Dangerous Dogs.........

Discodog

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There are, whether you care to admit it or not, some breeds of dog which are more predisposed to being agressive than others and for thise stricter precautions need to be follow.

With respect that is utter rubbish & no trainer, behaviourist, or expert would agree with you. No breed is predisposed to aggression. Get yourself a copy of "In Defence of Dogs" by Prof Bradshaw. It is the culmination of 20 years of studying dogs at Bristol University. It will open your eyes regarding your own dog.

deaddonkey

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you are mis-reading both my posts and your own links, either deliberatly or by mistake.

If you look at your links the dogs with the highest numbers next to them include Rottwiler, Akita, Pit Bull (and it's variations) and Bull Mastiff...all of which are named in the link I provided.

It's clear that you firmly believe in animal welfare which is commendable and I am with you there.....up to the point where human lives are endangered.


I trust my dog for all the reasons you mentioned (except the small and cuddly bit, he's a Lab-Collie cross) but I also know his limits and respect them. He knows where he stands with us too.

I really fail to see what aspects of my post you're struggling with and suggest that you are simply arguing for the sake of it now.

If you look at my link, you'll see that the labrador X were responsible for 1110 attacks that caused bodily harm, 495 cild victims, 397 adult victims, 104 deaths and 608 maimings.

HIGHER NUMBERS THAN ANY OTHER BREED OR CROSSBREED ON THAT LIST EXCEPT ROTTWEILER/SHARPEI

Do you muzzle your dog when you're out? If not, why not? You're avoiding my questions now.

There are, whether you care to admit it or not, some breeds of dog which are more predisposed to being agressive than others and for thise stricter precautions need to be follow. But any dog, any animal, needs to be treated with respect and caution.

Make the accusations, provide the proof.

MightyBouche

Believing a dog breed is inherently dangerous is absolute ignorance and nothing more.

The dogs commonly referred to as "dangerous" include Rottweilers, Dobermen and German Shepherd Dogs. These breds were created specifically and were bred to be extremely human friendly/loving, whilst dedicated performers at the tasks they've been bred to do (working dogs - guarding/herding/sled driving/etc). Their success and survival as a breed isn't due to some inherent insistence to attack humans. Being used to aid the image of little knackers with small penises is a new thing.

Some dogs were bred to fight, that much is undeniable. However, in doing so, they were also bred to be EXTREMELY human friendly as humans were the ones who had to deal with them in the fighting ring, hence why the bull terrier breeds can be some of the most loving dogs you'll come across.

These dogs differ from other "non-dangerous" dogs only in their capability and strength - traits that were bred into them for the good of humans, not the hinderance. It only becomes an issue when they are given to people who do not care to teach the dog correctly and end up bringing up dogs with mental or aggression issues.

So no, I don't believe in "dangerous" dogs. I do believe there is a significant issue with the access inbred scumbags have to these dogs and the lack of accountability they're given when they don't train the dogs correctly. How this should be tackled, I don't know, however I really detest them being "outlawed" in some places merely because the government can't prevent scumbags from getting their hands on them and treating them in a way that they in no way deserve, gaining them a reputation that they in no way deserve.

NTMK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I
If you look at your links the dogs with the highest numbers next to them include Rottwiler, Akita, Pit Bull (and it's variations) and Bull Mastiff...all of which are named in the link I provided.

Yes but does this list account for quality of training most of these breeds on it have a common personality trait of being stubborn Akitas are bought because of how the look as a pup. people dont realise that they are very stubborn and need alot of training and exercise. sadly most dont get it. same can be said for the other dogs on the list their quality of owners and popularity heavily skew the figures. labs are just as bad and the stats show it yet properly trained they are used as guide dogs and police dogs

this agressive breed theory is horse****

LH Pathe

Born to Die wrote: »

Most of the danger with a lot of dogs is with the idiot attached to the other side of the leash.

maybe a Snoop Catt or Nate Catt could have changed this... Pitbull does not help. Less a dog culture, more a pop culture. Savage.

Doc Ruby

Its probably been said in one form or another, but the preponderance of attacks by certain breeds is probably due to the tendency of dicks to select those breeds and abuse them into beng aggressive. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. With that said though some breeds are undeniably naturally aggressive, for example the Cordoba Fighting Dog:

The breed had such strong aggression toward other dogs that the males and females would rather fight than mate.

I guess that's towards other dogs though.

Zab wrote: »

The story about the Pomeranian is only there to evoke emotions. That was the only reported Pomeranian bite between 1982 and 2006.

And a horrible story it is too, my little Pomeranian pup, other than being a bit wilful and hard to train, is entirely too friendly, she jumps up on other dogs and they sometimes mistake it for aggression. Ah we'll get there. She does make an excellent watchdog though.

NTMK

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its probably been said in one form or another, but the preponderance of attacks by certain breeds is probably due to the tendency of dicks to select those breeds and abuse them into beng aggressive. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. With that said though some breeds are undeniably naturally aggressive, for example the Cordoba Fighting Dog:

I guess that's towards other dogs though.

I think the problem with it was that it was created for dog fighting so was it a case of the breed being naturally agressive or the fact that most who owned the breed used them for dog fighting

wexie

deaddonkey wrote: »

..... 1110 attacks that caused bodily harm, 495 cild victims, 397 adult victims, 104 deaths and 608 maimings.

