More staffy attacks on kids

[PaliRichard 10]

???it's pretty clear you've got no idea of how to defend yourself against a Staffy or any other fighting dog.[/Quote]

 

I wish you and others on this thread would stop referring to staffy's as 'fighting dogs'. As I said earlier giving all staffy's that label is like calling all men paedophiles. It is not true, the evidence, and the experts all agree.

 

Obviously being well versed in karate/thai boxing/mma or any form of self defense training against human beings is going to be of minimal use against a dangerous animal[/Quote]

 

Granted it would be little use against a bear or tiger etc, simple due to the size ratio. A dog however is a different matter. A dog, like a human can be 'switched off' in exactly the same way (details witheld for obvious reasons) They also have limbs, which operate in the same way as a humans. I can think of at least three ways off the top of my head to defend against a dog attack.

 

Fact is that being attacked by a fighting dog (as in it's actually really going for you) is similar to being attacked by someone with a knife i.e. however well trained you are, you're in serious trouble and in danger of being killed/maimed. If your initial thoughts involve anything other than locating the nearest thing that can be used as a weapon (or running away, which is unlikely if it's a dog attack), then you're in a bit of a fantasy land.

 

Firstly looking for a weapon if being attacked by a knife is probably one of the stupidest things you can do (unless something appropriate is immediately to hand)

 

Secondly I am astounded that you put I am living in 'fantasy land' when you equate a dog attacking as someone with a knife. Not sure of statistics but I'm pretty sure percentage wise the number of deaths by dog attack is far far less than by knife attack.

 

Let's cut to the chase instead of bickering over theoretical fight scenarios. Staffy's, all the experts agree, are good dogs. You may doubt it, and you are welcome to your opinion, but please, and this is the sticking point with me, don't tar the whole breed because of a very small minority of 'bad eggs' (regardless of whether the dog or owners are to blame).

 

As I put earlier (can't remember if it was in response to you or not) I'm sure if you got the figures side by side humans would be far more dangerous than Staffy's per population %, yet if it was suggested that humans should be 'phased out' because they were dangerous there would be uproar.

 

If you live alongside staffy's in your own home and think they're dangerous that's fair enough, but please don't tar them with an image because you 'think' that's what the dogs are like.

Edited June 17, 2012 by PaliRichard

[Jag82 10]

If you are unlucky enough to be attacked by a dog, it is possible to fend it off if you have a bit of knowledge. Its all about expectation. No physical martial arts skills will cause an animal to retreat, but if your mindset is fixed on the confrontation, then you put yourself in the position to defend yourself, whilst looking for a way to make the animal retreat or at least give you time to wrap an article of clothing around your arm for the animal to bite, and once locked on, your physical training can disable the animal using reasonable force.

 

I bet you do the crocodile dundee stare at parties.

[KARATE DAVE 10]

I bet you do the crocodile dundee stare at parties.

 

thats good. ive seen that film. he was very good at that kind of thing. that said, it is all about expectation. you know you are going to get bitten, but it helps when you are focused. I certainly wouldnt want to be in that situation but thats out of your control if it happens. fly or die, with the outcome unknown.

[XXTickerXX 10]

Oh, great. Blame the kids who are attacked for not being "dog-socialised".

 

How come almost every time I see a headline about a child being attacked by a dog I think "I bet it's a Staffordshire Bull Terrier". Then I read the article and find out I'm right.

 

There is no reason to continue this breed when there are plenty of other breeds of dog that don't attack people so regularly.

 

You answered you`re own question i`m not sure why you needed to bold it i`m sure most can read normal text just fine.

Just in case you missed your own answer though you won`t see a headline about a poodle or other breed attacking someone because it doesn`t make good reading.It will rarely even make the news however vicious it is because the newspapers won`t even pick the story up.

I have 2 poodle/beagle crosses.Great round kids and from them being a pup i have took food out of their mouth from their very first solid meal while they were eating to teach them not to be protective/aggressive round food and toys.

 

I give them chops and bones as treats and they slice through them like butter.They could easily do tremendous damage to someone if they put the full power of their jaws into a bite.But like any dog if they are brought up right they won`t attack people or kids.Dogs are not thick they can be taught right and wrong.

 

It`s the irresponsible dog owners who have no idea how to look after a dog never mind if its a staffy or a terrier.

 

http://imgur.com/fUjCf

 

My vicious looking poodle on the right with his soft cuddly friend on the left.

[onewheeldave 22]

I wish you and others on this thread would stop referring to staffy's as 'fighting dogs'. As I said earlier giving all staffy's that label is like calling all men paedophiles. It is not true, the evidence, and the experts all agree.

