Are some dogs just too dangerous?

[MercyA]

I would never support a breed ban that would require current pit owners to either move or surrender their dogs.

 

I could support strict requirements for breeding pits, but that goes for other breeds, too. 1.2 million of the 3.9 million dogs who enter shelters in the United States are euthanized every year.  :(  Something needs to change.

 

Anyone involved in dog fighting should go to prison for a minimum of 10 years. (And frankly, I'd like to see other things done to them as well.)

 

I would fully support a ban on chaining unsupervised dogs for long periods of time. One study found that chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite. I've seen far too many dogs who live their entire life on a chain or in a pen. It absolutely should be a crime.

 

I owned an aggressive dog for 14 years. He was a Chihuahua/terrier mix. After exhausting all other options, we had him undergo disarming surgery. All his teeth except his back molars were removed by a veterinary dentist. There was something just not right in his brain and it couldn't be fixed. I love him and miss him terribly, but he couldn't be trusted.

Edited February 7, 2016 by MercyA

[SparklyUnicorn]

And yet, dog owners expect people to just believe them when they say THEY are one of the responsible ones, that their little Fido wouldn't harm a flea.

 

This drives me crazy.  EVERY single person I have met where this has come up has said this to me. 

My former landlord is the one with the dog I mentioned in my other post.  She once called me because she was going to be late home and asked if I'd go in her apartment to feed the dog.  I was afraid of that dog.  I said no that I was not comfortable.  She was mad, but what could she do.  I was not going in there.  Months later she had to put the dog down for attacking a baby.  Someone was just holding a newborn baby and the dog lunged at the baby and nipped her. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[TammyS]

I don't support banning certain breeds, but I do support strong leash laws and a general culture of keeping dogs and young children separate. I have a friend who alway assured me that her lab mix was friendly, and then one day it bit a toddler's face while guarding food.

 

I've hard large breed dogs of various types my whole life.  I always have a policy of keeping small children and large dogs separate, or at least supervised, at all times.  My Great Pyrenees is 10 years old, has never shown aggression towards a human, and only towards dogs that look "wolfish".  I never leave her alone with my 5 year old (or anyone else's small child).  She's never shown aggression (is, in fact, unbelievably tolerant of small kids), but she's still a large dog that has teeth.  Young kids don't get dog's body language, they don't process that when the dog walks away that means they've had enough and you need to leave them alone, then don't necessarily register that tiny growl was a warning.  Young kids do not have the capacity to be safe around dogs.  And a dog never has a history of biting or aggressing people....until it DOES.

[MrsWeasley]

A 5 year old I know was attacked by a rottie who jumped the fence into her yard. She needed several surgeries and hundreds of stitches, and is probably only alive because the dog's owner heard the screams and got to her quickly.

 

When I told this story to a coworker of mine, they told me that her parents really should have taught her no to scream around dogs.

:eek:  :eek:

[jeninok]

Let me preface this by saying I am a dog person, I am an experienced owner and trainer with two street dogs currently in our family.

One of the issues is the proliferation of staunchly no kill shelters and rescues. Some dogs are unstable and dangerous jerks and can not be fixed. Some dogs are so traumatized by neglect, abuse, early malnutrition or total lack of socialization that it is a kindness to let them go peacefully and with dignity.

 

There is also the start contrast between dogs being viewed as disposable possessions vs. Furbabies with both ends being wrong and ending up with heartbreaking dangerous results.

 

Any large dog in a fight is going to be incredibly hard to stop. I've BTDT with a Husky and Hound.

We have a dangerous Boxer in the neighborhood.

My heeler/husky is a sweet baby, until she isn't and requires close supervision with new peopolke and no contact with new dogs until there has been ample time to introduce them safely. It took three months to fully integrate our third dog into our house because of her.

 

Most pits are fine, but way too many are suffering from a deadly combination of horrid breeding, poor early nutrition and socializing, abuse at the hands of those who want a tough dog and media mislabeling any large shorthair mutt who attacks as a pit.

[poppy]

There are breeds I would not own while I have kids in my house.

But I don't think there is any breed that shouldn't exist - should be banned.

[jeninok]

Also very very few dog bites happen out of nowhere. There are nearly always obvious ongoing signs of stress and aggressive posturing that go ignored or are corrected which lead up to explosive attacks.

[jeninok]

Oops! Double post

Edited February 7, 2016 by jeninok

[gardenmom5]

 I've read through the cases of dog mauling deaths (yes, the majority are pits/mix). HALF of those cases, were family/friends dogs, not a strange dog.  and in 2014 (the last full year for which I looked at stats) 18/23 mauling deaths - were pits/mixes/related-breed. I fully supporting the bans on the breed. this is a breed that once it's jaws are locked - are locked - and it's very hard to get them to let go.

