Luke GSP

Not sure if I dreamt this but from memory I think there was a book that i used to have that stated that yawning was a calming signal for dogs similar to licking your nose (you licking your nose not the dog licking yours or you licking the dogs ) i think that if you had a dog that was stressed or getting a little excited it was recommended that these calming signals were a way of saying hey dog, chillax :)

Sorry Megan, to clarify, did you mean onleash park? Not trying to be a smart alec, just want to make sure I'm reading it right. :)

I think you mean greater potential damage, if it were more "likely" it would mean that a bigger dog has a greater propensity to do damage. It is not the frequency or desire to cause damage that I have an issue with it is the positive PR being given to certain breeds of dog whilst trying to flatly refuse to acknowledge that they have the ability to inflict greater potential damage. I am not talking purely about you, but about the bull and large breed defenders in general.

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds. I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right! Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly No reference for your 50kg claim then? No retraction? Still saying that APBT owners don't recognize their power and potential compared to other breeds? I reference you to all my other posts which agreed that they have much more power than dogs smaller than them and given identical situatons will do more damage. All your 'comparison' breeds and beagles and dachshunds so of course I agree with that. I dispute that if they attack they are soooooo much more dangerous, and have soooooooo much more potential than breeds larger than them if they attacked in the same situation (Rottweilers, GSD, Mastiffs, LGD... List goes on) as you wish to keep insisting on claiming despite no evidence other than your opinion (the same opinion that claimed that APBT were 50kg). ALL large breed dogs have potential for serious, devastating injury and must be owned and managed responsibly by their owners. There is just as much onus on a Rottweiler owner as there is an APBT owner, and to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. APBT are not some sort of mythical beast that is unlike every single other breed of dog. They are a dog with some genetic tendencies and strength that means they require responsible, careful owners. Many other large breeds of dog have different tendencies that can be just as dangerous, and they also require responsible, careful owners If you were spouting the same argument but it was 'large dogs vs small dogs' I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is your insistence that the APBT is vastly more 'dangerous' than every other breed of dog on the planet, including large guarding breeds. How about you go back through my posts and I think you will find that I frequently mention APBT, amStaff and bull or bull type breeds, it is you who is focusing on APBT's in particular! maybe you should identify exactly what the argument is before you go spouting yourself!

But Cosmolo, that would require people to admit that perhaps such dogs required to be treated differently to others which apparently they are not as they are all the same and all as dangerous as each other. I however agree 100% with what you have written.

Surely these can't be the same APBT's that people are talking about here? I await the defenders assesment of this with anticipation. Saying that, as it does not serve the purpose I assume it will be ignored. total respect to this breeder though for being upfront and stating clearly the potential!

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds. I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right! Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly

yes they are. Lots of them. I've shown my bitch in season and I'm not the lone ranger. My bad. I have had a few people tell me now it is bad form to bring a bitch in heat to a show but maybe that was their specific breed or they were mistaken. It would be the same weight as a Rhodesian Ridgeback Don't shoot the messenger, the standard says 25-35kg, I've never seen an obese show dog hence if as a standard it can weigh 35kg are you honestly saying that it couldn't waeigh 40-50 if allowed to become overweight much like the majority of pet dogs (sadly) or are we saying that these irresponsible, bogan nair do well owners may not train or manage their dogs in any other way but their weight! :-) Sorry but where are you getting this information from!? Every single APBT I've seen states: "Desirable weight for a mature male in good condition is between 35 and 60 pounds. Desirable weight for a mature female in good condition is between 30 and 50 pounds." So that's males 15-27kg, females 13-22. Have you ever met an APBT? Your GSP would be larger than 99% of them. Source I have to totally disagree with this statement. Entire male dogs are shown week in week out, all around the country, along side each other and bitches in season and there is very rarely any problem with aggression despite large numbers of dogs being confined to a small area. If what you said was true, every dogshow would be one big dogfight. If all of those dogs were off leash and left to their own devices with a bitch on heat present, you don't believe those dogs would begin to fight amongst each other? What do you believe the reaction would be? Peaceful interaction? Are the handlers not managing any potential aggression by handling their dog appropriately? ETA: I have personally been to dog shows where fights have broken out between entires when they were too close to each other and owners had to separate their dogs. Are you saying this never happens and is quite out of the ordinary? There are always lots of in season bitches at shows and most dogs, while interested in the bitches, ignore the the other dogs. Dog fights have happened at shows but they are extremely rare and one of the main offending breeds is Amstaffs, especially when they were first introduced. Since then the breeders do seem to have done a lot of work in regard to breeding for better temperament. Many of the smaller terrier breeds would also fight but among the other breeds the only one that comes to mind as having multiple fights over the years are Akitas. There are several breeds that might threaten or even occasionally grab another dog that gets too close at times but if the other dog submits, there is no fight or damage which is normal canine behaviour. BTW, I was in no way comparing Greyhounds and Pitbulls, just the scheme that exists to allow Greys to go without muzzles. Surely a similar scheme for Pitbulls and crosses would be better than the Victorian solution of just requiring them all to be pts? I make no apologies for my dislike of Pitbulls and their crosses, as my several interactions with them have all been negative and despite seeing many breeds over many years they are the only breed I have have never encountered a friendly and non dog aggressive one. You have not acknowledged that all dogs at shows are LEASHED and under control of their owners, something which these dogs were not. You can't compare the two situations. Here, it über th A. MUZZLE: Square at the base of the face and slightly wedged to nose. B. STOP: The stop should be deep, make a crevasse leading to the occiput across the forehead. C. FOREHEAD: Forehead to be free of wrinkles and wedge shaped. D. OCCIPUT: The muscle between the ears should form a V shape between the ear and middle of the head leading down to the back of the neck. E. SKULL: Slightly rounded. The widest point of the head should be between the eye and the ear F. EARS: Cropped or uncropped, free of wrinkles, and set high on head. G. NECK: Tapering from shoulder to head. Proportionate to dog. H. WITHERS: Muscular and higher than the topline but no higher than the rump. I. TOPLINE & BACK: Sloping downward from withers to rump. Distance between withers and rump should be equal to the distance between point of shoulder and foot. J. RUMP: Broad hips with muscular tone and slight arch from topline to tail. K. TAIL SET: Base of tail should fit the shape of the slope from topline to tail. Tail set high in the back is undesirable. L. TAIL: Tail should be no longer than the hock of the back legs, thick at the base and tapering to the end. Medium in length as compared to the rest of the body. (Not held over back) M. REAR PASTERN AND POINT OF HOCK: Rear stifle should be perpendicular to ground in stacked position and approximately a 45-degree angle from back of leg to stifle over the hock. N. UPPER THIGH: muscular and long as compared to rear pastern. O. ABDOMEN: Showing definition and slight tuck above the rib cage. P. RIB CAGE: Ribs well sprung, showing definition and muscularity. Q. STIFLE & ELBOWS: Stifle should be perpendicular to ground in stacked position. Elbows line up directly under shoulders. No turning in or out from rib cage. R. FEET: Feet proportionate to legs. Toes medium in length and close to one another. S. CHEST: Deep chest with moderate width. Depth of chest should be longer than width. T. POINT OF SHOULDER: Wide, sloping toward elbow and muscular. U. JAWS: Well pronounced, muscular, and widest point of head. V. FLEWS: Tight and wrinkle free. TEETH: Should be forward scissors bite, teeth meshing closely together to make a tight bite. (Front teeth tightly in front of back teeth is a forward scissors bite.) Fault: Level bite, under bite. EYES: Any color other than glass and both the same color (watch eye). Fault: Bulging eyes, walleye or cross-eye. NOSE: Any color. Fault: Butterfly nose (flares out). COAT: Glossy, short, and stiff. COLOR: Any WEIGHT: 35 to 55 pounds for females and 45 to 75 for males. HEIGHT: 16 to 20 inches for females and 18 to 24 inches for males. MOVEMENT: Single or double tracking, but must do the same front and back legs. Back remains level during travel. Ground covering seems effortless. FAULTS: Legs not moving on same plane, legs over reaching, legs crossing. Rolling, pacing, crabbing, pounding, paddling and side winding. DISQUALIFICATION: Deaf, blind, lame, bobbed tail, monocryptoid (one testicle), undershot, overshot, rye mouth, extremely shy, extremely aggressive, long coat, bulging eyes, watch eye, glass eye, wall eye, cross eye, color not matching, spayed, or neutered.

