If Someone I Consider Reasonable Thinks This..

[ZBC]

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?

How would banning stop breeding of dogs? It never has before.

The BYBs and other undercover breeders are just like illicit drug growers or dealers, when there is a handy buck to be made they will not obey a new law,but just get more cunning in their undercover activities!

I wonder if your friend would accept, based on the evidence of one story of a bad guy killer whose parentage went back to wartime Nazi Youth days,that all third generation Germans were dangerous and should be banned?

[ZBC]

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.

Excellent post ,Jed

[mr.mister]

I wonder if your friend would accept, based on the evidence of one story of a bad guy killer whose parentage went back to wartime Nazi Youth days,that all third generation Germans were dangerous and should be banned?

Perhaps I will put that to her!

[tarope]

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.

You certainly talk a lot of crap, you sound like the R$PCA who also knows nothing about dog breeds or temperaments.

You go on and on about stats, which anyone with a small amount of common sense knows they mean nothing. If 10 people like peanut butter and 5 people like vegemite what does this prove -- Nothing. Just like dog bite stats.

[ratta]

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?

Edited May 14, 2010 by ratta

[ratta]

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?

She could come and meet my staffy!!! Couldnt get a better example of how the breed really is when treated properly

Sorry about the double post im still on my "Ls" and dont know how to delete the other one! Whoops!

Edited May 14, 2010 by ratta