still think dogs aren't dangerous?
01 July 2002, 11:38 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard
agree with most of what you say.
Just thought that cats may kill more kids, think i read somewhere that they can in some cases settle on babys faces an smuther the baby accidentally !
Whati think is the image of the dangerous dog, Why want one if peeps are frightened of them ?
The dogs themselves do have the potental ,in the wrong hands to hurt! So by getting one you run the risk of putting ya self in the
I am hard bunch.
steve
ps dylexic so spelling cr@p
agree with most of what you say.
Just thought that cats may kill more kids, think i read somewhere that they can in some cases settle on babys faces an smuther the baby accidentally !
Whati think is the image of the dangerous dog, Why want one if peeps are frightened of them ?
The dogs themselves do have the potental ,in the wrong hands to hurt! So by getting one you run the risk of putting ya self in the
I am hard bunch.
steve
ps dylexic so spelling cr@p
02 July 2002, 09:52 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve,
Any dog has the potential to hurt.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Dangerous dogs classified as :
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.
The ammendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1997 in fact reduced the penalties to the dog, if the dog was found to be no danger.
So, after being in place for 6 years, no breeds were added to the list. Kind of tells us something, doesn't it?.
The reconstruction at the start of the programme was a piece of sensationalist disgrace...that Rott was playing. As for the one barking at the presenter, it was just doing its job, like 90% of dogs will do.
No one is denying that the attacks were horrendous. But stop blaming the dog and start blaiming the irresponsible breeders firstly who will sell to any lowlife.
Then blame the irresponsible owners who don't understand dogs and do not control them properly.
Then blame the irresponsible parents who let their children play with dogs unsupervised (not saying this was the case in the attacks shown)
Then blame the irresponsible media for scare tactics, without which "peeps" wouldn't be afraid of the dogs in in the first place.
Then educate people properly.
I'm sick of my dog being "mugged" (completely unprovoked) by "cutesy" little terriers/mongrels/spaniels and those evil little ba$tard Jack Russel things when out walking. Yet everyone thinks they are safe little dogs
.
Safest and friendliest dogs round our way are a Bull Mastif (she's huge), a Neapolitan Mastif (even bigger) a cross German Shepherd thats in love with my Rottie
a couple of daft Labradors and a young Boxer.
The aggressive ones, in order of aggressiveness (worst first)are a Jack Russell, A Border Collie, another Jack Russell, a West Highland Terrier, a Cocker Spaniel and some funny little bald thing.
And yet because I have a big soft lump of a female Rottie people are forever picking up their dogs, or crossing the road, or walking the other way. To be honest, thats fine with me, but its a shame for society.
More kids are seriously injured while playing than by dog attacks. More kids are killed and seriously injured on the roads. Time to get a perspective on all this. Anyway we've been here before http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...ThreadID=98671
And I see you had the same blinkered view then
D
(sick to death of people jumping on the Dangerous Dogs bandwagon every time something happens that the media pounce on.)
And LOL scoobynet in "PSLewis & Diablo agree on something" shock
[Edited by Diablo - 7/2/2002 10:06:19 AM]
Any dog has the potential to hurt.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Dangerous dogs classified as :
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.
The ammendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1997 in fact reduced the penalties to the dog, if the dog was found to be no danger.
So, after being in place for 6 years, no breeds were added to the list. Kind of tells us something, doesn't it?.
The reconstruction at the start of the programme was a piece of sensationalist disgrace...that Rott was playing. As for the one barking at the presenter, it was just doing its job, like 90% of dogs will do.
No one is denying that the attacks were horrendous. But stop blaming the dog and start blaiming the irresponsible breeders firstly who will sell to any lowlife.
Then blame the irresponsible owners who don't understand dogs and do not control them properly.
Then blame the irresponsible parents who let their children play with dogs unsupervised (not saying this was the case in the attacks shown)
Then blame the irresponsible media for scare tactics, without which "peeps" wouldn't be afraid of the dogs in in the first place.
Then educate people properly.