 

 

 

I refer to them as fighting dogs because they were bred (genetically 'designed') for fighting, and, because they are in fact still used for that purpose. Similarly, many terriors were bred/designed to kill small animals/vermin. I'm not insulting the breed, simply refering to it's origins.

 

As many have pointed out, most staffy's are very good with people. A minority are not good with people, and, unfortunately, on the rare occasions a staffy attacks a human, because of it's bred characteristics, the attack tends to be a lot worse than an attack by a dog not bred for fighting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted it would be little use against a bear or tiger etc, simple due to the size ratio. A dog however is a different matter. A dog, like a human can be 'switched off' in exactly the same way (details witheld for obvious reasons) They also have limbs, which operate in the same way as a humans. I can think of at least three ways off the top of my head to defend against a dog attack.

 

I don't understand this 'details withheld for obvious reasons'- didn't understand it the first time you said it and still don't now.

 

Clearly the reasons aren't 'obvious', otherwise I wouldn't need to be asking

 

If, as you claim, disabling an attacking dog is so easy, then I'd suggest you explain how, as, if it was common knowledge (and if it worked) then the problem of people being killed/maimed by dogs could be eliminated.

 

I suspect the real reason for your reluctance could be concern that your methods might not stand up to scrutiny by those with a more practical approach to self defense and violence in general?

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly looking for a weapon if being attacked by a knife is probably one of the stupidest things you can do (unless something appropriate is immediately to hand)

 

 

Concerning knife attacks, try talking to someone who knows about real practical self defense: against a knife attack, if you're not either running or acquiring the nearest object that can be used to stop the attacker, then you're probably going to be dead. I know in the old movies you've got the 'jacket round the arm' trick, but, in real life, it doesn't work. Neither is an extensive knowledge of arm locks, or, a black belt going to save you.

 

 

 

 

Secondly I am astounded that you put I am living in 'fantasy land' when you equate a dog attacking as someone with a knife. Not sure of statistics but I'm pretty sure percentage wise the number of deaths by dog attack is far far less than by knife attack.

......

 

As I put earlier (can't remember if it was in response to you or not) I'm sure if you got the figures side by side humans would be far more dangerous than Staffy's per population %, yet if it was suggested that humans should be 'phased out' because they were dangerous there would be uproar.

 

 

Mmm... that's a strawman, so i won't be getting involved as I've never made the claim you seem to be attributuing to me. For the record, I agree that humans cause far more problems than dogs, it's just not relevant to the points I'm making.

 

I'll even admit than when it comes to attacks by Staffies, when it comes to attributing blame, it's generally going to be traceable back to a human (e.g. the owner).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's cut to the chase instead of bickering over theoretical fight scenarios. Staffy's, all the experts agree, are good dogs. You may doubt it, and you are welcome to your opinion, but please, and this is the sticking point with me, don't tar the whole breed because of a very small minority of 'bad eggs' (regardless of whether the dog or owners are to blame).

 

 

 

I'm not tarring the whole breed with anything other than the undeniable fact that any staffy, if it kicks off, will generally cause a whole lot more damage than your average breed of dog.

 

Along with the fact, (as we both agree that problematic dogs are generally the result of irresponsible owners), that because of the breeds reputation, a lot of staffies end up in the hands of owners who don't know how to bring them up e.g. chavs who acquire them because of their reputation as being fighting dogs.

[Leah-Lacie 10]

All this bad press is the reason 100s of perfectly nice, gentle staffs are put to sleep in kennels every week. If you look at rescue statistics, most dogs who are returned into rescue for behavioural problems, aggression etc are actually not staff or even staff crosses

 

Any dog can be nasty, any dog can turn. The majority don't, and won't - but when they do, no matter what breed it is, its never a 'nice' attack, staffy or not. Its just that staffys make the news more often. I don't know why. Perhaps when a yorkie or a labrador bite a child, their parents don't go running to the paper, but they do when its a staff, because they know they'll be interested.

 

Call me biased as I own a staff, but I own a staff for one reason. Because I have never, personally, seen any other breed that is consistently as good an 'all rounder' dog as a staffy. Well behaved, quite easy to train, good on lead, good off lead, good with children, adults, other dogs, and every single one I've ever personally met has been like that. Thats why it was my breed of choice, no other reasons. And from what I see from my dog, I wouldn't want another breed.

[Plain Talker 11]

I disagree- it's not all about the deed- it's also about the consequences, in which the damage the dog can do is very relevant.

