Anecdotal Evidence Concerning the Inherent Nature of "Vicious" Breeds

In My Humble Opinion
1

Out of 49 dogs seized from Michael Vick’s dogfighting operations, 48 will be sent to live with families or in sanctuaries so that they can be rehabilitated, and overcome their fear and lack of socialization. Only one was judged to be beyond help.

It seems to me that if these “fighting breeds” were naturally vicious and dangerous to humans, their treatment at the hands of Vick *et. al. * would have intensified such behavior beyond repair. Yet, that appears not to be the case. Furthermore, I submit that, in light of potential liability issues, the fact that they will be placed with families is a powerful argument that “vicious” breeds of dog do not exist. Any dog will be a good canine citizen if properly socialized, loved, and welcomed into the human family.

2

Wel, yeah pretty much. There are breeds who were used as guards, but they’re still dogs and don’t do things I haven’t seen toy breeds do. They have certain instincts, but those are not really hard to train out, and exist in all dogs. Fighting dogs should still be kept away from the public though. Bad training and bad owners do not make good behavior.

it’s just like the idea that Pit Bulls are bad. What is a pit bull? Heck, they’re the most loving dogs I’v ever seen. They’re almot too loving and constantly want petting and attention and love. They are, however, extremely stupid and pretty muscley, so you don’t want to startle them and need to keep them under control.

As with all animals - even small lizards and housecats, you need to understand that it’s not a robot with simple instructions which you can turn off or control with the remote. It’s a living being which responds in mostly predictable, but not always controllable, ways. You need to knwo what you’re giving your love to and how to take care of the pooch.

3

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Any dog will be a good canine citizen if properly socialized, loved, and welcomed into the human family.

[/QUOTE]

Generally I believe this is true. Properly raised and socialized I think any dog can be a fine companion. That said some breeds seem more prone to violence and “proper” raising is not exactly a science. I have read of numerous cases for instance where a Pit Bull seemed to be a fine and loving pet for years and then just snaps. Even if the snap is just momentary they are a very powerful dog and could cause considerable damage.

I would never bring a dog from a dog fighting outfit into a family. I might if it was just me but I would never risk children around such an animal.

4

I’ve read when dogs are never truly domesticated. I think everyone has heard of a case when a dog just snapped. A friend’s children use to play with the German shepard next dog. The dog attacked her son one day and almost cost him an eye.

5

I have a dog that was bred to hunt lions [rhodesian ridgeback] he’s not to be messed with but with thorough training and constant reinforcement he is the best most well behaved dog I have ever known. Grissom is his name and though arrogant at times, he always, and I mean always does what I telll him to do. He knows his boundaries in the house and knows he is not to enter the kitchen or dining room. And we’ve had him for several years now and he hasn’t stepped foot in either one. He likes his breezeway and his out doors…so he tells me :smiley:

I love him up and play with him every day and we go over trainings he has had all the time so they are fresh in his brain. He heels and stays like a champ and only get’s excited when we buy him a new chew toy or bring home treats from the butcher. Around other dogs, humans, kids, squirrels, etc…etc… he stays with me. I love it when we are walking and another dog errupts barking at him and he stays right next to me staring at the other dog…then looks up at me as if to say…Oh Bother, whatan idiot!

Training is the key in all situations. If you raise a pit bull to kill that’s exactly what he is going to do. If you raise it to love - same response.

6

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
it’s just like the idea that Pit Bulls are bad. What is a pit bull?
[/QUOTE]

Find the pit bull.

So are other large dogs.

It has more to do with whether a dog is neutered. The ASPCA says that 70% of dog attacks involve unneutered males, and 97% of fatal dog attacks in 2006 involved dogs that were not spayed or neutered. That’s huge, especially since 70% of owned dogs in the US are spayed or neutered.

Kids, especially kids with little or no experience with dogs, do things around dogs that they shouldn’t- things like reaching for something near the dog’s food bowl (I got bitten by my piano teacher’s cocker spaniel when I was eight because I did this- my family never had dogs, and I didn’t know any better). Make sure your kids know what they should and shouldn’t do around dogs, and make sure your dog doesn’t have opportunities to interact with other kids, who may or may not know how to behave around dogs, without the supervision of an adult who knows your dog.

