Dog whisperer's most aggressive breeds

Discodog

pH wrote: »

It seems to me you have already decided that a pitbull is no more aggressive or dangerous than a spaniel, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary you just dismiss it and make up a defence.

On the whole "bad owners" thing, I do accept that those who want a vicious dog will be attracted to these breeds, and the figures are skewed somewhat because of that but in no way does it explain those lists.

A Pitbull is no more potentially aggressive than a Spaniel but it could be more dangerous IF it attacked. Part of the "dangerous dogs" argument has been that some dogs are seen as having more fight than flight when confronted. So if you grabbed the Spaniel by the nuts it might stop biting you whereas the PB might view it as foreplay. It is the perceived fearlessness in some breeds that makes them attractive to humans often for the wrong reasons.

But the fight or flight argument will vary within different individuals of the same breed. So a demented Spaniel could do more damage than a softy PB. The problem will remain that we punish the innocent dog & not the guilty owner.

I have owned four Boxers & I have never met or heard of a vicious one so I don't know how they could be on anyone's list.

heno86

"So if you grabbed the Spaniel by the nuts it might stop biting you whereas the PB might view it as foreplay" heard lots of rumours about pitbulls but never this one.... hahaha sorry couldnt resist

Discodog

There are intelligent dogs & learn a lot from their owners .

Mind you being shagged by a PB would be infinitely better than being bitten..............as long as you keep your trousers on

pitbull_fanatic

there's no such thing as a viscious or aggressive breed. if a dog wants to bite, he will. dogs dont think..."ok i'm a pitbull so i'm going to bite your arm off". a dog bites from a reaction. something small can trigger the dog to react ending up in a bite. every dog has more or less the same mentality. but to choose a type of dog, a small one would prob bite first, due to "small man syndrome". just like in humans, go out on a sat night and its the small fella trying to make a name for himself by fighting with the big lads!

a dog is a dog regardless of breed.

lrushe

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Mostly Chihuahuas as far as I can see. Vicious buggers!

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

but to choose a type of dog, a small one would prob bite first, due to "small man syndrome".

Sometimes I can't believe the double standards applied to dogs. As the owner of both a Chihuahua and a Rottie I am sick of having to defend either one or the other.
No dog, let me repeat no dog is more predisposed to biting, not a small one, not a big one. I've had so many dogs in my lifetime ranging in size from my Chi to a Wolfhound and so many more inbetween and I've never in 25 years had a biter.
People need to get rid of the idea that this dog or that is more likely to bite than another becasue it is simply not true, there is no snappy Chihuahua, no happy go lucky Lab or killer Pit Bull, they are temperament types created by people so when things go wrong (with any breed) it is people and people alone who should take responsiblity.

The Sweeper

I agree completely that aggression is on a dog-by-dog basis. Human aggression is a fault in every single breed of dog, even dogs bred to guard property and fight other dogs. Guarding dogs are bred to guard, not to attack people. A guard dog that attacks in the wrong situation is either badly trained or aggressive, which again is a temperment fault.

Dog aggression is not the same as human aggression - so just because your dog launches himself like a missile at other dogs, that does NOT automatically equate to him launching himself at a child or another person. How many people do you know have dogs that are sweet as pie with their kids, but would eat the postman raw if they got the chance? That's the guarding instinct allowed to run riot, but it doesn't automatically make the dog dangerous (unless you're the postman).

It's much, much more complicated than 'pitbulls will kill you as soon as look at you, and spaniels won't'.

The problem is not that aggression is bred into any particular line of dogs. The problem is that aggression is taught through violent and abusive methods, and then encouraged - nurtured, even - by peoplewho WANT their dog to be aggressive.

Secondary to the human-induced problem of aggression is the size and genetic traits of the dog.

All dogs have the equipment required to do serious harm to a human in a sustained attack.

However, larger, heavier dogs pose more of a potential threat because they have more chance of delivering a sustained attack against a human.

This includes rottweilers, german shepherds, but also labradors, dalmations, newfoundlands, airedale terriers, red setters, mastiffs, old english sheepdogs... the list goes on.

The breed standard for the 'pitbull' type dogs, including the American Pitbull Terrier and the American Staffordshire terrier, and even the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if you want to include them, indicates the weight range of an adult male dog to top out at around 25kgs. The breed standard for a golden retriever adult male ranges from 27-36kgs.

A pitbull terrier was never, ever intended to reach the size of a labrador.

