Dog whisperer's most aggressive breeds

adser53

I'm not a huge fan of the dog whisperer and find myself watching it occasionally just to see the dogs. Anyway, I watched an episode last night where they took a look at aggressive dogs.

Over 10,000 viewers voted for what they thought were the most aggressive breeds and Cesar Millan listed the top nine breeds.

The first 6, in no particular order where:
Alaskan malamute
Boxer
Chow chow
Doberman pinscher
Great Dane
Siberian husky

The top 3, in order where
1. Pitbull
2. GSD
3. Rottie

(Of course, the pit bull technically isn’t a breed and he mentioned the staffs etc that are covered under the umbrella of PB.)

When it came time for Millan to say which breed he thought was the most aggressive, he said “none" and that aggressive dogs can be any breed and are a result of their upbringing.
I was happy to hear him say that bit as I feel the exact same and despise the negative press these breeds get for no reason other than an effort to sell papers by shock value. Now I know the top 6 listed above differ from one list to the next but we can all agree that GSDs,pits and Rotties are always a certain addition.

So the reason I'm posting this thread (and I'm hoping it doesn't turn into a war) is to get peoples opinions on aggressive breeds. Do people on here condemn a breed based on hype and bad press alone? You won't be judged if you do but you'll have to have an open mind to the replies.

Could any owners of these amazing breeds post up a pic and positive story about their "devil dogs" to help educate people who aren't aware how great and misunderstood they are. that staffies are known as the nanny dog for example.
Most of you know I'm very passionate about restricted breeds, Akitas in particular and I think it'd be great if we had a thread going to show people how great all these breeds are. We only ever seem to post in response to a bad thread or news story so I'm hoping this will be a preemptive, positive thread. If only a few people read this thread and change their minds about the dogs then it'd be a success.

ISDW

I'm always torn on Cesar, some of the stuff he does is great, some of it, not so good. But good on him for that, it definitely is the individual dog, and not the breed.

I know that its been discussed many times before, but people get different breeds mixed up, so a lot of the public will say they say a pitbull bite someone, when it could have been a staff, or some totally different breed, that they don't know, but it looks a bit like a pitbull, so thats what they'll say it was. It is the same with siberian huskies, no offence Adser;) but a lot of times people will say they saw a husky bite someone, when it could have been an Akita, shiba inu, even GSD cross, but it looks a bit like a husky, so thats what they say it is.

I used to have a rottie cross who was the soppiest dog ever, everybody loved him, even my friend who has never let a dog into her flat, let Gus stay overnight there. I have photos of him licking her baby's face (under total supervision of course). An ex of mine had a doberman, I used to do the morning dog walk, he'd do the afternoon one, people would cross the street when they saw me coming down the road with Lucky and my own two dogs (lab cross and spaniel cross). But he was soooo gentle, he would sit for hours nibbling my spaniel cross's neck, she would lift her head up, and he would nibble away, she loved it and obviously so did he. He never ever hurt her. He lived with a cat, and they used to groom each other.

Although I have to admit that I do find myself being guilty of breed 'racism' (sorry, not the right word, but my minds gone totally blank) when I meet staffs and pits sometimes. I know its wrong, but I guess the media hype seeps into my brain - they wouldn't do it if it didn't work hey. I don't let it stop me interacting with the dogs, but that little bit of doubt flits across my mind.

adser53

ISDW wrote:

It is the same with siberian huskies, no offence Adser;) but a lot of times people will say they saw a husky bite someone, when it could have been an Akita, shiba inu, even GSD cross, but it looks a bit like a husky, so thats what they say it is.

Booo....Hiss
Seriously though, I agree with you in that 100%. Any wolfy type dog is a husky or Malamute (Akitas are still rare enough here), any black & brown dog is a Rottie...same for GSDs and PBs

Whispered

I have the "flicker of doubt" around red setters due to an unprovoked attack on a foster dog I had here. Then the dog turned on it's idiot owner when he tried to pull her off. Terrifying.

But I know it's my problem, and it was the dog and not the breed who did it. (and very obviously the owners fault :mad:). I'm sure when I meet a friendly one it'll get rid of any doubt but for now, my only dealing with a RS was a very bad one.

Same with small dogs, I'm always worried they may be snappy, and indeed, even out walking, my fella has been verbally attacked by jrts and other tiny dogs a good few times. But again the problem obviously lies with the owner. The trouble a small dog who is uncontrolled can cause is amazing! And a lot of the time these smaller dogs who do cause problems do so because their owners think they're too small/cute to need discipline.

pH

All dogs can bite, and a dog's bite of any type on the face is never going to be pleasant. However ...

I know "staffs and pitbulls aren't any more dangerous/aggressive than springer spaniels" is the mantra and groupthink on this forum, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is going to get shouted down, but clearly different breeds do have different characteristics, and those characteristics include both physical attributes and behavioural ones.

Certain breeds have the physical characteristics to make an attack far worse if one occurs, some have much less bite inhibition than others, and yes some are more aggressive.

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
Merritt Clifton (see wiki link below)

Have a look at US fatalities for 2010 here (wikipedia)

It's predominantly pitbull (types?) with the odd GSD, husky, rottie etc thrown in. THERE ARE NO SPRINGER SPANIELS IN THAT LIST!

Even if you want to fall back on "bad owners", which does almost certainly skew the results towards PBTs there must be some bad spaniel owners out there too, read back all the way to 2005, the only two breeds there that would give anyone a surprise are jack russell and dachshund. Bad owners doesn't come close to explaining those lists.