I'm not the only one to see those numbers listed for pitbulls right?

(still completely agree with you though deaddonkey and I firmly believe your theory stands)

cruizer101

deaddonkey wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to read a basic table. That's a shame.

The table is wrong, if you look at the bottom you can see the numbers are a few rows up from the bottom. They havn't accounted for the fact that some of the breed descriptions take up more than one line.

So it seems you don't seem to be able to read a badly made complicated table which is perfectly understandable.

I've attached the corrected table, you can see what you thought was the Lab x was in fact pitbull type dogs.

Lab crosses account for 10 attacks Labs 26 and 2 deaths.

While a chart like this is interesting it by no means tells the whole story, like how many dogs of a particular kind there are or what kind of dogs certain kinds of people are more likely to buy. At teh end of the day doggies generally just want to please humans, it just sadly happens that in some cases the best way they can please their human owner is by attacking.

Discodog

Doc Ruby wrote: »

With that said though some breeds are undeniably naturally aggressive, for example the Cordoba Fighting Dog:

A link from Wiki in a extinct breed with all the knowledge that existed at the time :rolleyes:.

Most of the dog bite statistics are irrelevant because they do not take other factors into account. Irresponsible owners that want a guard or weapon dog choose certain breeds so it is no wonder if their bite incidence is higher.

A survey of Vets by these people found that the most likely dog to bite is the Chihuahua

http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/

wexie

Discodog wrote: »

A survey of Vets by these people found that the most likely dog to bite is the Chihuahua

http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/

That's probably just cause the vets were trying to rob their taco's

keithclancy

We thought our Dog was being aggressive once.

A Chicken had escaped from the Kids petting farm in the park down the road from us.

She ran towards it and jumped on it, we ran over and I had to pull her off, she was humping it.

My dog is a chicken rapist. :eek:

Cheeky_gal

Great Danes.

They should actually be put on a lead :mad:

cruizer101

Someone had mentioned a gemtel Irish wolfhound earlier, just noticed they aren't on the list proving they are gentle giants. True they are a rare enough dog but sure those pug/rottweiler mixes:eek: have 2 attacks to their names and i can't imagine there is many of them.

Jimoslimos

I think there is a lot of emotion flying about here and people are being blinded by their own arguments - most of it in the form of ancedoctal evidence, "My staffie is lovely, never hurt a fly" and in deaddonkey's case, completely false, misleading and invented statistics

I often see people listing "loyality" as an important and desirable trait. To a point yes, but loyality can be extremely dangerous and increases the likelyhood a dog sees any outside (of its owner/immediate family) contact, even friendly, as a threat.

First, a question. Would you say it is more dangerous to keep a hand reared tiger/lion/wolf than say an average domestic dog? I know it's inter-species, but bear with me!

I'm guessing most people would say the dog is safer. But both would be raised by the same owner/environment etc? Still dog. Why? Perhaps because they've been domesticated for thousands of years and wild cats haven't.

Ah, but this argument works both ways, a breed of dog that has bred for many many generations to fight and be agresssive isn't magically in a few generations going to be comparable to one bred for docility.

Finally, I do agree withe everyone who states that humans are the problem here. Of course we are - we're the ones who took the dog out of its initial natural environment and bred selective traits into them.

deaddonkey wrote: »

a dog's life is a life too. Why should their freedom be restricted (muzzle, lead, put to sleep), when they have done nothing wrong, just because some people with prejudices want to label a whole breed as dangerous because it suits them?

On the other hand it's perfectly reasonable to make a dog subservient to you, and claim "ownership" over it. You're also guilty of projecting human emotions and traits onto an entire seperate species.

Wibbs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's not 'poopy', it's just my opinion. I don't believe you can completely get rid of any animals wild instincts.

If anything we increased aggression in the domestication process. While contrary to popular belief wolves will attack lone humans on rare occasions, wolves in general are incredibly timid animals whose first instinct is to get the fook outa dodge at the slightest hint of trouble. They would make the worst guard animals ever.

It's a wild dog's instinct to protect itself, to feed when it's starving, to defend it's territory. And if that means attacking and killing people it will do it.

Again incorrect. Wild canids would just run away, be they dingos or wolves. You could walk right up to a wolf den and they'd be long gone 99% of the time.

cruizer101 wrote: »

Someone had mentioned a gemtel Irish wolfhound earlier, just noticed they aren't on the list proving they are gentle giants.

Right... so just because it's not on "the list" you''d believe it's not dangerous? What sort of sideways logic is that? *facepalm in frustration* Unreal.

You do realise that one dog on the list the German Shepherd while less popular now was once the go to dog for guide dogs for disabled people? The same breed was the working dog for mountain rescue, search and rescue in earthquake zones and disaster areas etc? And one of the most trusted breeds with children. The wild dog/domestic dog debate really goes out the window on them as the originator of the breed introduced wolf blood into the lines early on. Of the others? The Doberman is famous for having one of the lowest attack % on owners and families.

And look at the breeds not on the list. There are any number of breeds that would have most of that list for a snack.

deaddonkey

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You're also guilty of projecting human emotions and traits onto an entire seperate species.

That's complete BS. You think a dog that spends its life on a lead and muzzle is as happy as a dog that regularly runs free and socialises? Can you hook me up with what you're smoking?

