wotsits Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 It is the way the dogs are brought up, not just staffies any dog. There was a time when staffies had a good public reputation with kids and were known as good family dogs. People owned them for the right reasons because they were good pets. Now it is just status because they think it makes them look tough. I will add not all staffy owners have them for this reason. Staffys are loving and soft dogs, and the idiots who make them aggresive are the irresponsible ones. If a human commits act against something people always report about the persons history and upbringing. It isn't the dogs that need putting down but the idiots that make them this way. I would never leave any dog alone with a child because every animal has it's dangers, there have been storys in the news paper where dogs and cats have sat on top of a baby out of comfort and the child has been smothered (years ago). We had 3 dogs when I was small and my younger brother and sisters were babies, we had them right up to me being 25 and never had a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Okay. I will quote it being as you do not want to. Now... Tell me where i have said a Stafford hasn't attacked someone. For the very last time i will try and get it through to you. I AM NOT DISPUTING STAFFY CROSS BREEDS ARE ATTACKING PEOPLE. WHAT I AM DISPUTING IS PEOPLE SAYING A MONGREL IS A STAFFY Was that clear enough for you? It's perfectly clear that you are indulging in an extended 'no true scotsman' fallacy. You ask for cases of fatal attacks by 'Staffordshire bull terriers' they are provided to you and you arbitrarily declare them to be "no true Staffordshire bull terriers" on the grounds of nothing other than your desire for any and all such reports to be false. You have added into the definition of a "Staffordshire bull terrier" something along the lines of "does not commit fatal attacks" and have arbitrarily declared any and all cases reported as involving fatal attacks by Staffordshire bull terriers as being by a "MONGREL" because in your world Staffordshire bull terriers by definition do not fatally attack people, "MONGREL"s however apparently do. Haven't you just contradicted yourself there?. One sentence you say they are not the most likely to attack and the next say they are 'usually prone to attack'. Make your mind up man Oh please, it's patently obvious there isn't the slightest contradiction here. As there is rather more than 2 varieties of dog in the world it is clearly possible for a breed of dog to be "unusually prone to attack people" without being "the most likely to bite". Besides from my very 1st post I have been perfectly clear that my concern about "staffies" is based upon a combination of two characteristics: 1. A tendency to aggression. 2. the capacity for violence. Numerous toy dog breeds may well bite more than fighting dogs such as your precious "staffies" but given toy dogs lack of capacity for violence this means they are far less dangerous than 'fighting dogs' deliberately bred to to be both aggressive & built to fight & kill. I think i just have (as i think i have all along). If you think otherwise then we are clearly on different wavelengths. Indeed we are, my wavelength is characterised by an attempt to use reason and evidence to build as true an understanding of reality as is possible. In stark contrast on this issue at least your wavelength is characterised by a devotion to Staffordshire bull terriers which has deprived you of any tendency towards reason or honesty that you may once have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 heres an interesting one May 15 Labrador Retriever-mix, Dachshund Julia Beck 87 years Killed by her in-law's two dogs en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States Well done finding a fatal attack by a none fighting type dog, all that industrious googling really paid off Incidentally how do you respond to this statement from your own source: "Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News,[3] has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."[4] The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiller was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd was 50.[4] Mr. Clifton concluded that "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]" This exact same reasoning applies to "Staffies" & other fighting dogs which aren't as popular as pitbulls in the states. Even if they didn't have a tendency towards aggression, they are so well bred for fighting than "a bad moment" from a fighting dog all too often leads to terrible injuries & even death. This just isn't the case with varieties of dog not bred to rip the throats out of bulls, badgers, other dogs... Even if they didn't have a tendency to violence their capacity for it makes them unjustifiably dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHEZZFAYE Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Well done finding a fatal attack by a none fighting type dog, all that industrious googling really paid off Incidentally how do you respond to this statement from your own source: "Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News,[3] has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."[4] The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiller was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd was 50.[4] Mr. Clifton concluded that "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]" This exact same reasoning applies to "Staffies" & other fighting dogs which aren't as popular as pitbulls in the states. Even if they didn't have a tendency towards aggression, they are so well bred for fighting than "a bad moment" from a fighting dog all too often leads to terrible injuries & even death. This just isn't the case with varieties of dog not bred to rip the throats out of bulls, badgers, other dogs... Even if they didn't have a tendency to violence their capacity for it makes them unjustifiably dangerous. i only put this one on as someone had said they nevever herd of a fatal attack including a lab lol and i just happend to find one. my point was its not just staffs or the sxaff xs being passed off as pure other dogs do it too. as for the stament do you actually know what was crossed back in the day to make the pitbul the ultimate fighting dog its was 3 different types of then perfect fighting dogs. yes like a pit if a staff turns it will do more damage which is only the same as a number of large breeds i can think off, but like i said above if these dogs had proper training this wouldnt happen would it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 i only put this one on as someone had said they nevever herd of a fatal attack including a lab lol and i just happend to find one. my point was its not just staffs or the sxaff xs being passed off as pure other dogs do it too Ironic that in a post in which you like your fellow Staffordshire Bull Terrier fans attempt to argue that attacks attributed to Staffordshire Bull Terriers aren't to true Staffordshire Bull Terriers but dogs "passed off as pure" Staffordshire Bull Terriers. You seem perfectly happy to assert that you definitely have found a case of a fatal attack by a Labrador. Why is it that your concern about whether or not dogs described in the media are completely pure completely disappears when Labradors are under discussion? Also why are you ignoring the conclusions of a report cited on your own source: "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]" Could it be that just as with your argument about pureness of the dogs accused of attacks your source only counts for you when it says something which favours Staffies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHEZZFAYE Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Ironic that in a post in which you like your fellow Staffordshire Bull Terrier fans attempt to argue that attacks attributed to Staffordshire Bull Terriers aren't to true Staffordshire Bull Terriers but dogs "passed off as pure" Staffordshire Bull Terriers. You seem perfectly happy to assert that you definitely have found a case of a fatal attack by a Labrador. Why is it that your concern about whether or not dogs described in the media are completely pure completely disappears when Labradors are under discussion? Also why are you ignoring the conclusions of a report cited on your own source: "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]" Could it be that just as with your argument about pureness of the dogs accused of attacks your source only counts for you when it says something which favours Staffies? 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.