[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Except that the statistics do not support this assertion, at all. The CDC report lists all breeds of dogs in a span of seventeen years who have been involved in the death of one or more human beings, and small-game hunting dogs appear a total of three times on the list,“hound-type” dogs twice and coonhounds once. That means there were a grand total of three small-game hunting dogs in seventeen years involved in fatalities. Three dogs out of a group (“other dogs whose breeding has the purpose of causing them to attack small animals”) that includes all cur types, scent hounds, sight hounds, and pig dogs. There were, in the same span, an equal number of collies–a herding breed with little recent working history–on the list. Three.
[/quote]
My experience, again, is that hounds bred for hunting (as opposed to those whose great-ancestors were bred for hunting) tend not to be around young children much, which could account for this statistic well. Is your experience, or your statistics, different from this?
I make no such lumping; making that lumping works against my point, since my point is about proportion, not absolute numbers.
Seriously? That really surprises me. Fox terriers and dalmatians are two breeds infamous for not getting along with kids. This is not an out-of-left-field position.
Please. When I insist on the validity of a position, I don’t repeatedly acknowledge that I lack the facts to support it, nor do I call it a suspicion. I am explicitly and loudly DENYING that I can validate this position, which is exactly why I call it a suspicion. Remember, though, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That’s why I’ve asked you if you have evidence that contradicts the position. The evidence you’ve offered contradicts positions tangentially related to my suspicion, but does not contradict the suspicion itself.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
My experience, again, is that hounds bred for hunting (as opposed to those whose great-ancestors were bred for hunting) tend not to be around young children much, which could account for this statistic well. Is your experience, or your statistics, different from this?
[/quote]
Actually, most active working dogs I know are at least somewhat involved with the family, even if not housedogs. Anyway, even if your assertion in this quote is true, why would you attribute subsequent aggression to breed trait, and not towards lack of socialization?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I make no such lumping; making that lumping works against my point, since my point is about proportion, not absolute numbers.
[/quote]
So… you’re not suggesting that pit dogs attack children disproportionately because they’re bred to fight animals that are child-sized? And you’re not suggesting that this trait relates to child-sized-prey-driven dogs?
Err, did I misread something? You asked:
To which I replied
Though for clarity perhaps it should read: “I have never in theory or practice come across breeds or types of dogs that are generally aggressive toward adults but not toward children.”
I know you’re acknowledging lack of facts. I’m just saying that the best information we have to support or disprove your suspicion certainly does not support it and seems to suggest otherwise.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Seriously? That really surprises me. Fox terriers and dalmatians are two breeds infamous for not getting along with kids.
[/QUOTE]
Neither one a breed with much in the way of recent working ancestors