I'm sick of my dog being "mugged" (completely unprovoked) by "cutesy" little terriers/mongrels/spaniels and those evil little ba$tard Jack Russel things when out walking. Yet everyone thinks they are safe little dogs
.Safest and friendliest dogs round our way are a Bull Mastif (she's huge), a Neapolitan Mastif (even bigger) a cross German Shepherd thats in love with my Rottie
a couple of daft Labradors and a young Boxer.The aggressive ones, in order of aggressiveness (worst first)are a Jack Russell, A Border Collie, another Jack Russell, a West Highland Terrier, a Cocker Spaniel and some funny little bald thing.
And yet because I have a big soft lump of a female Rottie people are forever picking up their dogs, or crossing the road, or walking the other way. To be honest, thats fine with me, but its a shame for society.
More kids are seriously injured while playing than by dog attacks. More kids are killed and seriously injured on the roads. Time to get a perspective on all this. Anyway we've been here before http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...ThreadID=98671
And I see you had the same blinkered view then
D
(sick to death of people jumping on the Dangerous Dogs
bandwagon every time something happens that the media pounce on.) And LOL scoobynet in "PSLewis & Diablo agree on something" shock
[Edited by Diablo - 7/2/2002 10:06:19 AM]
02 July 2002, 09:57 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And while I'm on my soapbox
Did anyone who watched the programme also think that the Mayor of Hamburg's attitude had a frighteningly close resemblance to his Countrymens' attitude of mass distruction of Jewish people during the war?
Now that scares me.....
D
Did anyone who watched the programme also think that the Mayor of Hamburg's attitude had a frighteningly close resemblance to his Countrymens' attitude of mass distruction of Jewish people during the war?
Now that scares me.....
D
02 July 2002, 10:02 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Diablo. My father had a border collie cross a few years back and he was the loveliest, cuddliest, furriest thing you've laid eyes on (the dog, not my dad 
).
Eventually though, he was put down because he kept destroying car interiors and was classed as a danger to society. Whose fault was it? My dad's - for leaving him unattended in the car.
In 99% of cases like these, the people say that the kids were "playing" and the dog attacked them unprovoked. Usually, though, it turns out that the kids' game was to stick their thumbs in the dogs' eyes until it bites them. In fact, it never fails to surprise me quite how tolerant dogs can be of the abuse an unattended child can inflict on them (the same goes for cats, too).
Fact is, no young child should be left alone with a dog of any age or any breed, in the same way as no child should be left alone with a bowl of water. You wouldn't ban fishponds because a kid drowned when he was playing unwatched and drowned in one, so why ban dogs?
Dog licencing, ownership and training should be far more rigorously policed, as too many people buy puppies for the wrong reasons, fail to train them, and then are surprised when they can't cope when the dog reaches adulthood. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I think the biggest sadness here is that whilst I have every sympathy with the child and/or victim, the dog is - ultimately - the one to suffer, through no fault of its own.
). Eventually though, he was put down because he kept destroying car interiors and was classed as a danger to society. Whose fault was it? My dad's - for leaving him unattended in the car.
In 99% of cases like these, the people say that the kids were "playing" and the dog attacked them unprovoked. Usually, though, it turns out that the kids' game was to stick their thumbs in the dogs' eyes until it bites them. In fact, it never fails to surprise me quite how tolerant dogs can be of the abuse an unattended child can inflict on them (the same goes for cats, too).
Fact is, no young child should be left alone with a dog of any age or any breed, in the same way as no child should be left alone with a bowl of water. You wouldn't ban fishponds because a kid drowned when he was playing unwatched and drowned in one, so why ban dogs?
Dog licencing, ownership and training should be far more rigorously policed, as too many people buy puppies for the wrong reasons, fail to train them, and then are surprised when they can't cope when the dog reaches adulthood. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I think the biggest sadness here is that whilst I have every sympathy with the child and/or victim, the dog is - ultimately - the one to suffer, through no fault of its own.
02 July 2002, 11:00 AM
#36
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Staffs
Posts: 23,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aggressive ones, in order of aggressiveness (worst first)are a Jack Russell, A Border Collie, another Jack Russell, a West Highland Terrier, a Cocker Spaniel and some funny little bald thing.
