I am just watching an item on The One show about staffies and pit bulls.

e case of staffies,  every day I encounter fellow dog walkers who have rescued staffies, and good for them!  To me they seem like bouncy friendly dogs - same as Jack Russells.

I just wanted to comment on pit bulls:  Last year in Florida we stopped in a park on our first day - just having landed and wanting a breather.  I was immediately drawn to several old guys sitting around the place with their dogs.  As I approached them I realised that the dogs were probably pit bulls.  As I chatted to the old men I didn't mention that in Britiain they are banned,  not wanting to upset anyone.  I have to say however that both the old fellas and their dogs were  very very laid back and it was hard to equate these rather rotund and placid of pit bulls with the frightful snarling aggressive types one sees on the telly!

It just goes to show - and I have always believed this - that the behaviour of any dog is down to the owner - not the DOG!!!  Who agrees?? (It was lovely to see the lovely David Grant from Animal Hospital again!!)

Harriette

Very recently I came across two young men, one with a  very young pup in tow. The pup was a bull breed of some type.  I bent down to say hello to the pup saying what a sweetie she looked. The guy holding her lead pulled her away and said no touching. I asked why and was told that he didn't want her to be friendly with people at all and that nobody other than him could touch her. Needless to say, I gave him a very long lecture about creating dangerous dogs. I'm sure it went in one ear and out the other but I'll be keeping an eye out for him.

To get to the point it is not by and large the breed but the way they are treated. Having said that, there can be no doubt that certain strains of the various bull breeds can be very unreliable with other dogs and when they are wondering around offlead, as in the inner cities, that can present a danger, not only to other dogs but to people and children who may get caught up in a fracas. In addition, there can be no doubt that highly dog aggressive strains are being selectively bred from for the purposes of dog fighting, by the thug brigade. They are also mixing such strains with more wary breeds like Akitas and Shar peis to create dogs more willing to attack humans ( as we know, our native, "fighting" breeds are very people friendly and generally make useless guard dogs).

So yes, it doesn't surprise me that a well bred, well reared Pit bull could be a nice dog.

the problem is ''well bred'' Pit Bull is an oxymoron . they make up a small percentage of the population but are responsible for the marjority of brutal and fatal attacks on dogs and humans http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf the damage they inflict is horrific and these dogs are highly predatory and impossible to stop once they deem you ''prey''

I live with APBT for over 25 years, I have taken in hundreds and rehomed them after assessing them etc. In Germany for example fatal attacks of APBT on humans are few and far between, in fact it is a German breed who is leading in fatal attacks on humans. I got mauled a few years back by one of the rescues I had taken in, it never made the news, not even the fact that I had to stay in hospital for days and had over 100 stitches. Reporters were falling over themselves to interview the "Pit Bull Lady" until they heard what breed had actually attacked me, so they lost interest PDQ. Needless to say the dog who mauled me was NOT a bull breed.

yes they are not anywhere near as popular in Germany I;m finding it hard to believe they are that common in Ireland and why where there hundreds of dogs given up if they were so wonderful? APBT were bred to be game so a well bred Pit is very game ,not a quality that fits in todays society and certainly not a breed developed by your more intellectual types as dog fighting is blood sport

> the problem is ''well bred'' Pit Bull is an oxymoron . they make up a small percentage of the population but are responsible for the marjority of brutal and fatal attacks on dogs and humans http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf the damage they inflict is horrific and these dogs are highly predatory and impossible to stop once they deem you ''prey''

What a load of tripe!

The damage ANY dog even some of the very small breeds, can inflict on a human is pretty horrific! Trust me, when you have seen the inside of your OWN arm... veins, muscle, fat and all.... you actually know how that feels.

The dog that did that to me?.... Pitbull? No. GSD? No.. Staffie? No. Doberman/Rottweiler/Akita/AmBulldog.....

All no.

Old English Sheepdog.

And why did he rip my arm open (not being overly dramatic here, this is exactly what he did do, he didnt make a mark on my coat sleeve but my skin ripped open!)...  It wasnt because he was 'nasty' and it wasnt because he was a big dog, and it wasnt, obviously, because he had any history of fighting...

It was because he was scared witless and had been taught not to growl at people, by well meaning owners who never dreamed that their ignorant actions would cause such a problem.