You can claim ownership over animals and still treat them with respect. Animals aren't stupid and domestic dogs are extrmely emotionally intelligent. It says quite a lot about you though that you're willing to treat an animal with prejudice because it isn't human.

deaddonkey

I'm actually astounded at the incredible amount of ignorance displayed towards our closest animal friends here.

Y'all got no idea what you owe dogs, can any of you imagine the last 15000 years and teh rise of agriculture without dogs? We owe them everything and you're willing to look at them and call them dangerous by nature because you believe everything you hear instead of getting, y'know, actual real world experience working with the animals

I'm ashamed to be human tonight.

deaddonkey

I've met and worked with hundreds and hundreds of dogs from all kinds of backgrounds.

The only dog that's ever bitten me was a Dachshund, and he wasn't bad, I was an idiot and deserved it and should have seen it coming.

cruizer101

Wibbs wrote: »

Right... so just because it's not on "the list" you''d believe it's not dangerous? What sort of sideways logic is that? *facepalm in frustration* Unreal

I don't for one minute think an Irish woulfhound hasn't the potential to be dangerous. A badly trained one could very potentailly be very dangerous indeed. That post was more tongue in cheek than anything trying to make fun of the pug rottweiler mix which I have no idea how would work.

Maybe you missed my earlier post

cruizer101 wrote:

While a chart like this is interesting it by no means tells the whole story, like how many dogs of a particular kind there are or what kind of dogs certain kinds of people are more likely to buy. At teh end of the day doggies generally just want to please humans, it just sadly happens that in some cases the best way they can please their human owner is by attacking.

I do though find it interesting that it isn't on the list, firstly I do believe different breeds of dogs do have different tempermants however I believe as I thought I had made clear in my first post a few previous to that one, that the main factor is how the dog is brought up, nuture over nature.

To be honest I feel in some ways the list is quite meaningless. Firstly how many of each kind of dog are owned. What kind of owners tend to buy this kind of dog, what situation was the dog in when it attacked, there are far to many variables for a table like this to mean anything useful. The only breed on that list I'd be worried about even with responsible owners would be the wolf hybrid.


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

Wibbs

deaddonkey wrote: »

can any of you imagine the last 15000 years and teh rise of agriculture without dogs?

Try nearly 32,000 years and IMHO that's unlikely to be the earliest.

Y'all got no idea what you owe dogs,

Indeed. Again IMHO and a pet theory of mine, one big reason we outcompeted folks like the Neandertals was because we had dogs and they didn't. To outcompete a human who was far stronger than us, more suited to the environment compared to the skinny newbies from Africa and had lived in that variable environment for 300,000 plus years needs a killer app or two. One of those I reckon was oul Fido. At some point(or many) we looked at each other and the wolf thought "you know I could work with you monkey boy" and we thought "jayzuz you've big teeth, but you're cute and great tracker with a better nose than me". It stands out as the only example where humans domesticated an apex predator. We're also very similar in other ways, even compared to our cousins the great apes. We both run in family groups, we're both nomadic hunters with defined ranges, we're pretty easy going on what we'll eat and most of all we're both one of the very few apex predators that will target and bring down animals much bigger than ourselves. It was good for them too. Wolves today are quite constricted in range, extinct in many places, yet the dog that may lay at your feet which shares 99.9% of their DNA is one of the most widespread mammals on the planet.

TBH what really surprises me is how few dog attacks there are. Look at our other furry mates, the cats. Cats being sensible buggers in the main have no issue with letting you know if you're pushing your luck. They'll lash out with a scratchy reminder that you've crossed a line. May even bite. I have never heard of calls for a cat to be put down no matter what the damage. Horses? Horses can be bloody dangerous, have even killed people, yet I've never heard of calls for a horse to be destroyed. Dogs by comparison are expected to be always compliant, expected to take shíte without complaint, effectivey be furry humans. Like I say I'm near shocked more don't think "Fcuk this for a game of soldiers I'm handing out a warning bite to this muppet".

cruizer101

Just on that thought of outcompeting the Neandertals because of dogs, I saw somewhere recently here it suggested we may never, or at least it would have been much later, have domesticated any animals were it not for the fact we domesticated dogs. Which was in some ways a two way domestication, we didn't go out of our way to do it, they more kinda just followed us and gradually built up to domestication.

Once we had dogs on our side people thought why not other animals and so began farming of animals. I'm not really sure how this fits in with other timelines would it have been before or after we started crop farming. I'd hazard a guess we could have been sheparding animals before we started farming as it would marry with hunting and gathering much better me thinks.

Wibbs

cruizer101 wrote: »

I don't for one minute think an Irish woulfhound hasn't the potential to be dangerous. A badly trained one could very potentailly be very dangerous indeed. That post was more tongue in cheek than anything trying to make fun of the pug rottweiler mix which I have no idea how would work.

Apologies C. I've actually heard people come out with that kind of "logic" and unlike you they weren't joking. I kid thee not. "It's on de lisht and de govement wudnt lie, so deyre dangrous"*dribbles*

I do though find it interesting that it isn't on the list, firstly I do believe different breeds of dogs do have different tempermants however I believe as I thought I had made clear in my first post a few previous to that one, that the main factor is how the dog is brought up, nuture over nature.

Agreed.

To be honest I feel in some ways the list is quite meaningless. Firstly how many of each kind of dog are owned. What kind of owners tend to buy this kind of dog, what situation was the dog in when it attacked, there are far to many variables for a table like this to mean anything useful.

