read thursdays paper i read that a young boy was attacked and had his ear biten off by staff cross.the poor lad was attacked on his way home from school by a dog . the dog was later destroyed and the child is having surgery to try and repair the damage.lets hope the surgery works for this young lad,and staff owners are not victimised again for these attack.

Poor little lad, it makes me soooo cross hearing of dog attacks.
I wonder where the dogs owners was???

Irresponsible dog owners :( :( :( :( :( :(

Ive also read it was a 'pitbull terrier type'
wish they would get their facts right before they send out such stories

Dog bites of this type will always make the headlines because of the breed. Sometime last week, a Weimaraner also removed the cheek from a childs face. The child had climbed up on a bin housed near his garden fence (not a low fence either) to talk to the neighbours dog and the dog had jumped up and bit him.  A Doctor friend of mine (a good few years ago now), who was a consultant in A&E  at a hospital up north ran an unofficial survey (she was curious) to see if any one dog breed appeared to bite more than others. The result for the year she collated information found that the Golder Retrievers came out top. I forget the exact number now, but she was quite taken aback that a gundog breed had been top. However, if you put that into proportion to how many GR are registered every year, then that would explain why the incidence of bites from this particular breed were so high. Incidently, the little lad who was bitten by the Weimar will make a full recover. At the time of this particular biting, a dog 'expert' commenting on the case said that it was 'very rare for Weimaraners to bite because they were a gundog breed'.

Some so-called dog "experts" are, well, NOT!   Any dog will bite given the right circumstances.

And we only know half the story here - not the dog's side.   There are, unfortunately, many children who tease and taunt dogs.  So although the child may have said he just wanted to talk to the dog - the situation may have been different.   Notwithstanding that any dog seeing its territory breached - especially in a most unusual manner - may react by defending it from the intrudor.

> So although the child may have said he just wanted to talk to the dog - the situation may have been different.

A few weeks ago my sister looked out into the garden to see what her boxer was barking at, a girl (about 12yrs) was stood at the fence wafting a stick up & down at the dogs head, my sister shouted out "what the heck are you doing to my dog", the girl shouted back while running off "I was only saying hello"

The result for the year she collated information found that the Golder Retrievers came out top. I forget the exact number now, but she was quite taken aback that a gundog breed had been top. However, if you put that into proportion to how many GR are registered every year, then that would explain why the incidence of bites from this particular breed were so high

But if that was the case then Labradors would be the biggest incidence of biting (45,000 Labradors registered last year, 9,000 GRs) Just feel that some people are breeding from the wrong temperament and thats why incidences occur in GRs. Such a shame!

i have always said this, ppl should need licences to own dogs this might help when dogs do attack ppl as a responsible owner wouldnt have that happen, licences should be hardf to get as the ppl who dont have jobs are more likely to be ppl who didnt go to svhool, and wouldnt be able to pass tests to own dogs, it should be like a car licence test, if u aint got one u dont get a dog, simple, if your cought without a licence you get punnished as with car licence,

trouble is unless your a psycologist tpye person/ dog expert, how can anyone define a pit bull, its purely because it has attacked someone this is why its a pit bull, all dogs are what u make them, whatever breed, it bugs me

Yeah, but let's not pretend that most others can do the same damage as these type of dogs.

Why do people refuse to accept that there are more stories about attacks by this type of dog because of the severity of the attacks that they can and do deliver.

Come on, how many golden retrievers have bitten off a kid's ear?

> Come on, how many golden retrievers have bitten off a kid's ear?

many goldens have done just as much damage and have a very high incidence of biting, i think it was a pomeranian killed a child recently, i've grown up will bullmastiffs and rottweillers and the only dog thats ever bitten me was a miniture poodle.

also, its said this was a staff cross- crossed with what? the staff was only half of its makeup.

> Why do people refuse to accept that there are more stories about attacks by this type of dog because of the severity of the attacks that they can and do deliver.
>

sorry but thats totally off base. there are any number of breeds that are physically larger or more powerful and thus could cause more damage. the high incidence of this type of attack is i think more indicative of the type of owner that goes for this breed, the irresponsible ones who want a 'hard' dog. obviously not always the case, there are many staff owners who are enormously responsible but we all know the type to which i'm refering.

I personally think the labrador statistic is purely because they are the most popular dog, so therfore will have a higher percentage compared to other breeds.

But Labradors don't have the highest statistic for biting, the Golden Retriever seems to have it in the gundog breeds. So sad!

