So we ignore traits that breeds have and pretend only bad owners have dangerous dogs ? Quick way to have any of our opinions ignored and legislation formed without our input.
Only bad owners do have dangerous dogs. There's a world of difference between protective and dangerous.
If we define traits you could include Staffies are happy go lucky dogs or Border Collies can be neurotic.
I don't think only bad traits would be counted as we do need protection from happy go lucky dogs too. I have had terriers I can honestly say they do have very happy go lucky side but I chose to be careful not to allow their murderous traits to be a problem for anyone else while recognising only very careful responsible owners should have them. I have had Chihuahuas and their yappy trait is something again we take care not to allow to upset people, a retriever who was so over exuberant and happy she could knock a full grown man down, didn't let her traits be a problem either.
We really need people to just be aware what they have and be responsible for their actions. Breed traits are relevant but don't have to be death sentences if people can be made to be aware.
Only bad owners do have dangerous dogs. There's a world of difference between protective and dangerous.
Not true we have had dogs who would be dangerous in other hands, rescues we didn't make dangerous but came to us damaged. A good owner will manage the aggression. You can't blame them and say they are bad owners because they have taken on societies cruelty cases.
Not true we have had dogs who would be dangerous in other hands, rescues we didn't make dangerous but came to us damaged. A good owner will manage the aggression. You can't blame them and say they are bad owners because they have taken on societies cruelty cases.
To me it seems you are saying it is the owner not the breed? Especially with your earlier comment about Terriers.
What if after banning Bull breeds and Molosser Breeds as you'd like, then other big dogs as people are now breeding them bigger and more vicious, the powers that be decide to ban Terriers because of their 'murderous' traits - dogs you have owners and have been safe in your responsible hands.
We are then in the situation Si descibes.
Any legislation has to have dog welfare - for all breeds - at its heart as well as protecting people (and idiots like the fella in the news report with the ABs)
To me it seems you are saying it is the owner not the breed? Especially with your earlier comment about Terriers.
What if after banning Bull breeds and Molosser Breeds as you'd like, then other big dogs as people are now breeding them bigger and more vicious, the powers that be decide to ban Terriers because of their 'murderous' traits - dogs you have owners and have been safe in your responsible hands.
We are then in the situation Si descibes.
Any legislation has to have dog welfare - for all breeds - at its heart as well as protecting people (and idiots like the fella in the news report with the ABs)
It's is the owners but unless we find a way to stop them owning dogs they can't manage sadly it has to be the breed that is banned.
I would like to think we can control the people who have them but we can't in any meaningful way without pricing good owners out of being able to own a dog or two.
I am far from a perfect owner I know but I do manage to keep people and other dogs safe it is most important part of being a responsible owner IMO
It's is the owners but unless we find a way to stop them owning dogs they can't manage sadly it has to be the breed that is banned.
I would like to think we can control the people who have them but we can't in any meaningful way without pricing good owners out of being able to own a dog or two.
I am far from a perfect owner I know but I do manage to keep people and other dogs safe it is most important part of being a responsible owner IMO
But the link Dogue provided showed that with measures similar - though not as far reaching as I proposed - the incidents of dog attacks fell hugely and the level of license compliance went up. It is demonstrably effective yet not expensive - unless you do not comply with the rules and get repeated fines. The scheme is owner focused not breed specific and is working where our own BSL has utterly failed.
What do you see as a barrier to that scheme working here?
It's is the owners but unless we find a way to stop them owning dogs they can't manage sadly it has to be the breed that is banned.
I would like to think we can control the people who have them but we can't in any meaningful way without pricing good owners out of being able to own a dog or two.
I am far from a perfect owner I know but I do manage to keep people and other dogs safe it is most important part of being a responsible owner IMO
Breed banning is a proven failure. It hasn't worked over the past 23 years we've had it. It's time to take a different approach. Have a look at the link I posted previously. The new dog laws that came into place this week, touch on some if it. BSL should just be scrapped and the money used to enforce that put to better use in enforcing owners.
Breed banning is a proven failure. It hasn't worked over the past 23 years we've had it. It's time to take a different approach. Have a look at the link I posted previously. The new dog laws that came into place this week, touch on some if it. BSL should just be scrapped and the money used to enforce that put to better use in enforcing owners.
It hasn't worked because no one has enforced it properly. If the law had been enforced properly from day one we would have none of the banned breeds in this country at all.