 

I did have a GSD who responded to her tail being pulled by small children by lightly grabbing their offending hand (left no marks) and glaring at them until they let go.  as soon as they let go - she let go.  if kids climbed on her - she stood up, and they couldn't stay on.  when they used her as a patient to play dr - she got her revenge by chewing up the dr kit after they went to bed.  I also saw her mothering a very young kitten who was ignored by it's own mother. (she also held down the neighbors cat to give it a bath.  cat was grumpy, but put up with it.)  but if she heard a mouse - in the woodpile outside - she went absolutely nuts trying to get at it.  she was a great dog - I miss her.

[ktgrok]

First, pit bull jaws don't lock. That's a myth. 

 

Second, being afraid of pits is fine. Just be afraid of ALL large dogs, because they all have the potential to maim. 

[Guest]

 

When I told this story to a coworker of mine, they told me that her parents really should have taught her no to scream around dogs.

 

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh my goodness. Some people are just plum idiotic about animals, seriously.

[Tanaqui]

I have known two (2) Dalmatians that were extremely aggressive.

 

I believe that's a known issue with the breed, no doubt exacerbated by their popularity.

 

Re: people maimed by chihuahuas, this is the first article that came up. Awwww!

 

But on topic, apparently it does happen.

 

[Gentlemommy]

Yes, some dogs are dangerous. No, it's not always the same breeds. I lock my chihuahua up when we have children visiting our home. He is amazing with our own children, but I don't trust him with other kids. I ALWAYS ALWAYS supervise guest children with all three of our dogs. I always intervene if they are getting in the dogs space.

[SKL]

I think the stats of pit bulls and rotweillers being responsible for over 70% of fatal attacks over the past 10 years is pretty convincing to me that it is not all dogs. I don't teach him to be afraid. I teach him to stay away.

 

Again, what would the stats be if you took out all the dogs that ever belonged to someone in a dog fighting business/hobby (or similar)?  We don't know.

 

If we only went by statistics, we'd be afraid of / avoid / ban certain groups of people, too.  I just don't think it's right to support that kind of "logic."

 

[kewb]

As someone who had German Shepards in the 70's and 80's when they were the "killer" dog. And Dobermans in the 90's "oh, the baby killers" and now a pit I can unequivocally say there is no such thing as bad breed.

 

Every dog I have ever had has been a sweetheart. Never had an altercation with another dog, except the one time my pit was attacked by a Jack Russel Terrier. None of the dogs ever bit or attacked a human.

 

There was a dog down the block where I grew up. No idea what he was. He was white and had Shepard like hair. He barked and growled any time you went near his house. I had to pass the house to get to and from school. One day that dog jumped the fence and chased me a few houses before he turned around. That was a vicious dog.

 

Like people, every dog is an individual. Some are good and some are aggressive. They don't breed pits to be unstable attackers. A dog like that would be put down by the owner of dog fighting dogs because they need to be able to control their dogs.

 

The hate towards breeds of dogs, to me, is no different then the hate towards any ethnic group of people. Hating all Muslims because some are terrorists, hating all Jews for whatever antisemitic reason you have, hating all blacks because they are all thieves and welfare whores. None of these things are true of all people and they are not true of all dogs.

 

No matter how sweet ones dog is, they are still an animal and it is poor judgement to leave them unsupervised with a baby/toddler. One should also teach their children not to approach strange dogs without the owners permission and not to approach a stray on the street.

 

Pitbulls do not have a locking jaw. No dog has a jaw that locks. They do have very strong jaws and a high tolerance for pain.

Edited February 8, 2016 by kewb

[jeninok]

At the park a couple weeks ago a preschool aged child came running up to my one year old lab with a handful of sticks and basically bounced off him while managing to smack him in the side of the head with said sticks. She was exactly face height when he was sitting.

I was right there but couldn't stop it in time as she took a last second hard turn right at him.

 

He didn't even react, thank god, but it could have a disaster, and the mom did absolutely nothing but giggle about the cute doggie.

[Samm]

 

Also, the statistic that pit bulls accounted for 62% of fatal attacks in the past 10 years and are only 6% of the dog population is also very compelling for me.

 

How's it possible to ignore this statistic?  

 

You can massage it to the point of torture, try to qualify it, detract it  ... Even if the numbers were off by half, it'd still be overwhelming.