The problem with all of these stories is that the media don't worry about statistics or any other factors.  There will be more reports about Staffs etc because:
1) They are a popular breed so there are more of them
2) Unfortunately they are seen as a "hard dog" so they are more likely to have an irresponsible owner
3) They are more news worthy so an "attack" is much more likely to be reported than if a Springer attacked someone.
4) They are powerful so are more likely to damage than some other dogs

As many preople have already said on this forum, most dogs are not the problem, it's the owners who cause the problems - if you teach a dog to attack you shouldn't be supprised if it does exactly that.  If you teach a dog to be gentle most dogs will be

> I personally think the labrador statistic is purely because they are the most popular dog, so therfore will have a higher percentage compared to other breeds.

also they and goldens are thought to be only sweet and nice and so are often handled like teddybears by kids

"could cause more damage".

"could" is the operative word. but most of them don't.

most staffies don't either.

the problem is not the breed tho, any dog can do the same damage, it just so happens that some ppl who own staffys/pit's anr the type that are chavvy, big hard looking ppl who look for protection in their dog, they make this breed get a bad name, you cant say what you have said just because you own a lab, which im very sure is well natured and cared for,

it goes without saying its the owner who causes all of these problems,

Plus if it is a child involved then obviously they are going to be even worse off than an adult - they are so small so with children breed is neither here nor there.

> the problem is not the breed tho, any dog can do the same damage

No, all dogs are capeable of causing damage, but the amount of damage will vary with the power/size of a dogs jaws. Eg. I would much rather be 'savaged' by a Staffie than a Mastiff, or a JRT instead of a Staffie (just to make it clear - I don't want to savaged by any dog )
In most cases it's irresponsible owners and irresposible breeders that are the probelm, but when you have a dog with a powerfull set of gnashers, you should be fully aware of the potential IF they were to ever bite and so make sure your dog is never put in that situation in the first place.
Maybe this is the case with Goldens - they aren't given the respect that they are actually dogs and if need be are quite capeable of using thier teeth.

maybe i needed to delete (the same) i should have said any dog can do damage, i agree with what your saying, i do think its the owners and breders, its like i was told on here ppl shouldnt breed if they dont have potential vetted buyers(homes for) the dogs, its just a shame that we all cant be like us on here, im no expert but i know whats right n wrong

tonights paper says they have arrested a woman who owned the dog, and the dog breed has been confirmmed as a pitbull.but lets face it,most of these type of dog are purchased for a status symbol only and by owners who have no prior knowledge of the breed exept that the bloke down the road got one and it makes him look ard.it makes me sick that the real responsable dog owners and breeders who try to improve the bull breeds temprament will yet again be under attack by the media and the public.

these are very popular dogs and the more popular a breed becomes you will get owners who want to make a few bob and breed their dogs without checking the tempraments of the parents.the staff is a beautiful looking dog, but the last couple of years ,because of improper breeding most staffs i see have lost alot of the breeds looks .

pitbulls are often called staffie crosses by vets and dogwardens until a breed expert can confirm.it was confirmed today that the dog was a pitbull.the child seems to be recovering and its been confirmed that his tendons in his arm have been damaged.i hope he a makes a speedy recovery as he only lives 5mins from my house and hes always been nervous of dogs but now hes going to be petrified.

i totally agree with u, they are long snouted, extremely wide fronted, or very skinny fronts with big back ends, i hv 4 sbt and they are well bred, thisyou can tell, so now when i see dodgy looking ones i can really tell. its such a shame

Not sure what the problem is with a long snout?  I'd rather have a well bred stafford with a long snout, than a short muzzled, wide headed, piggy Stafford any day! lol
Ooh if only my very good friend were here, we could have a whole discussion about the 2/3rds 1/3rd head to muzzle ratio :-)

Let's hope the child recovers fully, and the owner of the ''pitbull'' is brought to task.  Once again, lack of human responsibility prevails.
And I guess before it's mentioned, I'm not defending the dog.

well u know what i mean, there is staffy like dogs out there with over exaggerated snouts,

> i hope he a makes a speedy recovery as he only lives 5mins from my house and hes always been nervous of dogs but now hes going to be petrified.