It's mostly scumbags, drug dealers and wannabe gangsters who own Staffies and suchlike.
Why any normal person would want to own a type of dog that was intentionally bred to be aggressive and fight when there are so many naturally docile types of dog available is beyond my comprehension.
It hasn't worked because no one has enforced it properly. If the law had been enforced properly from day one we would have none of the banned breeds in this country at all.
It isn't enforced because it is difficult to enforce.
Police do not routinely know what a Pitbull looks like as opposed to a tall Staffie, a LabXStaff or other Staffie mix. So will rarely pick up dogs they see.
When a dog is reported to them as being a Pitbull type they have to make the decision that it *might* be a APBT type and then take the dog away to be assessed. This can take weeks. After the dog is assessed, if it is NOT a APBT type, it is returned to the family often traumatised and often with behavioural issues it didn't have before being taken away.
If it IS judged to be an APBT type, the owners can challenge this in court and/or apply for the dog to be added to the exempt register. This can take weeks or months and again, if the dog is returned it can have issues from being kenneled with very little human interaction for weeks.
Or the poor thing gets PTS having harmed no-one.
It is a law that is unpopular with those that have to enforce it because of the negative impact it has on otherwise law abiding families, on the dogs themselves and the cost of the prosecutions. It is difficult to enforce as the police don't get training in spotting APBTs
And if the law had been successful? It would be perfectly legal ABs and Mastiffs - the dogs involved in recent attacks - that would be the problems now anyway. And the law would do nothing about that.
Add ABs & Mastiffs to the law? It'll be Rotties & German Shepards. Add those, Back to the devil Dobermans. Or Bouviers Or any large breeds.
It's mostly scumbags, drug dealers and wannabe gangsters who own Staffies and suchlike.
Why any normal person would want to own a type of dog that was intentionally bred to be aggressive and fight when there are so many naturally docile types of dog available is beyond my comprehension.
1 question. Have you actually met a staff? I mean got to know one, not seen one from afar whilst cowering in fear? Or does the Daily Mail form all of your opinions for you?
It hasn't worked because no one has enforced it properly. If the law had been enforced properly from day one we would have none of the banned breeds in this country at all.
Do you know the name of all the banned breeds?
I didn't and when I googled I was shocked because I had never heard of them apart from pitbull before.
It's all very well signalling pit bulls out but that's due to the prevalence of so many articles in the media about them, so I can understand. They are betrayed as violent, aggressive fighting dogs ok I'm not arguing with you but every pitbull owner (and there are many) is not in the papers with violent stories, every pitbull owner is not dealing with attacked children - if there were the papers would be all over them trust me. Obviously there must be pitbulls out there that are not the same, and incidents compared to pitbull owners have a huge difference in numbers.
Once all the pitbulls are destroyed and die out, what will be the next breed to go? You mentioned you had Labradors, do you know in America pitbulls were deemed to be a better family pet than a Labrador? As others have said once it starts, where will it end?
So we ignore traits that breeds have and pretend only bad owners have dangerous dogs ? Quick way to have any of our opinions ignored and legislation formed without our input.
Legislating on the basis of "traits" seems like an even better way to declare open-season on pretty-much any breed of dog to me.
I mean, you can assert that pretty much any dog bigger than, say, a Cocker Spaniel is physically capable of inflicting lethal injury and demand a ban on that basis but if you're also going to start picking out "traits" that are undesirable and banning breeds that have those "traits", it means you've got an excuse to ban terriers and whippets and toy dogs and pretty-much any breed which might be considered "barky" or "nervous".
It seems like you're attempting to reach a compromise when, in reality, the people you're likely to be dealing with won't be interested in agreeing to any kind of compromise and all you're doing is throwing a bunch of breeds under the proverbial bus in the hope that it'll mean you get left alone when, in reality, all that'll happen is that they'll be coming after you and your dogs next.
Legislating on the basis of "traits" seems like an even better way to declare open-season on pretty-much any breed of dog to me.
I mean, you can assert that pretty much any dog bigger than, say, a Cocker Spaniel is physically capable of inflicting lethal injury and demand a ban on that basis but if you're also going to start picking out "traits" that are undesirable and banning breeds that have those "traits", it means you've got an excuse to ban terriers and whippets and toy dogs and pretty-much any breed which might be considered "barky" or "nervous".
