Best factual answer I can give you has already been posted by bdgr:
Higher than the German sheppard for instance
Apparently, the dog in question had a history of aggression. Cite.
Any breed of dog can be trained (or allowed) to be aggressive, and any breed of dog, if properly trained from an early age, can be socialized to be around humans. The owner bears the responsibility to familiarize himself with his dog’s psychological/physical/behavioral characteristics and to train it accordingly.
I disagree that it would take any time at all. Breeding simply isn’t that big a deal when it comes to what the dog is capable of.
I don’t know what percentage of all dogs could be turned dangerous. Something high. (Despite my particular love of Saint Bernards, I think the vast majority of them could be turned into killing machines. Too many breeders have been irresponsible, and the dogs are simply not appropriate for beginners.)
I don’t believe that pit bulls are more likely to be able to be turned bad. They seem to be more likely to be tried.
IME, most folks see themselves as “responsible pet owners”, “good drivers” and “safe hunters/gun owners” , “good parents” - Including the ones who end up in the news 'cause of some idiotic thing they did.
Just like 2 out of 3 folks in job interviews will consider themselves as “quick learners” and “Hard workers”. Most of them are wrong, too.
The thing I don’t like about pit bull types is their “poker face”. With most dog breeds you can read their mood easily. But a lot of fighting breeds have that bred out of them. I personally can’t see the appeal of a pit bull type dog, and the world would be a better place if there were fewer of them.
But breed specific bans won’t work. Bans on vicious dogs already exist, they need to be enforced more stringently. Dogs that show aggression towards humans should be destroyed. And that includes those god-forsaken rat-dogs. Toy dogs are much more aggressive towards humans than normal dogs, yet we tolerate them because they don’t cause as much damage when they bite. Fuck that. A dog that bites should be destroyed, whether it’s a pit bull, a golden retreiver, or shivering psychotic toy poodle.
In the interests of full disclosure, the Lemur household includes a Chow/husky mix, a German Shepard/husky mix, and two children. And I wouldn’t encourage anyone to pet the chow mix.
Amen.
BTW, I can do the exact same thing with my Dobie. Get her worked-up into a frothing lather playing tug, yell “let go” followed by “down” and she’ll do both immediatly. Or I can say “let go” and do the same thing as you, use my arm instead…not a scratch. She simply won’t clamp down on me…though I’m sure if she did, she could break my wrist like a dry twig.
Lots and lots of training (which I enjoyed), lots of mutual trust.
Any old mutt over a certain size can be turned into a vicious killing machine. There’s no particular breeding required. As long as there are aggressive assholes owning dogs, there will be mean aggressive dogs owned by them and on occasion people will be maimed or killed.
Definately an owner problem rather than the dog breed in my opinion. Appreciate that some dogs are more capable of harm than others but really the only answer to the problem is to regulate ownership properly. As previous posters have mentioned, outlawing a particular breed will only move the problem onto others breeds.
Properly raised i doubt any dog breed cannot be made as safe as can be expected (yeah there will always be some dangers).
I’ve seen my Border Collie with my toddler’s thumb right in his eye socket. Didn’t even move away until i told him to cause he was in a ‘stay’! Sigh, if only training toddlers was as easy as Collies…
Used to have a Rottweiler too. Wonderful dog. Raised him from a pup and taught him not to bight people. Used to play tug really really rough until he was all worked up, barking, snarling and snapping at his toy. Then i flicked the toy behind my wrist and put my forearm straight in his mouth. Would get scratches from his teeth but he never ever bit down, he actually backed off immediately and calmed right down until the toy came back into play. That was just the result of firm training from young. You can train them to do anything if you put the time in.
But hey, as for the assholes that either don’t take the time to train properly or even worse train them to be aggresive, well…you know…hope they get their balls bitten off…
Oops, sorry, didn’t think that had posted the last time :smack:
But hey, my tuppence worth is always worth repeating right? 
Well, I don’t actually disagree with anything you wrote above. Like you say, I also think a high degree of breeds could be trained to become extremely dangerous. But when I wrote “some time” I was thinking of creating a new breed for that specific purpose.
Lemur,
Agreed completely vis-a-vis dogs that show “human aggressive behavior.” And even more so with the toy dog angle if only because of what happened to my son.