 

Sorry to hear above you being bitten in the face by a jack russell- any dog attack is highly unpleasant, especially when it's on a child: nevertheless, you're very lucky it wasn't a Staffy (or other fighting dog) with a similar attitude, because you'd likely be carrying much worse facial disfigurements than a scar.

 

My point was more about not blaming the breed, and about some dogs having irresponsible and idiot owners, rather than than me carrying a facial scar.

 

The dog-attack was unprovoked, the dog was allowed to run wild, and uncontrolled, and the feckless and slack-jawed owner could not even be bothered to apologise when my parents took me across the road to the owner's house to show her what her dog had done. It already had a reputation in the neighbourhood as being vicious and aggressive, yet the owner still did not keep the dog under control, and did not confine the dog to the garden or the house.

 

MY ex and I taught the young'uns, and the grandies when they came along, how to behave around dogs to minimise the risks.

 

Things like

 

"Never approach a sleeping dog",

 

"Do not take a dog's food or bone..."

 

"If you do not know the dog, always ask the owner/ handler before approaching it."

 

"Don't act squeal-y or scream-y and giddy round a dog, in case you trigger its chase reflex, or in your giddiness, tread on its tail or paws."

 

We are never going to have "zero"-number dog-bites, whilst-ever we have dog ownership, but if owners are sensible, and socialise their dogs well/ control them properly, and children are taught from an early age how to "speak dog", then the risk is lessened.

 

As I said earlier, I've owned a number of staffies, and my dad owned a staffy cross. I've owned 2 English bull-terriers, four Jacks, and a "Mostly" ( a "heinz, or "mostly terrier") I love terriers, and have had no issues with mine, at all.

 

We owned a Labrador when I was a little girl, (I was about four) which sort of got ideas above its station, and went for me and my sister. My Father had to re-home it. That's the only dog we owned where there were any problems.

[Lounge Jay 10]

You've just answered your own question here.

 

You've basically admitted that it's the dog owner, not the dog and that all dogs can flip and attack.

 

Sure all dogs can behave out of character and suddenly attack, but pitbulls, more than other dogs, have the capacity to cause real damage when they do, with their lock-jaws etc.

[Lounge Jay 10]

I think pitbulls should be banned in the UK. Existing dogs shouldnt be destroyed, but a ban should be put on the breeding of them to allow the breed(s) to go extinct.

 

We should set a date, say, the 1st january 2013, and any pitbull dog deemed by experts to have been born after that date should be destroyed and the owner fined.

[PaliRichard 10]

I refer to them as fighting dogs because they were bred (genetically 'designed') for fighting, and, because they are in fact still used for that purpose. Similarly, many terriors were bred/designed to kill small animals/vermin. I'm not insulting the breed, simply refering to it's origins[/Quote]

 

I would recommend you watch this horizon which has a very good segment on how dogs can quickley be bread to lose there vicious characteristics and (as someone on here has already pointed out) this is largely (by most responsible breeders) what has occurred with Staffy's. Granted they still have 'the look', and that's what the meatheads go for, but, as qualified by all the Staffy owners on this thread, they are now no more 'fighting' dogs than we are great apes.

 

As many have pointed out, most staffy's are very good with people. A minority are not good with people, and, unfortunately, on the rare occasions a staffy attacks a human, because of it's bred characteristics, the attack tends to be a lot worse than an attack by a dog not bred for fighting[/Quote] I don't know about that (that is, I'm not disagreeing, I genuinly don't know) I haven't seen the data. What I suspect, like most of us who know staffy's on here suspect, is that most of it is press sensationalism. How many of these 'vicious' attacks are actually by staffordshire bull terriers? I'd like to know the stats.

 

I don't understand this 'details withheld for obvious reasons'- didn't understand it the first time you said it and still don't now.

 

Clearly the reasons aren't 'obvious', otherwise I wouldn't need to be asking

 

If, as you claim, disabling an attacking dog is so easy, then I'd suggest you explain how, as, if it was common knowledge (and if it worked) then the problem of people being killed/maimed by dogs could be eliminated.

 

I suspect the real reason for your reluctance could be concern that your methods might not stand up to scrutiny by those with a more practical approach to self defense and violence in general?[/Quote]

 

Details are witheld because we are on a public forum and I am responsible, nothing more, I have given plenty of 'hints' without the details. I never said disabling an attacking dog would be easy, nor the techniques common knowledge, I said thatI could think of several ways to defend myself by adapting techniques used against people based on anotomical similarities between the species. My point was, personally speaking I would rather be attacked by a staffy than a larger dog because it would be easier to defend against.

