most dangerous dog breeds, least dangerous dog breeds, and why

[Toni]

Out of ignorance, many dogs owners raise dangerous dogs despite the best intentions to treat their dogs well.

And dogs don't just bite their owners; they also fuck with people who have absolutely nothing to do with the condition of the dog.

So obviously there's a lot more to it than you think.

And you approve of this? This little story rather reinforces my beliefs about dog owners. A man, who had every right to be on the property, underwent a frightening ordeal because the owner failed in his duty of care.

Oy vey.

Metaphor,
I am hoping that you will glean from these posts that not all dogs are as you think they are. Note the bolded bit. She did her job - GENTLY! That is a well trained dog.

Gaynor.

The fucked up part about is not that the dog made a bad choice--the dog is not a moral agent--but that that it's owner has trained it to fetch humans with its teeth.

In my personal experience, many dog owners have a very bizarre idea of what behaviours are acceptable--or even desirable--in their pets.

In all likelihood, the owner did not train the dog to fetch humans. The dog was likely to have been trained to guard property and not to hurt humans, both jobs carefully and expertly carried out. The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault. The dog had no way to discern whether the employee was there to work or to rob. The dog did not react with violence but to restrain the errant human and to seek the authority and judgement of the proper authority: the owner. Note the employee was not injured, unless you are counting pride.

It is absolutely wrong to expect dogs to exercise knowledge and training they do not possess or to punish them for human failures yet we do just that all the time.

Only an idiot would swat at a dog, especially a large guard dog.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't know of anybody who thinks we shouldn't investigate it for fear of social collapse (which doesn't mean nobody feels that way, I just haven't heard them). I know a bunch of people who say it shouldn't be investigated because it's not a likely enough scenario to warrant it, and the resources could be better spent investigating more potentially fruitful avenues of research.

I wish this were so, but I really don't think it is. I have yet to see anybody (such as Abe here) bring it up and not get a bunch of reactionary hate directed at them for the mere idea of it.

 

[PyramidHead]

We must be looking at different threads, because in the science forums, other than Duke Leto, most people seem to be focused on the content of what Abe is saying. Jokodo, Togo, bilby, ronburgundy et al are conducting the discussion in a pretty non-personal way as far as I can tell.

 

[Nexus]

The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault.

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee. Owners and their dogs don't have a legal right to attack people that have a right to be in a location.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault.

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee. Owners and their dogs don't have a legal right to attack people that have a right to be in a location.

Ya, that was entirely the owner's fault. If he gave the employee a key and didn't take into account how the dogs he had there would react to this guy coming in with the key he'd been given then he holds 100% of the blame. If this business was a dog training school where one would expect employees to know how to properly act around guard dogs, the blame would be mitigated somewhat but absent that, it's a clear case of assault.

 

[laughing dog]

The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault.

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee. Owners and their dogs don't have a legal right to attack people that have a right to be in a location.

No one was hurt or likely to be hurt, so I think describing this as an unsafe working condition or an attack is a a bit of stretch.

 

[Metaphor]

I used to deliver pamphlets when I was pre-teen, and the bane of my existence were the grossly negligent dog owners who thought that letting their vile, violent pets roam free was a holy sacrament.

If we had more of that, maybe we'd have less junk mail pamphlets.

You are correct: if more vicious dogs that were willing to maul all and sundry were allowed to roam the streets untethered, there would be fewer people economically desperate enough to deliver pamphlets.

Yes, that's a good solution to the rampant evil of catalogue delivery. "No junk mail" signs don't work (pamphlet deliverers are both illiterate and insubordinate, you see) and anyway, what kind of moral monster thinks it's okay to give people information about what's on special at the supermarket?

 

[Metaphor]

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee. Owners and their dogs don't have a legal right to attack people that have a right to be in a location.

No one was hurt or likely to be hurt, so I think describing this as an unsafe working condition or an attack is a a bit of stretch.

You think a dog CLAMPED ON YOUR LEG WITH ITS TEETH isn't an attack?

If you have trouble imagining it frightening you, employ what I call the mother test. Would you be happy for it to happen to your mother?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OMG, it is easy to tell who likes dogs and who doesn't.

I was taught to approach dogs, especially those I didn't know, the same way I was taught to approach people, reservedly and with respect. Just like you need to let a person get to know you and you need to get to know a person before you behave in a familiar manner with one another, so you do with a dog.

Now a dog can have a bad day or a violent general temperament, and a dog can just not like you. But you increase you odds of running into such a dog if you treat every dog like they are a dog that doesn't like you.

That's a load of bullshit.

It's obvious that there are dogs that have been raised and trained to behave well, and there are dogs that have been neglected, or have been encouraged to behave badly.

I like dogs and I own a dog, and have done so most of my life, but I have had enough bad experiences with badly-behaved dogs and their irresponsible owners to know that dogs do not need to be provoked to do harm.

Anecdotal x4 with my experience. I've been attacked by two dogs when I was a kid. Not pleasant. Luckily one time was in winter and I was very well bundled, so you could only bite indentations on my arm instead of bleeding wounds. It took me decades to get over the fear of dogs. I had run-ins with dobermans that owners at a couple of houses thought they should just run loose. Not attacked there, but how do you fucking properly approach an angrily barking doberman as a young teen after being attacked by a pair of german shepards when you were a younger kid?

My wife was bitten by a dog because she didn't notice there was a dog there and he took a good bite on her leg. Not an angry dog, just one that decided to bite. A friend in high school had a sister get viciously assaulted (as in facial plastic surgery was needed) by the dog of a family she was babysitting for.

I never blame the dog; the dog is not a moral agent.

Yeah, the owner is in control of temperament and of course a dog that can get vicious is just doing its thing, the owner put it in a situation where it could attack people.

 

[Metaphor]

Out of ignorance, many dogs owners raise dangerous dogs despite the best intentions to treat their dogs well.

And dogs don't just bite their owners; they also fuck with people who have absolutely nothing to do with the condition of the dog.

So obviously there's a lot more to it than you think.

And you approve of this? This little story rather reinforces my beliefs about dog owners. A man, who had every right to be on the property, underwent a frightening ordeal because the owner failed in his duty of care.

Oy vey.

Metaphor,
I am hoping that you will glean from these posts that not all dogs are as you think they are. Note the bolded bit. She did her job - GENTLY! That is a well trained dog.

Gaynor.

The fucked up part about is not that the dog made a bad choice--the dog is not a moral agent--but that that it's owner has trained it to fetch humans with its teeth.

In my personal experience, many dog owners have a very bizarre idea of what behaviours are acceptable--or even desirable--in their pets.

In all likelihood, the owner did not train the dog to fetch humans. The dog was likely to have been trained to guard property and not to hurt humans, both jobs carefully and expertly carried out. The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault. The dog had no way to discern whether the employee was there to work or to rob. The dog did not react with violence but to restrain the errant human and to seek the authority and judgement of the proper authority: the owner. Note the employee was not injured, unless you are counting pride.

It is absolutely wrong to expect dogs to exercise knowledge and training they do not possess or to punish them for human failures yet we do just that all the time.

Only an idiot would swat at a dog, especially a large guard dog.

So, it isn't victim blaming if the victim is an idiot?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee. Owners and their dogs don't have a legal right to attack people that have a right to be in a location.

No one was hurt or likely to be hurt, so I think describing this as an unsafe working condition or an attack is a a bit of stretch.

With certain dogs yes, but some other dogs, you could just be a couple facial ticks away from setting them off.

 

[Metaphor]

I had run-ins with dobermans that owners at a couple of houses thought they should just run loose. Not attacked there, but how do you fucking properly approach an angrily barking doberman as a young teen after being attacked by a pair of german shepards when you were a younger kid?

Don't try and tell the caninephiles that dogs and their owners could ever do anything wrong. Only a child full of hate would be startled by a German Shepherd lunging at the fence every time the child has the cajones to walk home from school. "The dog's more afraid than you are", of course. "He's sweet, he just doesn't know you", which puts me in mind of having a deformed redneck cousin who you keep in the house who doesn't attack his family members but strangers are fair game.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Along with mentioning the ridiculous methodological issues with collecting dog bite statistics from news reports, I'll just quote the AVMA:

Owners of dogs that are identified by the community as ‘pit bull type’ may experience a strong breed stigma, however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a “breed” encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to be unreliable. As discussed witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a dog that bites is a ‘pit bull’.
The incidence of ‘pit bull-type’ dogs’ involvement in severe or fatal attacks may be associated with prevalence of at-risk dogs in neighborhoods with lots of young children. Owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts, so apparent ‘breed correlations’ may be due to patterns in owner behavior.
...
Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites. Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs. Accordingly, targeting this breed or any another as a basis for dog bite prevention is unfounded. As stated by the National Animal Control Association: “Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.

The excerpt comes from this article:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/L...of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

The article makes two claims about "controlled studies," one positive claim and one negative claim:

"...however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."

"Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs."

The article is filled with footnotes, but no footnotes were given for either of these two claims. There is a reason for that: such controlled studies do not exist. The scientists willing to do controlled studies to test the bite risk of each dog breed were exported from Germany after World War 2 and used as slave labor in the USA.

 

[Ford]

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee.

Hyperbole much?


A poorly trained animal would have actually attacked the employee the moment he walked into the shop. A poorly trained animal would have injured the employee.

Again, the dog nudged him a couple times with her nose, then after he'd swatted her across the nose clamped onto him (at the waist, if I remember correctly) and pulled him towards the door. He gave in, and once they were outside where the boss could see him, the dog let him go and - this is important - everyone had a good laugh about it afterwards. No charges were filed, no workman's comp claims were made, nobody suffered from PTSD as a result.


The dog did not "attack" the guy. She did what she was (very well) trained to do. Since we're here in political discussions, I think it is worth pointing out that this German Shepherd showed more restraint than some cops we've been discussing as of late.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I sent a web message to the AVMA, for the record.

I have a question about the article published here:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/L...of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

The article makes these two statements:

"...however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."

"Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs."

Footnotes were not given for these two statements, but I would like to be led to more information about the "controlled studies." What are the names of those studies? Thank you.​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, actually I'm not.

Every case where I have been bitten involved friendly but poorly trained dogs who didn't approve of my stopping them from doing things to me that I didn't want them to do.

That would make you unlucky, not the dogs bad dogs.

Am I the only one who's curious as to what the dogs were doing to him and what he did to stop them?

Personally, I have never come across a dog whose response to a simple correction was biting. A dog that goes immediately to a bite would appear to be worse than simply poorly trained.

1) In all cases it involved my physically stopping the dog from doing what I didn't want, not merely my telling it no. In all cases no hadn't worked.

2) In all cases it involved my stopping the dog more than once.


I do agree it was bad luck but how do you define a bad dog other than bad behavior? These were cases of bad because their owners didn't train them right but that doesn't make them not bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OMG, it is easy to tell who likes dogs and who doesn't.

I was taught to approach dogs, especially those I didn't know, the same way I was taught to approach people, reservedly and with respect. Just like you need to let a person get to know you and you need to get to know a person before you behave in a familiar manner with one another, so you do with a dog.

Now a dog can have a bad day or a violent general temperament, and a dog can just not like you. But you increase you odds of running into such a dog if you treat every dog like they are a dog that doesn't like you.

That's a load of bullshit.

It's obvious that there are dogs that have been raised and trained to behave well, and there are dogs that have been neglected, or have been encouraged to behave badly.

I like dogs and I own a dog, and have done so most of my life, but I have had enough bad experiences with badly-behaved dogs and their irresponsible owners to know that dogs do not need to be provoked to do harm. Some dogs are taught to play fight with their adult owners, and then the dog chews on some kid because it can't tell the difference. Some dogs are taught to greet all people by jumping up on them, and then the dog knocks an unprepared visitor flat on her ass.

Yup. I know someone who is a loving dog owner--yet goes armed on his own property because of the dog next door.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I had run-ins with dobermans that owners at a couple of houses thought they should just run loose. Not attacked there, but how do you fucking properly approach an angrily barking doberman as a young teen after being attacked by a pair of german shepards when you were a younger kid?

Don't try and tell the caninephiles that dogs and their owners could ever do anything wrong. Only a child full of hate would be startled by a German Shepherd lunging at the fence every time the child has the cajones to walk home from school. "The dog's more afraid than you are", of course. "He's sweet, he just doesn't know you", which puts me in mind of having a deformed redneck cousin who you keep in the house who doesn't attack his family members but strangers are fair game.

Understandable, sometimes they just are bored and want to play.

The dogs next door when I was growing up were like that. Plenty of crashes against the fence if I was on the other side of it but in person there was only two things I worried about with them: One of them had the habit of running into you rather than simply up to you and if she was tied to a tree it was not a good idea to get between her and the tree--she was prone to running around the tree and tying you up in her rope.

Other than these behaviors (and to this day I tend to side-step a running dog even if I'm not worried about aggressiveness) they were harmless. While I might get bowled over (the offender weighed about as much as I did at the time) if I wasn't watching out it was clearly just play, never a hostile gesture from either of them. The fence crashes were just them wanting to come out and play.

 

[Toni]

The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault.

Wrong, the employer created unsafe working conditions by having a poorly trained animal attack the employee. Owners and their dogs don't have a legal right to attack people that have a right to be in a location.

The dog was well trained. The employee was not.

I say this as someone who has little to no use for anyone who does not train their dogs to behave well and appropriately.

The employee was not attacked. The employee in fact made threatening and rude moves towards a large guard dog. The dog did not attack but controlled the intruder and sought guidance from the responsible human.

All errors were on the part of humans: the owner should have restricted access to the work area and properly trained the employees of how to enter that workspace during off hours. The owner should have hired a more intelligent employee. The employee should learn how to behave around unfamiliar dogs.

 

[gmbteach]

Out of ignorance, many dogs owners raise dangerous dogs despite the best intentions to treat their dogs well.

And dogs don't just bite their owners; they also fuck with people who have absolutely nothing to do with the condition of the dog.

So obviously there's a lot more to it than you think.

And you approve of this? This little story rather reinforces my beliefs about dog owners. A man, who had every right to be on the property, underwent a frightening ordeal because the owner failed in his duty of care.

Oy vey.

Metaphor,
I am hoping that you will glean from these posts that not all dogs are as you think they are. Note the bolded bit. She did her job - GENTLY! That is a well trained dog.

Gaynor.

The fucked up part about is not that the dog made a bad choice--the dog is not a moral agent--but that that it's owner has trained it to fetch humans with its teeth.

.

As Gaynor said, the dog did her job. What's really fucked up is that most people who get "guard dogs" simply raise them to be aggressive. To make noise. To attack anything that isn't the owner. This dog - after being swatted on the nose - responded as she was trained to do. As you put it, to "fetch" the intruder and bring him to the boss. She didn't even hurt the guy.

Contrast that with the last encounter I had with dangerous dogs. I was out walking mine when out of nowhere came two pit bulls. They straight away attacked my dog, and it was only with the help of a neighbor who came out of his house when he heard the commotion that I was able to fend them off. I'd have followed them home (I'm pretty sure they were from nearby) but I was too busy dealing with the hole they'd torn in the side of my dog. I shudder to think what would have happened if I'd been out walking with a kid.

I owned two dogs with my previous partner. We had Kyra, who was a staffy mixed with about a million other breeds, but predominantly staffy. She had been raised to be a guard dog on an industrial estate. Then we got Dina, a Bull Arab/Bull Mastiff mix. We got Kyra when she was 18 months old and everyone warned us about staffy dogs and cats (we had two at the time). No one warned us about Bull Arab/Bull Mastiff breeds. We got Dina at 6 weeks old and she was 'raised' by Kyra.

Kyra taught Dina to respect the cats. Kyra would not enter a room where Lucky or Mistie were. She would stop and wait until either my ex or myself were present and could 'protect' her from them. Dina learned this at an early age.

Unfortunately, the day Dina turned one she turned on Kyra and tried to kill her. No provocation, nothing. She just turned. The only way I could stop her was to have my uncle put his finger up her date. I then separated the dogs for the day and when the ex came home we reintroduced them to each other, fed them, on an equal basis - establishing ourselves as pack leaders and them as equals. Dina behaved appropriately at first, but within the hour, she tried again to kill Kyra. Kyra needed extensive surgery on her arm and several stitches to fix her up. We had Dina destroyed. The vet wanted us to rehome her to a farm, but we didn't think that was wise. If she attacked a dog she had grown up with for no reason, who's to say she wouldn't attack a child, or another animal.

What this proves? I don't know. It's just an anecdote about two dogs I had that I treated the same and yet behaved in completely different ways.

Afterward, we got a pure bred Bull Arab, Fred, who was the dopiest, gentlest dog I had encountered in a long time. This was while I was with him, but I don't know how he turned out as I haven't seen him for a few years now.

Was it the Bull Mastiff in Dina that caused her aggression? I don't know.