It seems like you're attempting to reach a compromise when, in reality, the people you're likely to be dealing with won't be interested in agreeing to any kind of compromise and all you're doing is throwing a bunch of breeds under the proverbial bus in the hope that it'll mean you get left alone when, in reality, all that'll happen is that they'll be coming after you and your dogs next.
Don't rule out the Cocker Spaniel. The one I had as a child was (from a child's POV) Evil. But we loved him. Whether he had 'Rage Syndrome' or was just badly bred and badly raised (My mother took Barbara Windsor as an authority) he was a liability. Put my great grandmother in hospital (she blamed herself for touching him when she'd been told not to), attacked a child my child minder mother looked after - didn't break the skin which makes me doubt Rage Syndrome - because she walked into the kitchen. He had our psycho cat's head in his mouth on a number of occasions but never actually hurt him - again I doubt rage. Went for my face when he got bored of a game - my reactions were quicker but I had to punch him in the face to protect myself. And many other incidents. Until he took my sister's hand apart. My mother couldn't get him off. She had to get a tea-towel around his neck & half strangle him to get him off. It was more luck than design that he didn't kill someone. After my sister he was quite rightly PTS.
Don't rule out the Cocker Spaniel. The one I had as a child was (from a child's POV) Evil. But we loved him. Whether he had 'Rage Syndrome' or was just badly bred and badly raised (My mother took Barbara Windsor as an authority) he was a liability. Put my great grandmother in hospital (she blamed herself for touching him when she'd been told not to), attacked a child my child minder mother looked after - didn't break the skin which makes me doubt Rage Syndrome - because she walked into the kitchen. He had our psycho cat's head in his mouth on a number of occasions but never actually hurt him - again I doubt rage. Went for my face when he got bored of a game - my reactions were quicker but I had to punch him in the face to protect myself. And many other incidents. Until he took my sister's hand apart. My mother couldn't get him off. She had to get a tea-towel around his neck & half strangle him to get him off. It was more luck than design that he didn't kill someone. After my sister he was quite rightly PTS.
Not true we have had dogs who would be dangerous in other hands, rescues we didn't make dangerous but came to us damaged. A good owner will manage the aggression. You can't blame them and say they are bad owners because they have taken on societies cruelty cases.
Doesn't that add up to the same thing ???????? Bad owners or mishandled in the first instance ??
It's mostly scumbags, drug dealers and wannabe gangsters who own Staffies and suchlike.
Why any normal person would want to own a type of dog that was intentionally bred to be aggressive and fight when there are so many naturally docile types of dog available is beyond my comprehension.
They were bred to fight - other dogs. Not people. And were intentionally bred from lines that could be pulled off another dog, mid-fight, if for whatever reason the owners needed to intervene. That is mid-fight, you had to trust your staffie not to bite you (or the other one) if you had to wade in. For this reason they're unusually people-friendly. Anyone who knows the bull breeds knows what idiots these chavs that now have them as status dogs, are for the misunderstand the dogs and don't realise that - with people - they're soft as brushes.:D They were intentionally bred that way. For centuries. They were also bred to go to a new owner (fighting dogs were worth a lot of money like racehorses, so - like racehorses - they'd change hands a lot).
This is why most biters are actually dogs like labs and spaniels - working farm dogs that ought to be in a working environment and were bred in the opposite way to staffies - to stay with the same owners for a lifetime. These dogs that people like you stereotype as 'friendly' are statistically the least friendly because they have been bred to be one man dogs.
By perpetuating the stereotype about staffs you are allowing people to continue to let back street breeders exist and idiot chavs think they will be seen as 'hard' if they have this kind of dog. You are part of the problem.
Now as someone who has a lifetime's experience of bll breeds and is the third generation of bullie owner in my family, I may have more knowledge than you so will also put some of your other points to rest.
scumbags, drug dealers and wannabe gangsters who own Staffies and suchlike.
No. My family were rather well off - businessmen, civil servants and the like. No Burberry or lager cans in sight.:D I was a teacher. Princess Anne owns bull terriers. Hardly a chav.
