Eleven children injured in Blyth park dog attack...

[Hitman_Leon]

Go on then Snip

Behave!

 

[dowie]

So why do they have a specific, seperate category called "Bull terrier (not Pit)", then?

actually it seem bull terriers are sometimes included and sometimes not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Formal breeds often considered in North America to be of the pit bull type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[1] The American Bulldog and the Bull Terrier (standard and miniature) are also sometimes included.

so it seems for that study 'bull terriers' as a specific breed are counted separately in the survey you've linked to... I was using the term (perhaps incorrectly) to refer to all pit bull/bull terrier types

no matter though the important point for the purpose of this thread is that staffies are under 'pit bull'

Why are Staffies (technically part of the Pit Bull family) not banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which bans "Any dog known as a pitbull type" and "any dog who in the opinion of the Secretary of State was bred for fighting, or has the appearance of a dog bred for fighting"...?

I don't know... politics... the fact they aren't makes the whole thing a bit of a farce for people enforcing the law when trying to establish what is and isn't a 'pitbull' under the UK definition

That one does, yeah, assuming the seperate category is meaningless.

well that is my point you've made a claim yet when asked to provide a source for your claim you provide one that shows the opposite - according to your study 'pit bulls' which include staffies account for a huge number of deaths, way way above any other breed of dog

 

[Haggisman]

Not at all, which is why all dogs (since all are potentially dangerous) need to be eradicated from this country, so we can protect our poor, innocent, stupid population who seemingly cannot wipe their own arses without reminder instructions being printed clearly on the packet and our overworked teachers doing the jobs parents ought to.

Which is why we need to wipe put this most dangerous of menaces in the UK, so it cannot ever happen... just like murder, car crashes and everything else that can be prevented by banning... I know - We could legislate against it. That stopped murder, right?

What a ridiculous point of view. So because we can't stop something 100% we shouldn't bother trying it at all? Sure, let's legalise murder, because by your logic, that wouldn't actually increase it at all?

You're also missing the point that it's not about protecting dog owners, it's about protecting the individuals who happen to be in the vicinity when the dog owner fails to look after their dog properly. How does education/instructions/training protect someone walking along the road minding their own business when a dog that's escaped it's owner comes running over and decides to have a go at their leg, or protect a driver who has to swerve to avoid a dog that's run into the road?

If you can't respond with a reasoned argument instead of acting like a petulant child, then why bother responding at all? If you have an argument, use it. If you don't, then have the balls to admit it and stop posting utter drivel

Can't already drive like Nigel Mansel? Don't bother taking driving lessons and learning how to, then... Great logic.
Did you miss the point that they were going there in order to learn how to handle a dog?

You do know that while you're learning to drive you aren't allowed to actually drive the car unsupervised? The majority of people will learn in a car with dual controls with a qualified instructor ready to hit the brakes/grab the steering wheel if it starts going wrong.

Your analogy would be more akin to buying your first car and then driving it to the instructors house before you've even learned the highway code or how to change gear (and with nothing stopping you buying a 500bhp Ferrari and taking it down the motorway before you have your license).

Go on then genie-arse - What's your solution to learning how to handle a dog without actually having a dog to learn?

What's wrong with sessions in an enclosed controlled environment before you're every allowed to take your dog out in public? Either at home where an instructor comes to you, or in a training centre - it could even be a service that registered breeders provide when you buy a dog, before you take it home.

 

[Dunny774]

Horse owner here. Ride out in public and that and find that DOG OWNERS are the problem not the dogs themselves.

From my personal experience: half the problem is the dog owners being ignorant that their dog is a potential problem. (How hard is it to put your dog on a lead for 2 minutes to allow people to pass) INSTEAD they just shout at riders/people blaming them because they fail to control their dog. (I'm pretty sure the law states that if your dog worries person or animal it can be deemed unsafe??)

I also don't understand how people are against licensing to own animals (not just dogs in general) it allows control and not just to protect people from unsafe owners it can help protect animals from abuse.

 

[Haggisman]

I also don't understand how people are against licensing to own animals (not just dogs in general) it allows control and not just to protect people from unsafe owners it can help protect animals from abuse.

Agreed. IMO any animal which is out in public should be licensed and chipped (compulsory chipping of dogs is a good step in the right direction; now extend that to cats!). IMO additionally, neutering should be compulsory unless you have a breeder's licence. Too many people dumping/neglecting unwanted litters of puppies/kittens or letting them roam wild.

 

[linktoinsanity]

I also don't understand how people are against licensing to own animals (not just dogs in general) it allows control and not just to protect people from unsafe owners it can help protect animals from abuse.

Licensing and chipping (for animals likely to go outside, such as dogs and cats) would be the way to go really. I fully agree, whether some breeds of dogs are banned or not would be made easier to police as well.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Agreed. IMO any animal which is out in public should be licensed and chipped (compulsory chipping of dogs is a good step in the right direction; now extend that to cats!). IMO additionally, neutering should be compulsory unless you have a breeder's licence. Too many people dumping/neglecting unwanted litters of puppies/kittens or letting them roam wild.