 

Concerning knife attacks, try talking to someone who knows about real practical self defense: against a knife attack, if you're not either running or acquiring the nearest object that can be used to stop the attacker, then you're probably going to be dead. I know in the old movies you've got the 'jacket round the arm' trick, but, in real life, it doesn't work. Neither is an extensive knowledge of arm locks, or, a black belt going to save you[/Quote]

 

I don't understand you here. All I said was trying to aquire an object (unless it was obviously at hand) was silly if being attacked by a knife, not that they were easy to defend against. In fact you've really just proven my point. Knife attacks are so dangerous (which was my point) that comparing them to a dog attack is a bit silly (which is was what you did). Someone with a knife is far more dangerous than just about any dog attack, which is why I picked you up on comparing them.

 

Mmm... that's a strawman, so i won't be getting involved as I've never made the claim you seem to be attributuing to me. For the record, I agree that humans cause far more problems than dogs, it's just not relevant to the points I'm making[/Quote]

 

I apologise, I wasn't sure who had made the point. It isn't however a straw man, it's very relevant to the subject, comparitively speaking humans are far more dangerous than any breed of dog. There are suggestions (granted, not by you) by some on here to 'breed them out'. I disagree. Once more I apologise for getting the wrong person

 

I'll even admit than when it comes to attacks by Staffies, when it comes to attributing blame, it's generally going to be traceable back to a human (e.g. the owner)[/Quote]

 

I would sespect that, but I don't know, I haven't seen the data.

 

I'm not tarring the whole breed with anything other than the undeniable fact that any staffy, if it kicks off, will generally cause a whole lot more damage than your average breed of dog[/Quote]

 

I think changing that to 'some' breeds of dog would be better. Like I said I'd rather be faced with a staffy than an alsation. Even in play a larger dog 'feels' more threatening. I'm not sure what an 'average' dog is!

 

Along with the fact, (as we both agree that problematic dogs are generally the result of irresponsible owners), that because of the breeds reputation, a lot of staffies end up in the hands of owners who don't know how to bring them up e.g. chavs who acquire them because of their reputation as being fighting dogs.

 

I don't think chavs get them because of their reputation as fighting dogs, I think they get them because they look 'ard (which I think is at least some of the problem with the press). My brother in law actually got a dog that had been used as a 'practice' dog for actual, illegal, dog fighters (who apparently used many breeds). The stories the rescue centre told him about these criminals were far different than the way your average 'chav' brings up the dogs. To 'most' (I'm not by any stretch suggesting all) 'chavs' the dogs are status symbols.

 

I do agree with the bit I've highlighted wholeheartedly, and I think that is the crux of the point with any breed, If you make no attampt to bring it up properly (or mistreat it), it is more likely to turn, just like any dog, just like any person who has been abused. They are intelligent animals that like any intelligent animal wants love and attention.

[onewheeldave 22]

 

Any dog can be nasty, any dog can turn. The majority don't, and won't - but when they do, no matter what breed it is, its never a 'nice' attack, staffy or not. Its just that staffys make the news more often. I don't know why. Perhaps when a yorkie or a labrador bite a child, their parents don't go running to the paper, but they do when its a staff, because they know they'll be interested.

 

I feel like I'm labouring this point, but, it's an important one, so... the reason 'Yorky attacks' do not make the papers is that, despite being unpleasant, an attack by a Yorkshire terrier will not leave a child maimed, dead, or faceless.

 

Whereas an attack by a Staffy could well (and have) left a child maimed, dead, or faceless- that's why many staffy attacks make the national papers.

 

I'm not saying that Staffys are more aggressive than other breeds- they aren't, I agree with you that-

 

 

Call me biased as I own a staff, but I own a staff for one reason. Because I have never, personally, seen any other breed that is consistently as good an 'all rounder' dog as a staffy. Well behaved, quite easy to train, good on lead, good off lead, good with children, adults, other dogs, and every single one I've ever personally met has been like that. Thats why it was my breed of choice, no other reasons. And from what I see from my dog, I wouldn't want another breed.

 

it's just that, on the rare occasion a Staffy attacks, the consequences will tend to be very bad indeed, generally worse than most other breeds.

 

And yes, it is usually bad ownership, but again, that doesn't alter the actual consequences one jot- it's certainly no consolation to the child facing a life with severe facial disfigurements.

[nikki-red 307]

I think pitbulls should be banned in the UK. Existing dogs shouldnt be destroyed, but a ban should be put on the breeding of them to allow the breed(s) to go extinct.

 

We should set a date, say, the 1st january 2013, and any pitbull dog deemed by experts to have been born after that date should be destroyed and the owner fined.

 

 

Pitbulls (or any dog the experts deem to be 'of type') are already banned in the UK