If you want to keep your kids and people around you safe, you’re much better off getting your dog spayed or neutered and making sure kids can’t interact with your dog without your supervision than you are worrying about the breed.

7

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
So are other large dogs.

[/QUOTE]

Indeed. German Shepherds account for most reported bites in the US. Rottweilers followed by Pit Bulls account for most deaths.

I think MOST of the problem here is not so much the breed as the owners. Often breeds such as German Shepherds are bought for guard duty. Rotts and Pit Bulls tend to have a “tough guy” association. That is the neighborhood bully is more likely to have a Pit Bull than a Pekinese. The neighborhood bully can probably not be trusted as much to properly socialize that dog.

Any dog can bite but I do believe certain breeds are more prone to it. I have grown up with German Shepherds my whole life and not a one bit anyone, ever. These were well raise dogs who had occasion to bite in a few instance (being provoked) but had the sense to just leave. That said I believe unscrupulous breeding has damaged the breed overall and I have seen many more shy/fear biting GSDs these days than I care to and that is a very dangerous animal to have about.

Many factors can account for why dogs attack and I’d wager in a vast majority of cases blame can be put at the feet of the owner and less so the dog.

8

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
Find the pit bull.

So are other large dogs.

It has more to do with whether a dog is neutered. The ASPCA says that 70% of dog attacks involve unneutered males, and 97% of fatal dog attacks in 2006 involved dogs that were not spayed or neutered. That’s huge, especially since 70% of owned dogs in the US are spayed or neutered.

Kids, especially kids with little or no experience with dogs, do things around dogs that they shouldn’t- things like reaching for something near the dog’s food bowl (I got bitten by my piano teacher’s cocker spaniel when I was eight because I did this- my family never had dogs, and I didn’t know any better). Make sure your kids know what they should and shouldn’t do around dogs, and make sure your dog doesn’t have opportunities to interact with other kids, who may or may not know how to behave around dogs, without the supervision of an adult who knows your dog.

If you want to keep your kids and people around you safe, you’re much better off getting your dog spayed or neutered and making sure kids can’t interact with your dog without your supervision than you are worrying about the breed.
[/QUOTE]

I had no trouble finding the pit bull. Got it in one. What do I win?

You can talk all you want of responsible ownership but I think people should go with the odds and not breed animals that tend to cause serious injury when they bite.

*The dogs that are most responsible
Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author’s observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

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 or a Rottweiler 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.

Clifton’s opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, “Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.”*

Taken From Dog Bite Law I am not absolutely sure these facts are correct but seeing that these poor animals are abandoned and put down more than any other breed in my area, I think there should be limits set and fines imposed on the breeding of pit bulls and pit bull mixes.

Flame Away

9

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
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 or a Rottweiler 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.

[/QUOTE]

What actuarial risk?

Not saying it does not exist but statistically you are FAR more likely to be shot than you are to be killed by a dog. Children are more likely to be killed by a parent or relative than a dog. Add in car accidents and such and frankly death by dog barely registers statistically.

I am not saying people should not be careful with children around dogs because tragedies do occur but before you go off banning whole breeds you really need to look at the actual damage they inflict.

I think a better answer is making owners more legally liable for damage their dogs cause. Different states have different regulations on this.

10

Here is an interesting article from New Yorker writer Malcom Gladwell. He compares banning dog breeds to racial profiling, where the connection between breeds and attacks is close to none.

11

I don’t think breed-specific bans work, just because the breed of dog favored by people who want an aggressive guard dog has changed over time. It used to be Dobermans, then it was Rottweilers, then pit bulls. If you ban pit bulls, they’ll just find some other large breed of dog. And you can train just about any dog to be vicious.

What I’d rather see is laws mandating spaying and neutering (with an exception for licensed breeders, and stricter rules on licensing breeders- get rid of some of the backyard breeders), with extra fees for having an unspayed or unneutered dog over a certain size or weight. That size should be small enough that dogs under that size aren’t likely to be able to kill or really injure someone. That doesn’t leave a new large breed for the people who want a vicious dog to ruin.

