Why can't we just make these types of dogs illegal? ?:|

[i-need-a-martini]

A 49 year old jogger is lucky to be alive after being mauled by some loose American Staffordshires this week. He was so badly injured that the paramedics could see through his chest to his heart. One of the dogs didn't even let go of the mans torso when a passerby trying to help smashed the dog over the head with a concrete pot.

Here is the article: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/dog-owner-fined-four-months-before-jogger-attacked-20130527-2n6p8.html

Yes I know any dog could be feral if in the wrong hands or if it is neglected. And yes I know that the stats show that a significant number of reported dog incidences come from dogs other than the dangerous breeds.

BUT! The ones that do the most damage are the one that bite and hang on while doing the death shake. And those breeds are well known. In NSW by far the biggest rate of attack occurs from breeds such as the animals in the article. 

So why not just ban them?

And why oh why would any sane person think that this type of dog is an acceptable pet? Particularly if they have children?

[cherples]

Martini is right.  Pitbull terriers attack to kill.  They bite once, never let go, and continue to bite deeper and deeper until death occurs.  I have seen many photos of deceased (American) people who met their deaths this way.

They are banned in Britain, but they are imported illegally by calling them another breed.  It is a big problem there.

That is what these dogs attempted,

From the reports it seems they tried to rip his heart out. The paramedics said they could see his heart through the opening when they arrived. That is crazy dog behaviour. 

[mugssy65]

I'm not disagreeing. I know the problem is huge, here in WA it is illegal to breed sell or advertise American Pit Bull Terriers. This has done nothing to deter people, pit bulls are now advertised as Am Staffs. It's only going to get worse people no longer feel safe in their own homes and are turning to larger, scarier breeds to protect themselves. The poor dog is not a member of the family, it lives its life in the back yard, untrained and unsocialised. 

[vampire-teddy]

i believe any dog can do damage.  my own little dog is the most placid pup in the world but i wouldn't leave him alone near a child because if they child pulled his hair and hurt him he could snap.  my cousin had a dog who was classed as dangerous.  he was a malamute X.  he was beautiful lived mostly in the house and was surrounded by children but reached out at a jogger.  he became more vicious as he became older until he had to be kept out of the house and eventually put down.  he was very loved social and cared for but was very unpredictable

the problem with pits and staffys is that a lot of the people who own them want them to be vicious and fighters and teach them accordingly.  they can be lovely natured dogs but it depends so much on how they were raised.  i think any owner who allows a dangerous dog to be among the general public should be punished.  

[daydream**believer]

the dogs need to be destroyed and the owner needs to serve time

[moonlyte]

 I have owned these breeds for years and NEVER had one be anything but an ideal family member. 

I have always wondered why people would choose these types of dogs for families with children(or for any families for that matter). They are not robots, and have a temperament. If these dogs are having a bad day, they are lethal. There is no way I'd have these dogs anywhere near my family.

If these dogs aren't banned, then whomever owns them should waive all rights to taxpayer funded medical treatment as a result of being attacked by their own animals. And they must pay for all medical costs if their animals attack other people or properties. They assume all risks. 

[dskracing]

There is an awful lot of difference between the American staffie and the English Staffordshire Bull terrier despite their common ancestry...huge differences in build, looks, and temperament.

The English staffy is known as *the childrens nursemaid or the Nanny dog*.

So which one do you want to ban....or just any dog past ankle size.

It would be far better to offer a solution rather than ban all the breeds you think * the bottom of the foodchain* own.

BTW I own an English Staffy....not sure I qualify as bottom of the foodchain:-)

[Anonymous]

I agree. ban them idiots own them and the dogs don't have a chance. its not fair on the dogs.

[chuk_77]

so which dogs are we banning here?  So far the dogs have been pittys, bullys staffys

English, American...Both here and on the news. So what dogs were they?

[dskracing]

I'm not sure chuk...the general consensus on here seems to be all terriers:O

Yet to see a valid solution, only ban the breeds

[chuk_77]

the news originally said they were pitbulls. Today they said staffy.

On here all the larger terrier breeds are mentioned. so if banning the breed is the answer, how do you go about it when no one can get the correct breed?