Hi I was married to a South African,and when these people came to britain first,we gave them homes they were still british subjects,eventually they settled in MK and I was very much involved with ANC so I dont think I have misunderstood anything,I was trying to give a reason why sometimes people breed dangerous dogs I am not still sure why some of the so called dangerous dogs were bred maybe the sharpei had a specific role but dont know the history,bull types seems to be about baiting but then again the bull dog was used for that in the victorian times, I think if the world had been a differant place some of these breeds would have died out and the dangerous dog act may have not even existed.Gemini54

This is fine and good points which would make an interesting. discussion . however, again, still doesn't have anything to do with what my posts were about, including the one you have just answered, or have anything to with your original replies to my posts. Sorry still. confused I'm afraid

AND I'm confused why you keep banging on about something that is completely irrelevant to the point of this thread - may I suggest you start your own thread and stop hijacking mine?

Eh? That's just what I was saying! It wasn't me that started these posts I just made some comments together with Florence and jackbox and Gemini replied with some unusual and incorrect responses and carried on later with some completely unrelated stuff about the history of Zimbabwe etc. I was just replying back to her as I genuinely didn't understand what the feck she was telling me all this stuff for as it didn't appear to have anything to do with my posts she was picking up on or the point of the thread . tanguitica noticed this too. you can go back and see.

I've not been on Dogsey in a while really, but here I come, wading in with my size 8 mary-janes, all riled up about this negative chat about Ridgebacks...


Actually though, what I really want to do is link this great blog piece in the Huff Post (www.huffingtonpost.co.uk) by Louise Glazebrook:about how flawed the DDA is and how prevention of tragedy is completely ignored.

On the subject of Ridgebacks though, It is my understanding that while they are named "Rhodesian" the actual beginnings of the breed was in SA. Originally bred to be a mix of a number of traits, so to be a good all-rounder: shepherd, nanny dog, hunting hound (to track and then keep lions at bay) while at the same time having the stamina to accompany men on horseback for 20 - 30 miles a day.

They were never bred to hunt humans, though like other breeds such as GSDs, they have been favoured and trained as guard dogs by some. And without a doubt, they have likely been (ab)used, historically, in "unsavoury practices" in SA and possibly other African nations (which should go without saying, is abhorrent). But to slander this breed by saying "they were used to hunt black people" (I paraphrase) is as lazy as saying Doberman were "used to terrorise/kill Jews."
Given the use of numerous breeds we all know and love today in historical atrocities, and that there are likely to be hundreds, even thousands of isolated cases of countless other breeds being trained by their owners to be aggressive to humans, I don't hold much stock at all in the idea that human-oriented aggression is an inherited genetic trait.

Fantastic post about ridgebacks all of which I acknowledge and some of. which have also already said.

paraphrase is a problem if its used for attributing comments to people that hadn't been made. neither myself not Florence had made the statements in your last paragraph. Florence already said this and I merely made a brief and innocent comment regarding what a friend had told me which happened years ago . Of course many breeds are abused to be aggressive to humans and of course it is abhorrent. Didn't expect I had to deal with people getting all heavy and wrong end of stick and PC just for speaking . I'm a big ridge fan training one right now another session this afternoon. Out of respect for Baxter and her thread I won't be responding to any more posts by yourself or Gemini as I have given you guys the right info to set your doubts to rest. Otherwise we are just going to go over the same old ground again and I can't make strangers on the internet believe me if they want to believe what they want to believe

I don't.think.you are misunderstanding it at all inmy experience Ithink you have hit the nail on the head

This is what I was referring to about being lazy and slanderous in stereotyping a breed, and indeed people ("the whites", 'the blacks"). We (the public) are only just coping with fighting off the media's ridiculous portrayal of Staffie's being inherently dangerous and owners being idiots who use them as status symbols, and I would like to think of Dogsey as a place of refuge from this kind of generalisation about ANY breed.

If I missed previous context of said explanation, I apologise profusely, and hope you'll understand that being a Ridgeback owner, I am fed up of people judging my dog on her breed (crossing the street, glaring looks, and even one woman hysterically pulling her husband onto the road while wailing "stay away! that's a Ridgeback.") while my dog behaves perfectly well and all but ignores them. So if I have jumped the gun in thinking that your view of them is being pre-disposed to a certain behaviour, I am sorry, and hope you will understand the knee-jerk.

I'm sorry that you feel you won't respond to any more posts by me, as I didn't think anything in my post was of a particularly offensive tone, but if you felt it was, then of course I apologise.

Hi Baxter Sorry I was trying to explain how some dangerous dogs came about and also champion the Ridgeback,who were bred for an occupation,other dogs on the dangerous dogs list were trained for blood sport,which in my book isnt a valid occupation,my thoughts are fine if people treat these dogs as pets,but to try and turn back the clock to a time when dogs were illtreated because there so called owners enjoy sport and dogs ended up with horrific injuries and end up maligned and on the dangerous dog list for no fault of there own. The government are trying to get a bill through,where if a person dies of a dog attacking them,the owner will be charged with man-slaughter but not sure if the dog will still pay the price.Gemini54

Thank you I was feeling a bit ignored until you responded LOL