"Dangerous" dog breeds

[pitbulllady]

I've owned, and bred, purebred American Pit Bull Terriers for well over 25 years, and this has included many former fighting dogs. My great-grandfather was one of the old "dog men", as the old-style dog-fighters were called. I have NEVER, let me repeat...NEVER, been bitten or threatened in any way, shape or form by an APBT. I've also bred Akitas, both American and true Japanese Akitas, and I currently own one APBT and several Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dogs. It IS the owner, since if it was the breed of dog, by sheer statistics of the dogs I've had personal contact with over the years, I'd have been mauled to death long ago, but the only bites I've had from dogs have been from small, "cutesy" dogs.

Many people assume that a dog has to be abused to become vicious. Not so. MOST violent dogs are dominant-aggressive dogs, who, due to owners who are weak, ineffectual leaders, have taken over the pack leadership position. This is especially true of small dogs. Owners find aggressive behavior cute and charming, and let it escalate, or they're afraid of hurting the dog. Then, there ARE people who want a tough, macho dog that can terrorize people and beat up other dogs, and the more the media harps on this breed or that being super-bad, the more they gravitate towards those breeds, and the more drastic the means they will undertake to make their dogs vicious. I hear daily from kids who force-feed their "pit bulls" gun powder and crystal meth; is it any wonder those dogs bite?

On the topic of WHY "pit bulls"(note quotation marks) seem to be involved in more attacks than any other type of dog, keep in mind that the term "pit bull" is an extremely broad, far-reaching term these days, not in any way limited to any one breed. MOST so-called "pit bulls" are mutts, dogs with no known pedigree, parentage or background, many of which have little, if any, resemblance to a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier. Punks who steal dogs to fight will steal any short-haired muscular dog and call it a "pit bull". The news media, and most animal control officers, will call ANY dog that bites or acts threatening a "pit bull", no matter what it looks like. People who are bitten or frightened by a dog, or whose pet is attacked, will tell whoever they report it to as a "pit bull"-again, regardless of what the dog actually looks like. There is such a deep-rooted fear of "pit bulls" now, that if a dog does something bad, in the minds of many of the ignorant, the dog MUST have been a "pit bull", since these people have been brainwashed into believing that only "pit bulls" hurt people, so if it hurt someone, what else COULD it have been? It's not unlike asking a person who is terrified of snakes what kind of snake they saw; it will inevitably be a "rattlesnake" or a "water moccasin" when they tell about it. I've seen photos of Foxhounds emblazoned on the front page of a major state newspaper, after they'd mauled a toddler to death, with the caption labeling these long-eared hounds as "pit bulls"! Last spring, after a woman in Sumter, SC, got attacked by a pack of stray dogs, those dogs were naturally called "pit bulls". One of those dogs was shown on the local news. It, too, was a long-eared, skinny, starving hound dog that looked nothing at all like a real APBT. The janitor at the school where I work quipped, of this case, "if my Chihuahua bit somebody, the news people would call HIM a 'pit bull'!" She's probably right, too. And there are plenty of people, obviously, who are all too willing to fall for it and believe that there are breeds of dogs which are just inherently bad by default. Of course, if I didn't know anything about dogs, or knew very little, and had little first-hand knowledge, I'd probably believe it, too, especially with a very deliberate bias and smear job by the media, the animal control people, and of course, the animal rights nut-jobs that insists on calling every dog that bites, barks, growls, chases cars, pees on someone's tire, chases cats, knocks over trash cans, ad infinitum, a "pit bull".

pitbulllady

 

[Mushroom Spore]

I'm not saying women dont make good dog owners by any means lol so ladies please dont bite off my head lol :worship: :worship: :worship: ,,this is just the kind of stuff i see on animal planet shows like "its me or the dog" and the dog whisperer and good dog U and so on....And usually the suspect is a woman lol..

I'm a woman (though I've never owned a dog), and heck, I completely agree with you. There's also a frequent "aww look at him growling and snapping, he's so teeny but he thinks he's big, aww" instead of, you know, teaching the dog not to growl and snap and bite people. That right there is just plain dumb and irresponsible.

edit: haha, beaten.