In the UK bullbreed x's that WILL fall within DEFRA's guidelines as to what constitutes a 'pitbull type dog' account for a HUGE section of teh canine population. Only really challenged by labradors and golden retrievers as the most popular and commonly owned breed.

Given that.. and even when you consider that unfortunately these dogs DO appeal to a section of society that actively encourages them to behave aggressively and dangerously, AND also to a section of society who feel the need to own a dog to protect themselves...

It is testament to the types generally extremely GOOD nature with people, that more people HAVENT been injured. As far as I am aware, since pitbulls were banned in teh UK only one death can definately be attributed to a 'type' dog. When you look further into that case, it also turns out that the dog had a history of being aggressive, was extremely frightened at the time, the adults involved were under strict instruction NEVER to allow contact between the child and the dog, but were under the influence of drugs at the time and so did permit the two to not only be together.. but to be together unsupervised.

The other case that involved a staffie (not a pitbull), also involved a JRT.... and an unsupervised baby... and common sense tells you this is a very ill advised thing to do, leaving a baby with two dogs of ANY kind.

The other deaths directly attributed to dogs involved Rottweilers and again... unsupervised, unsocialised, untrained dogs left with children.

Other breeds have badly injured and killed people and dogs - the DDA section 1 banning certain breeds came about because of a non-fatal attack on a child... by a breed that was NOT then banned!

In the US and other countries, Pitbulls are used as search and rescue dogs, and as assistance dogs for disabled people!

The fact that a dog is capable of inflicting serious and fatal injuries to a human is NOT a reason to ban them, ALL dogs have this ability and all dogs are naturally predatory animals.

Fantastically well informed posts from some.

as ever main issue is idiot owners.
see it here. owner is always fairly young-between 15 - 30. usually male.usually with hoodie or baseball cap pulled low over eyes. dog is encouraged to look 'hard'. lunging at other dogs/people in street expected and not discouraged.  plenty of heavy chains/studded leather gear etc.   
saw a very sweet pup being held outside shop last week, i commented to her owner she looked nice and he just scowled and pulled her away as she was trying to sniff my leg, then said shes got to learn not to go near people as must only trust him.   give it a year and he'll have what he wants-a nasty natured dog.

I;m finding it hard to believe they are that common in Ireland and why where there hundreds of dogs given up if they were so wonderful?
I don't know whether or not you have seen the panorama doctumentary, its about the farmer's boys from what I gather are the most prolific dog fighting gang in ireland, I think that these dogs are probably being abandoned when their fighting days are over or rescued by good hearted people from these hell holes. I also read that this gang often steals the dogs back from rescue to put them on the circuit again. Mind you I would ask you to ask the same question of England? there are huge numbers of dogs from different breeds in rescues, these are often dogs where the owner's circumstances are not up to scratch, not the dogs behaviour? perhaps the pits in ireland are the victim of our disposable society, just like staffs are on our shores, commodities to be given up for the most petty reason for no fault of their own.
For the record I know a person who has an irish staff, a girl who is experienced in keeping dogs and I must say she is an absolute star, socialises it very regularly, the problem that she has is that no one really wants to come upto it because of the way it looks. Perhaps sometimes this subliminal training could have an effect on the dog? if people keep jumping away from it perhaps the dog starts to think 'Ohh look, people move out the way when I'm around, their frightened of me, I must be really powerful' and create dominant aggressive behaviour through that way. Then when someone does approach it, it doesn't know how to react, not willing to give up ground as it hasn't ever done before so bites and growls instead. This is all just a theory but I think in somecases it may be a logical explanation for 'sudden out of the blue attacks'.
For the pit bull lady, I really do take off my hat to you, thank goodness that you are there to aid this precious breed. I wish our government had the attitude to the pit bull as the people in the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBFIozOe4AM

I'm just not convinvced that half the people who claim to own a pitbull really do.
A Stafford cross breed may be, but I think they use the pitbull term as a 'status' in itself just by the very use of that word.

I'm also pretty much convinced that either these 'pitbulls' or Stafford crosses end up in rescue so, so often, because they don't turn out to be as aggressive as their owners expect them to be OR they end up becoming extremely boisterous & untrained dogs and the owners actually end up not being able to cope with that.

