Dangerous Dogs.........

AudreyHepburn · 26-03-2012 04:11PM

I think I'm being taken up the wrong way.

I am certainly not advocating destroying entire breeds because they are considered dangerous. If a dog attacks a person then yes it needs to be put down. Otherwise people with dogs considered dangerous just need to take proper precautions such as the muzzel when the animal is outside.

It's not being prejudaced nor am I blinded by fear, just cautious.

I do agree that bad owners are a lot of the problem but until these people acknowledge that for instance owning a Pit Bull is more of a risk then a Labrador and start taking the proper precautions with these animals, then it is the dogs that must be restricted and put down if necessary.

It's perfectly possible to love dogs and to own one, while acknowledge that some of them are dangerous and have more of a propensity to violence than others.

seamus · 26-03-2012 04:19PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Otherwise people with dogs considered dangerous just need to take proper precautions such as the muzzel when the animal is outside.

"Proper precautions" are debateable.

The vast majority of dog attacks occur on private property and the victim is someone known to the owner (or is the owner 50% of the time).

Dogs out and about with their owners in public do not represent a safety issue and as such any requirement for muzzling serves little purpose because it provides no more safety than requiring people to tie a yellow ribbon around the dogs' necks.

It's a bit of a catch-22; those dogs which do need most urgently to be muzzled are the ones who won't be muzzled by their owner. Those dogs who don't need to be muzzled are the ones who will be.

The only real solution is to stop the wholesale breeding and ownership rights which exist in this country. Regulate breeding and ownership such that you can keep track of every dog and by extension keep track of their owners.

But like I said, dogs are way, way down the scale when it comes to public safety issues, so there will never a proper response to it. We may as well have no law in respect of dogs in this country, it would be no different.

Zab · 26-03-2012 04:46PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

a dog's life is a life too. Why should their freedom be restricted (muzzle, lead, put to sleep), when they have done nothing wrong, just because some people with prejudices want to label a whole breed as dangerous because it suits them? statistically some races of humans are more dangerous, statistically some breeds of dog are more dangerous, but no one for a moment is suggesting we imprison certain racial groups because of what might happen. Well sorry guys if you can't even see the comparison then you are very, very blind to your prejudices and moral problems. Hey it's just a dog.

Okay, I see where you're going here. The details of that discussion aren't suited to AH, but the important part is that human life is more important to me than dog life. I will say that I'm an atheist and that I don't want you to conflate what I'm saying with an opinion that certain dog breeds should be exterminated.

You can't have one set of morals for one species and not for another.

Of course you can, and of course you do. Your entire existence is predicated on human life being more important than rest of the life on the planet. When you've returned to a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence and eschewed all modern-day society then please let me know. Of course, you won't have access to the internet so you'll have to send word by other means. Almost every part of modern life wouldn't be possible if you genuinely upheld equal rights for animals and humans alike.

So we've actually reached the point where we can effectively say all members of that species/social group/race is dangerous, we can ban them, we can euthanise without legal recourse, we can restrict their freedom, and if you try and challenge it, the best anyone can do is "they're dogs and you can't compare". Is that really the best we can do?

Nobody has used "they're dogs and you can't compare" as an argument to do anything, it's only been used as a counter-argument against giving them equal rights to humans. I also have to note that, even though you're responding to me saying that you shouldn't directly compare humans to dogs, you somehow manage to suggest that the people arguing against you are talking about humans too.

Fear and stereotypes is what has led to the greatest human tragedies in history, but hey, don't worry, it's just a disposable dog.

Humans make me sick.

Where they burn books eventually they will burn people.

You're falling into the trap of assuming that because people don't agree with your reasoning that they don't agree with your conclusion. Most people in this thread don't think that dogs should be exterminated based on their breed.

deaddonkey · 26-03-2012 04:49PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think I'm being taken up the wrong way.

I am certainly not advocating destroying entire breeds because they are considered dangerous. If a dog attacks a person then yes it needs to be put down. Otherwise people with dogs considered dangerous just need to take proper precautions such as the muzzel when the animal is outside.

It's not being prejudaced nor am I blinded by fear, just cautious.

I do agree that bad owners are a lot of the problem but until these people acknowledge that for instance owning a Pit Bull is more of a risk then a Labrador and start taking the proper precautions with these animals, then it is the dogs that must be restricted and put down if necessary.

