Staffy's And Rotties Most Dangerous

[steve11]

Agree, NSP. The other variable is who first 'describes' what the dog is....& it may well be a victim or a witness....in shock & likely, no expert on dog breeds.

'Labelling' the dogs for data collection is the elephant in the room of dog bites & attacks. If this data is being collected for the sake of stats & analysis, then it has to be as accurate as possible. Presently it's as broad as anyone's guess.

The present system asks for Primary Breed thus lumping in Crosses with Purebreds. And also lumps documented purebreds (with papers) in with any dog, from any other source, that anyone lists a Primary Breed only.

This gets ratcheted up when the 'breed' is popular & numerically highly represented in the population.

Look at all the dogs, from all sorts of sources with all sorts of appearances, that finish up with the label Staffy or StaffyX.

If stats are to have any scientific reliability, it should be only the Staffies with documented papers that can truly said to be 'Staffies'.

Which means it may not be a bad thing to add to data collection, an additional question of the owner...if this dog has pedigree papers (with some kind of documentation required, because many people have confused ideas about what 'papers' are).

Whatever is done....something needs to separate out the purebreds from registered sources, in the data collection.

Because Qld Uni research has shown that the purebreds from registered breeders came out as best in how they were socialised as puppies. And that such socialisation is linked with less likelihood for aggression problems later.

Under the present system, these dogs are being lumped in with those from other sources that are likely to be more represented in bites/attacks. So the registered purebreds finish up condemned by association via too broad use of a breed label.

Totally agree. ...

As an owner/exhibitor of pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers for the past 25 years i am amazed at what people are calling Staffs' these days.

IMO for a dog to be classed as a certain breed you must be able to show that the dog in question is in fact that breed (ie pedigree papers), just labelling a dog a Staff or whatever because Joe down the pub or Bob the backyard breeder said it is, is a pathetic farce.

As for the 'dangerous dogs list', they list Staffordshire terriers as a breed (there is no such breed!... it is either a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier) & these are the supposed experts..?.what a joke.

As for crossbreeds, once a breed is crossed with any other breed it is no longer a reprensentation of the former breed & should be treated/labelled entirely as a crossbreed regardless of its origins.

BSL is a kneejerk reaction at best & like many decisions/laws based on kneejerk reaction is poorly researched & not at all useful.

[sandgrubber]

No one has noted that 51 of 69 people who were attacked were hospitalised. Doesn't sound like they're talking about trivial attacks.

I like Rottis -- I rent to a rotti breeder and have a few Rottis as regulars in my kennels. But there is no question that the breed makes a good guard dog or shutzhound. And there's no question that a Rotti who is managed or trained in a way that brings out the protective instincts of the dog can be a danger. Also no question that people -- and security firms and police squads -- who want a big, frightening guard dog are likely to choose a Rotti. People who prefer the macho image are likely to look for a tough Rotti to put over their tough bitch, and there are some dubious animals out there who carry the dominant black and tan from Rotti in their bloodlines.

There isn't an easy answer to this problem. I applaud the Rotti breeders who are aware of the problem and are careful with pup placement and emphatic on the need for training. . . . and careful not to allow their boys to be used by irresponsible BYBs. I hope they can uphold their breed's reputation well enough to avoid BSL. But it will take work.

On the other hand, I had a Rotti break control from its owner, cross the street, and attack my dog (female Labrador) and impart some bad punctures. This happened in Germany, the dog was a slim but muscular farm dog and the woman walking it was a bit frail (weight ratios can be pretty meaningless). I think the public should be protected against such dogs, and understand why some politicians use breed as a handle for legislation. The best answer is not to give them the excuse.

Denying the problem because your Rotti is a sook -- and most of them are -- is not going to make the problem go away.

As for Staffies . . . if you look at the stats, it looks like they are en route to replacing Labradors as the most common pedigree dog in Australia. I seriously doubt that they are in great danger. There are some serious ratbags in the SBT population, and everyone knows this; but I think the average Ozzie is more amused than intimidated by staffies, and I'd say they're pretty well protected from BSL. I would guess that quite a few SBT owners favor BSL because there are so many ugly rumors around of dog fighters stealing staffies and ring bait and they think taking the APBT out of the equation will make it safer for their dogs.

Edited April 6, 2009 by sandgrubber

[arawnhaus]

I like Rottis -- I rent to a rotti breeder and have a few Rottis as regulars in my kennels. But there is no question that the breed makes a good guard dog or shutzhound. And there's no question that a Rotti who is managed or trained in a way that brings out the protective instincts of the dog can be a danger. Also no question that people -- and security firms and police squads -- who want a big, frightening guard dog are likely to choose a Rotti. People who prefer the macho image are likely to look for a tough Rotti to put over their tough bitch, and there are some dubious animals out there who carry the dominant black and tan from Rotti in their bloodlines.

There isn't an easy answer to this problem. I applaud the Rotti breeders who are aware of the problem and are careful with pup placement and emphatic on the need for training. . . . and careful not to allow their boys to be used by irresponsible BYBs. I hope they can uphold their breed's reputation well enough to avoid BSL. But it will take work.

