A few points

(i) Legally, owners are certain breeds are obliged to muzzle their dogs. (As a citizen you are not entitled to disrespect that just because you don't agree with it).

(ii) Even if those dogs (which are required to be muzzled) are 100% safe (which they aren't), people/ citizens/ pedestrians do feel threatened by them and do feel safer when they are muzzled. By not muzzling, you are putting the comfort of your pet above the comfort of your neighbour.

(iii) as regards responsible owners vs irresponsible owners......are you suggesting that the lawmakers enforce muzzling for dogs of the irresponsible owners, but for the rest of you guys its ok, no muzzles required...? That makes no sense.

(iv) I don't have statistics to say you are wrong; equally, you don't have statistics to say I'm wrong.

(v) on your point of the risk being mininimal, well whats minimal? Is it 1 in 1000 or 1 in million? I don't have the stats, neither do you. If there are 50 dog attacks in Ireland in a year, that would warrant muzzling in my view. If there is just one dog attack, it wouldn't. IMHO.

Personally, I don't see a grey area here. Its black and white for me. I don't see how any of the first three above can be disputed.

There are far more people attacked and bitten everyday/week by breeds such as collies, labradors, jack russells etc and they dont have to be muzzled and they arent highlighted, so do you think these dogs should be muzzled too??

If people were responsible with their dogs then most of these attacks would never take place, whether they are restricted breeds or not. Most attacks stem from people not controlling their dogs properly so its the owners to blame, not the dogs.

Most responsible owners with restricted breeds dont have aggressive dogs as they have had them well socialised and trained from day one, when you see the boyos with pitbulls/staffies/rotties etc they mostly have little or no training and actually encourage their dogs to be viscous (sp) and so if it gets off the lead etc they are more liable to attack/bite someone as that is what they have been taught/trained to do by their idiot owner.

seamus

Bill2673 wrote: »

By not muzzling, you are putting the comfort of your pet above the comfort of your neighbour.

Absolutely I am. "comfort" is an odd word to use. Because having the dog muzzled does absolutely nothing to make a neighbour more comfortable. In fact, all it does is vindicate their position and make them *more* afraid of the animal.

There's a lot of confusion that people have about their right to be safe -v- their right to "feel" safe. I support the former, I don't support the latter. The latter is often a million miles away from the former (and sometimes completely at odds with it!).

I am less comfortable with my animal being muzzled, for a number of reasons. For a start, it makes *me* more nervous when walking the dog because of the reaction of other people. Why does my neighbour's comfort come above mine?

(iii) as regards responsible owners vs irresponsible owners......are you suggesting that the lawmakers enforce muzzling for dogs of the irresponsible owners, but for the rest of you guys its ok, no muzzles required...? That makes no sense.

I would suggest that lawmakers get tough on animal ownership and require all owners to:

1. Microchip their animal
2. Have the animal wear a collar and tag with the owner's name & address.
3. Carry documentation with them when in public (such as a dog licence and ID) to be produced if asked by a dog warden.

If you fail to comply, the dog is taken (temporarily) and you're issued with a severe fine. Any animals not claimed get handed over to the rescues.

If you consistently get caught not doing these things or are guilty of any of a number of other cruelty or negligence offences, you should be banned for life from keeping animals, with jail time for anyone who keeps animals while banned.

The lawmakers simply don't take animal welfare seriously enough in this country, which is why they come up with ridiculous legislation such as the restricted breeds list, which does absolutely nothing, zero, to curb dangerous animals (i.e. those bred for fighting) and simply places restrictions on the law-abiding owners.

If I was a scumbag from Jobstown who liked to breed staffies for fighting, why would I give a flying fnck about the restricted breeds list?

(iv) I don't have statistics to say you are wrong; equally, you don't have statistics to say I'm wrong.

(v) on your point of the risk being mininimal, well whats minimal? Is it 1 in 1000 or 1 in million? I don't have the stats, neither do you. If there are 50 dog attacks in Ireland in a year, that would warrant muzzling in my view. If there is just one dog attack, it wouldn't. IMHO.