> Perhaps sometimes this subliminal training could have an effect on the dog? if people keep jumping away from it perhaps the dog starts to think 'Ohh look, people move out the way when I'm around, their frightened of me, I must be really powerful' and create dominant aggressive behaviour through that way. Then when someone does approach it, it doesn't know how to react, not willing to give up ground as it hasn't ever done before so bites and growls instead.

My dog gets a lot of bad reactions from people, to the extent a person has actually ran away screaming when they saw him But he is very, very friendly, the only problem it's caused by people not wanting to approach him, is it's taking AGES to get him well-mannered when greeting as it's such a novelty it's very exciting. He's just over 2 yrs old now and I still have to 'coach' him when meeting adults. Children are not put-off like adults so he's great at meeting kids as he's had sooooo much practice
It's not made him see people as a target atall, just a novelty (and he is a gurading breed), socialisation is not just about exposing a dog to situation, the way the owner reacts in situations with the dog has a great impact too, if I had spent the last 2yrs dragging my dog away from all passing people, I may well have a person-hating monster on the end of the lead, allthough he hasn't actually met many people up close, with pysical contact, he has always been trained that people are a good thing.
I think the fact that owners will train thier dogs (as mentioned by others up the thread) to not like/be used to people by pulling them away is probably more to do with the 'unprovoked' attacks (I don't think most attacks are unprovoked from the dogs POV).

Theemx very good post

Mine too Mastifflover, the male in particular.  I was mortified when taking my two to the beach for the first time here on the Gold Coast to be asked by a chap if Alfie was a pitbull.  Of course I said absolutely not (which he isn't I hasten to add), he's a UK KC registered English Staffordshire Bull Terrier, please come and pet him, and the chap did and was smitten with him.  Of course he was also then smothered with Stafford lick by Tess too

I'm just not convinvced that half the people who claim to own a pitbull really do.
A Stafford cross breed may be, but I think they use the pitbull term as a 'status' in itself just by the very use of that word.
I think your right. My friend with the irish staff is certainly not a 'pitbull', no doubt a breeding from leggier non kc staffordshire bull terriers. Mind you what is a 'pit bull', is it a type or a breed? is it a pure line American pit bull terrier, American staffordshire bull terrier or even the American bully, are these all pit bulls? I know that an American staffordshire bull terrier can be dual registered as a Pit bull terrier with the UKC? correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that the pit bull is almost a group of dogs rather than a breed, with the APBT being in the types most original form, a working dog, and the ASBT and AB being bred to a standard. I would really love an American to answer this question as only we in the UK can speculate, i have seen in my area a dog that looks very much like a ASBT but this could just be a coincindence, possibly a large staff crossbreed, he's uncropped so if he was an import I am sure that they would not ommited this feature.

APBT is a reg breed that has become a generic type the fact remains the majority of fatal attacks are by pit bulls that is a statistic not my opinion they are reg by UKC or ADBA the differnce between a Staff and a Pit according to Pit Bull people is the a Pit is Game a Staff is not.

> I think your right. My friend with the irish staff is certainly not a 'pitbull', no doubt a breeding from leggier non kc staffordshire bull terriers. Mind you what is a 'pit bull', is it a type or a breed? is it a pure line American pit bull terrier, American staffordshire bull terrier or even the American bully, are these all pit bulls? I know that an American staffordshire bull terrier can be dual registered as a Pit bull terrier with the UKC? correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that the pit bull is almost a group of dogs rather than a breed, with the APBT being in the types most original form, a working dog, and the ASBT and AB being bred to a standard. I would really love an American to answer this question as only we in the UK can speculate, i have seen in my area a dog that looks very much like a ASBT but this could just be a coincindence, possibly a large staff crossbreed, he's uncropped so if he was an import I am sure that they would not ommited this feature.

I agree, therein lies the confusion I suppose.
I have just quickly looked up (again, one of the many many times! lol) the UKC and ABDA, and I have to be honest the pictures of the APBT's look very similar to the AmStaff's.  They sure don't look like a lot of the photo's bandied around by the tabloid press.
American Staffords are also legal in some states here in Australia.  I personally don't have any problem with any of the breeds or types for that matter.
But it does seem to be a can of worms!

I could certainly not comment on what pitbull 'people' think.  But I can say that I know many Staffords that are 'game', but again this depends on your interpretation of that word.  My interpretation of that word is a high prey drive.