It's perfectly possible to love dogs and to own one, while acknowledge that some of them are dangerous and have more of a propensity to violence than others.

Why should a dog owner of a certain breed have to muzzle his dog because you are prejudiced and insecure? Why should the dog be punished for it's genetic lineage? You should probably start judging it on a dog by dog basis, the same way you judge people. And do some work on your intolerance and stereotypes while you're at it.

So why do you feel the need to insist that only the restricted breeds have the potential to be dangerous?

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards.

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Oh look! USA dog bite statistics between September 1982 to November 13, 2006

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

Most dangerous breed? Labrador cross!

Seriously I think you should probably get your head checked because your argument is fuelled by media hysteria and prejudices. How much study have you done in this area? How many "dangerous breed" animals have you owned? How much personal experience do you have with these "dangerous breeds" that are obviously more dangerous than other dogs because the government says so?

Seriously I'm absolutely dying to hear your logic here. But there isn't any, you're just impressionable, naive and misinformed. Labrador mauls baby doesn't make a good headline to sell papers though does it?

Who the **** are humans to decide that an entire breed is dangerous? Do you realise how unpleasant that makes people sound?

but it's just a dog!

Zab · 26-03-2012 04:49PM

seamus wrote: »

What we do have a major issue with is control of dogs in general, and although we have the legislation for it, we don't have the enforcement.

Why is this a major issue if we don't have a dog attack problem?

seamus · 26-03-2012 04:54PM

Zab wrote: »

Why is this a major issue if we don't have a dog attack problem?

Because there's a public health issue with people allowing their dogs to crap everywhere. To a certain extent there's a nuisance issue with people allowing their dogs to roam.

There's also an animal welfare issue in that unregulated dog ownership causes tens of thousands of dogs to be unnecessarily killed in Ireland each year and tens of thousands more to be severly neglected.

AudreyHepburn · 26-03-2012 04:55PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

So why do you feel the need to insist that only the restricted breeds have the potential to be dangerous?

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Oh look! USA dog bite statistics between September 1982 to November 13, 2006

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

Most dangerous breed? Labrador cross!

Seriously I think you should probably get your head checked because your argument is fuelled by media hysteria and prejudices. How much study have you done in this area? How many "dangerous breed" animals have you owned? How much personal experience do you have with these "dangerous breeds" that are obviously more dangerous than other dogs because the government says so?

Seriously I'm absolutely dying to hear your logic here. But there isn't any, you're just impressionable, naive and misinformed. Labrador mauls baby doesn't make a good headline to sell papers though does it?

Who the **** are humans to decide that an entire breed is dangerous? Do you realise how unpleasant that makes people sound?

but it's just a dog!

I have never once said that only certain breeds of dog are dangerous. What I said was that some breeds have a more of a tendancy to be agressive than others.

I do not need my headchecked. I am not naive nor impressionable at all. I acknoweldged in my first post that my own lovely dog could turn as deadly as a pit bull if he was provoked enough.

I never once said 'it's just a dog', that's not how I feel at all.

Zab · 26-03-2012 05:05PM

seamus wrote: »

Because there's a public health issue with people allowing their dogs to crap everywhere. To a certain extent there's a nuisance issue with people allowing their dogs to roam.

There's also an animal welfare issue in that unregulated dog ownership causes tens of thousands of dogs to be unnecessarily killed in Ireland each year and tens of thousands more to be severly neglected.

Ah, the crap! I think you'll agree that this is much improved on how things were 20 years ago, so at least we seem to be going in the right direction. I'm not 100% on the nuisance issue. It obviously exists but I don't know how much or a problem it is (I can't only speak to my limited experience obviously) and whether it can really be termed a major issue if it isn't combined with attacks.

I guess I just think we're heading in the right direction on those issues anyway.

deaddonkey · 26-03-2012 05:11PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have never once said that only certain breeds of dog are dangerous.

That isn't true. Here's teh relevant line from your first post:

Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html

That reads to me like you're judging a whole set of breeds as dangerous. So as long as all these breeds are muzzled in public the public is safer, yet you acknowledge that your dog could be dangerous, but because of his breeding you don't feel he should be muzzled?

