Rocketeer

Exactly. There is plenty of legislation, but until councils step up to the plate and regulate and enforce them, we will still be having this conversation in 50 years time. I agree. Amend the existing laws. Because right now some people think it's s Joke when their dogs escape the yard, walk through the gate/door, run onto the road, run up to other dogs etc. Councils need to stamp down on off-lead, strays, and roaming dogs. This alone can make a difference.

These people with reactive dogs are doing the RESPONSIBLE thing by not walking their dogs OFF-lead. Who on this forum can say they have 100% voice control of their dogs? and what about the general population of dog owners? A small percentage I suppose. Which leaves a large percentage of potential incidents if dogs are OFF-lead. The numbers speak for themselves. How many dog incidents involving OFF-lead dogs vs ON-leads dogs. I know which direction the incidents will lean. ANY dog is in far more in CONTROL ON-lead and in a secure yard then then being OFF-lead. Now everyone wishes they can be the barefoot bushman and have their dog walk itself beside them. But times have changed. The incidents speak for themselves.

What is your point?

I actually disagree. Unattended dogs can form packs and do things that each individual dog would never dream of doing on their own. They are not only a danger to motorists due to causing accidents and pedestrians due to attacking them or harassing their on lead dogs, but they are also a problem for livestock and pet owners because a pack of dogs will often go hunting together. All dogs need to be contained, even the friendly ones. A friendly dog will often kill just as many sheep, and just as fast as an unfriendly one. ETA: I am referring to dogs who are not under effective control, with or without an owner present basically. I made that statement as I can't say that 100% of off-lead dogs are always an accident waiting to happen. But in saying that I do believe having all dogs On-lead when not contained or under effective control can reduce accidents. Banning people from having dogs would eliminate the risks completely but not many people would find that solution satisfactory. It's all about where you draw the line. I'm in no way suggesting it should be some sort if free for all and I understand your point of view, you just draw the line a bit further than I would. Just by looking in the News section of this Forum, many of the dogs involved in those incidents were off-leash, ran out of an open gate/door, jumped a fence etc etc. basically not under control. We've got to start somewhere and I think keeping dogs under control at all times is a good start. Exactly. And it's my view that you don't need to tie a dog to you in order to keep it under control. The 'average' dog owner is not as talented as the Dog Whisperer. Containing a dog in a secure yard and having it on-lead in public can keep it away from harm simply because it is not physically in proximity of another dog, person, animal or car. Having a dog off-lead just increases the chances of incidents happening. Even the highly trained dogs are put on lead. Imagine if all security dogs were leash-less and only voice controlled. Wouldn't the security companies insurance policy shoot up 200%. Police dogs working crowd control? Just stand by my side Fido. Fido? where'd you go? It's all about taking precautions and we have to take some form of action and do what we can at this point in time to protect the public from harm.

I actually disagree. Unattended dogs can form packs and do things that each individual dog would never dream of doing on their own. They are not only a danger to motorists due to causing accidents and pedestrians due to attacking them or harassing their on lead dogs, but they are also a problem for livestock and pet owners because a pack of dogs will often go hunting together. All dogs need to be contained, even the friendly ones. A friendly dog will often kill just as many sheep, and just as fast as an unfriendly one. ETA: I am referring to dogs who are not under effective control, with or without an owner present basically. I made that statement as I can't say that 100% of off-lead dogs are always an accident waiting to happen. But in saying that I do believe having all dogs On-lead when not contained or under effective control can reduce accidents. Banning people from having dogs would eliminate the risks completely but not many people would find that solution satisfactory. It's all about where you draw the line. I'm in no way suggesting it should be some sort if free for all and I understand your point of view, you just draw the line a bit further than I would. Fair enough. This just my opinion at this point in time. I feel that by keeping off-lead,roaming, wandering, and strays off the street we can reduce incidents from happening simply due to them not being there. Reducing the risk of incidents by removing risky behaviour from the environment. Just by looking in the News section of this Forum, many of the dogs involved in those incidents were off-leash, ran out of an open gate/door, jumped a fence etc etc. basically not under control. We've got to start somewhere and I think keeping dogs under control at all times is a good start.

I actually disagree. Unattended dogs can form packs and do things that each individual dog would never dream of doing on their own. They are not only a danger to motorists due to causing accidents and pedestrians due to attacking them or harassing their on lead dogs, but they are also a problem for livestock and pet owners because a pack of dogs will often go hunting together. All dogs need to be contained, even the friendly ones. A friendly dog will often kill just as many sheep, and just as fast as an unfriendly one. ETA: I am referring to dogs who are not under effective control, with or without an owner present basically. I made that statement as I can't say that 100% of off-lead dogs are always an accident waiting to happen. But in saying that I do believe having all dogs On-lead when not contained or under effective control can reduce accidents.

