Cheam dog owner calls for Staffies and other 'dangerous' dogs to be muzzled

A Staffordshire bull terrier

A Staffordshire bull terrier

First published in News
Last updated
This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

A dog owner wants people to join her call for dangerous dog laws to be beefed up.

Cheam woman Shirley Preston wants the law to be changed so that a list of potentially dangerous dogs is drawn up and all breeds in the list are made to wear muzzles in public.

Ms Preston has been calling for the law to be changed after she was attacked by a Staffordshire bull terrier ten years ago but has become frustrated by the responses she has received.

Now she wants other people to join her calls in the hope that increased pressure will help her cause.

She said: "It's plain and simple to see - there needs to be more done about dangerous dogs.

"Now you see them all the time, Staffies, dogs like that, running around off their leads with no muzzles and then you read all the stories about attacks.

"There should be a list of breeds that are dangerous and they should always be on a lead and muzzled.

"I've tried speaking to [Sutton and Cheam MP] Paul Burstow  about it and northing's happened so now I want more people to show support and hopefully we can get something done.

Mrs Preston was walking with her daughter and her dog in Nonsuch Park 10 years ago when a Staffordshire bull terrier tried to bite their young dog. She picked the puppy up and held it over her head but the bigger animal jumped up and bit Mrs Preston in the face.

She now owns a labrador and, although she said her pet is not dangerous, she would not object to having it wear a muzzle when it is being walked.

If you would like to contact Mrs Preston to support her campaign, you can contact her on 0208 643 9811. 

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:19pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CharliiTVD says...

Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful.
I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her.
The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners.

Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?
Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful. I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her. The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners. Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well? CharliiTVD
  • Score: 38

1:25pm Wed 30 Jul 14

trasie says...

ALL DOGS SHOULD BE MUZZLED IN PUBLIC. End of.
ALL DOGS SHOULD BE MUZZLED IN PUBLIC. End of. trasie
  • Score: -24

2:17pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Sameer the First says...

Difficult question. Asa a former dog owner, I came to recognise dogs that were a threat, but it wasn't really based on breeds. Owners should take responsibility for muzzling dogs as they know when their dogs are aggressive. To base it on breed seems to go down the route of another Dangerous Dogs Act, which was a disaster.
Difficult question. Asa a former dog owner, I came to recognise dogs that were a threat, but it wasn't really based on breeds. Owners should take responsibility for muzzling dogs as they know when their dogs are aggressive. To base it on breed seems to go down the route of another Dangerous Dogs Act, which was a disaster. Sameer the First
  • Score: 17

2:38pm Wed 30 Jul 14

labyrinth says...

I fully support this. As per usual, all the "no breed is more aggressive than another" rubbish will be peddled, but the simple facts remain: some dogs are bred as fighters, and are owned by aggressive low-lifes. If anyone thinks that those who oppose muzzling of certain breeds with their "all dogs are alike" view have any basis in fact, I invite them to look at the figures, and to please state exactly how many children have been mauled by rottweiler/staffie/p
it bull types, and then how many by labrador/golden retriever types. I think you will find that the ratio is about 45 to 2.
I fully support this. As per usual, all the "no breed is more aggressive than another" rubbish will be peddled, but the simple facts remain: some dogs are bred as fighters, and are owned by aggressive low-lifes. If anyone thinks that those who oppose muzzling of certain breeds with their "all dogs are alike" view have any basis in fact, I invite them to look at the figures, and to please state exactly how many children have been mauled by rottweiler/staffie/p it bull types, and then how many by labrador/golden retriever types. I think you will find that the ratio is about 45 to 2. labyrinth
  • Score: -29

3:16pm Wed 30 Jul 14

jwfolan says...

The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon.

The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size.

Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them.

Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape.

But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.
The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon. The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size. Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them. Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape. But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog. jwfolan
  • Score: 24

3:42pm Wed 30 Jul 14

WPLocal says...

Labryinth, where are you getting these facts that you quote ?

For a fact I know that the chihuahua is far more agressive than a Staff. My ankles are proof of this. The sad truth is that the Staff is vilified by the press and of course everything you read in the press is correct ? right ?. I wonder if you could actually show where these figures come from that you quote & will they show that actually what you have quoted is misleading.