Fluorescence

I don't really understand what people's real issue with Cesar Millan is to be honest. He clearly says there's a time and place for positive reinforcement, and a time and place for correction of bad or unwanted behaviours. Do you raise a child with purely positive reinforcement? No - the child needs stability and rules as well as love and rewards.

Even if you want to fall back on "bad owners", which does almost certainly skew the results towards PBTs there must be some bad spaniel owners out there too, read back all the way to 2005, the only two breeds there that would give anyone a surprise are jack russell and dachshund. Bad owners doesn't come close to explaining those lists

Actually I'm not surprised to see jrts on that list. They're small dogs with lots of energy, so people are often inclined to see them as cute. If a large dog was to jump all over you, you'd probably fall over or at least be knocked back a bit, so it's unlikely you'll tolerate that behaviour. If a Jack Russel does it many people allow it because they're cute and looking for affection - it's unlikely someone would get hurt. The small dog gradually becomes more aggressive if its unwanted behaviours are not corrected.

CreedonsDogDayc

society is a major problem, and even when we try not to, even the best of us can be swayed by the media and public opinion.

Im fostering a Pit Bull at the mo (on a different note, whats the difference between a pit bull and a staffie? i don't see any), and though i've worked with dogs for years, ive very little experience of the breed.

When the dog was dropped off to me I couldnt help but feel a tiny but hessitant when approaching him. Im not sure if i would have been like that if it was another breed, but I just felt a little cautious when looking him in the face.

I only have him just over a week, but within 10 mins I had totally fallen for him, and when he's mixing with the other dogs he's so submissive, he's a pleasure to have around.

My sister met him on Saturday evening. I had told her how amazing he is, and when she met him she got very upset, because he was just kissing her hand but she found it hard to look at him. if he was a lab she would be cuddling him, but she couldnt help her subconscious fear simply because of how he looked. She wanted to be able to cuddle him (and did after a while) but she couldnt help but feel incredible guilt for being afraid of him.

Next time she meets him im sure she'll cuddle him straight away, and next time she meets a bull breed hopefully she'll feel that she can approach them (with the owners permission) with much more confidence. (btw she's never had a bad experience with any dog).

I think that people have to actively educate themselves about every breed.
The majority of the general publics only experience of these breeds is what they read, and they dont have much of an oppertunity to meet and cuddle these dogs.

Im sure there are millions out there (and on this forum) that can say "i used to be scared of GSDs/Pit Bulls/Rotties etc until I met one..."

adser53

pH wrote: »

All dogs can bite, and a dog's bite of any type on the face is never going to be pleasant. However ...

I know "staffs and pitbulls aren't any more dangerous/aggressive than springer spaniels" is the mantra and groupthink on this forum, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is going to get shouted down, but clearly different breeds do have different characteristics, and those characteristics include both physical attributes and behavioural ones.

Certain breeds have the physical characteristics to make an attack far worse if one occurs, some have much less bite inhibition than others, and yes some are more aggressive.

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
Merritt Clifton (see wiki link below)

Have a look at US fatalities for 2010 here (wikipedia)

It's predominantly pitbull (types?) with the odd GSD, husky, rottie etc thrown in. THERE ARE NO SPRINGER SPANIELS IN THAT LIST!

Even if you want to fall back on "bad owners", which does almost certainly skew the results towards PBTs there must be some bad spaniel owners out there too, read back all the way to 2005, the only two breeds there that would give anyone a surprise are jack russell and dachshund. Bad owners doesn't come close to explaining those lists.

I do see your initial point but its my opinion that bad owners are the root of it. Yes a pb may do more damage in a full attack than a poodle, size and strength alone dictate that. However a pit is not simply more likely to attack than a poodle. And temprement, along with upbringing and socialisation are vital factors for any breed. I'm not saying there arent bad springer owners out there but proportionatly there are more bad owners of pits,rotties etc as they are an attractive breed for scumbags the world over who want to look hard and/or fight dogs. A pitbull is not born vicious, mistreatment causes that to manifest and in my own experience I've come across a lot more vicous small breeds than those on the restricted list. Do you mind me asking if you have any experience with pits or the like? Im not having a go or anything, i'm just curious as to the origins of your opinion

**Vai**

Its most definitely the owners. Dogs are not born evil, owners can make them that way however. Its time to put the whole evil breeds thing to bed. Its a size issue, the big dogs can do the most damage. Thats why we never see a JRT on the news even tho they are miniature killing machines basically.

By the way, Adser, cheers for the BBC horizon dogs docu recommendation, absolutely loved it. The beginning of it was scientifically backing up everything Ive seen Cesar Millan do for years. Which was nice coz Im more of a scientist than a spiritualist. If u every want a loan of his books gimme a shout!

jambofc

my jessie,rescued from a dog's life,underweight burn marks on her paws(b######s) and desperately nervous :mad:

today,she is a true lady,gentle and loving,all she wants is to be loved,no aggression in her what so ever,i have had a types of breeds and im an avid lover of rottie's now,i have friends with rottie's and dont no a bad one(all bitches have no experience of male's)

Whispered

jambofc wrote: »

my jessie,

She's gorgeous.