 

[JohnEDove]

Sorry folks but I can’t buy it. I understand ya’ll love your animals but the statistics at the link I posted earlier say there are breeds that have more of a tendency toward aggression than others.
16 of the 91 breeds and mixes listed average more than 1 attack per year over the 14 year study. No one can tell me that bad owners is the only reason. Bad owner buy every breed out there but not every breed has more than 1 attack per year recorded. In fact few of the breeds listed, 67, have less than a half dozen attacks recorded over the whole 14 year period.
I have 5 Pyrs at present, 4 are stock dogs not socialized in the least and all 4 of the non socialized dogs tend to avoid stranger humans rather than be aggressive toward them. Aggression toward humans is not in their genetics. The statistics would bear this out listing only 1 attack during the 14 year period by this breed. Yes it did result in death but this should not surprise anyone who has seen them take on a coyote in protection of their flock.
Some breeds though are aggressive breeds bred specifically for their aggression and yes it is in their genetics, like it or not. Those breeds should not be lightly regarded nor would I say they should be banned. I would merely advise that they should not be in the hands of ignorant owners who think any dog is the same as any other dog.
That is as ignorant as thinking a Rattle Snake is the same as a Corn Snake or a Copperhead is the same as a Cobra.
It just ain’t so.

 

[vvx]

Is a Haplopelma lividum more "dangerous" than a Grammostola rosea?

I think the answer is the same with dogs. That said I see no reason to ban/outlaw any specific breed of dog. It's the responsibility of the owner to train the dog regardless of breed to ensure safety.

 

[ballpython2]

I'm a woman (though I've never owned a dog), and heck, I completely agree with you. There's also a frequent "aww look at him growling and snapping, he's so teeny but he thinks he's big, aww" instead of, you know, teaching the dog not to growl and snap and bite people. That right there is just plain dumb and irresponsible.

edit: haha, beaten.

and the people on the shows always say " I feel so bad when he bites my husband or one of the kids"..clearly you dont feel that bad or you would have changed the way you treated the dog's bad behavior the FIRST time it happened..cause if you notice on these shows the person says how the dog has bitten relatives MORE than once....so why did they have to wait to be on tv to do something about their dogs behavior, thats definitely ignorance and these people dont need dogs at all....but thats just what i think.

 

[pitbulllady]

Sorry folks but I can’t buy it. I understand ya’ll love your animals but the statistics at the link I posted earlier say there are breeds that have more of a tendency toward aggression than others.
16 of the 91 breeds and mixes listed average more than 1 attack per year over the 14 year study. No one can tell me that bad owners is the only reason. Bad owner buy every breed out there but not every breed has more than 1 attack per year recorded. In fact few of the breeds listed, 67, have less than a half dozen attacks recorded over the whole 14 year period.
I have 5 Pyrs at present, 4 are stock dogs not socialized in the least and all 4 of the non socialized dogs tend to avoid stranger humans rather than be aggressive toward them. Aggression toward humans is not in their genetics. The statistics would bear this out listing only 1 attack during the 14 year period by this breed. Yes it did result in death but this should not surprise anyone who has seen them take on a coyote in protection of their flock.
Some breeds though are aggressive breeds bred specifically for their aggression and yes it is in their genetics, like it or not. Those breeds should not be lightly regarded nor would I say they should be banned. I would merely advise that they should not be in the hands of ignorant owners who think any dog is the same as any other dog.
That is as ignorant as thinking a Rattle Snake is the same as a Corn Snake or a Copperhead is the same as a Cobra.
It just ain’t so.

BE SURE to read this statement from the AVMA, John, since it reiterates what I myself stated in my previous post:
"There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. [Source: AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression]

And make sure you read THIS one, from the CDC, whose "study" is often quoted by BSL supporters(including the LAWYERwhose site you are relying on for your information):
"There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." "Statistics", when it comes to reporting dog bites/attacks, are simply NOT reliable, due to the inability of most people to accurately determine a dog's breed, and due to heavy bias in reporting bites as being from certain types of dogs, even in cases where there were no surviving witnesses to actually SEE the dog. That's a huge difference in someone identifying a dog as a "pit bull" and someone being bitten by say, a Cobra, and identifying that snake as such. That's just a bad analogy all the way around.

pitbulllady

 

[equuskat]

I was a vet tech and I've encountered many dogs who would have bitten from fear - no individual breeds stand out. The dog that I think everyone most expected to bite was a very neglected black lab. He ended up getting comfortable enough with me to wag his tail when he saw me for his mange dips.