Is that because he's small and cuddly, or is it because he's not on the restricted breeds list, or because he's yours and you you think you know your dog better than the owner of a "dangerous breed" knows his dog? If any dog has the potential to be dangerous, why in the name of all that is holy are you calling for enforcement of breed specific legislation?

Is that correct? Anything you'd like to clear up for me there, because I'm confused at the double standards.

What I said was that some breeds have a more of a tendancy to be agressive than others.

No they don't. People training and raising dogs a certain way makes them more aggressive. Unfortunately people tend to use certain breeds for this purpose, but to me that isn't any kind of scientific relationship between genetic makeup of the dog and its tendency to be aggressive.

104 deaths from labrador X bites in the US between 82 and 06.

In the same period:

Rottweiler: 0 deaths
German Shepherd: 2 deaths
Dobermann: 7 deaths.
Akita: 1 death

I for one will not rest until every last labrador cross is euthanised. Clearly these are dangerous animals and we need to enact a law against them in the interest of public safety.

You know why the lab X figures are so high? It's not because labs are dangerous. Any dog is dangerous but there's a lot of labX dogs out there, and as dogs, all have the potential to be dangerous. But if I followed your logic I'd be calling for all labs to be muzzled in public, which I'm sure you'd agree is a ludicrous suggestion. They're cute remember?

Zab · 26-03-2012 05:12PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Oh look! USA dog bite statistics between September 1982 to November 13, 2006

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

Most dangerous breed? Labrador cross!

I think you may have misread those docuements. They both call out Pit Bull Terriers and Rottweilers as accounting for over 67% of attacks. Neither of them pin any blame on Labrador-crosses.

The story about the Pomeranian is only there to evoke emotions. That was the only reported Pomeranian bite between 1982 and 2006.

deaddonkey · 26-03-2012 05:15PM

I counted deaths attributed to those breeds, not overall numbers of attacks.

from this link here

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

ScumLord · 26-03-2012 05:19PM

I think the underlying problem is that cities are not a suitable environment for a dog. City dogs have to be locked up most of the day, have to deal with far to many people, have to deal with city scumbags torturing them and have no place to be a free animal.

This is even becoming a problem in country towns too as there is essentially no public ground for anything. Every bit of land is owned by someone who doesn't want anyone on their land.

Dogs used to always work for their place in human society, we breed them to work and they like to work. It's not surprising there are more and more problems with them these days.

Zab · 26-03-2012 05:34PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

I counted deaths attributed to those breeds, not overall numbers of attacks.

from this link here

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

You counted badly. I've fixed your post for you

deaddonkey wrote: »

5 deaths from labrador X bites in the US between 82 and 06 (3 of which were Pit bull cross).

In the same period not including crosses:

Pit bull terrier: 104 deaths
Rottweiler:58 deaths
German Shepherd: 7 deaths
Dobermann: 3 deaths.
Akita: 1 death

NTMK · 26-03-2012 06:02PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m curious as to people’s opinions on the keeping of dangerous dogs.

there is no such thing just crap owners. every medium to large dog is as dangerous as the last. Staffs and pitbulls are considered "dangerous" dogs in my experience of training and minding them they are some of the most intelligent and trainable dogs out there. very loyal and obedient and quiet docile dogs. The reason that they're given a bad rap is because of the scum that usually own them to make them selfs look hard:rolleyes: or sometimes they're trained to fight

My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them. I would never totally trust any dog, even my own gorgeous little man at home. He’s the most pleasant docile creature you could meet but I know that if he felt threatened he could turn dangerous in an instant. If for instance some-one tried to break-in to our house I have no doubt he’d make them regret, whether it would be about protecting himself, us, his patch I don’t know.

Dogs naturally follow a leadership system you ascert yourself as pack leader and let them know whos boss they are easy to train and will follow your commands. if i felt threatened i would probably defend myself hardly an instinct reserved for wild animals

I acknowledge that there is an onus on the owner to ensure that the dog is trained as much as possible and to take all necessary precautions to protect the dog and those it comes into contact with. For example with my dog, we used to give him raw hide bones to chew on but we had to stop because he became quite territorial with them. If an owner is particularly abusive to his/her dog or breeds it for the purpose of fighting or guarding then obviously there is a greater danger that the animal could seriously hurt some-one or worse.