The DDA is unworkable as it doesn't specify what is dangerous at all and can be interpreted in so many ways.

jwfolan has it spot on. If someone wants to have a dog, any dog, then the Licence should apply and compulsory training classes should be included.
Labryinth, where are you getting these facts that you quote ? For a fact I know that the chihuahua is far more agressive than a Staff. My ankles are proof of this. The sad truth is that the Staff is vilified by the press and of course everything you read in the press is correct ? right ?. I wonder if you could actually show where these figures come from that you quote & will they show that actually what you have quoted is misleading. The DDA is unworkable as it doesn't specify what is dangerous at all and can be interpreted in so many ways. jwfolan has it spot on. If someone wants to have a dog, any dog, then the Licence should apply and compulsory training classes should be included. WPLocal
  • Score: 25

4:10pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Jonny English says...

Having been a postman I can tell you that Staffies are not the problem. Jack Russell's can be far more vicious. At the end if the day it is how the owner treats the dog as to how it behaves. To single out Staffies is ridiculous and very blinkered.
Having been a postman I can tell you that Staffies are not the problem. Jack Russell's can be far more vicious. At the end if the day it is how the owner treats the dog as to how it behaves. To single out Staffies is ridiculous and very blinkered. Jonny English
  • Score: 47

5:26pm Wed 30 Jul 14

theavengers says...

TOTALLY AGREE!! So sick and tired of having to fear our streets due to dogs and their stupid owners taking over. If you want a dog realise not everyone wants your problem so keep it on a lead, away from people, and muzzled. We don't want to hear of another person scarred for life or another dead child just so dog people can have their way. Animals and people were never suppose to live together. Unsanitary, wild, and dangerous.
TOTALLY AGREE!! So sick and tired of having to fear our streets due to dogs and their stupid owners taking over. If you want a dog realise not everyone wants your problem so keep it on a lead, away from people, and muzzled. We don't want to hear of another person scarred for life or another dead child just so dog people can have their way. Animals and people were never suppose to live together. Unsanitary, wild, and dangerous. theavengers
  • Score: -25

5:29pm Wed 30 Jul 14

theavengers says...

ps don't compare people to dogs. also, don't peddle that it's all the owners faults as how many times have you heard of a "lovely family dog" killing a kid. if you believe dogs are wonderful then says a lot about your brain. you'll never understand.
ps don't compare people to dogs. also, don't peddle that it's all the owners faults as how many times have you heard of a "lovely family dog" killing a kid. if you believe dogs are wonderful then says a lot about your brain. you'll never understand. theavengers
  • Score: -22

6:51pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Tubby Jim says...

CharliiTVD wrote:
Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful.
I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her.
The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners.

Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?
if I had a pound for every time I've heard a dangerous dog owner say this, nest you'll be saying they are great babysitters FFS
[quote][p][bold]CharliiTVD[/bold] wrote: Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful. I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her. The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners. Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?[/p][/quote]if I had a pound for every time I've heard a dangerous dog owner say this, nest you'll be saying they are great babysitters FFS Tubby Jim
  • Score: -16

9:19am Thu 31 Jul 14

jwfolan says...

theavengers wrote:
TOTALLY AGREE!! So sick and tired of having to fear our streets due to dogs and their stupid owners taking over. If you want a dog realise not everyone wants your problem so keep it on a lead, away from people, and muzzled. We don't want to hear of another person scarred for life or another dead child just so dog people can have their way. Animals and people were never suppose to live together. Unsanitary, wild, and dangerous.
never meant to live together?! what a ridiculous statement. man and animal have always been together.

that statement voids your entire argument
[quote][p][bold]theavengers[/bold] wrote: TOTALLY AGREE!! So sick and tired of having to fear our streets due to dogs and their stupid owners taking over. If you want a dog realise not everyone wants your problem so keep it on a lead, away from people, and muzzled. We don't want to hear of another person scarred for life or another dead child just so dog people can have their way. Animals and people were never suppose to live together. Unsanitary, wild, and dangerous.[/p][/quote]never meant to live together?! what a ridiculous statement. man and animal have always been together. that statement voids your entire argument jwfolan
  • Score: 14

1:14pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Onelife says...

This makes my blood boil I'm a owner of 2 Staffies they are the most loving dogs around my 5 young children they r labelled with this dangerous dog label cos of idiot people training them up to be monsters my dogs won't harm anyone they have been brought up with kids they r the most gentle things ever
This makes my blood boil I'm a owner of 2 Staffies they are the most loving dogs around my 5 young children they r labelled with this dangerous dog label cos of idiot people training them up to be monsters my dogs won't harm anyone they have been brought up with kids they r the most gentle things ever Onelife
  • Score: 20

1:26pm Thu 31 Jul 14

CharliiTVD says...

