In that case i understand you. was just asking

no i wouldnt, though i would be very tempted

To clarify - do you believe then that it is the ban itself that is creating the problem that you perceive and do you agree with anti-BSL campaigners that the ban should be lifted?

but why does being legal or not determine how dangerous they are. yes, pit bulls are illegal but that does not necessarily make them any more dangerous than legally own breeds. so i really dont see the relevance.

you made a point about them being bred by the wrong people in this country, no reputable breeder would breed an illegal breed but again, that doesnt just apply to pit bulls. many legal breeds are bred by the wrong people, who may also carry undesirable traits as well due to that.

At least, so he said...

(I have reservations)

I have one dog thats trained to attack, that doesnt make him any more dangerous than the other three I have that are not trained to attack,

in fact, I would say hes safer, far less likely to act on his own instinct.

its how you train a dog that counts,

please expand. it looked kinda real to me

This is a valid point here that, although aggression can have an inheritable component, the sort of breeder that is most problematic (the BYB) is highly unlikely to be researching lines, studying genetics or making breeding decisions with any awareness of such concerns. Since enviroment is a pivotal factor it is not sufficient to simply breed one aggressive dog to another and expect the off-spring to be natural killers. Professional dog fighters may be an exception to this but professional dog fighters (I'm not talking about youths 'rolling' thier dogs in a car park) are a tiny, tiny minority are are not the cause of any danger to the public because their dogs are never in public.

The rescue I assist have a lot of staffy crosses (and other breeds) produced by exactly the same sort of irresponsible breeders who are trying to supply exactly the same youth market for tough looking dogs. Despite their poor breeding they are, on average, less aggressive towards people than most of other (often pedigree) dogs that come through the rescue. Which is pretty much what one would expect - they're bullbreeds and bullbreeds, by nature, love people.

its not just the pitbull no matter why they was bread any dog can be dangerous or ''nasty'' personaly i think its not the dog so much but the owner all the time you see dogs that have hurt some 1 but no body ever looks at the ower who has most probably mis treat the dog as in beating it to me its like a person if you hit and keep hitting them there gunna hit back at some point i know its not always that way but mostly i think it is a neighbour had german shepherd and he used to beat it something rotten with wot eva was close to hand and when the the dog turned on him he was like why and the dog got put down its wrong

We were treated to an hour long show entitled 'My weapon is a dog' which did not show one single example on anybody using their dog as a weapon or even the ability to do so. What we did see we a lot of male bravado and chest beating interspersed with scenes of dog fights from Norway and RSPCA's David Grant illogically equating 'abused dog' with 'weapon dog'.

The show primarily focused on three owners. A guy with a DDB who did not use or train his dog as a weapon but enjoyed the sense of security that the dog offered. Shamefully lead and prompted by the interviewer he finally conceeded, doubtfully, that his dog might be 'unpredictable' if he allowed it to run up to strangers (which he didn't). Then we had a muppet who claimed his dog was a pit (but actually looked like a lovely, playful staff/lab) and claimed to have trained it as an attack dog but talked utter pap (remember the 'giving the dog a taste for blood to make it vicious'?) and clearly couldn't even train a loose lead. We are to believe this guy could train his dog to attack on command?

Nah. No sale.

With the case of King and his Rottie we saw a well trained dog with a fantastic bond with its owner. We saw good basic obedience and a nice sendaway. Possibly, here, we have an owner who could train an attack dog if he had instruction in this (rather specialised) area of dog training and he had access to facilities and a decoy. It is important to remember that the role of decoy is highly skilled (more so, even, than the handler) so King would need the assistance of someone skilled in manwork. It is possible all this happened and King has, indeed, trained his dog to attack on cue but the possibility exists that, subjected to the flattery of the cameras and the not-so-subtle promptings of Mr. Haywood-Williams, he simply exaggerated his dog's capacities. If you watch the show again and watch King carefully when the question is put as to whether he could "order his dog to attack" you will see, I think, a change in his body language and tone as he answers. He is uncomfortable. It could be the subject matter or it could be the embelishment he is making.

But what really clinches it for me, what cements my doubts is that this was a show entitled "My Weapon is a Dog" - what fantastic television it would have been (and how easy and cheap to arrange) to actually show it in action. Take King to a secure area with a dog handler in a bite suit and film it. What great footage of the savage attack dog! Slow-mo on the Rottie as it shakes and tears at the sleeve!

I simply do not believe the the production crew would have passed up such an opportunity and, applying Occam's Razor, we must conclude that King's claim is more likely to be exaggeration than not.

Phew! That was a long winded expansion.

i know what you mean, i have seen many programmes filmed in america where pit bulls who have been used as fighting dogs have been rescued, yet are so so friendly to the inspectors, and give out loads of kisses. they are such softies and just want love. i think it is amazing dogs can be like that when they have been treated so appallingly.