Doesn't get on with other dogs that well though. Little group he's fine with (really old cross bread, a white Westie amongst others) but usually wants to fight, hence winding in his lead when other dogs approach.
02 July 2002, 11:24 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Perthshire
Posts: 6,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAAARGH !
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO annoying !!!
X breed is 'dangerous'pedigree from reputable breeder
Y breed is one of these wee yappie affairs
Z breed is a heinz 57 variety mongral
which is the one most likely to cause harm??
[] The one with the big **** off teeth?
[] the one wearing the 'die people, die' t-shirt?
[] the one that walks down the road off the lead?
Answer: none of the above? or All of the above ? NO....
It depends on the Owner!
It depends on the Owner!
It depends on the Owner!
My suposed vicious looking dogs has more chance of licking you smooth than anything else! Why? 'cos they are well treated, very,very well trained and time is spent with them as they are part of the family
Sick to the back teeth of ill informed arguments such as these comming off the back of one sided progs and newspaper articals ( I do feel for anyone who has been affected by any similar instances) Do not tar all dogs (within or outwith specific breeds) with the same brush!
I saw a kid playing with a Rottie yesterday ! BURN THEM,BURN THEM ALL !! I think not!!! (I dont have rotties but think they are amazing animals!)
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO annoying !!!
X breed is 'dangerous'pedigree from reputable breeder
Y breed is one of these wee yappie affairs
Z breed is a heinz 57 variety mongral
which is the one most likely to cause harm??
[] The one with the big **** off teeth?
[] the one wearing the 'die people, die' t-shirt?
[] the one that walks down the road off the lead?
Answer: none of the above? or All of the above ? NO....
It depends on the Owner!
It depends on the Owner!
It depends on the Owner!
My suposed vicious looking dogs has more chance of licking you smooth than anything else! Why? 'cos they are well treated, very,very well trained and time is spent with them as they are part of the family
Sick to the back teeth of ill informed arguments such as these comming off the back of one sided progs and newspaper articals ( I do feel for anyone who has been affected by any similar instances) Do not tar all dogs (within or outwith specific breeds) with the same brush!
I saw a kid playing with a Rottie yesterday ! BURN THEM,BURN THEM ALL !! I think not!!! (I dont have rotties but think they are amazing animals!)
02 July 2002, 11:40 AM
#38
Well I didn't watch 4x4 as I thought it would simply be sensationalised reportage. Pleased to see that as usual I was right
When I was very young I was "attacked" by a dog and still have scars on my lips as a result. I was visiting may Grandparents at the time and as I bent down to play with the dog it leaped forward and bit my face.
It was totally unprovoked, and there was an outcry from other neighbours to have the dog destroyed. The police were called, not by my Parents or Grandparents but by some other guardian of the communities concience.
This slightly built scruffy mongrel was the compainon of the lady who lived next door. It was not naturally agressive and had never been a problem before, but it's owner wasn't well liked!.
The key facts to be considered:
1 Having our own dog I never thought about approaching someone elses pet.
2 I was to an extent stranger and went to the dog whilst it was eating a bone! (See my parents didn't accept that the dog decided to bite me for no reason. I got back from hospital they asked me to describe exactly what happened)
I was certainly fortunate that it wasn't a larger more powerful dog, but who was to blame?
When I was very young I was "attacked" by a dog and still have scars on my lips as a result. I was visiting may Grandparents at the time and as I bent down to play with the dog it leaped forward and bit my face.
It was totally unprovoked, and there was an outcry from other neighbours to have the dog destroyed. The police were called, not by my Parents or Grandparents but by some other guardian of the communities concience.
This slightly built scruffy mongrel was the compainon of the lady who lived next door. It was not naturally agressive and had never been a problem before, but it's owner wasn't well liked!.
The key facts to be considered:
1 Having our own dog I never thought about approaching someone elses pet.
2 I was to an extent stranger and went to the dog whilst it was eating a bone! (See my parents didn't accept that the dog decided to bite me for no reason. I got back from hospital they asked me to describe exactly what happened)
I was certainly fortunate that it wasn't a larger more powerful dog, but who was to blame?
