|
|
Location: Wolves UK
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 398
|
27-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by Nicci_L 
Re - Chows, perfectly legal to own in UK...yet have apparently the same enzymes in their brains at Pit Bulls which was proven in a scientific study - only I can't find it!!
i agree
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,415
|
27-07-2010, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by AshMan
so what are you saying? That Pitbulls should be legal too?
i agree
Nope, I think people need to see the bigger picture and work with breeds we have that are in a complete mess rescue wise, before any breed ban is lifted. All the resulting ban would do if lifted would create more of a mess rescue wise.
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex, UK
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,983
|
27-07-2010, 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by Nicci_L
After 18 years of owning various breeds, I can say that you are catagorically wrong.
Ask any Staffy owner this question whom have had years of experience of owning their breed, only to have dogs that have appeared to get on, then one day have come home to a bloodbath on their hands.
|
|
|
Location: East, UK
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 35
|
27-07-2010, 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by johnderondon
There is a comprehension problem here but I do not know how I can make the explanation any clearer.
People can obey the law, as it is set down, and still innocent dogs will be seized and innocent dogs will be euthanised.
There is nothing illegal about owning a Boxer.
There is nothing illegal about owning a staffie.
There is nothing illegal about breeding one to the other.
There is nothing illegal about the subsequent litter of, say, 6 pups.
<fast forward nine months>
There is nothing illegal about the two dogs who look predominately like staffies.
There is nothing illegal about the three dogs who look predominately like Boxers.
But the one dog that substantially matches the APBT breed standard has become illegal.
Nobody has commited a criminal act, nobody has set out to break the law but the dog has grown into a look that is banned and suddenly the dog and owner are outside the law.
Since '97 the Act has included section 4B which allows the police to move against the dog in a civil case and avoid criminalising the owner - so the Act recognises the injustice of prosecuting the owners, it recognises their innocence but still it prosecutes the dog. The dog who only fault is to look 'wrong'.
This is the sad sad problem and there are always going to heartbroken family after heartbroken family.
I am totally of the opinion that I'm sure that there are plenty of wonderful pitbulls out there living as pets or working animals but as long as there is that chance that the wrong dog will fall into novice hands a tragedy will occur.
JMO and I know it's a controversial one but I don't think Pit Bulls should be allowed to be owned by novice owners and maybe all breeds should be scored on a risk level?? Maybe licences should be required for owning certain breeds and a really strict criteria for breeds like Pits.
I used to own (before the DDA) what I believe was a Staff but she was a rescue and TBH I'm sure many mistook her for a 'poor' Pit.
It turns out she wasn't well bred at all and despite a lot of effort put into training, I would never have trusted her with kids or other dogs... luckily with us she was with sensible owners but I know it would have been different in the wrong hands.
The general public and novice dog owners should IMO be actively discouraged from owning high risk breeds by making it as difficult and unattractive for them as possible.
JMO
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,415
|
27-07-2010, 02:50 PM
Originally Posted by lilypup
Right so you are calling me a liar then. Ok, well I know the facts as I see them so I will bow out of this thread. I won't be called a liar by someone who has never met me and knows nothing about me or the dogs I have owned and known. It's ridiculous statements like yours that make me wonder why I bother with this forum.
I know the facts, I've owned certain breeds long enough to know not always human error is to blame....
Ask ANY Stafford owner whose dogs have seemingly got on, never displayed any signs of dog aggression at all but have come home to a blood bath. It happens, you can't throw comments around saying human error is to blame for that, especially when there is enough information out there stating that the breed can be dog aggressive, like so many others, ie, Bullmastiffs, Cane Corsos, Dobermanns, Am Bulldogs etc can all be dog aggressive - it's nothing to do with socialization it's everything to do with maturity and what one dog may handle, others can't...This does not mean things are breed specific of course it doesn't but there is certainly a raised risk with it occurring in certain breeds once that level of maturity has been reached.
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
27-07-2010, 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by Crysania
Right, but she quoted and was responding to me.
It's also a blanket assumption to chalk it up to breeding. Some dogs who come from bad breeding can go far beyond that breeding with the right owner (especially from a young age). Some dogs from good breeding can become aggressive and nervous, fearful, etc. because of a bad owner.
And no two dogs in a litter are going to be alike. I just transported three puppies (litter mates) this weekend. They were dumped in a high kill shelter and who knows what the first 10 or so weeks of their lives were like (they're 12 weeks old now). But it's pretty certain that what they went through was the same for each.
One puppy was happy, excited, wiggly, and not fearful at all. He wanted to interact with us, rolled over for belly rubs, and was very much like you would expect a 12 week old puppy to be.
Another puppy was shy, but very sweet.
The third was absolutely terrified, hiding in the back of the crate and not wanting to come out to explore or meet people at all.
Three very different personalities all from the same litter. That third puppy could easily become aggressive out of fear if he doesn't end up in the right home.
To say "Pit bulls are bred to be aggressive" is just another blanket statement. Many pits born into the dog fighting world are destroyed or used as bait because they won't fight. Not all pits are going to be dog aggressive, not even if born to parents who are.