Last time I played with my Mr potato head the ear was in fairly close proximity to both the neck an face! It amazes me how bull supporters need absolute 100% info papered or not Apbt, amstaff, bull cross BYB? And yet will try and down play the incident with statements like, if it "Going for the ear, in my opinion, seems to demonstrate that the dogs may not have been intent on causing him serious damage. Had they gone for the neck or face this whole story could have ended very differently." Maybe they did go for the face or neck but the boy fortunately turned his head enough that they only got to rip his ear off!. Again , another example of choosing the bits that might be able to be displayed as a positive rather than even considering that there might actually be a very real and actual negative.

No, to be clear NO dog is safe, NO DOG is incapable of being dangerous, but it is as obvious as the nose on a dogs face that certain breeds, due to their size, strength or amplified traits pose a higher chance of serious injury if they become aggressive than others. As I said about snakes, I would expect someone to explain to a potential herper that all snakes have a risk associated with them but a death adder has a higher potential of serious harm than an average diamond python. It is not about propensity it is about potential/likely outcome in the event of a mistake Toilets cause more injuries each year than loaded guns, but I am pretty sure you would highlight the potential of a 357 magnum to a potential buyer before you would warn someone entering your toilet!

No they are not large or strong, but you also see far less horrific injuries and deaths caused by small dogs biting in the "right place" than you do large/muscular dogs. You also don't hear of many people saying that dachshunds are fine as long as they are "managed" correctly. In honesty, if you had to take your chances with a dachshund or a bull breed in full flight, which would you reckon you'd have the best chance with? And that kind of statement is exactly what I am talking about, lets promote the idea that a bull breed poses no greater possible harm than a dachshund and then when the ill informed owner fails to treat the breed with the respect that it deserves and it mauls someone, condem them for not "managing" the breed correctly!

It would be the same weight as a Rhodesian Ridgeback Don't shoot the messenger, the standard says 25-35kg, I've never seen an obese show dog hence if as a standard it can weigh 35kg are you honestly saying that it couldn't waeigh 40-50 if allowed to become overweight much like the majority of pet dogs (sadly) or are we saying that these irresponsible, bogan nair do well owners may not train or manage their dogs in any other way but their weight! :-)

