The poster included bull type dogs, and I couldn't agree more, I knew before I read the article that it wouldn't be a poodle
There are some breeds of dog that would . because of human design, do more damage than other breeds , large jawed dogs, if they decide to go crazy, will always do the most damage.
Wouldn't hurt a fly. A big softy. They used to be called nanny dogs
Nonsense. As other people have stated, it's down to the owner. And a lot of staffie's are responsible for attacks on babies, other smaller animals, etc. I'm not saying all staffie's are bad, not by a long shot. But for you to say they wouldn't hurt a fly is just wrong.
Again, as I said, it is down to the owner, or previous owner in the case of one of them stories. A dogs behaviour is learnt from birth, and sadly, a lot of irresponsible owners are training staffie's to be violent.
My condolences to the family involved, I cannot imagine what pain they must be going through right now.
2, dogs should have a licence and be muzzled in public. On a lead at all times.
3, dogs are great pets but should be supervised at all times, especially around children .
4, my dog would never ever harm a hair on a child's head, I trust it implicitly.
5, dogs are superior to humans and should be treated in that way. People should keep their children under control at all times.
Given those options I'd choose 3.
However there do seem to be certain breeds that seem more inclined to turn on small children - could be a coincidence or bollocks.
But personally I wouldn't trust a Pit-Bull or a Staffy (or one of the other dangerous breeds with a history of such incidents) around (especially very!) small children. Of course the usual provisos apply, there will be exceptions and all dogs (and owners/training/upbringing/environment) can vary dramatically and that can make all the difference.
For the record I am a dog-owner and I have children - although now our children are teenagers and our family dog nearly is a teenager himself.
Nonsense. As other people have stated, it's down to the owner. And a lot of staffie's are responsible for attacks on babies, other smaller animals, etc. I'm not saying all staffie's are bad, not by a long shot. But for you to say they wouldn't hurt a fly is just wrong.
Again, as I said, it is down to the owner, or previous owner in the case of one of them stories. A dogs behaviour is learnt from birth, and sadly, a lot of irresponsible owners are training staffie's to be violent.
My condolences to the family involved, I cannot imagine what pain they must be going through right now.
I might be wrong but I think Keiō Line was being sarcastic.
This is the stupid talk that results in people being attacked. I would suggest if you have to demonstrate to the dog "you are the boss", it is a dangerous dog.
No, the dog, no matter what breed must always know its place in the family pack and that's at the bottom. If a dog feels its above a human in that order you're in for a world of trouble, even with a lap dog.
No, the dog, no matter what breed must always know its place in the family pack and that's at the bottom. If a dog feels its above a human in that order you're in for a world of trouble, even with a lap dog.
Dominance theory has been debunked by plenty of experts. It's all been based on a singular experiment with unrelated wolves put together therefore not getting a true pack dynamic. And dogs are not wolves.
Dogs need to be taught in ways they understand what is right and wrong. Simply treating them like dirt is only asking for trouble. My dog was treated with respect, she slept on my bed and was allowed to go through doors before me. She was a super sweet dog with no bad bones who never bit anyone in the 17 years I had her.
Where i disagree is with the assumption that with the owner having established "dominance" over the dog it is therefore safe. It is "safe" for the owner but not for anyone else. However as I said if you you have to establish "dominance" over your dog, then you have a dangerous dog.
It made not the blindest bit of difference to the baby safety that the dog "knew who was boss". To many dog owners have excuses that allows them to break the golden rule of "do not have dogs near babies".
I look forward to the speculation that the baby may have pulled the dogs tale. <roll; eyes>:
Sadly not, we have a lovely woman near us in her 60s who has a staffy who strains on the leash and growls and spits saliver at any passing dog or puppy , when its being walked around. She can barely hold it back which is scary in itself. I don't understand why people keep dogs that want to attack anything that walks past.