Poor lad :(
I hope he makes a full recovery, both physically and mentally.

licences should be hardf to get as the ppl who dont have jobs are more likely to be ppl who didnt go to svhool, and wouldnt be able to pass tests to own dogs

I find this remark very offensive - you seem to be saying that people can't be capable of looking after a dog if they've not got any GCSE's or above!  I teach adults, many without formal qualifications, who have intelligence; both intellectual and emotional.  I am also aware of the bigotry and labelling that is often given to people in less than fortunate circumstances - many highly qualified people are unemployed too.
Just like giving any breed a bad name - please do not do the same to people!  Yes - there are tendencies but please do not write off a whole, huge, sector of society or breeds.  Should we say that people without money or qualifications should not have dogs, or even children? 

a higher percentage means that the number of attacks compared to the total number of dogs of that breed is greater than the number of attacks of a.n.other breed[s] 

> licences should be hardf to get as the ppl who dont have jobs are more likely to be ppl who didnt go to svhool, and wouldnt be able to pass tests to own dogs
>
> I find this remark very offensive - you seem to be saying that people can't be capable of looking after a dog if they've not got any GCSE's or above! 

Isn't it saying that some people have difficulty with tests and exams but the point is that isn't an indication that they are incapable of correctly keeping an animal?  However you would hope that any such testing would not be of the accademic type and would be more of a character analysis, capable of responsibility etc. 
Can't see anything like that would ever be workable though.  Administration costs would be likely to be very high and could not be reasonably passed over for the general population to pay for through their taxes so would have to be born by the prospective dog owner making it far too expensive for many, many people.

the licences didn't work before, they won't now. the goverment hasn't the resorces to make it work and i for 1 don't want it.
I bought them years ago, and every year was told i was the only person in my area that got 1.
as a responsible owner who dose not allow my dogs to run free and keeps the gate padlocked, no one is allowed in with out i let them in, I don't see the need for them bringing back.

>as the ppl who dont have jobs are more likely to be ppl who didnt go to svhool,

Well I don't work, but I did go to school & college & I worked for the same employer for 0ver 34 years. Just because I now do not work-does that make me a bad dog owner ?

I do believe people should have to be licensed to own dogs before they can own one(I'd go further & say be in charge of a dog)but whether they work or not doesn't come into the equation.

oh come on, i said more likely, im sorry you find this offensive but its true, all these bad owners are people who never went to school and aint got jobs, and cant even get a car licence, im not aiming at everyone who aint got a job or went to school and yes there are some people who whave went so school and passed tests that shouldnt have dogs,

i think you have taken this one out of proportion, i didnt say about ppl who havent got jobs but have worked, im sure we all know what i meant by that post

i didnt actually know there was a licence before,

didnt one of the royals own a english bull which attacked someone a few years ago.so didnt this royal get taken to court over this.the royal in question was obvious the one who was the poorest of the lot and had the worst education. come on,how well off or how well educated a person is has nothing to do with some dogs behaviour. its just alot of people,rich or poor dont do enough reasearch on the breed they choose.maybe i should give my dogs up because i cant  get a driving licence because of my eyesight.i didnt realise this made me a bad dog owner.

I think the problem is that familys with young children do go for having GRs as pets because they are known to be good natured.
But not all dogs including the GR like being pulled and tugged about by small children and can only take so much of it, before defending themselfs.
Im not saying this is right but we have to see it from the dogs point of view as well.

>not all dogs including the GR like being pulled and tugged about by small children and can only take so much of it, before defending themselfs.

I couldn't agree more. I know of a young GR that was put to sleep beecause it kept growling at the owner's toddler, and eventually bit him. Why? Because the toddler kept jumping off the sofa onto the dog 'as a game'. The stupid mother didn't stop the child and the dog lost its life.

> Why? Because the toddler kept jumping off the sofa onto the dog 'as a game'. The stupid mother didn't stop the child and the dog lost its life.

thats despicable.

> all these bad owners are people who never went to school and aint got jobs

no they are not. i know plenty of educated people who are poor owners. The level of someones education is no indicator of their ability with animals or their potential for being responsible.

> and cant even get a car licence

having a driving licence is far from an indication of intellegence and ability- rarely enough is it even an indication that someone can drive given the proportion of terrible drivers around.

accademic ability indicates nothing more than being good at one subject.

> all these bad owners are people who never went to school

I missed the last year of school but work and im a responsible dog owner!

