> " The only difference is that the smaller the dog, the less damage it can do. "
>
> Which is of course hugely significant.

It wasn't that long ago when a baby was killed by a JRT and a Staffy, how small do you think a dog has to be, to be of no danger to humans?

How big and powerful is a SBT's jaw, say by comparison to a cavalier ? a sbt might not be big in height but it is a very powerful breed nonetheless.
As for the JRT - not a dog I would ever particularly trust either !

Edited to say, where have I said no breed of dog is a danger to humans ? All breeds whether big or small have the potential to bite or attack a person .... but some breeds IMO are far more unpredictable than others....

> Agreed. But the risks in certain breeds of them becoming aggressive I would say are higher than for others.
> I once knew a lovely lovely SBT, she had the waggiest tail ever and would roll over for you to tickle her tummy as soon as you stroked her.... but as rule they are not a breed I can take to I'm afraid because of the history behind them ... it makes them too unpredictable for me to be an ideal family pet. There are other more suitable breeds, but this is only my opinion and no offence to others is intended.

I completely understand that this is your opinion, but I am kind of offended unfortunately.  I don't have my thick skin on at the moment :)

I bought my first Stafford when my son was 11.  I would never, ever, ever have bought a dog that I would think would be unreliable as a family pet.  As far as I'm concerned, with the same training as ANY other breed, the same attention to detail and positive reinforcement as ANY other breed, they can be just as reliable as ANY other breed.

As I said previously, this does not mean that I am blinkered into thinking that all Staffords or pitbulls are 100% bombproof, but then the same can be said for any other breed too.

My apologies to the original poster of this thread, Judith.  It started as such a positive post and positive experience, but sadly whenever the word 'pitbull' seems to enter a discussion, it turns to negativity and the inevitable use of the Stafford as an example :(

We can't all like the same breeds unfortunately. I have merely expressed my own personal opinion and as such you have no need to be offended. It would be a funny old world if we all loved and owned the same breed of dog lol.

Indeed we can't.

And as I have already said, I'm aware that it is your opinion, but what I find quite sad is that Staffords and pitbulls seem to be being all tarred with the same brush, as some sort of child eating monster (as I previously said).

It would be similar (though of course not the same) as me saying I don't like Cavaliers because they all have syringomyelia (i.e. the tarring with the same brush).
Or I don't like Arab horses because they are more flighty than a shire horse.

Terrible, terrible analogies, but I hope it helps to explain my feelings too :)

All I will say is that when I hear of a child being badly attacked by a dog - I always know before I read or listen further which one of a certain few breeds that will have been responsible
When I hear of a child being attacked by a dog - I always think what on earth had that child done to that dog? let me tell you a horror story, I am a trainee VN and this topic of dog attacks came up in a discussion we had at uni and what we would do when people brought in healthy dogs to be PTS because of bad behaviour. One of my fellow students shared this story with us....
A man brought in a 18month old Rhodesian Ridgeback to be PTS. The dog had bitten his 6 year old child. The dog was PTS and as the nurses were putting the dog's body in storage they noticed something strange with its ear. They found seven staples in its ear where the kids had been torturing the dog. The dog bit on the seventh staple, I would have bit on the first. Is this a dog attack or a dog protecting itself, the deference I think needs to be highlighted.
I remember in the news quite a few months ago about a girl that had been bitten by a young American bulldog. I remember the granma going on tv saying these dogs need to be banned blah blah blah, when interviewed the girl said ' I trod on the dog's foot then it bit me' ???? A dog can't push away a threat so it uses its mouth, obviously this dog experienced pain and thus was defending itself IMO I certainly don't believe all of these out of the blue attacks are unprovoked, not one bit.
BTW Cavlover I respect your opinion but i have to say I do disagree but as you say it would be a boring old world if we agreed all the time

"When I hear of a child being attacked by a dog - I always think what on earth had that child done to that dog?"

There have been two high profile cases in recent times - one at a pub where a 5 month old baby was dragged from her moses basket by two rottweilers and savaged to death, and another (more recently) where a baby was at his grandma's and had been left to sleep oddly enough on the table - a jack russell and a SBT pulled the poor mite from the table and mauled him to death...

What on earth could these babies have done to provoke the attack ?

As much as I love dogs, I love children far more, sorry, so my instinctive reaction when reading such stories is never to place the blame on a child that has been mauled by a frenzied dog !