Bessiemae

I try my best to not judge any dog, no matter the breed, until I have had some interaction with it. Like humans all dogs are different, some are ambassadors and some really let the side down.
There are so many things to consider when looking at statistics for dog bites and fatalities. PBs are hugley popular in the US and so there are bound to be more incidents associated with a more popular breed and statistics will be skewed. They also tend to attract less than stellar owners in some cases as they are seen as a tough guy's dog.
Poor breeding practices have a huge role to play in dog aggression in all breeds I feel.
Whenever I meet anyone walking a restricted breed I make an extra effort to be friendly to them and their dog. I once had someone cross the road from me when I was walking my Malamute and I'll tell you it was the worst feeling in the world. I'd hate to have to deal with it on a regular basis.

seamus

pH wrote: »

Even if you want to fall back on "bad owners", which does almost certainly skew the results towards PBTs there must be some bad spaniel owners out there too, read back all the way to 2005, the only two breeds there that would give anyone a surprise are jack russell and dachshund. Bad owners doesn't come close to explaining those lists.

There are a number of factors here. Primarily you have to look at every single item in that list with suspicion because they're compiled from press reports.

The press overwhelmingly chase stories on "devil dogs" attacking or killing people, and will either gloss over or ignore deaths caused by other breeds. The article is relying on the press to report every death at the hands of a dog in the United states. But they don't report them. They generally only report them where it's likely to sell papers. Nobody wants to hear that their lovely lab could be their death, but when it's some stranger's "dangerous" pitbull, then the public laps it up.

That alone can easily account for the overwhelming number of pitbulls in the list. On top of that however, you also have misreporting. In more ways than one:
- A pit-bull "type" could easily be a lab, such is the ignorance of the general media.
- What initially looks like an attack, can later be revealed to be nothing of the sort, but the paper will never print a correction. Especially if it's a pitbull.

I picked two from the 2010 list, randomly as I could;
This one. Tragic. Not much to say really. Probably an accident - a playful or curious dog with strong jaws did serious damage to a very vulnerable child. In reality could have occured with any medium-size dog. But probably reported because it was a husky.

This one. Much more interesting:
- The man was family, and he often walked the dogs
- The dogs appeared to be well behaved for the daughter and never caused any trouble

Some of the wounds (bearing in mind that I wasn't there ) don't appear serious enough if this was a full-on attack by four pitbulls. There's certainly little there to indicate what killed him. In fact, it reminds me of a similar story in the UK where it was reported that a rottweiler attacked and savaged his owner while out walking - the man's face and ears had bite wounds as had his arms and chest. Eyewitnesses reported the dog going crazy attacking the man with absolute viciousness. It later emerged (after the "savage attack" had been reported in the media) that the man had died from a heart attack and his best friend of ten years was simply trying to wake him up.

I would put very good bets on a "county medical examiner", bored or anxious to get home, being quite happy to chalk a death up to an accident caused by the dogs rather than actually find out what it was that killed him.

From looking at various reports of "attacks" from countries all over the world, and digging a little deeper into them, I'm of the opinion now that media reports as a source of information on dog attacks are completely and utterly worthless for any kind of rational or scientific discussion on the issue. They are frequently wrong and overwhelmingly self-selected to only report on attacks by certain breeds.

adser53

**Vai** wrote: »

By the way, Adser, cheers for the BBC horizon dogs docu recommendation, absolutely loved it. The beginning of it was scientifically backing up everything Ive seen Cesar Millan do for years. Which was nice coz Im more of a scientist than a spiritualist. If u every want a loan of his books gimme a shout!

No bother Vai, I thought it was brilliant too. Like you I'm more of a scientist when it comes to things and cheers for the offer, might take you up on it if I can ever convince the missus (and myself lol) to get a third akita

Bessiemae wrote: »

I once had someone cross the road from me when I was walking my Malamute and I'll tell you it was the worst feeling in the world. I'd hate to have to deal with it on a regular basis.

Yeah, it's horrible dealing with it :mad::(

DBCyc

adser53 wrote: »

When it came time for Millan to say which breed he thought was the most aggressive, he said “none" and that aggressive dogs can be any breed and are a result of their upbringing.

I saw that episode and was confused as to why he bothered at all with the whole thing if that's his opinion, which I agree with. But then anything to popularise his show/dvd/books

pH wrote: »

I know "staffs and pitbulls aren't any more dangerous/aggressive than springer spaniels" is the mantra and groupthink on this forum, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is going to get shouted down, but clearly different breeds do have different characteristics, and those characteristics include both physical attributes and behavioural ones.

I admit that I might be quick to jump in on a discussion here when someone suggests that staffs/pits are more aggressive/dangerous. However it is frustrating when people are clearly basing their opinions on media hype and misinformation. I don't really think that posters get "shouted down" in that regard, there are a number of posters here (myself included) that are passionate about the subject and just want to tell the truth about these breeds.

I know that a larger dog may cause more damage due to size and jaw strength, but there are far bigger and stronger breeds than the likes of staffs/pits/other RB's that are never mentioned in that regard.

CreedonsDogDayc wrote: »

I only have him just over a week, but within 10 mins I had totally fallen for him, and when he's mixing with the other dogs he's so submissive, he's a pleasure to have around...

..Im sure there are millions out there (and on this forum) that can say "i used to be scared of GSDs/Pit Bulls/Rotties etc until I met one..."

+1, you really fall for these breeds when you meet one.

jambofc wrote: »

my jessie,rescued from a dog's life,underweight burn marks on her paws(b######s) and desperately nervous :mad:

today,she is a true lady,gentle and loving,all she wants is to be loved,no aggression in her what so ever,i have had a types of breeds and im an avid lover of rottie's now,i have friends with rottie's and dont no a bad one(all bitches have no experience of male's)

Jessie is a beaut - she looks so noble

carleigh

This is Benson, my 2 y/o Rottweiler Such a softie, he's great with kids and other dogs. And loves giving kisses! lol

march 044.jpg

Discodog

No one who knows dogs or has studied the research could ever believe that one breed is more aggressive than another. If we think that a breed is potentially aggressive then we act differently with that breed & the dog picks up on this reaction.

