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.
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?
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.