What a ridiculous idea. The simple act of having a dog off a lead does not automatically mean irresponsible ownership. Nor is every off lead dog a vicious beast that is running around the neighbourhood terrorising pensioners and eating small fluffy dogs. More legislation, laws and regulation are not the answer. There are plenty of options available already, the problem is they aren't enforced. People need to be personally responsible for their actions and the actions of their animals. Not every offlead dog is a danger. But I believe keeping all dogs on-lead when not in a secure yard or dog park will reduce a lot of "accidents". Roaming dogs can cause car accidents, roadkill and the obvious dog fights, attacks on people. I think the simple act or keeping a dog on leash or contained in a secure yard could have reduced a lot the recent "accidents" that have happened. Now, what are the "plenty of options" avaliable that you are talking about? and how do you think they can be enforced? How can we make people personally responsible for their actions and the actions of their animals? There are also plenty of dogs that are walked every day, all over the country, off lead without incident. Yes there are plenty of dogs walked off-lead without incident. But there are far more dogs involved in "accidents" that are OFF-lead than ON-lead. It's about minimising the risks. Not all people that Speed crash. There are plenty of people that speed everyday all over the country, without incident. But case studies clearly show that speed is a factor for many car accidents. And if we can reduce car accidents with limits on speed then why not? It's Not about 'restricting' everyone. Again, It's about risk minimisation. Looking at accidents that are happening,looking at the contributing factors and then how to reduce the risk. Are speed limits about 'restricting' everyone? Because not everyone who speeds crashes. Should we be able to drive as fast as we want and only punish those who crash, when they crash? Would that reduce car accidents? Or should we take a more preventative approach? I agree. On-lead dogs can break free and become Off-lead dogs. Then the chances of accidents happening increase. So what is you proposal?

What a ridiculous idea. The simple act of having a dog off a lead does not automatically mean irresponsible ownership. Nor is every off lead dog a vicious beast that is running around the neighbourhood terrorising pensioners and eating small fluffy dogs. More legislation, laws and regulation are not the answer. There are plenty of options available already, the problem is they aren't enforced. People need to be personally responsible for their actions and the actions of their animals. Not every offlead dog is a danger. But I believe keeping all dogs on-lead when not in a secure yard or dog park will reduce a lot of "accidents". Roaming dogs can cause car accidents, roadkill and the obvious dog fights, attacks on people. I think the simple act or keeping a dog on leash or contained in a secure yard could have reduced a lot the recent "accidents" that have happened. Now, what are the "plenty of options" avaliable that you are talking about? and how do you think they can be enforced? How can we make people personally responsible for their actions and the actions of their animals?

On another note. How about if there were larger penalties for off lead dogs? I think all dogs should be on-lead unless behind a fence or at an off lead park. A lot of dog attacks that have happened have been by off-lead or dogs who've escaped. I know of people who've bailed their dogs out of the pound on a number of occasions or who've had dogs returned to their house by neighbours. And to them it's like "oh, not again", " He must of jumped the fence again". That type of poor/ignorant attitude towards public safety. And it's these dogs that are causing problems as we've seen in recent times. In some parts of the world roaming dogs that 'look' menacing can be shot by police officers on the spot. Lets not let things get to that point. I say any offlead or roaming dog/s get impounded and temp assessed, release fees increased, larger fines for off-lead dogs, repeat offenders get BANNED from ownership, breach of DD enforcements get dog PTS.

Bring a can of pepper spray and spray these roaming mutts with them.

So I google 'pedigree pit bull' and these are some of the pictures I got. That is- a range of different shapes, sizes, types, looks. Which highlights my point. Everyone is great at stating what isn't a 'real' pit bull. Yet no-one has given a concrete definition of what is a pit bull.

The ADBA and the UKC have kept pedigrees for the APBT since the late 1800s. The ADBA and UKC have registered many dogs since the 1800s. Many dogs have been given pedigrees, not to mention American Bullys being registered as APBTs. One of the founding American Bully breeders clearly states that the American Bully is a mixture of APBT, AST and various other Bulldogs. Yet they are still registered as pedigree APBTs. This is part of the confusion. Where do you draw the line on what IS an APBT and what ISN'T? In the beginning they were just various Bull-Terrier fighting dogs know by a myriad of terms like; bulldogs, game dogs, pit dogs, pit bulldogs, staffordshires, yankee terriers etc. So when did the term "American Pit Bull Terrier" become officially exclusive to certain bloodlines? When did the 'books' ever close on the breed?