[gardenmom5]

Some have said that there is no such thing as one breed more dangerous than others and used the example of how some dogs will snap at others. I ask however will a miniature breed for example be almost unstoppable during an attack and keep coming back for more? Of course snapping is not to be tolerated at all but to me there is a big difference between a dog who snaps once and a pit bull who will not stop attacking for for almost nothing:(

 

Also, the statistic that pit bulls accounted for 62% of fatal attacks in the past 10 years and are only 6% of the dog population is also very compelling for me.

 

Lastly, many have talked about good owners who swear how good natured their dogs are which I am sure is true. However, there are several compelling stories of owners who thought the same thing and one day their pit bull snapped and attacked with horrific results.

 

 

I can't find it - but we had a story from a hive member, who at one time would have sworn how wonderful pits were.  until their's attacked someone unprovoked.  

 

and they DO attack unprovoked (re: stories of dogs jumping a fence into someone's yard).  dh was attacked by one while riding his bike along a busy arterial.  he was on the main street, and the dog came from a side street and knocked him off his bike.  this is a busy street - so it was a small miracle he wasn't pushed in front of a car.  

 

lol, I got attacked walking back from the grocery store. Terrible behaviour that, walking home.

 

I assume someone will tell me how it was actually my fault because i did or didn't do X.

 

How about dog owners work towards educating themselves on how to keep their dogs under control ?

 

and that includes small dog owners.  they tend to be the ones who get no training whatsoever and be treated like a furbaby.  and oh, they're barking non-stop at your car when you back-up out of your driveway or come home - aren't they cute?  uh, no, they're not.  our neighbors have one they fortunately keep inside or in a small yard.  it does get out.  if it's in front - it won't. stop. barking.  I loath that dog.  I cornered it in my garage once, and took it home - and flat out told the owner the dog needed training.  he didn't think it did.

 

I believe that behavior and breeding go strongly together.  It's not absolute, but it's definitely strongly connected.  I've seen this with my own dog (A Great Pyrenees).  She is docile with young people, wary with grown strangers, indifferent to most dogs....except dogs that look "wolfish" (huskies, akitas).  Those dogs set off her guard dog breeding and she will do her best to get out the door to kill them. She's never actually gotten out to get one, but I always have to crate her out of view of the outdoors.  This dog has never been trained to guard anything.  She's a family pet.  But her guarding genetics are strong (if I have repairmen over, she doesn't aggress them, but she sits nearby and never takes her eyes off of them).

 

 

 

that's why they will put newborn/very-young pyr puppies in to be raised by ewes.  those instincts.  they'll mingle with the sheep like they're one of them (the sheep accept them as one of them too) - but a coyote comes around . . . . their instincts kick in and they'll hunt it down and kill it.

 

 

I believe that's a known issue with the breed, no doubt exacerbated by their popularity.

 

Re: people maimed by chihuahuas, this is the first article that came up. Awwww!

 

 

 

we had some renters with two.  I hated those dogs.  always barking, always running after people and barking at their heels.  never nipped.  just obnoixious.  no tears were shed when we heard a coyote got one.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Again, what would the stats be if you took out all the dogs that ever belonged to someone in a dog fighting business/hobby (or similar)?  We don't know.

 

If we only went by statistics, we'd be afraid of / avoid / ban certain groups of people, too.  I just don't think it's right to support that kind of "logic."

 

I am not using that sort of "logic" that you suppose since dogs are not human. As such we do treat dogs differently but hopefully humanely.

[jeninok]

6% seems like a very low estimate.

Here is a site with numbers closer to 30% and some comparative statistics.

http://www.realpitbull.com/perspective.html

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

The hate towards breeds of dogs, to me, is no different then the hate towards any ethnic group of people. Hating all Muslims because some are terrorists, hating all Jews for whatever antisemitic reason you have, hating all blacks because they are all thieves and welfare whores. None of these things are true of all people and they are not true of all dogs.

 

 

I disagree since dogs are not human. In fact, we routinely do things to dogs that we would never do to humans such as crating them at night.

 

Also, if a certain breed of dog was more and more severely attacking people, I can totally agree with banning ownership of them especially since most dog breeds are human inventions so to speak. Also, it is pretty routine for many places to ban or regulate ownership of dangerous animals like lions and where they are not they should be IMHO. This is not hate. It is practicality in wanting to keep the community safe.

[Daria]

6% seems like a very low estimate.

Here is a site with numbers closer to 30% and some comparative statistics.

http://www.realpitbull.com/perspective.html

That site says 30% of dogs in "certain populations". They suggest 10% as a national statistic.

[kewb]

I disagree since dogs are not human. In fact, we routinely do things to dogs that we would never do to humans such as crating them at night.