If an owner is training a dog for gaurding a house then the owner is responsible to make sure it doesnt attack outside of the property its protecting and ensure the dog cant escape. if an owner trains dogs for fighting they should be locked up. this case with the pitbull it isnt a properly trained guard dog if it is one and who ever "trained it" should be locked up a dog which reacts like that is trained to be viscous or treated very creuly

There are however some breeds of dog which, in my opinion, are far more predisposed to be aggressive than others (even when treated well and trained right) and with these, I’m not sure owning one is a good idea. Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

ime if anything smaller dogs (westies, yorkie, Jack russles) are far more aggressive than bigger dogs they never back down and are often the aggressor in most situations. ive been involved in the training of 6 of those breeds (pinscher,ridgeback,pitbull,G. shepard,mastiff and staffie) and i live a 2 minute walk away from 4 of those breeds that are highly trained. owner is responsible and an incredible trainer(dogs follow commands in both german and english). none and i repeat none of those dogs have or will ever attack until given the signal to do so (they'll bark and growl but draw the line they're ive seen it first hand).

I’ve heard countless people who own one of the breeds listed say ‘ah sure he/she is a dote, he/she wouldn’t hurt a fly’ but I think that’s a foolhardy attitude. The reality is these are dangerous animals and need to be treated with caution, even if they have never shown any aggression.

I own 2 yorkies i've no desire to ever own large dogs too much training involved. a dog is as dangerous as its owner is negligent. I had a springer spaniel as kid (primarily a gun dog) i used kicked the **** out of him (pulling his ears tackling him) when i was very young and didnt know better and never bit me. when we'd bring for a walk or let off for a run in a field he was muzzled all the neighbours dogs are always muzzled when walking. its called good ownership. dogs only act badly when they're mistreated/trained badly

Son Of A Vidic · 26-03-2012 06:07PM

Zab wrote: »

You counted badly. I've fixed your post for you

And ironically you still go and get it wrong. Go back and count carefully and you'll see where.

Zab · 26-03-2012 06:12PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And ironically you still go and get it wrong. Go back and count carefully and you'll see where.

That's possible of course, but as I'm short on time and you've clearly already looked perhaps you could help me out

Stercus Accidit · 26-03-2012 06:17PM

Some dogs have the potential to be far more dangerous than others, especially with a scummy owner. It is basically a weapon with a mind of its own with hardly any regulation. I don't like that a scummer can train a dog into a vicious weapon, some dogs have far more potential in this regard than others.

Discodog · 26-03-2012 06:37PM

I own dogs, I have rescued dogs, & worked with dog rescues. I have never met a bad dog or a dangerous dog. If a dog bites a person then the owner should be prosecuted & made to pay for the rehabilitation of the dog. It is ludicrous to kill a dog as punishment for doing as it was told. In the middle ages animals could be called into Court to give evidence in their defence - their silence was seen as proof of guilt. We haven't really moved on.

Lots of people get a dog as a guard or for personal protection. They encourage it to bark & show aggression to "strangers" but also be a nice family pet. So it's hardly surprising if the poor dog gets it wrong. Yes dogs evolved from Wolves but we now know that Wolves are not aggressive.

We sort of copied the UK law & we produced a bizarre list of "restricted breeds" based on no evidence. The UK plan to drop their breed bans & make the owners responsible, not the dogs. They also plan to make microchipping compulsory but our government have no plans to follow suit.

There are no aggressive breeds, dangerous breeds, more likely to bite breeds. The only dangerous & aggressive animals are humans.

AudreyHepburn · 26-03-2012 06:43PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

That isn't true. Here's teh relevant line from your first post:

That reads to me like you're judging a whole set of breeds as dangerous. So as long as all these breeds are muzzled in public the public is safer, yet you acknowledge that your dog could be dangerous, but because of his breeding you don't feel he should be muzzled?

Is that because he's small and cuddly, or is it because he's not on the restricted breeds list, or because he's yours and you you think you know your dog better than the owner of a "dangerous breed" knows his dog? If any dog has the potential to be dangerous, why in the name of all that is holy are you calling for enforcement of breed specific legislation?

Is that correct? Anything you'd like to clear up for me there, because I'm confused at the double standards.

No they don't. People training and raising dogs a certain way makes them more aggressive. Unfortunately people tend to use certain breeds for this purpose, but to me that isn't any kind of scientific relationship between genetic makeup of the dog and its tendency to be aggressive.

104 deaths from labrador X bites in the US between 82 and 06.

