Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Bull terriers- and why i now think they should be banned.

24

Posts

  • Just out of interest were the dogs Bull Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers as a lot of the comments on this thread have assumed that they are Staffies. Have to agree on the point that the owner is usually responsible for the dogs bad behaviour, although I do have experiences good and bad with both breeds, where the owner was a responsible person. Often problems with dogs occur due to bad breeding (mother/son etc.) especially where a breed becomes popular so demand is high and people get greedy.
  • ademortademort Posts: 1,924
    Hi they were staffies, when i lived in England a neighbour friend of mine had one. Greetings Ademort
    ademort
    Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
    Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
    Giant Defy 4
    Mirage Columbus SL
    Batavus Ventura
  • jam1ejam1e Posts: 1,058
    Although not referring to staffies which are regarded as being really reliable i do think that the whole - "there is no such thing as a dangerous breed" line is utter s*%t! Of all the incidents that involve dogs attacking people, those attacks which result in serious injury are overwhelmingly committed by the same few breeds time and time again.

    Obviously people will blame the owner but if a breed has been bred (developed?) over the years to be a strong, vicious and tenacious guardian type dog (rottie, doberman, etc etc)this will manifest itself at times of stress i.e unfamiliar circumstances, attacked by cat, poked by kids etc and it will respond to its inate instinct. This is the reason they kill - not because they bite once and then consider the job done like a lab or setter etc when provoked but because once provoked (which is often easier to do as well) they don't stop, because of their BREEDing. (the clue's in the word)

    On a related point - the so called animal welfare centres that take in potentially dangerous dogs (some of which blatantly need shooting) then try and farm them off on somebody because they dont put animals down should share some of the blame as well. If these places (which often peddle the "no dangerous dogs" line) were held partly responsible for what their rottweiler labrador cross beast thing does after its left their establishment then you could be pretty certain there would be fewer dangerous dogs rehomed and fewer "accidents".

    Just a couple of ideas...
  • Hi Jamie,

    As a previous Staffie owner, I can understand and agree to a certain extent with your ideas. However, like all things I don't think it is black and white.

    It's a bit of a vicious circle for these breeds - they are strong and aggressive - the real clue is in the word terriers - Even yorkshire terriers are aggressive wee buggers, just not so strong. because of these trait's some of the bad owners we have discussed are attracted to them for the street cred and bigging up their gangster credentials :roll:. These guys don't want to train them to be obedient, so the stereotype continues.

    Also, I think for many years the gutter press had a field day with these attacks and grouped all breeds with the word Bull in their name together hence tarring Staffs, English etc with the Pit Bull brush.

    It is very true that there are some dogs out there Bred for being aggressive and I think the dangerous dogs act went someway towards identifying those and banning them, but the gutter press still like playing on the publics fears and ignorance with sensational headlines.

    Also there is a lt of cross breeding going on to get over the law (staffies with pit bulls etc). This made the situation even worse.

    As I mentioned earlier, I have been attacked by more dogs than I care to remember and even had an issue with my Golden Retriever whom I loved to bits. My experience in most cases was that the dogs that attacked me came from houses that were, lets say of a lower IQ than most - bad owners, every time.

    That's just my experience, not looking to argue or say anyone is wrong.

    Cheers
  • jam1ejam1e Posts: 1,058
    Yeah - i agree entirely about letting the stupid own dogs of any breed - there are lots of idiots with pit bulls etc that they clearly shouldn't have. My point though is that dangerous dogs owned either by resonsible owners or not, are much more likely to continue an attack than other breeds. I've owned and been attacked by several (other peoples!) dogs over the years and most try for one or two bites then stop - rotties etc don't.

    You make the point that you've even had problems with a golden retriever - by highlighting the fact that a retriever is (rightly) considered a safe dog you must by extension accept the fact that there are other 'less safe' - i.e dangerous dogs out there and as such the whole idea of there only being bad owners falls down...

