Finally someone wrote it as it is

Misty_Blue

olias wrote: »

...Pit Bull - genetically bred to be aggressive and bait bulls/bears
Staffordshire Bull Terrier - genetically bred to be aggressive and bait bulls/bears...

But there's a big difference between dog / animal aggression and human aggression. Dogs that fought in the pits HAD to be easily handleable by humans, so the owner could separate them once the fight was over, and attend to the wounds. Similarly, most of these breeds originated and were developed in very working class environments which meant they very often lived in the house with the family, including the children, as opposed to the hunting dogs of the wealthy which were kennelled outside. Their temperaments had to be sounds with regard to interaction with humans.


There's a good reason that a nickname for Staffies is "Nanny dog".

yorkshire_terrier_owner

I also think the breeders of these dogs should take some of the responsibility. The problem is there are too many people out there breeding for profit. I breed for the love of my breed and rarely even make my money back on a litter. I invest a lot of time in making sure prospective buyers can offer the right home for my pups and they have to sign a contract to say if they ever can't keep the dog for whatever reason, the dog is returned to me. I also ask them to keep in touch and let me know how the dog is throughout it's life. Sometimes I buy dogs in from other breeders and am very careful about who I buy from.

Harryonesock

mummyroysof3 wrote: »

IMO its the parents to blame. I don't have a dog but it can't be difficult to keep them away from the baby surely?

Not difficult at all. I have a dog. When my DGG was born the dog was in the kitchen behind a gate. He had the dog flap so could go in the garden. He came in the lounge when she was upstairs. He couldn't get upstairs as ther was another gate. They were never alone together. Sadly that dog was pts. Another dog came along when DGG was nearly 4. Again they are never left alone together. They are best friends. Harry dog adores her and she him but I just would not take that chance!! You just never know if a dog is feeling ill, in pain etc. it takes a second for them to turn. I would never forgive myself so don't take that chance.

gettingready

Misty_Blue wrote: »

But there's a big difference between dog / animal aggression and human aggression. Dogs that fought in the pits HAD to be easily handleable by humans, so the owner could separate them once the fight was over, and attend to the wounds. Similarly, most of these breeds originated and were developed in very working class environments which meant they very often lived in the house with the family, including the children, as opposed to the hunting dogs of the wealthy which were kennelled outside. Their temperaments had to be sounds with regard to interaction with humans.

Correct

Misty_Blue wrote: »

There's a good reason that a nickname for Staffies is "Nanny dog".

Sorry but the above is an urban legent - not true at all.

gettingready

re "nany dog" nonsense:

http://thenannydogblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Misty_Blue

gettingready wrote: »

Sorry but the above is an urban legent - not true at all.

Not according to the UK Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club, the GB and Northern Ireland Breed Council, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America, Battersea Dogs Home, the Dogs Trust, Discover Dogs /Kennel Club...


The only places I've seen it decried as a myth are those hysterical sites trying to tell us that all Staffies are loaded weapons just waiting to tear the nation's children limb from limb! EDIT: Similar to that link above.

gettingready

gettingready wrote: »

re "nany dog" nonsense:

http://thenannydogblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Pls read the whole article - I am NOT having a go at staffies but the whole "nany dog" is nonsense and the more repated it gets, the more people start believing it is true - and it is not.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier was denied Kennel Club recognition until 1935 because of its reputation as a pit fighting dog.

lostinrates

Tashatutuw wrote: »

Absolutely brilliant article - have forwarded it to several friends. Well done The Mirror (for a change...)

I have 3 dogs and I am sorry olias but I disagree that it is the breed. I have a Rottweiler, a Heinz 57 and a Miniaute Poodle and warn people about my Poodle... She can be a right moody mare. I don't have children but hope to in the near future and I know that I will NEVER leave my children alone with my dogs. Naptimes as a baby will be upstairs with the stairs door shut so the cats can't get to them either! I would trust my dogs with my life (most of the time with the Poodle anyway lol) but know that it would be irresponsible to leave them.