 

Also, if a certain breed of dog was more and more severely attacking people, I can totally agree with banning ownership of them especially since most dog breeds are human inventions so to speak. Also, it is pretty routine for many places to ban or regulate ownership of dangerous animals like lions and where they are not they should be IMHO. This is not hate. It is practicality in wanting to keep the community safe.

I can only speak for myself. I have never crated a dog and I doubt I ever will. I agree there are things we routinely do to animals that we don't do to humans. It doesn't mean we should be doing all of those things to animals.

 

There was a time when black people were considered animals. That is why so many whites thought it was okay to abuse them. That is why so many whites still think it is okay. Hitler equated Jews to animals. The Roma people were also considered animals. And so on and so on. Most people wouldn't and don't treat their animals the way groups of people have been treated. I know, animals are not human but to me abuse is abuse.

 

I don't agree with breed specific legislation. It is reactionary legislation meant to make people feel good and does nothing to address the underlying issues. All it does is force nice people with nice dogs to move or abandon their dog because there is no place for them to move. So now we have shelters over flowing with dogs and being murdered because there is no place for them to live and the shelter needs the room or they are loose on the streets.

[tm919]

My first thought was "No, but some people are just too delusional to have dogs." 

 

I have acquaintances whose dog tried to bite my older daughter when she was 3 and THEN tried to bite my younger daughter at 3. They say the dog was just "playing" and would never hurt a child. I can supervise my children, especially now that my children don't look and act so much like prey... but it does bother me that they tell people that the dog would never bite when BOTH my daughters and I vividly remember the dog trying. It seems like it's just asking for someone to take them at their word, and leave a toddler relatively unsupervised with the dog. IIRC they had another dog years ago who would "never" bite and tried to bite their own daughter at around that same age.

 

Their dog is one of "those" breeds, but we teach our daughters that ANY dog can hurt you.

Edited February 8, 2016 by tm919

[Guest]

Uh yeah if the argument rests on, or, indeed, includes, comparing dogs to human beings, it's not a solid one. AT ALL.

 

Oh man that is such an offensive thing to say.

 

No one is "equating dogs with animals"...dogs ARE ANIMALS.

Edited February 8, 2016 by OKBud

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I can only speak for myself. I have never crated a dog and I doubt I ever will. I agree there are things we routinely do to animals that we don't do to humans. It doesn't mean we should be doing all of those things to animals.

 

There was a time when black people were considered animals. That is why so many whites thought it was okay to abuse them. That is why so many whites still think it is okay. Hitler equated Jews to animals. The Roma people were also considered animals. And so on and so on. Most people wouldn't and don't treat their animals the way groups of people have been treated. I know, animals are not human but to me abuse is abuse.

 

I don't agree with breed specific legislation. It is reactionary legislation meant to make people feel good and does nothing to address the underlying issues. All it does is force nice people with nice dogs to move or abandon their dog because there is no place for them to move. So now we have shelters over flowing with dogs and being murdered because there is no place for them to live and the shelter needs the room or they are loose on the streets.I a

I thought crating dogs at night sounded inhumane at first too but then a very good vet tech as well as books on dog care informed me otherwise. Obviously, crating should be limited and not an all day affair but I certainly do not see it as inhumane as long as it done in such a way that the dogs see the crate as his den and haven and limited to such times as at night or when away.

 

Again, the comparison to racism is not valid IMHO since dogs are not humans. As such we do not treat them the same. I do strongly agree that we treat dogs humanely. I do not see it as abuse to call for bans on certain breeds if necessary. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Although about the crating thing.  My sister's ex husband had a husky and supposedly it was considered kind to crate him during the day when they were not home.  No clue if that is true or what, but that is what he used to say.

 

 

 

 

[jeninok]

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php

 

The abbreviated table on this site uses the 6% number but because they are calling Bull mastiffs Presa Canarios I clicked through to the link.

 

The cited study has no credentials attached and is apparently compiled from media reports.

 

Pitbulls are put in the Mollosser category (they are terriers) yet German Shepherds and Karolean Bear dogs are in a nebulous Wolf like category which is frankly meaningless.

Northern Spitz type breeds? Pointy ears and thick coats?

 

Also Labradors make up only 2% of their population, (8 including mixes?) But Daschunds are 4%.

[jeninok]

Although about the crating thing. My sister's ex husband had a husky and supposedly it was considered kind to crate him during the day when they were not home. No clue if that is true or what, but that is what he used to say.

Crating takes advantage of a dogs natural nesting instinct and creates a den for them.

It also keeps them safe from harm and protects your house from damage.

A bored dog left loose for hours can cause a lot of trouble.

[kewb]

My first thought was "No, but some people are just too delusional to have dogs."