The hysteria around pitbull terriers is a result of them being the preferred dog for dog fighting, and media encouragement of a lack of differentiation between dog aggression and human aggression. This hysteria is then perpetuated by the kind of people who like to watch dogfights - scumbags, in plain terms. The public are intimidated by scumbags and the image they portray. QED, the public is then intimidated by the dog of choice of scumbags, which is a bull terrier type dog.

In a sensible world, the argument about dog breeds wouldn't be polarised so starkly into those who think pitbulls, rottweilers and german shepherds are the devil, and those who defend said breeds and refuse to entertain any negativity about them. It is just as ridiculous to say that pitbull terriers are harmless, as it is to say that pitbulls are dangerous. There are indeed pitbull terriers who are human aggressive and dangerous. There are also labradors who are human aggressive and dangerous.

A dog bred for dogfighting is specifically bred to have a temperment that displays no human aggression - as repeated endlessly, this is to allow handlers to safely break up a dogfight. Seriously, how do you think these blokes break up their dogfights? Would you get in the ring with two brawling pitbulls to pick up your one if you thought there was a chance that either it or your opponent's dog would turn on you? They're scumbags. They're not suicidal.

Dog attacks on human beings are the fault of human beings. Not necessarily the fault of the victim of the attack, no; but fault lies at the foot of the human in all cases - the human who didn't control the dog, the human who didn't confine the dog, the human who didn't vet the dog's lineage before breeding, the human who didn't train the dog, the human who wasn't paying attention to what their dog was doing, the human who didn't recognise the fact that every single dog has the equipment to do damage to a human, and that equipment MUST be respected.

Dogs should be judged individually, each and every one of them. Until you know the dog, trust the dog, and have extensive experience of the dog, for instance, you should NEVER assume a dog's temperment based solely on its breed.

wolfpawnat

lrushe wrote: »

Sometimes I can't believe the double standards applied to dogs. As the owner of both a Chihuahua and a Rottie I am sick of having to defend either one or the other.
No dog, let me repeat no dog is more predisposed to biting, not a small one, not a big one. I've had so many dogs in my lifetime ranging in size from my Chi to a Wolfhound and so many more inbetween and I've never in 25 years had a biter.
People need to get rid of the idea that this dog or that is more likely to bite than another becasue it is simply not true, there is no snappy Chihuahua, no happy go lucky Lab or killer Pit Bull, they are temperament types created by people so when things go wrong (with any breed) it is people and people alone who should take responsiblity.

I only made an observation lrushe. I did not mean all Chi's (cute abbreviation btw ) are evil little demons. I personally think that when you watch the show, you see that they are the ones that are spoilt absolutely rotten and become aggressive then as a result. You can spoil your dog completely without it going that far, but the people on the show often go a bit too far.

As for Rotties, I ADORE them, just don't have room in my place for anything bigger than a gerbil

getz

i used to show staffies for over 30years and i now have english bulldogs,during my show years,many of the staffie show breeders also had english bull terriers,and they would tell me that many of the pretty show breeds,[english bull terriers,german shepherds, ect] had been bred for looks and not temperament,so a lot of insanity was still in some of these breeds,

Tranceypoo

jambofc wrote: »

my jessie,rescued from a dog's life,underweight burn marks on her paws(b######s) and desperately nervous :mad:

)

Despicable.

She is a stunning dog, so proud and happy looking. I won't even bother saying 'how can people do such terrible things', they just do.

pitbull_fanatic

lrushe wrote: »

Sometimes I can't believe the double standards applied to dogs. As the owner of both a Chihuahua and a Rottie I am sick of having to defend either one or the other.
No dog, let me repeat no dog is more predisposed to biting, not a small one, not a big one. I've had so many dogs in my lifetime ranging in size from my Chi to a Wolfhound and so many more inbetween and I've never in 25 years had a biter.
People need to get rid of the idea that this dog or that is more likely to bite than another becasue it is simply not true, there is no snappy Chihuahua, no happy go lucky Lab or killer Pit Bull, they are temperament types created by people so when things go wrong (with any breed) it is people and people alone who should take responsiblity.

you cant just quote a sentance from me. i didnt mention a breed. my very first line says that there is no aggressive breed. its a known fact that if you had dogs of all shapes and sizes that the small ones would nip ya first. not due to breed but size (in as nice a tone as possible)

CL32

The Sweeper wrote: »

QED, the public is then intimidated by the dog of choice of scumbags, which is a bull terrier type dog.

