Murphy Jnr Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 The reason why they choose staffies to train is because they are already instinctively a violent breed. The problem is both the breed AND the owner. Go and do some research on the breed before coming out with insane comments. Instinctively Staffordshire Bull Terriers are the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 A knife can't guide the blind, a knife can't give people emotional help, a knife can't save a drowning kid or a kid from a house on fire. Dogs do infinitely more good than they do bad! In general, I like dogs. I dislike dogs designed to attack. Being attacked by a killer 'nanny' dog was the last straw for me. It wasn't a bad owner and I didn't do anything to the dog past try to stop it humping my leg, using a gentle voice and a hand with gentle pressure to push it. No slap, no shouting but a head case killer 'nanny' dog that I, as a fully grown, non wimp, male could hardly hold off me. It it wasn't for the heavy leather collar, I would have been badly bitten. The was a dog that had shown no previous bad behaviour and usually came up and licked me. I worry for the children of the idiots who keep these dangerous beasts, claiming they make lovely nannies. It's like have a nanny with bipolar disease and an axe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 In general, I like dogs. I dislike dogs designed to attack. Being attacked by a killer 'nanny' dog was the last straw for me. It wasn't a bad owner and I didn't do anything to the dog past try to stop it humping my leg, using a gentle voice and a hand with gentle pressure to push it. No slap, no shouting but a head case killer 'nanny' dog that I, as a fully grown, non wimp, male could hardly hold off me. It it wasn't for the heavy leather collar, I would have been badly bitten. The was a dog that had shown no previous bad behaviour and usually came up and licked me. I worry for the children of the idiots who keep these dangerous beasts, claiming they make lovely nannies. It's like have a nanny with bipolar disease and an axe. To the contrary, it was a bad owner if they let the dog hump you but there's little point in discussing their true merits with someone convinced enough to use the term 'killer' because like many, other than what you read you doubtless have little to no experience of the dog itself. The fact remains that it is a recommended family dog and only bad breeding and irresponsible, backward owners have allowed that trait to be put under the microscope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 More evidence on why staffies should be banned. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kmtl9 more evidence that people are stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 In general, I like dogs. I dislike dogs designed to attack. Being attacked by a killer 'nanny' dog was the last straw for me. It wasn't a bad owner and I didn't do anything to the dog past try to stop it humping my leg, using a gentle voice and a hand with gentle pressure to push it. No slap, no shouting but a head case killer 'nanny' dog that I, as a fully grown, non wimp, male could hardly hold off me. It it wasn't for the heavy leather collar, I would have been badly bitten. The was a dog that had shown no previous bad behaviour and usually came up and licked me. I worry for the children of the idiots who keep these dangerous beasts, claiming they make lovely nannies. It's like have a nanny with bipolar disease and an axe. No it really, really isn't! What an utterly stupid thing to say:loopy: The dangerous dogs act is so embarrassingly wanting. It only gives powers to police in instances when a dangerous dog happens to be one of the banned breeds, whilst giving it dangerous dog status making it attractive to idiots that want weapon dogs and stopping responsible owners from having certain dogs just because they happen to be of a certain breed. It is the worst bit of legislation I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The Act has also succeeded in seeing new breeds arrive from countries that have dog fighting as a passtime so it has done nothing to solve the problem and it never will in its present state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Go and do some research on the breed before coming out with insane comments. Instinctively Staffordshire Bull Terriers are the opposite. Oh dear, another staffy owner with his head in the sand. If Staffys are such gentle child-friendly dogs that would never harm a fly, why are they the dog of choice for chav thugs and why do we read so many reports of staffys attacking children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Oh dear, another staffy owner with his head in the sand. If Staffys are such gentle child-friendly dogs that would never harm a fly, why are they the dog of choice for chav thugs and why do we read so many reports of staffys attacking children? You know what's funny, when people who really have no idea about the subject, they use extremes to describe it to make their point. At one end of the scale it's a killer, at the other it wouldn't hurt a fly. You have not the time or the inclination to find out the facts so why should I bother explaining to you. And no, I don't own a staffy but I do have a lot of years under my belt working alongside them. edit: and no bite marks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 You know what's funny, when people who really have no idea about the subject, they use extremes to describe it to make their point. At one end of the scale it's a killer, at the other it wouldn't hurt a fly. You have not the time or the inclination to find out the facts so why should I bother explaining to you. And no, I don't own a staffy but I do have a lot of years under my belt working alongside them. edit: and no bite marks You don't have facts, you only have an opinion. And yes, I only have an opinion too but at least mine is based on what I see in the real world rather than my own prejudices! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 You don't have facts, you only have an opinion. And yes, I only have an opinion too but at least mine is based on what I see in the real world rather than my own prejudices! Do yourself a favour and visit a breeder, a legitimate breeder not some waste of space, go see them in rescues and you'll notice immediately that the 'staffies' you are likely to come into contact with on the streets are far removed from that of a Staffordshire Bull Terier. Now that's not to say that a lot of these aren't well behaved but they are nevertheless a long way away from those recognised by kennel clubs. Unless you're willing to at least look at the complete story you really can't pass a judgement on it. Newspapers are sensationalist, they love to feed you the good bits because no one is particularly interested in a dog that behaves or is good with other dogs and children. I can't give you any facts or figures to support it but i'll wager that in rescues at least, you're more likely to be bitten by a Jack Russel or a Collie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.