The only dog that has EVER bitten me was a Jack Russel Terrier that was not being restrained well by his owner when I trimmed his nails.

Bottom line is that all dogs have TEETH. Any breed may have reason to use them. Generally, it depends on upbringing, yes, but dogs can (RARELY) have their own reasons, too.

 

[clam1991]

Sorry folks but I can’t buy it. I understand ya’ll love your animals but the statistics at the link I posted earlier say there are breeds that have more of a tendency toward aggression than others.
16 of the 91 breeds and mixes listed average more than 1 attack per year over the 14 year study. No one can tell me that bad owners is the only reason. Bad owner buy every breed out there but not every breed has more than 1 attack per year recorded. In fact few of the breeds listed, 67, have less than a half dozen attacks recorded over the whole 14 year period.
I have 5 Pyrs at present, 4 are stock dogs not socialized in the least and all 4 of the non socialized dogs tend to avoid stranger humans rather than be aggressive toward them. Aggression toward humans is not in their genetics. The statistics would bear this out listing only 1 attack during the 14 year period by this breed. Yes it did result in death but this should not surprise anyone who has seen them take on a coyote in protection of their flock.
Some breeds though are aggressive breeds bred specifically for their aggression and yes it is in their genetics, like it or not. Those breeds should not be lightly regarded nor would I say they should be banned. I would merely advise that they should not be in the hands of ignorant owners who think any dog is the same as any other dog.
That is as ignorant as thinking a Rattle Snake is the same as a Corn Snake or a Copperhead is the same as a Cobra.
It just ain’t so.

yeah and whos going to report a bite from a teacup poodle
the only reason those dogs are reported is because they can actually do a lot more damage than those lil yip yip dogs
im not saying yip yips dont hurt but they cant do as much as a dobie or a pit

i know that a lot of the "vicious" dogs ive come across are the lil tea cup dogs but they are a lot easier to restrain and they are too tiny to do terrible damage so thats why their not called dangerous
but if i had to report every little dog bite then pomeranians would be the most dangerous dog ever!!!!

 

[betuana]

I'm a vet tech, I've worked in a shelter with strays, been a humane investigator, and looked at alot of research.

Most 'statistics' are inherently flawed in that MANY bites are never reported. We hear about 'pit bulls' attacking, or 'rottweilers' biting, etc because that is what makes 'good stories' for the media. They have demonized these breeds so much that it makes for high ratings when they report it. In all likelyhood its not that there is necessarily a greater incidence of bites among these breeds, or at least not just because the breed.

If we also examined the backgrounds of the animals (how many of these 'vicious' dogs were trained by novice 'trainers' to be guard dogs, etc, and therefore were simply taught to be aggressive?) we'd probably find alot of correlation between 'dangerous dogs' and their keeping/training (kept by dog fighters, drug dealers, etc). Its adds to he 'this breed is bad' because it is a cycle - they hear about how 'tough' and 'mean' a breed is, get it, and teach it to behave that way, perpetuating the stereotype.

As for the ones that are NOT from these upbringings, its simply a matter of media and reporting. The media will be more likely to cover an attack by a pit bull than one by a lab or golden. The lab or golden don't have the stigma to make ratings. Likewise, because of the stigma, people are more likely to make a big deal out of bites from these breeds, and report them, than they would if it were a different breed.

From my own experience, Chow Chows seem to be a breed somewhat more prone to aggression, mainly because they bond so closely to their families that they do not seem to trust strangers unless VERY VERY well socialized, and even then. Other breeds that I would consider highly likely to bite are just about any toy breed. They seem to feel a need to prove they are just as tough as the big dogs by generally behaving aggressively. But no one will report a 'vicious' bichon, or a bite from a chihuahua, because it seems silly. Happens ALOT though. I know more little kids bitten by toy breeds than any other breed I can think of. And too many adults who will tell their kids its ok to go pet the toy breed (without asking the owner first) but will drag the kids away, white eyed and terrified, of a pit bull who is rolling on its back, wagging its tail, and just ecstatic to be seen by people. So if the pit bull so much as looks at them funny, or heaven forbid, barks at them, they'll start complaining of it being aggressive. But the little snarling shih tzu is 'aww, isn't that adorable?'

