Dog attacks on kids, why's it always a Staffy?

[0742Sheff 10]

It's perfectly clear that you are indulging in an extended 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

 

And that is where i stopped reading. You have banded that around enough now.

[plekhanov 10]

no im not bothered about if the dog is pure or not as a bite is a bite no matter what it comes from. my point is that in the case of x breeds they tend to get all the bad parts and not many of the good.

 

i have a staff an in some ppls eyes he is not pure because he is not kc reg, he was bred to be agressive by the ppl that mated his parents in anyone elses hands he would be a killer in mine your quite safe.

Well I guess that's ok then because you of course never leave your would "would be a killer" alone for a moment do you, so he's always "in your hands".

 

what i think the other ppl mean is dogs like mine that arnt kc are mongrals, at the end of the day no matter what you say about these dogs its not there fault some fool is trying to breed and train them bk into being agressive

 

because the labradoor did not say lab type or lab x like most off the staff stories do, do you getwhere i am comin from now

but that is precisely what it said "May 15 Labrador Retriever-mix" yet on the strength of that you were happy to talk about an attack by a Lab.

 

But anyway that inconsistency aside you attempts to absolve Staffies of blame & putting it all on their owners completely missed the point. Regardless of precisely where the fault lies fighting type dogs, even ones that don't seem to be aggressive, are a concern because of there terrible capacity for violence which means an attack by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or like fighting dog tends to do far more damage than attacks by dogs not bred to kill. This is what makes fighting dogs dangerous.

 

It doesn't matter if in every case of an attack the owner and not the dog is completely at fault, the capacity for maiming and killing fighting dogs have is still a serious issue. Particularly as we live in a far from perfect world in which irresponsible people keep on getting their hands upon fighting dogs, in fact they seem positively drawn to them.

[plekhanov 10]

And that is where i stopped reading. You have banded that around enough now.

Wow what a complete surprise, because up till now you've paid so much attention to reason and evidence inconvenient to your attempt to absolve Staffordshire Bull Terriers of all blame

[0742Sheff 10]

I call it ignorance. In most cases the dog is not a Staffy but a mongrel. I seriously doubt anyone with a Stafford would pay £500+ then treat it in such a way and leave it in such a situation where it would attack someone.

 

It is about time people/press learnt to tell the difference between a Stafford and a mongrel that has a bit of Stafford in it.

 

[EDIT] As for showing a Stafford seeming being aggressive. That is just trying to drum up hatred toward the breed. The Daily Mail should hang their heads in shame.

 

 

I just thought i would quote my original post to underline what i have been saying all along. Just for those that couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread before jumping in head first and arguing for the sake of it

[CHEZZFAYE 10]

Well I guess that's ok then because you of course never leave your would "would be a killer" alone for a moment do you, so he's always "in your hands".

i am able to leave my dog alone due to him having proper training from being a pup because i have taught him agression is not allowed and if something bothers him to take himself out of the way.

 

i ment if one of the chavs you see walking the street had him he would be dangerous due to not being traind.

 

why is it you keep say we are trying to defend the breed but dont seem to be able to see, you wont let your clouded view that all staffs are evil be changed even a tiny bit

[SUPERTYKE 10]

Every individual line within the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed may not currently be being bred for aggression but that initial breeding & its affects are still there for the entire breed.

 

Just as every individual line of Border Collies is no longer bred to herd sheep but the characteristics that initial breeding are still there.

 

 

Of course I'll will ask you to prove it.

 

In my (by definition narrow) personal experience small yappie type dogs are the most likely to bite, thing is those bites are rarely serious. Similarly some collies can have a tendency to nip especially if something or someone they're attempting to herd doesn't want to be herded, a nip however is not a full on attack and it's rather disingenuous to try and conflate the two.

At least you admit that your experience regarding dogs is ‘limited’ though that it came across in your post anyway. Your knowledge of genetics seems to be equally ‘limited’.

 

Genetically ALL dogs are inclined to fight. The difference with Staffs and some other breeds is that they have been selectively bred by humans for aggression.

You say that there is a gene that these breeds have that inclines them towards aggression – not true. Such traits are as easily bred out as they are bred in.

 

Indeed, if pedigree dogs of ANY type were left to breed without mans interference, their makeup would very quickly revert to the way it was before we applied our own vain and often despicable preferences.

 

There have been many millions MORE Staffs that have been bred by ‘normal’ people for reasons other than aggression so that the ‘aggressive’ gene is as recessive as any other non-physical gene.

 

Thankfully the main drive towards breeding Staffs into ‘Pit Bulls’ has been an American trend (not atypically) drug dealers and scum use them to defend themselves and their property, these people have no love or respect for ANY animal and have contributed disproportionately to the attacks here and in America.

 

So you do no good whatsoever harbouring such vindictive and frankly hysterical views. Demonising a breed is unhelpful and if anything will INCREASE the likelihood of attacks, (fearful people are confusing to dogs and likewise trigger fear and defensive aggression in some dogs – especially dogs that have been bred to fight.