Tubby Jim wrote:
CharliiTVD wrote:
Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful.
I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her.
The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners.

Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?
if I had a pound for every time I've heard a dangerous dog owner say this, nest you'll be saying they are great babysitters FFS
Wow. Another ridiculous human being with a ridiculous response.

For your information I own a pug, please tell me the last time that breed attacked a child?

Please learn the facts before shouting your mouth off.
[quote][p][bold]Tubby Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CharliiTVD[/bold] wrote: Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful. I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her. The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners. Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?[/p][/quote]if I had a pound for every time I've heard a dangerous dog owner say this, nest you'll be saying they are great babysitters FFS[/p][/quote]Wow. Another ridiculous human being with a ridiculous response. For your information I own a pug, please tell me the last time that breed attacked a child? Please learn the facts before shouting your mouth off. CharliiTVD
  • Score: -9

1:27pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Angela M says...

I'm not really a fan of dogs generally, but I once briefly took in an abandoned staffie - she had a lovely gentle and friendly nature. I grew up around a border collie who was great with kids but went mental when he saw a policeman.

On the other side, I have been 'nipped' by a daschund and a shih tzu, and a former friend has a pair of absolutely horrible jack russells - BOTH have bitten children. These incidents go unreported because although bites from small dogs hurt and draw blood, they're not usually serious enough to warrant a 999 call.
I'm not really a fan of dogs generally, but I once briefly took in an abandoned staffie - she had a lovely gentle and friendly nature. I grew up around a border collie who was great with kids but went mental when he saw a policeman. On the other side, I have been 'nipped' by a daschund and a shih tzu, and a former friend has a pair of absolutely horrible jack russells - BOTH have bitten children. These incidents go unreported because although bites from small dogs hurt and draw blood, they're not usually serious enough to warrant a 999 call. Angela M
  • Score: 18

1:28pm Thu 31 Jul 14

CharliiTVD says...

theavengers wrote:
ps don't compare people to dogs. also, don't peddle that it's all the owners faults as how many times have you heard of a "lovely family dog" killing a kid. if you believe dogs are wonderful then says a lot about your brain. you'll never understand.
Probably about the same amount of times that I've heard of a "loving family member" killing a kid.
[quote][p][bold]theavengers[/bold] wrote: ps don't compare people to dogs. also, don't peddle that it's all the owners faults as how many times have you heard of a "lovely family dog" killing a kid. if you believe dogs are wonderful then says a lot about your brain. you'll never understand.[/p][/quote]Probably about the same amount of times that I've heard of a "loving family member" killing a kid. CharliiTVD
  • Score: -3

2:22pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Net_Taxpayer says...

It will be the Benefit Trash as usual who are terrorizing the people with their aggressive dogs, putting down the dogs is not enough, it would be better to start with the owner, it will also save the taxpayers some money.
It will be the Benefit Trash as usual who are terrorizing the people with their aggressive dogs, putting down the dogs is not enough, it would be better to start with the owner, it will also save the taxpayers some money. Net_Taxpayer
  • Score: 10

7:45pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Surreydon says...

Like many of us owners, why can't people keep their dogs on a lead? Not difficult really is it?
For whatever reason, many people are scared of dogs and their anxieties should be respected.
The 12 year old daughter of a close mate refuses to go to the local park because there are so many loose dogs.
Let's face it, while the owners know, or think they know, how safe their dog is, a stranger doesn't!
Like many of us owners, why can't people keep their dogs on a lead? Not difficult really is it? For whatever reason, many people are scared of dogs and their anxieties should be respected. The 12 year old daughter of a close mate refuses to go to the local park because there are so many loose dogs. Let's face it, while the owners know, or think they know, how safe their dog is, a stranger doesn't! Surreydon
  • Score: 10

7:49pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Krissi says...

