Out of control dogs

[Svendo]

No it's not. Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 required dogs to be on a lead on designated roads - but relatively few roads are 'designated roads'. These are mainly dual carriageways without footpaths.

The general legal requirement is for dogs to be kept 'under control' - that does not necessarily mean on a lead.

Ah you're right. Bl++dy should be all roads though! I think I've conflated that bit of law and rule 56 of the Highway Code to create a fictional requirement in my mind. I'll consider myself 'regulated'! ;-)

 

[PhilDawson8270]

As i said before in my opening post, i can't see why the police don't stop these thug types who just let their dogs wander 20 feet in front or behind them? To me it's a form of intimidation. You can see people crossing the road or shutting their doors when Tyson's approaching. It's not necessarily the dog i have an issue with, more the stupid owner! Some of these dogs look like they're pissed off with their dumbo owners and would give anything for a quiet life instead of being used as a weapon by their owners.

When I walk our Staffordshire Bull Terrier people cross the road just to not walk past it. The dog doesn't even care or look when people walk past. Then we have those, that the media love, the labradors, little yorkshire terriers that never do harm. That will bark and growl at our dog across the street, but nobody cares about them.

For decades the Staffrodshire Bull Terrier has had a reputation of being a very friendly dog towards humans, and iirc, the kennel club STILL recommend the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a family pet, and good with young children.

The owner has a huge influence on a dogs behaviour, and a few have been involved in incidents, and people believe the media about these "dangerous" dogs.

Any time a staffordshire bull terrier is involved in an incident, it is reported as a "Staffordshire Bull Terrier has attacked", yet recently there was a radio report of a dog biting a child. It took a while to find a paper that actually reported the breed, and it was a labrador, but obviously doesn't cause the headlines that a bull terrier.

On top of this, most people can't identify a pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terrier from other breeds, and many many breeds, get called Staffordshire Bull Terriers, when they actually are not.

I mean, look at his face! People cross the road to avoid him!

Don't single out breeds, a bad owner can make ANY breed dangerous.

 

[Andy_R]

I agree with and acknowledge the first statement, which is one of the reasons I admitted that I don't claim to have any definitive answer to the problem, but I do disagree with the second. Some breeds are more hard-wired for aggression than others - and often they're the ones that can also do the most damage. The two tend to go together because certain breeds have been consciously bred that way, for generations. Staffs have for centuries been fighting dogs; rottweilers & dobermans have been guard dogs. When any of these breeds is allowed to go bad, there's a real danger that they will go really bad, and become really dangerous. Unlike, say, corgis or beagles or spaniels.

Corgis are know for chasing and nipping at things that move - like, oh I dunno, children and cyclists.

Beagles are hunting dogs, and as such you have to search very carefully for good tempered bloodlines

Spaniels can (and I have experience of this) have sudden and very unexpected dominance/aggression episodes

The 2 staffies I have had, both had very playful natures and loved people. Ok the boy staffie (Jed) had dog issues, but this was limited to mumbling and grumbling under his breath when approached by other dogs.

So no, I have to disagree with you on this one.

 

[Accy cyclist]

When I walk our Staffordshire Bull Terrier people cross the road just to not walk past it. The dog doesn't even care or look when people walk past. Then we have those, that the media love, the labradors, little yorkshire terriers that never do harm. That will bark and growl at our dog across the street, but nobody cares about them.

For decades the Staffrodshire Bull Terrier has had a reputation of being a very friendly dog towards humans, and iirc, the kennel club STILL recommend the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a family pet, and good with young children.

The owner has a huge influence on a dogs behaviour, and a few have been involved in incidents, and people believe the media about these "dangerous" dogs.

Any time a staffordshire bull terrier is involved in an incident, it is reported as a "Staffordshire Bull Terrier has attacked", yet recently there was a radio report of a dog biting a child. It took a while to find a paper that actually reported the breed, and it was a labrador, but obviously doesn't cause the headlines that a bull terrier.

On top of this, most people can't identify a pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terrier from other breeds, and many many breeds, get called Staffordshire Bull Terriers, when they actually are not.

I mean, look at his face! People cross the road to avoid him!

Don't single out breeds, a bad owner can make ANY breed dangerous.

"For decades the Staffrodshire Bull Terrier has had a reputation of being a very friendly dog towards humans, and iirc, the kennel club STILL recommend the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a family pet, and good with young children"



But maybe no so good with other dogs?, which is the point i'm trying to make with this thread. I do accept though that many of the dogs probably aren't full pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers i see off the lead.

"

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Staffies don't normally have a problem with other dogs. Terriers are more likely to be confrontational (not necessarily aggressive but they do seem to have a Napoleon complex) in my experience.

Ours likes to sniff the big dogs, but saw some staffy puppies and he wouldn't go near them In fact he ran away from them, and wouldn't move away from us lol

 

[Piemaster]

Only time I've ever been bitten was by a neighbours Jack Russell. It cost him a new pair of jeans. I still don't trust them now and put them on my 'potentially aggressive' list.
I think part of the problem is humans attitude to different sized dogs - we will find larger dogs more intimidating than smaller ones. Given a snarly yapping Yorkshire Terrier we won't feel intimated by it because a decent kick up it's arse will deal with an aggressive attack (on an adult anyway), same thing with a Staffie or say, a Rottie will have newspaper headlines and Police knocking on the door.
Point being the dogs behaviour isn't any different and isn't acceptable in any size of dog.