Dangerous Dogs

Just a rant really.

This story caught my eye this morning on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21464402

Why do they use a straining, muzzled staffie to illustrate their story. Doesn't it just perpetuate the myth that staffies are dangerous to humans when all the research suggests the opposite.

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said:

"Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they make brilliant companions. Our experience shows that problems only occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please, by training them to show aggression."

and the Kennel Club

The UK Kennel Club sums up our beloved Staffordshire Bull Terrier as,

"Extremely reliable, highly intelligent and affectionate, especially with children".

In fact, the breed is one of ONLY two from over 190 it recommends as suitable with children"

Since 2007 there have been 6 deaths from dogs attacks (I am not sure of the breakdown in breed - but feel free to post if you know) I don't know what the figure is for accidents, illnesses, neglect of children by carers etc... I am going to guess it is significantly more.

I believe and practice good responsible dog ownership and abhor irresponsible dog ownership. To use a muzzled straining on the lead staffie just gives a completely false impression. And to be honest just VEXs me real bad!

No doubt for the same reason that the Daily Mail insists on using this Alamy stock photo of the sneezing Staffie every time there is a report of a dog attack.

Same reason when they talk about obesity they show the biggest bummed people in the world - when most of us even when obese don't have bums that big

The only plus point I can think of for using a sensationalist or alarming image is that it WILL GET THE READER'S ATTENTION.
And, if the text accompanying the image is all POSITIVE - well that can only be a good thing.

I suspect more people are likely to read an article accompanying a pic of a 'dangerous dog' than are likely to read an article of a fluffy one just sat there.

My personal feeling about this is that reporters shouldn't use STOCK photos at all. If they didn't get any photos of whatever they are reporting about - print it without any.

Just so we don't get confused that is not a Stafford in the picture with the Muzzle

What breed is that dog then? Must admit I thought it was a staffy.

Looks like a crossbreed to me

Looks more small mastif Than stafford from what I can see.

The sneezing one is a stafford

Laughing at this - I am probably one of the biggest bummed people in the world.

I get what you're saying - in this instance though it just perpetuates the myth that staffies are dangerous to humans when they clearly are not.

I think my point is, it is designed to look "staffie" ish. It certainly has the build and look of my dog which is staffie boxer cross. To the untrained eye I would say it was staffie.

I think first and foremost using a staffie in an image such as this gives the impression that they're unsafe and therefore could "justifiably" be put on the dangerous dogs list. Staffies are not dangerous to humans - in the wrong hands ALL dogs are potentially dangerous to humans.

I think a number of things sprung to mind for me on reading the article, firstly the suggestions were reasonable to any responsible dog owner - keep them under control at all times, fair enough, makes sense.

7 humans (not reading the article at the moment so I'm guessing from memory) have been killed by dogs. 6 of them were children. Now that is too many - but is minute compared to the number killed by neglect or cruelty by their caretakers, car accidents, preventable illnesses and accidents. The other thing that amazed me was that only £3m is spent by the NHS on dog bites - again given the NHS budget that is very very small - compared to the amount spent on sports injuries, food, alcohol and drug abuse (and injuries resulting therefrom), preventable diseases and accidents.

Dogs are not dangerous per se - their damn owners are!!!