> the problem is ''well bred'' Pit Bull is an oxymoron . they make up a small percentage of the population but are responsible for the marjority of brutal and fatal attacks on dogs and humans [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf" rel=nofollow]http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf[/url] the damage they inflict is horrific and these dogs are highly predatory and impossible to stop once they deem you ''prey''

"But what does the public really have to be aware of? Dr. Ian Dunbar is a veterinarian and an animal behaviorist from Berkeley, CA and he says the entire issue is overblown. "I don't mean to discount attacks by pit bulls, but we're talking about maybe ten fatal attacks on people annually" he says. "Is this really something we should be putting our public policy efforts toward?" Dunbar says according to the CDC about 2,000 parents murdered their own children in 1999. In 2000, 25,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. Dunbar maintains more people are killed annually by tripping over their own slippers than all fatal dog attacks combined, regardless of breed." taken from here

This gets things into perspective a bit.

ETA, a bit more from that link - If pit bull-types were so inherently bad, how could millions of people share their families, their homes and their beds with them without issue?, so pitbulls are in thier millions, in the US, but are responsible for 10 anual fatalities.

There will always be news reports, investigations, studies and so on that can and will represent both sides of the 'dog bite statistic' argument.
There will always be strong feelings with regard to the subject as it is such an emotive one.

I am just thrilled that the person who started this thread also had a positive experience with a bull breed, just as the chap who spoke to me and my young Alfie did, even if it was an 'evil' pitbull (tongue in cheek btw!).

> ETA, a bit more from that link - If pit bull-types were so inherently bad, how could millions of people share their families, their homes and their beds with them without issue?, so pitbulls are in thier millions, in the US, but are responsible for 10 anual fatalities

Though I agree for the most part, most people will just see Dr Dunbars report as an opinion, whether he's a professional or not sadly.  (I happen to agree with part regarding so many living with families without issue though).
But that's what I'm saying with regard to reports/news items and so on.  Who will believe what?  It seems that a lot of people tend to go against the dogs.

Where do you really get decent statistics from?  I can't say I've ever found any that could be called reliable.

And just as I replied to kelly mccoys post (though didn't quote) I really do believe that so many so called 'pitbull's and cross bred bull breeds are 'given up' because they're so ridiculously over-bred,most likely not performing as the owners had hoped them to, and/or they are not being socialised or trained and so therefore same owners cannot cope. 

> Where do you really get decent statistics from?  I can't say I've ever found any that could be called reliable.

That's the problem isn't it - reliable statistics.

Apparently dog bit statistics are misleading, as it's only bites that require medical attention that get recorded. So it gives a false representation of the 'agressiveness' of certain breeds.
"The Dachshund, otherwise known as the Sausage dog, was originally bred to hunt badgers. They came out as the most aggressive breed with 1 in 5 reported to have bitten or tried to bite a stranger and 1 in 12 snapping at their owners." taken from here

So, really the pitbull (and other powerfull breeds) should be seen as dogs most likely to cause damage if they bite, but not as likely to bite as smaller dogs.

I really don't like breed-specific legislation, it doesn't adress the problems which,IMO,  is irresponsible breeding (those who breed with no regard for temperment/specifically for a bad temperment) and irresponsible owners so sadly, inncocent people loose thier lifes or get mauled by dogs that know no better

> And just as I replied to kelly mccoys post (though didn't quote) I really do believe that so many so called 'pitbull's and cross bred bull breeds are 'given up' because they're so ridiculously over-bred,most likely not performing as the owners had hoped them to, and/or they are not being socialised or trained and so therefore same owners cannot cope.

I agree, I imagine these dogs are high-energy and can be quite a handfull if not given a suitable outlet for that energy - so again, irresponsible owners

> I really don't like breed-specific legislation, it doesn't adress the problems which,IMO,  is irresponsible breeding (those who breed with no regard for temperment/specifically for a bad temperment) and irresponsible owners so sadly, inncocent people loose thier lifes or get mauled by dogs that know no better
>
>

Completely agree. 

I once assessed and rehomed a Stafford (that for all intents and purposes to some people could very well have looked like a pitbull 'type') who was so insanely bored (he had lived in a flat with his owners for over a year, rarely walked and who were sadly part of an assisted living programme of sorts and so dependent on various prescription drugs and so on) he was literally bouncing off the walls.  Had that dog been in the wrong situation at the wrong time and knocked someone over or worse still knocked someone out (he was that bad) he could very well no longer be with us.
Thankfully an experienced person gave him a new home, and he is such a well behaved and well trained dog now you wouldn't know it was the same animal.