    Anyway, think we both agree in a disagreeing sort of fashion! :D
  • there are some interesting points being raised here and i am also pleased that the hand wringing contingent hasn't appeared!

    it has been pointed out that it's the same breeds of dogs attacking again again - this is wrong.

    the press are lazy. it makes a far better story if they can blame a "devil dog," but what they aren't willing to accept is that it's them that caused idiots to want bull breeds by advertising them in such a way.

    when someone reports a vicious dog or attack to the police they will often report it as a "pit bull." most often, it's not. the press then report it as fact but never correct themselves.

    there's a fun test here:

    http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

    the dangerous dogs act was a rushed piece of legislation that falls far short of what it's aims were. regulating owners is a far better soloution, in my opinion, than regulating certain breeds.

    if it was a pair of west highland terriers, jack russels or yorkshire terriers that chased the poor cat, i'm certain we wouldn't be having this discussion. these are all breeds that were bred to seek and destroy prey bigger than themselves from rats to foxes to otters to badgers and they are often vastly underestimated because they look all cuddly.

    in case you haven't guessed, i'm a staffordshire bull terrier owner (rescued as a stray) and all round bull breed fan and general dog lover.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act used to be laughingly known by journalists as either The Daily Mail Act or Daily Express Act (I can't remember which).

    The law was rushed through after weeks of sensationalised headlines about a small handful of incidents.
    It was a demonstration of how the press could influence the government of the day with their headlines in spite of the fact that there was no evidence of any great concern from the population at large.
    They managed to shape public opinion rather than reflecting it.

    The same thing is happening now with crime and immigration.
  • Perhaps a Dangerous Dog Owners Act would be more useful?
  • berlinerberliner Posts: 340
    The owners are Jeremy Kyle people.
    And Jeremy Kyle people hate being called Jeremy Kyle people.
  • berliner wrote:
    The owners are Jeremy Kyle people.
    And Jeremy Kyle people hate being called Jeremy Kyle people.

    all owners or just the bad owners?

    ("jeremy kyle people" :lol: )
  • richardastrichardast Posts: 273
    Even when the topic isn't dags, these forums can get a bit "Trisha" at times. :)
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    richardast wrote:
    Even when the topic isn't dags, these forums can get a bit "Trisha" at times. :)

    Come ere and say that.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    trisomy21 wrote:
    Perhaps a Dangerous Dog Owners Act would be more useful?

    That sums it up.

    Dogs are about the most maleable creatures on earth, but it does take a little effort.
  • Gr.uBGr.uB Posts: 145
    Any dog can kill a cat if the owner is not responsible for their behaviour.
    Perhaps a sanction for the owner would be more applicable / just?
    Are you an expert on dogs? What sort of Bull Terrier was it?
    An English or a Staffordshire or a Pit?
    Can you find a picture to illustrate your point?
  • Gr.uBGr.uB Posts: 145
    Dog attacks cat - not exactly news is it. Many dogs will attack cats - just as cats kill birds and mice etc Most sight hounds and terriers have a high prey drive - although it isn't unique to those types of dog. It doesn't mean they are the dogs most likely to attack a person.

    Yes a Staffy could likely kill a child - just as any powerful breed of dog could - German Shepherd, labrador, golden retriever, greyhound. If you don't think a Shepherd can be as powerful as a Staffy then I think you are mistaken - yes Staffies are strong for their size - but they are fairly small to medium dogs typically weighing no more than 40lbs. The fact they are involved in so few incidents considering there are so many of them about now and that a percentage of the owners probably aren't the best dog owners is testament to their temperament with people.

    If she's having her dogs put down for attacking a cat then she shouldn't be allowed to own a dog in the future.

    Many years ago Staffordshires were also known as the Nanny dog as they were so reliable with young children. The Staffordshire is one of only two breeds that has this in their breed standard with the Kennel Club.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Gr.uB wrote:
    Dog attacks cat - not exactly news is it. Many dogs will attack cats - just as cats kill birds and mice etc Most sight hounds and terriers have a high prey drive - although it isn't unique to those types of dog. It doesn't mean they are the dogs most likely to attack a person.

