There is another part of the equation... the human end of the lead. I can’t see the Yorkie being a “status dog” among hard nuts even it is classed as pound for pound the most dangerous.

The reason the Police want to keep some breed specific aspects of dangerous dog legislation is they don’t want to see Pit Bulls, Tosas etc in the numbers we currently see Staffies.

My own long held view is we should look to some system of licensing and third party liability insurance. I can’t afford a big new Mercedes and even if I had one given to me I couldn’t drive it as I’d never afford the insurance. If, however, I had a full no claims bonus, the right experience and better training then the insurance could be affordable.

We insist on third party insurance for drivers and use it to help keep inexperienced drivers and those with those with bad records out of big powerful cars. I suggest a similar system to keep inexperienced people and those with bad records from owning big powerful dogs!

i kinds like that idea, but doubt it would solve the problem - look how many people drive with no insurance

Benjie - fear reactive towards other dogs - medium to large sized dog, allows strange dogs onto his territory without any issue.

Missy - ShihTzu - took on 5 6month old DdB x Staffies all on her own..

Yup the smaller dogs are more scary!

So... would you class a Staffie (the archetypal status dog) as a big or small dog?

A correctly sized SBT is top size 16 to the top of the withers so is a medium sized dog.

You read my mind Claire! As we have a small/medium size staffie in, and he hates the staff (mainly me!!) and started snapping at me the other day when I went to walk him.

He is bigger (chuckier build too) than a few staffies I have met, but much smaller than the labs we have in atm.

The one that bit me was about 33 inches tall I would say he was a big dog. Certainly had a big mouth ouch !

The dog was 33" or the Stafford was 33".
If it was 33" it was not a Stafford, given that nature is unreliable they do sometimes go over the desired height of 16" and some can be successful in the ring over the desired height, the biggest I have seen is 19" (measured) but 33" is no Stafford.

I might be running a tad off topic but my point is “breed not deed” is one thing but saying all dogs are equally dangerous or that small dogs are more dangerous than large does not ring true.

Is saying that small dogs bite more people, more often really the same as saying they are more dangerous?

Say a Yorkie bites your little finger and really means it...stitches, hospital, pain but you still got a finger. Say a Dogo, a Pit Bull, a Fila or a Tosa grabbed on in earnest...no finger!

We all dislike the Dangerous Dogs act and yet just legalising the outlawed “types” can’t be the best way forward. It will just mean more of them on the streets with the worst type of owners.

We do need to focus on the owners - fitting the right owners to the right dogs and tackling the idea of status dogs. What’s the most cost effective way of doing that?

I’m not sure but I see the compulsory insurance model used for cars and motor bikes basically working to keep the potentially most dangerous vehicles away from the worst and most inexperienced drivers. I think the same principles could be applied with dogs.

Yes, there’d be those who would flaunt the law. A levy on insurance premiums could help pay for proper enforcement. Sensible owners of guarding breeds would get something on a par with a no claims or experienced driver bonus.

It’s not an ideal system but simply saying little dogs bite more often, whilst possibly very true, is a bit of a red herring in the wider debate.

Actually Kevin, I have known of a Yorkie who bit a lady's ankle and she had to have an op on her ligament in her leg due to the severity of the bite. Both small and big dogs can do serious damage and if you are really about "Deed not Breed" then you wouldn't use one of the banned breeds as an example. A lab could clean take off a finger, as could a Lhasa.