+1

The only breed on that list I'd be worried about even with responsible owners would be the wolf hybrid.

are they even on the list C? I don't think they are. In any event and luckily enough 99.splat% of so called "wolf hybrids" in Ireland have zero recent wolf ancestry in them. Of the incredibly rare ones that do the vast majority are very diluted. I've seen pics on boards claiming wolf hybrid and I've yet to see the real deal. Which goes back to nurture and expectation. The people who think they have one somehow act out that expectation and the 100% dog follows suit. If they think wolves are unagressive and easygoing their "hybrid" is unaggressive and easygoing. If they think wolves are vicious hard arses? Guess what...

Rolli

..

I think St Bernards should be classed as a dangerous dog. It would be pretty dangerous if one fell on your head.

Pottler

I have a "dangerous dog" sitting on my couch 10 feet away. Funnily enough, he's the best dog I've ever had when it comes to temperament - he tolerates everything my kids do, loves to play, has a totally woosie nature under the ferocious apperance and when it comes to other dogs, he's oblivious - he just seems to presume they will take one look and forget about getting nasty - which they always do. It's funny, but other male dogs just act different around him as if they sense that they'd better be nice. I laugh to myself because when anyone new calls to our yard, their first question is always - "jasus, is the dog going to be ok with me??" If they only knew that he might lick and slobber them to death but thats about it. Looks like a feckin crocodile though.

shot2go

Any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands or mistreated, they need to be taught right from wrong from day1.
I have a giant breed dog who is the most loveable thing ever but so strong there is so way I could have a dog like that if I could not control her
We also had a jack Russell who one day just turned around and charged at my daughter on her swings jumped up and was hanging from his teeth on her hand. That diog was treated excatly the same as our other dogs

Zab

deaddonkey wrote: »

I'm actually astounded at the incredible amount of ignorance displayed towards our closest animal friends here.

Y'all got no idea what you owe dogs, can any of you imagine the last 15000 years and teh rise of agriculture without dogs? We owe them everything and you're willing to look at them and call them dangerous by nature because you believe everything you hear instead of getting, y'know, actual real world experience working with the animals

I'm ashamed to be human tonight.

Okay, so the link you posted earlier doesn't render correctly in Firefox which is why you got bad statistics from it. Go back and have a look with another browser, have a look here at the original report that they're citing. That said, if you'd actually read the links you'd posted rather than scanning them for information that supported your theory you would have noticed that something was up with the statistics you were posting, so it's a bit rich to accuse others of ignorance.

Zab

As I see it the problem with the "it's the owner not the breed" argument is that, while it's almost certainly correct, it's ignoring the facts. The statistics being posted in this thread (albeit from the US) show that almost 70% of fatal attacks come from "pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids" (stats).

No doubt certain types of people being drawn to these breeds will have an impact on the statistics, but nobody has come up with any evidence proving that that's the only reason these dogs end up killing people. More likely is that they're also more difficult to train than other dogs, so that well intentioned people also end up with dogs that end up biting.

This would lead me to think that perhaps the current regulations are flawed. Instead of coming at it from the leashing and muzzling angle (which likely doesn't help anything), they should have targeted the owners. Realistically they only way I can see that happening is via some sort of owner licencing scheme (including a test of some sort), or perhaps a choice between a licence or mandatory training by somebody with a training licence. Obviously I haven't thought this one totally through so I'm open to suggestions.

woodoo

The problem for people out there is they don't know of your Pitt Bull is well mannered or not. They just know if its not and attacks it can do a lot of damage. The same doesn't apply to a Jack Russell or a Cocker spaniel or a sheep dog. They may attack too but wouldn't do as much damage.

I'm seeing a lot of these big dogs where i'm from, Staffies, Pitt Bulls, Bull Mastiffs. They are never muzzled and are allowed on those extendable leads.

AudreyHepburn

Ok I've clearly ruffled a lot of feathers here and that really wasn't my intention when I started this thread. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as some paranoid dog hater because that could not be further from the truth.

I was just looking for a reasoned discussion about the owning of dogs which would be considered dangerous, or more dangerous than other breeds.

I do believe a lot of is it down to the owner and certainly there needs to be tougher regulations on who can and cannot own dogs. But I still believe that certain breeds do have more agressive tendancies, either naturally or because it has been bred into them over generations.

And until people start treating their animals properly and taking the correct precautions it unfortuntatly has to be the animal thay pays the price. I don't like it but safety has to come first.

I do apologies if I've offended anyone though. There are clearly a lot of people here senstive about this issue and it really was not my intention to upset anyone.

ScumLord

Discodog wrote: »

A survey of Vets by these people found that the most likely dog to bite is the Chihuahua

The small dogs where naturally breed to be rodent killers on farms, they are supposed to be fearless and vicious. If you have a rodent problem a small dog will be much more effective than any cat at eradicating the rodents. Most people who own these small dogs don't know they've bought a highly strung working dog. When their kept in a life of luxury and not exercised or kept mentally active of course their going to go bat **** crazy. If you had a highly strung athlete and locked them in a room for most of their day the person would go crazy just as quickly.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I often see people listing "loyality" as an important and desirable trait. To a point yes, but loyality can be extremely dangerous and increases the likelyhood a dog sees any outside (of its owner/immediate family) contact, even friendly, as a threat.