I’d also like to see owners of dogs that attack somebody required, after the first offense, to have the dog spayed or neutered, and be required to take the dog to training classes, with serious (at least a few thousand dollars) fines for people who don’t comply. I would like to see people banned from owning any dogs for a period of time after having their dog attack people multiple times, or after a dog attack that kills someone, again with serious fines for violators.

12

The key here is that nasty people always buy nasty dogs. To intimidate their friends and enemies and guard the stash of drugs or guns.
So, those are not going to be the pampering owners that other dog lovers suppose.

13

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
<snip>…“vicious” breeds of dog do not exist. Any dog will be a good canine citizen if properly socialized, loved, and welcomed into the human family.<snip>
[/QUOTE]

Preach on, brotha!

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
<snip>…but seeing that these poor animals are abandoned and put down more than any other breed in my area, I think there should be limits set and fines imposed on the breeding of pit bulls and pit bull mixes.
[/QUOTE]

I submit two things.
First, the percentage of random-bred pit-type dogs in your area probably largely outweighs the percentage of non-pit-type-dogs. Therefore, of-freakin’-course there are going to be abandoned and put down more than any other breed.
Secondly, the first set of photos on the link you posted includes four out of twenty one dogs that are probably of pit-dog ancestry to any percentage. Several dogs labeled pits appear to have no visually discernible pit-dog background whatsoever. This says two things: one, both you and they are wrong regarding the number of pit-type dogs abandoned and euthanized in your area, and two, that the good folks at animal control often have zero ability to accurately breed-identify mixed breed dogs and will thus label anything with a short coat and semi-prick ears “pit mix”. I almost included “wide head or blunt muzzle,” but they’ve even got a terrier-type dog with a long, skinny face and ill-defined stop labeled a pit bull.

I just went through a whole situation with my county animal control where a rare breed of dog, misidentified as a pit bull and confiscated by animal control, was deemed “extremely aggressive, uncontrollable, and highly unpredictable”. I went down there to check him out, having gotten a phone call that there might be a dog of my breed in the pound and I met a huge and gorgeous dogo argentino. The kennel supervisor told me what a maniac this dog was and how concerned the officer who’d picked him up was for her own safety in handling him. He asked me if I wanted him to go in first and “subdue the animal” before I went in. I said no, that I would be just fine. I greeted the dog, and seeing absolutely no behavioral red flags, went on in. A perfectly laid-back dog allowed me to put a slip collar and leash on him and lead him out. He pulled on the leash once or twice, but with a couple minutes of walking around the fenced yard and a brief review of basic obedience to see if he knew any, he was a perfectly mannerly dog. Even more so than I would expect for a dog of working-breed background who’d had no real exercise or training to be. I didn’t get it.

I asked the officer who’d picked him up, and she said that at the house, he was running and jumping around and putting his paws on people. Also, that in the chaos, he nibbled at her pants leg with his front teeth. Not a bite and no contact with skin, but that “flea nibbling” at loose fabric that dogs will do when they’re all hyped up and no one is in charge.

Basically, she described a big dog who had been dumped at a stranger’s apartment for a week and not let outdoors once except to pee in the parking lot. I questioned her pretty extensively about what exactly the dog did that alarmed her, and I couldn’t come up with one, single red flag behavior. Not one. Yet the officer maintained that this was a dangerous aggressive dog that wouldn’t see the light of day back on the streets of her community if she had anything to do with it. I visited him several times in the next week and he was always very calm and mannerly.

One animal control officer told a co-worker of mine while responding to a dog bite call that “some dogs think about biting people. They plan it out and wait… and they think about it and think about it, and it builds and builds, and one day they just snap.” I wanted to puke.

I’d be very, very surprised if many animal control officers have any real dog handling experience whatsoever.

14

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]

I just went through a whole situation with my county animal control where a rare breed of dog, misidentified as a pit bull and confiscated by animal control, was deemed “extremely aggressive, uncontrollable, and highly unpredictable”. I went down there to check him out, having gotten a phone call that there might be a dog of my breed in the pound and I met a huge and gorgeous dogo argentino. The kennel supervisor told me what a maniac this dog was and how concerned the officer who’d picked him up was for her own safety in handling him. He asked me if I wanted him to go in first and “subdue the animal” before I went in. I said no, that I would be just fine. I greeted the dog, and seeing absolutely no behavioral red flags, went on in. A perfectly laid-back dog allowed me to put a slip collar and leash on him and lead him out. He pulled on the leash once or twice, but with a couple minutes of walking around the fenced yard and a brief review of basic obedience to see if he knew any, he was a perfectly mannerly dog. Even more so than I would expect for a dog of working-breed background who’d had no real exercise or training to be. I didn’t get it.