In the same period:

Rottweiler: 0 deaths
German Shepherd: 2 deaths
Dobermann: 7 deaths.
Akita: 1 death

I for one will not rest until every last labrador cross is euthanised. Clearly these are dangerous animals and we need to enact a law against them in the interest of public safety.

You know why the lab X figures are so high? It's not because labs are dangerous. Any dog is dangerous but there's a lot of labX dogs out there, and as dogs, all have the potential to be dangerous. But if I followed your logic I'd be calling for all labs to be muzzled in public, which I'm sure you'd agree is a ludicrous suggestion. They're cute remember?

I think you are mis-reading both my posts and your own links, either deliberatly or by mistake.

If you look at your links the dogs with the highest numbers next to them include Rottwiler, Akita, Pit Bull (and it's variations) and Bull Mastiff...all of which are named in the link I provided.

It's clear that you firmly believe in animal welfare which is commendable and I am with you there.....up to the point where human lives are endangered.

There are, whether you care to admit it or not, some breeds of dog which are more predisposed to being agressive than others and for thise stricter precautions need to be follow. But any dog, any animal, needs to be treated with respect and caution.

I trust my dog for all the reasons you mentioned (except the small and cuddly bit, he's a Lab-Collie cross) but I also know his limits and respect them. He knows where he stands with us too.

I really fail to see what aspects of my post you're struggling with and suggest that you are simply arguing for the sake of it now.

deaddonkey · 26-03-2012 06:44PM

Zab wrote: »

You counted badly. I've fixed your post for you

You don't seem to be able to read a basic table. That's a shame.

Discodog · 26-03-2012 06:50PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are, whether you care to admit it or not, some breeds of dog which are more predisposed to being agressive than others and for thise stricter precautions need to be follow.

With respect that is utter rubbish & no trainer, behaviourist, or expert would agree with you. No breed is predisposed to aggression. Get yourself a copy of "In Defence of Dogs" by Prof Bradshaw. It is the culmination of 20 years of studying dogs at Bristol University. It will open your eyes regarding your own dog.

deaddonkey · 26-03-2012 06:52PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you are mis-reading both my posts and your own links, either deliberatly or by mistake.

If you look at your links the dogs with the highest numbers next to them include Rottwiler, Akita, Pit Bull (and it's variations) and Bull Mastiff...all of which are named in the link I provided.

It's clear that you firmly believe in animal welfare which is commendable and I am with you there.....up to the point where human lives are endangered.

I trust my dog for all the reasons you mentioned (except the small and cuddly bit, he's a Lab-Collie cross) but I also know his limits and respect them. He knows where he stands with us too.

I really fail to see what aspects of my post you're struggling with and suggest that you are simply arguing for the sake of it now.

If you look at my link, you'll see that the labrador X were responsible for 1110 attacks that caused bodily harm, 495 cild victims, 397 adult victims, 104 deaths and 608 maimings.

HIGHER NUMBERS THAN ANY OTHER BREED OR CROSSBREED ON THAT LIST EXCEPT ROTTWEILER/SHARPEI

Do you muzzle your dog when you're out? If not, why not? You're avoiding my questions now.

There are, whether you care to admit it or not, some breeds of dog which are more predisposed to being agressive than others and for thise stricter precautions need to be follow. But any dog, any animal, needs to be treated with respect and caution.

Make the accusations, provide the proof.

MightyBouche · 26-03-2012 07:03PM

Believing a dog breed is inherently dangerous is absolute ignorance and nothing more.

The dogs commonly referred to as "dangerous" include Rottweilers, Dobermen and German Shepherd Dogs. These breds were created specifically and were bred to be extremely human friendly/loving, whilst dedicated performers at the tasks they've been bred to do (working dogs - guarding/herding/sled driving/etc). Their success and survival as a breed isn't due to some inherent insistence to attack humans. Being used to aid the image of little knackers with small penises is a new thing.

Some dogs were bred to fight, that much is undeniable. However, in doing so, they were also bred to be EXTREMELY human friendly as humans were the ones who had to deal with them in the fighting ring, hence why the bull terrier breeds can be some of the most loving dogs you'll come across.

These dogs differ from other "non-dangerous" dogs only in their capability and strength - traits that were bred into them for the good of humans, not the hinderance. It only becomes an issue when they are given to people who do not care to teach the dog correctly and end up bringing up dogs with mental or aggression issues.