> and cant even get a car licence

i also have no driving licence but that is due to me buying my house young and paying toward that rather than lessons, yet im still a responsible owner

being well off or not dosn't depend on the dogs behaviour, i didnt say this, like i said as appose to my other post on this topic, i think that ppl who didnt go to school or never worked a day in their life have less chance of getting a licence, and like i also said, we all know who im refering to, i didnt pick certain people out, and certainly nobody on here as none of you would be on here learning about dogs if you didnt care.  

its like iv already said, at the end of the day im not picking one person out here, surely by reading my post previous, you would have all know who im talking about, or do i live in a part of the uk where ppl who dont work and never had a job in their life and been on the dole all their life because they dont want to work and maybe even sell drugs, i personally think these are the irresponsible owners who look up to a dog as protection, tease it till it attacks so they look hard, if nobody read my post (although now ammended) as this sort of thing then heres my oppinion again, just added a bit more on, i thought you guys would have read my previous post and understood it as this sort of thing,

Well,but in fact, you actually are picking people out.
I have plenty of friends who have actually rescued cross-bred Staffords, regardless of whether they are working or not, it doesn't mean that they are unworthy of acquiring a dog licence, should a thing ever become compulsory.
With all due respect, I don't think that you're explaining yourself very well, and some of your comments actually have been quite offensive.
I currently don't have a job, but I did go to school, and I'm pretty sure I could pass a test to warrant having a dog licence!

I guess if you want us to understand your comments, then you should equally understand why your comments could be taken in the wrong context :-)

Oh and again I say, rather a Stafford with an overexaggerated snout, than a short muzzle that could inhibit proper breathing.

Hope that all doesn't sound too harsh!  :-)

ppl who dont work and never had a job in their life and been on the dole all their life because they dont want to work and maybe even sell drugs.

i did say this in one of my latest posts, this is what i meant about my first post, unfortunately i cant say my first post with expressions, maybe then youd understand where im coming from, im not being funny here but i think some ppl on here are just wanting an argument, because if i had said this to someone they would know exactly who im referring too, maybe i need to be facing ppl for them to understand

im not looking for sympathy here but i was fetched up on a council estate and seen these ppl (who im refering to) seen how they treat their dogs, they sold drugs, always hanging around, never went to school, lived off our money, had lots of kids, claimed various benefits(although not ill) we were always told to keep away from them as their dogs were dangerous, they were quote; the ppl im refering to,

and as for this long snout business, i dont know if the ones iv seen are the same as the ones you have seen but it sure dont look normal, when i say short snout i dont mean bulldog short, i have been to loads of sbt shows and they are ok, but the ones i see these ppl above with are not normal,

i hope now i have explained myself more and if anyone wants to have another go at me then this time round i certainly dont know why, :)

i hope now i have explained myself more and if anyone wants to have another go at me then this time round i certainly dont know why, 

My intention was definitely not to 'have a go at you' - I just wanted to stop you 'having a go' at people in those positions you were referring to; tarring them all with the same brush.  Just as with dogs, it's important that we treat people as individuals.  
As you have already stated you were brought up on a council estate and yet you are, presumably, a caring, responsible dog owner.  So, why are you accusing others from the same background?  Yes, there are people who don't look after their dogs from these areas but, as has already been said, there are many people from all walks of life who don't.  Also, people who have never worked would actually be with their dogs more, possibly giving them a better quality of life than those owned by 'high-flyers' who are out at work for long hours every day.
Just as an afterthought - have you ever seen buskers/homeless people with their dogs and the strength of their bond?

yes i have seen buskers, homeless with their dogs, im not getting into my discussion about these ppl too, at the end of the day i know what i mean, and thought all of you would of known what i meant, but maybe its just me living in an area where i and most other ppl would agree totally with what i said, especially the last post i sent, i have explained myself as clear as possible, thats all i can do, i havent tared everyone with the same brush in my eyes, iv picked out a small population of (the northeast) ppl who are like this and NO.... theyre not capable of having a dog. or kids or even cabable of looking after them selves

i live on a council estate so do a lot of my friends ,we all have dogs but none us scrounge,deal with drugs or mistreat our dogs.please dont tar everyone who livess on a council estate with the same brush as my friends and myself find this very offensive and maybe unjustified.my sister lives on a new private estate but she has problems with neighbours walking their dogs and letting them mess on her lawn without picking it up,the dog next door got in her back garden and bite my brother in law and this is area where top profeesionals live,so dog problems are from all walks of life not just from council estates.im not having a go at you but what you said maybe classed as discrimination by some.

ps maybe if you said a few people where you used to live instead of a council est. on the whole it might not of caused offence