A breed that is perceived as aggressive will appeal to the type of owner that wants a "guard" dog or a owner who will encourage aggression.

Dogs are not naturally aggressive. Wolves & other pack animals cannot afford to be aggressive. If they fight & one of them gets injured it reduces the packs ability to hunt. It amazes me how people will use the "Wolves" argument in stating that any dog can bite. Wolves rarely bite. They even have a pack member who's job is to break up & pacify any potential aggression.

From what I have seen of Milan he owes dogs a few bonus points for all the crap that he has been spouting over the years.

liquoriceall

We have over the years had sheep dogs, red setters, old english sheep dog, elkhounds (currently 2), soft coated wheaten terrier and the most volatile and difficult to manage is my basset hound who provokes the cuteness response in everyone!! You never can tell, wouldnt believe the amount people terrified of the elkhounds

Discodog

This sums up Milan really well - it is also very funny & rude !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXuj3Kss9c4

fishfoodie

liquoriceall wrote: »

We have over the years had sheep dogs, red setters, old english sheep dog, elkhounds (currently 2), soft coated wheaten terrier and the most volatile and difficult to manage is my basset hound who provokes the cuteness response in everyone!! You never can tell, wouldnt believe the amount people terrified of the elkhounds

People afraid of Elkhounds :eek:

That's mad they're closer to cats than canines :rolleyes:

One thing to remember for those fatal dog attacks is to consider that 300 million people live in America, & who knows how many dogs !

I'm sure 10 times more people are killed by cattle, horses & other livestock in any given year than by dogs !

Another thing to consider; is to ask how many people die thru infection with pet borne diseases like Toxoplasmosis, Tetanus, or Saelmonella compared to biting; & yet awareness of this legitimate risk is non-existent compared to animals attacks.

Even if there are 'Dangerous Breeds', the risk they represent is infinitesimal, compared to all the other risks we face in life, & even the real concerns we ought to have about our pets.

pH

seamus wrote: »

There are a number of factors here. Primarily you have to look at every single item in that list with suspicion because they're compiled from press reports.

The press overwhelmingly chase stories on "devil dogs" attacking or killing people, and will either gloss over or ignore deaths caused by other breeds. The article is relying on the press to report every death at the hands of a dog in the United states. But they don't report them. They generally only report them where it's likely to sell papers. Nobody wants to hear that their lovely lab could be their death, but when it's some stranger's "dangerous" pitbull, then the public laps it up.

So basically for what you're saying to be true is :

"Since 2005 100's of people have been killed in the US by spaniels, beagles and corgies and the press haven't bothered to report even one of the deaths?"

Have you any evidence for that at all, or did you just make it up?

It seems to me you have already decided that a pitbull is no more aggressive or dangerous than a spaniel, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary you just dismiss it and make up a defence.

I'd have thought that the press would love a story about a raging pack of chihuahuas savaging a passer-by to death, but you're suggesting it happens on a regular basis and the press (even the local papers) can't be arsed?

On the whole "bad owners" thing, I do accept that those who want a vicious dog will be attracted to these breeds, and the figures are skewed somewhat because of that but in no way does it explain those lists.

Also, I guess it's back to how you'd answer the question "are guns dangerous?" in of themselves they're lumps of metal and wood that lie in a cupboard and can't hurt a fly, a child left alone with one, or in the hands of the wrong person, well that's different. Guns don't kill people etc etc, I'm still glad I live in a state with very tight gun laws though.

This one. Much more interesting:
- The man was family, and he often walked the dogs
- The dogs appeared to be well behaved for the daughter and never caused any trouble

Some of the wounds (bearing in mind that I wasn't there ) don't appear serious enough if this was a full-on attack by four pitbulls. There's certainly little there to indicate what killed him.

Are you serious?

Johnny Wilson, 56, was found Jan. 17 lying on the floor covered in blood. His ears were bitten off, one eye was mauled, and he had bite wounds on his chest, upper body and head, according to the Cook County medical examiner's office, who ruled Wilson's death an accident.

adser53

I'm on my phone so have ti keep this short but will reply property later.
PH I hear everything you're saying and while I disagree I'm glad you're posting as I wanted a good debate in this. Like I asked already, have you a reason for your feelings on pits or is your opinion based on the media? The reason I ask is because Ithink its relevant to my reasons for starting this thread. i.e to help educate people and help change their preconceived notions about these breeds. The inaccuracies of dog bit stats are well documented on here as they are almost always based on inaccurate and inconclusive media reports. As for the media targeting these breeds, EGAR(a very well respected member on here who runs a bull breed rescue) was attacked and badly injured a few years back by a Lab if I remember correctly. The media had her hounded,.even in the hospital for the story until they found out it wasn't one of the bullies that did it. Hearing it was a lab, they scarpered and it never hit the papers

Zapperzy

I met the most beautiful cane corso today, so calm and gentle, the couple have a young child also who gave him a big hug and he didn't even try and jump on her or knock her over (unlike the cocker spaniel I seen after that).

When I see a dog regardless of breed I look at the owner and then make a decision as to weather I need to be be weary or not. If they are your typical looking scumbag with their trousers tucked into their socks and a dog at the end of a chain jumping and lunging at things I stay well away. I also look at how they are controling their dog, if the dog is offlead and running amock in public and the owner is clearly making no effort to control the dog (I don't care if it's on a lead or not I just want to see people controling their dogs) I stay well away. I first judge the owner as they are the one's who shape their dog's behaviour.