Could I just add to that, that the public is intimidated by the dog of choice of scumbags, which is currently a bull terrier type dog. Rest of your post is top class. Great points, very well articulated.

This was not always the case. In the 80's it was GSD's and in the 90's it was Rotties. Fashion trends amongst these clowns change. The BBC programme on Battersea Dogs home reported that under a hundred Staffies were picked up in the 80's versus just under 3,000 last year.

The RSPCA have come out and pleaded with the public to rehome Staffs as 'these wonderful dogs have been getting a terrible press lately' (I'll edit with links later)

When I got my Staff I was warned about the reactions I would get from strangers, but thought it wouldn't bother me. Boy was I wrong.

I've got the evil eyes off some of the very same people who stopped me in the street to fuss over her when she was a pup. Thats all they saw - a pup. When they asked what she was and I said a Stafford, they smiled blankly and told me how cute she was etc. Now she is growing into herself all anyone seems to think is PITBULL (what ever that is).

I walked past two ladies chatting in the park the other day. One had a Poodle X with her. As we passed it launched itself at my dog - I thought the woman holding it would dislocate her arm trying to hold it back. She didn't even look at me but remarked to her friend that 'You'd think I had the Pitbull' I responded that I didn't have a Pitbull either but she couldn't allow herself to even acknowledge my existence. It felt good telling her she had no control over her dangerous, untrained dog and offered her a bag to clean up the mess it had left beside her as we approached.

@ PH: Please don't take this as being 'shouted down' but I think the RB crowd, as we are know on here, tend to get up in arms because we are the very RB owners who seem to socialise and train our dogs. Care for them (spoil them?) and educate ourselves about them and other breeds. Take an interest in their health, nutrition and exercise and generally behave as responsibly as possible.

I'm not naieve enough to think every RB owner is like this, but the usual suspects here seem to be. And trust me - thick skin as I have, some of the reactions I have gotten to what I know is a big muscly marshmallow have upset me alot more than I would have thought. First time I've admitted that actually so don't tell my OH

lrushe

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

you cant just quote a sentance from me. i didnt mention a breed. my very first line says that there is no aggressive breed. its a known fact that if you had dogs of all shapes and sizes that the small ones would nip ya first. not due to breed but size (in as nice a tone as possible)

But can't you see you are contradicting yourself, ok you are not discriminating between breeds but you are on the basis of size which is just as bad. A dog is a dog is dog, a big one doesn't have a different psyche to a small one it's all about the person on the end of the leash.
As I have said I have had dogs of all size, no one dog had any more of a tendency to bite than another so I don't know how it can be known fact that a small dog will bite quicker than a big one as this has not been my experience.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CreedonsDogDayc wrote: »

I only have him just over a week, but within 10 mins I had totally fallen for him, and when he's mixing with the other dogs he's so submissive, he's a pleasure to have around.

Just on that note.

I've never met a soul who didn't immediately fall in love with my Staffs/Pits after meeting my guys.

In fact I've often offered (on this forum) for people who were afraid of dogs, or who have had bad experiences, to meet mine.

Staffs and Pits are just the softest dogs ever.

boardbrowser

you might be surprised to learn what data the American temperment testing society has collected regarding breeds and temperment.
Can't beat extensive study as oppossed to anecdotal evidence regarding ANY breed.
www.atts.org

scudzilla

As soon as i read that and saw that Boxer's had made the Top 6 i came to 2 conclusions.

1. Most people who voted were American, the same one's who think that Afghanistan is in Europe and Tony Blair was an actor in Dynasty

2. Cesar Milan is just a total gobshite

Discodog

boardbrowser wrote: »

you might be surprised to learn what data the American temperment testing society has collected regarding breeds and temperment.
Can't beat extensive study as oppossed to anecdotal evidence regarding ANY breed.
www.atts.org

Maybe. But you also can't necessarily believe results from so called temperament testing. Interestingly the vast majority of breeds achieve a very similar result. So much so that it appears, at a first glance, to vindicate the view that temperament is more an owner thing than breed.
The results seem to suggest that temperament testing is a waste of time.