Bullies are 'docile', Ridiculously docile, as a rule. In a lifetime (decades) of walking bullies and staffies my dogs have never attacked anyone else's dogs (or eaten their babies). Countless times - and I do mean countless - they have been attacked by black labs, occasionally by JRTs. I don't call for bored working dogs in family homes to all be put to sleep but as someone who has worked with dogs in the past, I do feel strongly no-one should own any breed that would rather be retrieving, or herding or whatever. They are working animals and so are bound to be behavioural if they can't work. It is cruel to have them if they aren't working, in other words. My uncle had a labrador and we always noticed it was not particularly friendly or affectionate. But then he was a poacher. It was a working dog.;-) And happy in itself as it was doing the thing it was bred to do. Now the labs who have attacked my bullies, I have never seen one being walked by a farmer (or poacher) put it like that.
Bull terriers were never fighting dogs, btw. They were bred in the 1850s for the show ring. Staffies were used for fighting but as I explained above, that is precisely why they are so people-friendly. And as their job is now obsolete, they are so people-friendly, they 'work' at being ace family members.
So many end up in rescue because of people like you perpetuating that stereotype. Chavs are moving on to huskies and malamutes now. One day it will be labradors.;-)
It hasn't worked because no one has enforced it properly. If the law had been enforced properly from day one we would have none of the banned breeds in this country at all.
It's unenforceable. Would you suggest that maybe the police stop pursuing other crimes and simply organise a mass witch hunt for illegal dogs? They could take a break from enforcing laws which haven't eradicated the crimes they were set up to prevent.
No. My family were rather well off - businessmen, civil servants and the like. No Burberry or lager cans in sight.:D I was a teacher. Princess Anne owns bull terriers. Hardly a chav.
Now as someone who has a lifetime's experience of bll breeds and is the third generation of bullie owner in my family, I may have more knowledge than you so will also put some of your other points to rest.
Despite your "lifetime's experience", all my points stand, thank you.
Bullies are 'docile', Ridiculously docile, as a rule.
Yet almost every single dog attack I have personally witnessed has been by a Staffy and whenever I read about some child kid being savagely attacked by a dog, it is almost always a Staffy or Staffy-type dog.
It's unenforceable. Would you suggest that maybe the police stop pursuing other crimes and simply organise a mass witch hunt for illegal dogs? They could take a break from enforcing laws which haven't eradicated the crimes they were set up to prevent.
Not all crimes obviously but yes I would like it enforced more and I would like when someone rings up and says my dog has been attacked a police officer responds let me help you not that's a civil matter we can't do anything. I would like the dog warden to say I will go and see the dog and determine if it's safe, if not I will remove it from the household and the owner will have to apply to court to prove it is safe and get it back, not I will try to see the owner but if they don't want to talk to me I can't make them.
Seems to me they react to a barking or crying dog in a draconian way but you can let a dog kill another dog and it's fine no problem.
Not all crimes obviously but yes I would like it enforced more and I would like when someone rings up and says my dog has been attacked a police officer responds let me help you not that's a civil matter we can't do anything. I would like the dog warden to say I will go and see the dog and determine if it's safe, if not I will remove it from the household and the owner will have to apply to court to prove it is safe and get it back, not I will try to see the owner but if they don't want to talk to me I can't make them.
Seems to me they react to a barking or crying dog in a draconian way but you can let a dog kill another dog and it's fine no problem.
Dog on dog attacks have never been a criminal law, until the recent addition of service dogs. The police can't enforce a law which doesn't exist, unless you're expecting some kind of vigilante action. It had always been a civil matter. With Mondays dog law changes you may now possibly get some action from the police, but these are control orders rather than prosecution.
Dog on dog attacks have never been a criminal law, until the recent addition of service dogs. The police can't enforce a law which doesn't exist, unless you're expecting some kind of vigilante action. It had always been a civil matter. With Mondays dog law changes you may now possibly get some action from the police, but these are control orders rather than prosecution.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make I was saying how the law seems to work and that I think it's wrong so telling me it's always been like that makes little sense. And no vigilantes would be going too far I want laws that protect puppies, small dogs and friendly dogs from attack by any other dog. I don't much care what breed just get the vicious uncontrolled dogs off the streets.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make I was saying how the law seems to work and that I think it's wrong so telling me it's always been like that makes little sense. And no vigilantes would be going too far I want laws that protect puppies, small dogs and friendly dogs from attack by any other dog. I don't much care what breed just get the vicious uncontrolled dogs off the streets.