As regards my experience of aggressive dogs, I would have to say westies, poms, jrt's and collies. Doesn't make me hate or avoid all of these breeds (just their owners :rolleyes:).

Cherry Blossom

From personal exerience there are only 2 breeds that people I know of have been seriously bitten by and I put this down to them being the most common amongst the general population of people I know.

Discodog wrote: »

From what I have seen of Milan he owes dogs a few bonus points for all the crap that he has been spouting over the years.

I watched the episode where the dog whisperer meets the horse whisperer which completely brings this into perspective, there are no two species more different imo and to see how they condensed it all into a bunch of principles that were basicly the same thing in both cases is shocking.

lrushe

pH wrote: »

So basically for what you're saying to be true is :

"Since 2005 100's of people have been killed in the US by spaniels, beagles and corgies and the press haven't bothered to report even one of the deaths?".

Please have a read of the following and tell me that there is no bias against Rotties, Pits and the like in the media:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/audience-interest/

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/breed-identification/

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/media-reporting-of-canine-aggression.pdf

seamus

pH wrote: »

"Since 2005 100's of people have been killed in the US under circumstances potentially involving the family dog and the mainstream press haven't bothered to report most of the deaths correctly?"

Just fixing your post there to reflect something remotely close to what I'm actually saying.

Have you any evidence for that at all, or did you just make it up?

My own personal experience with the dogs, and dogs in general, coupled with the number of times I've seen these stories and then you look further into it and it's been reported incorrectly.
In general, the chances of your death being due to a dog attack are about 1 in 700,000. 2.5 million people die in the states each year. So I would expect to see between 3 and 4 deaths per year in the United States due to dog attacks.

Yet you're trying to tell me that it's consistently ten times higher than it should be?

So either there's a serious problem with dog attacks in the US, or there's something amiss with the reporting. Since they don't seem to be too hysterical about the former, I'm erring towards the latter.

It seems to me you have already decided that a pitbull is no more aggressive or dangerous than a spaniel, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary you just dismiss it and make up a defence.

I'm not making up any defence. The quality of the reporting on these matters is in the main highly incompetent and deeply cynical. It's completely unreliable as a source of evidence because the reporters pick-and-choose what they report. They don't report every death in the country, so it stands to reason that there are hundreds, if not thousands of animal attacks which go unreported.

Just ask another poster here who was badly mauled by a Golden Retriever, but when she told the press who came knocking that it wasn't a vicious pitbull, they left and wrote no story about it.

Johnny Wilson, 56, was found Jan. 17 lying on the floor covered in blood. His ears were bitten off, one eye was mauled, and he had bite wounds on his chest, upper body and head, according to the Cook County medical examiner's office, who ruled Wilson's death an accident.

As I say, I wasn't there. However an attack by four pitbulls, I would expect to be reading about missing fingers, severe lacerations to his forearms and a crushed throat.

Jinxi

In MY experience, the most agressive dogs I have me have all been of toy size. I personally think its because the owners screw up their social development by letting them stand on them possessively cus its "cute" and scaredly picking them up when they are tiny pups because all other dogs look like monsters and they think they are about to be attacked.
When my collie(who get very bad press around small animals and children) was a pup she got rolled over, bowled over, sat on, sniffed at even snapped at by every dog we came accross. If she hid behind me I turned her around and offered her butt to the other dog. Best thing I ever did. She learned doggy rules fairly quickly.(She was constnatly around my rabbit and nephews/neices too)

BTW, I have NEVER met a nice Pom. They only ever seem to nice to their owners

Shanao

Jinxi wrote: »

In MY experience, the most agressive dogs I have me have all been of toy size. I personally think its because the owners screw up their social development by letting them stand on them possessively cus its "cute" and scaredly picking them up when they are tiny pups because all other dogs look like monsters and they think they are about to be attacked.
When my collie(who get very bad press around small animals and children) was a pup she got rolled over, bowled over, sat on, sniffed at even snapped at by every dog we came accross. If she hid behind me I turned her around and offered her butt to the other dog. Best thing I ever did. She learned doggy rules fairly quickly.(She was constnatly around my rabbit and nephews/neices too)

BTW, I have NEVER met a nice Pom. They only ever seem to nice to their owners

Likewise. I've never been bitten by a dog, but I wont approach a toy breed without scoping it out for a few moments. RB's on the other hand, not a problem. I've never owned one (so far, my own little RB will be here in a few weeks) but that's never stopped me from approaching them. My parents, of course, tried to tell me over and over to stay away from German shepherds, rotties, dobies, etc, but I've never hesitated in walking up to one. Staffs and Pits get bad press but every single one I've met was a complete and utter slob. Its like humans, nature or nurture? And quite frankly, I believe its nurture.

Then again, I have two pet ferrets and I'm constantly being asked if they bite, being told that they could do serious damage etc. Yet I walked into the kitchen earlier to find the two ferrets and one of our latest rescued kittens curled up together sound asleep. Yes, so very dangerous aren't they

TaraR

Ok so here are my so called 'devil dogs'
Pebbles A Staffy , Bear A Staffy , Socks A Staffy, & Boots A Pitbull

SOCKS


BOOTS


AND MY 2 GIRLS


Ive Never had a problem with any them. They are so loving & loyal to me. They are very obident too. Im sure if you come and look at http://eirepitbulls.forumotion.com/forum.htm
you will find loads of staffy & pitbull owners with nothing but good postive stories to tell you about them

Shanao

Absolute beauts!! One thing I have to say about staffs is, to me anyway, they always look like they're smiling

wolfpawnat

Does anyone notice it is mostly small dogs he deals with. Mostly Chihuahuas as far as I can see. Vicious buggers!