> The dog was PTS and as the nurses were putting the dog's body in storage they noticed something strange with its ear. They found seven staples in its ear

:( :( :( poor dog, merely defending itself and paid with it's life :( :( :( 
I imagine it's very rare that the cause of a dog defending itself is ever as evident as that, so therefore the 'attack' appears unprovoked. There are many more subtle way to intimidate a dog, most of which kids are very good at, long eye contact I notice seems to be very comon for children to do. Staring at a dog like that, particularily if you have just been teasing it is, in the dogs mind, is just cause to defend itself and then you have another statistic :(

It could just as easily been a cavalier that was distressed by the baby's cries and whimpers (and smell of a dirty nappy?) so pulled it off the table or from its crib.

> so my instinctive reaction when reading such stories is never to place the blame on a child that has been mauled by a frenzied dog !

A young child can not be held accountable for thier actions and of course a crying, squirming baby has no idea that it could be bringing out prey-drive/stress/curiosity in an animal with a mouth full of teeth, but surely the adults around should be held repsonsible for allowing the situation to arise in the first place?

What on earth could these babies have done to provoke the attack ?
Those sort of cases with very young children are probably not intentionally provoked but could be initiated by the child.
What I mean by this is that the baby could have initiated the dog's prey drive, perhaps the high pitched gurglings or screams could have caused the animal to believe that it was viable prey, perhaps the small movements of a sleeping baby, jerky little kicks immitating the movement of prey could have again aroused primal hunting instincts. These may have caused the dog to initally bite the dog then when the child starts to scream and writher it excites the dog further to sustain the attack until the child is not causing any stimulation to dog when it goes limp. When your dog catches a rabbit, is sustains the attack until the prey is dead and then loses interest as stimulation is removed.

I know it is a very disturbing thought but if you take the emotive aspect out of dog attacks and look at it logically then the answer I think is easier to find. Understanding why dogs attack is essential for preventing cases from happening. As for putting blame on the child, I certainly wouldn't place blame on a defenseless baby but the examples I have given I would certainly place the blame on older children that tug, poke, touch dogs and then getting bitten but even so, the huge weight of blame is always directed towards to parent of that child. If the dog was however absolutely and utterley psychologically derranged it is a completely different story. I always tend to look at things holistically, rarely is there an answer which universal

I shan't even dignify jeangenie's comment with a proper reply since it is just an attempt to get personal and not at all based on anything in particular.

" but surely the adults around should be held repsonsible for allowing the situation to arise in the first place?"

Totally agree with the above statement, I must admit.
As much as I regard my breed as non aggressive - I would never leave a baby or small child unattended with one. That of course applies to any breed, however big or small.
That doesn't mean of course that I believe for one minute that a cavalier would drag a baby from its cradle and try to maul it to death. It is just a simple rule I think that everyone with children and dogs should apply.

> one at a pub where a 5 month old baby was dragged from her moses basket by two rottweilers and savaged to death

I recall this case being on TV when it happened. Correct me if i'm wrong but weren't these 2 dogs trained as guard dogs and other people had made concerns for their behaviour before this happened? They weren't raised around kids, no socialisation and were normally shut into a very small yard?
When i heard of this attack on the child, i thought stupid owners, they were the ones who had control over the dogs and the child but left them all alone together?

The worse case of a dog attack in our area which the local Police dealt with was that of a GR killing a child, it never made the news big time, you know why because of the breed it is.. Its not news worthy..
A Cav along with all other breeds have the ability to bite and cause serious damage to a baby/child.

I know we have this law of BSL, i know what i'd like to do with it..
I've met some wonderful APBT and ASBT in America and Australia when out travelling, none displayed any form of concern for me and many were around children playing happily..

>I shan't even dignify jeangenie's comment with a proper reply since it is just an attempt to get personal and not at all based on anything in particular.

I have no intention of getting personal, but I was bitten - with intent - by a cavalier some years ago. Luckily it was my hand, and not a child's face. They're not all sweetness and light, although most are delightful, but anyone who refuses to believe that they are still 'real' dogs capable of behaving as such, and not fluffy cuddly toys, is deluding themselves and doing the breed a disservice.

One of the things i looked for when i researched for my dog, was firstly their temperament around children.  Having 4 this was most important for me.  There are many websites that advise the suitability of a dog around children.  Hence why i picked a Mini Schnauzer as my first choice. Having said that the second choice was a SBT as they are renowned for being great family dogs.  However the second factor in my choice was whether i could handle the dog if it decided to turn against one of my children.  Therefore SBT and larger breed dogs where out of the question.  Not because i thought of them as being any more vicious or have a worse temperament, purely because of my capabilities to protect.