There is actually a report available, but you have to pay to see it. The synposis however showed that the most popular breeds of dog were the ones involved in the most attacks (shock, horror), and not the "dangerous" breeds. Here. It would be handy if someone had access to the report.

But even in the spite of the report, the nature of dog ownership, the nature of the types of dogs living in Ireland, and the nature of attacks is a complete unknown in Ireland. So how in the hell can they hope to create any kind of effective legislation?

The first step is registration. Let everyone own whatever kind of dog they like, but it must be microchipped and registered. You couldn't have a child in Ireland without telling the government about it, so why a dog, or any animal in fact? Then we can start to build some kind of comprehensive database and target legislation if and where it's needed.

The assertion has been made that restricted breeds are dangerous. Therefore, that assertion has to be backed up or it can be dismissed as erroneous. I don't need statistics to prove that you're wrong. Since it's taken for granted that dogs in general do not pose a major public threat (otherwise they'd *all* have to be muzzled), then it's up to you to show that the breeds on the restricted list pose a greater threat.

Bill2673

the collies vs staffies is a seperate argument, it has nothing to with this.

As regards responsible vs irresponsible owners, pls see point 3 above. If I am wrong, pls let me know why.

Bill2673

Seamus, I would dispute your first point 100%. People feel more comfortable when the dog is muzzled. You make it out as if they are less comfortable when the dog is muzzled.

It may however make them even less comfortable (or afraid) when they see a dog that is not muzzled, when they know the dog is supposed to be muzzled. Perhaps that is your point.

As regards microchips etc. Valiant idea, but in these recessionary times, I'm sorry but no chance of that happening.

Sleepershark

will do

Bill2673

In addition: its not up to me to show that dogs on the restricted list are more dangerous.

I don't need to. The law already acknowledges this (rightly or wrongly), hence the legal requirement to muzzle. If the law is wrong, then its up to you to show its wrong.

seamus

It may however make them even less comfortable (or afraid) when they see a dog that is not muzzled, when they know the dog is supposed to be muzzled. Perhaps that is your point.

No. My point is that people will actively shy away from a muzzled dog. It makes them afraid. A number of people have come up and cooed and ahhhed at my staffie and love it when she rolled over for a rub. One or two have noticeably gone "oh" and pulled away when I tell them she's a staffie.

But if she had a muzzle on, nobody would come near her. Therefore, muzzles make people less comfortable.

People are idiots Bill, you know that. Especially when it comes to animals, they haven't a clue.

As regards microchips etc. Valiant idea, but in these recessionary times, I'm sorry but no chance of that happening.

It could easily be a money spinner. Dog licences are insanely cheap, you could easily raise them to €20 and most dog owners would be happy to pay it, especially if it was going towards a fund to improve animal welfare.

Microchipping isn't expensive either. The government could even take a cut of the profits there.

I don't need to. The law already acknowledges this (rightly or wrongly), hence the legal requirement to muzzle. If the law is wrong, then its up to you to show its wrong.

'Fraid not. The law actually doesn't say that restricted breeds are dangerous dogs (the latter is a legal term). It only requires that they be muzzled. Muzzled or not, the onus is on you to show that they are dangerous.

Bill2673

Second point is worthwhile......if enough people were interested, it would be done.

On the first point, if people are afraid of a staffie in the first place, I am guessing they will feel more comfortable if the animal is muzzled than not muzzled. I don't see how it can be any other way. Maybe I'm wrong though.

andreac

Bill2673 wrote: »

In addition: its not up to me to show that dogs on the restricted list are more dangerous.
I don't need to. The law already acknowledges this (rightly or wrongly), hence the legal requirement to muzzle. If the law is wrong, then its up to you to show its wrong.

Sorry but you are wrong here, they are NOT more dangerous, its a restricted breeds list, not a dangerous dogs list so please be careful on how you word it. These dogs are on the list because so called idiots havent a clue about these breeds and decided to come up with the law.

Yes these dogs can be more powerful than certain breeds, but what about breeds like great danes, saint bernards, boxers etc? they are big too and have a lot of power in their jaws to do just as much damage but they arent on the list.