    Yes a Staffy could likely kill a child - just as any powerful breed of dog could - German Shepherd, labrador, golden retriever, greyhound. If you don't think a Shepherd can be as powerful as a Staffy then I think you are mistaken - yes Staffies are strong for their size - but they are fairly small to medium dogs typically weighing no more than 40lbs. The fact they are involved in so few incidents considering there are so many of them about now and that a percentage of the owners probably aren't the best dog owners is testament to their temperament with people.

    If she's having her dogs put down for attacking a cat then she shouldn't be allowed to own a dog in the future.

    Here's one for you - there are supposed to be about 6 million dogs in the UK, and there are about 60 million people.

    So, are there more or less than 10 times as many children attacked by people than children attacked by dogs?

    More, I'd guess.

    People should be banned.


    And another thing....


    The owner is legally liable for the action of their dog, but not for the action of their cat. So, if you are savaged by my domestic cat, you have no legal redress. The same goes for mad killer rabbits.
  • Gr.uBGr.uB Posts: 145
    Ah, but the person ( adult ) in charge of the dogs, as in this case the girlfriend is also legally responsible for them.
  • Gr.uBGr.uB Posts: 145
    As this happened in the Netherlands, I wonder exactly what type of Bull Terrier they were.
  • Gr.uB wrote:
    As this happened in the Netherlands, I wonder exactly what type of Bull Terrier they were.

    read the whole thread - they were staffs. most of the replies on the thread so far are sensible, coherent and in defence of bull breeds. i'm guessing you're a bull terrier owner too!

    :)
  • Gr.uBGr.uB Posts: 145
    I'm not so sure they were Staffs to be honest. That was a big assumption. The original poster is too emotional to judge I reckon. Surely one so minded could find a pic on the web to illustrate such an emotional subject?

    Last point, yep - 2 - my best buddy died in 2004 and the censored went December 2007 at nearly 14. Crufts dog looked good IMO too :D
  • have you played the game?

    http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

    bull terriers (and most bull breeds) are so misunderstood and it is a great illustration of how difficult it can be to mistake one breed of dog for another.(or how easy it is to "blame the bull terrier," if you've a newspaper to sell.)

    my staff is a rescue dog - got him at about four months old when he was massively underweight with an untreated skin condition (he was almost bald) had an untreated lung infection, broken toes, a broken tail, a stab wound to his side, teeth missing, he'd been tied up (has permanent scarring and hair loss around his throat area and parvovirus (which he almost died from and now has stomach and intestinal problems.)

    he's better now though (no behavioural problems either.) - here he is climbing his first Munro last year:

    111.jpg
  • wildmoustachewildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    ademort wrote:
    If you had of asked me this morning for my opinion on bull terriers then it would have been very positive, i,ve many friends who have or have had bull terriers and they love there dogs, but after seeing this today i am afraid that they get no points at all from me now. Any comments or advice as always very welcome Greetings Ademort

    Don't take this the wrong way but this comment betrays remarkably little empathy or imagination ... traits that I suggest are behind a lot of similar problems.

    Dogs give lots of pleasure ... but there's no reason why people should own potentially lethal breeds. yes, it's tricky to define "potentially lethal" but you end up having to draw the line somewhere ... think airguns vs M16s
  • fto-sifto-si Posts: 402
    Dogs give lots of pleasure ... but there's no reason why people should own potentially lethal breeds. yes, it's tricky to define "potentially lethal" but you end up having to draw the line somewhere ... think airguns vs M16s

    If we are to stop people owning ' potentially lethal ' breeds then do we also stop people from owning a cricket bat as that to is ' potentially lethal ' in the wrong hands?
    exercise.png
  • Gr.uBGr.uB Posts: 145
    Johhny,
    I played the game. It took me three attempts. I found two breeds ( foreign ) that I had never heard of and I haven't had a chance to look into them to be honest.
    In my profession - it is imperative to get the breed correct - as it can cause a lot of problems with the clients if you don't. :wink:

