Bull breeds 'Nanny Dog' myth

[Ffghhhbdbfb]

This dangerous myth that bull breeds, originally bred for fighting, were historically known as 'Nanny Dogs' has to be countered. It is unfair on inexperienced owners and unfair on the dogs, who may not be cared for properly/dumped.

The 'Nanny Dog' myth came from Colby, a US breeder of fighting dogs, seeking to broaden his market. His dogs killed his nephew, so weren't exactly nannying him: https://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/05/1909-fatality-john-p-colbys-fighting.html

The 'Nanny Dog' myth is perpetuated by Pitbull advocates in the US and is occasionally also seen in the UK, with Battersea among those promoting it for Staffordshire Bull Terriers: https://www.battersea.org.uk/pet-advice/dog-advice/finding-right-dog-you/staffies

There is now a social media campaign with owners seeking to 'show the soft side' of their XL Bullies. Some very inexperienced owners who got XL Bullies as their first dogs are speaking out on their dogs being 'misunderstood': https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12519333/My-American-Bully-XL-look-scary-trust-nine-month-old-heartbroken-owners-defend-giant-breed-banned-UK-spate-vicious-dog-attacks.html

Bull breeds are fighting dogs, with the instincts and capabilities to fight, putting children, adults and other animals at risk. Retrievers retrieve, pointers point, herders herd. An animal charity would not have a campaign describing border collies as couch potatoes that can be left alone all day in a flat. So why are bull breeds pushed as 'Nanny Dogs'. There needs to be pressure on those (particularly organisations and media) repeating the 'Nanny Dog' myth to be honest about the origins and capabilities of these dogs, as well as the requirements and responsibilities of owning them.

After the various 'bully' type of dogs, apparently Staffies are the next most recorded breed involved in attacks.

I am not a fan of any of those breeds that are often owned by men with "small man syndrome, trying to look tough.

I saw a chart today that had Staffies next after Bully type dogs in the list of attacks.

Rescues are bursting with these breeds, hence why they try and push them anyway they can

I have cavalier king Charles spaniels...utter soft dopes...I'd still never trust them 100%

Like previous posters I chose this breed for their inate traits of gentleness, laziness, no big prey drive ..they were bred as companions to humans...so what could be more of a "nanny dog"

XL bullies have been bred selectively for traits of muscle growth, aggression and fight drive....how can anyone think this makes them suitable as family pets ?

And sorry but it is a definite type who buy these dogs.
Where I live in London in a zone one location..on the street with a council block there are tiny tiny front yards ...every other one has one of these dogs cooped up in it ..round the corner where the properties cost 1 million upwards ..every dog you see coming and going is a small fluffy cockerpoo...now they have their issues but I could fight a 4kg fluffball off .

Great post OP 👏

And I agree with you Clintwest.

Anyone that says "I trust my dog 100%" tells me all I need to know. They are not a 'dog person', they are emotionally driven pet owners, with comparatively very limited dog knowledge.

The whole furbaby thing has so much to answer for.. Applying human emotion to a dog is a recipe for disaster. They are animals with strong natural instincts.

Interesting you mentioned border collies op, I have a couch potato who sleeps 20 hours a day and prefers his own company (seemed annoyed we spoilt his "me time " during lockdowns. But they are all different, mine is fine being left alone but would hate being sent to doggy daycare, he's older

Oh really? I thought it was normally rottweilers and German shepherd's near the top.

I'm not defending staffies BTW, I just think the OP is confusing as I always thought they were thought of as the Nanny dog definitely not XL bullys.

My personal belief is that no dogs should be off a lead anyway. Dogs bounding over to me and the kids totally ruins the park for me.

Or those stupid long extendable leads. I nearly ran over a dog the other day because the stupid owner wasn't paying attention and it ran into the road while attached to an extendable lead. I digress but I think in general there should be more rules around dog ownership.

I thought the "nanny dog" myth was well and truly exploded. I haven't my heard it for ages.