I dont agree with this list in any sense, deed not breed if you ask me!!!

pwd

Some kids are little bollixes though. A dog might normally be nice and gentle, but then snap if a kid pulls its ears a lot and keeps tormenting it. Kinda like Rambo snapped when people pushed him too far. If that happens, your dog gets killed, even if some little brat just gets a scratch.
They are unpredictable anyway. Had a bull terrier mongrel growing up. Lively good natured dog, would never be at all aggressive to a human. Occasionally she'd try to savage another dog - on sight, with no apparent reason. One day we came home to find the other family dog almost dead, and her blood all over the bull terrier mongrel, who was still as lively and friendly as always. The other dog was not aggressive and the two usually got on - certainly never saw them fight.
That was a family dog which we had from a pup, and never had any sort of encouragement to be aggressive in her life. Never showed any aggression to humans in her life - but she did demonstrate unpredictable bouts of extreme aggression to other dogs.

Whispered

Wouldn't it be nice to be nice to be able to discuss these dogs without having to defend them. Every. Single. Time.

peasant

seamus wrote: »

No. My point is that people will actively shy away from a muzzled dog. It makes them afraid. A number of people have come up and cooed and ahhhed at my staffie and love it when she rolled over for a rub. One or two have noticeably gone "oh" and pulled away when I tell them she's a staffie.

But if she had a muzzle on, nobody would come near her. Therefore, muzzles make people less comfortable.

There is another edge to that.

Dogs are also highly sensitive towards human emotions and reactions.

Our three (for example) are people magnets and quite used to being patted, admired and fussed over. They are actually visibly put out if someone pays no notice to them

I can only imagine what it does to the psyche of a dog when everybody meets it with fear, distance or disgust only because it is wearing a muzzle.
In the long term, wearing the muzzle might actually turn the dog into a bit of a snappy grump ...simply because it is denied any and all positive encounters with other people.

CreedonsDogDayc

Bill2673 wrote: »

Seamus, I would dispute your first point 100%. People feel more comfortable when the dog is muzzled. You make it out as if they are less comfortable when the dog is muzzled.

It may however make them even less comfortable (or afraid) when they see a dog that is not muzzled, when they know the dog is supposed to be muzzled. Perhaps that is your point.

I would argue that a lot of people who are nervous of dogs cant identify a dogs breed by looking at it.

This means that a dog wagging its tail walking along with its owner would slightly scare the nervous person. Add a muzzle to that dog and the person will instantly become much more afraid, whether the dog in question is a lab or a rottie.

I have lots of canine qualifications and ive worked with dogs full time for years. I am not afraid of any breed of dog, but I would be nervous of a muzzled dog. I would be on edge in case the dog lunged at me and gave me a fright.

By the way I have not worked with every dog on the restricted list, but Ive worked with several rotties and a few staffies and im crazy about all these individual dogs.

Louisecon

Any dog can be dangerous, especially if not in the care of a responsible owner. I love Staffies, but as they need a lot of human company, I am not in a position to own one. I have two Jack Russell terriers, one of whom can take a dislike to dogs owing to her fear aggression. This means I move out of the way of approaching dogs, including Staffies, whos' owners may think that I am disapproving of their dog, when in fact the culprit is my little one! All things being equal, a small child is safer with a Staffie than a Jack Russell, and no small child should be left alone with any dog.

I have never had a problem with a staffie, but labradors who are allowed to roam are a menace!:mad:

arybvtcw0eolkf

Louisecon wrote: »

Any dog can be dangerous, especially if not in the care of a responsible owner. I love Staffies, but as they need a lot of human company, I am not in a position to own one. I have two Jack Russell terriers, one of whom can take a dislike to dogs owing to her fear aggression. This means I move out of the way of approaching dogs, including Staffies, whos' owners may think that I am disapproving of their dog, when in fact the culprit is my little one! All things being equal, a small child is safer with a Staffie than a Jack Russell, and no small child should be left alone with any dog.

I have never had a problem with a staffie, but labradors who are allowed to roam are a menace!:mad:

I posted about this before, almost each and everytime I've my guys out the only dogs which attack them are JRT's!.

Just a funny little story on breed recognition.

One of the calls I had to my house was when neighbour didn't like the fact that my dogs were out IN THE FRONT GARDEN!.