That's really true, I've had a Doberman years ago and a friend had one more recently. They seem to bound with one person and just don't have much interest in the attentions of other people. My Doberman seemed so friendly to me but seemed to hate other people and it eventually got him put down. My friends dog wasn't mean like mine was but just wasn't friendly either.

Wibbs wrote: »

If anything we increased aggression in the domestication process.

We thought them to bark insistently anyway. This is the problem really, the dogs are doing what we breed them to do but our world has changed in an incredibly short space of time and dogs have no place in our world any more. Dogs are supposed to be highly alert, loud and aggressive against anything outside their clan/pack/group. That doesn't work in a city.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. Again IMHO and a pet theory of mine, one big reason we outcompeted folks like the Neandertals was because we had dogs and they didn't.

Probably a huge advantage, it's amazing how similar humans are dogs are despite looking so different. The other advantage we have over Neanderthals is they didn't exchange culture like we did. Once one group of humans used dogs, every human within walking distance of the original group would have ended up using dogs too.

arybvtcw0eolkf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

[There are however some breeds of dog which, in my opinion, are far more predisposed to be aggressive than others (even when treated well and trained right) and with these, I’m not sure owning one is a good idea. Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

What is your opinion of the Japanese Tosa (G on the list you posted)?.

And if you care to answer, what or who formed your opinion of the dog.

hatrickpatrick

Policing dangerous dogs is onviously important, but as usual Ireland goes completely overboard. I mean come on, alsatians and rottweilers? Neither of these dogs are dangerous unless you train them to be.

The list of restricted breeds is somewhere on citizensinformation, again it's a good idea in theory but Ireland is just....
We seem to over ban and over restrict just about everything in this country. It's the same story with fireworks, strong bodybuilding supplements, health foods, and a whole load of other sutff - banned in Ireland outright, sensibly regulated elsewhere.

Remember when the phone hacking scandal broke and they talked about BANNING remote access to voicemails, when every sensible nation was talking about simply having a mandatory random default password?

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

The small dogs where naturally breed to be rodent killers on farms, they are supposed to be fearless and vicious. If you have a rodent problem a small dog will be much more effective than any cat at eradicating the rodents. Most people who own these small dogs don't know they've bought a highly strung working dog. When their kept in a life of luxury and not exercised or kept mentally active of course their going to go bat **** crazy. If you had a highly strung athlete and locked them in a room for most of their day the person would go crazy just as quickly.

Very much so.

We thought them to bark insistently anyway.

Yea wolves rarely if ever bark. neither do some breeds like huskies. Apparently wolves will learn to bark around humans especially if they observe dogs doing it(and the dogs howl more). They seem to catch on that we're pretty deaf by comparison so have to "shout".

This is the problem really, the dogs are doing what we breed them to do but our world has changed in an incredibly short space of time and dogs have no place in our world any more. Dogs are supposed to be highly alert, loud and aggressive against anything outside their clan/pack/group. That doesn't work in a city.

There's a lot of that aspect too. Hence cats fit in more to our lives as they're "part time pets" by comparison. I'd say it's less the move to the cities, after all Rome and Athens had pet dogs all the way back to Babylon. I reckon it's the modern nuclear family work practices with both partners working that has made the diff. The dogs are left on their own for most of the day. In say 1950's Ireland with housewives and 6 kid Catholic families the dogs "pack" would have been more consistent. Cats fit into that dynamic way better.

Probably a huge advantage, it's amazing how similar humans are dogs are despite looking so different. The other advantage we have over Neanderthals is they didn't exchange culture like we did. Once one group of humans used dogs, every human within walking distance of the original group would have ended up using dogs too.

It seems they may well have had cultural exchange(they even exchanged stuff with us). Every year brings more evidence that they were far more like us in every way than we would have thought even a decade ago and that makes their extinction even more odd. Very recent discoveries still being picked over suggests they may have even had figurative art before us in Europe. The only real diffs left seem to be we reproduced faster and they didn't have dogs. But yes a huge advantage having dogs. Though not all humans seemed to have them. Even down to the present. When people first reached the Andaman islands in historic times they found the islanders didn't have dogs(nor could they make fire). The native Aussies didn't have dogs for the first 30,000 odd years in the place, the dingo came in later.

Discodog

Zab wrote: »

As I see it the problem with the "it's the owner not the breed" argument is that, while it's almost certainly correct, it's ignoring the facts. The statistics being posted in this thread (albeit from the US) show that almost 70% of fatal attacks come from "pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids" (stats).

No doubt certain types of people being drawn to these breeds will have an impact on the statistics, but nobody has come up with any evidence proving that that's the only reason these dogs end up killing people. More likely is that they're also more difficult to train than other dogs, so that well intentioned people also end up with dogs that end up biting.

The evidence is that tens of thousands of people own these dogs with no problems at all. They are no harder to train but they frequently attract the wrong owner. If you want a guard or protection dog you won't pick a Labrador. There is a Boardie regular who has rehomed hundreds of these dogs - she runs the only Bull Breed rescue in Ireland. I have never heard of one of her rehomes biting anyone even though some have arrived with so called behavioural problems.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think St Bernards should be classed as a dangerous dog. It would be pretty dangerous if one fell on your head.

I know one that has bitten & hates men. Just as people assume that a Pit Bull is vicious they also assume that other breeds are totally passive.

