Would you advise for or against this...

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

I voted no and like Stig, I am in the camp of not having any pitbull cross in a house with children. A pitbull is a Section 1 dog for a reason, they are dangerous dogs, bred to fight.

If the dog was a staffie, then I don't really see an issue as Saffies can be incredibly loving and affectionate little dogs, who, if disciplined and trained in the right manner, are no issue or threat.

If it was a household such as yours GG, then I would maybe say to do what you did with Stig n Holl, and see how they get on, but because they have kids, its a whoooooole different ball game.

We've already started to get our lot used to not having attention when they want it and to be shut away at times. It's not their house, it's ours and when friends bring their dogs over, we never leave them alone unattended. Our lot come out for a while, then the guest dog will come out for a while. It works and means that when we eventually have our own children, the dogs will already be used to not having all the attention.

It's done wonders for them already.

If you want to have both dogs would say
!: make sure they know the kids are above them in the food chain
2: keep your kids away when the the dogs are being fed and if any any snarling bad behaviour at feeding time take the food away until dogs calm down and realise that they will only get fed when You allow it to be the norm

I can't say much about the OP having never owned either breed of dog, but then TBH I'm not sure breed really has as much to do with it as many might think. To me the unknown history would be more of an issue than the breed. 25% nature, 75% nurture and all that.

I can definitely say that you are no less likely to have dominance issues with Labradors. It may be the case that those dominance issues manifest themselves in a less violent way, and in a way that is more acceptable to humans that are not aware of pack mentality.

My labrador will start a fight with another dog regularly, by jumping over the other dog's shoulders and growling around the neck or ears. He has challenged my wife with a snap or a show of the teeth on a few occasions when she has had reason to discipline him, but only ever when I wasn't around. He has only ever been protective towards my son, and they are the best of friends, but is this because the dog sees the child as a pack leader or a lesser pack member? I don't 100% trust him with my child, not to one day snap at him out of jealousy or in an attempt to get ahead in the pack.

I always have to put the family first before the dog, they are greeted to first when I come in from work, we eat before him, etc, etc. Anyone who has met the dog on here will testify that he knows his place, but keeping him there is something we have to be conscious of constantly. Let it slip for a week and he will start taking the p1ss and testing his boundaries. Even if he has had a lot of attention for one day, then after that he will try and get in between me and my son whenever I am paying my son attention and he needs put back in his place. He is a very dominant character.

I wouldn't put either of those dogs in a home where there were kids.

[gruntygiggles]

Interesting.

I'm not yet convinced that the dog they have is going to be fine. Stig, our Collie was fine right up til he was about 2 and then her started getting unpredictable. It happened before I got Hollie (the collie cross). She has made Stig worse only because she is a very unbalanced dog, she is actually brain damaged so no amount of rehab will sort her out completely. Because she is so unbalanced, Stig always wants to step up into the leadership role.
Hollie won't allow him to. She, being a rescue has been mollycoddled by all the temporary homes she has had and so thinks that she is top dog. Stig is a dog and a slightly nervous one at that, so they always try and get above each other in the ranking. It's only gone to a fight twice with them and nothing nasty, just a quick scrap, no real damamge and that's dogs. The two puppies are great.

So, in relation to what Ralph has said, I agree completely that the history of the dog is more important than the breed. We've got it here. 1 dog that was treated a bit to harshly by my ex and loved a bit too much by me is now sometimes nervous and defensive. One that was used as bait for fighting dogs and constantly mollycoddled now sees herself more as a human member of the house than a dog and the brain damage shown itself in some bizarre ways, most of which are centred around target fixation. The puppies have been well supervised, well loved, well disciplined and at 2 years old now, are a joy around everyone.

So, time will tell as to wether the dog they have now will turn out ok. In my experience, which extends far beyond our own dogs, it takes time for issues to come to the surface.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

I voted no and like Stig, I am in the camp of not having any pitbull cross in a house with children. A pitbull is a Section 1 dog for a reason, they are dangerous dogs, bred to fight.

If the dog was a staffie, then I don't really see an issue as Saffies can be incredibly loving and affectionate little dogs, who, if disciplined and trained in the right manner, are no issue or threat.

If it was a household such as yours GG, then I would maybe say to do what you did with Stig n Holl, and see how they get on, but because they have kids, its a whoooooole different ball game.

Not a whole lot of difference between Pit Bulls and Staffies. Both are considered to be "pit bull type" dogs and both have been used and bred for dog fighting.

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by ophic

Not a whole lot of difference between Pit Bulls and Staffies. Both are considered to be "pit bull type" dogs and both have been used and bred for dog fighting.

I think the reason people have less fear of Staffies now is that so many are now homed as pets and not for the purpose for which they were bred.

Pit Bulls, Staffies, Bull Terriers, Bull Dogs, Doberman, Rottweilers, GSDs, Akitas and so on and so on are all breeds that in my mind are only more dangerous because the damage they can do when they are triggered is far far worse than more passive breeds. I don't believe they are more likely to be triggered in the first place.

A child pokes a collie in the worng place, the child will more than likely get a good nip and the collie will growl another warning or run away.

Poke a Lab in the wrong place and about the same will happen. Same for almost all passive breeds.

Poke a Jack Russell (exception of ours...lol) and a nasty little bite or a few will follow. It was two JRT's that killed a toddler a couple of years ago...ripped the boy apart.

Poke a fighting breed or guarding breed and when the trigger is pulled, those are dogs that are far more likely to do a lot more damage in a much shorter amount of time. They are dogs more likely to go from being perfectly nice to a full on attack with what most humans would see as no provocation.

