If Someone I Consider Reasonable Thinks This..

[mr.mister]

I was on the train with a very good friend of mine the other day. She's always known as the logical one of our little collection of friends, who always has something reasonable and level-headed to say.

For some reason the topic of Staffords came up, to which she said to me,

"Oh, they're horrible dogs. You know, they've had hundreds of years of fighting and killing bred into them; they're very dangerous - I think they should be banned."

*facepalm*

This really shocked me, as she refused to listen to my reasoning. Apparenly a friend of a friend's uncle's next cousin (or something ridiculous like that) was looking after one, and it attacked. I told her there could be any amount of reasons for this happening (without seeing the full picture, which you can see is already very cloudy) - from lack of early socialisation to being in some sort of pain - even if the attack appeared to have been unprovoked, it certainly didn't happen because all Staffords are vicious reincarnates of the devil that are bred to kill.

This is a dangerous kind of ignorance - here, she knows didly squat about dogs, yet feels from a single secondhand story she can paint all Staffords with the same brush. She simply would not listen to me and was absolutely certain that these dogs were baaddd.

I might even understand slightly if it was a personal experience of hers. But no, she heard the story from a friend and even the details she gave me were vague! (basically what I wrote on here)

It just.. upsets me when someone I've always considered so level-headed has this skewed notion in her head. She was even stating to me 'facts' about the breed (see above) when in reality she is basing those conclusions simply on this blurred story.

The only trickling of something sensible appeared was when I was talking about how ethical breeders would never breed or sell animals with questionable temperaments, and she said,

"Exactly, it's all the backyard breeders and puppy mills (that I have been telling her about) that are the problem. That's why they need to be banned."

That shut me up for a minute. And when you think about it like that, you can see how someone like her can have this idea in her head. I would love to try and shine a more positive light on the Stafford for her, as to be honest they are a breed I admire -so.. any suggestions or links to good, strong information sources would be nice. Doubt it would change her mind though..

So, in conclusion - when perfectly intelligent, sensible people are thinking this - and you compare them to all the loonies out there - what hope is there? :D

[HeavyPaws]

One of my friends believes that 'pitbulls' {which in her mind means anything from a Stafford to a Tosa Inu to a Shar Pei} get aggressive because they're too "muscley" and the physical pain of being so short with so many heavy muscles weighing on them drives them crazy.

That is a true story.

[hyjak]

now thats one i havn't heard!

[HeavyPaws]

now thats one i havn't heard!

There's lots you'd love to hear.

Like the reason for cropping Dobie's ears is so it helps relieve the tension on their swelling brains

And a 'Staffy cross' means 'Southern Cross Staffy', which means it's an Australian Staffy. Not Staffordshire, mind you, the 'proper' name is Staffy.

Also, they're called 'pitbulls' because they were used in Spain to kill the bulls that were too wild in the bullfighting ring.

You don't use collars on puppies, you use "choke chains" and if it does something wrong you chase it and step on the end of the lead once it's running so it learns what it did wrong and that you're the boss.

And you can cure a bitch of aggression by letting it have a litter of puppies

And if you have that litter, once their eyes open, you take them off the mother and their siblings except for feeding time so the only things they see are humans, they will get attached to people, and that will stop them ever biting anyone. That's what all the good breeders do *nod*

All of these and more I've heard as "facts" from her. Thank god she's caught up in ruining her own life and hasn't yet bought a puppy

[Earthdog]

And please dog she never does Heavypaws.

[Adele]

I think some people are more afraid of the name of the breed than the actual dog and they tar an entire breed with one bad experience. I've had one guy let his overly enthusiastic lab pup come over for a play with my dog, she's fine with that and is happy to play but once he asked what breed she was he almost whisked his dog away. He commented that he thought they were all vicious dogs but yet could plainly see she was just happy to play If I never said what she was he wouldn't have had a problem with her.

[APBT]

now thats one i havn't heard!

There's lots you'd love to hear.