I agree it is the irresponsible owners who create irresponsible dogs.  I would argue however SBT is diminishing amongst pond weed, I see it more and more. Parading their SBT with chains and leather, all bluff and bravado.  One guy i saw hitting his over the head with a stick to keep it in check, i was horrified, the reply " Its ok love they got a hard head these"................?  I mean hitting it, and what would that teach the dog........?  That it has an idiot for an owner. 

Plus i was lead to believe the Irish SBT was just a pit bull but by another name.... It was only when the Pit bull was banned that the Irish SBT e
became Prolific.  Plus it always confuses me as to how you can have an Irish STAFFORDSHIRE bull terrier and and American STAFFORDSHIRE bull terrier.... Is it me??? or are we missing the STAFFORDSHIRE part? 

Anyhow rant over, Pit bulls are still in this country its just that pond weed now call them Irish Staffs near where i come from.... (I am not having a go at pit bulls here. SBT or Irish Staffs, but the people who own them irresponsibly)...

Off my soap box i get

I didn't mention Cavs however, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what even a toy breed could do to a baby. I did mention in my first post that I got mauled by a dog but didn't mention a breed. The dog who mauled me was a Yellow Labrador, 6 yro male, KC reg'd etc. A less dog savvy person or child would not have survived his attack, he meant business.

In over a decade of Bull Breed rescue I had to have 4 dogs PTS'd due to human aggression. None of the four was a Bull Breed.

There is more than one breed banned in the UK yet the APBT gets the brunt of the negativity. Wonder why ;).

I saw a couple of real nice Dogos in Birmingham when I was at Crufts this year. No one ever confiscates them...

And I may add that I have a 5 yro child who still has all his fingers and toes despite the fact that he lives with APBT. The only dog which showed aggression towards him was a Shih Tzu x JRT.

> " The only difference is that the smaller the dog, the less damage it can do. "
>
> Which is of course hugely significant.

Any dog is capable of doing damage in the right situation.
I hope you don't believe that because they are small your cavaliers could not do some real damage.

My daughter was bitten by a cavalier last year, badly enough to need stitches and an overnight stay in hospital.

She had been at a friend's house and the girls were all playing on the Wii in the living room. They were all exited and very vocal in that high pitch way small girls have.
The dog a 7 year old male cavalier who has never shown any aggression (a really lovely boy) shot out the kitchen and attacked. As my daughter was closest to the door it was she that got bitten. Luckily it was her arm he got and she was wearing a thick jumper, had she just had a tee shirt on or if he had caught her face the damage could have been much worse.

I hope you don't believe that because they are small your cavaliers could not do some real damage.

My daughter was bitten by a cavalier last year, badly enough to need stitches and an overnight stay in hospital.

It's not the size, is it, it's the jaw pressure. No matter how anyone puts it, there is no way on earth a cavalier could do the same sort of damage as many other breeds.

I would also like to poach one of jeangenie's phrases, that anyone who believes a cavalier is as likely to drag a baby from its cradle and maul it to death as say a rottweiler or a pitbull is "deluding themselves".

I'm 100 % with you here. It's a fact, not an opinion, that what dogs were originally bred for isn't something that has just disappeared over the years just because the breeds were bred primarily to be pets.  Otherwise we'd not have collies that herd or retrievers that retrieve, in pet homes without any training at all, even though they may not have been bred for those purposes for many decades. And Cavaliers were only ever bred to be pets, nothing else. There aren't many other breeds that can say their original purpose was as pets. And only ever has been as pets. (By "pets" I include show dogs, of course.)

"And Cavaliers were only ever bred to be pets, nothing else. There aren't many other breeds that can say their original purpose was as pets. And only ever has been as pets. (By "pets" I include show dogs, of course.)"

Precisely what I have been trying to get across ... this is what I was meaning when I stated that there are certain breeds that I would not trust as a family pet because of their background and their history and purpose.
Cavaliers, were bred purely as pets as you say Marianne - lapdogs infact - hardly comparible with a breed bred to fight other dogs or bait bulls for eg.