[/QUOTE]

I’m rather shocked at the lack of knowledge and professionalism by your animal control. I volunteered for the Anti-Cruelty Society in Chicago and they had a very specific set of tests they would run dogs through to determine their suitability for adoption. Often they could rehabilitate problem animals. Some few dogs were deemed irredeemable and those would be put down.

15

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I’m rather shocked at the lack of knowledge and professionalism by your animal control. I volunteered for the Anti-Cruelty Society in Chicago and they had a very specific set of tests they would run dogs through to determine their suitability for adoption. Often they could rehabilitate problem animals. Some few dogs were deemed irredeemable and those would be put down.
[/QUOTE]

Did those tests happen to involve poking an eating dog in the face with a stick with a plastic hand on the end? Or testing a dog’s suitability with children by waving a large plastic doll in its face? Those are the adoption suitability tests used by the folks in the animal control shows, really great.
I know there must be some good and knowledgeable folks involved in animal control somewhere, but it seems like the more I interact with them in this capacity, the more dismayed I am by the lack of evidence for such.

16

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Did those tests happen to involve poking an eating dog in the face with a stick with a plastic hand on the end? Or testing a dog’s suitability with children by waving a large plastic doll in its face? Those are the adoption suitability tests used by the folks in the animal control shows, really great.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly what they do. Dog is eating and a hand on a stick reaches in to pull the food away. If the dog attacks the “hand” that is a serious ding against them. There are a variety of other tests of course.

17

I should have also said:

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I’m rather shocked at the lack of knowledge and professionalism by your animal control.
[/QUOTE]

I was, too.

18

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Exactly what they do. Dog is eating and a hand on a stick reaches in to pull the food away. If the dog attacks the “hand” that is a serious ding against them. There are a variety of other tests of course.
[/QUOTE]

Right. I’d probably react poorly to a stick poking at my face, too. I realize they need a way to test for food aggression, but I also believe that there are much, much more accurate ways to assess this behavior, and also that there are some fairly simple ways to fix it. Poking with a stick is not a good assessment of potential aberrant behavior in a stressful situation.
Also, even imagining that one can equate a dog’s reaction to a toy with that dog’s potential aggression towards a live human child seems willfully ignorant to me.

19

[QUOTE=Early adopter,VictrolaDivision]
The key here is that nasty people always buy nasty dogs. To intimidate their friends and enemies and guard the stash of drugs or guns.
[/QUOTE]

And if someone has a history of getting nasty dogs, we should make it as difficult as we can for them to get more dogs, of whatever breed.

I’d even be in favor of penalties to dog breeders whose breeding operations turn out a lot of dogs that end up seriously injuring or killing someone. Because those breeders are not doing what an ethical breeder would do- they are not properly screening the people who get their dogs. One or two nasty dogs from one breeder might be a coincidence, but a consistent pattern would not be. Make life difficult for the people who are selling dogs (especially large dogs) to anyone with the money, no questions asked, because chances are good that the people who are not going to be good pet owners are getting their dogs from this sort of person.

20

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Preach on, brotha!
I submit two things.
First, the percentage of random-bred pit-type dogs in your area probably largely outweighs the percentage of non-pit-type-dogs. Therefore, of-freakin’-course there are going to be abandoned and put down more than any other breed.

[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. When I spoke to the folks at the shelter, not only do the get more of pit mixes because they are turned in more often, they rarely get adopted out. As far as their determination of the breed, I have no idea how that is done.

If a breed attacks more and those attacks will lead to greater damage due to its strength, it should not be bred. People can argue up and down about how “nice” their dog is and how it is the owners fault. That is all well and good but if the owner breeds a poodle to be mean, rarely will the next door neighbor lose an eye.