Gameness and dog aggression are two completely seperate things, which is why I stated that you have a real lack of understanding of the APBT. Aggressive dogs can have no gameness at all and non aggressive dogs can be very game. The below link explains it well. http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/american-pit-bull-terriers-breed/12-What-exactly-is-gameness.html The crux of it: "Gameness in APBT's is a canine virtue that is most akin to the human virtue of unflagging courage. It is a determination to master any situation and never back down out of fear. It was developed in pit bulls by many generations of selective breeding. It is what allows a pit bull to keep fighting non-stop for two or more hours, in spite of broken bones, torn muscles, blood loss, dehydration, and exhaustion. But it is also valued by APBT owners who would never think of fighting their dogs. It is manifested in the can-do attitude of pit bulls toward any type of challenge, whether agility competitions, climbing up trees, or protecting their family against an armed attacker, etc. Generally speaking, a game dog is an emotionally stable, easy-going dog, especially good with kids. Gameness should not be confused with aggressiveness. There are plenty of aggressive dogs that are not game, and there are game pit bulls who are not aggressive toward other types of dogs. Aggressiveness will propell a dog into a fight but will only sustain him for the first few minutes. Gameness, on the other hand, will not necessarily make a dog fight-happy; but if the dog has no other choice but to fight, a game dog will fight until it wins or dies trying, and will keep going as long as necessary." A game dog when FORCED (i.e attacked) will fight back, and fight back hard. That doesn't mean the game dog will start the fight. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. See above. Because typically they aren't game, so if forced to fight for their lives they will give up from exhaustion or pain. Again I re-iterate that gameness does not mean the dog will start fights, and not all APBT show high levels of gameness or even being game at all. See above. Again, complete and utter lack of understanding of even the basics of the APBT. 50 kilos? Are you serious? Most APBT weigh in the low 20-kilo range. They are a medium sized dog. They are also not heavy-set at all. They are lean dogs that are athletic and agile. Think of Jackie Chan as opposed The Rock. Of course an APBT is going to do more damage than a 10kg dog in similar circumstances. No one is denying that. The bigger the dog, the more damage it is going to do. Similarly, there are a myriad of breeds that are much, much larger that APBT and would do much more damage in that situation. The APBT also does not have the strongest bite strength of all dogs. Rottweilers, German Shepherds and Mastiffs have much stronger bites. Again I re-iterate, no APBT or bull breed owner would deny that their dogs have much more potential for damage than dogs of smaller or even similar size. But to single them out as if they cause injuries unlike ALL other dogs is insanity. Any dog larger than them (of which there are an enormous amount of breeds considering they are actually small-medium dogs) can do just as much and worse damage. If you want proof, check out these links. Warning the second link has some pretty horrific dog attack injury photos: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/do-certain-types-of-dogs-inflict-injuries-unlike-other-types-of-dogs/ http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/photographic-illustration-of-dog-bites Your snarky comment here looks pretty silly now, doesn't it? I agree 100% in the laws of physics and I also agree that smaller and less muscular dogs are not going to cause as much damage in identical situations (that's not to say in different situations they can't cause huge damage. You only have to look at the fatality list to see small dogs killing babies). You seem to have no idea that the APBT is a small - medium dog that generally weighs 25kg and under, and a vast amount of breeds are much bigger/stronger, and therefore laws of physics means they are able to do just as much if not more damage. So we're in agreeance then. APBT can do lots of damage if they attack. Owners must be aware of this and contain and manage their dogs appropriately. Similarly, all the breeds that are bigger than them can also do lots (if not more) damage when they attack, and their owners must contain and manage their dogs appropriately. Small dog owners shouldn't underestimate their dogs ability to cause injury in the right circumstances either. I believe that the breed standard allows for males between 45 and 75 pounds 20-35kg so not sure where you get "most dogs are 25kg and under" so assuming that most pet dogs are overweight a show framed dog that would be 35kg could easily be 40 to 50 if allowed. So please now read your own definition of gameness, keep in mind that a dogs version of being "forced" in to a fight is not the same as a humans, dogs can and will feel forced fight for resources they see as their own such as food, territory, a bitch on heat or possibly misreading a humans actions as aggressive towards its owner. And then if reacting in an aggressive manner a "game dog will fight until it wins or dies trying, and will keep going as long as necessary." And that gameness was "developed in pit bulls by many generations of selective breeding." Hence more likely to have the trait than other breeds Now accept that nobody and I mean NOBODY can guarantee 100% that they can contain their animal 100% of the time. Dogs are dogs and humans are humans and sadly humans make mistakes so no one can guarantee their animal will always be contained. Now honestly tell me that you think that it is fine for anyone to promote such an animal as no more dangerous than any other dog. Note, I did not say aggressive (I have not said that) I have said better equipped and capable of causing severe trauma in an aggressive situation. This is what I am talking about, apbt, am staff and bull breed supporters are so desperate to promote the positive that they do not realise that they are actually encouraging people to mismanage the breeds as they are harmless "nanny" dogs, what is there to manage! Until bull breed breeders and owners are 100% honest with themselves and the public about the potential within their dogs and promote that as widely as the positive, sad stories like this one will continue to blacken the horizon.