The "test" involves a "handler" but I cannot see any reference as to whether this is a stranger or the dog's owner. The "test" seems to be used by breeders as a doggy NCT - I am guessing that they put "Temperament Tested" on the puppy adverts. Also like the NCT I doubt that an owner is going to pay for a test if they think that their dog might fail. Because temperament is owner dependant it might make little difference if a pup comes from tested parents.

pitbull_fanatic

86%!! yay


boxers are actually banned in certain states in america believe it or not! i couldnt believe it when i herd it. i still dont believe it! i only ever met 1 aggresive territorial boxer in my life and she wasnt socialised at all so thats the reason there!

seamus

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

boxers are actually banned in certain states in america believe it or not! i couldnt believe it when i herd it. i still dont believe it! i only ever met 1 aggresive territorial boxer in my life and she wasnt socialised at all so thats the reason there!

I think boxers can look quite intimidating - their size, their speed, their look. Most boxers I've met when out, appear to be taking an aggressive or intimidating stance when they come over, but I've realised that this is just the breed.

adser53

Well I'm not much of a thread starter, I've contributed very little to this discussion
I agree with Irushe that we are guilty of double standards (sadly). We RB owners are on here weekly defending our breeds from the the people that automatically assume they're lethal weapons. But in doing so, nearly all of us have said the likes of "jrts are more vicious than my lad etc" So there are double standards on here. Not all small/toy breeds are snappy but their size means they're treated differently in a lot of cases than a larger dog. This leads to their behaviour problems and unfortunately I think most people on here have had actual experiences with a vicious small dog than a vicious PB, Rottie GSD, Akita etc. It's not fair because there are good owners of toy breeds and RBs. I have a cav (up until recently had 2 but one sadly passed) and I know if someone came on here saying all cavs are vicious, I would be just as quick to defend them as I am to defend Akita and the other RBs. So again, it comes back to the owners that are the root if the problem which is why I try my best to judge the owner before the dog when I'm out. But this too leads can be tricky....
I'm a 26 year old Dublin fella that walks his dogs in public, often in a tracksuit and 9 times out of 10 people avoid me when I walk one or both of my Akitas (doesn't happen when I have the cav with me mind you ). My dogs are placid, well trained and socialised so theyre great when were out. Now if you saw me coming, you'd probably be wary and be saying "here's a youngfella with a big dog, probably thinks it makes him look hard etc" but in my case it couldn't be further from the truth. And I'll admit to having brief thoughts like that if I'm approaching a fella with a big dog, I'm not proud of it but years of conditioning by the media makes it an almost instinctive reaction. But when I see them, I then judge the owners and the dogs together to determine if I think there going to be trouble. I do this for small dogs too and dya know what I think then...."I'm glad that one crossed the road cos that little fecker looks like he'd take the ankles off me!" I then pass the lad with tue GSD and we have a quick chat about how lovely eachothers dogs are while the 2 furries have a little sniff and a play. In the distance the woman with the ankle biter looks back and tuts to herself about how she cant walk her dog in public anymore cos of all these land sharks that are about

Jinxi

Came accross a Presa Canario today in the park. He was stunning, bit also intimidating. Think build of a mastiff, shape of a staffie. His owners also has a GSD. Both lovely but boistous dogs. Played with my collie(I was nervous but she is way faster and more agile and had no problem using me as a human sheild when she had enough:eek::rolleyes:). Owners kept apologising like they were worried that I was afraid of their dogs. I would hate to be in that position every time I walked my dog.
Also, I was also just wondering why everyone is so Anti-Milano.

lrushe

Jinxi wrote: »

Owners kept apologising like they were worried that I was afraid of their dogs. I would hate to be in that position every time I walked my dog.

I'm kinda like that, my Rottie will 'stalk' a dog she is approaching, she looks like a Border Collie herding sheep and I feel myself jumping in to tell the other owner that she's friendly before the other owner has even asked. Unfortunately as the owner of a RB you quickly become conditioned to defending your dog before anyone has the chance to put it down (verbally, not literally!:))

Cherry Blossom

Jinxi wrote: »

Also, I was also just wondering why everyone is so Anti-Milano.

Personally because it seems to me that the whole basis of his methods seems to be trick the dog into being submissive then claim that the result is a well balanced dog. His methods are based completely on how the handler acts and don't actually train the dogs. I'd love to see how one of them would turn out if they ended up in daycare or kennels for a week without a handbook on how to deal with them.