 

I have acquaintances whose dog tried to bite my older daughter when she was 3 and THEN tried to bite my younger daughter at 3. They say the dog was just "playing" and would never hurt a child. I can supervise my children, especially now that my children don't look and act so much like prey... but it does bother me that they tell people that the dog would never bite when BOTH my daughters and I vividly remember the dog trying. It seems like it's just asking for someone to take them at their word, and leave a toddler relatively unsupervised with the dog. IIRC they had another dog years ago who would "never" bite and tried to bite their own daughter at around that same age.

 

Their dog is one of "those" breeds, but we teach our daughters that ANY dog can hurt you.

This, to me, is an example of irresponsible dog ownership.

[ktgrok]

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php

 

The abbreviated table on this site uses the 6% number but because they are calling Bull mastiffs Presa Canarios I clicked through to the link.

 

The cited study has no credentials attached and is apparently compiled from media reports.

 

Pitbulls are put in the Mollosser category (they are terriers) yet German Shepherds and Karolean Bear dogs are in a nebulous Wolf like category which is frankly meaningless.

Northern Spitz type breeds? Pointy ears and thick coats?

 

Also Labradors make up only 2% of their population, (8 including mixes?) But Daschunds are 4%.

 

What intelligent person puts equates a Bull Mastiff and Presa Canario? That website just lost my attention totally. Those are vastly different dogs. 

[ktgrok]

My first thought was "No, but some people are just too delusional to have dogs." 

 

I have acquaintances whose dog tried to bite my older daughter when she was 3 and THEN tried to bite my younger daughter at 3. They say the dog was just "playing" and would never hurt a child. I can supervise my children, especially now that my children don't look and act so much like prey... but it does bother me that they tell people that the dog would never bite when BOTH my daughters and I vividly remember the dog trying. It seems like it's just asking for someone to take them at their word, and leave a toddler relatively unsupervised with the dog. IIRC they had another dog years ago who would "never" bite and tried to bite their own daughter at around that same age.

 

Their dog is one of "those" breeds, but we teach our daughters that ANY dog can hurt you.

 

This is why I don't buy the "there was no warning" or "the dog turned suddenly" crap that you see in the news reports. I bet if that dog had actually bitten and done damage one day they'd have said the same thing...because in their warped view those almost bites were not warning signs at all, it was just playing. Until the day someone needs stitches and then the owner is shocked and says the incident couldn't have been predicted and happened out of the blue. When in reality they'd had multiple warnings that this dog was potentially dangerous. 

[FaithManor]

A 5 year old I know was attacked by a rottie who jumped the fence into her yard. She needed several surgeries and hundreds of stitches, and is probably only alive because the dog's owner heard the screams and got to her quickly.

 

When I told this story to a coworker of mine, they told me that her parents really should have taught her no to scream around dogs.

Oh. Good. Grief.

 

Honestly, sometimes the stupid is too great!

 

My sis in law had a docile, loving, pit. Biggest dog baby ever. But she was super smart training her, and an uber responsible owner. When Dolly died of cancer - had to be put down due to pain and suffering - she was going to get another but found out their homeowner's insurance would go up $3000.00 if they did. This is not uncommon around here.

 

The worst attack we have had in this area was from a chow kept by some drug addicts. Frankly, these were the kind of people who would have been able to turn dachshunds into assassin squads.

 

I say this as the owner of a loveable, goofy, but unfortunately fairly stupid cocker spaniel.....most dog owners I meet do not know a darn thing about dogs, dog behavior, dog socialization, much less the specifics of the breeds they own. That is a dangerous situation.

 

These are dogs, canines, animals with instincts some of which are not desirable traits and need to be handled wisely not hamsters. I wish more people would simply get hamsters and leave dog ownership to serious people.

 

I am a big fan of strictly enforced, strong leash laws. Fences and leashes make for happy neighbors.

 

Locally though, the cattle dogs scare me the most. They are ferociously crazy about their duties and the farmers/ranchers have not properly socialized them to play nicely with other humans.

[Daria]

I can only speak for myself. I have never crated a dog and I doubt I ever will. I agree there are things we routinely do to animals that we don't do to humans. It doesn't mean we should be doing all of those things to animals.

 

There was a time when black people were considered animals. That is why so many whites thought it was okay to abuse them. That is why so many whites still think it is okay. Hitler equated Jews to animals. The Roma people were also considered animals. And so on and so on. Most people wouldn't and don't treat their animals the way groups of people have been treated. I know, animals are not human but to me abuse is abuse.

 

I don't agree with breed specific legislation. It is reactionary legislation meant to make people feel good and does nothing to address the underlying issues. All it does is force nice people with nice dogs to move or abandon their dog because there is no place for them to move. So now we have shelters over flowing with dogs and being murdered because there is no place for them to live and the shelter needs the room or they are loose on the streets.