That said, there IS some trouble for the breeds themselves, not only due to irresponsible owners (as mentioned by other posts here), who do not train their pets, or train them to behave poorly, but also due to irresponsible or immoral breeders, who intentionally select for bad personality traits. So if the trend of horrible breeders continues, then there is a possibility some of these breeds will develop more of a tendency toward aggression. This also means that if someone isn't sure of their dog's background that it MIGHT have a tendency towards it, due to some idiot deciding the thing to do is breed the 2 most crazy and aggressive individuals they could find.

If the breed is obtained from a RESPONSIBLE breeder however, who breeds for GOOD qualities, then these breeds which carry the stigma of being 'dangerous' are no more dangerous (and probably less so in many cases) than many of the breeds people think are just fine (collies, labs, etc).

Staffordshire Terriers (re: a type of 'pit bull') in other countries have the nickname of "Nanny dog" due to their extremely good nature with children. These breeds were NOT designed to be aggressive.

Or if you want to get into uglier parts of history, say, dog fighting (I did a research paper on the laws around it), when it was legal, and therefore could be regulated, the pit bulls were REQUIRED to show ABSOLUTELY NO aggression to humans at all. In fact, any fighting dog that showed the slightest aggression towards people was immediately put down. Only those who fought well, but remained friendly and easily handleable by any person were allowed to breed an continue the lines. So with that said, one could argue the breed was actually designed to not be aggressive with people. All of this human aggression has been recently added by humans who want them to be aggressive to people. (This is NOT an advocation for it to be legalized at all - dog fighting is an absolutely disgusting 'sport' and should be eliminated).

Anyways, what I'm getting at here is that I don't believe the breeds commonly viewed as 'dangerous' are genetically wired with their breed to be so. They get that way through bad breeding and poor training. I also think that the dogs most likely to cause injury to people (and will also note that this is what they even teach us in school) are toy breeds who (as a previous post notes) are often never trained or disciplined for aggressive behavior, and seem to have more of a tendency towards it. (Perhaps because of their small size, they cannot afford the wait and ask questions later attitude a bigger dog can, so they bite first, and ask questions later.) I've seen more little dogs that bite, chase people down, and behave aggressively than any large dogs (and I've seen dogs held for court for aggression, etc.)

Slightly OT story here: All that said - the SCARIEST dog I've EVER seen was a lab/setter mutt. Longish hair, floppy ears, mostly black with a white spot on its chest. Otto was his name...and the dog was one of the few things I'd ever classify as being actually Evil. Made people's hair stand on end just to stand and look at him. He didn't lunge at us (most of the time) or snarl, or anything. He sat wagging his tail and looking at you. And you could see in his eyes that he was waiting for you to come close enough to rip your throat out. Tried to kill the kennel staff several time. Was in for court after ripping his owner's grandson's face off - no provocation, just sitting there then attack. We had several police officers, ACOs, experienced animal trainers, behaviorists, vets, etc go back there and just stand several feet back and watch him sitting there for a minute. 100% of them came back pale, whites of eyes showing, and saying their hair was standing on end, just from watching him sit there. The dog was just that creepy. I'm not very religious, but I still think we should've tried bringing in some sort of priest to look at that dog...there was something very WRONG.

And it was a lab mix.

Actually, I've seen alot of CRAZY labs out there (usually more just way hyper crazy, getting too mouthy when playing and accidentally biting, etc), probably because the poor breed is overbred. One year there were some half a million pups REGISTERED with one agency in that year alone. HALF A MILLION! Not counting those not registered with that agency, or the mixes, etc. And I'd say a good quarter of the dogs in shelters are lab mixes. Really sad that we feel a need to breed so many of them. Sadder that it seems like alot of them were bred for quantity rather than quality.