On the other hand, I had a Rotti break control from its owner, cross the street, and attack my dog (female Labrador) and impart some bad punctures. This happened in Germany, the dog was a slim but muscular farm dog and the woman walking it was a bit frail (weight ratios can be pretty meaningless). I think the public should be protected against such dogs, and understand why some politicians use breed as a handle for legislation. The best answer is not to give them the excuse.

Denying the problem because your Rotti is a sook -- and most of them are -- is not going to make the problem go away.

Excellent post.

[Rexxy]

No one has noted that 51 of 69 people who were attacked were hospitalised. Doesn't sound like they're talking about trivial attacks.

I like Rottis -- I rent to a rotti breeder and have a few Rottis as regulars in my kennels. But there is no question that the breed makes a good guard dog or shutzhound. And there's no question that a Rotti who is managed or trained in a way that brings out the protective instincts of the dog can be a danger. Also no question that people -- and security firms and police squads -- who want a big, frightening guard dog are likely to choose a Rotti. People who prefer the macho image are likely to look for a tough Rotti to put over their tough bitch, and there are some dubious animals out there who carry the dominant black and tan from Rotti in their bloodlines.

There isn't an easy answer to this problem. I applaud the Rotti breeders who are aware of the problem and are careful with pup placement and emphatic on the need for training. . . . and careful not to allow their boys to be used by irresponsible BYBs. I hope they can uphold their breed's reputation well enough to avoid BSL. But it will take work.

On the other hand, I had a Rotti break control from its owner, cross the street, and attack my dog (female Labrador) and impart some bad punctures. This happened in Germany, the dog was a slim but muscular farm dog and the woman walking it was a bit frail (weight ratios can be pretty meaningless). I think the public should be protected against such dogs, and understand why some politicians use breed as a handle for legislation. The best answer is not to give them the excuse.

Denying the problem because your Rotti is a sook -- and most of them are -- is not going to make the problem go away.

As for Staffies . . . if you look at the stats, it looks like they are en route to replacing Labradors as the most common pedigree dog in Australia. I seriously doubt that they are in great danger. There are some serious ratbags in the SBT population, and everyone knows this; but I think the average Ozzie is more amused than intimidated by staffies, and I'd say they're pretty well protected from BSL. I would guess that quite a few SBT owners favor BSL because there are so many ugly rumors around of dog fighters stealing staffies and ring bait and they think taking the APBT out of the equation will make it safer for their dogs.

German Shepherd's and Dobermann's are other breeds previously high on the hit list of dangerous dogs like the Rotti is now, but careful breeding practices with the German Shepherd in time has produced a much softer more socially acceptable safer dog than the original breed temperament. However, German Shepherd's with working dog bloodlines generally indentified with extremely dark/black facial characteristics are far different in hardness and aggression/defence drives than the average GSD pet. In other words, the German Shepherd's that most people are familiar with the behavior in the average pet today, are not the bloodlines used for police work and security/guarding purposes, which are an entirely different dog.

High drive working line GSD's which are protective, aggressive and dangerous in the wrong hands, are generally expensive and difficult for the average person to purchase and are not common place in the community which due to responsible breeding practices of the German Shepherd producing softer pet dogs, has cleaverly removed much of the spotlight away from the breed as being dangerous as they used to be. Perhaps the breeders of Rotti's need more attention in this area as happened with the GSD.

[pinky11]

HI EVERYONE FIRSTLY I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE HAD SAID I BET THESE SO CALLED DANGEROUS DOGS ARENT PURE BREED PROBERLY CROSS BREED, JUST LAST WEEK IN THE LOCAL PAPER ITS WAS QUOTED THAT STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS ARE THE NUMBER 1 FOR ATTACKS BUT THE PICTURE THEY HAD PRINTED DIDNT EVEN LOOK LIKE A PURE STAFF, I HAVE A PURE ENGLISH STAFFIE AND HE WOULDNT EVEN HURT A FLY, SO GENTLE WITH MY KIDS , U KNOW WHAT REALLY BUGS ME WHEN U WALK HIM ON THE SIDE OF ROAD OTHER PEOPLE WALKING THERE DOGS WILL GO TO THE OTHER SIDE TO PASS ME ( WHATS THERE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

ANYWAY MY STAFFIE IS BEAUTIFUL AND HAS THE BEST MATURE AND I DONT CARE WHAT THE POLYS, PAPERS AND OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS ARE OF THE BREED.

Edited May 4, 2009 by bender2009

[Storm2008]

The main problem with dangerous dogs is Idiotic owners.Lets get a tuff dog coz were tuff,.Then the dogs suffers

[Storm2008]

The main problem with dangerous dogs is Idiotic owners.Lets get a tuff dog coz were tuff,.Then the dogs suffers

I have a Pure Amstaff and A Bull Terrier cross staffy, and both have the most gentleness nature, they love my kids, and are very very loving family dogs..

yes In the wrong hands these dogs are loaded guns..

In the right hands there loyal, loving, gentle and make great family pets