Discodog

pH wrote: »

It seems to me you have already decided that a pitbull is no more aggressive or dangerous than a spaniel, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary you just dismiss it and make up a defence.

On the whole "bad owners" thing, I do accept that those who want a vicious dog will be attracted to these breeds, and the figures are skewed somewhat because of that but in no way does it explain those lists.

A Pitbull is no more potentially aggressive than a Spaniel but it could be more dangerous IF it attacked. Part of the "dangerous dogs" argument has been that some dogs are seen as having more fight than flight when confronted. So if you grabbed the Spaniel by the nuts it might stop biting you whereas the PB might view it as foreplay. It is the perceived fearlessness in some breeds that makes them attractive to humans often for the wrong reasons.

But the fight or flight argument will vary within different individuals of the same breed. So a demented Spaniel could do more damage than a softy PB. The problem will remain that we punish the innocent dog & not the guilty owner.

I have owned four Boxers & I have never met or heard of a vicious one so I don't know how they could be on anyone's list.

heno86

"So if you grabbed the Spaniel by the nuts it might stop biting you whereas the PB might view it as foreplay" heard lots of rumours about pitbulls but never this one.... hahaha sorry couldnt resist

Discodog

There are intelligent dogs & learn a lot from their owners .

Mind you being shagged by a PB would be infinitely better than being bitten..............as long as you keep your trousers on

pitbull_fanatic

there's no such thing as a viscious or aggressive breed. if a dog wants to bite, he will. dogs dont think..."ok i'm a pitbull so i'm going to bite your arm off". a dog bites from a reaction. something small can trigger the dog to react ending up in a bite. every dog has more or less the same mentality. but to choose a type of dog, a small one would prob bite first, due to "small man syndrome". just like in humans, go out on a sat night and its the small fella trying to make a name for himself by fighting with the big lads!

a dog is a dog regardless of breed.

lrushe

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Mostly Chihuahuas as far as I can see. Vicious buggers!

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

but to choose a type of dog, a small one would prob bite first, due to "small man syndrome".

Sometimes I can't believe the double standards applied to dogs. As the owner of both a Chihuahua and a Rottie I am sick of having to defend either one or the other.
No dog, let me repeat no dog is more predisposed to biting, not a small one, not a big one. I've had so many dogs in my lifetime ranging in size from my Chi to a Wolfhound and so many more inbetween and I've never in 25 years had a biter.
People need to get rid of the idea that this dog or that is more likely to bite than another becasue it is simply not true, there is no snappy Chihuahua, no happy go lucky Lab or killer Pit Bull, they are temperament types created by people so when things go wrong (with any breed) it is people and people alone who should take responsiblity.

The Sweeper

I agree completely that aggression is on a dog-by-dog basis. Human aggression is a fault in every single breed of dog, even dogs bred to guard property and fight other dogs. Guarding dogs are bred to guard, not to attack people. A guard dog that attacks in the wrong situation is either badly trained or aggressive, which again is a temperment fault.

Dog aggression is not the same as human aggression - so just because your dog launches himself like a missile at other dogs, that does NOT automatically equate to him launching himself at a child or another person. How many people do you know have dogs that are sweet as pie with their kids, but would eat the postman raw if they got the chance? That's the guarding instinct allowed to run riot, but it doesn't automatically make the dog dangerous (unless you're the postman).

It's much, much more complicated than 'pitbulls will kill you as soon as look at you, and spaniels won't'.

The problem is not that aggression is bred into any particular line of dogs. The problem is that aggression is taught through violent and abusive methods, and then encouraged - nurtured, even - by peoplewho WANT their dog to be aggressive.

Secondary to the human-induced problem of aggression is the size and genetic traits of the dog.

All dogs have the equipment required to do serious harm to a human in a sustained attack.

However, larger, heavier dogs pose more of a potential threat because they have more chance of delivering a sustained attack against a human.

This includes rottweilers, german shepherds, but also labradors, dalmations, newfoundlands, airedale terriers, red setters, mastiffs, old english sheepdogs... the list goes on.

The breed standard for the 'pitbull' type dogs, including the American Pitbull Terrier and the American Staffordshire terrier, and even the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if you want to include them, indicates the weight range of an adult male dog to top out at around 25kgs. The breed standard for a golden retriever adult male ranges from 27-36kgs.

A pitbull terrier was never, ever intended to reach the size of a labrador.

The hysteria around pitbull terriers is a result of them being the preferred dog for dog fighting, and media encouragement of a lack of differentiation between dog aggression and human aggression. This hysteria is then perpetuated by the kind of people who like to watch dogfights - scumbags, in plain terms. The public are intimidated by scumbags and the image they portray. QED, the public is then intimidated by the dog of choice of scumbags, which is a bull terrier type dog.

In a sensible world, the argument about dog breeds wouldn't be polarised so starkly into those who think pitbulls, rottweilers and german shepherds are the devil, and those who defend said breeds and refuse to entertain any negativity about them. It is just as ridiculous to say that pitbull terriers are harmless, as it is to say that pitbulls are dangerous. There are indeed pitbull terriers who are human aggressive and dangerous. There are also labradors who are human aggressive and dangerous.

