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?

"And that dogs of these breeds are closely related and often mixed and difficult to differentiate."

Often mixed, yes, difficult to differentiate? Not if they actually look like they're supposed to they aren't.

Staffies should be as I've mentioned already pretty small dogs, so not easily confused at all with larger breeds.

But then I'm always surprised when the general public don't recognise Dalmatians and get Labradors confused with Rottweilers*...so maybe it's more that people see a dog shape and can't tell any of them apart.

*actual events I've witnessed more than once.

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.

What part aren't you grasping?

Firstly, there isn't one death a year from Staffordshire bull terriers. There is an average of one death a year from dogs.

As countless people have pointed out, staffies are the most popular/populous dog in the UK, and yet don't make it into the top 10 of dog attacks, so how on earth you're extrapolating dog attacks with staffies, I have no idea.

But back to your original (illogical) point. A quick google tells me there are about 500,000 staffies in the UK. I'm going to guess most of these are the only staffie in the household, so lets say there are 450k households with a staffie. I'm going to further guess that if staffie owners are about average, about half of those will live in houses with children, because about half the households in the UK have a child living with them.
So lets say about 225k staffies living with children, or 600k children living with staffies.

I can find evidence of 4 children killed by their pet staffie in the last 12 years.

So crudely, that means about a 0.0004% chance of a child living in a house with a staffie being killed by that staffie.
How that can be considered a 'significant risk' by anyone is beyond me. It just isn't... It is up there with 'being killed by a vending machine' sorts of likelihood.

But back to your other clunky point about bathtimes vs time with a dog.

Pretty much everyone on here has said that children and dogs need permanent supervision when they are in the same room. Just like children need supervision in the bath

From my skim reading of press reports of dog attacks, children weren't being closely supervised. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess children drowning in baths weren't being supervised either.

So this is a supervision problem, not a dog problem. But even then, left unsupervised, baths are statistically more dangerous than staffies.

What's the point of talking about statistics about baths and walking along the pavement

We need to walk on pavements and wash ourselves these things you have to do in life (or shower and no doubt that is more dangerous) yet we have no need to have a SBT and those of is who rather not be around them have little choice when we go to a park

And really links of pictures of children who have been attacked there are plenty of awful links to SBT attacks we all know of them so no need to link such horrendous proof

What's the point of talking about statistics about baths and walking along the pavement

The point is to add some balance to the hysteria and attempts at suggesting that owning a staffie when you have DCs is tantamount to a death sentence for them.

The reality is owning a staffie is less risky than plenty of things that we do daily.

So you can't have it both ways.
Either a staffie is a risk too far, in which case you need to admit that you also expose your DCs to far too much risk in their daily lives.

Or you can say that their daily lives don't expose them to lots of risk, in which case owning a staffie isn't an irresponsible act.

But generally, all these threads tend to do is expose how woefully inadequate a lot of people are at understanding statistics and relative risk.

Less risky you say

But still a risk

A risk many people think is not worth having a SBT is a pet a choice of breed

Do you really have to have an understanding of statistics and relative risk no as most people are fully aware stats can be manipulated

Do you really have to have an understanding of statistics and relative risk no as most people are fully aware stats can be manipulated

Genius. Yes, it is all a massive government conspiracy to encourage staffie ownership by hushing up all those attacks while simultaneously drowning children at home.

Or, there is no conspiracy and you just aren't very good at calculating the risks you subject your children to on a daily basis, while getting a little too kneejerk from spending too much time on the Daily Fail website

Oh please the patronising tone

Baths/showers needed

To own a staff is not a necessity it's a choice

And I am not a reader of the DM other papers report attacks as does the news on both the radio and TV (I listen to radio 4 not a station that gets hysterical in it's reporting)

So explain to me the difference in relative risk between owning a SBT vs owning a sausage dog/collie/labrador/breed of your choosing...

This thread needs some smiles

There you go again

A bite is not going to make the news an attack where a child has been seriously harmed or worse will be it local or national or radio 4

Though I am aware that there are cases of wrong breed being reported that is not always the case

That is where I and most people get their information from is that not enough

Or is it all complete fabrication

TBF, Enthusiasm some of them are probably backyard crossbreeds, which explains some of the confusion.

A quick google will give you most of the stats you need.
But if SBT is more risky than just general dog ownership, quantify it for us.
What is the difference in relative risk? Which breeds are the least risky to own?

And to your other point about the horror of having to potentially encounter a SBT in a park... How many children are hospitalised after meeting a SBT in a park vs having an accident in a playground?
Out of swings and dogs, which do you think poses the bigger risk to a child visiting a park?
Or are swings as 'necessary' as bathing?