I absolutely hate those videos all over social media of babies and children cuddling up to/playing with/being cute with dogs of any sort. It's an accident waiting to happen and not fair on anyone involved. Including the dog.

I'm going to wildly assume it's because it's the poster's grandchild, who quite rightly should be allowed into the posters house regardless of the dogs feelings.

Breeding frenchies should be banned too, as should all brachycephalic dogs, albeit on welfare grounds.

Anyone that says "I trust my dog 100%" tells me all I need to know. They are not a 'dog person', they are emotionally driven pet owners, with comparatively very limited dog knowledge.

I am the poster who wrote that post. I am not an 'emotionally driven pet owner' and do not have 'very limited dog knowledge'. I have clarified my position in an earlier post - while I re-iterate that I trusted my Staffie 100%, I did NOT and NEVER WILL trust any child and many adults enough to allow them access to any of my dogs. I've owned many dogs from rescues to highly trained rare breed working dogs and I would say that with the exception of my Staffie, not a single one of my dogs is comfortable around children, and for very good reason. The PP who believes it's acceptable to keep a dog that they openly admit is scared of children on a lead in close proximity to a child absolutely beggars belief. I'm also not a 'typical' Staffie owner - I'm a doctor.

Was out for a walk on my own this morning when a couple came past with their large dog - not one of the dangerous breeds - when it jumped up against my front. I pushed it away and got the "only being friendly" bit.
I don't give a fuck if dogs are friendly or not, owners should keep them under control and not allow them to jump up on strangers. I'm not frightened of dogs but I don't want their feet on my clean clothes. If I'd been elderly or disabled it could have pushed me over.
Rant over.

And people wonder why dogs attack.

We had a Labrador, a border collie and a staffie when we were growing up and out of the three one attacked my sister and had to be put to sleep and it wasn't the staffie.

Truth is you can't trust any dog and you can ban the XL bully but there'll be another breed along to take its place.

Dreadful. The dog will end up with a painful back and be more likely to bite the next time the kid bounces. Why do people own powerful breeds and have no idea of dog language.

At least the GSD was warning and going through an escalation. A scary thing with bull breed attacks is that the owners will often say we had no idea, the dog loved the kid. Either they cannot read dog signs or the dogs attacked with no warning.

I was waiting for the Staffordshire bull terrier to get dragged into the bull breed topic, i am under no illusion any dog can bite , no dog is 100% safe ,no kid should ever be left alone with a dog.
But there is no comparison with the xl bully and other unknowns mixed with the same type.
As a vet nurse with many years experience i will always defend this breed , it is very rare for us to see a staff that shows us any aggression , they are probably the friendliest breed we see ,sadly a choice in decline as frenchies and cockapoos dominate the dog world at the moment.
They tend to be stoic, gentle and very ,very predictable ,what you see is what you get, i know that another dog attacked by a staff will usually come off worse as they are so strong and obviously need to be controlled in public trained and well socialised , same as all dogs.
But this current conversation is about xl bully types and it is the huge risk of their total unpredictability combined with their phenomenal power that is the issue.
Anyone that brings one of these dogs into their home is dicing with death,
anyone bringing a pure breed Staffordshire bull terrier into their home will usually see the positive impact a good dog can bring to the home and its family members.
This 'breed' stands alone they are not like anything the dog world has seen before and it is unfair to compare them to anything else, owners have no right to rope in other breeds to potentially muddy the waters as to what can and can't be classed as a xl bully making it a lot more difficult for the authorities to decide how they will tackle the problem.

Sorry but you can't trust any animal 100%

I haven't ever seen one of these dogs but they are terrifying. I think they should be on-lead and muzzled.

Fully agree with the posters who have pointed out that no dog can be trusted 100% - it can be badly hurt and behave in an out of character way; it can be woken suddenly and snap without thinking; it can develop a brain tumour and changes in its personality: etc etc etc.

One of the softest greyhounds I have ever met - a dog who has cuddled me for ages on his owners sofa when I was suffering from a breakdown - bit his owner in the face hard enough to draw blood recently when the owner had to reach over him as he slept. (And this is a very experienced dog owner who actually also works with dogs - but NO DOG OWNER, and NO DOG can be perfect at all times).

For this reason I would not feel safe owning a dog the size of an XL bully myself, despite the fact I am pretty experienced with dogs and my husband is much more so. I hope to have grandchildren one day and I would never feel safe having them in the house with a dog like this, however well trained. So I would support a ban, while also feeling sorry for those owners who face losing pets they undoubtedly love. (I have one friend with two of these dogs - she has no kids or partner and she lives for them - I know she will be devastated to give them up. But even so).

As an (important) side note I am not sure what is with all the disgusting class prejudice displayed by some posters on this thread. Would it be less important to ban the dogs if they were largely owned by the middle classes? Why?

And if not why is it relevant?

An issue in the US is Pitbull mixes being labelled as other dogs. Sometimes the people rehoming are complicit as they seek to avoid BSL, e.g. where Pitbulls are banned from apartment buildings. Sometimes shelters seek to offload Pitbulls. Lab-mix, boxer-mix, etc. A vet carrying out DNA tests spoke out on many of these mixes they have seen being predominantly Pitbull.

Hopefully the upcoming legislation will be ahead of XL Bully mixes (I realise it is a mix, but mixed further to evade the ban). Kangals can be brought in the UK, which is concerning.

'Special Staffies' (as advertised by dodgy breeders), the size of Pitbulls, also need to be a distinct group.

There is, as usual, a tiny grain of truth behind the myth..

Though the nanny dog thing has always been total bullshit...

Dogs bred to fight in pits in organised fighting, fight several rounds or matches, much like boxers do.

Unlike boxers they don't respect a bell at the end of each bout.

So each dog has a handler (and this may not be someone the dog knows), who jumps in to break and re-match.

To do this, the dogs MUST tolerate the proximity and handling, fairly roughly, by humans who may be strangers do them, whilst they are scared, in pain, on an adrenaline high, hugely aroused....

These dogs must also tolerate having wounds dressed and treated without pain relief or sedation (sometimes that is available but not guaranteed and of course these dogs do not just go to the vets!)...

There was, in the thankfully fairly distant days of dog fighting, absolutely NO place for a dog that was human aggressive - and so those dogs that were did not last, they were killed, they were not bred from, and they did not pass on their genes.

Only those who did well in fights, which meant did well at being tolerant to humans whilst at their absolute worst, would breed.

So as dangerous as a pitbull can be - they were not people aggressive particularly often and whilst you get the odd rogue case, there'd be some pretty clear mitigating circumstances.

The XL bully is a totally different beast - they are NOT bred to tolerate rough handling or selectively to rule out human aggression. Some are bred FOR human aggression, for a willingness to bite and hang on, bring down and dissect.

And for dog aggression.

Of course the XL bully in the UK is a mongrel - and some may have long inbred ancestries with multiple human aggressive animals in the pedigree, on purpose...

And some may be little more than a lab/pit/rottie cross with very little human aggression in there and lots of 'tolerant to human' genetics.

We don't know, we can't know, we have zero way of telling which genetics these dogs have.

Add on top of that, shit handling, housing, training, pain, stress and so on, all of which increases the chances of a dog suppressing body language and reacting 'without warning', increases the chances of an aggressive response, of aggression towards handlers...

You get to where we have gotten now - total chaos.

There is no point in trying to reason with a lot of these people. They are unwilling and incapable of understanding that these dogs are not nanny dogs. Snobby yes, but true.

That type of article and general mindset is so dangerous. I have a very, very large dog (not one of these type breeds, but a typical military/police breed) and he’s professionally trained as a protection animal. I genuinely think he’d die before he hurt one of us or let us be hurt, and he’s amazing with my children. But I never trust him with my babies/toddlers because he’s a dog. Always always supervised.