At the end of the day pit bulls were bred to fight and be aggressive - I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole.
I don't like staffordshire bull terriers either for that matter. But each to their own.

yep as said above its the owners not the dogs

if they are trained well they can be just as loving and friendly as any other dog , in the wrong hands is usually when they end up fighting or being taught to fight

"its the owners not the dogs"

So are you saying that a cavalier for eg is just as likely to make a sustained attack on a child than say a pit bull or a SBT, if they are in the wrong hands ?

yes i would say that

maybe not do the same amount of  damage but could cause some damage to a child if not trained properly

why does the breed have to be the issue , all dogs can be aggressive -

Fro example Ceasar milan has a pitbull who is as soft as anything ....with the right training he has helped re-habilate other dogs

The dogs can cause a great deal of damage once they attack, as they have such heavy jaws. BUT actually, the greatest percentage of attacks on humans is from labs and golden retrievers in the uk (this is taking into account their popularity).
That is because people think they are soft and push them too far, or let their children bully the dog too much.

exactly

Here is a link to a video which shows that pit bulls are just like any other dogs, here you see a superbly trained pit that is around people and dogs as well as demonstrating search and rescue, yes this dog's ancestors were bred to tear each other apart but I don't think anyone has told this dog that? definately demonstrates that it is the owners and not the breed (BTW I know that is got an E collar on but still shows that training and not breeding is behind this dogs actions)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YA0fWdwOs
But Why am I telling you this? I think that the community on champdogs is very aware of 'deed not breed'. Somehow preaching to the converted is not going to help pits, although I am very pleased that the OP shared her positive experiences of the breed, I think it is the canine uneducated and politicians (oh wait are they the same thing ) that need to be told about this. Unfortunately though since we have no pure pit bulls (or if so they are in the sheds of dog fighters) we wouldn't be able to educate people through a meet and greet or demonstration which is the way I think we would need to turn this viewpoint around, a positive experience and memory with a pit bull may change long held negative sterotypes.

>> maybe not do the same amount of  damage but could cause some damage to a child if not trained properly

why does the breed have to be the issue , all dogs can be aggressive

Agree with this entirely. Anything with teeth can do damage, the extent of the damage could depend on the size of the dog.

I'm very strict with my dogs, as I know that I wouldn't be able to physically restrain them. People with smaller dogs may be more lax with the training as they know they can hold them back.

My OH and I have had dogs for years and he is very wary of Dalmations the only breed to have bitten him badly.
Any dog handled wrong is dangerous,what is a great pity is ignorant people taking a set breed PB, Staffie ect and training it to be a weapon.

I think the govt. should legeslate against prats owning dogs per say.

> At the end of the day pit bulls were bred to fight and be aggressive

the operative word there being were as were Staffords, doesn't mean they're all bred to be like that now.  In fact many Stafford owners I know have said that they 'game' aspect of the Stafford is beginning to dwindle within the breed.

I'm actually not keen on a couple of breeds, wouldn't say I don't like them, just wary of them.  Put me in a room full of Staffords over the particular breeds I have a problem with any day.  But you see my opinion is based on my knowledge of my breed, and perhaps that's where part of the problem lies.  Many people have no knowledge of certain breeds and so therefore can be biased by newspaper reports and the usual snarling snapping pictures that are portrayed there.

APBT were bred to be game so a well bred Pit is very game ,not a quality that fits in todays society and certainly not a breed developed by your more intellectual types as dog fighting is blood sport

What a load of nonsense, the Pit Bull was the most versatile and common breed in the US after WWI, they worked in pretty much every canince "discipline" there ever was, from herding to S & R as well as army and police dogs. Nowadays they excel in obedience and flyball just as well as other breeds. As to the last part of you comment, I take deep offense to this, the average adopter of an APBT or APBT x are middle class families and I choose my adopters very carefully. I also assess and train the dogs before I rehome them. MANY of the dogs in my care come from the UK, you might want to check out Raymonds website http://www.thepeoplespuppy.com

Also, media hype re this breed is something else. Someone mentioned the BBC Panorama program on dogfighting. Remember Nipper, the "5 star blue chip" APBT bought by the BBC in Finland? The dog was three years old when he came into my care shortly before the BBC program was aired. 3 years old and not ONE scar on him? Hm, very strange for a fighting dog who would have peaked in his "career" as a 3 yro. Oh and I forgot to mention: not a bother with other dogs. Now what..?