02 July 2002, 11:42 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Hampshire
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PG - well put
I must admitt I was waiting for the section of the programme with the "other side" of the argument, never seemed to come Crap piece of television and crap journalism - only IMHO of course...
I must admitt I was waiting for the section of the programme with the "other side" of the argument, never seemed to come
Crap piece of television and crap journalism - only IMHO of course...
02 July 2002, 11:54 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris and PG
Agree totally.
My examples were to show you cannot simply stereotype any breed (althought I've never met a Jack Russell that wasn't a nasty wee bugger ) not to criticise any.
For all the doubters, ill-informed and uneducated out there, try repeating this over and over again...
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
And it might sink in...LOL....
D
Agree totally.
My examples were to show you cannot simply stereotype any breed (althought I've never met a Jack Russell that wasn't a nasty wee bugger
) not to criticise any.For all the doubters, ill-informed and uneducated out there, try repeating this over and over again...
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
Its not the dog thats the problem its the bad breeders and owners
And it might sink in...LOL....
D
02 July 2002, 11:58 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
which is the one most likely to cause harm??
[] The one with the big **** off teeth?
[] the one wearing the 'die people, die' t-shirt?
I know you were pi55ed off when you posted this but you gotta admit it raises a smile
Was going to have a T shirt made up that said
On the front
"My dog is NOT dangerous"
on the back
"But don't mess with my Wife"
D
which is the one most likely to cause harm??
[] The one with the big **** off teeth?
[] the one wearing the 'die people, die' t-shirt?
I know you were pi55ed off when you posted this but you gotta admit it raises a smile
Was going to have a T shirt made up that said
On the front
"My dog is NOT dangerous"
on the back
"But don't mess with my Wife"
D
02 July 2002, 12:39 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a picture of our 'big bad killer Staff'
The dog is a daft as a brush and the friendliest I've ever known Staffs are not agressive dogs (anymore than any other dog is). Sure they will protect their territory and they are incredibly loyal to their owners to the extent that they would probably die than let someone harm their owners. Does that make them a dangerous dog? Of course it doesn't - the owners take a huge amount of the responsibility.
Incidently, I reckon the Dangerous Dogs Act gets the vote for the worst piece of knee-jerk legislation this country has ever seen.
In Victorian times, bull terriers (especially the Staff) were chosen as protectors of children. They would often leave the dog in the nursery with the young children to look after them. They were used because of their incredibly protective nature. Dangerous dog???
I dispair at some of the ill informed bullsh*t written on this and similar threads over the last few months.
Chris
The dog is a daft as a brush and the friendliest I've ever known
Staffs are not agressive dogs (anymore than any other dog is). Sure they will protect their territory and they are incredibly loyal to their owners to the extent that they would probably die than let someone harm their owners. Does that make them a dangerous dog? Of course it doesn't - the owners take a huge amount of the responsibility.Incidently, I reckon the Dangerous Dogs Act gets the vote for the worst piece of knee-jerk legislation this country has ever seen.
In Victorian times, bull terriers (especially the Staff) were chosen as protectors of children. They would often leave the dog in the nursery with the young children to look after them. They were used because of their incredibly protective nature. Dangerous dog???
I dispair at some of the ill informed bullsh*t written on this and similar threads over the last few months.
Chris
02 July 2002, 12:52 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dancing around a maypole in the New Forest waving 6 fairy tokens in the air!
Posts: 2,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe this old chestnut is doing the rounds .. again
I've got a Staffie/English Bull Terrier and she is completely loopy. She's scared of the dark, hates thunder , very playful, and loves people and children.