Like the reason for cropping Dobie's ears is so it helps relieve the tension on their swelling brains

And a 'Staffy cross' means 'Southern Cross Staffy', which means it's an Australian Staffy. Not Staffordshire, mind you, the 'proper' name is Staffy.

Also, they're called 'pitbulls' because they were used in Spain to kill the bulls that were too wild in the bullfighting ring.

You don't use collars on puppies, you use "choke chains" and if it does something wrong you chase it and step on the end of the lead once it's running so it learns what it did wrong and that you're the boss.

And you can cure a bitch of aggression by letting it have a litter of puppies

And if you have that litter, once their eyes open, you take them off the mother and their siblings except for feeding time so the only things they see are humans, they will get attached to people, and that will stop them ever biting anyone. That's what all the good breeders do *nod*

All of these and more I've heard as "facts" from her. Thank god she's caught up in ruining her own life and hasn't yet bought a puppy

All i can say is WOW, haha

[Swiss Girl]

There are always people that are biased about many different things, it the holden v ford idea - you can't reason with them because they just know.

My husband refused to get a GSD puppy "as they are too vicious and not trustworthy", but for some reason he was happy for me to get a white GSD!!

Figure that out

[moko81]

now thats one i havn't heard!

There's lots you'd love to hear.

Like the reason for cropping Dobie's ears is so it helps relieve the tension on their swelling brains

And a 'Staffy cross' means 'Southern Cross Staffy', which means it's an Australian Staffy. Not Staffordshire, mind you, the 'proper' name is Staffy.

Also, they're called 'pitbulls' because they were used in Spain to kill the bulls that were too wild in the bullfighting ring.

You don't use collars on puppies, you use "choke chains" and if it does something wrong you chase it and step on the end of the lead once it's running so it learns what it did wrong and that you're the boss.

And you can cure a bitch of aggression by letting it have a litter of puppies

And if you have that litter, once their eyes open, you take them off the mother and their siblings except for feeding time so the only things they see are humans, they will get attached to people, and that will stop them ever biting anyone. That's what all the good breeders do *nod*

All of these and more I've heard as "facts" from her. Thank god she's caught up in ruining her own life and hasn't yet bought a puppy

That was the best laugh I've had for ages, definately made my morning.

Edited May 3, 2010 by moko81

[felix]

That was the best laugh I've had for ages, definately made my morning.

Yes, the only thing is it's not really funny. It's sad actually.

[tarope]

There are always people that are biased about many different things, it the holden v ford idea - you can't reason with them because they just know.

My husband refused to get a GSD puppy "as they are too vicious and not trustworthy", but for some reason he was happy for me to get a white GSD!!

Figure that out :laugh:

[HeavyPaws]

That was the best laugh I've had for ages, definately made my morning.

Yes, the only thing is it's not really funny. It's sad actually.

And even sadder when you consider how many of the public would believe it and pass it on if they saw it on the 6'oclock news

[Zhou Xuanyao]

So, in conclusion - when perfectly intelligent, sensible people are thinking this - and you compare them to all the loonies out there - what hope is there?

Well she is not perfectly intelligent is she. What she has shown from that statement and her reasoning reveals alot about her logic process, she is not sensible at all. I would bet that she applies the same process to lots of things in her life.

Most people are not perfectly intelligent and sensible, the majority of people are ignoramuses who think they know everything.

[ozjen]

I think some people are more afraid of the name of the breed than the actual dog and they tar an entire breed with one bad experience. I've had one guy let his overly enthusiastic lab pup come over for a play with my dog, she's fine with that and is happy to play but once he asked what breed she was he almost whisked his dog away. He commented that he thought they were all vicious dogs but yet could plainly see she was just happy to play If I never said what she was he wouldn't have had a problem with her.

Who Sooty? She is the sweetest natured dog I know. She plays so gently with the smaller dogs at the DOL meets and has the most beautiful face.