The point I was making makes complete sense. Dog on dog attacks aren't covered by criminal law, hence the police are unable to act. That's pretty straight forward without any confusion. You say you don't care about breed yet you want breeds banned, that doesn't make much sense. Given a choice between keeping our existing laws which tend to focus on breed rather than deed and do not offer protection for dogs being attacked, or the breed neutral law I posted earlier which does protect dogs being attacked but doesn't ban breeds, which one would you choose? It's a loaded question so a compromise between both isn't the answer I'm looking for.
The point I was making makes complete sense. Dog on dog attacks aren't covered by criminal law, hence the police are unable to act. That's pretty straight forward without any confusion. You say you don't care about breed yet you want breeds banned, that doesn't make much sense. Given a choice between keeping our existing laws which tend to focus on breed rather than deed and do not offer protection for dogs being attacked, or the breed neutral law I posted earlier which does protect dogs being attacked but doesn't ban breeds, which one would you choose? It's a loaded question so a compromise between both isn't the answer I'm looking for.
I know police cannot act that was the point I was making and you disagreed with me while making the same point it is beginning to feel like you will disagree whatever I say especially when you say compromises are not what you want to hear.
I know police cannot act that was the point I was making and you disagreed with me while making the same point it is beginning to feel like you will disagree whatever I say especially when you say compromises are not what you want to hear.
Sorry if it seems that way, but it didn't appear that way in what you'd written. Other than breed bans, I don't disagree with you. I'm all for more effective dog laws that protect people and dogs alike. I asked that question to see where you would prefer your focus to be on dog laws. Police resources are limited and it makes more sense to put their time into enforcing useful laws that protect the public and other dogs rather than pursue failed breed bans.
Comments
Only bad owners do have dangerous dogs. There's a world of difference between protective and dangerous.
We really need people to just be aware what they have and be responsible for their actions. Breed traits are relevant but don't have to be death sentences if people can be made to be aware.
Not true we have had dogs who would be dangerous in other hands, rescues we didn't make dangerous but came to us damaged. A good owner will manage the aggression. You can't blame them and say they are bad owners because they have taken on societies cruelty cases.
To me it seems you are saying it is the owner not the breed? Especially with your earlier comment about Terriers.
What if after banning Bull breeds and Molosser Breeds as you'd like, then other big dogs as people are now breeding them bigger and more vicious, the powers that be decide to ban Terriers because of their 'murderous' traits - dogs you have owners and have been safe in your responsible hands.
We are then in the situation Si descibes.
Any legislation has to have dog welfare - for all breeds - at its heart as well as protecting people (and idiots like the fella in the news report with the ABs)
It's is the owners but unless we find a way to stop them owning dogs they can't manage sadly it has to be the breed that is banned.
I would like to think we can control the people who have them but we can't in any meaningful way without pricing good owners out of being able to own a dog or two.
I am far from a perfect owner I know but I do manage to keep people and other dogs safe it is most important part of being a responsible owner IMO
But the link Dogue provided showed that with measures similar - though not as far reaching as I proposed - the incidents of dog attacks fell hugely and the level of license compliance went up. It is demonstrably effective yet not expensive - unless you do not comply with the rules and get repeated fines. The scheme is owner focused not breed specific and is working where our own BSL has utterly failed.
What do you see as a barrier to that scheme working here?
Breed banning is a proven failure. It hasn't worked over the past 23 years we've had it. It's time to take a different approach. Have a look at the link I posted previously. The new dog laws that came into place this week, touch on some if it. BSL should just be scrapped and the money used to enforce that put to better use in enforcing owners.
It hasn't worked because no one has enforced it properly. If the law had been enforced properly from day one we would have none of the banned breeds in this country at all.
Why any normal person would want to own a type of dog that was intentionally bred to be aggressive and fight when there are so many naturally docile types of dog available is beyond my comprehension.
It isn't enforced because it is difficult to enforce.
Police do not routinely know what a Pitbull looks like as opposed to a tall Staffie, a LabXStaff or other Staffie mix. So will rarely pick up dogs they see.
When a dog is reported to them as being a Pitbull type they have to make the decision that it *might* be a APBT type and then take the dog away to be assessed. This can take weeks. After the dog is assessed, if it is NOT a APBT type, it is returned to the family often traumatised and often with behavioural issues it didn't have before being taken away.
If it IS judged to be an APBT type, the owners can challenge this in court and/or apply for the dog to be added to the exempt register. This can take weeks or months and again, if the dog is returned it can have issues from being kenneled with very little human interaction for weeks.
