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 the something on a par with a no claims and 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.

The owner tells me he is a an Irish Staffordshire terrier. I don't know much about the breed so not sure what being Irish would have to do with anything - perhaps they breed them bigger ?

At 33" it is not a Stafford and at 33" is even big for a pitbull. I would suggest it is cross breed

I have just googled and he is massive compared to the pictures I could find, also has a less pointy face much closer to the loose folds of a boxer. So I think you could be right. They paid £400 for a pedigree dog !!

I agree with what has already been said, yes a smaller dog is more likely to bite but with minimal damage, never heard of anyone being mauled to death by a yorkie....

This damage was not inflicted by a Yorkie but a Westie. Still a small dog though:







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019863/Icy-Thomas-Day-2-eyelid-bitten-savage-dog-attack.html

What is the purpose of posting pictures of people bitten by small dogs, stating anecdotal evidence about small dogs putting people in hospital, etc.? it doesn't mean anything. ALL dogs can bite and individuals of all breeds of dog (due to a combination of poor genetics, upbringing, etc.) have the potential to be dangerous. SIZE and BREED are not the issue here -- people are!

Generalizations about dog breeds purely based on size don't help anyone and it is utter nonsense.

a smaller dog is more likely to bite but with minimal damage

I apologise. I only posted it in response to the comment



because I would not consider that injury "minimal damage".