I'm getting really cheesed off [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] with narrow minded people who think all dogs are dangerous!! [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] Get off the band wagon [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Dangerous dogs have to be put down, but wot about the narrow minded idiots??? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] We still have to put up with them [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Rant over
[Edited by Shy Muppet - 7/2/2002 12:55:42 PM]
I've got a Staffie/English Bull Terrier and she is completely loopy
. She's scared of the dark, hates thunder , very playful, and loves people and children. I'm getting really cheesed off [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] with narrow minded people who think all dogs are dangerous!! [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] Get off the band wagon [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Dangerous dogs have to be put down, but wot about the narrow minded idiots??? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] We still have to put up with them [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Rant over
[Edited by Shy Muppet - 7/2/2002 12:55:42 PM]
02 July 2002, 01:11 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
My sister has got three cats, two dogs (collie & alsatian), and a twelve month old baby girl. Guess what, she plays with the animals -it amazes me just how tolerant the dogs are, I would rip her head off, but is never left alone with them, because my sister isn't stupid (well not completely). Like any sensible mother, she knows it only takes a second, be it an open window, a bowl of water, or an animal that just got pi55ed off.
I've had dogs most of my life, and would have another tomorrow, if I didn't know it would be selfish of me with both me and my wife working full time, the dog would get bored and destructive, whose fault would that then be, not the dog!
, but is never left alone with them, because my sister isn't stupid (well not completely). Like any sensible mother, she knows it only takes a second, be it an open window, a bowl of water, or an animal that just got pi55ed off.I've had dogs most of my life, and would have another tomorrow, if I didn't know it would be selfish of me with both me and my wife working full time, the dog would get bored and destructive, whose fault would that then be, not the dog!
02 July 2002, 01:21 PM
#48
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Staffs
Posts: 23,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidently, insurance companies also include, the Husky, German Shepherd and Great Dane as 'high risk dogs'
02 July 2002, 01:25 PM
#51
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
99.999999% of ALL dogs are great and provide their owners, families & friends much hapiness.
Let's kill all the dogs because of the 0.000001% of bad ones !
I would think Horses are more dangerous than dogs - I know of two people who are lucky to be alive through horse "Incidents" and three who've had a bad experience with dogs - given the numbers of dogs v Horses Statistically we should be putting down all the Horses [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
So Buck do you agree ?
ps Pal used to own an Alsation (Pub Dog) - Friendliest dog I've ever met - anyone in the pub raising a hand to any of the bar staff put it down ******* quickly and the dog went back to sleep. Same dog in a park with me and I could quite happily wrestle her to the ground and stick my hand in her mouth - Never any problem at all
Let's kill all the dogs because of the 0.000001% of bad ones !
I would think Horses are more dangerous than dogs - I know of two people who are lucky to be alive through horse "Incidents" and three who've had a bad experience with dogs - given the numbers of dogs v Horses Statistically we should be putting down all the Horses [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
So Buck do you agree ?
ps Pal used to own an Alsation (Pub Dog) - Friendliest dog I've ever met - anyone in the pub raising a hand to any of the bar staff put it down ******* quickly and the dog went back to sleep. Same dog in a park with me and I could quite happily wrestle her to the ground and stick my hand in her mouth - Never any problem at all
02 July 2002, 01:56 PM
#53
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pub next door has a resident Rottie called Jabe.
She is 10 years old and is actually softer and more child friendly than my old Cocker Spaniel.
Ant's little 4 year old was tugging away at her ears one day and poking bits of grass down them as well.
All that Jabe did was to get up, shake her head and walk away.
At night she is protective over the pub property when she is upstairs. I walked up to see my friend late one night and immediately, Jabe was up and growling. I spoke to her and let her come and sniff me. As soon as she recognised me, she stopped growling and went to go back to sleep.
The owner of the dog has been with her since she was a pup, I have never known a softer dog. Anyone who has been to the pub and seen Jabe will agree. She has had kids from the age of 1 upwards playing with her.
I think people need to be addressing the owner issue with regards to dangerous dogs.Not the dogs themselves.
I also agree that horses are way more dangerous than dogs - but that is also AGAIN owner issue.
She is 10 years old and is actually softer and more child friendly than my old Cocker Spaniel.
Ant's little 4 year old was tugging away at her ears one day and poking bits of grass down them as well.
All that Jabe did was to get up, shake her head and walk away.
At night she is protective over the pub property when she is upstairs. I walked up to see my friend late one night and immediately, Jabe was up and growling. I spoke to her and let her come and sniff me. As soon as she recognised me, she stopped growling and went to go back to sleep.