So no, I don't believe in "dangerous" dogs. I do believe there is a significant issue with the access inbred scumbags have to these dogs and the lack of accountability they're given when they don't train the dogs correctly. How this should be tackled, I don't know, however I really detest them being "outlawed" in some places merely because the government can't prevent scumbags from getting their hands on them and treating them in a way that they in no way deserve, gaining them a reputation that they in no way deserve.

NTMK · 26-03-2012 07:04PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I
If you look at your links the dogs with the highest numbers next to them include Rottwiler, Akita, Pit Bull (and it's variations) and Bull Mastiff...all of which are named in the link I provided.

Yes but does this list account for quality of training most of these breeds on it have a common personality trait of being stubborn Akitas are bought because of how the look as a pup. people dont realise that they are very stubborn and need alot of training and exercise. sadly most dont get it. same can be said for the other dogs on the list their quality of owners and popularity heavily skew the figures. labs are just as bad and the stats show it yet properly trained they are used as guide dogs and police dogs

this agressive breed theory is horse****

LH Pathe · 26-03-2012 07:09PM

Born to Die wrote: »

Most of the danger with a lot of dogs is with the idiot attached to the other side of the leash.

maybe a Snoop Catt or Nate Catt could have changed this... Pitbull does not help. Less a dog culture, more a pop culture. Savage.

Doc Ruby · 26-03-2012 07:28PM

Its probably been said in one form or another, but the preponderance of attacks by certain breeds is probably due to the tendency of dicks to select those breeds and abuse them into beng aggressive. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. With that said though some breeds are undeniably naturally aggressive, for example the Cordoba Fighting Dog:

The breed had such strong aggression toward other dogs that the males and females would rather fight than mate.

I guess that's towards other dogs though.

Zab wrote: »

The story about the Pomeranian is only there to evoke emotions. That was the only reported Pomeranian bite between 1982 and 2006.

And a horrible story it is too, my little Pomeranian pup, other than being a bit wilful and hard to train, is entirely too friendly, she jumps up on other dogs and they sometimes mistake it for aggression. Ah we'll get there. She does make an excellent watchdog though.

NTMK · 26-03-2012 07:37PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its probably been said in one form or another, but the preponderance of attacks by certain breeds is probably due to the tendency of dicks to select those breeds and abuse them into beng aggressive. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. With that said though some breeds are undeniably naturally aggressive, for example the Cordoba Fighting Dog:

I guess that's towards other dogs though.

I think the problem with it was that it was created for dog fighting so was it a case of the breed being naturally agressive or the fact that most who owned the breed used them for dog fighting

wexie · 26-03-2012 07:38PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

..... 1110 attacks that caused bodily harm, 495 cild victims, 397 adult victims, 104 deaths and 608 maimings.

I'm not the only one to see those numbers listed for pitbulls right?

(still completely agree with you though deaddonkey and I firmly believe your theory stands)

cruizer101 · 26-03-2012 07:42PM

deaddonkey wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to read a basic table. That's a shame.

The table is wrong, if you look at the bottom you can see the numbers are a few rows up from the bottom. They havn't accounted for the fact that some of the breed descriptions take up more than one line.

So it seems you don't seem to be able to read a badly made complicated table

which is perfectly understandable.

I've attached the corrected table, you can see what you thought was the Lab x was in fact pitbull type dogs.

Lab crosses account for 10 attacks Labs 26 and 2 deaths.

While a chart like this is interesting it by no means tells the whole story, like how many dogs of a particular kind there are or what kind of dogs certain kinds of people are more likely to buy. At teh end of the day doggies generally just want to please humans, it just sadly happens that in some cases the best way they can please their human owner is by attacking.

Discodog · 26-03-2012 07:47PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

With that said though some breeds are undeniably naturally aggressive, for example the Cordoba Fighting Dog:

A link from Wiki in a extinct breed with all the knowledge that existed at the time :rolleyes:.

Most of the dog bite statistics are irrelevant because they do not take other factors into account. Irresponsible owners that want a guard or weapon dog choose certain breeds so it is no wonder if their bite incidence is higher.

A survey of Vets by these people found that the most likely dog to bite is the Chihuahua

http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/

Dangerous Dogs.........

Comments