Plus it always confuses me as to how you can have an Irish STAFFORDSHIRE bull terrier and and American STAFFORDSHIRE bull terrier.... Is it me??? or are we missing the STAFFORDSHIRE part?
Its because they both originally are from staffordshire bull terrier, the dogs obviously dont come from a region called staffordshire in ireland or America. Its just that they come from the same origins more or less, like otterhound stated in one of her previous posts that these pit dogs were originally 'Bull and terriers' which were firstly crosses of old english bulldogs and a variety of terriers originally bred for types of baiting then when that was banned, and dog fighting wasn't, the bull and terrier was soon used as a fighting dog. The Bull and terrier split into two strains, one becoming the bull terrier and the other becoming the staffordshire bull terrier. I understand it that staffs were transported to ireland where they were used for badger baiting, they were bred by irish breeders to be taller and leaner. Note = Irish staffordshire is a variation of the original staffordshire bull terrier not a distinct breed ( like working and show labradors= same breed different conformation). I think the next chapter in the story was that some of these irish leggier types were exported to america for the purpose of badger baiting not dog fighting, however the importer lied of his intentions for the animals and they were soon in the dog pit. Thus the American pit bull terrier was born. In Modern times though the American pit bull seems to have split itself into three different types, the original APBT, the American staffordshire bull terrier (AKC recognised show version of the APBT) and even more recently the lower and heavier American bully. If any of this information is incorrect please tell me, this is just all the information I have read from various sources but I have read as extensively as possible. 
So as I see it the evolution of the breed goes as this 1st Bull and terrier -> Staffordshire bull terrier -> Irish staffordshire bull terrier -> American pit bull terrier -> American staffordshire bull terrier
                               -> American bully

> So as I see it the evolution of the breed goes as this 1st Bull and terrier -> Staffordshire bull terrier -> Irish staffordshire bull terrier -> American pit bull terrier -> American staffordshire bull terrier
>                                -> American bully

Thank you for clearing that up for me i will sleep better now :-) <3

I think i understand that.... Is it therefore just the Bull Terrier/SBT that has been bred and rebred and then changed again, or does this happen in other breeds and standards??? If not then why has this been permitted, if not for irresponsible breeding and fighting dogs!

Poor Poor breed..... Which i absolutely love and admire.  Scare the poop out of me mind, but that is my problem not the dogs...

Is it therefore just the Bull Terrier/SBT that has been bred and rebred and then changed again, or does this happen in other breeds and standards??? If not then why has this been permitted, if not for irresponsible breeding and fighting dogs!
It happens all the time, breeds are dynamic and evolving all the time towards the vision of perfection for that particular breed. Take the british bulldog for example, some breeder's not content with the look of the British decided to split off and begin creating Old Tyme and Victorian bulldogs thus changing them into their idea of perfection whereas the others content with the British Bulldog as it is ( or was due to the changes) continued to breed their ideal dogs. I don't think its irresponsible breeding to breed a dog that imitates the breeder's schema for a perfect dog so long as health and temperament is not forfiet IMHO.
As has been shown in this thread people like all sorts of dogs, how boring would the world be if we all had the same breed oh Imagine the dog shows :) entries and list of classes would be phenominal :D

Fact versus fiction:

http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm

Biting power:

American Pit Bull Terriers have 1600 P.S.I. in jaw pressure

Dr. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs.

There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of "pounds per square inch" can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data.

And can I just say that I live with these dogs as opposed to those who heard horror stories and chose to believe them. I also do breed ID's for the court up North and so far every dog I have seen up there was either a Staffie x or an AmBull. Innocent dogs arrested and incarcerated for the way they LOOK. Not a single one of them had done anything wrong.

According to the American Temperament Test Society (has been mentioned here before), the APBT has a higher percentage of soundness than the CKCS.

Interesting link, I like these facts from it:
Pit Bulls serve as therapy/service dogs.

Cheyenne and Dakota are a team of hard-working Search-and-Rescue Pit Bulls in Sacramento, California.  They play an important role in their community by locating missing people in conjunction with
the local Sheriff.  In their off-duty hours, they do charity work as therapy dogs.

Petey, the faithful dog on the TV show, The Little Rascals, was a Pit Bull.  He spent countless hours with children day after day and never hurt anyone.  He was one of the most intelligent Hollywood dogs of all time.

The Ken-L-Ration dog hero of 1993 was a Pit Bull named Weela.  She saved 30 people, 29 dogs, 13 horses and a cat during a flood in Southern California

A Pit Bull named Bogart saved a four-year-old child from drowning in a swimming pool in Florida.