Yes there are many stories regarding the breed, stories that can go back to the Middle Ages. But at what point did this “Breed” become a “Breed”? Who’s to say what is and what isn’t a pit bull. Is the term exclusive to a hand full of foundation bloodlines? What are the official foundation bloodlines? What bloodlines are the ones that are exclusively in? Whoever said “your in and your not”? So bloodlines that formed after these foundation bloodlines, consisting of different genetics. Are they still Apbts? Or is it only dogs that can be traced back to a handful of “foundation bloodlines”? My point being- Who’s been keeping track of all the bloodlines all these years? And who’s to say bloodline is an APBT bloodline and which isn’t?

If the dog did go over a fence that high I don't think the owners should be fined or jailed. As you say most people would think that size fence was well adequate and I can't see how the owners were at fault. Unless the dog has a history of jumping out of course. If I had a dog that was not people friendly I would have him firmly contained. Or I would PTS him. There are many dogs that can clear 1.8m fences easy. DA and HA dogs need to be rehabilitated or contained in a secure enclosure and not left up to chance that they can't clear the fence.

I agree in the beginning the pit bull was simply a "pit-bull- terrier". Any fighting dog of bulldog and terrier blood. Back in the day the breed was basically "using whatever works". No one really cared about keeping a close eye on pedigrees as long as the dogs performed. The reputation of the Breeder, the Kennel and the Dogs were worth more than the pedigrees. If you had winning dogs, that's all that mattered. The Dogmen never really cared about pedigree papers. Why would they bother? They know where to get the best blood. It was all about reputation. If you have a good "game" bloodline people will know you (and your dogs) and people will seek to breed or buy from you. So why would they need Pedigree Papers when the dogs speak for themselves. It's pretty simple. Now I think this is where the confusion comes from. The fact that the 'Books' were never really closed for the Breed( because there was really no "Book" in the first place) has caused a whole lot of breed mis-identification. The breed was never well defined, which lead to the "pit bull" term being used very loosely worldwide. The range of breeds, colours, sizes, temperaments, types, associated with the Term "Pitbull" therefore doesn't come as a surprise.

If he's off-lead and displays menacing behaviour I'd report it. Call your local council and see what the laws are. It's a pain in the arse when u get free roaming dogs run up to you and your dog.

I the wide range of breeds mentioned in the bracket, may seem like an exaggeration for Australia. But realistic for the USA. As for the rest of the blog. Seems like he has a good understanding of the development of the breed and the current situation of the breed in the USA. He discusses the various definitions of the 'Pit Bull" term, the "Fad" American Bullys, and other relevant/popular discussions.

I agree. If you plan on it I'd leave him until 18months - 2 years. I've gotten an Amstaff done abit young and he didn't grow too big.

Great pics. Looks like an awesome place to be. Can I ask where this is?

Everyone makes mistakes mate. Two pups can be a hand full. You do what best for you and your pups.

I've never owned either breeds so I'm not biased. But I choose Bullmastiff.