TechnoPool

IMO people have gone on looks more so than anything in that poll

bullylover

here's a pic of my "bull type" male, who accompanies everyday to work, i work with horses 50+ and 6 resident dogs not to mention da few wafes and strays we take in!
Alot of people comment on him, most are nervous when meeting him, and then ya have to pries him out of there arms when there leaving.
The pic is of ma boy at one of our horse shows, kitted out like the rest of the us:) he even got his own whistle:)

**Vai**

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Personally because it seems to me that the whole basis of his methods seems to be trick the dog into being submissive then claim that the result is a well balanced dog. His methods are based completely on how the handler acts and don't actually train the dogs. I'd love to see how one of them would turn out if they ended up in daycare or kennels for a week without a handbook on how to deal with them.

You cant trick a dog into behaving or being submissive. It either behaves or it doesnt. Thats like saying teaching a dog to sit is like tricking it into sitting. My 2 dogs have been trained mainly using his methods (most of which are just common sense) and its working very well for me. And they have been cared for twice by different friends of mine who have had no complaints about behaviour.

tatabubbly

In our house we have 3 jrt, a black labrador and a springer spaniel and tbh, the only dog that misbehaves is the labrador... The jrt are well trained and show no signs of aggression... The spaniel is a big ole lump of lazyiness

I'm not a fan of big dogs myself, i work in a pet store so I come in contact with them a lot... I'm one of those people who will cross the road if they seen a large breed coming with my jrt, but only because i'm not comfortable with them....not due to the dog itself..

it's all to do with the training ... bad training = bad dog no matter what breed it is

borderlinemeath

Whispered wrote: »

I have the "flicker of doubt" around red setters due to an unprovoked attack on a foster dog I had here. Then the dog turned on it's idiot owner when he tried to pull her off. Terrifying.

But I know it's my problem, and it was the dog and not the breed who did it. (and very obviously the owners fault :mad:). I'm sure when I meet a friendly one it'll get rid of any doubt but for now, my only dealing with a RS was a very bad one.

Same with small dogs, I'm always worried they may be snappy, and indeed, even out walking, my fella has been verbally attacked by jrts and other tiny dogs a good few times. But again the problem obviously lies with the owner. The trouble a small dog who is uncontrolled can cause is amazing! And a lot of the time these smaller dogs who do cause problems do so because their owners think they're too small/cute to need discipline.

Thats really wierd, Red/Irish setters are one of the most docile, shy breeds. What type of a foster dog did you have? I know my girl reacts to some breeds with a slight hostility - for example she isn't fond of a local weimeraner who we meet out occasionally on the beach - but this is due to the weimeraner being a very territorial breed and having low tolerance of other dogs and I'm sure my girl senses this from him.
Normally when she meets dogs she's submissive at first - then after the initial sniff about she plays away with them. The weimeraner however doesn't get the same treatment at all - she stands up and the heckles on her back go up and on one occasion she had a bit of a lip curl - almost baring her teeth but not quite.

Whispered

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What type of a foster dog did you have?

A boxer x, shorter but wider than a boxer, same head and colourings. I had picked her up the night before, so this was our first proper walk. I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with her, she is the most docile dog I have ever laid my eyes on. In fact while the setter was attacking, she just kept looking at me, didn't even try to defend herself.

The dog then attacked her owner when he tried to pull her off. Owner had no control what so ever.

daenerysstormborn3

Very interesting thread (only just spotted it now) and very interesting opinion on the dangerous breeds list.

I would definitely be of the school of thought that it is the owners not the breed that make a particular dog dangerous. Yes, there are more incidents of certain dogs being dangerous/violent/attacking people but a dog can be trained to do anything and not do anything, within reason.

I have a great dane and when I lived in dublin city and was walking him around the city I was regularly asked by people (after already putting their hands on the dog) if he bites. This kind of question annoys me because there is no way of telling how a dog will react to new people or new situations, plus walking up to any dog and putting your hands on it before asking the owner is hardly the most advisable behaviour.

I have to say I really like Cesar Milan and his methods. In my opinion, you can't trick a dog, they're really not that clever and this is coming from the owner of a great dane who can do just about every trick imaginable.

Discodog

pixiebean22 wrote: »

you can't trick a dog, they're really not that clever

We are beginning to realise that dogs are far more intelligent than was supposed. Rico, the Collie in Germany, has learnt over 200 words & can recognise objects from words & photos. No other animal can interpret & read human behaviour better than a dog.

From what I have seen of Milan he treats the dog as an idiot. Anyone who has studied Wolf behaviour will know that it is very complex. Dogs have added a raft of abilities beyond those of a Wolf.

A measure of a dog's ability are the amazing "disability dogs" that have a button that they can activate that is linked to the emergency services. The incredible thing is that the dogs never seem to get it wrong.