Are Pit Bull Types inherently dangerous?

I love this article in Dogs Today magazine.

http://dogstodaymagazine.co.uk/2017/07/27/are-pit-bull-dogs-inherently-dangerous/

What a good article! So many great points - if only the law makers would see it all.

of course pitbulls aren't inherently dangerous, any more than any other breed. they're stronger than most, and brought up wrongly they can inflict serious damage. but so can any dog - pure bred or mongrel!

the people who make the laws don't like to admit that they're wrong - because let's face it, BSL hasn't worked! there are just as many dog bites (or more!) now than there were 20 years ago!

unfortunately, because of this, the law won't be scrapped. i just wish they'd get rid of the 'type' part of it, it causes so much heartache.

But they have to keep the 'type' part because there's nothing to ban otherwise. As the American Pit Bull isn't a recognised breed in the UK they can't ban it, so they have to ban the 'type'. Bloody Stupid Law.

It's such a cruel and unjust law. I follow Dda watch and Wheldon Law on fb and the cases they help are so sad. Dogs taken just for looking a certain way even when they have done nothing wrong. It's absolutely hrartbreaking. I also follow a lot of exempted dogs on there and they are wonderful dogs, always playing with others and attending agility classes etc but they have to wear a muzzle because of this horrible law.

yes, it's absolutely ridiculous.

i think they can be inherently dangerous. But not because they are pitbull types, but because stupid people are breeding already bad dogs to other bad dogs! I breed horses, and the number 1 rule is split between having good conformation and temperament. A 100% sound animal with a terrible attitude will do noone any favours just as having a lovely animal with terrible body will do no favours. Breeding is not just putting two animals together, it is getting two animals who match in body and temperament, and in many MANY cases these "types" don't get any of that considered they just get thrown together.

I think the same happens a lot in smaller breeds like jacks and chis, they are awfully tempered but hey people want them so people breed them. If im breeding i only ever want GOOD temperaments to be bred, as that passes on.

Thats not to say two dogs with wonderful temperament won't have a grouchy pup, or that two dangerous parents won't have a lovely calm pup..but when breeding you want to at least give them the best chance possible.

Staffs in general have always been bred for a good human temperament, cause (hate to bring up the fighting) why would a human want a game dog they can't handle them selves, but now that this doesn't happen so much people seem to dismiss these traits more and more.

So in conclusion, they are not inherently dangerous because they are pitbull types, but bad breeding can lead to them being more likely to be dangerous - in all dog breeds.

I think the article is tackling the question 'are pitbulls as a breed inherently dangerous', not can an individual dog have the disposition to be dangerous. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous, as do all humans, all horses, etc. I've met some very dangerous examples of all three species in my time and not one single one of them owed their behaviour to their breeding. Each one was a product of their 'nature and nuture', with nuture (i.e. all life experiences, pain, etc.) taking by far the biggest role.

Breeding may have some influence, but breeding 'bad' dogs to 'bad' dogs still won't necessarily get you an aggressive dog. As the author of the article (correctly in my view) says, 'tendency is not behavior'.

No such thing as a bad dog all down to their training wheras , a bad owner oh well different story also sometimes down to their pedigree to a certain extent..