Equating breed restrictions to slavery or the holocaust . . Or the differences between human races, religions, or ethnicities to the differences between dog breeds, or whatever analogy you are attempting is incredibly offensive.

[jeninok]

Some interesting links and articles.

Pekinese, Lhasa Aphso, and Shih tzu are among the breeds most closely related to wolves. The rest being northern Spitz type breeds. http://dogs.petbreeds.com/stories/3574/dog-breeds-closely-related-wolves#15

 

In Toledo DNA concluded that identifying dogs based on looks is tricky at best,and DNA results are complicated

 

http://m.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-dogs-mislabeled-pit-bulls.html

 

Another from Denver and San Francisco talking about media bias and how out affects not only perception but widely used statistics.

http://blog.sfgate.com/pets/2010/09/09/pit-bulls-bad-rap-how-much-is-the-media-to-blame/

[Tsuga]

I think that any non-human animal that is big, strong, or coordinated enough to kill a human should be considered dangerous and that the family should bear the risk of that animal should they choose to own it as a pet.

 

I don't agree with breed bans. I think they provide people with a false sense of security, like some breeds of dogs are somehow fine no matter what.

 

The fact is, dogs can't talk. They can't tell us when things are going wrong. They can't tell us that they can't control themselves. They can't tell us when they are in pain. They can't ask to stay home. They are living, feeling, thinking things but we cannot really know what is going on in there.

 

And for that reason, people need to be aware that ANY dog or animal that can bite is too dangerous to be left without a leash, unsupervised, around the general public, such as children, elderly or disabled people who can't move fast, etc.

 

I don't care if it's a raccoon, a cat, whatever. We teach our children how to behave around dogs in particular because dogs are large, but they also know about raccoons (pests around here) and how to behave with cats, and the danger of any wild animal.

 

I don't think a breed ban can be compared to racism, however, because the differences in breeds are much, much, MUCH greater and intentional than any differences found among human beings. I mean it is hard to find such large variation between racial groups, which exist on a continuum. It is offensive. I'm not opposed to breed bans because dogs aren't different, but because it implies that some dogs are too dangerous but others are safe enough to have without really vetting owners. And I disagree with that.

[jeninok]

What intelligent person puts equates a Bull Mastiff and Presa Canario? That website just lost my attention totally. Those are vastly different dogs.

Exactly. That would be like calling a Bloodhound a Fila Brasileiro just because they sometimes have similar face types.

Karelean Bear dogs are so rare I have no idea why they were even mentioned.

 

Although people cross the street to get away from my Dobie/Rottie that is actually a Black and Tan Coonhound Mix.

 

They take steps back and cringe as he is literally throwing himself belly up at their feet, because Rockweilkers (spelling intentional) are dangerous.

[Ausmumof3]

Of course there will be individual 'scary breed' dogs who are gentle and never hurt a fly.

 

Of course there will be 'non-scary' dogs who are vicious.

 

But stats show there are breed specific problems, especially with regard to fatalities. Pitbulls appear to account for close to half of all fatal attacks,

What stats don't take into account are the type of owner that are attracted to certain breeds. Some breeds may have a higher number of attacks but partly because they attract the kind of owners that think having a dog that attacks is awesome and will even encourage the behaviour.

 

I don't support an outright ban but regulation that requires dog owners of certain breeds to attend training on dog attacks and the dog to attend obedience classes or something would be OK.

 

The dogs that I seem to notice the most aggression issues with are jack Russell's and the worst dog bite I saw came from a beagle. Unfortunately the beagles owner thought it was awesome to play fight with his dog all the time.

[kewb]

I have to admit, I am intrigued by the amount of people offended by my view of breed specific prejudice the same as racial prejudice. Why exactly is it offensive?

 

As someone who has been on the receiving end of prejudice it is no different to me if it is banning of all dogs because some have attacked. Or banning all Muslims because they are all terrorists. Different scale but same meaning.

[Tsuga]

I have to admit, I am intrigued by the amount of people offended by my view of breed specific prejudice the same as racial prejudice. Why exactly is it offensive?

 

As someone who has been on the receiving end of prejudice it is no different to me if it is banning of all dogs because some have attacked. Or banning all Muslims because they are all terrorists. Different scale but same meaning.

 

I think it implies that the major differences between breeds which have been deliberately bred, and the known large differences in IQ (like, LARGE differences) between breeds, is somehow analogous to the differences between racial groups in humans.

