To tell my sister if she buys a Staffie I won't bring DS around to hers?

[Annarose2014]

I suspect I am. I've heard so much about them being amazing, wonderful Nanny dogs.....

But I've also heard of a lot of attacks. I'm desperately afraid of them, truth be told. I don't trust them. Especially as the dog wouldn't live with DS, but only see him about once a week so its not like DS would be "his" charge.

Sister has wanted one for years and is bitterly disappointed as this is the year she's finally in a position to buy a dog.

But in fairness I just said that she could certainly get one, but would have to see DS elsewhere other than her place as I wouldn't be comfortable with DS in an enclosed area with one in case DS did something wrong and the dog felt threatened and we wouldn't be fast enough to stop something happening.

AIBU?

the body is that of a killing machine.....designed to maul and attack Bulls.

Ok, this is where you have AGAIN chosen to ignore a lot of well-informed posts, and cherry pick your nonsense again.

As someone pointed out, bull baiting was outlawed sometime in the early 1800s. The body types needed to attack bulls were therefore no longer needed and over hundreds of generations, they were cross bred with other dogs that had nothing to do with attacking bulls, and the body type has changed so modern bull breeds no longer resemble their ancestors, nor would they be capable of attacking bulls.

So that is a total non-argument.

If you can't see how selective breeding over hundreds of years has changed both the physical make up of breeds, and also shaped the characteristics that they show, you are frankly a bit thick.

Fearlessness is not a great descriptor when applied to dog behaviour. What we often describe as fearless behaviour is an actual activation of a neurochemical system more closely linked with rage (actual technical term!) and usually to with protecting resources (whether that is a physical object, the owner or territory).

As I said some dogs are bred to respond to these emotions by aggressing and going forwards. Most dogs will not use aggression unless they have no choice (canine behavioural systems are geared towards avoiding conflict

It is also almost unheard of for Fila or Caucasians to attack children or anyone who is part of their family, yet they are considered to be dangerous dogs.

The problem with filas is you have the split in the breed club and there is a significant minority of breeders who select for human aggression - it's also not a fault for them to be aggressive to strangers in the ring. Not the worst traits if you have large amounts of land to guard and a potentially less then stable environment but not suitable for the UK at all.

Yes FisherQueen but rage can be misleading. Rage implies mindless fury rather than a calculated, judged and assessed response to what the dog considers a threat. Where we live it is, in part, called ojeriza, which doesn't have an exact translation.

No, quite. I have long said that neither Filas nor Caucasian Ovcharkas are breeds for the UK, however we have a ranch in an extremely remote part of South America and they are perfect for us out here.

Then why are staffies so muscular if all their killing ability has been bred out? Why such big jaws? Why not breed it into a normal shaped dog with a smaller jaw? If the breed itself is so lovely, why does it need to be kept so strong, and with such a powerful bite??

Surely that could have easily been achieved by now. If it is so incapable of killing, how are these children dying so easily when being attacked by such run of the mill dogs!?

Just reading back through the posts - dogs not bred to kill? So you wouldn't have any sighthound, terrier, dachshund etc?

Sorry should have clarified rage is a neurobiological emottional system identified by Panksepp as being present in all mammals. Alongside play, panic/grief, lust, seeking, care and fear.

It's nearly 20 years old now but I fully recommend his book Affective Neuroscience if you are interested in behaviour.

"Really I would post a more thought out link than that to support an argument"

Yep those woolly scientific studies and their statistics, lol.

Not unable as in they were attacked therefore they didn't manage the interaction, but already compromised in their ability by age, size or impairment. People like children who should have been supervised with a dog anyway.

"I have not read of any children being fatally attacked by a poodle, spaniel or Labrador though I am sure someone is going to post one or maybe they are just not reported"

I know of labs off the top of my head, I could google for them if you really really need to see them, but one involves a fairly horrific description of what happened to the child.

But yes they are often reported slightly differently and one of the lab attacks I'm thinking of was originally reported as a pitbull by the media. (Not a case of mistaken identity, there was no other dog).