Or the poor thing gets PTS having harmed no-one.
It is a law that is unpopular with those that have to enforce it because of the negative impact it has on otherwise law abiding families, on the dogs themselves and the cost of the prosecutions. It is difficult to enforce as the police don't get training in spotting APBTs
And if the law had been successful? It would be perfectly legal ABs and Mastiffs - the dogs involved in recent attacks - that would be the problems now anyway. And the law would do nothing about that.
Add ABs & Mastiffs to the law? It'll be Rotties & German Shepards. Add those, Back to the devil Dobermans. Or Bouviers Or any large breeds.
Then the terriers....
1 question. Have you actually met a staff? I mean got to know one, not seen one from afar whilst cowering in fear? Or does the Daily Mail form all of your opinions for you?
Do you know the name of all the banned breeds?
I didn't and when I googled I was shocked because I had never heard of them apart from pitbull before.
It's all very well signalling pit bulls out but that's due to the prevalence of so many articles in the media about them, so I can understand. They are betrayed as violent, aggressive fighting dogs ok I'm not arguing with you but every pitbull owner (and there are many) is not in the papers with violent stories, every pitbull owner is not dealing with attacked children - if there were the papers would be all over them trust me. Obviously there must be pitbulls out there that are not the same, and incidents compared to pitbull owners have a huge difference in numbers.
Once all the pitbulls are destroyed and die out, what will be the next breed to go? You mentioned you had Labradors, do you know in America pitbulls were deemed to be a better family pet than a Labrador? As others have said once it starts, where will it end?
Legislating on the basis of "traits" seems like an even better way to declare open-season on pretty-much any breed of dog to me.
I mean, you can assert that pretty much any dog bigger than, say, a Cocker Spaniel is physically capable of inflicting lethal injury and demand a ban on that basis but if you're also going to start picking out "traits" that are undesirable and banning breeds that have those "traits", it means you've got an excuse to ban terriers and whippets and toy dogs and pretty-much any breed which might be considered "barky" or "nervous".
It seems like you're attempting to reach a compromise when, in reality, the people you're likely to be dealing with won't be interested in agreeing to any kind of compromise and all you're doing is throwing a bunch of breeds under the proverbial bus in the hope that it'll mean you get left alone when, in reality, all that'll happen is that they'll be coming after you and your dogs next.
Don't rule out the Cocker Spaniel. The one I had as a child was (from a child's POV) Evil. But we loved him. Whether he had 'Rage Syndrome' or was just badly bred and badly raised (My mother took Barbara Windsor as an authority) he was a liability. Put my great grandmother in hospital (she blamed herself for touching him when she'd been told not to), attacked a child my child minder mother looked after - didn't break the skin which makes me doubt Rage Syndrome - because she walked into the kitchen. He had our psycho cat's head in his mouth on a number of occasions but never actually hurt him - again I doubt rage. Went for my face when he got bored of a game - my reactions were quicker but I had to punch him in the face to protect myself. And many other incidents. Until he took my sister's hand apart. My mother couldn't get him off. She had to get a tea-towel around his neck & half strangle him to get him off. It was more luck than design that he didn't kill someone. After my sister he was quite rightly PTS.
Well, that sounds like a "trait" to me.
They're going on the list! >:(
Doesn't that add up to the same thing ???????? Bad owners or mishandled in the first instance ??
They were bred to fight - other dogs. Not people. And were intentionally bred from lines that could be pulled off another dog, mid-fight, if for whatever reason the owners needed to intervene. That is mid-fight, you had to trust your staffie not to bite you (or the other one) if you had to wade in. For this reason they're unusually people-friendly. Anyone who knows the bull breeds knows what idiots these chavs that now have them as status dogs, are for the misunderstand the dogs and don't realise that - with people - they're soft as brushes.:D They were intentionally bred that way. For centuries. They were also bred to go to a new owner (fighting dogs were worth a lot of money like racehorses, so - like racehorses - they'd change hands a lot).
This is why most biters are actually dogs like labs and spaniels - working farm dogs that ought to be in a working environment and were bred in the opposite way to staffies - to stay with the same owners for a lifetime. These dogs that people like you stereotype as 'friendly' are statistically the least friendly because they have been bred to be one man dogs.