Yes that is what was said but that isnt really relevant - nor could an "expert" be sure anyway - would it have been any different if they had been or resembled a different breed? Several years ago 2 Show Rotties attacked and killed a couple of young girls walking in a park - its still horrible and any dog regardless of what breed it resembles needs to be contained and on leash. making laws for one breed type doesnt do anything to stop other breed types doing exactly the same thing. Exactly. As far as I'm concenred breed is irrelevant. We all know a bigger dog has the potential to do more damage, it doesn't mean anything unless the council enforce the laws they already have and look at targeting irresponsible owners more. Surely though, the issues in this attack and its outcomes goes deeper than the "owner" Lack of containment Irresponsible breeding Large muscular dogs Whole undesexed animals All of these have been raised in this thread, just throwing the book at people when this sort of thing happens is not going to prevent it happening in the future. ALL of the contributing factors would need to be addressed. Surely prevention is the aim?

Absolutely. And here was little old me thinking that Luke GSP was talking real common sense Keep it up, man :) Feel free to wade in with a point of view or answer any of the questions I have raised, alternatively, continue sniping and trying to belittle people, personally, I was trying to engage adults in adult debate/conversation. Let me make this very simple for you 1, Define gameness 2, Do you feel that a "game" dog would be more or less likely to back out of an aggresive situation than a non "game" one 3,If these breeds are truly no more aggressive or likely to cause severe trauma and damage, whilst in an aggressive state than any other dog why don't you see dog fighters using beagles spaniels or dachshunds? Now, I am sure that rather than engage in mature, adult debate and conversation, you will type a similar retort to before, avoiding any actual opinion or reasoning. And completely avoiding the very straightforward question above, much the same as you have avoided ten to this point. As you understand the breed so well, please, enlighten us, I can't wait to read your comprehensive understanding/knowledge of how the simple laws of physics do not apply when applied to a 50kg heavy set dog tearing at someone's arm compared to one of (for instance) 10KG If on the other hand you cannot explain how the laws of physics would not apply in such a scenario, maybe you would like to admit that such an animal has and does posses the ability to cause greater harm than a smaller lighter less muscular dog, oh no, of course, that would mean agreeing with me wouldn't it, so that won't happen. Please be very clear on this: I am not saying that any dog has more or less ability to become aggressive, what I am saying is that in the event of them becoming so, some types of dogs are (sadly) far more effective at it!

Agree 100%, I can guarantee that incidents of this type , as well as a large proportion of the problems facing dog owners today would vastly diminish if there was proper policing and laws introduced, imagine if, To own an undesexed dog you had to be a registered breeder To be a registered breeder you had to be licenced If an injury occurred as a direct consequence of a dogs aggression, both the owner and the breeder received a heavy fine. All dogs (that are not owned and in the possesion of a registered breeder) must be registered and desexed, if not registered or desexed the owner and breeder are fined and they have 7 days to have the dog registered/desexed or it is destroyed, if the owner will not disclose the breeder the dog is destroyed and the fine is quadrupled. Add those kind of things to what you have already stated and I guarantee that in the long run, you will have less problem dogs, less BYB's, more responsible ownership and a much lower rate of euthanasia. Once people are truly help responsible for their dogs (both ones they own and ones they have created, you watch the dog industry clean up its act then. Please note, before shooting me down, I believe that a massive percentage of breeders try and do the right thing and I understand that the above would add to their responsibilities but this is not about whether or not "you" are actually a contributor to the current problems facing dogs, it is a matter of if you want to be a contributor to a better future for them!