[mr.mister]

So, in conclusion - when perfectly intelligent, sensible people are thinking this - and you compare them to all the loonies out there - what hope is there?

Well she is not perfectly intelligent is she. What she has shown from that statement and her reasoning reveals alot about her logic process, she is not sensible at all. I would bet that she applies the same process to lots of things in her life.

Most people are not perfectly intelligent and sensible, the majority of people are ignoramuses who think they know everything.

Well, I suppose I know her? She's a good friend of mine who has always been on the logical side of things in many situations, which is why I was so shocked by this as it was out of character. She certainly isn't an ignoramus. :/

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Well you agree she is ignorant of dogs, and yet she insists she knows what she is talking about.

She is ignorant of Staffies, but she has heard a story of some guy that was bitten by one, so her logic follows, that all Staffies are like that.

Like I say, I guarantee if that is how she comes to one conclusion, in this case about Staffies, then its beyond any reasonable doubt as far as i'm concerned that she follows similar procedure to come to many others on an ongoing basis.

[sandgrubber]

In answer to the original question . . . there isn't a lot of hope. The breed communities are not willing to take on responsibility for breeding for good (or against aggressive) temperament. The anti-BSL community includes many individuals who happily and aggressively jump on anyone who voices an opinion (informed or naive) relating to restriction of breeds. No one seems willing to do the hard yards relating to statistics -- but many are happy to attack statistics they consider to be biased. Ugly concondrum.

[Jed]

Unfortunately, the APBT and now the staffy have been, and continue to be demonised by the press, and the public believe what they read.

If you mention to 90% of the public that no pitbull has been involved in a fatal attack in Aust, they simply do not believe you.

And the STB is getting the same bad press.

There is not much the "breed community" can do to lift it's act, because the problem does not lie with the breed community. The problem lies with skewed reporting, and misreporting of breeds of dogs, to suit an agenda.

The anti-BSL community includes many individuals who happily and aggressively jump on anyone who voices an opinion (informed or naive) relating to restriction of breeds. No one seems willing to do the hard yards relating to statistics -- but many are happy to attack statistics they consider to be biased. Ugly concondrum

I have done the hard yards, some of the stats are real, a lot are not. And if you factor in the population of a breed in an area, you get different results. I am more interested in Australian stats than USA ones, because they is more relevant to the situation here.

Someone mentioned in another thread that "pitbull" (generic) - was the most popular breed in US. This may or may not be true, as there are no stats, and numbers are higher in some regions than others, but judging by the pound stats, either 100% of pitbulls are dumped, or there are a lot of them around. Many authorities state this. "Pitbulls" are not only APBT in the stats either.

Los Angeles reports that 40% of the dogs entering their shelters are pit bulls and pitbull mixes. Their 12 shelters receive 840 pitbulls a week.

PSPCA in Philadelphia reported in 1999 over 4000 pitbulls were found wandering the streets, most scarred and abandoned, most were destroyed.

New York City (2001) reported that pitbulls were the 3rd most populous dog in that city, after rottweilers and mixed breeds.

Figures are the same all over.

And are probably the same still.

The big problem with pitbulls in USA is the fact that they are often owned by criminals and dog fighters, as well as those in low socio economic groups, as a status symbol. And the fact that they are so numerous, and care has not been taken in breeding them.

Purebred pitbulls have a long and honourable history, owned by presidents, movie stars, Helen Keller, starring in movies ... and today, the same dogs are doing the same things. Many of the SAR dogs used to search the World Trade Centre were pitbulls.

The "pitbull" problem in Australia is different. The pitbull problem in Australia is the media.

The public in Australia has been led to believe that a dog which is not HA has perpetrated many many attacks on humans, when that isn't so.

Stats are put out by various bodies, some are correct, some are not. The information available via the media about pitbulls is mostly sensationalist, and incorrect, yet that is what the public believes, without having seen a pitbull in the flesh, or having anything to do with them.