funny it was a corgi had me, my brother Nan and Mum cornered growling and snapping at us - was a labrador bit my brother and the only times I've been bitten so far it has been by a terrier mix - and he meant it too had that been a smaller child and we know children run around loose in the park as was this dog - it could have been much worse and yet the softest dog I had ever met was a pit bull- I didn't know him however he was with his owner but he rolled for me to scratch his tummy which obviously meant me crouching towards him and all he did was try to lick my face- same with all the staffies I have met so far- And no way am I a dog person, nor have I ever owned one - I don't have the time to train it properly nor socialise it - and this is what causes problem dogs where the owner uses cruelty as a shortcut to get the dog trained - and then teaches the dog to be aggressive- in the 70s it was the Alsatian , before that the Doberman, then the Rottweiler All big powerful dogs but each and every one also has the possibility to be a well adjusted well behaved family dog too as well as a so called dangerous dog what is needed is responsible dog owners - a return to the licence system - and mandatory obedience training for all dogs- then maybe we might see some sanity in this debate- meanwhile I am much happier with my dearest kitty
funny it was a corgi had me, my brother Nan and Mum cornered growling and snapping at us - was a labrador bit my brother and the only times I've been bitten so far it has been by a terrier mix - and he meant it too had that been a smaller child and we know children run around loose in the park as was this dog - it could have been much worse and yet the softest dog I had ever met was a pit bull- I didn't know him however he was with his owner but he rolled for me to scratch his tummy which obviously meant me crouching towards him and all he did was try to lick my face- same with all the staffies I have met so far- And no way am I a dog person, nor have I ever owned one - I don't have the time to train it properly nor socialise it - and this is what causes problem dogs where the owner uses cruelty as a shortcut to get the dog trained - and then teaches the dog to be aggressive- in the 70s it was the Alsatian , before that the Doberman, then the Rottweiler All big powerful dogs but each and every one also has the possibility to be a well adjusted well behaved family dog too as well as a so called dangerous dog what is needed is responsible dog owners - a return to the licence system - and mandatory obedience training for all dogs- then maybe we might see some sanity in this debate- meanwhile I am much happier with my dearest kitty Krissi
  • Score: 8

11:58am Fri 1 Aug 14

Dr.Livingstone says...

CharliiTVD wrote:
Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful. I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her. The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners. Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?
And you let this thing near your Children or other peoples? Re-read your statement the one thing that comes across is YOU, YOU, YOU.

People like you are what is wrong with this Country. I don't know where you get your morals from? Jeremy Kyle and Eastenders no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]CharliiTVD[/bold] wrote: Another ridiculous request. Just because a dog is a Staffie, or a Rottweiler etc does not mean it is dangerous and will attack anyone it sees. I had a Staffie for years and she was wonderful. I also had a little Westie, and this was the dog who would be more likely to annoyed with someone prodding and poking her. The problem is not the dogs or the breed they happen to be, it is their owners. Following the Staffie example; these dogs are incredibly loyal and will normally only do things to please their owners. If owners are teaching their dogs to attack and defend why do the dogs have to be punished? Laws are heading in the right direction by putting more of the responsibility and overall punishment on the owners. Humans can be murderers and rapists, I'd consider that 'dangerous', should we call for a one size fits all rule for people as well?[/p][/quote]And you let this thing near your Children or other peoples? Re-read your statement the one thing that comes across is YOU, YOU, YOU. People like you are what is wrong with this Country. I don't know where you get your morals from? Jeremy Kyle and Eastenders no doubt. Dr.Livingstone
  • Score: -4

9:44am Sun 3 Aug 14

EverardEdbutt says...

jwfolan wrote:
The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon.

The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size.

Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them.

Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape.

But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.
Unlike you I will post some figures to back up claims, it is the smaller breeds of dog that are more likely to attack someone and not the Bull Breeds.
These figures come direct from British insurers, who have a better knowledge of these things then you appear to have. Below is a list of the 10 breeds most likely to attack and the breed everyone is demonising appears a lowly 8th on the list

http://www.dogbitecl
aims.co.uk/dangerous
-breeds.html
[quote][p][bold]jwfolan[/bold] wrote: The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon. The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size. Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them. Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape. But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.[/p][/quote]Unlike you I will post some figures to back up claims, it is the smaller breeds of dog that are more likely to attack someone and not the Bull Breeds. These figures come direct from British insurers, who have a better knowledge of these things then you appear to have. Below is a list of the 10 breeds most likely to attack and the breed everyone is demonising appears a lowly 8th on the list http://www.dogbitecl aims.co.uk/dangerous -breeds.html EverardEdbutt
  • Score: 3

9:42am Mon 4 Aug 14

jwfolan says...

EverardEdbutt wrote:
jwfolan wrote:
The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon.

The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size.

Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them.

Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape.

