That's now, what happens later you cant determine,

Same thing with bitches who live together, they can live together for many a yr, then one day out of the blue one may turn on another.

Most experienced owners will be aware of this, it has nothing to do with socialisation, but a lot to do with nature !!

Many an very experienced owner will testify to this, for many many multiple bitch owners, the situation will never arise, but I cant think of any one I know who owns bitches is not aware of the consequences of such a situation! it can come out of the blue , it ingrained , "bitches fight for survival, and will will kill if necessary to assert their place!

Again that why a bitch on bitch household fight will almost always end in one of them having to be re homed, or kept separate for life!

Wondering if we should ban St Bernard's then as they can not necessarily be trusted not to be DA even with socialisation

Considering the expense it is costing to enforce the pitbull 'type' law and the amount of dogs that they are seizing I would say the pit bull breed is already in existence in the UK anyway, so enlarge, it will not be re introducing a breed rather, treating them as other dogs are in rescues.
Maybe if they used the resource that they spend on trying to enforce a law that is proven not to be lowering attack and use that for addressing more of the rescue problems the un-banning may not seem so ludicrous.
So lets ban Staffy's, Akita's and Bullmastiffs while we are at it
I am not willing to have some breeds, each to their own with what breed they choose to own, simple really.
No quite getting that socialisation means nothing yet can play a huge part in it
Nothing in this life is guaranteed, in dog ownership that is no different
The whole nature vs nurture theory can be debated until the end of time, they have studied it for years with no conclusive answers except they both play a part to what degree is a mystery.
My thoughts are they both come into play, if you can get well balanced pitbulls and breed them and get a decent line going surely these dogs would be no different you the other bully breeds you talk of
Pitbulls weren't always bred to be DA, so surely they could go back and breed it out of them, rather than a breed becoming extinct because of it, the law simply doesn't work, the fact the law is going to 'type' is worrying as many misidentifications are happening. Dogs are getting impounded and mistreated due to no other reason that this law, their only crime being a 'type' and their behavioural history (of the individual dog) is nothing but a family pet that has done no wrong.
Staffy's are very closely aligned to PB's in history they were seen as the same breed, what happens when Staffy's are on the list of the DDA or as is being talked about in other countries GSD's and Rotties? Where is it going to end? If our own choice of breed becomes the victim of these laws I really don't see everyone being so amenable.
But that is any breed not exclusively to PB's, if you own a dog that becomes DA as it matures beyond all the right 'nurture' the onus is on you to take the right precautions and not throw it onto a breed and decide they are all going to be DA and throw them on the DDA
I know many dogs that are in one dog households and they are going to be one dog household for life DA or not, what do we do to rectify this problem? Ban anyone from owning two bitches? Not sure why it is exclusively worrisome for only PB's, I know many owners that have had this problem and it has nothing to do with being exclusive to PB's, they have been Dobs, Rotties, Cattle dogs, and the list goes on. So why is only a few select breeds get the distinct right to go on the DDA. I am thinking it should be extended beyond PB's and the two other breeds as what people have talked about happen in other breeds and the possibility being just as real in things changing as they mature.

Dogs changing as they mature can happen in any breed. So why is it only PB's that are being banned.
ANY DA dog should be handled responsibly and the onus is on the owner, to be PB is to be illegal but for another breed with those traits is okay. It is a bit hypocritical (of the DDA)
All my ramblings later, wary of this breed, definitely, wariness of some other breeds (especially the dog the next street across that is a bitza) definitely.

The bottom line is dogs are like humans, some humans grow up to be nice people others grow up being nasty, same with dogs....

That's funny!

They are so bad, we're importing another from the same lines

I honestly think lifting the ban would serve no purpose at all, other than creating more of a rescue problem here, if people want extentions of their manhoods there are perfectly legal breeds to choose from.



Why not? If you think none of the above applies?

You're not willing to have some breeds, why not? Wouldn't be because you happen to know what I do already?



Pit Bulls have been bred to fight for centuries, it's not that simple I'm afraid, ask any Staffy owner what it's like trying to breed out the traits you speak of.


As I replied earlier whether we choose to ignore it or not, PitBulls were bred for the sole cruel purpose of fighting, you legalize these dogs you legalize (and must in some way agree) to the suffering they endure everyday - would you really want to be party to that ? Make these dogs legal, dogfighting numbers will increase, fact.
In a city near me alone, arrests and raids are made on dogfighting rings everyday where these dogs are used for the sole purpose of dog fighting, breeding something like that out would take hundreds of years it wouldn't happen within our lifetime.

Rather than concentrating on banned breeds, isn't it just much better to be happy with what we have as in here and now and concentrate on those?

Centuries? Are you kidding me? It took 40 generations to domesticate foxes (which was around 40-50 years); it would take a lot less generations to breed out one trait.

Really? You know for certain, do you breed?

Many reputable breeders have been attempting to breed out Staffy traits for many a year, it don't happen over night.

It took 40 generations to turn a wild animal into a domesticated one. 40. That's all. To take wild animals who are scared of humans, who will attack or cower depending on the particular animal and to turn them into an animal who craves human touch, who rolls over and plays with humans. It completely changed the foxes: their coats, their ears, their tails, their way of interacting with people. 40 years to completely change everything an animal is.

Do you really think it would take centuries to breed out ONE characteristic from a dog? It didn't take centuries to breed it in, after all. You're just exaggerating and trying to defend your position in support of the DDA with little to no facts.

Really??

I know enough to know I would never ever support the cruel sport of dog fighting, legalize these dogs in the UK dogfighting numbers will increase, fact.
All it will do will give people the green light to go ahead and fight a dog that has become legal...I won't play party to that.

Plenty of breeds out there, infact hundreds that are legal, take your pick. Plenty to choose from.

So it is okay for St Bernard's being DA but not PB's and owners taking proper precautions one breed is acceptable but not another Not hypocritical at all

The resources it is taking to enforce this law that statistically has shown no decrease in attacks dog or humans could not be redirected to rescues I think it would be beneficial for rescuing IMO of course. And as an 'extension of people's manhood' another breed can take the place of the PB, that is only going to make them targets for the DDA.


Guessing you don't agree but why not DA as you said is good enough for the PB it should cover other breeds you through up...............no?? Funny how PB traits that other dogs have is okay but deem a dog a PB and that trait is unacceptable


As I said each to their own, it has nothing to do with your perception.
Everyone has breeds they would not consider for many different reasons. I won't consider a Maremma, a BC, an , a Dob, a Lab, a Malamute, none for whatever you seem to slate a breed for, but personal ones


[QUOTE=Nicci_L;2014399]You're not willing to have some breeds, why not? Wouldn't be because you happen to know what I do already?

Not sure what you know already, you contradict yourself too often.
Some breeds aren't appropriate for my lifestyle, some are not my type of dog. Not because of 'what you know already' (whatever that is )



So it is okay for it to be bred out of Staffy's for the next few centuries but not PB's even though in history they were the same breed of dog, that makes total sense


Nothing you have said sets PB's apart and makes them more dangerous than PB's, when I bought up the thought of adding a few breeds to the DDA it is funny that you got all wonder if that is what happened when they first bought up the breeds to start the DDA. Again, hoping they don't add any more breeds to it otherwise you may not be so happy with the DDA.