The word game has been tallied about. GAME doesn't mean fit and rearing for any fight. GAME means that the dog is prepared to do his task to his utmost limit, be it in the pit or in S & R. THAT is game, not an inbuild thirst for human or canine blood.

Also, media hype re this breed is something else. Someone mentioned the BBC Panorama program on dogfighting. Remember Nipper, the "5 star blue chip" APBT bought by the BBC in Finland? The dog was three years old when he came into my care shortly before the BBC program was aired. 3 years old and not ONE scar on him? Hm, very strange for a fighting dog who would have peaked in his "career" as a 3 yro. Oh and I forgot to mention: not a bother with other dogs. Now what..?
It was I that mentioned the panorama program but it was in reference to the farmer's boys activities and other such dog fighting groups in ireland being in someway responsible in part for amount of pits being abandoned in ireland, the fact about nipper that you have revealled doesn't surprise me, part of the purpose of the program was to see whether they could get an illegal pit bull into the country. I think the reporters would have been briefed and chose a dog that was of type but harmless, after all if they had got a true fighting dog then it did injure a person I can imagine the lawsuit would be....interesting something I think they would want to avoid. The BBC is not a company that I would trust not to sensationalise but no doubt the undercover footage that they took in that film was powerful and honest, the narrative not so much.

Sigh.. *true fighting dogs* have been selectively bred to be human friendly, after all they must be handled in the pit by the dogmen without risk of injury. This is a trait which is present in many bull breeds and I'd rather seperate two fighting bull breeds than two fighting collies, terriers etc.

The BBC didn't have a clue, I spoke at length with Andy Bell of the BBC in the run up of the handover of Nipper and afterwards. He expressed great surprise when I told him that the dog was fine with other dogs and was not a trained fighting dog. The breeder of said dog is a well known pedlar of the breed and would sell his grandmother if someone wanted her. The program was badly researched.

And after all, what did the program accomplish? More prosecution for the breed but not for the human scumbags who enjoy watching two dogs ripping each other apart. The lads featured in the program are long forgotten, by the law and the public, the "dangerous" pit bull isn't.

And please do not forget that this is NOT an American breed. It was Irish and English immigrants who brought the "Bull and Terrier" (I much prefer their old name) to the States.

whether they could get an illegal pit bull into the country

The BBC had declared him to be a Boxer x Lab in the pet passport and ... brought him into DUBLIN Airport. There was no need to declare him a x breed and they knew that fully well as APBT are legal here, if just would not have sounded good on TV. Besides, there are hundreds of breeders here in Ireland, NI and the UK. It made no sense to travel to Finland unless it was to sensationalise. So there .

How many Obedience titled Pits are there?? and to say that fighting dogs were selectivly bred to be human friendly is the ''ideal'' but who are what deems these dogs human friendly?? the Mensa members who bred them to fight?? this breed is not under any form  of selective breeding by titling and breeding dogs who have proven they have have correct temperament that I know of maybe you can post some websites with pedigrees of several generations of obedience titled dogs with health clearences

> maybe you can post some websites with pedigrees of several generations of obedience titled dogs

"We have owned APBTs since the mid 80's and have been titling them since 1990. Our family has owned the breed since the 1950's. We have titled our dogs in: Schutzhund, Weightpull(APA/UKC/ADBA, ect), Conformation, Agility,  Obedience, UKC Dogsports, and Irondog events." taken from here

If a cavalier has the potential to be as aggressive and have the inate desire to fight to the death as say a pitbull or a SBT why don't we hear of them being used in dog fights ? I find it astounding tbh that some folk think a cavalier has the potential to be as aggressive as such breeds !
Also jaw size and strength is of great significance here - it matters a lot (obviously). Thank goodness the pit bull is a banned breed over here.
And if pit bulls etc are naturally big softies at heart, why do they attract the sort of macho dog fighting types in the first place ?  Why have a banned pit bull to take to dog fights when you could just as easily train up a Golden Retriever or a Labrador to do the same job (apparently) ?
Anyway, I am off to spend the night with my newborns and their Mum (pups not babies!).