By perpetuating the stereotype about staffs you are allowing people to continue to let back street breeders exist and idiot chavs think they will be seen as 'hard' if they have this kind of dog. You are part of the problem.
Now as someone who has a lifetime's experience of bll breeds and is the third generation of bullie owner in my family, I may have more knowledge than you so will also put some of your other points to rest.
No. My family were rather well off - businessmen, civil servants and the like. No Burberry or lager cans in sight.:D I was a teacher. Princess Anne owns bull terriers. Hardly a chav.
Bullies are 'docile', Ridiculously docile, as a rule. In a lifetime (decades) of walking bullies and staffies my dogs have never attacked anyone else's dogs (or eaten their babies). Countless times - and I do mean countless - they have been attacked by black labs, occasionally by JRTs. I don't call for bored working dogs in family homes to all be put to sleep but as someone who has worked with dogs in the past, I do feel strongly no-one should own any breed that would rather be retrieving, or herding or whatever. They are working animals and so are bound to be behavioural if they can't work. It is cruel to have them if they aren't working, in other words. My uncle had a labrador and we always noticed it was not particularly friendly or affectionate. But then he was a poacher. It was a working dog.;-) And happy in itself as it was doing the thing it was bred to do. Now the labs who have attacked my bullies, I have never seen one being walked by a farmer (or poacher) put it like that.
Bull terriers were never fighting dogs, btw. They were bred in the 1850s for the show ring. Staffies were used for fighting but as I explained above, that is precisely why they are so people-friendly. And as their job is now obsolete, they are so people-friendly, they 'work' at being ace family members.
So many end up in rescue because of people like you perpetuating that stereotype. Chavs are moving on to huskies and malamutes now. One day it will be labradors.;-)
It's unenforceable. Would you suggest that maybe the police stop pursuing other crimes and simply organise a mass witch hunt for illegal dogs? They could take a break from enforcing laws which haven't eradicated the crimes they were set up to prevent.
Congratulations to your family and Princess Anne for being exceptions to the general rule.
Despite your "lifetime's experience", all my points stand, thank you.
Yet almost every single dog attack I have personally witnessed has been by a Staffy and whenever I read about some child kid being savagely attacked by a dog, it is almost always a Staffy or Staffy-type dog.
Weird that, eh?
Not all crimes obviously but yes I would like it enforced more and I would like when someone rings up and says my dog has been attacked a police officer responds let me help you not that's a civil matter we can't do anything. I would like the dog warden to say I will go and see the dog and determine if it's safe, if not I will remove it from the household and the owner will have to apply to court to prove it is safe and get it back, not I will try to see the owner but if they don't want to talk to me I can't make them.
Seems to me they react to a barking or crying dog in a draconian way but you can let a dog kill another dog and it's fine no problem.
Dog on dog attacks have never been a criminal law, until the recent addition of service dogs. The police can't enforce a law which doesn't exist, unless you're expecting some kind of vigilante action. It had always been a civil matter. With Mondays dog law changes you may now possibly get some action from the police, but these are control orders rather than prosecution.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make I was saying how the law seems to work and that I think it's wrong so telling me it's always been like that makes little sense. And no vigilantes would be going too far I want laws that protect puppies, small dogs and friendly dogs from attack by any other dog. I don't much care what breed just get the vicious uncontrolled dogs off the streets.
The point I was making makes complete sense. Dog on dog attacks aren't covered by criminal law, hence the police are unable to act. That's pretty straight forward without any confusion. You say you don't care about breed yet you want breeds banned, that doesn't make much sense. Given a choice between keeping our existing laws which tend to focus on breed rather than deed and do not offer protection for dogs being attacked, or the breed neutral law I posted earlier which does protect dogs being attacked but doesn't ban breeds, which one would you choose? It's a loaded question so a compromise between both isn't the answer I'm looking for.
I know police cannot act that was the point I was making and you disagreed with me while making the same point it is beginning to feel like you will disagree whatever I say especially when you say compromises are not what you want to hear.
Sorry if it seems that way, but it didn't appear that way in what you'd written. Other than breed bans, I don't disagree with you. I'm all for more effective dog laws that protect people and dogs alike. I asked that question to see where you would prefer your focus to be on dog laws. Police resources are limited and it makes more sense to put their time into enforcing useful laws that protect the public and other dogs rather than pursue failed breed bans.