First the police arrived, followed by the warden. Both asked about my "Pitbulls", despite the fact that Ruby is very obviously a staffy, and a beautiful example of one too (produced her licence).

Then the warden pointed to Richo "Well thats a Pitbull" (not that it mattered since he was sunbathing on the drive - "Nope, he's a Jack Russell" says I - "No way, thats a Pitbull" - "Nope, its a JRT - he's just really big"... "Have you got his licence?"....

The license show's 'mixed breed' - "oh sorry about that, he (get this!) looks like something

People, including people we'd assuming should be authorities on dog breeds simply haven't a damned clue when it comes to breed recognition.

For the record - 'Richo, is a big example of a JRT :pac:

lrushe

I've had my Rottweiler for just over 6 months and I've spent most of that time defending her:(

I've also had it happen where someone will stop and make a fuss of my Rottie (all the while Brooks' little stump is going crazy, lapping up the affection) only to recoil in horror when I they ask her breed and I say a Rottweiler. Somehow she becomes a different dog :rolleyes:

I've seen 5 dog bites on humans in my life, none were a restricted breed.

I believe that if muzzles were enforced more strictly the only people who would suffer would be the responsible dog owners who have their dogs best interests at heart and will muzzle them if absoluately necessary. Those who only own certain dogs as a status symbol will not muzzle their dogs regardless of the law and those are usually the dogs who do end up attacking someone through negligent ownership.

arybvtcw0eolkf

lrushe wrote: »

I've had my Rottweiler for just over 6 months and I've spent most of that time defending her:(

I've also had it happen where someone will stop and make a fuss of my Rottie (all the while Brooks' little stump is going crazy, lapping up the affection) only to recoil in horror when I they ask her breed and I say a Rottweiler. Somehow she becomes a different dog :rolleyes:

I get that with Ruby, she's red & white and to some people she looks like a little boxer.

The people who mistake her for a boxer usually recoil if I tell them she's a Staffordfordshire Bull Terrier - so usually I don't.

Owning a dog on the restricted breeds like will never be easy for the responsible owner.

morganafay

When I'm walking my cavaliers I move out of the way of Staffies. It's not the dogs' fault, but it's just safer. I also stay away from any terrier, boxers and some others breeds.

I used to let my dogs go up to any dog to see them (well any dog that seemed friendly at first, since my dogs love to say hello) but they've been attacked too many times, usually by westies, Yorkies and terrier mixes, once by a boxer and once by a staffie. It was the owner's fault every time for letting their dog out on the road, when the dog doesn't like other dogs (I assume, since every time they attacked completely unprovoked, and not out of fear.) So now my dogs are scared of staffies, boxers and any other small dog. They actually only like a few breeds, mostly Springer Spaniels, golden retrievers, etc! But if I know the owner of a Rottie, say, and I know the dog is friendly and the owner is very responsible, then I'll let them go up to it and they aren't scared because they know I'm relaxed maybe?

So in those cases it was the fault of irresponsible owners, but I would now not let them go near any staffie that I didn't know, just in case.

And obviously I know all staffies are not aggressive, but I also think that there's a better chance that they will be than a Cavalier! And there's a pretty high chance they have an irresponsible owner who doesn't look after them properly or socialise them with other dogs properly (true of any breed) so unless it is a dog that I'm sure will be friendly, then I won't let my dogs near it. (I mean like Golden Retrievers, I've never met a bad one, same with Springers and other Cavaliers, can't think of anything else right now.)