A website that promotes training for good dog behaviour

If you read what has been written on that link the word attack is used over and over again not bite attack

Googled staffie googled Labrador one dog far outnumbers the other the fatal attack (in the states) was a mixed breed of what it does not say

And if you know about stats you will know they are easily manipulated

"A website that promotes training for good dog behaviour"

Victoria Stillwell didn't do the study, just wrote about it.

Unfortunately the NHS statistics that are collected about injuries caused by dogs refer to them as "bites and strikes". This makes it hard to collect real data on what is going on. I was knocked over by a dog the other day - if I hit my head and had to go to A&E then it would have been recorded in those statistics. No aggressive behaviour at all - just an exuberant dog and poor balance on my part.

Has anyone raised the circumstance in which the dogs that attack with such ferocity are kept?

A good dog owner knows that, they pick a dog that they can meet the needs of, they look after it, they train it, they socialise it, they respond to their dog's body language and they make sure that the dog is never in a situation that makes it uncomfortable and that people are always safe around it.

I am going to quote this again, apologies. I would wager that non of the dreadful attacks in recent years have dogs, whatever breed they are, have an owner that does any of the above.

Focusing on the breed seems so narrow minded. It's not legislation that could ever be enforcible, but making it law that any potential dog owner has to participate in a 'responsible owner' course would be far more appropriate.

I've raised it at least twice and I've seen tabula raise it as well.

Apologies, I am dipping in and out but then felt compelled to comment further

No apologies! It's a fast moving bonkers in places thread.

In the vast majority of cases the common theme seems to be that the owners either weren't present at the time of the attack, or they were physically present but not actively supervising (asleep).

"In the vast majority of cases the common theme seems to be that the owners either weren't present at the time of the attack, or they were physically present but not actively supervising (asleep)."

Yep children or babies left with dogs and no supervision...and that's why I'm so against stigmatising breeds.

There are things that will work to prevent children (especially) being injured or killed by dogs, but blaming a breed then moving on to another one when that doesn't work isn't one of them.

No breed of dog is a safe breed is really what I hope people take away because that leads to people taking risks they shouldn't.

If children were supervised with dogs and all owners were responsible owners most bites would be prevented.

What should be the most damming thing about BSL (whether you believe in aggressive breeds or not) is that it doesn't work. Attacks haven't fallen and there are still thousands of dogs deemed to be type in the country. So what is it achieving?

Op if you feel its an unnecessary risk why take it? Dont let your dc go there.

If you think a Yorkshire Terrier couldn't rip your kid's face off, you're very much mistaken

Yes your right worra I was 8 and a yorkie had a right old go at my finger, I had to have a plaster. Its the jaws, those big powerful jaws.

Shame he wasn't so lucky.

Daft post there, Drastic.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159108001147

Dachsunds and chihuahuas are the most likely breeds to bite humans and dogs.

There are other studies out there that say much the same thing. Size of dog is not positively correlated with likelihood of aggression.

Smila, your post has left me confused. Are you suggesting that pit bull types are merely victims of bad PR?

No. I'm not sure how you've got that from my post.

That's not true at all. Staffordshire bull terriers are an official breed by any measure of how a breed is official.

What I copied and pasted does not disagree with you. It says 'Staffordshire Terrier' is not a breed but 'American Staffordshire Terrier' and 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' are breeds. As is 'American Pit Bull Terrier'. And that dogs of these breeds are closely related and often mixed and difficult to differentiate.

6 children drowned last year in pools with lifeguards. 8 drowned in the bath.
8 people died by being bitten or hit by a mammal that isn't a dog. 2 people were killed by hornets.

Put into context, 1 death a year from a dog is really not a risk that deserves the ridiculous reaction from you.

How can you accuse someone of being utterly incapable of understanding statistics and making informed risk assessments and then come out with things like this?

I'm guessing children a) walk on pavements and b) spend time in the bath a hell of a lot more often than they are in contact with Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

If your child gets hit by a car while walking on a pavement, it is likely illogical to ascribe fault to you as a parent. If your child gets injured because you exposed them to an animal with the potential to harm them significantly, then I would suggest that some fault can be ascribed, because you made a choice. Few people would suggest that spending time around animals known to be potentially dangerous is unavoidable in the way that bathing or walking on pavement is...

Size of dog is not positively correlated with likelihood of aggression.
Drastic didn't say anything about likelihood of aggression, that I can see. Daft response.