85 year old woman mauled to death in her own garden

There is literally no need for them, if we get rid of all bull terrier types going forwards, let the current dogs be neutered and carry on etc.. then it doesn't need affect any current dog owners and their pets... aside from some irrational attachment to a particular type/class of dog that was artificially created by humans via selective breeding in the first place and so shouldn't be a drama for humans to also end it too.

No one is talking about banning all dogs etc..

And sure enough, photos have emerged of the dogs in question + some of their pals:

ne5B4Mp.png


^^^ literally no need for that type of dog to even exist, especially given that the owners of these sorts of dogs are invariably chavvy AF

in b4 "but but I have one and it's soft as anything, they're called the "nanny dog" because they're good with kids " etc..

"ackchually did you know Chihuahuas are among the most aggressive breeds, ha!"
 
Those aren’t staffys, they are American bull breed types, such as pit bull, American bully, American bulldog etc.
 
SkodaMart said:
Those aren’t staffys, they are American bull breed types, such as pit bull, American bully, American bulldog etc.
Click to expand...

And this is the issue with banning "pit bulls", there is lots of debate about whether a dog is/isn't a pit bull or is some other bull terrier type - just get rid of all bull terrier breeds, problem solved.
 
dowie said:
And this is the issue with banning "pit bulls", there is lots of debate about whether a dog is/isn't a pit bull or is some other bull terrier type - just get rid of all bull terrier breeds, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh on staffy bull terriers that are for the most part a great pet.
Obviously problem being some of the knob heads that own them.
 
They're far less likely to be dangerous, but if the prevalence of murder by pet increases for those breeds, then yes.

These breeds are pretty much completely as a result of human design in the first place, so it's our responsibility to rectify it.
 
StriderX said:
They're far less likely to be dangerous, but if the prevalence of murder by pet increases for those breeds, then yes.
Click to expand...

look at the rocket scientists that own them.
The problem is behind the dog.
It’s a certain type of person that chooses an aggressive dog.
You should be responsible for your animals behaviour personally.
If your dog bites it’s assault
If it kills its manslaughter.
It would soon send the message.
If you ban a certain breed they will come up with something else.
Pit bull went supposedly and we got the American bulldog instead.
 
My mate had a blue pit bull.
He thought he could control it.
It was a head case despite his best efforts.
He had it destroyed at the vets.
 

Amazing, but I’ve never seen a dog that disciplined.
Ultimately the owner takes 100% responsibility in my eyes.
Which means registration, licences and micro chips
 
I still remember the day i was walking home from work through an estate at about 6.30am with a loose rotweiller strolling towards me, I am scared of dogs, but how I stayed calm dont know.

Walked through nearest gate as if it was my house, turned round and it jumped over the gate with me backed at door, I simply walked by it, shut gate behind me again and just walked, took one look back and it was sitting looking at me but didnt follow.
 
chrcoluk said:
The question is what makes them a better pet than other breeds, everyone I know who has one seems to want one for manly purposes.
Click to expand...
I Have 2 staffies dog and a bitch i didn't choose my dogs for any manly purpose but because they are amazing loyal pets they are so loving so easy to train. you can give a idiot any breed of dog and that person could turn said dog into the most aggressive animal ever!! my brother was attacked by a lab and left with really bad scars for life, its not the dog its THE OWNER!! simple as that.
 
chrcoluk said:
The question is what makes them a better pet than other breeds, everyone I know who has one seems to want one for manly purposes.
Click to expand...

They're like any other dog, raise it to be a rotter and it will be a rotter. I'm in agreement with posts further up, treat the animal as an extension of the owner, it causes harm, the owner is charged for the crime.

I've had a Staffy, Weimaraners, Labradors, currently have a Jack Russell Cross (god knows what with). Other family members have Pugs, Papillon, a variety of mongrels. The Staff was a rescue and of all the dogs I have had or know well, it was the stupidest and least prone to anger of all of them. I never heard that dog grumble. When they're good, they're rock solid. 99% of those I come across on dog walks are absolutely fine. I come across less Staffys pulling on the lead or being snappy / timid / aggressive to other dogs on walks than any other dog. The problem Staffies can be seen a mile off because of the planks walking them.

Powerful dogs though I'd argue they're nothing like on the level of a Pit or an American Bull Dog. Saying that, I absolutely understand why people think they're unnecessary, but where does that end? Any dog over a certain size is a potential problem. My Weimaraners were hunting dogs, powerful, athletic with a high prey drive. Entirely unnecessary for me to own and quite capable of causing harm if some pillock raises one to be nasty. They're just not status dogs, so you get less of it. No one shouts about Weimys.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom