Murphy Jnr Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I wasn't talking about sympathy for you, I was talking about sympathy for the 6 year old girl and her family. I have no idea what the dog's owner was interested in - only that he is 56 years old man and left the scene, showing no more sympathy for the injured child than dangerous dog owners usually show. I'm not asking for sympathy, read the post properly. You're quizzing why people are defending the same dogs you insist should be declared dangerous insinuating that owners of staffies are of one mentality. What i'm saying is if you recognise that the high majority are responsible owners and the few that make the headlines for incidences such as this ruin it for everyone else. As sorry as people may or may not be for the girl, if they own any one of the breeds that are repeatedly dragged down they will stand up for it and sing it's praises as they have taken the time and put in the effort to have a dog that does behave. You need to understand the difference between what are legally determined as 'dangerous dogs' and what are not and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not nor should it be regardless of what you might think. I'm not sure what you want from this thread but it looks like you wont be satisfied until all the posts display sadness for the girl and a witch hunt for Staffies etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'm not asking for sympathy, read the post properly. You're quizzing why people are defending the same dogs you insist should be declared dangerous insinuating that owners of staffies are of one mentality. What i'm saying is if you recognise that the high majority are responsible owners and the few that make the headlines for incidences such as this ruin it for everyone else. As sorry as people may or may not be for the girl, if they own any one of the breeds that are repeatedly dragged down they will stand up for it and sing it's praises as they have taken the time and put in the effort to have a dog that does behave. You need to understand the difference between what are legally determined as 'dangerous dogs' and what are not and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not nor should it be regardless of what you might think. I'm not sure what you want from this thread but it looks like you wont be satisfied until all the posts display sadness for the girl and a witch hunt for Staffies etc. you're right there - 'sadness' for the child was what the thread was about - she was seriously injured and had her ear bitten off by a bull terrier. unfortunately,(but inevitably) it was hijacked by paranoid powerful dog owners. 'witch hunt'? - no - just an acceptance that certain breeds are responsible for a catalogue of serious injuries. advice - get a nice dog that won't cost a child an ear if it goes out of control. sounds reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 you're right there - 'sadness' for the child was what the thread was about - she was seriously injured and had her ear bitten off by a bull terrier. unfortunately,(but inevitably) it was hijacked by paranoid powerful dog owners. 'witch hunt'? - no - just an acceptance that certain breeds are responsible for a catalogue of serious injuries. advice - get a nice dog that won't cost a child an ear if it goes out of control. sounds reasonable to me. Maybe you could point out these powerful dog owners. It has been accepted that certain types of dog are responsible for a number of injuries to people, children included. What is not accepted is that ALL owners of these dogs are in the same mould as the man in question. Your perception of these dogs would appear to be based on what you read and not what you know. Your knowledge of them is limited that much is apparent and is the case with a lot of people who's opinions get voiced on SF. If you familiarised yourself with any of the breeds you vilify you will see that not all (far from it in fact) meet your perception. It doesn't bother me that you don't like them but without knowing them your opinion means very little which is why those that do defend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wobblygob Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Maybe you could point out these powerful dog owners. It has been accepted that certain types of dog are responsible for a number of injuries to people, children included. What is not accepted is that ALL owners of these dogs are in the same mould as the man in question. . In my experience most owners of staffies and other pit bull type dogs have a similar mentality. One where they show complete ignorance of how dangerous their dog is, how they take pleasure in their dog's vilent tendencies and how when they attack a child as inevitably happens, it's the child's fault. As an example, watch a bit of this documentary about dangerous dogs that was on the BBC the other night. You wouldn't trust the lowlifes on it with a tin of soup, never mind a dangerous dog breed like a staffy! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bbvfk/Death_Row_Dogs/Cached Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 In my experience most owners of staffies and other pit bull type dogs have a similar mentality. One where they show complete ignorance of how dangerous their dog is, how they take pleasure in their dog's vilent tendencies and how when they attack a child as inevitably happens, it's the child's fault. As an example, watch a bit of this documentary about dangerous dogs that was on the BBC the other night. You wouldn't trust the lowlifes on it with a tin of soup, never mind a dangerous dog breed like a staffy! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bbvfk/Death_Row_Dogs/Cached Your experience of Staffy owners will be limited to the area you live in or nearby quite possibly and again I will agree that there are without doubt elements in certain areas that revel in having a particular type of behaviour at the other end of the lead. No, invariably as you state, the lowlifes that have these dogs are not to be trusted but is that the fault of the dog? For every 'nasty' staff that you see or hear of I can show you many more that are not. Don't see this as a reluctance to except your side of the story but these programmes are designed to show one side only and I never watch them. Main reason in all honesty I have no desire to witness dogs that have been turned into monsters and penis extensions for want of better descriptions. There are many many examples of Staffies displaying qualities of excellence on YouTube and there are many many examples of Staffies playing with cats, other dogs, children on the same, but there is a reluctance it seems for these to be reported on TV. I assume it doesn't attract the viewing figures or it detracts from the image people are happy to adopt. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are not under Dangerous Dogs neither are they a dangerous breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wobblygob Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 ........