Are you seriously saying if you were offered a dog from say Tatonka's next breeding (Sorrell dogs), and you knew the ped was genuine you wouldn't take it in a heart beat? I bet Ricey would jump on it no hesitation! Dogs like Chinaman, Honeybunch, Jeep, Eli, Spook, Butcher Boy, Buck, Eli, Red Boy etc... etc... I am sure you know all the more famous sires and dams as well I do, we do tend to be obsessive about our breed history we APBT fans, no need for a list. They were extensively line bred on the proviso gameness tends to be hereditary, so a distinct breed was created from these dogs, to capture that trait and propagate it. These old dogs, with that trait of gameness are the basis for the APBT breed, and it is most certainly a breed. The lines that were based on the old dogs - Garner's dogs, Boudreaux's dogs, the Red Hemphill dogs, Colby dogs, Reid dogs, pick your favourite lines... the list goes on, all those men that linebred their best - they created a breed based upon those dogs. There are differences between these lines, both physically and temperamentally, the red dogs are bigger, the Colby dogs are calmer, the Sorrell dogs are all action... Different lines, differences in temperament and structure (the same can be said of GSDs, Kelpies, lots of breeds), but still one breed - the one breed that emphasised gameness as it's primary trait. Sure there are hung papers, but there's a lot of genuine papers too (very, very few in this country though I think....). The APBTs of modern times, a breed descended from the greats, carrying the genetics for gameness, are incredibly valuable. Gameness is a maladaptive trait, a dog too willing to die does not have the opportunity to pass on his genes, even within APBTs it doesn't crop up with any reliability, since it's fundamentally contrary to the survival of an individual. It's a genetic trait that hasn't been selected for as comprehensively in any other breed that I am aware of, some other terriers perhaps, but those were also selected for breeding for other reasons as well, gameness wasn't the sole determiner for the other terriers. An APBT of genuine good pedigree is about as valuable as it's possible for a dog to be in my eyes, animals carrying this genetic trait of gameness (whether it's expressed or not) there is nothing else like them. Problem in Australia is we don't know what we have, just a bunch of Pit Bull type mutts, no known pedigree, it's anybody's guess whats in these dogs. The BYBs pumping them out don't even know what an APBT is, they think their poorly formed dogs of incorrect temperament and structure are APBTs, because they have a red nose or a big head or whatever. Bet there's lots of Visla in a lot of the red noses hereabouts, it's weird to me how the red dogs are so popular in Australia, what is with that? Stratton thought they were too big, well they're even bigger here now the idiot BYBs have mixed Viszla and even Dogue De Bordeaux in to get that all important money spinning red nose. If there is no pedigree they aren't APBTs, they aren't American Staffordshires, they're Pit Bulls, the catch all term for generic Bull breeds of no known ancestry. Just IMO, feel free to differ. I think there are really no absolutes here - it's like the question of whether an AmStaff is an APBT or not, opinions vary, it's hard to say who's correct on points with no absolutes. What I mean is- In the beginning stages there was little control on the dogs. The only real standard they had was ‘winning’. So the breed was based on the concept of producing a winning dog and in those days could have been a mixture of English, Irish imports and whatever American dogs were around back then. Therefore many of the early dogs could have been any mixture of English or Irish Staffordshire types and American dogs- who knows. This means there was a diverse gene pool and range of blood. So who can say which dogs are purebred when they were no bona fide standard or registry? Yes the UKC and ADBA tried to regulate the breed. But when you see crossbreds with pedigree papers, the papers lose value. Many of the Dogmen never cared for papers anyway. Everything was more word of mouth and written down on paper for personal reference. Then with the popularity of the breed in the past few decades, over-breeding also led to the blood being mixed up. Yes are some kennels/breeders who have long-standing bloodlines. Then they are some high dogs with a percentage of Apbt bloodlines, then there are some dogs who just have too many bloodlines in them; meaning you can’t say you can trace them back to the original dogs. So in my opinion the name ‘Apbt’ itself is of no significance to me as the diverse gene pool and overpopulation has lead to far too many variations and mixes. It’s the dog itself and the dogs behind it that matters.

I believe when you don't have time and energy to give your exercise, stimulation, discipline, affection and basic care it's a good idea to give up your dog. But hey, if someone doesn't want to. I won't force them.

The gamebred pitbull is the original type of Apbt. In saying that the breed was never well defined from the beginning. The were many different variations, bloodlines, mixes and yes names for the dog. To me it's seems the dog was more of a concept than a breed. It's only when some of the dogmen tried to begin to regulate the breed that the Apbt name was more tied to standard. How legitimate you think these Apbt registries(and their pedigrees) are, is up to you. I personally won't pay for their papers. As for these others (dogs with no ped). I won't even say they are Amstaffs with 'cool' names. The Amstaff is a pedigree breed. These "others" are bullbreed mixes often given names like pitbull, Apbt or Amstaff or staffy. Sometimes I see people with dogs and I'd ask them what dog it is, they'll say things like "pitty" or "rednosed pitbull". Then I'll ask how the dog is bred and they'll say stuff like " oh, purebred rednose" or " Dad was a pitty/staffy and mum was a rednose". And I just think. Ok- its a bullbreed mix.

I agree. Any working dog that isn't given sufficient physical and mental stimulation is an unhappy dog, a frustrated dog, and this pent up energy can lead to behavioral issues like aggression. A working dog is likely to have higher energy and have higher breed instincts (prey/fight/guard/herd/ whatever instincts) and this energy needs to be channeled (everyday), along with discipline/boundries (everyday) and affection (everyday). If you have the time and energy to wear your dog out everyday, understand dog psychology and of course give them affection then I think you'd be in the running to be a good working dog owner.