The owner of the dog has been with her since she was a pup, I have never known a softer dog. Anyone who has been to the pub and seen Jabe will agree. She has had kids from the age of 1 upwards playing with her.
I think people need to be addressing the owner issue with regards to dangerous dogs.Not the dogs themselves.
I also agree that horses are way more dangerous than dogs - but that is also AGAIN owner issue.
02 July 2002, 02:22 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having read all the replies with interest, I have to say that (apart from the usual suspects - they know who they are ) this has been a well reasoned ans sensible debate.
It's just that at the time I found those wounds (mental as well as physical) those children bore were just the most disturbing sight I've seen for a long time.
When you see stuff like that you realise just how fascile some arguments people put forward on these topics are
Of course a well bred and trained and cared for dog of a sensible breed is great entertainment and a family friend. I don't think anyone deny's that.
It's the ego cripples that think having a 'hard' dog gives them power over people bla.. bla.. that need legislating against.
I don't know, but I thought the German idea of testing dogs and owners for reactions to provocation was quite good and would weed out the psychos and to$$ers (dogs and owners) in no time.
) this has been a well reasoned ans sensible debate.It's just that at the time I found those wounds (mental as well as physical) those children bore were just the most disturbing sight I've seen for a long time.
When you see stuff like that you realise just how fascile some arguments people put forward on these topics are
Of course a well bred and trained and cared for dog of a sensible breed is great entertainment and a family friend. I don't think anyone deny's that.
It's the ego cripples that think having a 'hard' dog gives them power over people bla.. bla..
that need legislating against.I don't know, but I thought the German idea of testing dogs and owners for reactions to provocation was quite good and would weed out the psychos and to$$ers (dogs and owners) in no time.
02 July 2002, 02:45 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that anyone should view a dog as a toy that can be played with, let alone letting a 1 year old child play with one. As all it takes is for the child who does not know better to stick a finger in the dogs eye or to pull its tail to hard and the dog will defend itself.
ian
play with one. As all it takes is for the child who does not know better to stick a finger in the dogs eye or to pull its tail to hard and the dog will defend itself.ian
02 July 2002, 04:13 PM
#56
Agreed Ian, if children want a pet get a rabbit of a hamster. This summer I have been horrified to see groups of young children "walking" puppies without supervision. One poor creature being dragged around on a lead and being told to sit stay and heel by six excited schoolgirls
As no one chose to answer my who was to blame question, possible because it was a little too obvious. The answer was everbody.
Luckily, like all the best fairy tales, everyone lived happily evereafter. The dog lived to a ripe old age and I went on to own Stafford and English Bullterriers and a Great Dane. Must be one of those ego cripples I suppose.
I reiterate everything that has been said about "Staffies". Great with kids tolerant and devoted, ours used to lie beside my brothers pram and growl at anyone who approached without a family member. But they never even turned on anyone even the 15 yr old that thought it amusing to feed chocolates along with lighted matches!.
Living then in Staffordshire people were unneccessarily, but instinctively cautious of these dogs. The Great Dane was a totally different scenario, he was a big black heavily built German dog. My niece and nephew even used to ride on his back. This never prevented parents allowing their kids to rush up and hug or pat him. Had he snapped at one of these children lunging towards him I dread to think what the consequences may have been, a simple wack from his tail knocked over a six year old.
My point is pet owners and parents both have responsibilities, so to paraphrase Uncle Buck I would just to add.
A well bred and trained and cared for CHILD of a sensible breed is less likey to get bitten. Due to familiarity/complacency I learned the hard way.
As no one chose to answer my who was to blame question, possible because it was a little too obvious. The answer was everbody.
Luckily, like all the best fairy tales, everyone lived happily evereafter. The dog lived to a ripe old age and I went on to own Stafford and English Bullterriers and a Great Dane. Must be one of those ego cripples I suppose.
I reiterate everything that has been said about "Staffies". Great with kids tolerant and devoted, ours used to lie beside my brothers pram and growl at anyone who approached without a family member. But they never even turned on anyone even the 15 yr old that thought it amusing to feed chocolates along with lighted matches!.