But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.
Unlike you I will post some figures to back up claims, it is the smaller breeds of dog that are more likely to attack someone and not the Bull Breeds.
These figures come direct from British insurers, who have a better knowledge of these things then you appear to have. Below is a list of the 10 breeds most likely to attack and the breed everyone is demonising appears a lowly 8th on the list

http://www.dogbitecl

aims.co.uk/dangerous

-breeds.html
how about some manners - "unlike you"

what an arrogant tw@t you sound
[quote][p][bold]EverardEdbutt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jwfolan[/bold] wrote: The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon. The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size. Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them. Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape. But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.[/p][/quote]Unlike you I will post some figures to back up claims, it is the smaller breeds of dog that are more likely to attack someone and not the Bull Breeds. These figures come direct from British insurers, who have a better knowledge of these things then you appear to have. Below is a list of the 10 breeds most likely to attack and the breed everyone is demonising appears a lowly 8th on the list http://www.dogbitecl aims.co.uk/dangerous -breeds.html[/p][/quote]how about some manners - "unlike you" what an arrogant tw@t you sound jwfolan
  • Score: 0

11:48am Tue 5 Aug 14

trasie says...

As I stated before, all dogs should be muzzled in public. I own a staffie and I have never in 10 years seen her so much as growl at anyone let alone raise a lip or bite. I have a 3 year old grandson who has a staffie at home and here at nannies and neither of these dogs are aggressive. But if all dogs were required to where a muzzle in public I for one would NOT have a problem with it.
As I stated before, all dogs should be muzzled in public. I own a staffie and I have never in 10 years seen her so much as growl at anyone let alone raise a lip or bite. I have a 3 year old grandson who has a staffie at home and here at nannies and neither of these dogs are aggressive. But if all dogs were required to where a muzzle in public I for one would NOT have a problem with it. trasie
  • Score: -1

1:33pm Tue 5 Aug 14

EverardEdbutt says...

jwfolan wrote:
EverardEdbutt wrote:
jwfolan wrote:
The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon.

The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size.

Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them.

Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape.

But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.
Unlike you I will post some figures to back up claims, it is the smaller breeds of dog that are more likely to attack someone and not the Bull Breeds.
These figures come direct from British insurers, who have a better knowledge of these things then you appear to have. Below is a list of the 10 breeds most likely to attack and the breed everyone is demonising appears a lowly 8th on the list

http://www.dogbitecl


aims.co.uk/dangerous


-breeds.html
how about some manners - "unlike you"

what an arrogant tw@t you sound
PMSL, got me down to a tee. I am an arrogant ****!
[quote][p][bold]jwfolan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EverardEdbutt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jwfolan[/bold] wrote: The simplest way to ensure attacks drop is to only allow dogs to people who can be trusted. Not some scally on a council estate or wanna be thug who raises there dog harshly or as a weapon. The best way to ensure the dog population is looked after properly and are raised appropriately is with a licencing system. Whereby applicants must pass an interview to be allowed a dog over a certain size. Most dogs are behaved. But if you read the articles about the ones that arent, they are often owned by someone who is mistreating them. Dogs are not dangerous naturally, this has to be drummed into them. Obviously there will be the exception, just as there are with people who steal, murder and rape. But i dont think all dogs wearing muzzlesis the answer, the issue needs to be tackled before people are allowed to own a dog.[/p][/quote]Unlike you I will post some figures to back up claims, it is the smaller breeds of dog that are more likely to attack someone and not the Bull Breeds. These figures come direct from British insurers, who have a better knowledge of these things then you appear to have. Below is a list of the 10 breeds most likely to attack and the breed everyone is demonising appears a lowly 8th on the list http://www.dogbitecl aims.co.uk/dangerous -breeds.html[/p][/quote]how about some manners - "unlike you" what an arrogant tw@t you sound[/p][/quote]PMSL, got me down to a tee. I am an arrogant ****! EverardEdbutt
  • Score: 3

11:33am Wed 6 Aug 14

Duke1992 says...

It's sad how dogs are portrayed in the media they don't seem to be interested by dogs of other breeds than bull type. The dangerous dog illusion has been created by the media and poisoned the minds of judgmental people. A good book to read if your interested in the status dogs, dangerous dogs act or dogs and gangs would be justin rollins "status dogs and gangs" a book that changed even my mind its boy the dog it's the owner.
It's sad how dogs are portrayed in the media they don't seem to be interested by dogs of other breeds than bull type. The dangerous dog illusion has been created by the media and poisoned the minds of judgmental people. A good book to read if your interested in the status dogs, dangerous dogs act or dogs and gangs would be justin rollins "status dogs and gangs" a book that changed even my mind its boy the dog it's the owner. Duke1992
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree