Do we know what we own? Discussions

By luck? or do you know of a way to know what traits will show more than others and which ones they will be?

If I could guarantee that I would whip out tomorrow and snap up a Husky without the trait of having rubbish recall and I would be able to let it off lead and I would pick and choose that I don't want it to dig very much so I would prefer that not to be apparent but I would like to keep the friendliness of the breed.

How do you know which traits you will end up with? With that in mind do you then not have to accept the possibility that your dog may well come out stronger with some of the traits you least desire and there is nothing you can do about that other than decide that it may not be the breed for you in this event.

I guess we are venturing into different territory here, idiots owning dogs for the wrong reasons and what can be done about the idiots. I don't think altering the Staffie we have today would make any change still though to be honest. Unless you make a tea cup version, that would put them off

Added: Like you and me said earlier any dog can be aggressive if provoked enough...I have a 42kg 29" to the withers big lad who in the wrong hands could not be good at all, way bigger then any of these dogs they are using for fighting more than likely but has nothing to do with anysort of fighting in it's origins, he could no doubt fight just as much as the next dog if pushed...If it was just aggressive dogs they were after then they could take a dog from any breed...I still think they are more attracted to certain breeds because of their 'fighting history' more than they are the temperament.

OK, I'm going to step out of this conversion now. I joined Dogsey expecting to be in a supportive group of dog lovers. I didn't expect to be arguing that aggression in dogs is bad. I'd assumed that was a no brainer.

Aggression is not just another dog "trait". It makes dogs unpredictable and dangerous. Aggression (both toward dogs and humans) should not be bred, trained or nurtured into any dog regardless of the breed.

It will always be completely beyond my comprehension why anyone would try to argue otherwise.

and we are what you say, I love my dogs and dogs in general I'm sure I haven't said anything to suggest otherwise?

Call aggression what you like if it isn't a trait it is still written about in part of the character unless what I am reading on many sites is wrong. "Staffordshire Bull Terriers can be aggressive towards other animals" all I have ever said throughout the conversation is that it can be there, not that it is a good thing.

I think people get to emotional in debates sometimes and don't read things as they are intended, I was just looking at things from all angles.

I cheat ;-)
I take on rescues from places who do excellent evaluations and assessments and who are completely honest about the dogs in their care, including any `faults` or behavioural issues. I also have many years experience doing assessments myself and I trust my instincts.

If I took on a dog which later showed a negative trait coming through which I would prefer not be there, for the dogs safety and wellbeing as well as for others, I am prepared to work with the dog gently and positively for as long as it takes [ and have done just that ], to divert that trait toward something more beneficial and safe for all concerned, and most importantly for the dog.
What dog actually enjoys being in a state of stress at the sight of another dog because someone bred poor genes in to it or treated it badly or did not socialise it well or because another dog got hold of it and caused pain and fear ?

Many dogs given up to rescue for being `too boistrous`, for instance, are often stars at agility or obedience or HTM etc etc, when that boistrousness is channeled and guided rather than extinguished.
One persons problem dog is another persons dream dog when something positive can be achieved for that dog, whatever the initial problem may have been.

Dog aggression is created one way or another. Its up to us, the species who created and continue to create it, to put it right for the dogs, to help them get back to how they were before we messed them up aggression-wise in the first place, whether breed related or individually.

[sorry, I clicked reply instead of quote, the response was to Mischievious - sorry for any confusion :smt001 ]

I totally agree with you, and I know most others do too :smt001

I'm going to bed now...lol

But for people tomorow I just wanted to bring this back to the forefront cuz I didn't really get any answers

So where aggression to other animals may not be a trait is it not sometimes a side affect of traits that make up a breeds character which inturn is the way it is to fit the purpose it was originally bred for?

Right, goodnight..and don't be mad at me for just looking at it from all angles before making up my mind

Maybe we can't rid the world of idiots but....

(Thanks Patch too the words right out of my mouth )

The prey drive in a Greyhound is stronger, "in most" than is the drive to fight, "Do you believe they are muzzled to stop them mouthing a dummy hare at the end of a race?" Thankfully you hear very little of Greyhounds mauling other dogs because those who train/keep them are FULLY aware of their capabilities and walk them MUZZLED.
Justification of aggression is not for me question, "It is in every living creature to a greater of lesser degree, "Mankind included" put there by Mother Nature who's codes I respect more than most man made ones.Some surely see themselves as highly evolved creatures, who can dictate the traits possessed by other lives on our planet. The Pacifist veiws are all well and good and on occassion commendable, but a glance around our global village will show they are not held by MOST with whom we share our planet. Attempting to blacken the character of those who do not prescibe to "YOUR" theologies shows a distinct lack understanding and tolerance of other RIGHTS to hold differing veiws, done under the guise of "The Moral High Ground"
"Make him whatever colour you wish, Man will always worship the born fighter" "John Tanter Foote" it is as it was and always will be.

A canine wrecking machine, sanitize his virtues and you loose the truth. The Bulldog of old was either completely insane, or the most couragous of canines, I believe the latter of the two choices to be correct. It is documented that fights between Bulldogs took place on a regular basis. One of the most famous breeders of fighting Bulldogs was Ben White, who had his kennels at, Old Conduit Fields, Bayswater, London, and who advertised, " Dogs kept, broke, chained and cured of most disorders for Gentlemen on most reasonable terms. Large accomodation pit for Gentlemen to experience the goodnes of the dogs, prior to purchasing, to fight with the badger or dog against dog, whichever you please " On Ben Whites death, his kennels were purchased by Mr William George, who went on to breed some of the best Bulldogs and Mastiffs money could buy.

When researching any topic, " Particularly dog breeds " I always lean towards the practices of dogmen, as opposed to the written word. Why? If a certain practice works in the breeding of good dogs, then the humans involved are very reluctant to change it. Where as most writers can be a bit liberal with their thoughts, when put into print. In this present day I could not imagine a breeder of Bulldogs " APBT " or Staffords, going to a breeder of any terrier breed, and asking for the use of his stud dog to inject some trait lacking in his own stocks bloodline. I doubt very much if this ever happened two centuries ago either. As plucky and defiant as many working terriers can be, they could offer no attributes to the Original Bulldog that were not already his. Just as many of todays working terriermen ocasionally inject bull blood into their strains to reinvigourate their lines, it is possible this was also done two centuries ago.

Be certain of this, the creatures who today masquerade as KC bulldogs, bear absolutely no resemblance to the Original Bulldog. Bulldogs of old weighed between 35 and 80lbs. When showing became popular there was a slight increase in the weights. This coupled with the introduction of Pug blood, to make the head shape even more hideous, and to reduce size, has resulted in the canine cripple that we see today, that some ill informed people still call The Bulldog. Never in a million years could these poor creatures perform the tasks of the Original Bulldog. Now bearing in mind the humans reluctance to alter a functioning system.

Lets have a look the modern system used by Lurcher breeders.
The two most sought after traits in the Lurcher are speed and stamina, if you find your line of Lurchers lacking in either of these traits, you merely go back to source,Speed = Grehound Stamina = saluki.
If ever crosses were made to terriers to produce fighting dogs " Which I doubt " then any dogman worth the name would go back to source " The Bulldog " to consolidate gameness.
A much easier option is to simply breed the smaller more agile Bulldogs, with no risk of loosing the most cherished of traits, gameness.
The virtues possessed by the Original Bulldog, are virually the same as those sought after by present day breeders of Bulldogs " APBT " and to a lesser degree Staffords. I would considr them to be one and the same breed as the Original Bulldog, until 1935-48 when the Stafford was being bred for cosmetic qualities as opposed to functional ones.

Let us examine what in my opinion is the closest living relation of The original Bulldog. The APBT still called by many just plain old Bulldog, where names are concerned very rarely if ever do sudinims stick, you will generally find that the original name given to a breed will stay with it throughout it's existence. Remember there was no such canine as The Staffordshire bull terrier until 1935.

Bulldogs " APBT " are bred today as they have always been, their bloodlines are cherished, and only with great thought and reflection, do most good breeders go outside their own bloodlines " Gene Pool " and this is to a stud dog of the SAME BREED. This further reinfoces my belief, that no crosses to terriers were made in an effort to produce better fighting dogs, and thereby attain traits already abundant in The Original Bulldog of times gone past.


--------------------
In reply to the member who implied The Staffordshire bull terrier was once used as a BULL baiting dog.

I said I was leaving this debate but actually its still irritating me so I havent !!

My main concern with staffies and other bull breeds is the fact that generalising the breed is popular with the wrong sort of person - the type of owner who doesnt appreciate the stafford for its other traits only for the fact that its tenacity and stubborness do in fact make it a good fighter - IF FORCED INTO IT - so by purposely encouraging the breeding of dogs with higher levels of aggression due to the stud dogs being aggressive in temperament you are actively encouraging the wrong owners and the act od dog fighting which regardless of being illegal is RIFE in many areas of the country.

As sammymax rightly pointed out staffies are now being used to be cross bred with even larger bull breeds to get the more desired traits to be more effective.

I look at it from a rescue point of view and always will as I own a rescued staffie whose end point in life could have been very different. I am by no means an expert on what the breed standard for a staffie is and to be honest I dont really care whether bruno matches it or not - however I do beleive that if the random breeding of staffies isnt curbed then we will end up with thousands more staffies in rescue or worse all over the place due to bad socialisation, bad ownership and bad breeding.

Walk around ANY rescue centre and I guarantee you will find a staffie or a staffie cross in need of a home but still waiting as needs to go to one dog household etc due to its lack of scoialisation, I think that any dog with the right training from pup can develop into a lovely socialised dog - but with a staffie due to its history you do have to make sure this is done - if its not then it does have the capacity to be aggressive.