I mean I've only met one Staffie and it was the horrible one that attacked my dogs, but I've met nice German Shepherds, Greyhounds, an American Bulldog/Pitbill type dog that was lovely, so I'm not just judging on being on the restricted list. The most vicious dogs I've met have been male Westies in general, but met some nice ones too.

ste15

I am a responsible staffy owner. My dog loves the company of people, and dogs. Beacause of the fact I adopted him at 4 years old I really have no idea of his past beyond what the rescue told me. His temprement suggests he was well socialised with people and dogs.
Up to now, walking him, always on a lead in public, but without muzzle, I found that no children were afraid of him, and the majority of adults were not too bothered about him.
Now with him muzzled, people instantly think he must have bit someone before and they stare at him in fear that he might turn. Dogs are sensitive to people attitudes towards them, so I would say that the muzzle is alienating my dog from positive attention that normally he would get from people.
The law is the law, and I have to muzzle my dog. There is also a saying though, LAW IS AN ASS. Look at the state the economy is in as a result of ill educated morons making bad decisions, the same morons came up with this restricted breeds crap. Any dog can bite.
Staffordshire bull terriers are also known as 'the nanny dog' This is because they were used for babysitting children for centuries as a result of their mild temperament not vicious tendancies. I hope people would speak to dog owners before reporting them, I dont like the sneaky nature of complaints in this fashion. You may not like the look of my dog but I deserve some common decency. Speak to people before reporting or you could be responsible for wasting valuable police time.

PaulB91

my female German Shepherd was attacked by two basset hounds, one took a bite at her stomach/midrift area, she didn't retaliate, two weeks later she had pups, imagine if the basset had bitten through!

now these two basset's are normally behind a gate, but for some reason the owner had left the gate open this particular day, just goes to show if owners aren't responsible then dogs get in trouble

CL32

I missed your initial post before it was edited. I'm presuming some have a go hero loner busy body reported you for walking your dog without a muzzle in an effort to make a difference to this world and possibly single handedly stop the slide of civilization.

I am proud of the number of people whos opinions about Staffs we have changed. We went to socialisation classes and training classes just to show her off. She comes everywhere with us and I'm not shy about striking up conversations with strangers.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CL32 wrote: »

I am proud of the number of people whos opinions about Staffs we have changed. We went to socialisation classes and training classes just to show her off. She comes everywhere with us and I'm not shy about striking up conversations with strangers.

Or wrecking my house

Mr. Presentable

andreac wrote: »

Sorry but you are wrong here, they are NOT more dangerous, its a restricted breeds list, not a dangerous dogs list so please be careful on how you word it. These dogs are on the list because so called idiots havent a clue about these breeds and decided to come up with the law.

Yes these dogs can be more powerful than certain breeds, but what about breeds like great danes, saint bernards, boxers etc? they are big too and have a lot of power in their jaws to do just as much damage but they arent on the list.

I dont agree with this list in any sense, deed not breed if you ask me!!!

I admire the loyalty bull terrier owners show for their breed, but while your own dog/s may be the soul of good behaviour you cannot use your dog as the definition for the breed, any more than you can use the rogue behaviour of one retriever to define all of that breed.

The reason you have a well behaved animal is that you are a responsible - if not law-abiding - owner.

Why are certain dogs restricted? Because they have a greater propensity to cause harm, and the harm done is often more severe.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Oh, one last remark: Calling the Staffy the "nanny breed" does not make it seem safer - it makes it seem more dangerous. Consider the fact that it is called thusly because it is more protective of children in its "pack". By nature this makes it potentially more aggresive to ones outside its pack.

PaulB91

nipplenuts wrote: »

I admire the loyalty bull terrier owners show for their breed, but while your own dog/s may be the soul of good behaviour you cannot use your dog as the definition for the breed, any more than you can use the rogue behaviour of one retriever to define all of that breed.

The reason you have a well behaved animal is that you are a responsible - if not law-abiding - owner.

Why are certain dogs restricted? Because they have a greater propensity to cause harm, and the harm done is often more severe.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Oh, one last remark: Calling the Staffy the "nanny breed" does not make it seem safer - it makes it seem more dangerous. Consider the fact that it is called thusly because it is more protective of children in its "pack". By nature this makes it potentially more aggresive to ones outside its pack.

pieces that interested me from your link

The scene of the attack

Over 50 percent of the bites occur on the dog owner's property. (See Insurance Information Institute, Dog Bite Liability, accessed 8/30/07.)
Dogs bite family and friends

The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.

However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.) However, there are serious deficiencies in how dog bites are studied, making it difficult to know for certain whether a pit bull ban would reduce dog bites in general. (See Dangerous and Vicious Dogs: the Problem With Statistics.)

