In defence of ‘devil dogs’

[Nik_B 3,790]

An interesting perspective

 

Death by dog 2.3 per year

 

Death by Horse 10 per year

 

Pit bull 8th most likely to bite and injure a person below Boarder Collie!

 

If you get to the end they have an interesting conclusion on why there is so much focus on why the government are wanting more control on so called 'dangerous' dogs. Partly that they might make it harder for police/social workers to snoop on peoples lives.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5813498/in-defence-of-devil-dogs.thtml

[Malt 379]

Good read that pal, shame that type of article will never appear in the mainstream media.

[GHT 6]

what a refreshing read. thanks for posting.

[bird 9,872]

Good read , but having had bull breeds[ bullmastiffs,staffs,pit]20years, and grew up with staffs. You carnt get away from there power+tenacity, which alot of breeds dont have. Pits are pound for pound, the strongest of all dogs fact.My 1x colliexgrey Bryn, is a strong dog for his size. And the way he crunches beef bones, like most type lurchers with norm type jaws, shocks you at times . But the jaw power of most bull breeds is in a differnt league to them. Bull breeds do make good pets , and yes collie's can be nasty feckers+bite, just go round some farms.? But if i had to get bite by a collie or a bull breed, i know which one would choose

 

[Guest thebusiness]

chavs round my end have American Bulldogs, staffs are not the in thing any more as they say their to small.

[theferreter 311]

theres no such thing as devil dogs its devil owners ive been brought up round staffs all my life they make brilliant dogs if brought up properly i also think rotweillers are far worse than any bull breed

[theferreter 311]

still a well bred rottweiler with a sensible owner is a good stable pet imo clueless owners with good intentions are as much to blame as chavs for the problems we've got now imo

you are right fella

[Nik_B 3,790]

As I've learned in my short period of dog ownership 'there are no bad dogs just bad owners'. I'm sure there are the occasional exception to the rule but it seems to me that if bad people are attracted to a certain breed the breed get the bad rep of their owners by default.

 

Also there are dog owners that are too sensitive, again in my short experience I learned thAT I wasn't helping my dog when he was being challenged by keeping him on the lead as it tied his hands behind his back. I now let him off the lead and let him figure it out himself. This has made the world of difference to his confidence and he is now winning play fights. I notice people try to be over protective of their dogs when he is play fighting with them.

 

I also was always a bit warey of staffies when down the park but to be honest they all seem like nice dogs and they aren't that big either. Almost any dog could kill a child if left unsupervised and I wouldn't let my child alone with my lab either when he was younger.

 

I think the article is interesting as it is questioning the governments desire to ban and control nearly everything we do. Read to the enxd and especially the bit about rabies draws interesting parrallels to modern fear of devil dogs.

[Guest thebusiness]

I would have a Rottweiler over a lurcher when it comes to a family dog any day.

[Guest thebusiness]

whys that business ?

 

 

Owned a female Rottie and she was great with kids and my mates have had some very well bred Lurchers who were alittle snappy when it came to kids. Just my opinion mind you.

[Wild_and_Irish 11]

Rotties are brilliant dogs, very laid back and you'd be a lot safer with one in the yard, they mightn't bite as hard as a bull but they're way more intimidating imo.

[Stabs 3]

A very interesting article and one that emphasises the chattering classes view of the "underclasses" but we should know that already. For anyone who's interested in this sort of thing and the puritanical zeal with which the baiting and fighting sports were banned with, have a read of "All Heaven in a Rage" by ES Turner. The way in which the working classes are being viewed in relation to their hunting (baiting and fighting in the past) pursuits now, is no different to the way they have been viewed for centuries now. Remove the class ownership from a pursuit and you remove its legitimacy as a valid "past-time." Bear and bull baiting were once the preserve of the not only the working man, but of the court and high-society too. Remove the upper echelons of society from partaking, which in the case of the baiting sports, was by a gradual process of decline in popularity, and you are left with the common man as participant, who is much more open to accusations of savagery, brutality and base instinct. The drive to ban those sports was done with a class bias...can't have the working classes getting all rowdy, pissed and fighting at the drop of a hat....keep the buggers in their place. Seems like nothing has changed much. Let's face it, the internet has made hunting of all types much more accessible to the common man. Whereas in the past you'd have to actually put some effort into finding out about hunting (presuming you had a flicker of an interest), now you just log in here and see what's what. A quick flick through Kay's Catalogue to order your Reebok Classics, a glance through the CMW to order yourself a hybrid bulldog and bingo...you're all set. There's no need for an apprenticeship anymore. I think that, and the fact that certain dogs and sports are illegal, which let's face it, lends it all a misguided sense of legitimacy, has increased the numbers of lads and lasses out there, who aren't all there for the right reasons. When this knowledge had to be sought, and worked for, and strived for and effort had to be expended, there were fewer. Now, it's as easy as typing an address and having some spare time. Dogs can be bought and sold on whims as weak as trainspotters squash.

 

Two bulls that were kittens in the home and devils in the field

 

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

Rotties are brilliant dogs, very laid back and you'd be a lot safer with one in the yard, they mightn't bite as hard as a bull but they're way more intimidating imo.

 

Rottie's do bite harder than Pitbulls, as do a lot of other bigger dogs. It's the Pitbull's instinct to hold on and not let go gameness and fighting instinct that makes it the force that it is.

[waidmann 105]

i,ve known a few "pits" and staffies over the years and have always found them very pleasant dogs to be around hwen well socialised.

i find the "breed specific bias" that comes with them ridiculous. ok they are powerfull dogs but so are the mastiffs,danes...................... its the fighting reputation which attracts the "chav" fraterinty which makes the general consensus of "dangerous dogs" come alive.

 

i have always thought a "fighting dog" is a dog which fights and nothing to do with the breed.

 

i don't agree with baiting/fighting of any kind and think it is rightly banned,the politicly correctness has once again gone wild and resulted in a ban of dogs which could be used for the "sport"? the implications of banning evrything which COULD be used illegally are mind boggeling(knives,cars,drink,a range of sporting implements.... the list goes on to include the male genitalia) big brother is deciding more and more who and/ we can do everthing and what is bad for us(from smoking in pubs to the ground stones of country traditions and pursuits ).

good to read an elequent and pointed view on the subject

 

waidmann

[Nik_B 3,790]

On a slightly different note could a staffie be that dangerous to a fully grown man? The ones I know don't seem big enough, or are they being bundled in with the bigger and more powerful dogs?