 

I know that in my studies, I see that when you train humans the same, that when they have the same advantages, real advantages, as long as they do not know that they are in an oppressed group, you can train most children the same. The incidence of disability, learning delays, etc. are not significantly different among racial groups. In fact we are amazingly similar. We can't deny the effect of the environment and institutional racism and a heritage of violence in some communities, be they Asian, African, or European, but ultimately when you look at kids who are raised in affluent families they behave amazingly similarly until they realize what is going on in the world around them (like, when black kids from the middle class hit middle school...).

 

This is not what I understand to be true of dogs. There are biological differences that make it impossible to treat different breeds the same. Like, the differences between Neanderthals and humans or something.

 

I think ideas of differences between racial groups are differences of perception based on extremely superficial characteristics, whereas ideas of differences in dog breeds are based on intentionally bred issues.

 

Though, I might not have a good understanding of different dog breeds. Maybe there are no statistically significant differences between different breeds when you control for differences in ownership and the social treatment of the dogs.

[jewellsmommy]

DS's bio-family had a great dane. It bit his older brother, but they kept it. Then when ds was 3 it almost took his face off. I have seen the pictures. It was bad. He was blessed to have had a good plastic surgeon present at the hospital he was taken to. At 12 the scarring is much less visible but still bothers him. The fact that his mother ignored the warnings about the dog is infuriating. No one knows what set off the dog, other than it obviously had a bad temperament.

 

We have taught dd and ds, to the best of our ability, how to be respectful of animals and read their body language along with general safety guidelines.

 

Dd started watching the shows about pitbulls (pitbulls & parolees and pitboss), and has a soft-spot for the breed. 

 

 

ETA: Owners don't have to train an animal to be vicious in order to get a dangerous animal. Ignoring and not training an animal that has a short fuse or is antisocial is every bit as dangerous. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by jewellsmommy

[jeninok]

I think it implies that the major differences between breeds which have been deliberately bred, and the known large differences in IQ (like, LARGE differences) between breeds, is somehow analogous to the differences between racial groups in humans.

 

I know that in my studies, I see that when you train humans the same, that when they have the same advantages, real advantages, as long as they do not know that they are in an oppressed group, you can train most children the same. The incidence of disability, learning delays, etc. are not significantly different among racial groups. In fact we are amazingly similar. We can't deny the effect of the environment and institutional racism and a heritage of violence in some communities, be they Asian, African, or European, but ultimately when you look at kids who are raised in affluent families they behave amazingly similarly until they realize what is going on in the world around them (like, when black kids from the middle class hit middle school...).

 

This is not what I understand to be true of dogs. There are biological differences that make it impossible to treat different breeds the same. Like, the differences between Neanderthals and humans or something.

 

I think ideas of differences between racial groups are differences of perception based on extremely superficial characteristics, whereas ideas of differences in dog breeds are based on intentionally bred issues.

 

Though, I might not have a good understanding of different dog breeds. Maybe there are no statistically significant differences between different breeds when you control for differences in ownership and the social treatment of the dogs.

Most dogs have been bred for a purpose and it is important to keep that in mind when selecting a family dog or approaching a new dog. But individual temperament can vary widely, genetics play a large role (not just breed level but individual lines)

 

Also with the amount of dogs we live with as humans some basic teaching about body language and polite behavior should really be taught as part of social studies or life skills.

 

Dogs are masters at communicating with both each other and humans, as well as mnasters at reading human body language and facial expressions.

 

It really isn't hard to understand them at all.

[DesertBlossom]

What stats don't take into account are the type of owner that are attracted to certain breeds. Some breeds may have a higher number of attacks but partly because they attract the kind of owners that think having a dog that attacks is awesome and will even encourage the behaviour.

 

I don't support an outright ban but regulation that requires dog owners of certain breeds to attend training on dog attacks and the dog to attend obedience classes or something would be OK.

 

 

 

I've only ever watched one episode of Cesar Millan's dog show, but it was about a pit bull. He flat out told the owner that he didn't have the personality to own a pit bull. The dog needed to someone to be in charge, and the guy couldn't do it. 

[Tsuga]

 

Dogs are masters at communicating with both each other and humans, as well as mnasters at reading human body language and facial expressions.

 

It really isn't hard to understand them at all.

 

It obviously is for some people because some people frequently underestimate the aggression of their own dog.

[MercyA]

Though, I might not have a good understanding of different dog breeds. Maybe there are no statistically significant differences between different breeds when you control for differences in ownership and the social treatment of the dogs.

 

There are some interesting statistics at the website of the American Temperament Test Society. They were founded in 1977 as a "national not-for-profit organization...for the promotion of uniform temperament evaluation of purebred and spayed/neutered mixed-breed dogs." The ATTS Temperament Test isn't specifically for aggression, but "measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog’s ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions." 