Dixie, the Pit Bull, was inducted into the Georgia Animal Hall of Fame after she saved some children from a Cottonmouth snake.

All the above dogs must have predictable temperments, especialy the therapy dogs, I find it hard to see how some people think they are unpredictable, rather than badly raised by morons who want a macho image.

If you liked the first link then you will love this one, it's one of my personal favs :):

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/HeroicPitties/HeroicPitties.htm

And before I go to bed, here are a few pics of the (in)famous BBC Pit Bull Nipper now Peter Pan O'Rama:

My fav pic of him I took it after having him here for a the whole of 2 minutes:

http://209.85.48.11/3336/36/upload/p827710.jpg

And more:

http://www.egar.org/pics/peter1.jpg

http://www.egar.org/pics/peter3.jpg

Not a single scar.

Great links, Good to hear the good things they do which are not publicized enough.  Its Great too see so many good opinions on the pit bull issue.

Here we have no bans or restrictions on which dogs are allowed or not.
Which means we meet Pit bulls and Am. staffs when out and about, excercising
the dogs.
They are breeds that are generally very sociable towards people,
as said above they where bred that way.
BUT. They were also once bred for fighting. And a dogfight isn't "entertaining" if it starts off
with the fighting dogs first trying to avoid a fight, using body language.
So, the Pit bull was bred  not to have the normal sign language other dogs have.
No raised hackels there. Or warning growls or straight legs with a raised tails. No circling each other, and none of the rest of the signs dogs use to assess
each other.
For this reason, my dogs are never allowed to meet those breeds.  My breed is very much into signs, the fight would be upon them long before they understood it was coming.
In fact a grown male RR was killed on the beach a few years back, by a Pit bull. The RR tried to give the right signals to avoid fighting, he was killed before he even knew he'd have to fight.  :-(

What has happened to Nipper now? did the BBC pay for his upkeep whilst he was with you?

Blame the deed not the breed!

So, the Pit bull was bred  not to have the normal sign language other dogs have.

I beg to differ. I think those pics of one of my APBT Bogey (OFRN) and my old Lurcher Toughy are self explanatory. The body language is quite obvious and well displayed:

http://209.85.48.11/3336/36/upload/p948636.jpg

http://209.85.48.11/3336/36/upload/p948637.jpg

What has happened to Nipper now? did the BBC pay for his upkeep whilst he was with you?

Once an EGAR dog always an EGAR dog ;). He's alive and well. And no... I got an initial donation and nothing since, not even a query on how he is doing.

Can I just ask why is that people think that all bull breeds have a tendency to bite or fight?  I own three bullmastiffs and to be honest they are the nicest dogs i have ever come across, any dog has the tendency to bite or fight, from a jack russel to great dane.  its not just bull breeds that do the fighting.  I know that there are the idiots that breed pitbulls for fighting and i just have to turn over the tv when it is in the news, the dogs dont just decide that they are going to fight, its the irrisponsible owners that have trained that poor dog to do it, and its the poor dog that gets the reputation not the owner.  Im a resoponsible dog owner i never let my dogs off the lead at the park, because they are big dogs, and all they want to do is play with other dogs and all im concerned about is if they tread on a small dog or tumble it over.  I think as long as you are responsible and you train your dogs correctly then you will have a balanced dog (too much of Ceaser Milan) if the dog is not treated with respect and is tormented and not trained correctly then of course your going to have problems.  All im saying is don't judge breeds without getting to know the dog first.

> Im a resoponsible dog owner i never let my dogs off the lead at the park, because they are big dogs, and all they want to do is play with other dogs and all im concerned about is if they tread on a small dog or tumble it over.

Snap :)

>Can I just ask why is that people think that all bull breeds have a tendency to bite or fight?

I think the problem is that people see a powerfull dog (not just bull-breeds, the look of my Mastiff makes people think he will eat thier dogs up :( ) and automatically think that power=out of control dog. I do agree that the bigger/more powerfull a dog is then the more potential for it to cause serious harm IF it were to bite, BUT I do not believe that these dogs are more likely to bite in the first place. I am sure my Mastiff has a much longer fuse than many (if not most) other breeds that are considered not dangerous, add that to the fact he is trained, socialised and I am always aware of 'what if' and quite frankly he is probably safer to be in the company of than a 'softer' breed.

I completely agree with you - IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS make for a dangerous dog, nomatter the breed.

> Can I just ask why is that people think that all bull breeds have a tendency to bite or fight?