Of course it's to do with the owner ! Until staffies were one of the "dogs of choice" of thugs and people who have a dog as a status they were (as another poster has already said) known as "nanny dogs" and the Kennel Club still lists "good with children" as a basic personality trait of staffies. they were classed as one of the best family dogs until these A*holes started mistreating them. She may come across to you as a "lovely" lady but can you say with absolute certainty that her dogs aggression is not a result of mistreatment by humans ? It's possible that dog had issues from a previous owner, / carer - unless your know 100% she has had this dog from birth or at the very least a very small puppy , you can't make that judgement (well you can but it says a lot about you as a person ....) I have always had dogs and feel a major part of being a good owner is being a responsible one - if she physically does not have the strength to control this dog or hasn't trained it well enough that she can't even walk it without it behaving like that she is not a responsible owner. It's true there are certain dogs ( a tiny percentage) that unfortunately have issues where they do want to "attack anything that walks past" but any responsible owner who had a dog like that wouldn't walk it where / at times it met people / other animals. She may not look like a typical bad owner but her behaviour makes her an irresponsible one and in my book there isn't a lot of difference between the two .
Staffs are terriers, bred for generations specifically to kill other animals.
All terriers can be feisty and prone to being snappy with other dogs, even with the best of upbringing, it's rarely a big deal and easily managed.
Who are you to judge someone else's dog, so long as it's under control?
Maybe it was a rescue? Maybe it is unwell? Maybe, like many dogs, it has been attacked?
It's incredibly rare for dogs to kill people, much more usual for people to kill them!
I remember a tv show not very long ago that showed people who owned illegal pitbulls and one of the lads made no pretense about what he was training his dog for. And this lad used the so called dominance theory to beat his dog into submission and attack on command. He turned his dog into a dangerous animal using this way of so called "training"
Staffs are terriers, bred for generations specifically to kill other animals.
All terriers can be feisty and prone to being snappy with other dogs, even with the best of upbringing, it's rarely a big deal and easily managed.
Who are you to judge someone else's dog, so long as it's under control?
Maybe it was a rescue? Maybe it is unwell? Maybe, like many dogs, it has been attacked?
It's incredibly rare for dogs to kill people, much more usual for people to kill them!
I have had Schnauzers for years (they are terriers) and have never had a nip off them. Jack Russells on the other hand...
Of course we're going to judge a dog and its owners especially in cases like this, this should not happen but people continue to be stupid
I don't know the full details, but surely the people involved must've known that the dog was illegal - why did they even have their child left with it in the first place? It baffles the mind.
However, I can't even imagine what the family must be going through right now. RIP.
I don't know the full details, but surely the people involved must've known that the dog was illegal - why did they even have their child left with it in the first place? It baffles the mind.
However, I can't even imagine what the family must be going through right now. RIP.
I remember a tv show not very long ago that showed people who owned illegal pitbulls and one of the lads made no pretense about what he was training his dog for. And this lad used the so called dominance theory to beat his dog into submission and attack on command. He turned his dog into a dangerous animal using this way of so called "training"
It's such a cliche to see some big, bald, bull-necked git rolling from side as he walks around looking 'ard with one of these dog breeds - how many were called Tyson in the '80's and 90's after the overrated rapist for example?
With owners like that some dogs have absolutely no chance and become very dangerous indeed.
The family have told police that they do not want the name of their child revealed, maybe I'm being harsh, but I can't help feeling this is to protect themselves from public scrutiny and bad feeling. How anyone could even consider letting their baby be in a house with a pitbull is just unbelievable, I mean a baby in the same room as a pitbull, what could possibly go wrong? I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but this really is a tragedy that should never have happened.
Dogs get jealous, get angry, get shy, get aggressive etc. All things that humans get. It's how the owners react and deal with these things which is the problem.
I have to agree - and so do cats. I've often noticed an expression on a pet's face, when another pet is getting a lot of attention that reminds me of myself as a child when one of my siblings was being made a fuss of - or as an adult for that matter
Comments
There are some breeds of dog that would . because of human design, do more damage than other breeds , large jawed dogs, if they decide to go crazy, will always do the most damage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2423364/Owner-let-Staffordshire-Bull-Terrier-decapitate-family-pet-claims-attack-left-HER-feeling-distressed.html
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/chihuahua-suffers-horrific-death-in-staffie-attack-at-perth-s-north-inch-1.601333
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-20364976
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Guide-dog-attacked-violent-Staffie/story-19132675-detail/story.html
Again, as I said, it is down to the owner, or previous owner in the case of one of them stories. A dogs behaviour is learnt from birth, and sadly, a lot of irresponsible owners are training staffie's to be violent.
My condolences to the family involved, I cannot imagine what pain they must be going through right now.
