***The 'Dangerous Dog' Thread***

All dogs are dangerous to a certain extent and owning any breed of dog is a huge responsibility. Like people have said, any dog can be trained to attack. Its a shame that dogs deemed ‘scary’ looking (from Staffies to Rotties, etc, etc) fall into the hands of people who aren’t yet capable of the responsibility.

I own a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I accept the majority of SBT owners own them as ‘status dogs’, but there are also SBT like my dog who are quite happy being the family pet and aren’t any bother. To say that all ‘dangerous dogs’ should be banned isn’t fair to those who are responsible owners. I’m quite happy for the government to introduce licensing legislation. In fact I wish they would hurry up and do so.
 
BD10NNF said:
Explain why not?

Her bite now is enough to make me bleed. I should know, she's done it twice and been punished for it (it was my fault though for playing rough).
Click to expand...

A beagle is not capable of the same kind of damage as other, stronger, larger dogs, not to the same extent anyway.
 
I'm not saying its as strong as a German Shepherd or a Staffie. I'm saying that her bite when fully grown could do just as much damage as any other dog her size.

My opinion is that all dogs should have a tracker and chip in them so if they are let loose, they can be picked up by an agency and looked after till you come and get them. If you don't come with in 28 days then the dog gets to go to heaven. I would included some sort of national database so you could check if it had been picked up.
 
Last edited:
BD10NNF said:
Explain why not?

Her bite now is enough to make me bleed. I should know, she's done it twice and been punished for it (it was my fault though for playing rough).
Click to expand...

Because each dog breed has different jaw strengths and maximum bite pressures.

In addition some breeds are more pre disposed to hang onto prey.
 
BD10NNF said:
I'm not saying its as strong as a German Shepherd or a Staffie. I'm saying that her bite when fully grown could do just as much damage as any other dog her size.
Click to expand...

Her size, yes, but size and power is very much a factor in the dangerous dog discussion.
 
Why is it? a Staffie isn't much bigger than a Beagle fully grown (I use to look after one). Like some one has stated a Dachshund is one of the most dangerous dogs to own.


(I have now lost interest in this as this is turning silly, my dog isn't dangerous and never will be. Just hope they sort out all the bad owners.)
 
Last edited:
Lol at people who keep claiming staffies are dangerous just because a lot of underclass retards keep getting them as pets and training them to be violent.
 
I have this from Animal planet aboud Staffies


Energy level : Medium energy

Exercise needs : Medium

Playfullness : Very playful

Affection level : Very affectionate

Friendliness toward other dogs : Shy

Friendliness toward other pets : Friendly

Friendliness toward strangers : Friendly

Ease of training : Moderately easy to train

Watchdog ability : Medium

Protection ability : Moderately protective

Grooming needs : Low maintenance

Cold tolerance : Low tolerance

Heat tolerance : Low tolerance
 
BD10NNF said:
Why is it? a Staffie isn't much bigger than a Beagle fully grown (I use to look after one). Like some one has stated a Dachshund is one of the most dangerous dogs to own.


(I have now lost interest in this as this is turning silly, my dog isn't dangerous and never will be. Just hope they sort out all the bad owners.)
Click to expand...

What do you think would happen if you put your Beagle (or a Dashshund lol) in a dogfight against a Staffie? Do you honestly see a good outcome for your beloved pet?
 
BD10NNF said:
Why is it? a Staffie isn't much bigger than a Beagle fully grown (I use to look after one). Like some one has stated a Dachshund is one of the most dangerous dogs to own.
Click to expand...

It's more powerful though, it must be.

BD10NNF said:
(I have now lost interest in this as this is turning silly, my dog isn't dangerous and never will be. Just hope they sort out all the bad owners.)
Click to expand...

Any dog will always pose a danger of some description, even if you can't admit it.
 
A well trained dog is not a problem.

A poorly trained dog is a problem.
A small poorly trained dog is a menace, a large poorly trained dog is really dangerous.

The breed of dog will lend itself to certain tendencies. If you've ever seen a Jack Russell go after rats or other small furry creatures you'll know what I mean (Link!). Staffies are called Nanny Dogs because they get along really well with kids, and are generally good natured. I'm sure you could find lots of 'generalisations' about each breed, but you're always going to get some bad apples regardless (like people!).

Bring back licenses. Even if they only cost the amount to cover the cost of paperwork. Make obedience training a requirement to owning a dog. Prove that you're a good owner for the sake of looking after your dog well and looking after those who might encounter it.
Even ex-fighting dogs can be turned into good pets with the right training, so to say a specific breed is dangerous is just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
BD10NNF said:
I have this from Animal planet aboud Staffies


Energy level : Medium energy

Exercise needs : Medium

Playfullness : Very playful

Affection level : Very affectionate

Friendliness toward other dogs : Shy

Friendliness toward other pets : Friendly

Friendliness toward strangers : Friendly

Ease of training : Moderately easy to train

Watchdog ability : Medium

Protection ability : Moderately protective

Grooming needs : Low maintenance

Cold tolerance : Low tolerance

Heat tolerance : Low tolerance
Click to expand...
Yep, they have ALWAYS been known as easy and very friendly dogs until recently.