Luke, this is how I understand it. There are purebred APBT, and "near" purebred APBT - some of them are DA, some a not, Very few are HA. Unfortunately, there is a class of person who buys a badly bred, apbt, and does not train or socialise it - and in some cases, encourages HA and DA. APBT does not figure largely in the bite stats and never did. Unfortunately, every dog in Aus which attacks is supposed to be a pit bull. Some are, some are not. Most are x breds well away from apbt some have no apbt blood at all they are simply dogs which have been encouraged to behave badly. Some people actually want a savage dog. The young man which owned the labrador x (mislabelled as a pitbull in the media) which attacked and killed Mrs. Stringer in Toowoomba, on acquiring the dog from the pound, said he would turn him into a "killer dog". And he did. Many breeds/dogs have the potential to do as badly, or worse - with the kind of upbringing and "training" some of these dogs have. As a boxer breeder of some 40 years, I could easily raise a boxer which would, on every occasion, do more damage than a pitbull, because they are larger, and they are just as tenacious. But - boxers are not bred by the 100 by cross bred breeders, they are mostly bred by careful breeders who ensure the dog will be properly raised and socialised. And people tend not to keep 2 or 3 of them when they are not contained. Karen Delise's research shows that most breeds, on forming a pack, can and do kill. Including St. Bernards and surprising breeds. It isn't about the breed, it should be about the deed. I have already listed a few of the dogs involved in deaths. Pit bulls form a very small proportion. Councils don't want the work checking on savage dogs in their areas - witness that it is difficult to get the ACOs to attend when a dog is attacked. Council have negated the public's ability to sue them by banning pitbulls. "See, we did something to protect the public, we banned pitbulls" Dobermanns, GSD, Akitas, huskies, malmutes, rottweilers, ACD - and wait - there are more - are capable of things as bad or worse but they tend to belong to people in higher socio economic groups who can afford adequate fencing and training, and who want their dogs to be nice kissy pets. These laws wont be overturned until the councils are spending lots of $$ defending court cases (as they were doing in Q) - and until someone who suffers a death in their family sues the council for not taking due care. I don't have a pitbull. I have no interest in owning one. I too thought they were dangerous killing machines ..... until I did some proper research on the breed. Bad laws will thrive unless good people stand against them. Believe me, I don't think APBT's are "killing machines" any more than any animal. My problem is the complete inability of the owners and supporters of thus breed "type" to be honest enough to admit that a dog of that size and personality type, has a far greater ability to cause horrendous damages (should it decide to become violent) than others. Rather than misrepresenting the dog as a breed that is misunderstood as if bred correctly it won't be HA or for that matter DA. All dogs are capable of biting, for a million different reasons, my issue is that some breeds are far more capable/likely to cause severe trauma when they do. FACT a loaded gun is incapable of injuring anyone just as a water pistol, but if I HAD to got shot by one or the other, personally I would choose the water pistol! As an aside, I also saw the Martin clunes show and saw the footage, personally my take on that was in regard to the participants involved or from the same pack, not sure about other people's experiences but I have always found inter pack aggression tends to be a little less intense than full on aggression against an external animal or entity and hence a little easier to address the balance of? IMO

then please feel free to enlighten us with your understanding, 1, As to what you believe the "Gameness" is that APBT's have been bred for. 2, if the APBT is no different to any other breed why do they need to be "managed" what exactly are people supposed to be "managing" i've never heard of someone stating that owners of beagles will be fine as long as they "manage" them properly Maybe I lack "understanding" because APBT and bull breed owners keep saying that their dogs are no different to any other and then turn around and accuse people of not "understanding" the breed. What is there to understand? You see the problem as I see it is that people want to hide behind bite stats and neutral language in regard to the breed when it suits them, and then in the very same breath accuse owners of not managing the breed correctly when it all goes horribly wrong. You cant have it both ways either, dog is a dog and no dog has any greater ability to cause serious harm than another, or there is something different. Which is it? Rather than trying to belittle people by accusing them of showing a "real lack of understanding" about the breed (ergo less understanding than you) why not impart your understanding as to why this breed/breed type inflict so many horrific injuries? My explanation would be as I have already stated A violent encounter with a large powerful animal, that has been bred with the want to win, succeed and dominate as one of the desirable traits is more likely to have a serious negative outcome than with a smaller less powerful animal that was not bred for that trait. You will note that i did not say "a violent encounter with an APBT", unfortunately it would appear though that an APBT would fit within that definition. Please also note that i did not say "want to fight" I said win, succeed and dominate.