Truth is, there is almost always provocation, sometimes it builds for a while and the difficulty for humans is that we look at the triggers through our eyes, not dogs eyes, so we'll never know what all the triggers are.

All above is just my opinion though.

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

We've already started to get our lot used to not having attention when they want it and to be shut away at times. It's not their house, it's ours and when friends bring their dogs over, we never leave them alone unattended. Our lot come out for a while, then the guest dog will come out for a while. It works and means that when we eventually have our own children, the dogs will already be used to not having all the attention.

It's done wonders for them already.

We have always done this to ours. Dogs have to have their own space, and know when ours isn't theirs to be in. It shows to them who is boss, and who gets the last say, rather than the other way around. It also helps as I have a tiny house, in which Bob looks like a giant! We lock them away when people come round too, as natural people will greet a dog first. Unless of course its those who they know regular like the Yorkies, as they know what is expected, and usually a small pat then push away comes from them. The dogs bugger off for a wee while then come back after a while for big hugs.

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

I think the reason people have less fear of Staffies now is that so many are now homed as pets and not for the purpose for which they were bred.

Pit Bulls, Staffies, Bull Terriers, Bull Dogs, Doberman, Rottweilers, GSDs, Akitas and so on and so on are all breeds that in my mind are only more dangerous because the damage they can do when they are triggered is far far worse than more passive breeds. I don't believe they are more likely to be triggered in the first place.

A child pokes a collie in the worng place, the child will more than likely get a good nip and the collie will growl another warning or run away.

Poke a Lab in the wrong place and about the same will happen. Same for almost all passive breeds.

Poke a Jack Russell (exception of ours...lol) and a nasty little bite or a few will follow. It was two JRT's that killed a toddler a couple of years ago...ripped the boy apart.

Poke a fighting breed or guarding breed and when the trigger is pulled, those are dogs that are far more likely to do a lot more damage in a much shorter amount of time. They are dogs more likely to go from being perfectly nice to a full on attack with what most humans would see as no provocation.

Truth is, there is almost always provocation, sometimes it builds for a while and the difficulty for humans is that we look at the triggers through our eyes, not dogs eyes, so we'll never know what all the triggers are.

All above is just my opinion though.

Thats where the nurture thing comes in, its fair to say its much more difficult to reprogramme a dog that has come from somewhere else. Luckily Bob was from puppy and hes such a wuss anyway that he mooches off in a corner if hes given unwanted attention. He hasn't got a nasty bone in his body...hes such a poof, hes afraid of the brush on the vac, bin bags, umbrellas, rocks that are stood on gateposts(yeh thats funny) and he generally gets used as a horse by my son. He has all three cats sticking their claws in his nose, and the youngest being Tibbles plays with him, and can have both teeth and claws embedded in his snout, to which Bob just lets him, its an odd sight to see being cat and dog, but thats his nature.
Honey has always been the mummy sort, and is very much terrier rather than lurcher, and has been my sons best friend for years. BUT as said before has issues. We used to feed her first for a long time whilst trying to establish Bobs place in the pecking order, but we had to go for reverse pyschology eventually as she was so viscious towards Bob. Once she starts on him she refuses to give up, naturally Bob will defend himself and get backed into a corner, but he will cause damage to her badly, but you get him away from her and he cowers away, she still is launching herself. Luckily we haven't had this for around two years now...which ties in with Bob maturing to adult.
Unfortunately Honey is going blind rapidly, her hearing makes up for it, but if shes fast asleep as Tibbles found last week, he crept up for a sniff, and she launched herself at him all teeth bared for a fight, cornered him in the kitchen and shot down the garden in high chase. In the next two months I have to make the decision that shes past her childminding best, and can't be trusted with a new arrival, which is very very heart wrenching.

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

Pit Bulls, Staffies, Bull Terriers, Bull Dogs, Doberman, Rottweilers, GSDs, Akitas and so on and so on are all breeds that in my mind are only more dangerous because the damage they can do when they are triggered is far far worse than more passive breeds. I don't believe they are more likely to be triggered in the first place.

.

What I was getting at but far better put

Ralph, I merely picked Labs as an example of a breed that is rarely mentioned when it comes to violence issues. YC's lab is a darling and in his whole life has only expressed violent tendencies twice, not bad for a 16year old! I wasn't ruling out the act of dominance at all, every dog will do its best to get to the top of the pack given half a chance! But some breeds are less likely to push it. Everyone handles their pets differently and as a result there will be differing levels of dominance expressed in different households.

[gruntygiggles]

It all comes down to a trust thing. Personally, I would just never ever trust any dog with any child, end of. My sisters collie got backed into a corner by my niece, a dog that, "loves her, he'd never hurt a fly" as my sister said many times. He did a typical collie thing and just nipped...only he missed her eye by less than an inch.

You can never ever say that any dog is perfectly trustworthy with children....if you do, IMO, you need a reality check. You might get lucky, hopefully will, but because dogs can't talk, you never know how they are feeling. The nicest dog in the world might run into a fence post when you're not looking. Kid then pulls the hair in the spot that hurts and before you know it, the dog has retaliated.

When that toddler was killed. He was put in a crib or playpen while the grandmother went to the kitchen to make a drink. Within a minute, the two Jack Russells, both of whom had grown up around, playing with and being perfectly well behaved around children had jumped onto the toddler and mauled him. The grandmother was in the next room, said she ran in as soon as she first heard the screams, but they stopped by the time she got there. She think it was all over within a minute but it was too late for the toddler.

That's two dogs, mature but not old that had never ever shown any aggression or bad behaviour. Somthing in them clicked that day. A baby getting all of the attention, a threat to "their" pack....whatever, the whole family were just shocked at the fact that these dogs were "perfect with kids".

You just never know.