Living then in Staffordshire people were unneccessarily, but instinctively cautious of these dogs. The Great Dane was a totally different scenario, he was a big black heavily built German dog. My niece and nephew even used to ride on his back. This never prevented parents allowing their kids to rush up and hug or pat him. Had he snapped at one of these children lunging towards him I dread to think what the consequences may have been, a simple wack from his tail knocked over a six year old.
My point is pet owners and parents both have responsibilities, so to paraphrase Uncle Buck I would just to add.
A well bred and trained and cared for CHILD of a sensible breed is less likey to get bitten. Due to familiarity/complacency I learned the hard way.
02 July 2002, 07:56 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seen the thread - can't believe this is up and running again seen as we only had this thread a month ago!!!
It's just a shame that some are still pursuing the same line as last time and appear to have listened to nothing that was stated in the last thread!
It's just a shame that some are still pursuing the same line as last time and appear to have listened to nothing that was stated in the last thread!
02 July 2002, 09:01 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Suffolk, very near Adnams !!
Posts: 2,860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Buck
Whats a "sensible breed" then,should this be applied to people also....bring back Enoch Powell ?
Also our vet has stated that Labrador's are the worst biters (sensible breed ?)
Mog
Whats a "sensible breed" then,should this be applied to people also....bring back Enoch Powell ?
Also our vet has stated that Labrador's are the worst biters (sensible breed ?)
Mog
03 July 2002, 01:56 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn!
Of course some of these dogs are dangerous. Anyone who claims its just the owners who are dangerous and not the dogs is talking @rse.
Sure in some cases the owners are bad and encourage the bahaviour.
In other cases the dogs just flip out and attack. Been there, got the scars to prove it.
Owner: 'Its never done anything like this before'.
The next year it got put down after attacking its own owner!
This was in the 70s and it was a beautiful Collie.
Blaming all attacks on the owner is utter tosh. Most dogs will react badly in certain circumstances, like one poster says, if you mess with it when its eating, if you stare into its eyes too long etc. Whose fault is this? Maybe we should ban Enid Blyton books with all her stories of children who talk to animals by looking into their eyes etc.?
Dogs are animals with a mind of their own, regardless of what you think about how powerful you are or how much you are the dominant being in the relationship, once its got its teeth into a face or an arm you are going to struggle to TELL it to let go aren't you?
They are not robots with guaranteed responses.
Start talking sense or don't bother talking.
oh and Mr Lewis, this dog was allegedly under total voice command also.
Theres none so blind as those who refuse to listen.
I really hope you don't find out the hard way.
Its not confined to any particular breed and you usually can't spot them until they go for it, but to say 'my dog will never ever attack anything' is akin to saying 'I will never ever have an accident in my car'. You just don't know.
[Edited by juan - 7/3/2002 2:33:58 PM]
Of course some of these dogs are dangerous. Anyone who claims its just the owners who are dangerous and not the dogs is talking @rse.
Sure in some cases the owners are bad and encourage the bahaviour.
In other cases the dogs just flip out and attack. Been there, got the scars to prove it.
Owner: 'Its never done anything like this before'.
The next year it got put down after attacking its own owner!
This was in the 70s and it was a beautiful Collie.
Blaming all attacks on the owner is utter tosh. Most dogs will react badly in certain circumstances, like one poster says, if you mess with it when its eating, if you stare into its eyes too long etc. Whose fault is this? Maybe we should ban Enid Blyton books with all her stories of children who talk to animals by looking into their eyes etc.?
Dogs are animals with a mind of their own, regardless of what you think about how powerful you are or how much you are the dominant being in the relationship, once its got its teeth into a face or an arm you are going to struggle to TELL it to let go aren't you?
They are not robots with guaranteed responses.
Start talking sense or don't bother talking.
oh and Mr Lewis, this dog was allegedly under total voice command also.
Theres none so blind as those who refuse to listen.
I really hope you don't find out the hard way.
Its not confined to any particular breed and you usually can't spot them until they go for it, but to say 'my dog will never ever attack anything' is akin to saying 'I will never ever have an accident in my car'. You just don't know.
[Edited by juan - 7/3/2002 2:33:58 PM]