 

The society records the number of passed and failed tests for each breed. You can find the statistics here. The American Pit Bull Terrier has a 86.8% pass rate, very similar to the pass rates for Bernese Mountain Dogs, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, Newfoundlands, Saint Bernards, Huskies, and Standard Poodles. They've tested 32,428 dogs as of 2013. There isn't as much data for some of the rarer breeds. 

[Garga]

I'm scared of dogs. 

 

I just am.  Sometimes I just feel a little tense around them, but sometimes I can feel a full-on wave of pure fear when I'm around them.  And then I think, "Oh no!  The dog can probably smell my fear and now I'm prey to them!" and then more fear pours out.

 

I was at the vet on Friday with my cat and there was a dog coming out of the room.  The vet tech was checking to see who was in the waiting room and asked the owner, "Do you want me to clear the waiting room while you take out your dog?"  The owner said, "It's ok."  And he came out.  He paid his bill. 

 

But I wish they'd cleared the waiting room before he brought out his dog.  The entire time he paid the bill, he had his hand wrapped a few times around the leash while the dog stared into my eyes growling and lunging at me.  URGH.  I didn't stare back at the dog.  I tried to look unthreatening and looked away and even put my head down so it wouldn't think I was challenging it.  I guess the dog could smell my cat in the carrier next to me.

 

I'm scared of dogs.  I don't believe they should all be put to sleep, but I'm scared of them and I don't like it when owners don't understand that.  That growling dog was 76 pounds (he was standing on the scale while the owner paid) and that's enough to lunge and knock me down. What if the owner didn't have that leash wrapped around his hand so tightly?  That dog was lunging and growling at me!  That is just SCARY.

 

I have a friend with a pit and she is aware of my fear and she puts the dog away when I'm around.  I don't go there often, usually just to drop off something or pick something up, but I wouldn't go there at all if she wasn't willing to put her dog away.  I don't like to go there and make her put away her baby because I know how much you can love your pet.  But I can't pretend I don't feel the fear.  I can't control it from pouring off of me.

 

I'm afraid that my fear will set off the predator instinct that's in them. 

 

I don't hate dogs in the slightest.  I think they're sweeties for the most part, but there's also a part of me that fears them and I can't turn that fear off, so I have to stay away.  Especially the breeds that can knock me down off my feet.  I am ok around little dogs that can't pin me down and rip out my throat.  :) 

[Tanaqui]

I've only ever watched one episode of Cesar Millan's dog show, but it was about a pit bull. He flat out told the owner that he didn't have the personality to own a pit bull. The dog needed to someone to be in charge, and the guy couldn't do it. 

 

That man is overrated. I mean, he uses the long-discredited alpha dog model of canine behavior, for crying out loud!

[jeninok]

It obviously is for some people because some people frequently underestimate the aggression of their own dog.

People frequently do the same for

children

Husbands

Sports heroes

Anyone or thing they feel greatly attached to.

 

This doesn't mean education wouldn't help prevent a high number of bites.

[jelbe5]

I have not read all the responses but I do believe much has to do with the owners. I was absolutely terrified of Dobermans and Rottweilers until I met my cousin's husband. This gentleman researched dog breeds and worked with his dogs. They were wonderful, obedient dogs and I enjoyed being around them and became less afraid of these breeds (they have since passed away - this was over the span of 20+ years). I am not a dog owner (due to allergies), but I do believe so much has to do with the training.

[Tsuga]

There are some interesting statistics at the website of the American Temperament Test Society. They were founded in 1977 as a "national not-for-profit organization...for the promotion of uniform temperament evaluation of purebred and spayed/neutered mixed-breed dogs." The ATTS Temperament Test isn't specifically for aggression, but "measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog’s ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions." 

 

The society records the number of passed and failed tests for each breed. You can find the statistics here. The American Pit Bull Terrier has a 86.8% pass rate, very similar to the pass rates for Bernese Mountain Dogs, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, Newfoundlands, Saint Bernards, Huskies, and Standard Poodles. They've tested 32,428 dogs as of 2013. There isn't as much data for some of the rarer breeds. 

 

That is very interesting, thank you!

 

It reinforces my belief that breed bans are inappropriate but that people need to be better trained to understand dogs and how to deal with them around other people.

 

 

People frequently do the same for 

children

Husbands

Sports heroes

Anyone or thing they feel greatly attached to.

 

This doesn't mean education wouldn't help prevent a high number of bites.

 

 

I completely agree! And I agree 100% with education for people vs. breed bans.

 

My post was very much aimed at the comparison of races to breeds.