I said breeding plays a huge part in a dogs makeup, and I agree, that not every pup in every litter will inherit all breed or individual traits of the parents.. but thats no help to the one pup that does inherit the unstable/aggressive nature of one or both parents.
Nurture V nature can not be ignored in a dogs upbringing, and for some dogs , the nature will outweigh the nurture no matter how much socialisation an owner gives!
Originally Posted by Crysania
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how much socialization and nurture can do for a dog. Many dogs are aggressive out of fear. And they're afraid of what they're not used to and have no experience with. The goal of socialization is introducing a dog to many other things: dogs of all sizes; people of all sizes, genders, ages, and movement; places with different floor textures; different noises; etc.
I dont think its lack of understanding at all, especially when you are talking from the horses mouth so to speak,
Many of DA dogs are so out of fear (as you say) but its not because they have not bee n socialized (some yes) but the fact their basic inherent character is flawed,
Some dogs will be DA regardless of socialization, but for many it can be stopped before they mature by proper socialization. Nurture is very strong and I've seen a lot of research recently on how important socialization is in puppies.
Socialisation in puppies is extremely important,(we all know that) but it still wont change a dogs basic nature, most of the aggression you see in dogs will be born from a temperament that is unstable, or from a breed that is inherently bred for aggression.
I agree even then its not always written in stone, but you have a bigger battle to fight and sometimes you have lost before you start.
Even my parent's dog showed signs of what happens when not socialized to something in particular. She was never socialized with tall men and she was really scared of my best friend (who's 6'5") when she met him. It was not in her nature to be scared of tall men, but rather a lack of proper socialization with them.
My next door neighbor never socialized her GSD with other dogs (except the one she owned and the one across the road). Now he'll attack any dog except those ones. Is that in his nature? I doubt it. I just don't think he was properly socialized to other dogs and is now so bad that she can't even walk him during normal hours because he's that out of control. Maybe he would never be super dog social, but I don't think he would be that dog aggressive if his owner had done much more socializing when he was young.
I'm not saying that socialization is all and that there isn't the possibility of some inherent personality traits that can result in dog aggression no matter how much socialization you do, but I do think socialization is much more important than you are giving it credit for.
Cant speak for Nicci, but from my own experiences I understand the importance of socialisation, and I also understand its not always enough!!
I should also add that sometimes a bad experience can result in quite a personality change and I half wonder if something happened with that St. Bernard that suddenly made him act that way. You'd be surprised how little it takes. I've seen dogs become much more reactive and aggressive after one incident with another dog going after it. Fear can do odd things to a dog.
Exactly, and usually a fearful dog will be so through a poor character, which brings up back to nature V nurture
Originally Posted by AshMan
DA can be nature can be nurture.
In some cases no amount of nurture will change the DA in certain dogs. That is the point.
Exactly!!
Originally Posted by Crysania
Yet I get the impression the other poster thinks it's 100% nature and no amount of nurture will change it. *shrugs*
Either way, to say that all pit bulls are aggressive because it's just in their nature is 100% wrong.
I think the point has been made that pitbulls due to their breeding /heritage are predisposed for DA, but as in all things in life, its never as simply as that!
A greyhound is bred to run, but some just dont like too, but the trait is there, a pit bull is bred to fight, some lack the enthusiasm, but the trait is always there, just like any other breed that is bred for purpose, the difference a dog that is bred to use its nose, run , pick up game, is not going to do the damage to other dogs when their instinct takes over, unlike a pit!!
Originally Posted by lilypup
Ashman I wouldn't ignore any dogs history and I agree that you should research your chosen breed to ensure you can meet it's needs. I don't agree that a breed will reach maturity and become dog aggressive. How does that explain all the dog friendly Pits out there.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,415
|
27-07-2010, 03:37 PM
Taken from a UK American Bulldog information site :-
Often their strong drives and dominance cause American bulldogs to be aggressive towards other dogs. They love to play rough with each other, but unfortunately as they mature (1-2 yrs.) they often become aggressive with each other and fight. Intact males rarely get along with other males. Sometimes females will fight with other females and sometimes males and females will fight. It is very difficult and scary to break up a fight between two tenancious dogs such as AB's.
|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
27-07-2010, 04:13 PM
Originally Posted by Nicci_L
Some breeds once they reach FULL maturity cannot tolerate being around other dogs, even dogs they have been reared with.
Some dogs, some lines but there is no temperamental trait that spans an entire breed.
Originally Posted by Nicci_L
All the resulting ban would do if lifted would create more of a mess rescue wise.
Originally Posted by molezak
I used to own (before the DDA) what I believe was a Staff but she was a rescue and TBH I'm sure many mistook her for a 'poor' Pit.
It turns out she wasn't well bred at all and despite a lot of effort put into training, I would never have trusted her with kids or other dogs...
I don't think you can, with confidence, attribute the behaviours of a rescue dog to breeding. Enviromental influences are still pivotal.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,415
|
27-07-2010, 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by johnderondon
Nah.
Some dogs, some lines but there is no temperamental trait that spans an entire breed.
Even regarding what some breed information sites say that are connected to the breed clubs..
I've owned a St that was D/A, an Am Bulldog that was D/A...and a Bullmastiff that was D/A ( Bullmastiff again was from top kennels, so good infact I went back to them last year
)
|
|