This

 

[ttaskmaster]

so it seems for that study 'bull terriers' as a specific breed are counted separately in the survey you've linked to... I was using the term (perhaps incorrectly) to refer to all pit bull/bull terrier types

That's the issue with these things - Pit Bull is generally a type, like Gundog, variously encompassing/excluding numerous different breeds (of which the Staffie is only sometimes one) and even mixed breeds...

well that is my point you've made a claim yet when asked to provide a source for your claim you provide one that shows the opposite - according to your study 'pit bulls' which include staffies account for a huge number of deaths, way way above any other breed of dog

I'm still looking for one that definitively states whether they consider SBTs to fall within the Pit Bull side, or if it's separate, or if they count cross-breeds in with the purebreds, while also giving some kind of percentage/indication as to how many of those that exist actually attacked/killed someone.

No good counting 4 in 100 Staffies against 1 in 4 Huskies as representative...

What a ridiculous point of view. So because we can't stop something 100% we shouldn't bother trying it at all?

And yet you seem so keen on so many preventative measures that ownership would be pointless...

Sure, let's legalise murder, because by your logic, that wouldn't actually increase it at all?

Might even decrease it, as it'd be no fun if it was legal!!

You're also missing the point that it's not about protecting dog owners, it's about protecting the individuals who happen to be in the vicinity when the dog owner fails to look after their dog properly.

I never said it was about dog owners. That was about hand-holding the retards who need wrapping up in cotton wool, by wrapping everything around them instead.

How does education/instructions/training protect someone walking along the road minding their own business when a dog that's escaped it's owner comes running over and decides to have a go at their leg

It's helped me quite a few times in life. The general attitude at the time was that 'other people will own dogs and will have them out in public, they have just as much right to be there, so deal with it... here's a few basic common sense safety tips....'. That sort of thing.

or protect a driver who has to swerve to avoid a dog that's run into the road?

That is on the owner, usually.

If you can't respond with a reasoned argument instead of acting like a petulant child, then why bother responding at all?

Oh, get off your horse and find a sense of humour!!

You do know that while you're learning to drive you aren't allowed to actually drive the car unsupervised?

Not on the public road, no...

The majority of people will learn in a car with dual controls with a qualified instructor ready to hit the brakes/grab the steering wheel if it starts going wrong.

So you think buying into He-Man Dual Dog Leads would be a sound investment?

What's wrong with sessions in an enclosed controlled environment before you're every allowed to take your dog out in public?

How do you get your dog to that training centre in the first place if you're not already a competent handler, though?

Either at home where an instructor comes to you, or in a training centre - it could even be a service that registered breeders provide when you buy a dog, before you take it home.

And how much is this all going to cost?
Licencing, personal instruction, handling classes, public liability insurance, hi-viz coats, rubber booties, muzzles... Bearing in mind the cost of all this goes up quite a lot the instant it becomes mandatory, as well...

Will there be excemptions for service dogs, guide dogs, military dogs, Police dogs, working dogs and so on?

Agreed. IMO any animal which is out in public should be licensed and chipped

How much per cow/sheep will you charge the farmers who have to move their stock along public routes between grazing fields?
I assume each cow will have to be licenced and registered individually, since the organisations governing it will make more money that way....

IMO additionally, neutering should be compulsory unless you have a breeder's licence.

I'm sure your dog would love that and thank you heartily for increasing his risk of cancers in the heart and spleen, obesity, dementia... and if you do it at the wrong age, hip dysplasia, bone cancer and ligament ruptures as well!!!
That's assuming he's not one of the 20% (roughly, according to the local vet's posters) that suffer complications while under the anaesthetic it requires...
Oh, and if it's a girl dog you want compulsorily spayed, all the increased risks above as well as incontinence and genital infections for those Too Early ones.

This is why you consult a vet beforehand, to assess the risks versus the benefits. The risks of the above increase to 3 times that of an unsnipped dog.

 

[dowie]

I'm still looking for one that definitively states whether they consider SBTs to fall within the Pit Bull side, or if it's separate, or if they count cross-breeds in with the purebreds, while also giving some kind of percentage/indication as to how many of those that exist actually attacked/killed someone.

but the question was what were you basing your claim on, you stated that various breeds killed more often and posted figures - the question was simply where were those figures from as it might well be that you simply misread the study. So far the study you've found has a huge number of deaths for pitbulls which is rather the opposite of the claim being made.

 

[Mark A]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-36515615

Aucott, of Alfred Street, Northampton, was looking after her granddaughter at Riley's former home in Morning Star Road when the dog, called Bruiser, attacked her.

She has finally admitted to owning a dangerous dog after first denying it. Anyone want to guess at the pathetic sentence she will receive? I really hope they make an example of her. In my eyes owning a banned dangerous dog that then goes on to kill a 6 month old baby is murder. She must have known what could happen and decided to take the chance.


Not really connected to the OP, but didn't think it was worth starting a new thread over as it'll be the same people discussing it in there.