Most bull breeds were bred to fight - that was their original purpose just as shepherds were bred to guard flocks, collies to herd them, gundogs to flush, terriers to hunt vermin, retrievers to retrieve, toys to be lap dogs etc.  These innate characteristics are due to eons of breeding for the desired traits of each breed and with careful selection in the formative years of the breeds to mate animals together which had the most depth of 'correct' traits for their function.

Bullmastiffs were bred as game keepers' dogs - not as fighting machines - unlike the renowned APBT (among others). 

I agree that many breeds get a bad name due to irresponsible and downright unethical ownership however the original purposes for which most breeds we have today were bred, across all groups, are in the vast majority of cases not required.  My dogs have no need to fend off wolves for example, they are family pets as are the majority of all dogs bred :)  Those breeding working dogs for field, farm, sport etc will use working lines which are known to have high performers in their league however responsible breeders of such working types try to ensure that all stock goes to working homes :)

There is no need in a civilised society for a 'fighting dog' - IMO there never was but clearly some held and still do hold that view.  Responsible breeders of breeds which were developed for that purpose go out of their way to ensure that they only breed the best tempered dogs together and any showing overt 'gameness' would not be bred on from.  Sadly the majority of bull breeds that are most commonly seen in inner cities and housing estate, and many are crosses anyway, are produced by those lacking in knowledge or - worse still - intentionally bred to be status symbols.

While such a mentality exists it is small wonder that these breeds have a bad reputation - which is sad, especially for those genuine devotees of the breeds who ensure they have well adjusted, well trained happy family pets.

Unless we can rid the population of thugs and criminals, we will not rid the country of dogs with dubious characters and like it or not the bull breeds and others which fit the macho credentials of the common hoodlum have the highest profile.

regards, Teri

Based on the premis that there is no place in society for 'fighting' dogs, there is surely no place for most breeds then, as most breeds were bred for some purpose or function which is now defunct?

It is not fair that these marvelous breeds are now being tarred by the same brush, nothing makes me madder than seeing some numpty with something that losely resembles a staff. In fact I always take pleasure in asking them what breed they are, in order to highlight how stupid they really are - most look the same size as greyhounds!

Correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't Akitas once used to guard their families children in Japan? now I see an increasing amount being acompanied by the afore mentioned morons!

There surely needs to be some sort of clamp down on who can buy, own, breed, excercise such dogs etc.

On a slight side issue, a similar thing is of course happening with the designer toy breeds and cross 'breeds' - you only have to look at the classifieds to see the latest creation for sale for hundreds/thousands.

It is about time that something is done, the problem is what and by whom..........

>Based on the premis that there is no place in society for 'fighting' dogs, there is surely no place for most breeds then, as most breeds were bred for some purpose or function which is now defunct?

You will note that I already stated

>however the original purposes for which most breeds we have today were bred, across all groups, are in the vast majority of cases not required.  My dogs have no need to fend off wolves for example, they are family pets as are the majority of all dogs bred  

The simple fact is that many originally sought characteristics in many breeds are not a liability in a pet household.  Yes those with sight hounds and scent hounds for eg often find these dogs, unless living in working packs, cannot be let off lead.  The right owners using the best training techniques and having bought their hounds from reputable sources will however have mainly acquired a more biddable hound than one which was selected for it's drive to hunt.

Like it or not a dog breed that is bred for dog to dog aggression is a liability but there are plenty of them around - because the low life in society want them that way and the ignorant purchasers often don't know what they are taking on.  Namely a long line of dogs bred to be 'hard' and easily 'riled' towards other dogs.  Not, that is, until too late.

> Like it or not a dog breed that is bred for dog to dog aggression is a liability

This is the point others were trying to make earlier, these breeds were bred for agression with other dogs, not with people, yet it's these breeds that are being tarred as dangerous to people.

> because the low life in society want them that way

This is the problem. These low lifes can take any breed and create thier own dangerous dogs, it's just easier for them to use breeds with a 'shorter fuse', if these breeds were wiped out, the low lifes would still create dangerous dogs, just as people created fighting dogs in the first place :( :(

> because the low life in society want them that way and the ignorant purchasers often don't know what they are taking on.

Teri

That particular part of your sentence is exactly what other posters and myself have been trying to get across as being the most important issue.