It would appear unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

• Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

• An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

• Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

i will read the rest in more detail

CL32

Aaden Hollow Partridge wrote: »

Or wrecking my house

Heh. Sorry again.

On the plus side she did sleep for two days straight. Did yours?

arybvtcw0eolkf

CL32 wrote: »

Heh. Sorry again.

On the plus side she did sleep for two days straight. Did yours?

Yes, and I finish the course of prozac this week -

ppink

this was interesting

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

CL32

ppink wrote: »

this was interesting

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

That was an interesting read.

Parts of it are like a propaganda leaflet for GSDs though. Wonder why such back up information wasn't available for the Rotts, Akitas or Pitbulls.

lrushe

ppink wrote: »

this was interesting

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

I'm always sceptical of articles posted from the internet, if you search long enough you can find a survey, study or article to support almost any angle of an argument imaginable. Live life and experience it first hand, then come and tell me what you think!

Mr. Presentable

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?

Or is it just information that doesn't suit your position that is questionable?

arybvtcw0eolkf

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?

Or is it just information that doesn't suit your position that is questionable?

Doesn't matter, staffies don't get a mention :pac:

lrushe

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?
QUOTE]


Spaniel bites aren't going to insight as many 'studies' as say a pit bull, its just not as sentational a topic. I do think that alot of these studies are done by bias people. According to one of these 'studies' in 1987 Cocker Spaniels were named as the 3rd leading face biters, I don't have a Cocker Spaniel but it doesn't mean I have any ill feeling towards them cause some internet person I've never met gave me some 'facts' and figures to tell me what way to think.

ste15

Very few surveys are 100% reliable. For example, the actual density of dog population rarely is taken into consideration. If you have 10 houses on a road and 9 of those houses have pomeranians and 1 has a staffy, mathematically speaking, the odds you will be bitten by a pomeranian are allot higher than being bitten by the staffy, does this mean all pomeranians should be muzzled? (Before anyone replies please read what I wrote again, I am not taking into consideration dogs temperament and the breeds I chose are for the purpose of demonstration only! My point is, you can come up with a survey to prove anything.)
I started this thread to vent anger because somebody reported me without speaking to me first. This was my problem, I found it a bit sneaky. I understand the law, and I am now abiding by it, (regardless of my opinion of the restricted breeds law).
I disagree with generalisation on any subject, and to say any given breed will bite, or cause harm before another breed without taking into consideration the individual dog and owner is nonsense (my educated opinion). Its effectively racism in human terms. We are Irish so we must be all alcoholic, argumentative sods?

ppink

I would far prefer to be bitten by a spaniel than a GSD any day i can say

Ste15 thanks for clarifying why you started the thread.

Mr. Presentable

lrushe wrote: »

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?
QUOTE]


Spaniel bites aren't going to insight as many 'studies' as say a pit bull, its just not as sentational a topic. I do think that alot of these studies are done by bias people. According to one of these 'studies' in 1987 Cocker Spaniels were named as the 3rd leading face biters, I don't have a Cocker Spaniel but it doesn't mean I have any ill feeling towards them cause some internet person I've never met gave me some 'facts' and figures to tell me what way to think.

Of course it is worth pointing out the study is "from press accounts", so of you are naturally correct that certain attacks will be more often reported. No argument there.

Attacks counted

Cocker spaniel 3
Rottweiler 407
Pitbull 1110

Now we don't know the relative populations for the breeds so maybe there are many more rottweilers than cockers which would skew the results. But whether you agree with the report, it illustrates why certain breeds are controlled and others not - which was the purpose of my original reply to a post.

As another poster said, I'd sooner be bitten by a spaniel than a rottweiler. It's not just the risk of attack, but the result which is considerable.

