Slight diversion from the thread sorry.....I've never thought about it really before but now I do think about it, growling or attacking dogs do not do so with their eyes shut.

right about that
I just think NO CHILD has to stroke ANY DOG they aint really familiar with!

and right that is the job of the parents even not to do so!

my dog actually really does not like kids at all
might it's the Pekinese in her which normally cannot really cope with clumsy handling
or as she also never got used to them?
so she never made a bad experience with kids

but how often those kids run over to her because she is "oh soooo sweeeet"
I can tell their parents (if they are with them) that they should keep their kids away, but some really don't care about their antiauthoritarian raised brats and than get at me, when my dog gets angry

Both my dogs love kids and today, unusually for us, everybody wanted to say hello to both Tonks and Remus...which was nice....but we had one kids come over by herself. She did ask if she could stroke them and we said it a fine but to watch they didn't get her ice cream. She then noticed that they were watching her ice cream as it moved up and down and then proceeded to tease them with it! Moving it up and down and forwards and back going 'oooooo oooo oooo' and laughing! No parents anywhere. I explained that that was teasing.tha didn't work, so then I asked her where her parents were and to,d her she better go back to them and not to tease dogs!

oh well, here you got another point

how funny to tease dogs ...as long as they keep patient
but what a drama if one of yours had only snapped for the ice cream?
not once even touched the hand?
but the kid certainly were been scared badly, had screamed like mad maybe? ran away...
others see that and what?

WELL! just typical for those dangerously dogs like in the news papers showed

how idiotic

but that on the BBC news?
we use to have a news paper called "Bild"
might will be the similar to "The Sun"?
rather would fit to them

maybe I should post them a pic of Balou
one like this?



or that?



as she certainly is more "dangerous" like the most Staffies I heard of here or got to know

That's very true. Exactly why I asked her to go away..especially as if she got the two dogs close and was waving her ice cream about, one (probably Remus as he was getting hungry and doesn't cope well with hunger) would probably have snapped at Tonks ..and she might have told him off (which can be very noisy coming from a staffie!) and then, once again, it might be seen as a staffie attack.

...or maybe I should get a pic of her, when a stranger comes near to the lorry

then you should see her, when she's defending the cab that no one comes in



they can use that then
and not make Staffies bad!

Straight! of course!

Hi Talking about big bums

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqOh4z2ASdk

Gemini54

I agree and I don't. If all dogs are dangerous in the wrong hands then sbts are too surely? You can't have it both ways and it still make sense. I know what you are saying though.

It also bothers me how in these discussions genetics gets completely ignored. Its like only nurture has an effect on behaviour not true.
Saying all sbt are not dangerous is like saying all Labrador's are not dangerous nonsense.
Individual dogs are dangerous like some people.
And some breeds are bred to be predisposed to certain behaviours.
Ignorance of that fact can be just as dangerous to dogs and people.
The media might use inaccuracies to fuel fear.
But using inaccuracies to counter inaccuracies does not help the argument.
It only weakens it.
And that will not help dogs.


Alex

PS
Agree with your view on the statistics the media likes to ignore perspective.

The thing is, this thread is about how dangerous dogs are towards humans. Genetically all pitbulls and staffies are predisposed to show more aggression towards other dogs. This means their bite threshold is lower towards dogs. They're more easily triggered into showing dog-aggression. However, their bite threshold towards humans is bred a lot higher than many other breeds. The handlers and vets had to be able to get close to those dogs after a fight and look after them without getting bitten. Also, the handlers had to be able to break up a fight between two dogs without them turning around against them.

So, when the media says that pitbulls and staffies and any other 'fighting dogs' are potentially more dangerous for humans because of their genetics it's utterly wrong.
They were bred to be excellent people dogs, and anyone with a pit/amstaff or staffie will confirm that.

The problem now is that a lot of people breed in their back yard from any dog, without having its temperament or health checked. And that muddles the genes, some dogs that have shown aggression towards humans might be bred from and pass that predisposition on to her puppies.
It doesn't mean that those puppies will be aggressive towards humans, but they might be more likely to show aggressive behaviour when triggered (for example through punitive training methods, rank reduction programmes, stress etc.)

Because they are a strong breed and have that history of 'fighting' (even though it's only been dog on dog fighting, not like other molossoids and war-shepherds, ridgebacks etc who've had a history of use against humans), people sensationalise it when there was an attack. Their attacks are usually worse than other dog's attacks, because of their sheer strength. But those attacks could have been prevented with the right training methods and the right management. And that's something the government should work on. And compared to the numbers out there, the actual number of staffies or pit bulls who have shown aggression towards humans or have bitten someone is small.
Why didn't they put a picture of a jack russell in the article? After all, the second most recent death from a dog was caused by a jack russell..