Enthusiasm whilst I think you have backed yourself into a corner, go back a page and you'll find a link to a study that does look at relative risk between dog breeds.

OK, it doesn't mention SBTs but it does outline a number of risk situations and debunks some of the common myths about dog breeds.

Well I know of one adult

Thankfully no children I know have been attacked my son was chased by a friendly staffie who punctured his football

Probably a swing but here's the thing a dog is an animal most well trained dogs will behave and follow orders but any dog (as any human) can act out of character a swing can't it's just not wired that way

"Which breeds are the least risky to own?"

That's the point, none of them.

*Often mixed, yes, difficult to differentiate? Not if they actually look like they're supposed to they aren't.

Staffies should be as I've mentioned already pretty small dogs, so not easily confused at all with larger breeds.*

Well the link I copied and pasted, which one would expect to be biased in favour of Staffies and Pit Bulls, suggests that it's not that simple. And I am excellent at identifying dog breeds, so you can have your straw man back.

"Which breeds are the least risky to own?"

That's the point, none of them.

Multiple people have already made the point that a breed which is more easily overpowered once it starts attacking someone is less risky to own. Stop arguing against the 'which breed is inherently more aggressive/likely to snap' argument and ignoring other ones, which seems to be what a few people are doing.

"Multiple people have already made the point that a breed which is more easily overpowered once it starts attacking someone is less risky to own. Stop arguing against the 'which breed is inherently more aggressive/likely to snap' argument and ignoring other ones, which seems to be what a few people are doing."

That's not my point.

Overpowering them is for starters usually a non issue as the largest risk factor is that they're not with an adult.

Then even if it comes down to overpowering them based on size and strength breeds like Labradors or golden retrievers are much harder to overpower because they're so much bigger. Staffies do not have magical strength, they are not stronger than a dog twice their size or even bigger, they're only stronger than similar sized dogs.

My point is purely that no size of dog is inherently safer than others when it comes to babies and young children, neither is any breed.

What would prevent bites is better supervision of children around dogs and more responsible dog owners.

I could own a Great Dane (I don't, but I'd have no hope in the world of overpowering one) who would attack any children who came within 6 feet of him, but as long as I prevented that from ever being near children it would be a less dangerous dog than the westie in my street who has a bit of a thing about children's feet moving but is allowed out with only children to supervise while they play football with their friends.

Dogs at all pose a danger and categorising breeds isn't actually helpful in preventing harm.

Let's just say, you are playing the game of life....but it's real. You draw a card reading "your child is attacked by your family dog". Which dog would you rather this be? A staffie....or a chihuahua?

THAT is why I think owning strong attack dogs is stupid.

WeAllFloat or, on the other hand you draw a card which says "your home is are attacked at night by people who want to rape you, hurt your children and then steal your things after they've falsely lured your DH away. The police are five hours drive from you" which would you rather have by your side, a chihuahua or a large strong dog?

Talk of overpowering dogs is just silly. If a dog gets to the point where it wants to bite aggressively there is nothing you can do. Just to pre-empt anyone who comes up with a story of how they stopped an aggressive dog by shouting or kicking at it, no you did not stop an aggressive dog, you stopped a dog and haven't met an aggressive one yet.

To be safe:
Chose for temperament.
Socialise
Train
Teach the kids how to interact with dogs
Learn about warning signs and supervise.

WeAllFloat - if the bite is inevitable then yep smaller is better, but staffies are considerably smaller than labs, golden retrievers, standard poodles, setters, pointers, Newfoundlands...and that's nowhere near all the breeds they're substantially smaller than, not just a little bit smaller than but half or three or four times smaller than.

Bites are never inevitable though.

Staffies are small, but incredibly strong. And mother.....if I lived in the kind of shitty area you do, then maybe I would get an outside guard dog. But not a family pet.

They're not "incredibly strong".

They're perfectly logically strong given their size and build, stronger than a similar sized but slighter built dog, not as strong as bigger dogs.

"Shitty area"

Also sniggering at the idea of staffies wearing superman capes to illustrate their x-men like abilities.

"Animal aggression. Like the Pit Bull Terrier, most Staffordshire Bull Terriers are aggressive toward other dogs. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures. If anything goes wrong in the breeding, socializing, training, handling, or management of this breed, it is capable of seriously injuring or killing other animals". The same site says they can scale a six foot fence! This isn't a breed that can be safely kept with children, no matter how much you walk on eggshells to keep it from turning on you. "Stubborn and sometimes headstrong, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is inclined to test for position in the family pecking order. Confident leadership and obedience training are musts.".....I mean, why would you ever pick this breed anyway, let alone if you had kids!?