Otterhound I know that fighting dogs have to be bred human friendly so that the scummy dogfighters don't get bitten but if you look at it from the POV of the BBC, if they bought in a scarred up dog suspisitions maybe raised, i understand dog fighting is illegal in ireland? so if they had brought it in through dublin heavily scarred maybe they might have been stopped? thus not ending the program in the sensationalist way they wanted, walking a pit bull down the street adding to the paranoia of ' there could be one walking down your street'.
Personally I want BSL to be removed, I would be extremely happy to own a health tested bred to standard American Staffordshire bull terrier because if you look at it from a husbandry of view and forget the looks for a second...
They have short coats so are very easy to keep clean
They don't have a vast array of health problems
They need moderate excerise
They are intelligent and responsive - able to compete in a variety of dog sports
They are a nice medium size perfect for a majority of households
They adore humans
How is that not the perfect dog for a variety of households? Easy keep loyal dog.
Cavlover I think that if you had two cavaliers, trained them to be aggressive to each other, treated them like S*** and then through them into together for a time I am sure you will get a fight, maybe not to the death but a fight nonetheless. As for them not being popular in dog fights, dog fighters are often young men who just dogs as an extension of their Genitalia, walking a cavalier down the street is hardly going to cut it. Essentially dog fighters are exploiting the most beautiful feature of the breed, its loyalty, so they are willing to fight to the death to please its owner, rather than having an inate desire to kill every dog insite. As otterhound pointed out about nipper, he was not bothered about other dogs, he's a pit so where's his insight desire to fight?.
BTW not all fighting dogs are pit bull types, look at the shar pei the Akita, the flockguardian breeds that have become fighting dogs in the middle east such as the Kangal and Centeral Asian shepherd . These latter types have not been bred for fighting but still do it through training and loyalty for its owner.  

> have the inate desire to fight to the death as say a pitbull or a SBT

Which Staffords have that inate desire?  Certainly not the one's I have encountered.  There are a heck of a lot of sweeping statements being made here.

Ive been following this prost and i just wanted to post a link to the American Temperament Test Society website, they are trying to temperment test as many dogs in as many breeds as possible. They started in 1977, On there American PitBull Terriers have a 85.3% Pass rate which is better than quite a few of the other breeds, for example Golden Retrivers (84.6%), Collies (79.4%), Austraialn Shephards (81.0%).

http://atts.org/

> How many Obedience titled Pits are there??

There are actually many many obedience & agility titled APBT's after doing a little research on the internet.

oh of course, the GR's 'problem' would be attributed to breeding and the Pitbull or Stafford just due to underlying aggression (underlying, as in 'breeding' or 'temperament'?).

Purrllllease!

If you actually had any experience with Staffords, you would also know that they are one of the most affectionate toward humans too.

I don't think anyone has or would (if they had any sense) would say that the cause of a dog attack is ALWAYS due to the way the dog has been raised.
Of course there are just 'bad' dogs, that should go without saying I would think.

ETA, I often think the same think cavlover when I hear of a dog attack, but I more often think 'oh no here we go again, what sort of scuzzy owners are these particular one's going to turn out to be'?  And funnily enough, I'm right in my assumptions too.

"oh of course, the GR's 'problem' would be attributed to breeding and the Pitbull or Stafford just due to underlying aggression (underlying, as in 'breeding' or 'temperament'?)."

To be honest I am totally unaware of any "problem" with the Golden Retriever - there are a few other breeds that there clearly is a problem with though.

Lets get one thing straight here ...

Golden Retrievers were bred to retrieve game (naturally soft mouthed so as not to damage it).

Pit Bulls were bred to fight (so I believe) and SBT were bred to to partake in blood sports such as bull/bear baiting.

Enough said I think.

>Golden Retrievers were bred to retrieve game (naturally soft mouthed so as not to damage it).
>Pit Bulls were bred to fight (so I believe) and SBT were bred to to partake in blood sports such as bull/bear baiting.

None of these breeds were originally bred to be aggressive to humans, and nowadays the huge majority (yes, even goldens) have for generations been bred purely for pet or show, not the job they were intended to do.