I'm not saying that gameness is DA I reckon this statement from a well know pit bull site would define my understanding of gameness "Many dogs will fight and be willing to continue to fight as long as they are winning and are not fatigued – as soon as they start getting to tired or start losing, they quit. There are those elusive few who have the will to win and to dominate an opponent regardless of circumstances, fatigue, injury or imminent death. The will to win and to dominate is much greater than the will to survive and live – this is gameness." Personally, I would not want an animal that has been bred to have the will to win and dominate be much greater than the will to survive living with, or near my family! Maybe that "gameness" explains why a lot of these attacks are so horrific as the will to dominate pushes the dog to keep on going and going until it wins, which sadly means that its target (animal or human) will lose, equalling severe injury or death.

as I have said before in this thread, why do a large amount of the people who buy these breeds buy them? Is it because they want to offer a loving a nurturing home for the betterment of the breed? be honest is it because they just wanted a dog? do you honestly think that they understand what "managing" the breed is? the amount of people that I have seen and heard defending APBT with statements like "a pure breed APBT with HA, never" "pure breed APBT's are bred not to be HA" "They are the Nanny dog" Is it any wonder that unsuspecting people buy in to these kind of statements and make the mistake that these animals that have the physical ability to severely injure and even kill are "safe"? IMO bull breed owners need to stop being quite so defensive and face the fact that their animals are better equipped than an awful lot of other breeds to inflict severe damage, and have largely been bred for some form of aggressive trait, which whether originally designed to be directed at humans or not, can be redirected upon, or catch a human in the crossfire with very tragic consequences. This is not about bite propensity people, lets face it which would you prefer shot with an air rifle or a sniper rifle? hit your thumb with a hammer or sledge hammer? get bitten by a beagle or a pit bull? it is about the outcome when/if someone fails to "manage" the animal! I wonder how many Bull breed owners are up front enough to face up to the reality, stop talking around the subject and admit that the breeds that they own represent some of the greatest potential of horrific injury or death of any of the dog breeds should the potential owner "get it wrong" lets face it if you were a novice herper and you went to buy a snake, you would expect the person selling it to you to let you know which of the snakes had the ability to bite versus the ones that had the ability to bite and kill you! That is the responsibility of the breeder, seller and other more knowledgable/experienced herpers to be honest enough to give you the facts, not hide behind language like "gameness" or statements like "this death adder will be fine in your family home, its just a matter of managing it, statistics show that it has no greater propensity to bite than a python"

Your continued name calling of the dogs involved in this attack is insulting and not justified. You cant know what the circumstances were that triggered these dogs to attack. Take a moment to consider whether these dogs are as much victims in the whole disaster as the young lad and his dog. You do not know whether these dogs were teased and abused or whether they have been encouraged to be dog aggressive. Name calling achieves nothing and certainly doesn't help the people and dogs involved I can call them what I like as this is how I see them. Just like I call nice dogs "cuddle bunnies". this is my opinion and my view and they became monsters because of people. I have had people call my Bull Breed x all sorts of rude names when out in public due to her looks, dogs aren't monsters, people can be however. I love Bull breeds and have worked with them in the past, Amstaffs are one of my three favourite breeds. I think people are seeing me saying monster as something much more drenched in malice than it is. My family has always used the term "monster" to describe anything that we see as dangerous or unsafe. "That's a monster of a tree" or "That bridge is a monster" etc is commonly heard in my family. It's a descriptive word I use is all. for goodness sake, children, children, children how about we all grow up and get past who called the dogs what. Fact: they were big powerful animals Fact: they escaped and attacked of their own accord Fact: there are breeds that are DA but sadly some label it as "gameness" and see it as a minor issue that can be "managed" Well guess what, nuclear war heads, pedophiles, murderers, rapists and loaded guns can all be "managed" as well but I still wouldn't want them in my neighbours back yard, most of the conditions aforementioned can be explained by science and psychology but in a lot of peoples minds people that carry out these despicable acts would be classed as "monsters" and a lot worse than that. Who cares what people want to call these dogs, they have caused immense harm to a human and should be dealt with accordingly as should their owner!