PaulB91

lrushe wrote: »

I'm always sceptical of articles posted from the internet, if you search long enough you can find a survey, study or article to support almost any angle of an argument imaginable. Live life and experience it first hand, then come and tell me what you think!

seems like German Shepherds should be taken of the list of bad boy dogs

German shepherds are herding dogs, bred for generations to guide and
protect sheep. In modern society, they are among the dogs of choice for
families with small children, because of their extremely strong protective
instinct. They have three distinctively different kinds of bite: the
guiding nip, which is gentle and does not break the skin; the
grab-and-drag, to pull a puppy or lamb or child away from danger, which is
as gentle as emergency circumstances allow; and the reactive bite, usually
in defense of territory, a child, or someone else the dog is inclined to
guard. The reactive bite usually comes only after many warning barks,
growls, and other exhibitions intended to avert a conflict. When it does
come, it is typically accompanied by a frontal leap for the wrist or
throat.
Because German shepherds often use the guiding nip and the
grab-and-drag with children, who sometimes misread the dogs' intentions and
pull away in panic, they are involved in biting incidents at almost twice
the rate that their numbers alone would predict: approximately 28% of all
bite cases, according to a recent five-year compilation of Minneapolis
animal control data. Yet none of the Minneapolis bites by German shepherds
involved a serious injury: hurting someone is almost never the dogs'
intent.
In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have
recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog
was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without
human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was
protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs.
None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the
part of an otherwise healthy dog.

seamus

PaulB91 wrote: »

seems like German Shepherds should be taken of the list of bad boy dogs

Yet the UCD study indicates that of all the restricted breeds, the only one involved in any significant number of bite attacks are GSDs.

The problem with any studies that can be quoted is that we're missing key pieces of data, including:

- The nature of the attack - i.e. who was attacked, what was their relationship to the dog, where and when they were attacked.
- The ferocity of the attack
- The breed of the animal - "Pitbull" is not a breed, neither is "bull terrier cross"
- The population of each of these breeds in the country
- Whether the dog was licenced and/or leashed at the time (gives an indication as to the attitude of the owner)

One major problem with the UCD study (and the study using newspaper articles) is that the results are self-selected, i.e. people have to come forward. Someone who has suffered a serious bite from a strong dog to whom they're not related, is far more likely to report the incident.

Someone who has been attacked by a Pomeranian, despite serious scars, is very unlikely to go around declaring that they got their ass kicked by a 2kg dog, but someone who gets attacked by a 12kg staffie will be onto Joe Duffy the next day going on about dangerous pitbulls.

I would be good for the SPCA's or other dog groups to go about conducting a large-scale countrywide survey to find out how many people have been attacked by dogs, what kinds of dogs they were, how serious it was and so forth.

Then you can probably get some kind of handle on it.

CL32

I found this extremely interesting:

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Dutch-Agriculture-Minister-scraps-pit-bull-ban.html

Edit: All bull breed owners on here should read this (and related) links. I would use it as the basis of a new thread but we have seen the pro and anti opinions 100s of times before. With Italy set to follow suit it could be the long hoped for first step to some common sense laws across Europe.

lrushe

nipplenuts wrote: »

lrushe wrote: »

As another poster said, I'd sooner be bitten by a spaniel than a rottweiler. It's not just the risk of attack, but the result which is considerable.

A bite to the face is a bite to the face especially on a child's delicate face. I know of a work colleague's daughter who received 56 stitches to the face and a broken tooth from a Westie last year plus some less severe punctures to the back but it went unreported as it was a family members dog.
I rather no one be bitten by any dog and that will only happen if there are restrictions on owners not dogs.

morganafay

lrushe wrote: »

nipplenuts wrote: »

Interesting position. Can you find a study that demonstrated over a ten year peiod that almost half of all dog attacks were by, say, spaniels?
QUOTE]


Spaniel bites aren't going to insight as many 'studies' as say a pit bull, its just not as sentational a topic. I do think that alot of these studies are done by bias people. According to one of these 'studies' in 1987 Cocker Spaniels were named as the 3rd leading face biters, I don't have a Cocker Spaniel but it doesn't mean I have any ill feeling towards them cause some internet person I've never met gave me some 'facts' and figures to tell me what way to think.

Cocker Spaniels are apparently the dog most often put down for being vicious. Don't know if that's true but a veterinary nurse told me it was true in her practise. But I'm guessing that if someone buys a Staffie/GSD/Rottie to be a guard dog or just to look tough, they're not gonna put it down for being vicious. But if someone's family pet Cocker Spaniel is vicious they will . . .