> Like it or not a dog breed that is bred for dog to dog aggression is a liability

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'like it or not'?  Do you refer to the dog/dog aggression part or the liability part?
I guess you're meaning the liability part.
How would you suggest that sensible owners of bullbreeds combat the 'low life in society' from abusing our breeds further?

Hi mastifflover

> these breeds were bred for agression with other dogs, not with people, yet it's these breeds that are being tarred as dangerous to people

how many times do we hear people say when dogs have even the most minor scrap "what if that had been a child" or words to similar effect?  Personally I couldn't begin to count how many times I've heard it.  People who are not au fait with dog behaviour - and that's most of general public whether dog owners themselves or not - see anything from a growl to a snap at another dog as aggression regardless of it being between dogs.  To them it's something dangerous and I can see their point even although I know better :)

> These low lifes can take any breed and create thier own dangerous dogs

True, but they don't take on Labs, Collies, Deerhounds, St Bernards do they?  They take on dog with powerful build and breed traits which are easily moulded because they want dogs which will protect them and, aside from a handful of guarding breeds, the best place to start is with a breed that has innate gameness.  The logical ones will be bull and terrier breeds.  Even more logically will be bull terrier breeds.

While those attracted by obtaining a dog for the purpose of protection and status may be lacking in the most basic common sense they're clearly able to work out which way to go to achieve a canine bodyguard / fighting machine.  They now 'create' their own version of the APBT by crossing in Dogues, Shar Pei and Akitas - other breeds which, sadly, have already gotten into the wrong hands.

Joe Public TBH has every need to be afraid - if 3 or 4 of these yob bred pups goes into the wrong hand (prebooking seems to be big business for them :( ) the others in the litter will find their way into family homes and IMO in many cases will be a time bomb with dogs AND people.  With no knowledge of the characteristics in the mix of breeds the owners don't see problems arising until it's too late - it's tragic, it's frightening and, worryingly, it's happening.

regards Teri

Hi Tessies Tracey

> I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'like it or not'? Do you refer to the dog/dog aggression part or the liability part?
> I guess you're meaning the liability part

Yes, I was referring to the liability :)

> How would you suggest that sensible owners of bullbreeds combat the 'low life in society' from abusing our breeds further?

I don't have a solution to that I'm afraid :(  It doesn't help that many in the show world for example bait their terriers, whether bull breed or not, against one another before going in the ring - does it?  The mentality that wants overt gameness in a dog is rife in certain quarters and dogs which were originally bred specifically for dog fights clearly have the greatest appeal.  As another poster has mentioned some dogs can be made aggressive towards people through determined lack of socialisation -  but in the majority of breeds this would lead to fearful aggression and so not fit the bill.   The criminal element who seek dogs they can mould into being personal protection / attack dogs don't want something which will cower behind them and snap if approached they want a muscular athletic easily reactive dog - enter the bull breeds, mastiffs, etc :(

I have every sympathy with the devotees of these breeds and others abused similarly.
regards Teri

Teri,

Helpful, well informed posts.

I've said before that it is the way our native fighting breeds like the Staffie are being deliberately crossed with other breeds that have guarding proclivities and are more people wary, that is cause for greatest concern. The dog in front of you may look like a large Staff of some type but its temperament will be rather different and, you are right, it is the poor unsuspecting pet owner that will come off worst. Those like me that live in the inner city, where these fighting/guarding strains are on the increase, have now to walk the parks with eyes in the back of our heads. Only last week a dog was set upon and killed by a dog that looked like a Staff. We must not forget either that many Staffs and EBT's once roused are much less likely to give up, that tenacity is what made them great at the work they were developed for. It is, of course, a trait that all terriers share, to a greater or lesser degree. Responsible breeders, breeding for pet ownership would breed away from such extremes of breed temperament.

In the right hands I am a big fan of these breeds, in the wrong hands or ignorant hands, they are a complete menace and liability. 

I don't want to be controversial but I am also beginning to have reservations about the show aspect. Most of us know that a breed with the description "game" or "sporting" in the breed standard must look up on its toes and alert to get anywhere in the show ring. There is no doubt some terriers are baited before entering the ring, I also know that some prefer a terrier dog to be the type that wants to kill everything in sight, this way a good ring performance is assured. It's a problem for those showing a breed that is described as "game" and to win must therefore in some way suggest those attributes. It also depends on how enlightened the judge is.

> The criminal element who seek dogs they can mould into being personal protection / attack dogs don't want something which will cower behind them and snap if approached

That is exactly what most of them around here are,a nd the disappointed yobs then either get rid of them or try to breed something more macho by crossing the poor timid bitch with something larger, real time bomb.