Chinasea

In the 40 plus years we have had dogs, not once have we been asked to show or prove that we have a dog licence. I have never never never seen anyone from any council patrolling any park, sea front area etc., and asking dog walkers if they had a licence, or enforcing any of the thousands of bylaws that sit on their website and dusted over county council cabinets.

I would only be too delighted to see some sort of local authority keeping some sort of enforcement regarding antisocial dog behaviour brought about by their dum owners, I have seen a few lads with the ‘dangerous dogs’ around town, but tbh I just turn and run as I don’t want to find out if they can control them or not. For sure there is no one from the dogs department in the COCO doing spot checks to monitor this.

Look out the window now- you are guaranteed to see a dog turd on the path.

Discodog

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok I've clearly ruffled a lot of feathers here and that really wasn't my intention when I started this thread. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as some paranoid dog hater because that could not be further from the truth.

On the contrary it is good that you posted the thread. The only way to dispel misinformation is by discussion.

Zab

Discodog wrote: »

The evidence is that tens of thousands of people own these dogs with no problems at all. They are no harder to train but they frequently attract the wrong owner. If you want a guard or protection dog you won't pick a Labrador. There is a Boardie regular who has rehomed hundreds of these dogs - she runs the only Bull Breed rescue in Ireland. I have never heard of one of her rehomes biting anyone even though some have arrived with so called behavioural problems.

See, that isn't real evidence. It's anecdotal at best. The vast majority of dogs never make a serious attack on anybody, including the breeds in question here, so pointing at any given number of problem-free owners misses the point entirely. However, even if rare, the consequences can be severe enough to warrant investigation. If you're looking for anecdotal evidence then you'll find that even in this thread people have admitted to having trouble socializing some of breeds in question.

EGAR

Zab wrote: »

See, that isn't real evidence. It's anecdotal at best. The vast majority of dogs never make a serious attack on anybody, including the breeds in question here, so pointing at any given number of problem-free owners misses the point entirely. However, even if rare, the consequences can be severe enough to warrant investigation. If you're looking for anecdotal evidence then you'll find that even in this thread people have admitted to having trouble socializing some of breeds in question.

I have taken in and rehomed over 1500 dogs in the past 15 years of running my rescue, roughly 85% of those were Bull Breeds, Staffies, Pit Bulls, Am Bulls etc. 8 years ago I was mauled by a dog I had taken in, I spent a week in hospital and required over 100 stitches. A less dog savvy person or a child would not have survived this attack as the dog meant business. It never made the news although I was contacted by the press. And the reason it did not: the dog was a Yellow Labrador. Newspaper do not sell with a pic of an Andrex puppy on the frontpage.

Snarling *devil dogs* sell newspapers.

I have worked with Pit Bulls for near enough 30 years, I never had a problem with any of them. I take them from pounds in the majority of cases which means I know nothing about their history. Yet, I have managed to rehabilitate and rehome them.

Or the case of Bruce, seized in NI as *Pit Bull type* and kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and 10 months during which the muzzle they put on him grew into the bridge of his nose and his tail had to be amputated due to neglect in the kennels he was kept. I fought for his release across the border and won on second appeal. After all this time he is still as friendly as any of my dogs, his sanity after all this time in solitary with neglect and little or no contact is a testament to the true nature of Bull Breeds.

A few years back BBC Panorama did an undercover story on dogfighting, their undercover reporter went to Finland and bought a Pit Bull there and brought it into Ireland and then across the Irish Sea into UK etc. When they were finished filming they had grown so attached to the dog they bought they could not bear to have him put down. So I got the phone call and was asked to take him and I did. Nipper was no problem whatsoever and it goes to show that even peeps from the BBC saw the true Pit Bull and did not buy into their own c*ap they are spouting.

BTW, the dog mentioned in the OP was a Doberman cross.

As to the UK considering a reversal of the breed ban: The Dangerous Dog Act Study Group (which involves The Kennel Club, RSPCA, The Dogs Trust) have a proposed Bill that will be read in The House of Lords. One of the proposals is to remove breed bans & focus on irresponsible dog ownership. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3145/23/5/3

The Netherlands have reversed the breed ban as there was no change in dog attacks for the better after it was introduced.

Ed O'Sullivan (Cork DVO) who ran a dog bite hotline over 2 years published his findings not too long ago and none of the restricted breeds were leading in attacks. He only considered bites which caused damage not your odd nip.

Zab

EGAR wrote: »

Or the case of Bruce, seized in NI as *Pit Bull type* and kept in solitary confinement for 2 years and 10 months during which the muzzle they put on him grew into the bridge of his nose and his tail had to be amputated due to neglect in the kennels he was kept. I fought for his release across the border and won on second appeal. After all this time he is still as friendly as any of my dogs, his sanity after all this time in solitary with neglect and little or no contact is a testament to the true nature of Bull Breeds.

Okay, you quoted my post when you made yours so I feel like I have to reply. If you did intentionally quote me then you've done me something of a disservice as I haven't advocated any bans, solitary confinement or destruction of dogs, or said that any breed was untrainable.

Anyway, a lot of what you say is again anecdotal so I'm going to skip that, I'm sure you'll get enough thanks for that part anyway! You're also clearly an expert so your experience handling the animals won't match the general public's (ie if Pit Bull types were difficult to train to be socialized then you'd still be able to do it as you're an expert).