It's all because of the council estate chav scum of the earth everywhere with them.:mad:
 
BD10NNF said:
I have this from Animal planet aboud Staffies

snip/QUOTE]

Sorry, load of rubbish, why I have an English bull terrier and it has got it wrong on the site,

Energy level High energy
Exercise needs Medium (wrong)
Playfullness Very playful
Affection level Moderately affectionate (wrong)
Friendliness toward other dogs Shy (wrong)
Friendliness toward other pets Friendly (wrong)
Friendliness toward strangers Friendly
Ease of training Easy to train (not on your nelly)
Watchdog ability High (wrong)
Protection ability Very protective
Grooming needs Low maintenance
Cold tolerance Medium tolerance
Heat tolerance Medium tolerance

Back to the Staffies, they are often owned by Pikies and Chavs and they have given them a bad name.

ALL dogs can attack its just some of them can hurt a lot more due to bite strength.
Click to expand...
 
scorza said:
Let me predict how this thread will go:

1) Lots of SBT/devil dog owners will post saying it's the owner's fault not the dogs, the owners should take some personal responsibility. There's a certain amount of truth in that, but some dogs are much more likely to turn aggressive and can cause much more damage than others.
2) Someone will make the reasonable point that maybe dog owners should have to possess some sort of licence
3) Howls of outrage from the SBT owners that "innocent responsible" dog owners are being punished, and the irresponsible few who caused this mess in the first place will just ignore the law anyway.

I think that obviously the Dangerous Dogs Act has failed and new legislation is required. What that legislation should be I don't know - I'm open to the idea of dog licences for owners but I'm not sure how much of an effect that's going to have. One thing I do wonder about is how many non-fatal dog attacks are happening? There was a story about an SBT ripping off a bloke's nuts in a park in Essex last week. This isn't limited to kids by any means.
Click to expand...

What difference will the licence make? I've got to admit a suspicion that there's an above average chance the stereotypical problem owner with problem dog simply won't care about the licence or their lack of one. As you say the effect is likely to be limited at best.

Any dog can potentially be anti-social if not actually dangerous - the vast majority of that will be due to the owners not socialising and training their dog properly. The effects of that lack of care can be exacerbated by the breeds natural traits e.g. aggression/size/protectiveness etc so they may move from being a minor nuisance to a danger. There may be some dogs that would be vicious/dangerous irrespective of how well they are brought up but I'd suspect that will be a minute proportion compared to the numbers of dogs where the owners have failed in their duty.

eatcustard said:
Sorry, load of rubbish, why I have an English bull terrier and it has got it wrong on the site,
Click to expand...

It's worth remembering that's a generalisation, your dog might demonstrate traits that are different to the norm. I wouldn't necessarily rule it out on the basis of experience with your dog only if that's what you're doing.
 
I tripped over a Chihuahua once going down some stairs, fortunately I landed on the rather large lady who owned said Chihuahua but it could've ended up very nasty if she wasn't there to cushion my fall.
 
I have my old staffy dog Frank who is 11 years old now & he will be my last dog of any kind. The only thing I am worried about now is that Frank doesn't have to go through any bad stuff, it's been my job to give him a good comfortable secure home & I've managed it so far. I'd like our last few years together to be as mellow as they have been & hate the thought of others thinking bad of my Frank. Locally frank is known to be very placid & gentle & loves people but with more & more bad news concerning Staffs he is painted with the same brush as the bad ones.

Having said all that & being an owner I have to admit Staffs & other dogs are being kept by more & more irresponsible owners & because of the damage they can do in such a short time I think it's now time to control these kinds of dogs & there owners. I would go as far as licenses for different types of dogs & they would be licenses like a Gun license so you would have to be checked out/property etc.
Once dog breeds are branded as dangerous then any seen on the street could be pulled to show there license, No license then the dog gets took away just like a car without insurance.
Personally I would have no prob with stricter controls as I know me & Frank would pass & then at least I could stop being paranoid about what others think of my lovely little pet dog.
Being totally honest I have to say that even though I have had my Frank for 11 years now I still would not leave him alone with a child. Dogs haven't got hands to push a spiteful or playful kid away they have teeth, One small bite from a Staffy can make a lot of mess & Frank is an old git now, I have Never taken any chances with him & will be overly careful now he has got old.
Lastly, It's a real shame that Staffys have been kept by such bad owners as in the right hands they make a lovely family pet & a very loyal companion, Socialised properly they mix with other dogs really well & although it's embarrassing there is a cat on our dog walk that bullys Frank :p
We have loads of cats around here so I've brought him up to not be aggressive towards anything even Cats, On my dog walk a cat comes out it's front garden to block the path & Frank just looks at it, tuther week it scratched him across the nose & it bled but he just looked at it like what the **** :p

My ten cents & as honest as it comes. :)
 
daily mirror type thread why it should be official.

1 or 2 people were killed in last year from dog attacks 2-4 people were killed by putting there trousers on wrong :rolleyes: (that is actually true).


dogs are okay its the owners.

ill lets the mirror readers get back to worrying about dangerous dogs while i keep a closer eye on what my trousers are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom