Dangerous Dogs.........

AudreyHepburn

Lionel Gray Bankroll wrote: »

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.

Firstly please don't question me like I'm a child or like your interrogating me. It does you no favours.

Second I imagine the Tosa is not as dangerous as the others since I have never actually heard of Tosa attacks. But since it is on the list it still should be treated with caution imo.

AudreyHepburn

Discodog wrote: »

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

If you're basing your belief that I'm misinformed on your own personal experience with dogs considered dangerous then I'm not surprised you believe all dogs are nice and friendly. Personal experience certainly shapes our ideas and beliefs.

However you cannot assume that because the dogs you've worked with have had good natures, that the same is true for all dogs. Nor do I assume that because the Pit Bulls I've come into contact were lethal that all PBs would be the same.

The reality is they are all very individual and different, just like humans, and some do need to be treated with more caution than others. You can't just assume the Rottweiler bred as a guard dog would have the same temperment as the one who is just a family pet.

NTMK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Second I imagine the Tosa is not as dangerous as the others since I have never actually heard of Tosa attacks. But since it is on the list it still should be treated with caution imo.

The Jap tosa is on the list because its traditionally a fighting dog in japan. however theyre not allow to bite one another (instant DQ) instead they wrestle each other this is legal and stringently regulated.

These dogs are apparently ridiculously intelligent and easily trained but dispite theyre excellent history of good behaviour (I cant find a single story on tosa bites but several by Pomeranians and Chihuahuas) they're placed on this list be cause most countries instantly taught hmm fight dog must ban it without any scientific evidence of aggression as a trait.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If you're basing your belief that I'm misinformed on your own personal experience with dogs considered dangerous then I'm not surprised you believe all dogs are nice and friendly. Personal experience certainly shapes our ideas and beliefs.

and your basing your belief of a list by people who would be able to point out half the dogs on the list) when EGAR who has dealt with over a thousand bull breeds(which is likely more than any goverment has dealt with in making this list) believes that its horse****.

However you cannot assume that because the dogs you've worked with have had good natures, that the same is true for all dogs. Nor do I assume that because the Pit Bulls I've come into contact were lethal that all PBs would be the same.

The reality is they are all very individual and different, just like humans, and some do need to be treated with more caution than others. You can't just assume the Rottweiler bred as a guard dog would have the same temperment as the one who is just a family pet.

Crimes statistics usually show that certain races have a higher crime rate than others(Hispanics account for 40% of federal prisoners yet account for 13 percent of the pop in the us.). would you make the assumption that they as a race there more dangerous or would you say its because of circumstances theyre exposed to (i.e poverty)?

The same argument can and is made about dogs statistics don't show the whole story about how some of those dogs are trained to fight and others are trained for guard dogs. breed aggression has never been proven so the list of dangerous dogs is akin to a list of dangerous races

Treat every dog with caution just because there on a made up list doesn't make them any more dangerous than a lab of a spaniel. dont follow this typical daily mail style of thats a bull terrier it most be some sort of devil dog ban it

Discodog

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

However you cannot assume that because the dogs you've worked with have had good natures, that the same is true for all dogs.

I can because I have read the research & my experiences back it up. Practically every knowledgeable person who has the experience backs up my opinion. This is why there is so little breed specific research because no one wants to try & prove something that they already know to be true.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The reality is they are all very individual and different, just like humans, and some do need to be treated with more caution than others. You can't just assume the Rottweiler bred as a guard dog would have the same temperment as the one who is just a family pet.

I disagree because they all start pretty much the same. My three dogs are different breeds but their temperaments are almost identical & reflect how I interact with them. If your Rottie was bred from guard dog parents it wouldn't make the pup any more likely to grow into an aggressive adult.
Even dogs that have been trained for aggression can often be retrained.

The dangerous breed myth can easily self perpetuate. If you believe that a Pit Bull is dangerous you will react differently when you meet one & the dog could misinterpret your reaction. If basic dog behaviour & responsible ownership was taught at primary schools the dog bite stats would plummet over time. For example a Vet did some research at primary schools in the UK. A lot of the kids that were shown a photo of a snarling dog thought that it was smiling :eek:

Dogs have evolved a special language that they only use with humans. It is pretty basic & easy to understand - they obviously designed it for dumb humans . Yet it is amazing how many people totally misunderstand dogs.

EGAR

I really have not got the time to answer each point so I will summarise if that is ok.

The high percentage of Bull Breeds taken in by me, as already stated by another boardsie, is simply due to the fact that I run Ireland's only Bull Breed Rescue and many many rescues will not take Bull Breeds or if they do, they usually end up involving me by either asking me to do a breed ID or take the dog, the reason for the latter is their reluctance to re-home a Bull Breed, again, even rescue peeps fall victim to the press hysteria.


There seems to be a huge misconception that aggression towards other dogs equals aggression towards humans which is NOT the case. Pit Bulls were selectively bred to be friendly towards humans even at their most vulnerable, ie in the pit. Pit Bulls are one of the most versatile breeds ever, being used as PAT dog, agility, obedience, herding, Schutzdienst, Search and Rescue, Drug and Police dog. I also want to stress that by rehabilitation I mean socialisation with other DOGS, I have never had a human aggressive Bull Breed in care, neither in my time in rescue or before that as owner.

I also must say that the amount of people who think they have a Pit Bull at home when it actually is a Staffie cross, is astonishing. The APBT is not an IKC recognised breed hence any idiot can breed *Pit Bulls* which are not Pit Bulls but crosses.

I am sick and tired of people telling me that my evidence is at best anecdotal when in fact I am living and working with these dogs. Nothing anecdotal about it, it's hard work and very rewarding.

People will always believe what they want to believe. I have given up trying to change people's minds. However, I have an open door to those who want to learn and meet the dogs, you are always welcome.

Also, the original Pit Bull which was then known as Bull and Terrier (a name which I prefer) is actually NOT an American breed but its origins are in Ireland and England, immigrants brought Bull and Terrier dogs over to the US. There are many examples of famous Pit Bulls, before the breed fell into the wrong hands and was vilified as a result.

Robdude

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.

What if, statistically, it is shown that some races are more violent than others, based on actual rates of violent crimes?

I'm just suggesting that, if you are right and there is a strong parallel between the dog breeds and human races - instead of dismissing the notion of putting down dangerous dogs, maybe we should consider the other logical conclusion of putting down dangerous races?

steddyeddy

The debate about dangerous breeds is an old one. For my two cents I cant say one particular breed is dangerous and one is not. I think there is more than one type of aggression displayed by dogs.

I think dogs can be either aggressive towards other dogs, towards strangers (humans that is) or aggressive towards family which is rarer.

On the aggressive towards strangers thing In my opinion some breeds have been bred to be more wary of strangers. This could translate into aggression towards strangers. One thing I think can be a danger around certain dogs is showing nervousness (I know people who are afraid of dogs cant help this). A show of fear might be interpreted by the dog as aggression or out of instinct the dogs can attack.

On the subject of dangerous breeds I would say some dogs turn aggressive more readily to strangers than others. Some dogs were breed for loyalty and some are bred to be wary of strangers. It would go against selective breeding to suggest some tendencies dont remain.

Cork24

Their no dangerous dog just bad owners

You could have 2 pit bulls 1 keeps to it self and the other attacks ppl and other dogs we blame the breed but do we stop and ask how was it brought up?


Yes some dog breeds are more dangerous then others I had a boxer before couldn't taken him walking once he hit around 8 he would attack other dogs but

Then again I used to have him out hunting all the time people used to ask me what the hell are u feeding him he was a strong as an ox never saw muscles on a boxer like him. Before, the dogs was as cute around people wouldn't harm or bite no one if some one tried to break in he would open the door for him.

ferrete

listen THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BAD DOG, ONLY A BAD OWNER!!! and i trust my dogs my anything and everything and in all my years of keeping dogs never have i met a bad one

Jimoslimos

Somebody on another thread (can't find it now) put up a very interesting video about a program to domesticate silver foxes in Siberia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

Basically after selecting for non-aggression and non-fear in silver foxes and breeding, after only a period of 50 years were noticeably tamer and more affectionate towards humans than a parallel group bred to retain agressive behaviour.

Scientists then cross-fostered - cubs from aggressive mothers given to tame mothers and vice versa. No change was seen - cubs from aggressive mothers were still aggressive towards humans regardless of the tameness of the foster mother. One step further and embryos from the two groups were swapped and transplanted. Again no change was seen in aggression or tameness.

I'd be a little wary of drawing too many conclusions from a different animal model to dogs and one, which although has been carried out for half a century, still pales in comparison to the length of time people have been selectively breeding dogs. However it does point to aggression (or lack of it) having a strong genetic component. Nature over nurture