Any breed which becomes popular will be bred by all and sundry, and not all of these breeders will put temperament as their top priority; for many it's the nearest available dog which is chosen as the sire, not the most suitable. Goldens sadly fall into this category - there are some very unreliable, mainly pet-bred, ones out there. There are also a fair few nervous, snappy cavaliers from ill-considered pet matings and the numerous outpourings of the numerous commercial breeder and puppy farms. The only difference is that the smaller the dog, the less damage it can do.

cavlover, I was simply replying to what you said in your post -

I notice the Golden Retriever has been singled out more than once during the course of this thread - any attacks made by this breed are surely due to dreadful breeding

My point is obvious I think.  The GR attacking can be attributed to dreadful breeding, but any attack by a Pitbull or Stafford cannot?  Why, just because of history?  I think that the breed we see now is a little more far removed from their history than some people like to think.  I'm not blinkered or ignorant enough to think that the Stafford or pitbull is a soft mouthed bundle of fur, but neither are they the monstrous 'devil dogs' that seems to be so readily portrayed.
Aggression toward humans was never ever bred for.

I'm very much aware of my breed's history, yes they were derived from a bulldog of the bullbaiting era and crossed with a terrier breed to be used in the pit, but that fact alone certainly does not make each and every single one of them the monsters that some think they are.

I too, think, enough said.

I think any dog that was bred for aggression - whatever it was supposed to be directed at - is more likely to use that aggression inappropriately than a dog that was not purposely bred to show any level of aggression.
I think you would go a long way to find a nasty cavalier ! Yes, some cavaliers can be overly exciteable but it would be rare to come across one that would attack a child.... sadly not so for some of the other breeds out there !

"... does not make each and every single one of them the monsters that some think they are".

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.

" The only difference is that the smaller the dog, the less damage it can do. "

Which is of course hugely significant.

>Lets get one thing straight here ...

>Golden Retrievers were bred to retrieve game (naturally soft mouthed so as not to damage it).

>Pit Bulls were bred to fight (so I believe) and SBT were bred to to partake in blood sports such as bull/bear baiting.

Pit bulls were only bred to be agressive with DOGS not people, golden retrievers are bred to have 'soft mouths' when it comes to the retrieve, they are perfectly capeable of chomping through a bone or chunk of meat (unless I am missing something and GRs are so naturally soft mouthed they can't chew recreational bones or eat a BARF diet).

My dog is a Mastiff, a war dog, used throughout it's history in barbaric, savage ways -this is a breed, known today, as  a GENTLE GIANT. In the midst of a rough play-fight with him he can jump at me and grab my arm - with a SOFT MOUTH (I do allow this sort of play and there are rules to it, don't mistake him for an out of control dog that just happens to bite me with a soft mouth). He has been trained to INHIBIT his BITE FORCE and if you have ever read 'the bite stops here' you will see that lack of this type of TRAINING is a big part of people being injured by a dog biting.

Training is so vastly important for all dogs and the TYPE of owner that has a certain breed is going to influence the dogs behaviour. How many drug peddling, violent scum bags would use a GR as 'protection'? - they wouldn't because they are after a certain 'look' to a dog that frightens people. It's, the PEOPLE behind the dogs that are the problem. Look at the size of a St. Bernard, I bet they can do an awfull lot of damage, but they don't have the 'Macho' appeal so are much less likely to be owned by a person who is going to train for agression/protection/teratorial.

Allthough there are obviousl diffences between breeds of dog, ALL dogs need to be trained and it's training/socialisation that can shape the future behaivour of a dog. If you take a GR puppy, teach it to guard, teach it to bite hard, teach it to attack people, you will have a nasty dog.

The little girl that was bitten in the face outside of my boys school, requiring many stitches, was not bitten by a 'macho' dog, she was bitten by a collie-cross, however I think the breed is IRRELEVANT. The relevant factors are the dog was TIED to a railing by itself and a parent ALLOWED her child to run up to the dog, screaming in glee and wrap her harms around it's neck.

My toddler, bitten by my dog guarding it's food - that wasn't a 'macho' dog, it was a LAB cross, the relevant factor - I was stupid enough to permit my toddler to approach the dog while he was eating (not having the dog from a puppy, I never knew how at ease or not he was with food untill that point). If the dogs canine teeth weren't ground down to little stumps he probably would have broken the skin.