Cocker spaniels and dalmations have been overbred too (think Disney movies - there is the demand for them), and have developed some neurotic behaviors because of it. People don't usually think of them when naming off 'dangerous breeds' but they can be kinda nuts...

Anyways, this post is way too long...but I don't think the stereotypical 'dangerous' breeds are really the problem at all. Its bad owners and bad breeders, with a stereotype supported by media and a lack of consistent incident reporting and record keeping.

 

[GailC]

I have 5 Pyrs at present, 4 are stock dogs not socialized in the least and all 4 of the non socialized dogs tend to avoid stranger humans rather than be aggressive toward them. Aggression toward humans is not in their genetics. The statistics would bear this out listing only 1 attack during the 14 year period by this breed.

A few yrs ago I lived next door to a full blood Pyrenees, he was the meanest dog I've ever met. He tried to attack me on numerous occasions and only a logging chain kept him from getting me and any children that walked by.

Also when I was in 4-H as a child, we frequented sheep farms every spring looking for that perfect baby sheep for me. I seen a fair amount of nasty Pyrenees then too and I know people who have been bitten by them.

If you are going to be judgemental towards a breed, you should at least have personal experience to back it up not just some stupid report.

 

[mouse]

quote:Slightly OT story here: All that said - the SCARIEST dog I've EVER seen was a lab/setter mutt. Longish hair, floppy ears, mostly black with a white spot on its chest. Otto was his name...and the dog was one of the few things I'd ever classify as being actually Evil. Made people's hair stand on end just to stand and look at him. He didn't lunge at us (most of the time) or snarl, or anything. He sat wagging his tail and looking at you. And you could see in his eyes that he was waiting for you to come close enough to rip your throat out. Tried to kill the kennel staff several time. Was in for court after ripping his owner's grandson's face off - no provocation, just sitting there then attack. We had several police officers, ACOs, experienced animal trainers, behaviorists, vets, etc go back there and just stand several feet back and watch him sitting there for a minute. 100% of them came back pale, whites of eyes showing, and saying their hair was standing on end, just from watching him sit there. The dog was just that creepy. I'm not very religious, but I still think we should've tried bringing in some sort of priest to look at that dog...there was something very WRONG.

And it was a lab mix.
end quote


well the irish setter that we had (we bred the mother and he was one of the pups). he would act nice, waging tail and all and the next moment attack. my grandparents didn't believe it - till he attacked my mom that was in a wheelchair. we got rid of him, somebody needed a guard dog. he did ok there, but had to be in a kennel. after he died they checked him out and found a brain tumor.
might be the same problem with the setter/lab mix you knew.
we thought first he was over bred.

 

[clam1991]

ahh i just remembered a story about a pit
it was my sisters boyfriend at the times dog
it was a massive pitbull
his name was otto
so i walked up slowly expecting the worst and then....
he licked me all over
and you have no idea how huge he was
heres a mental picture
his toy is a car tire which when thrown he would chase it and run around with it in his mouth

but again nicest dog ever
especially since i never met it before and the owner wasnt with him
but my uncles pomeranian is a whole diff story
meanest thing on the planet
and when i throw his toy he chases me

 

[GailC]

ahh i just remembered a story about a pit
it was my sisters boyfriend at the times dog
it was a massive pitbull
his name was otto
so i walked up slowly expecting the worst and then....
he licked me all over
and you have no idea how huge he was
heres a mental picture
his toy is a car tire which when thrown he would chase it and run around with it in his mouth

but again nicest dog ever
especially since i never met it before and the owner wasnt with him
but my uncles pomeranian is a whole diff story
meanest thing on the planet
and when i throw his toy he chases me

That just too cute:}
My pit/rottie cross is around 120 lbs, he is known to crawl into peoples laps and just lay there. He did that to a stranger one day, scared to poor guy half to death LOL. Of course he has to lick everyone and everything in the process and I swear his tongue has a mind of its own.

Here is my "killer" pit hotrod

 

[mouse]

hotrod looks so gentle , my kids would be all over him. i think it's adorable when big dogs think they are lapdogs, my sister's three do that, one will lick, the other nibble, the other will give the LOOK, then they sneak on the couch or the bed .