When I was a baby we had a Rottweiler and I used to tug on his ears, lift his lips up and poke around in his mouth, pull him out his bed by his tail etc (all with my Parents close by I hasten to add..) and I was very lucky that he was such a tolerant young boy.. It could all have gone horrifically wrong. I was taught not to do things when caught doing them and now have a wonderful, respectful relationship with my girls.. I agree, when dogs go 'wrong' owners are to blame.

I've only met lovely Rottweilers, and only about a dozen or so of them well. Lovely dogs.

But I agree with olias in many ways. Not about bred for aggressin particularly, (i have no experience of that) but dogs bred for high energy lifestyles or intelligence becoming frustrated and animals selected over generations for particular traits having a predisposition to showing those traits. This is NOT just a behavioural aspect IMO which I agree has huge impact in how the animal is brought up, and the humans and up bringing have the FAR biggest influencing factor, but I would argue part of that is knowing and meeting the needs of the individual which often mean understanding what the breed was bred for.

I have no experience with miniature poodles, only met a few, ( I did meet one in France I simply fell in love with though, a gorgeous, charming and delightful girl) but I rather thought they had a reputation for being somewhat how you describe yours?


I am staggered that any one blames any one other than 'us' frankly. We breed them, we keep them. Its up to us as dog owners to meet their needs and bring them up well. I applaud also the poignant point about bringing up children who are dog wise and not fearful. Just as we should become as savvy as we can in all potential 'dangers' that we will face in life.


Edit....I had a quick scan about and while I cannot find anything decent quickly i would post to support my position about mini poodles and temperament (just a few things I don't care too) wiki cites a piece of research on Rottweilers. Which I think rather does

From the wiki entry on rotts

A 2008 study surveying breed club members found that while Rottweilers were average in aggressiveness (bites or bite attempts) towards owners and other dogs, it indicated they tend to be more aggressive than average toward strangers. This aggression appears correlated with watchdog and territorial instincts.[13]

Its posted on a background of the breed standard being very much focus on excellent temperament, which seems to concur with what you from your experience say about roots and what Lias and I are saying about bred for a job and still lovely dogs.

Every rott I have known I'd have been happy to bring into my home.

Misty_Blue

gettingready wrote: »

Pls read the whole article - I am NOT having a go at staffies but the whole "nany dog" is nonsense and the more repated it gets, the more people start believing it is true - and it is not.

I have read it. But it is after all just a blog, and one person's blog does not, for me, override numerous specific breed councils, kennel clubs, breed societies etc. Their information may well be largely anecdotal but I can't see them all perpetuating an urban legend for the sake of it.


The quote about the breed's later kennel club recognition isn't relevant to the point.


But we'll just agree to disagree.

Tashatutuw

lostinrates wrote: »

I've only met lovely Rottweilers, and only about a dozen or so of them well. Lovely dogs.

I have never met a nasty Rott (unless in the same rotten circumstances which would upset any dog - pain, distress, fear etc). My girl is a bouncy, loveable ball of fluff with a really bad reputation behind her breed. I would trust her with anything and she is a hell of a lot more obedient than a lot of peoples 'loving family pets'.

lostinrates wrote: »

I have no experience with miniature poodles, only met a few, but I rather thought they had a reputation for being somewhat how you describe yours?

I think a lot of little dogs are like this, especially when they are either a) spoilt (which she was when OH's Mother had her before she passed) b) mean (which she is - she never wants to play, the word isn't in her vocab) or c) around big dogs and feels she needs to prove something (which unfortunately for her, she is)...

I agree very much that dog owners should research the breed from your perspective of 'personality' for instance I would never have a spaniel breed as I know they would require more exercise and input than we have to give... And having met my Brother's Malamute I would never get one, as again, they need so much exercise and input but the dog works for him as Spaniels work for many... But I don't think any reputable breeder would ever breed an aggressive or nervous animal so disagree that you should be wary of certain breeds with a 'history' of it... Rottweilers have a 'history' of it but I know more people who have been bitten by terrier breeds.