Not so sure on the bias towards Pitbulls. I have a hard time buying into it.
It’s only worth a penny now. The market is glutted.
I’ve never owned a dog, and I don’t like them, so I avoid them. But I just took that “identify the pit bull” test and got it right the first time.
Go me!
Those ATTS stats go a long way but they seem like a self selecting sample. That organization goes to training clubs and dog shows and people volunteer their dogs. I suspect mostly well trained dogs get tested which I agree is the most important factor.
People who talk about better ownership have to realize that is almost only going to get enforced after the fact. A dog ownership licensing system, required training and enforcement of same is generally considered too expensive.
Going by breeds and only breeds, your dogs would scare me more than a pit bull. Chows, German Shepherds, and Huskies are all dogs that I would avoid owning (though I think Chows are so attractive).
I’m a dog lover. Most of my friends are dog lovers. Many breeds are represented in the various packs. None of my friends, who love their dogs to an extent that would get them ridiculed around here, would tolerate human aggressive behavior. The animal would either be quarantined, rehabilitated, or euthanized.
One friend has a 125 Lab that is the biggest baby in the world. If I speak sharply to him he crawls into his owner’s lap and whimpers. I fostered a Great Dane for a while who was terrorized by my 14 lb. Jack Russell. When I took him for a walk he was a kid magnet. The dog literally and absolutely has no aggression in him.
Responsible dog owners do not let their dogs escape. They do not isolate them from the family, which a dog perceives as his pack. Dogs are social animals, and become fearful and insecure when left on their own. This is manifested as aggression when the dog encounters a strange situation, or a strange dog, or any phenomenon tha he perceives as a threat.
Responsible dog owners assume the position of alpha dog and command respect and loyalty form the dogs in the house. Dogs raised this way will not, as a rule, be dangerous to humans, but it is up to the owners to take charge.
To an extent. Dogs do have breed specific behavior. I doubt if you’d have much luck using a Pomeranian as a hunting dog and good luck trying to get a terrier to stop digging up the yard. Larger, non-sporting dogs that were primarily bred to be guard dogs could have a tendency to be more agressive particularly if untrained.
If you have a vicious dog, have plenty of insurance
"In 2003 dog bites accounted for about one quarter of all homeowner’s insurance liability claims, costing roughly $321.6 million, down slightly from about $345.5 the previous year. (Insurance Information Institute.) In 2002 (latest data available) liability claims accounted for 6 percent of homeowners claim costs. (Ibid.) The same year the average dog bite claim cost insurers $16,600. (Ibid.) In 1998, one in three homeowner insurance claims pertained to a dog bite but the average insurance payout was $12,000. (“Take the bite out of man’s best friend.” State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) "
"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"
Link to the study on this site
Well then, you deserve an explanation, and I need to examine how I got to this attitude.
I’ve been a dog lover all my life. I was raised in the 50s and 60s when no one leashed their dogs, and we’d always have a dozen dogs or so hanging around in the school yard.
I got my first german shepard puppy when I was 10 years old and that dog was my constant companion until I left home for school. I read every book on dogs I could get a hold of in the early years. We went hiking in the local woods and fields and she ran with my on my paper routes of over 5 miles each day while I biked. Each time when we got back home she was tired and tongue wagging and I would feed and water her. When my stepmother would push the baby carriage from the house to town, although she did not have much love for my dog, she always would take her to get past a couple of loose St Bernards. I was proud of her and me and my dog had a serious relationship.
I had been bitten several times as a paper boy, by dogs that didn’t scare me. A Dalmation and a cocker spaniel. My fear of dogs was confined to constantly chained or penned dogs who might inadvertantly escape.( In my mid twenties, on an Indian reservation in the early morning hours I was nearly killed by a pack of dogs, managing to escape by lunging at them back and forth, 3 steps away from the door I tried to get back to and 4 steps toward the door 100 yards away. But I accept that that was pack mentality)
But nothing scared me like when my brother introduced me to a bull terrier(very similar to a pit bull) owned by his new buddy in my early twenties.
I had never before come across Pit Bulls or this particular breed. This dog did not bark. Its body language however and confidence told me not to fuck with him or his master.