You brought up the Dog Control Bill. I looked it up and it has actually been through the House of Lords and its first reading in the House of Commons. The bill has a webpage here, although I can't find information on the study behind the bill, just the bill itself. It would repeal the previous acts and makes no mention of any particular breeds (that I could see).

The most interesting part is the Dutch repeal of their Pit bull ban. This happened on the back of a government sponsored study which appears to be an proper in-depth study. Unfortunately I can only access the abstract online. The report was commissioned because the earlier ban on specific breeds (Pit Bull "types" and later Rottweilers) had failed to decrease dog bite/attacks. The whole report could be a good read. As the decision at least appears to be founded on solid research this could be the most notable indication that breed-specific legislation isn't the way to go. However, as I can't see the whole report I can't verify whether it's saying that the legislation had no effect or that there's no meaningful correlation between breeds and attacks.

Ed O'Sillivan's article was Characteristics of 234 dog bite incidents in Ireland during 2004 and 2005. Again I can't see the whole article online, but the abstract says "The majority of the dogs were owned, male, two to six years old, over 10 kg in bodyweight and belonged to the popular breeds: collies, cocker/springer spaniels, terrier breeds, Jack Russell terriers, German shepherd dogs, golden retrievers and crossbreeds. The numbers of bites by the different breeds indicated that those that inflicted the most bites were the popular breeds rather than the breeds with any greater propensity to bite". This seems to imply that some breeds have a greater propensity to bite, but it could just be misstated. It says that only 23% were "serious" or worse, but doesn't breakdown the breeds involved in that segment in the abstract.

All of this looks like good material, though, so thanks for pointing it out.

I roamed around the internet a bit more and found an article by Malcolm Gladwell, Troublmakers, which is a good read. It states that 25% of owners of dogs involved in fatal attacks have a history of being involved in dog fights, although it doesn't cite any source for that. It also quotes Randall Lockwood of the ASPCA as saying

When I first started looking at fatal dog attacks, they largely involved dogs like German shepherds and shepherd mixes and St. Bernards—which is probably why Stephen King chose to make Cujo a St. Bernard, not a pit bull. I haven’t seen a fatality involving a Doberman for decades, whereas in the nineteen-seventies they were quite common. If you wanted a mean
dog, back then, you got a Doberman. I don’t think I even saw my first pit-bull case until the middle to late nineteen-eighties, and I didn’t start seeing Rottweilers until I’d already looked at a few hundred fatal dog attacks.

I also found a good page at dogbitelaw. The page seems relatively unbiased for the most part although he's in the pro-restriction anti-ban camp and that section is more emphatic than the others.

Discodog

Zab wrote: »

See, that isn't real evidence. It's anecdotal at best.

Zab wrote: »

Anyway, a lot of what you say is again anecdotal so I'm going to skip that,

You can't just dismiss swaths of evidence as anecdotal & even add the "add best" bit to denigrate it. The only difference between EGAR's evidence & the "studies" that you link to, is that EGAR is too busy saving dogs to write up her findings.

I & several other posters, have pointed out that dog bite statistics by breed are pointless unless you take into account the other factors involved in every single bite. Even this would be very subjective. This is probably why there is so little science based research evidence. It would be very time consuming & a statistical nightmare.

You can continue to put your faith in science. I would rather trust the evidence of people who have actually worked with these dogs, day in & day out. The facts are that EGAR has rehomed over a thousand of these dogs to family homes without any problems because she ensures that the dogs are going to responsible owners. That is pretty compelling evidence to me. She may be an expert but the rehomers were not.

EDIT: The Cork "study" that you link to is the abstract - can you link to the full study ? It hardly inspires confidence when their evidence was based on a telephone interview with the owner :rolleyes:

seamus

Zab, if you're going to use quality of evidence as your gold standard, then I think you'll find that there are no studies where the evidence vis-a-vis breed amounts to anything more than anecdotal.

In all studies, the breed of the dog is established either;

1. By taking the text of a newpaper report, or
2. By self-reporting from the bite victim or another eyewitness

Both highly anecdotal and open to massive error or deliberate misreporting.

Unless the breed of a dog involved in an incident is identified accurately (i.e. by information stored on a microchip from birth), then compiling breed-specific statistics based on newspaper reports and eyewitnesses is folly for any kind of serious study.

Jimoslimos

EGAR wrote: »

I have taken in and rehomed over 1500 dogs in the past 15 years of running my rescue, roughly 85% of those were Bull Breeds, Staffies, Pit Bulls, Am Bulls etc.

Does that very high percentage of 85% not immediately indicate that there might be a problem with the breed? Whether that is the breed itself or the type of owner attracted to the particular breed.

Why can't people accept that certain breeds are more predisposed towards aggression than others? A greyhound will always be faster than a daschund no matter what sort of training you give. Why? Because speed was the trait they were selectively bred for - just as many bull breeds were bred for fighting.

To give a piece of ancedoctal evidence of my own, we have a lab x at home. She loves biting socks (while the owner is wearing them!) and pulling them off - not once has she even scratched mine or anyone elses skin while doing this. Why? Mostly good training but also due to the gun-dog retrieval characteristics bred into her - I certainly wouldn't trust a terrier (even a well-trained one) to the same extent.

seamus

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Does that very high percentage of 85% not immediately indicate that there might be a problem with the breed?