 

You really should get to know some Staffs and Rotties etc and allow your own irrational fear to be diminished.

 

Finally, you say that ‘small yappy dogs are more inclined to bite’. Not true – again people are to blame for by treating a dog like a baby and carrying it around etc is never going to allow that dog to learn ‘the rules’.

[Glennis 15]

A few years ago it was popular with the press to report attacks by Alsatian dogs while ignoring the attacks by other dogs.

 

Rottweillers went through a bad patch too.

[rickiethecat 10]

Thankfully the main drive towards breeding Staffs into ‘Pit Bulls’ has been an American trend (not atypically) drug dealers and scum use them to defend themselves and their property, these people have no love or respect for ANY animal and have contributed disproportionately to the attacks here and in America.

 

So you do no good whatsoever harbouring such vindictive and frankly hysterical views. Demonising a breed is unhelpful and if anything will INCREASE the likelihood of attacks, (fearful people are confusing to dogs and likewise trigger fear and defensive aggression in some dogs – especially dogs that have been bred to fight.

 

You really should get to know some Staffs and Rotties etc and allow your own irrational fear to be diminished.

 

 

This is another classic trait of the Staffy owner. When their dog attacks someone, instead of trying to control the dog, they blame the victim for provoking it, which is about as logical as blaming a rape victim for being raped.

 

As for calling anyone hysterical for pointing out that it always seems to be Staffys which attack children, well if it was your child being attacked, you would have every right to be hysterical wouldn't you?

 

Let's just hope that one day we get a strong government that is prepared to take action to remove this dangrous breed from society altogether!

[SUPERTYKE 10]

This is another classic trait of the Staffy owner. When their dog attacks someone, instead of trying to control the dog, they blame the victim for provoking it, which is about as logical as blaming a rape victim for being raped.

 

As for calling anyone hysterical for pointing out that it always seems to be Staffys which attack children, well if it was your child being attacked, you would have every right to be hysterical wouldn't you?

 

Let's just hope that one day we get a strong government that is prepared to take action to remove this dangrous breed from society altogether!

 

I see you read posts with the selective eye of a truly hysterical bigot.

 

Then you come up with ridiculous comparisons that hold no relation to my statements WHATSOEVER. I suggest that you read my post again. Then, when you’ve calmed down, reply without misquoting me.

 

For one thing – I’ve never owned a Staffy. But I HAVE owned dogs for most of my life. This is why I can say with absolute certainty that mentally sound dogs which are neither ill nor injured will NEVER attack anyone unless they themselves are attacked.

 

Even then, many dogs will not fight back against humans. And believe me, there are MANY people who DO attack dogs and many more who mean well but whose lack of understanding and knowledge of dogs inadvertently causes them discomfort, injury or ill health.

 

Then there are the dolts that because of their own irrational fear and prejudice give dogs generally and in this case Staffies in particular, bad and inaccurate press.

 

I’ve no doubt that you will go through life denying yourself (and others if you can) the truth regarding the extra-ordinary nature of dogs and of their loyalty, of their undemanding ways and of their incalculable usefulness to mankind. And guess what - many working dogs are STAFFIES!

 

But don’t worry – they’ll forgive you. They’ll still rescue you from the misty mountain top or from beneath the rubble of a collapsed building. They’ll still lead you around the shops should your eyesight go, they’ll still fetch your mail from the door should your limbs fail etc. etc. etc..

 

If you want some good advice, or rather – if you are big enough to accept some good advice, ask yourself if the reason for your bias and hysteria is based on fact. Then ask yourself if you are just generalising unfairly.

 

It makes life so much easier doesn’t it, to generalise? To believe that ALL Staffy owners are filthy pond life who themselves should be exterminated with their dogs?

 

Glad you like 'strong governments' - strong enough perhaps,to withdraw or dismantle institutions and traditions which define the very character of our country? -good luck.

Edited May 6, 2011 by SUPERTYKE

[0742Sheff 10]

Top post SUPERTYKE

 

We had to say goodbye to our lovely Staffy 2 weeks ago. We have been trawling through the rescue centers this week and the amount of cross breeds with Staffy or Pit Bull in them is simply staggering. There are many more than i expected and unfortunately some of them have defects that will lead to major problems as they get older

[diggory comp 10]

the o.p has a point about staffies. i actually like staffy dogs and don't believe they are dangerous. however they are a fighting breed and have a temper and are not predictable. i wouldn't trust them round kids or other dogs very much. obviously not every staffy is the same and there are probably exceptions but on the whole i am very wary. the biggest problem with staffordshire's is the people who own them. the chavs like them as a status symbol and probably want a dog that is menacing and aggressive. then there are the softies who can't possibly control a staffy and end up being bossed around by the dog. i like staffies but they will always be the dog that has a terrible reputation that is backed up by it's erractic behaviour. you don't see many middle classes walking staffies around the park either.

[0742Sheff 10]

you don't see many middle classes walking staffies around the park either.

 

 

What's that supposed to mean?