> It doesn't help that many in the show world for example bait their terriers, whether bull breed or not, against one another before going in the ring - does it?&nbsp;

Well, as you've left that sentence as an open question, I do feel I have to answer it.  I can safely say that in all the show's I've been to (Stafford primarily, but all breeds too), I haven't once seen baiting against one another occur, ever. 
If it does go on (which I can't dispute as I obviously haven't been to every single show, in every single location in the world), then it's a pretty bloomin' sad world we live in.  Bad enough that we have the 'unsavoury' sorts treating our bullbreeds as they do, but the show world too? 

I hope that sensible steps can be taken by those in authority to prevent further abuse of our beloved breeds, rather than target just the breeds themselves, which I can sadly also see happening in the future.  :(

> I don't want to be controversial but I am also beginning to have reservations about the show aspect. Most of us know that a breed with the description "game" or "sporting" in the breed standard must look up on its toes and alert to get anywhere in the show ring. There is no doubt some terriers are baited before entering the ring, I also know that some prefer a terrier dog to be the type that wants to kill everything in sight, this way a good ring performance is assured. It's a problem for those showing a breed that is described as "game" and to win must therefore in some way suggest those attributes. It also depends on how enlightened the judge is.

I don't think you're being controversial.  But 'game' or 'sporting' doesn't appear within the Stafford breed standard.  And I'll also say again, I haven't witnessed any baiting within the Stafford show ring, in fact I've more often heard mention of how all breed Stafford shows seem to be quieter than they were compared to days gone by.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen the odd dog or two that fire up when in such close proximity to other dogs, but I haven't seen people purposely doing goading them into that behaviour.
I haven't seen all the terrier breeds in the showring either, so I'll admit I could be wrong with regard to other breeds.
I would love for you to have the opportunity to chat to some of our breeds judges, who could explain far better than I, what attributes they actually do look for when judging (besides the obvious adhering to breed standard, conformation, etc), fairly sure some would say that 'gameness' isn't top of the list.
Movement, conformation, no exaggeration seem to be a lot more important these days.  Sound character even more so.
How would one judge 'gameness', stamina (i.e. the good old fit for function) in a ring anyway?  Now that has been discussed a few times within Stafford circles I can vouch for that! lol
Could go on and on 'til the cows come home here....
Also the term 'game', it has different meanings for different people.

Like myself and others have mentioned, the people within society who chose to treat this breed incorrectly are just one of the things that need addressing, there are many many other issues that need addressing within the breed too.   (Such as the KC allowing merle litter to be registered for one!  ***zziiiiiiiipppp***).

TT,
I think part of the problem is the perennial old school/new school business. I don't want to be gender specific because it isn't, but, for want of a better phrase it is the old terriermen (some are young too) mentality "I prefer my dogs a bit sharp"; "they're a terrier, they should want to have a go". There's still a fair few that think this way. The late Brian Plummer always said a dog aggressive terrier was no use as a working dog (unless meant for the gaming pit that is) but many will still excuse dog on dog even dog on human aggression on the grounds that "well, it's a terrier". Many also know that a dog aggressive terrier will be more up on its toes. I have seen terriers baited before entering the ring, though not in your breed.  I have heard of it in your breed.

I should add that amongst most terrier breeds one would expect entire boys to be pretty intolerant of one another, that is the impact of testosterone on an already reactive set of breeds. Nonetheless, I would argue there can be degrees and you can either choose to breed for extreme reactivity or not.

Sorry TT,
I am mixing general terrier stuff up with Staffords. As I said, I don't want to spark a row. I think all breeders of dogs that were bred to work, for a purpose, and are now bound for pet ownership, face the problem of having to tamp down some breed traits, so we often advise families not to go for a working BC strain or a working ESS strain. It's a mix of breeders being responsible and the public being properly educated in terms of what they buy.  

For a while I attended a ringcraft club that was virtually wall to wall Staffords with the odd EBT and Frenchie. Without exception, you could not ask for a better behaved bunch, but that is because the owners knew what they were doing, understood the breed they have and behaved accordingly. Those who had entire males made sure their dog did not go nose to nose with another entire male. With Staffords the problem is most definitely down in thugsville where they are abused and mixed up with more wary breeds. Entire males wander the streets of my area off lead and heaven help me if one wanders up to my entire lad.