A dog bred for dogfighting is specifically bred to have a temperment that displays no human aggression - as repeated endlessly, this is to allow handlers to safely break up a dogfight. Seriously, how do you think these blokes break up their dogfights? Would you get in the ring with two brawling pitbulls to pick up your one if you thought there was a chance that either it or your opponent's dog would turn on you? They're scumbags. They're not suicidal.

Dog attacks on human beings are the fault of human beings. Not necessarily the fault of the victim of the attack, no; but fault lies at the foot of the human in all cases - the human who didn't control the dog, the human who didn't confine the dog, the human who didn't vet the dog's lineage before breeding, the human who didn't train the dog, the human who wasn't paying attention to what their dog was doing, the human who didn't recognise the fact that every single dog has the equipment to do damage to a human, and that equipment MUST be respected.

Dogs should be judged individually, each and every one of them. Until you know the dog, trust the dog, and have extensive experience of the dog, for instance, you should NEVER assume a dog's temperment based solely on its breed.

wolfpawnat

lrushe wrote: »

Sometimes I can't believe the double standards applied to dogs. As the owner of both a Chihuahua and a Rottie I am sick of having to defend either one or the other.
No dog, let me repeat no dog is more predisposed to biting, not a small one, not a big one. I've had so many dogs in my lifetime ranging in size from my Chi to a Wolfhound and so many more inbetween and I've never in 25 years had a biter.
People need to get rid of the idea that this dog or that is more likely to bite than another becasue it is simply not true, there is no snappy Chihuahua, no happy go lucky Lab or killer Pit Bull, they are temperament types created by people so when things go wrong (with any breed) it is people and people alone who should take responsiblity.

I only made an observation lrushe. I did not mean all Chi's (cute abbreviation btw ) are evil little demons. I personally think that when you watch the show, you see that they are the ones that are spoilt absolutely rotten and become aggressive then as a result. You can spoil your dog completely without it going that far, but the people on the show often go a bit too far.

As for Rotties, I ADORE them, just don't have room in my place for anything bigger than a gerbil

getz

i used to show staffies for over 30years and i now have english bulldogs,during my show years,many of the staffie show breeders also had english bull terriers,and they would tell me that many of the pretty show breeds,[english bull terriers,german shepherds, ect] had been bred for looks and not temperament,so a lot of insanity was still in some of these breeds,

Tranceypoo

jambofc wrote: »

my jessie,rescued from a dog's life,underweight burn marks on her paws(b######s) and desperately nervous :mad:

)

Despicable.

She is a stunning dog, so proud and happy looking. I won't even bother saying 'how can people do such terrible things', they just do.

pitbull_fanatic

lrushe wrote: »

Sometimes I can't believe the double standards applied to dogs. As the owner of both a Chihuahua and a Rottie I am sick of having to defend either one or the other.
No dog, let me repeat no dog is more predisposed to biting, not a small one, not a big one. I've had so many dogs in my lifetime ranging in size from my Chi to a Wolfhound and so many more inbetween and I've never in 25 years had a biter.
People need to get rid of the idea that this dog or that is more likely to bite than another becasue it is simply not true, there is no snappy Chihuahua, no happy go lucky Lab or killer Pit Bull, they are temperament types created by people so when things go wrong (with any breed) it is people and people alone who should take responsiblity.

you cant just quote a sentance from me. i didnt mention a breed. my very first line says that there is no aggressive breed. its a known fact that if you had dogs of all shapes and sizes that the small ones would nip ya first. not due to breed but size (in as nice a tone as possible)

CL32

The Sweeper wrote: »

QED, the public is then intimidated by the dog of choice of scumbags, which is a bull terrier type dog.

Could I just add to that, that the public is intimidated by the dog of choice of scumbags, which is currently a bull terrier type dog. Rest of your post is top class. Great points, very well articulated.

This was not always the case. In the 80's it was GSD's and in the 90's it was Rotties. Fashion trends amongst these clowns change. The BBC programme on Battersea Dogs home reported that under a hundred Staffies were picked up in the 80's versus just under 3,000 last year.

The RSPCA have come out and pleaded with the public to rehome Staffs as 'these wonderful dogs have been getting a terrible press lately' (I'll edit with links later)

When I got my Staff I was warned about the reactions I would get from strangers, but thought it wouldn't bother me. Boy was I wrong.

I've got the evil eyes off some of the very same people who stopped me in the street to fuss over her when she was a pup. Thats all they saw - a pup. When they asked what she was and I said a Stafford, they smiled blankly and told me how cute she was etc. Now she is growing into herself all anyone seems to think is PITBULL (what ever that is).

I walked past two ladies chatting in the park the other day. One had a Poodle X with her. As we passed it launched itself at my dog - I thought the woman holding it would dislocate her arm trying to hold it back. She didn't even look at me but remarked to her friend that 'You'd think I had the Pitbull' I responded that I didn't have a Pitbull either but she couldn't allow herself to even acknowledge my existence. It felt good telling her she had no control over her dangerous, untrained dog and offered her a bag to clean up the mess it had left beside her as we approached.

@ PH: Please don't take this as being 'shouted down' but I think the RB crowd, as we are know on here, tend to get up in arms because we are the very RB owners who seem to socialise and train our dogs. Care for them (spoil them?) and educate ourselves about them and other breeds. Take an interest in their health, nutrition and exercise and generally behave as responsibly as possible.

