OK I don't usually get involved in these debates because people with more knowledge and bigger brains than ours have debated the whole nature / nurture thing for decades without resolution.
TBH I can't see it getting resolved on an internet forum any time soon
Are some breeds not more predisposed to being bad tempered/aggressive in the same way some are predisposed to having black coats, being big/small etc
However . . . in an attempt to get things back on track and move on, my 2p FWIW.
The very simplistic answer Steve, would probably be 'yes' but it really isn't as clear-cut as all of that.
The thing to understand with dogs is that as a species, genetic traits (be that temperament or physical characteristics) tend to 'stick' very easily.
Just look at the difference between say a chihuahua and a pyrenean mountain dog. You wouldn't think that they were even the same species, yet the different breeds have been established in a relatively small number of generations of breeding (evolutionarily speaking).
That's something that 'bad' breeders can and do take advantage of, for example, to magnify aggressive traits within a small number of generations - and although they tend to do this with the specific 'status' breeds of the moment, in theory the same could be applied to any breed.
Conversely, with 'good breeding' it's also possible to repress these undesirable characteristics.
Then there are those characteristics that are bred into dogs from the inception of the breed - for whatever purpose they were initially intended for.
These traits are inherent and long established in some breeds, but again it's not quite as clear cut as all that.
a) As some breeds have become 're-purposed' over generations some of these traits have been watered down, see my point above.
and
b) Some traits are deeper-seated than others.
Hunting/herding instincts, protective urges (to home or pack) and anything else that would give an evolutionary advantage to dogs' wild ancestors are very deeply rooted.
Other traits such as the fighting urge have most probably been introduced later by humans. Animals in the wild may be aggressive, but it's really counter-productive to engage in physical contact and risk injury / death unless as a last resort.
When most wild animals face off against one another in a show of aggression, the usual outcome is for one to back down rather than actually engage and it's relatively rare for a fight between wild animals to continue to the death.
As a general rule, the more recently (again evolutionarily speaking) a trait or behaviour has been introduced, the easier it is to supress through training and/or breed out over a number of generations.
So yes, some breeds may be more predisposed to certain behavioral traits than others, but the extent of it also depends on the lineage and breeding of that individual dog and the nature of the specific trait we're talking about.
Training, socialisation and ownership also play a huge role in how those traits display themselves.
Apparently the owner thought that the dog being an American pit bull not one of the known banned ones meant it was ok to have one in the house with a baby.
when will people learn.
Words fail me sometimes.
You should never leave a baby unattended or unsupervised with any dog - no matter what breed.
Personally I think that the owners of any animal which attacks any person or other animal should be prosecuted as if they'd carried out the attack themselves. Lets see if owners become a little more responsible if a few start getting 20 years when their dog rips a kids face off, or worse.
And that I'd completely agree with.
I'm completely prepared to take full responsibility for my dog's behaviour.
Frankly any shortcoming is more likely to be down to me and not to her at all.
absolutely agree!! Good job she isn't my dog 