Its just the fact that this is being actively encouraged by what Hayley etc is saying that I find hard to comprehend why as staffie owners they would want to encourage this unless they do in fact have an ulterior motive for it - in which case they are the wrong type of owners for my beloved staffords IMO.

Its not about ignoring the traits you have already in your dog its about appreciating that there is no need to encourage it.

Originally Posted by myschievous
So with the origins of the SBT being for dog fighting and one of it's main characteristics being "Traditionally of indomitable courage and tenacity"

Unless that means indomitable courage and tenacity for say..Hill climbing....what do we take it as meaning?

I see it as being that he will stand his ground no matter what...IF he is threatend BUT he doesn't have to be aggressive with it.

quote from hayley
id rather keep the trait and control it and make sure that my dogs dont attack anyone elses dog

Your not even willing to listen or understand so therefor this makes you worse![/QUOTE]


the problem is, even you have stated you do not have 100% control of your dogs, and that your dogs have fought.

So as i see it you are the wanting the spirit of the fight left in by breeders, but never mind if they attack now and again. And you are worse, knowing your dogs can get get aggressive, you have not put the effort in to train your dogs to 100%. you are lazy imo

I would say one of my dogs would stand her ground no matter what, i'd say she the above quote is exactly applicable to her, "of indomitable courage and tenacity". But she is not a stafford, and she is not dog aggressive either.

What i'm trying to get at here is, the staffy doen't have to loose out on anything, it's personality will remain without the aggressiveness!

If I was out with my dogs, and an aggressive dog ran over to us, and tried to attack us, I know that 2 of the 3 of them would stand their ground, they would protect me, each other and themselves if need be. They are not staffords, they are not bull breeds, 'mollosser' or even terriers. They would never 'start' a fight, they do not have aggressive tendencies towards other dogs, but they would stand their ground. What is wrong with the stafford being this way, rather than the 'starter' of fights? Rather than him
'wanting' to fight?

spot on

I agree with you here too mini, I was once friends with a lady who helped run a greyhound rescue, and sometimes she and I would walk up to 10 greyhounds at a time. None of them ever fought, some were muzzled on outings, but this was as there was wild rabbit and hare in the vicinity, not because they may have fought one another.

Gosh you lot have been busy haven't you????

I sort of see both sides here...I can see why you don't want your chosen breed altering and that you have to deal with what you've got. I do understand that having worked and handled lots of breeds I can see how different they all are and how we love them for it.

The toruble is, dog on dog aggression is not an appealing trait surely? If you didn't want their determination bred out, fine, but it's strnage to hear anyone say they want their dogs to continue to be dog aggressive, particularly with everything that is going on for dogs (especially this breed ) at the moment.

IF the dog on dog aggression is not bred out, if the dog on dog aggression continues to be bred into the breed (as we all know it is being) then this breed will soon be no more than another underground one, as will some others. I think that is so sad.

I think, there is a cross roads here, the image and nature of the staffie have to alter...dod on dog aggression HAS to be bred out, like it or lump it, or there won't be any staffies any more and this whole thread becomes meaningless anyway.

Staffies are being mistreated and manipulated more than any other breed in this country at the moment. If it was my chosen breed, I would do anything and everything to stop that happening.

I see both sides, I can appreciate why people don't want to change their breed, truly i can and I can see why they would argue that into the ground, sadly with this particular breed characteristic, any 'choice' WILL be taken out of the owners and breeders hands, sooner rather than later, if it is not bred out.

Staffies are under threat and I'm afraid that it doesn't matter how indominatable their nature is, if they are added to the DDA or seized as a 'pit bull TYPE' then nothing will save them. THAT should be the issue here. These are scary times for all dog owners...but for bull breed owners in particular and surely you should be looking for ways to save this breed and alter it's image out there??????

Sorry just another tuppence worth from me...I do see where you are all coming from..

to be honest im talking to people who have no understanding or real exp with bull breeds! Ive taken time to ask true dog men about staffords and a bit of pitbulls and i learnt alot! i think if you could just sit for 24 hours with a true dogman and woman you would think alot differently, instead of getting your thoughts from a anti bull breed magazine such as dogs today and listening to the peta, rspca scum! any bull breed lover would not touch those magazines..... and im so sure alot of you do buy it

till you open your ears and listen and taken in understanding there is no point in listening
any molosser owner who thinks they own a soft, cuddley fluffy dog needs it taken away from them

Yes my staffords are loving and friendly but i know if i dog tests them they will stand thier ground

Brave, Loyal, Strong and Loving is apart of thier spirit right?take away the dog agression you take away the braveness and strength

for those staffords who mock thier its spirit, then hang you head in deep deep shame as the stafford is no longer a stafford without spirit

just too add staffords where originally bred for the pit not bull baiting where did you get that from?