One of the reasons you think you get jumped on, Sandgrubber, is because you use stats which are at odds with other stats, but fail to see the validity of the other stats, or fail to understand that the people you are arguing with either have some experience with the breed, or have done a lot of research, or both.

For instance, in the USA, there are no known fatalities attributed to SBT. No one would believe that if you told them. They might have a few years ago, but not now.

Dogs involved in fatal attacks include Irish Setter, Chow Chows, G. Retriever. Dacshund, Labrador, Pomeranian, Husky, Briard, St Bernards, as well as the usual suspects.

Any dog can attack, what we need to do is not ban breeds and wash our hands, we need to make people understand why dogs attack, so they can avoid the triggers, and maybe provide the environment and care which reduces dog attacks.

eg "In 1976, a 6 day old girl was left alone on the floor of an unfurnished apartment with a German Shepherd while her mother went out. The dog killed the infant. The mother admitted to not feeding the dog for at least 6 days."

That's an extreme example, but when the circumstances of any attack are known (ie, known, not what is reported in the press) it will be seen that there is a trigger for most attacks, if someone will just bother to find it.

I have never owned a pitbull, never will. I began by believing what was in the press - and then I did some extensive research, and the truth is at odds with what is in the press. Unfortunately, there is an overwhelming amount of information out there, and you need to read, check, recheck, and validate constantly to even begin to understand the problem.

3 boxers killed a breeder in the USA, boxers have bitten people, cross bred boxers have been implicated in fatal attacks (as have Labradors, by the way), so I can see that there could be a case to ban boxers, if someone got onto their case.

And they will.

Eurodog.

[mr.mister]

Wow, thanks for the wealth of info, Jed. That was fascinating. :D

That's an extreme example, but when the circumstances of any attack are known (ie, known, not what is reported in the press) it will be seen that there is a trigger for most attacks, if someone will just bother to find it.

I was trying to explain that to her. All she said was,

'Well no there was no trigger because she was looking after it really well,'

I don't know how she got that info by hearing a secondhand story?

I guess all I can do is gently reguide her dog logic.

eta: I will drop this now, but just a last word LoPan, suggesting my friend (however vaguely) is an idiot does nothing to contribute anything useful to this thread apart from ruffling feathers.

Edited May 4, 2010 by alexhegyesi

[Jed]

In every case which has been properly reported, there IS a trigger. I would suggest there is a trigger for every single attack - but owners and those bitten didn't see the trigger.

In some cases, the trigger was there for months or years, but no one saw it.

The case of the Border Collie in Victoria some years ago springs to mind. The dog, which was older, and belonged to the grandparents, bit a 6 (?) year old on the face, doing a lot of damage. The dog had always been good and trustworthy with the grandchildren.

Reports indicated that the child was sitting on the dog when it attacked. Sitting on the dog was seen as normal behaviour by the owners.

Ergo - the child had been sitting on the dog for years - the dog got older, maybe there was arthritis, the child sat on the dog, the child was heavier, something hurt, the dog snapped - the child's face was in the way.

That is my interpretation. The dog didn't attack, as we understand it, the dog snapped.

I don't believe dogs "turn". There is always an exciting cause, and a trigger, but no one is looking for the trigger, they simply euth the dog.

Sometimes, when studies are done, the cause of the attack is unknown - but these are rare.

Some attacks are pack attacks, some are territorial, some are dominance - and so on.

Most attacks, both dog and human are by mixed breed dogs.

A lot of attacks in US are by dogs which have been abused, or starved.

The pitbull in Germany which fatally attacked a child in a schoolyard belonged to convicted criminals, was used for fighting, and on pm examination was found not to have been fed for at least several days, and contained a lot of drugs, including steriods.

The dog was known to be dangerous, many complaints had been lodged with the police prior to the attack, nothing was done.

St Bernards have killed more people in USA than Dobermanns. Yet no one would think a St Bernard would be vicious.

Any large, powerful breed can attack and kill, the miracle is that, with so many dogs there are not more fatal attacks!!