My brother eventually acquired a bull terrier early in his marriage and he ended up in every family picture. At some point I was advised not to touch his nose. I didn’t Over the years I observed this dog which appeared absolutely stupid to me aggressively pursue every activity in which it engage, even digging a hole. One time it huled itself against and through a plate glass window, ripping a muscle in its leg and dragged that leg without any hesitation towards a passing dog which was saved by the owner scooping it up. My brother had plenty of vet bills.
Well the dog died of old age and my brother never got another one. I asked him why he liked that breed. He told me that the first time he sat in his aforementioned buddy’s house his buddy instructed the dog to take a position on a wall shelf and the dog obeyed. But as the evening wore on, that dog never once took his eyes off my brother. That really impressed him
That is the intensity and tenacity of a bull terrier. I’ve seen the same intensity in pit bulls who were bred for the same purpose. They can focus to such an extent that pain and discomfort are irrelevant to them. That to me makes them dangerous. Also, just like the polar bear they have no fear of humans. They don’t need to bark to intimidate.
The statistics? There is just too many extraneous factors that are not taken into account. There are deaths maimings and just simple dog bites. There is no really good numbers on breed demographics to put even just deaths related to dog attacks by breed into a proper perspective.
What i do know is that
- dog related maiming and deaths were no an issue in the 50s and 60s.
- Never heard or saw of any pit bulls during that period.
- Pit bulls are low on the scale of dog intelligence.
- Pit bulls have a high tolerance for pain
- Pit Bull attacks are guaranteed to happen
- No one would want to be present during those attacks
- Owners have less control over pit bulls.
Sure, I may be too emotional, and choose to ignore General Patton’s William, I mean Willie. But remember that attack by a pack of dogs I mentioned earlier? If they were pit bulls, I would not be posting here today.I know that for sure.
From purely a policy standpoint, a huge problem with research in this area is the vast amount of uncertainty involved. We don’t know what a “pit bull” is (an APBT? AmStaff? Staffie? 1/2 pit bull? 1/4 pit bull? 1/16? etc). Even if we did we wouldn’t be able to tell if any individual dog belonged to that breed (unless it had papers showing it did - and AFAIK no AKC certified pit bull has ever attacked anyone). Even if could tell exactly if any given dog is a “pit bull,” we would not know how many of these “pit bulls” exist in any given area; and if we did, it would be meaningless unless we knew how many non-“pit bull” dogs lived in the same area.
This would make it extremely difficult to know what proportion of all dog attacks are caused by pit bulls. That this is a problem that is theoretically extremely difficult (I would say impossible) to solve.
I expect that most of evaluations that have been done on this question were based on the (necessarily fuzzy) criteria that jurisdictions use to define their restricted dogs, and these criteria are quite broad (i.e. it’s extremely easy for a dog that has not a drop of APBT/Am Staff/Staffy blood to be named a “pit bull”). And yet no formal evaluations have proven that BSL is effective (and there have been many formal evaluations).
Er, no, for one thing it’s not the CDC’s job to prove that bad policy is bad policy.
Under the terms that we do “research” in this day and age, failing to prove X does not mean not-X. Therefore, there is no expectation that opponents of policy X prove that it does not work (and even when they do, politicians - notably not scientists or industry experts, make public policy). Rather, the onus is on proponents of policy X to prove that it it does. They haven’t been able to, and all experts I’m aware of (CDC, AKC, CKC, dog breeders/trainers/competition organizations, etc) are against it.
What other kind of “proof” do you need?
I guarantee you that the only thing you accomplish by grabbing your kid and shrieking in that situation, is to make the dog more nervous and anxious and (therefore) potentially dangerous. Such behaviour on the part of the parents is highly irresponsible.
And dog owners who let their dogs approach strangers (or who let strangers approach their dog without putting it under their control) are irresponsible as well.
I’d like to point out that the German Shepherd is higher than the Doberman.
This is something I wanted to pick up from RedFury’s posts.
Consider an elite boxer / soldier - a highly developed fighting machine, capable of inflicting great damage on another individual. But kept under control through good training and social pressure.
However… in moments of stress, or following psychological illness, these constraints can be lost and the fighter ends up as an out-of-control Mike Tyson figure.
My question is: can the same happen to dogs?
Could a normally well-mannered, well-trained Doberman suffer a mental illness or stressor-event that could override its training and “unleash the inner beast”?