No. EGAR specialises in bull breed rescue, typically taking bull breeds from other rescues who refuse them.
There is a problem in that (like most breeds), they're being overbred by puppy farmers, but their bad public reputation makes them harder to home.

Why can't people accept that certain breeds are more predisposed towards aggression than others? A greyhound will always be faster than a daschund no matter what sort of training you give. Why? Because speed was the trait they were selectively bred for - just as many bull breeds were bred for fighting.

Speed is a physical characteristic. Being suitable to fighting is a physical characteristic.
Attributing extra aggression to a breed is an emotional/psychological characteristic. Aside from making "diagnosis" of such an attribute a whole lot more complicated, it simply doesn't square up against the experiences of owners and experienced handlers of bull breeds.

Attributing extra aggression to a specific breed of dog is exactly the same as attributing lower intelligence to a specific breed of human - let's say east Asians. While it's impossible to deny that such a characteristic may be true, establishing the truth of such a claim is exceptionally complicated and not as blind as looking at some loose statistics.

Jimoslimos

seamus wrote: »

Attributing extra aggression to a specific breed of dog is exactly the same as attributing lower intelligence to a specific breed of human - let's say east Asians. While it's impossible to deny that such a characteristic may be true, establishing the truth of such a claim is exceptionally complicated and not as blind as looking at some loose statistics.

The difference is, humans aren't selectively bred in the same way dogs are.

seamus

Jimoslimos wrote: »

The difference is, humans aren't selectively bred in the same way dogs are.

But we still show differentiation. There are still human "breeds" and it has been shown that different human breeds possess different physical characteristics depending on the evolutionary environment of that specific line.

So if your theory that different dog breeds have significantly different emotional characteristics is true, then it should also be visible in human breeds.

Numerous studies in the US have shown that black Americans generally do poorer in school than other races. No sensible person on any level would use that information to decide that black americans are just stupider than other races, because there are too many compounding factors to make such a blind statement.
Yet when presented with similar information about dog breeds, suddenly the compounding factors are irrelevant and people are happy to make blind statements that, "Pitbulls are just more aggressive", despite it being clearly a far too simplistic conclusion without a sound basis.

Or to put it more simply;

Those without experience claim one thing. Those with experience claim otherwise. There are no proper studies to back up either side.

Noopti

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Why can't people accept that certain breeds are more predisposed towards aggression than others?

Easy, because it is not true.

Discodog

seamus wrote: »

Zab, if you're going to use quality of evidence as your gold standard, then I think you'll find that there are no studies where the evidence vis-a-vis breed amounts to anything more than anecdotal.

This is true & in reality a proper study is almost impossible to achieve. If you really want to scientifically analyse dog bites then it would be a very involved process.

First you would have to eliminate any medical factors. So the dog would need a full veterinary check. To totally eliminate the possibility of, say a brain tumour, you would probably need to scan the dog.

Next a qualified behaviourist would need to assess the dog - there are probable only half a dozen people in Ireland qualified to do this. It might also involve watching the owner interacting with the dog in what now would be false conditions. You almost need to fit CCTV in their home & monitor it 24/7.

Even after all of this you still can't be sure of why the dog bit because you weren't there when it happened. So you have to rely on the accounts of those that were - who aren't experts. Talking of which it is wrong to assume that Vets are experts either. I suspect that very few Vets have a qualification in dog behaviour - it is a very specialised field.

But the main problem is that the cause, just as with humans, is likely to be in the past. You have no way of knowing how the owner treated the dog in the early formative days.

Zab

Discodog wrote: »

You can't just dismiss swaths of evidence as anecdotal & even add the "add best" bit to denigrate it. The only difference between EGAR's evidence & the "studies" that you link to, is that EGAR is too busy saving dogs to write up her findings.

In fairness the "at best" was to you, not EGAR.

That said, I didn't mean to sum up EGAR's life's work as anecdotal, which it appears that I did. I was intending to refer to the three stories, of the Lab, Bruce and Panorama, which are good stories but don't really have any meaning to this conversation (to my mind anyway) as I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Pit Bull stories out there too.

As I said, EGAR is an expert, so the fact that she can rehabilitate all of these dogs was never in question. Anecdotal is clearly the wrong word to describe this, it was a late-night posting. She would I assume be rehoming to more motivated owners that she believes will do right by the dog. Perhaps I haven't formulated my core question properly: I'm wondering if (to give example breeds) a Pit Bull or a Labrador is more likely develop problematic behaviour if both were brought up in a well-meaning (i.e. not intending to create an aggressive dog) but insufficiently involved home (i.e. very little training, dog gets away with being boss etc). If so, then there's something the be said for vetting the owners first, if not then there's obviously no point. I'm pretty sure vetting is the only thing I've advocated in this thread.

I think the fact that I'm debating against the seriously pro-dog brigade has made people assume that I'm anti-dog in some way. That isn't the case, which I would hope would be obvious if you'd read my posts, but perhaps not. That said, I don't go by the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" maxim.

EDIT: The Cork "study" that you link to is the abstract - can you link to the full study ? It hardly inspires confidence when their evidence was based on a telephone interview with the owner :rolleyes:

I cannot, as I said I can't get it. I only posted it because EGAR had mentioned it in her post so I looked it up. Unfortunately the more impressive looking reports have so far been inaccessible.