    100_7494.jpg

    Sadly she is gone now. We are still getting over it to be honest. We used to show every weekend and also did a lot of obedience work. They are surprisingly very good at it :)
    When I get the chance I will upload a pic of my dog - he was ace.
  • wildmoustachewildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    fto-si wrote:
    Dogs give lots of pleasure ... but there's no reason why people should own potentially lethal breeds. yes, it's tricky to define "potentially lethal" but you end up having to draw the line somewhere ... think airguns vs M16s

    If we are to stop people owning ' potentially lethal ' breeds then do we also stop people from owning a cricket bat as that to is ' potentially lethal ' in the wrong hands?

    i'm not unaware of the practical difficulties as my previous post suggested. but sometimes doing something ... even if it's not perfect ... is better than doing nothing.

    on your example ... context is important ... if you were playing cricket then no one would do anything ... on a friday night outside a pub with a cricket bat you'd most likely be stopped by the police

    it's not an easy one this ... but if we can agree some breeds are far more potentially dangerous than others then you have a place to start from.
  • wildmoustachewildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    Gr.uB wrote:
    Dog attacks cat - not exactly news is it. Many dogs will attack cats - just as cats kill birds and mice etc Most sight hounds and terriers have a high prey drive - although it isn't unique to those types of dog. It doesn't mean they are the dogs most likely to attack a person.

    Yes a Staffy could likely kill a child - just as any powerful breed of dog could - German Shepherd, labrador, golden retriever, greyhound. If you don't think a Shepherd can be as powerful as a Staffy then I think you are mistaken - yes Staffies are strong for their size - but they are fairly small to medium dogs typically weighing no more than 40lbs. The fact they are involved in so few incidents considering there are so many of them about now and that a percentage of the owners probably aren't the best dog owners is testament to their temperament with people.

    If she's having her dogs put down for attacking a cat then she shouldn't be allowed to own a dog in the future.

    Many years ago Staffordshires were also known as the Nanny dog as they were so reliable with young children. The Staffordshire is one of only two breeds that has this in their breed standard with the Kennel Club.

    just a question for fellow forummers ... can anyone here produce convincing evidence of a single case where a labrador killed a child?
  • Tom ButcherTom Butcher Posts: 7,137
    There was that case in France where someone needed a face transplant after their labrador attacked them - closest I can think of. Are there any documented cases where pure bred Staffies have killed children though? The only stats I've seen were from the States and lump Staffies in with Pit Bulls, American Staffs (which is basically a show version of the pit bull) etc - I think Staffies are relatively unpopular over there compared to these other bull terrier breeds. Interestingly breeds like Malamutes (like a bit husky) and St Bernard

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • wildmoustachewildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    There was that case in France where someone needed a face transplant after their labrador attacked them - closest I can think of. Are there any documented cases where pure bred Staffies have killed children though? The only stats I've seen were from the States and lump Staffies in with Pit Bulls, American Staffs (which is basically a show version of the pit bull) etc - I think Staffies are relatively unpopular over there compared to these other bull terrier breeds. Interestingly breeds like Malamutes (like a bit husky) and St Bernard

    a quick google search throws up vast numbers of staffy maulings. allegedly "pure".
  • richardastrichardast Posts: 273
    Perspective.

    About 3 people per year are killed in the UK by dogs.
    About 700 people per year are killed* in the UK by humans.

    7 million dogs.
    60 milion humans.

    A human is 27 times more likely to kill you than a dog.

    *That's just murders. Doesn't include the 3000 per year killed by humans driving cars or hundreds of other accidental/neglectful deaths.
  • wildmoustachewildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    richardast wrote:
    Perspective.

    About 3 people per year are killed in the UK by dogs.
    About 700 people per year are killed* in the UK by humans.

    7 million dogs.
    60 milion humans.

    A human is 27 times more likely to kill you than a dog.

    *That's just murders. Doesn't include the 3000 per year killed by humans driving cars or hundreds of other accidental/neglectful deaths.

    what about bites ... can anyone work out whether you're more likely to get bitten by a dog or a human?

    i saw a figure of about 200,000 dog bites per annum
Sign In or Register to comment.