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wobblygob Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Your experience of Staffy owners will be limited to the area you live in or nearby quite possibly and again I will agree that there are without doubt elements in certain areas that revel in having a particular type of behaviour at the other end of the lead. No, invariably as you state, the lowlifes that have these dogs are not to be trusted but is that the fault of the dog? For every 'nasty' staff that you see or hear of I can show you many more that are not. Don't see this as a reluctance to except your side of the story but these programmes are designed to show one side only and I never watch them. Main reason in all honesty I have no desire to witness dogs that have been turned into monsters and penis extensions for want of better descriptions. There are many many examples of Staffies displaying qualities of excellence on YouTube and there are many many examples of Staffies playing with cats, other dogs, children on the same, but there is a reluctance it seems for these to be reported on TV. I assume it doesn't attract the viewing figures or it detracts from the image people are happy to adopt. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are not under Dangerous Dogs neither are they a dangerous breed. I don't deny that you can find cute videos of staffies playing with children and other dogs, but what sets staffies and other pit bull types apart is that they can be nice and friendly for years and then suddenly they'll attack completely out of the blue for no reason. Is it worth taking that risk? Also the BBC programme explained that outside of dog breeding circles, there's no such thing as a pure staffordshire bull terrier any more. Ther'es been so much cross breeding between banned american pit bull terriers and staffies that effectively they have become the same breed. That's why the documentary referred to the dangerous dogs as "pit bull type" rather than a particular breed. This is what makes the Dangerous Dogs Act so impotent and pointless. Rather than saying one type of pit bull is dangarous and another isn't, perhaps we should be looking at banning pit bull type dogs altogether. There's an article here that suggests just that, and is quite persuasive. http://studentguardian.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=408:weapon-dogs-get-rid-of-the-rotten-lot-&catid=94:opinion&Itemid=144 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I don't deny that you can find cute videos of staffies playing with children and other dogs, but what sets staffies and other pit bull types apart is that they can be nice and friendly for years and then suddenly they'll attack completely out of the blue for no reason. Is it worth taking that risk? Also the BBC programme explained that outside of dog breeding circles, there's no such thing as a pure staffordshire bull terrier any more. Ther'es been so much cross breeding between banned american pit bull terriers and staffies that effectively they have become the same breed. That's why the documentary referred to the dangerous dogs as "pit bull type" rather than a particular breed. This is true. Most Staffs are far removed from the 'standard' but most would pass the measuring debacle that denotes which live and which die. Staffies are not a problem or a threat. The threat comes from dogs that are assumed to be SBT's when they are not so the distinction has to be made or a breed known for it's suitability as a family pet is seriously at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Maybe you could point out these powerful dog owners. It has been accepted that certain types of dog are responsible for a number of injuries to people, children included. What is not accepted is that ALL owners of these dogs are in the same mould as the man in question. Your perception of these dogs would appear to be based on what you read and not what you know. Your knowledge of them is limited that much is apparent and is the case with a lot of people who's opinions get voiced on SF. If you familiarised yourself with any of the breeds you vilify you will see that not all (far from it in fact) meet your perception. It doesn't bother me that you don't like them but without knowing them your opinion means very little which is why those that do defend them. come on - I'm not saying that ALL the usual suspect breeds will attack people or other dogs, or that all the owners of these dogs are chavs/macho inadequates/psychopaths or crack dealers - I'm saying that certain breeds of dog are responsible for the majority of serious attacks and injuries. the bloke who's dog bit the kids ear off was 56, he didn't intend a child to be mutilated, but he chose that breed of dog ( a 'bull terrier') and the child and he family paid the price. if my dog went berserk, (possible) the results wouldn't be as serious. that's bloody obvious and you know it as well as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I don't deny that you can find cute videos of staffies playing with children and other dogs, but what sets staffies and other pit bull types apart is that they can be nice and friendly for years and then suddenly they'll attack completely out of the blue for no reason. Is it worth taking that risk? Also the BBC programme explained that outside of dog breeding circles, there's no such thing as a pure staffordshire bull terrier any more. Ther'es been so much cross breeding between banned american pit bull terriers and staffies that effectively they have become the same breed. That's why the documentary referred to the dangerous dogs as "pit bull type" rather than a particular breed. This is what makes the Dangerous Dogs Act so impotent and pointless. Rather than saying one type of pit bull is dangarous and another isn't, perhaps we should be looking at banning pit bull type dogs altogether. There's an article here that suggests just that, and is quite persuasive. http://studentguardian.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=408:weapon-dogs-get-rid-of-the-rotten-lot-&catid=94:opinion&Itemid=144 Ok I read the article against my better judgement. The opener, another illegally owned Staffordshire Bull terrier said it all for me. The article is an angry retort similar to many that crop up on here from time time. The problem is that the Staffy is regarded by many as a Pitbull which is wrong. Yes it's larger but the differences are still apparent when they stand side by side. There are so many variations of Bull Terrier types getting mixed with allsorts including Labrador to get the size and muscle. Simply banning them all as this idiot suggests is not the answer. Banning anything has proved time and time again to have the reverse effect. Something does need to be done of this most people are agreed. The question is what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.