purebred, crossbred, APBT, AMSTAFF, bite propensity, redirected aggression, dogs being dogs, monsters BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! FACT! a dog of the size, strength etc that we are talking about, can (and have) caused massive physical injury, and death. Trying to explain it from an animal behaviour perspective and then trying to ridicule people that find what they have done as vile, is as ridiculous as calling the dog a monster. human beings kill and harm each other everyday, psychologists can explain to you in intricate detail as to why they do what they do. Do we accept that as "people just being people?" because we can explain the reasoning? look at most of the recent fatalities/serious attacks and every one of them end up being Large breed bull/or similar powerful breed dog now, i totally agree with not blaming the "breed" but we can scope it down to a type and usually, it would appear to be the type of dog that appeals as being a penis extension to idiots. Now as far them (the idiot) being insecure and the behaviour that they have displayed (buying a penis extension) and not taking sufficient care or management of that extension, that is a case of "people being people" which unfortunately you have about as much chance of changing as stopping dogs having the predisposition to be a dog. So as I see it It is not a single breed and hence banning a breed cannot stop this happening in the future we cannot stop people being people we cannot stop dogs being dogs what will probably happen is that the government will ban all dogs of the "type" that idiots would want to own. which sadly will be all large bull, bull or if we are really unlucky any large dog governed by weight or height. And it will be a very sad day indeed! As a side note, personally, I am getting tired of hearing people trying to argue that aggression has nothing to do with breed or type, only then to try and explain that a dog is aggressive because it is not a pure breed? it cannot go both ways! but by arguing with such moving goalposts you will not help sort the issue out, only assist in making any legislation more general. Very very sad

I sympathise with you Gusgem, My Male GSP Monte has always had shin issues ever since being a pup. he seemed to have a reaction to everything, to the point that he ended up on a low dose steroid daily to keep it in check. however, a few months (about 6) ago we switched his food to Nutro (the saleperson at the store talked my wife in to it, and I told my wife that it would make little difference as we had tried pretty much all of the major brands and none of them made a differnece) but my wife insisted on getting some and at the same time I bought a bottle of "Omega care oil" Well, I have to say that I have been amased at the difference, his coat is shiny and in fantastic condition, all his sore bits are gone and he has not had a tablet for about 5 months, I am honestly gobsmacked at the difference as we tried so many avenues before going down the drug route before to get on top of it with literally no success and now it is like he never had/has an issue :thumbsup: problem is, we dont know if it is the Nutro or the Omega care oil (but I am happy to keep both going :) ) Obviously I tell my wife that it is the care oil :laugh: Maybe give it a try?

hi all, I have two GSP dogs that weigh 26KG and 28KG, up till now I have always used the 25KG+ Advantix every fortnight on each dog. Now, my question is, I have also acquired a beautiful Cocker who is quite slight 12KG. A lady i spoke to the other day asked why I would buy another different size of Advantix for him, stating that she has three 10KG dogs and just splits the 4ml dose (25KG+ dog siz)e between the three of them 1.3ml each, hence only using one capsule per fortnight rather than three. she suggested that i still use two but dispense in to an egg cup, fill in to a small needleless syringe and and administer slightly less to the GSP's which would leave enough for the cocker. this would mean that my dogs would get 25-28KG GSP 3ml 12KG cocker1.5-2ml What are your thoughts on this? the pack/dosage sizes are Tube sizes: Small dogs up to 4kg - 0.4mL Dogs 4-10kg - 1.0mL Dogs 10-25kg - 2.5mL Dogs over 25kg - 4mL

I think Steve's rates are on the K9pro website? If not just call him. ;-)