Well done Mr Alhadi.....but what kind of parents still have a pitbull dog as a pet?

[mrsruffallo]

Thank God for this man walking past...but really shouldn't all parents be thinking hard about having these kind of dogs in the home?

Would i allow her aroung my son? not a hope

Nothing wrong with letting her be near your son.
But it would be wrong to leave her alone with your son and it would be wrong to let your son wake her when she's sleeping, chase her round, hit her, kick her, pull her ears etc and that applies for any dogs.

No matter what size or breed.

My god wait a second are we really comparing dogs to animals and breeds to race/religion?

Sorry im confused are certain races breed to develop certain characteristic other that airans.

Stupid argument.

staffy x pitbull x english bull terrier

If she's 13 stone I would SERIOUSLY doubt that is her true parentage personally and would expect something a lot bigger like a bullmastiff in there.

Ridiculous comparison. My son could do no harm to a dog that size with out a weapon, would l let leave my son alone with a knife...of course not.

Yes, breed specifics are a stupid argument and BSL is extremely ill thought out.

Ummm I really don't understand your comparison.
At all

And the point is that exactly. If it was a jack russel i think i might have more of a chance fending of an attack than that by a pit bull.

dogs are unpredictable that is the point.

Oh I see.
But you could say that for any dog bigger than a jack russell!

Are you going to ban all dogs bigger than a jack russell because if a great dane, golden retriever, cocker spaniel or any of these 'nicey' dogs turns they are going to be just as dangerous as a pitbull. The bigger ones like retrievers and danes probably more so.

[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdbJv-9DpLk
Dogs which weigh 8 or more stone and are in a pack near children, do you mean Fluffy?]]

Sorry for my ignorance but aren't some of these dogs namely the pit bull bred for there fighting prowess?

Terriers in general have a higher tendency towards aggression this combined with power is the difference.

I agree with bristol.
I've seen many posts on here from people with a lot of experience with dogs explaining what behaviour different breeds are known for.
And yes, rhodesian ridgebacks aren't recommended as a family pet.

Not me personally.
I think gsds might possibly be one of the most beautiful breeds in the world.
Especially the white long coated ones

With DOGS not people. Pitbulls were bred to fight dogs but be gentle and submissive to people so that their trainers could remove them easily during a fight if needed.

But properly raised pitbulls and staffs and the like socialised as young puppies aren't going to be dog aggressive either and there are thousands and thousands and thousands of owners who would prove that.

The main reason they aren't recommended is because they are too boisterous.

Not because they like killing kids!

Oh I know not you personally, Fluffy. :)

A bit about those three dogs... the Labrador Retriever refuses to retrieve although that's what they're bred for. One of the Sheps has a 100% perfect retrieve to hand command. I've yet to see either Shep herd though, which is what they are bred for.

Oh, and the black and tan Shep is a coward and the white Shep not far behind. I don't advise you raise a hand to me when my Lab's about though.

Breed specifics? Pah!

Joni - now you know why Labradors matter to me every bit as much as Staffs. :)

And by the way, the two children in the clip live with the three dogs and have lived with at least two dogs since the day they were born.

Shouldn't be allowed, should it!

Staffies are not, repeat not inherently dangerous on a genetic level. Any dog can become dangerous, if abused, mistreated, poorly trained by ignorant owners, or babied by owners. Or they may simply 'snap.' Some dogs may have recognised higher levels of agression as a breed, and that needs channelling into play (pull toys, chew etc) and excerise and stimulation. I do not believe that Staffordshires are known as being particularly agressive (and I mean known by breeders and owners). I would be very surprised if that were the case.

But feel free to ignore my reasoned, fairly intelligent post containing good points and carry on chelping 'should all be banned innit' cos I can't be fucking arsed.

Why is every saying Jack Russels are not capable of causing damage?

Has anyone ever owned one? They are fecking nasty when they get hold of prey. And alarmingly strong. Not very patient with children either (in general, some can be great with kids, mine was). I'd leave my dc with a staffy over a JRT anyday.

The Devil Dog is part JRT (we think) and it takes two of us to prise open his jaws to get a tablet in. He has no Staffy in him. He is stronger than my Staffy was by a long way. He is white, cute and fluffy and will bite you if you push him far enough. Fortunately for him I do not allow him to be placed in a position where he feels he has to bite. That is my job as a responsible owner.

Small dogs can and do do as much damage as larger breeds if they are so inclined.

The reason it's always the 'dangerous' and bigger breeds that are on the news is that they attract the wrong type of owner. When was the last time you saw the local crack dealer walking his toy poodle?

These eejits then fail to train and exercise the dog adquately.

My point is you cannot judge a dog on breed alone and the problem with staffys et al is at the other end of the lead. Oh and BSL is bullshit and has caused more harm than good.

I agree breeds are of course bred with certain specifics but this changes with different lines for one thing; show collies, herding collies and pet collies for example and no matter what breed every animal is individual and you will always get dogs that are an exception to the breed.

One of my cats is half feral and unbelievably affectionate.

My other cat is half siamese and meant to be very vocal but compared to other cat, she's extremely quiet.

So your telling me that dogs like Jack Russells in general aren't yappy little bastards?

Who on earth thinks a Stafford weighs 13 stone? They weigh around 3 stones.

A bit of positive press here from the tabloids, which is a recent and welcome shift from the general hysteria about the breed (have had them for 12 years now and I'm afraid I won't fit your tabloid reading template of an owner) but I really don't like that the article slates pitbulls. Pitbulls and Staffs are not the same, but like any dog they should trained appropriately and make fantastic family dogs if they are.

Does anyone actually understand the thing about breed specific legislation? They banned pitbulls because fools owned them and those ones were aggressive in aggressive hands. So he fools turned to the Stafford - the mini-pitbullalike. Except they are not. They are known as nannydogs BY THE KENNEL CLUB for a reason. Unless the tabloid reading public know better or are merely happy to take the press at face value, of course.

That said, pitbulls are as fantastic as any other large dog, so long as they are not owned, exploited and over-bred in the name of "looking well 'ard".

Actually I have changed my mind. pitbulls are bad bad dogs Honestly, cannot see why people own them. They do no-one any good at all.

'Has anyone ever owned one? They are fecking nasty when they get hold of prey.'

Sorry Dooin but does no one else see the irony in this post

Err, no, Bristol.

Exactly, Dooin. they are just vile dogs who deserved to be breed banned.

That was about JRTs not staffords. My stafford was about as capable of hunting as a budgie would be. And even JRTs do not generally view small children as prey. Not unless they are small, furry, smelly have four legs and scamper off at high speed into the undergrowth when they spot the JRT and if you are unfortunate enough to have a child that fits that desciption the local dogs are the last of your worries.