Given those options I'd choose 3.
However there do seem to be certain breeds that seem more inclined to turn on small children - could be a coincidence or bollocks.
But personally I wouldn't trust a Pit-Bull or a Staffy (or one of the other dangerous breeds with a history of such incidents) around (especially very!) small children. Of course the usual provisos apply, there will be exceptions and all dogs (and owners/training/upbringing/environment) can vary dramatically and that can make all the difference.
For the record I am a dog-owner and I have children - although now our children are teenagers and our family dog nearly is a teenager himself.
I might be wrong but I think Keiō Line was being sarcastic.
No, the dog, no matter what breed must always know its place in the family pack and that's at the bottom. If a dog feels its above a human in that order you're in for a world of trouble, even with a lap dog.
This is a sad tragedy and is a lesson to learn about not leaving children and pets (any) unattended together.
Dominance theory has been debunked by plenty of experts. It's all been based on a singular experiment with unrelated wolves put together therefore not getting a true pack dynamic. And dogs are not wolves.
Dogs need to be taught in ways they understand what is right and wrong. Simply treating them like dirt is only asking for trouble. My dog was treated with respect, she slept on my bed and was allowed to go through doors before me. She was a super sweet dog with no bad bones who never bit anyone in the 17 years I had her.
It made not the blindest bit of difference to the baby safety that the dog "knew who was boss". To many dog owners have excuses that allows them to break the golden rule of "do not have dogs near babies".
I look forward to the speculation that the baby may have pulled the dogs tale. <roll; eyes>:
Of course it's to do with the owner ! Until staffies were one of the "dogs of choice" of thugs and people who have a dog as a status they were (as another poster has already said) known as "nanny dogs" and the Kennel Club still lists "good with children" as a basic personality trait of staffies. they were classed as one of the best family dogs until these A*holes started mistreating them. She may come across to you as a "lovely" lady but can you say with absolute certainty that her dogs aggression is not a result of mistreatment by humans ? It's possible that dog had issues from a previous owner, / carer - unless your know 100% she has had this dog from birth or at the very least a very small puppy , you can't make that judgement (well you can but it says a lot about you as a person ....) I have always had dogs and feel a major part of being a good owner is being a responsible one - if she physically does not have the strength to control this dog or hasn't trained it well enough that she can't even walk it without it behaving like that she is not a responsible owner. It's true there are certain dogs ( a tiny percentage) that unfortunately have issues where they do want to "attack anything that walks past" but any responsible owner who had a dog like that wouldn't walk it where / at times it met people / other animals. She may not look like a typical bad owner but her behaviour makes her an irresponsible one and in my book there isn't a lot of difference between the two .
All terriers can be feisty and prone to being snappy with other dogs, even with the best of upbringing, it's rarely a big deal and easily managed.
Who are you to judge someone else's dog, so long as it's under control?
Maybe it was a rescue? Maybe it is unwell? Maybe, like many dogs, it has been attacked?
It's incredibly rare for dogs to kill people, much more usual for people to kill them!
I have had Schnauzers for years (they are terriers) and have never had a nip off them. Jack Russells on the other hand...
Of course we're going to judge a dog and its owners especially in cases like this, this should not happen but people continue to be stupid
I don't know the full details, but surely the people involved must've known that the dog was illegal - why did they even have their child left with it in the first place? It baffles the mind.
However, I can't even imagine what the family must be going through right now. RIP.
Well that's a surprise ...... Not!
It's such a cliche to see some big, bald, bull-necked git rolling from side as he walks around looking 'ard with one of these dog breeds - how many were called Tyson in the '80's and 90's after the overrated rapist for example?
With owners like that some dogs have absolutely no chance and become very dangerous indeed.
Someone needs to held accountable when a dog kills someone, wether it's on private property or not.
They are now
You would think they would get a sentence at least for owning an illegal dog, people get sentences for owning illegal substances etc.
You do know that some people have licenses to own these illegal dogs don't you?
I have to agree - and so do cats. I've often noticed an expression on a pet's face, when another pet is getting a lot of attention that reminds me of myself as a child when one of my siblings was being made a fuss of - or as an adult for that matter
The dogs have to be neutered & microchipped though
The police should be looking at who bred the dog imo, that is illegal.