I'm not naieve enough to think every RB owner is like this, but the usual suspects here seem to be. And trust me - thick skin as I have, some of the reactions I have gotten to what I know is a big muscly marshmallow have upset me alot more than I would have thought. First time I've admitted that actually so don't tell my OH

lrushe

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

you cant just quote a sentance from me. i didnt mention a breed. my very first line says that there is no aggressive breed. its a known fact that if you had dogs of all shapes and sizes that the small ones would nip ya first. not due to breed but size (in as nice a tone as possible)

But can't you see you are contradicting yourself, ok you are not discriminating between breeds but you are on the basis of size which is just as bad. A dog is a dog is dog, a big one doesn't have a different psyche to a small one it's all about the person on the end of the leash.
As I have said I have had dogs of all size, no one dog had any more of a tendency to bite than another so I don't know how it can be known fact that a small dog will bite quicker than a big one as this has not been my experience.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CreedonsDogDayc wrote: »

I only have him just over a week, but within 10 mins I had totally fallen for him, and when he's mixing with the other dogs he's so submissive, he's a pleasure to have around.

Just on that note.

I've never met a soul who didn't immediately fall in love with my Staffs/Pits after meeting my guys.

In fact I've often offered (on this forum) for people who were afraid of dogs, or who have had bad experiences, to meet mine.

Staffs and Pits are just the softest dogs ever.

boardbrowser

you might be surprised to learn what data the American temperment testing society has collected regarding breeds and temperment.
Can't beat extensive study as oppossed to anecdotal evidence regarding ANY breed.
www.atts.org

scudzilla

As soon as i read that and saw that Boxer's had made the Top 6 i came to 2 conclusions.

1. Most people who voted were American, the same one's who think that Afghanistan is in Europe and Tony Blair was an actor in Dynasty

2. Cesar Milan is just a total gobshite

Discodog

boardbrowser wrote: »

you might be surprised to learn what data the American temperment testing society has collected regarding breeds and temperment.
Can't beat extensive study as oppossed to anecdotal evidence regarding ANY breed.
www.atts.org

Maybe. But you also can't necessarily believe results from so called temperament testing. Interestingly the vast majority of breeds achieve a very similar result. So much so that it appears, at a first glance, to vindicate the view that temperament is more an owner thing than breed.
The results seem to suggest that temperament testing is a waste of time.

The "test" involves a "handler" but I cannot see any reference as to whether this is a stranger or the dog's owner. The "test" seems to be used by breeders as a doggy NCT - I am guessing that they put "Temperament Tested" on the puppy adverts. Also like the NCT I doubt that an owner is going to pay for a test if they think that their dog might fail. Because temperament is owner dependant it might make little difference if a pup comes from tested parents.

pitbull_fanatic

86%!! yay


boxers are actually banned in certain states in america believe it or not! i couldnt believe it when i herd it. i still dont believe it! i only ever met 1 aggresive territorial boxer in my life and she wasnt socialised at all so thats the reason there!

seamus

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

boxers are actually banned in certain states in america believe it or not! i couldnt believe it when i herd it. i still dont believe it! i only ever met 1 aggresive territorial boxer in my life and she wasnt socialised at all so thats the reason there!

I think boxers can look quite intimidating - their size, their speed, their look. Most boxers I've met when out, appear to be taking an aggressive or intimidating stance when they come over, but I've realised that this is just the breed.

adser53

Well I'm not much of a thread starter, I've contributed very little to this discussion
I agree with Irushe that we are guilty of double standards (sadly). We RB owners are on here weekly defending our breeds from the the people that automatically assume they're lethal weapons. But in doing so, nearly all of us have said the likes of "jrts are more vicious than my lad etc" So there are double standards on here. Not all small/toy breeds are snappy but their size means they're treated differently in a lot of cases than a larger dog. This leads to their behaviour problems and unfortunately I think most people on here have had actual experiences with a vicious small dog than a vicious PB, Rottie GSD, Akita etc. It's not fair because there are good owners of toy breeds and RBs. I have a cav (up until recently had 2 but one sadly passed) and I know if someone came on here saying all cavs are vicious, I would be just as quick to defend them as I am to defend Akita and the other RBs. So again, it comes back to the owners that are the root if the problem which is why I try my best to judge the owner before the dog when I'm out. But this too leads can be tricky....
I'm a 26 year old Dublin fella that walks his dogs in public, often in a tracksuit and 9 times out of 10 people avoid me when I walk one or both of my Akitas (doesn't happen when I have the cav with me mind you ). My dogs are placid, well trained and socialised so theyre great when were out. Now if you saw me coming, you'd probably be wary and be saying "here's a youngfella with a big dog, probably thinks it makes him look hard etc" but in my case it couldn't be further from the truth. And I'll admit to having brief thoughts like that if I'm approaching a fella with a big dog, I'm not proud of it but years of conditioning by the media makes it an almost instinctive reaction. But when I see them, I then judge the owners and the dogs together to determine if I think there going to be trouble. I do this for small dogs too and dya know what I think then...."I'm glad that one crossed the road cos that little fecker looks like he'd take the ankles off me!" I then pass the lad with tue GSD and we have a quick chat about how lovely eachothers dogs are while the 2 furries have a little sniff and a play. In the distance the woman with the ankle biter looks back and tuts to herself about how she cant walk her dog in public anymore cos of all these land sharks that are about

Jinxi

Came accross a Presa Canario today in the park. He was stunning, bit also intimidating. Think build of a mastiff, shape of a staffie. His owners also has a GSD. Both lovely but boistous dogs. Played with my collie(I was nervous but she is way faster and more agile and had no problem using me as a human sheild when she had enough:eek::rolleyes:). Owners kept apologising like they were worried that I was afraid of their dogs. I would hate to be in that position every time I walked my dog.
Also, I was also just wondering why everyone is so Anti-Milano.