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

[ApostateAbe]

Upon seeing yet another inspirational HuffPo video on Facebook of children playing brainlessly with adult pit bulls, I analyzed the dog attack data of the Clifton Report in a spreadsheet. The original reports do not rank the most dangerous dog breeds, but I did the math. Good news for pit bull defenders: pit bulls are NOT the most dangerous breed. Bad news: they are the third most dangerous breed. When someone gives you the "good news" first, it usually isn't such good news. Chows edge out pit bulls as the most dangerous breed. Luckily there are not legions of Chow defenders claiming that children are perfectly safe handling the heads of Chows.

The Internet is crawling with pit bull defenders. The belief that there are no genetic psychological variations among human races is established dogma, and this dogma (right or wrong) is applied to dogs (wrong). The pit bull defenders believe there are no genetic psychological variations among breeds of dogs. If one breed is statistically a hundred-fold more dangerous than another, IT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE because of the abusive owners (maybe Chow owners are a bunch of assholes?), not anything to do with variations in ancestral breeding selection criteria. If some breeds were selected for biting or killing for a thousand years, it won't matter if you wish hard enough.

 

[Trausti]

I agree with you that it's silly to say there is no genetic behavioral variation; but I don't see the political issue.

 

[Archimedes]

Irrelevant note about greyhounds because I happened to read about them in that report:


I had a greyhound as a pet as a kid. It was both the laziest sack of shit I've ever seen while simultaneously the most energetic ball of nerves in a dog shaped package I've come across...

 

[gmbteach]

I agree with you that it's silly to say there is no genetic behavioral variation; but I don't see the political issue.

Yeah! Why would dog attacks be a political issue

?

 

[Metaphor]

Certain dog owners have made a religion of their ownership, and woe betide any infidel who does not share their unalloyed enthusiasm and worship for their crotch-sniffing, child-mauling beasts.

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. I recall an incident, with a dog barking at me relentlessly, fangs bared and aggressive posture prominent. I had picked up a stick to defend myself, and the dog owner came out and shouted at me to "put the stick down". She was angry at me. Her dog was about to sever me from the mortal coil and how fucking dare I not give myself up without a fight.

Of course, I'm sure she thought I provoked it. Because, you see, dogs are never, ever, ever, violent without some nasty pensioner or baby provoking it.

It would all be tolerable if at least the dog owners acknowledged they don't give a shit about the comfort of their friends and neighbours. It would all be tolerable if they acknowledged that yes, I am harmed when you allow your slobbering, gigantic hellhound off-leash to bound up to me and paw my crotch but oh he likes you and he is just being friendly. It would all be tolerable if just fucking one day a week, I could walk past my fence without my neighbour's dog barking at me as if I'd put its balls in a vice.

 

[gmbteach]

Certain dog owners have made a religion of their ownership, and woe betide any infidel who does not share their unalloyed enthusiasm and worship for their crotch-sniffing, child-mauling beasts.

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. I recall an incident, with a dog barking at me relentlessly, fangs bared and aggressive posture prominent. I had picked up a stick to defend myself, and the dog owner came out and shouted at me to "put the stick down". She was angry at me. Her dog was about to sever me from the mortal coil and how fucking dare I not give myself up without a fight.

Of course, I'm sure she thought I provoked it. Because, you see, dogs are never, ever, ever, violent without some nasty pensioner or baby provoking it.

It would all be tolerable if at least the dog owners acknowledged they don't give a shit about the comfort of their friends and neighbours. It would all be tolerable if they acknowledged that yes, I am harmed when you allow your slobbering, gigantic hellhound off-leash to bound up to me and paw my crotch but oh he likes you and he is just being friendly. It would all be tolerable if just fucking one day a week, I could walk past my fence without my neighbour's dog barking at me as if I'd put its balls in a vice.

Metaphor,

It is such a shame that your experiences and subsequent views with regards to dogs is so negative.

Please be assured (and I know this will be of little comfort to you), not all dogs, nor their owners, are as you describe.

I suppose it is due to thoughts like yours that could lead to political discussions on what laws need to be in place for the keeping of any dog.

Gaynor

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course, I'm sure she thought I provoked it. Because, you see, dogs are never, ever, ever, violent without some nasty pensioner or baby provoking it.

Well, you did. This was a well-planned and deliberate provocation. This result is - if not exactly what was desired - certainly advantageous to the agenda of you and your merry band of dog-haters. You wanted your walking-past-the-fence stunt to cause trouble. Barking, backlash, and anger at least. With a little more luck, the dog could have bitten you and been shot by the police. But at least low-information folks around the country (and even here on this forum, apparently) get to point to this and say "see, all dogs are like that." This little dog-taunting served a purpose...to dupe stupid people into even more stupidity.

 

[beero1000]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A few problems here:

1) Note that the dangerous dogs are large, the safe dogs are small. However, also note that this is a listing of dangerous bites. How much of this difference comes down to the size of the dog? I've been bit a few times by little yappers--a complete non-issue as they basically ended up with a mouthful of denim and did basically nothing to me. A reasonably large dog that had not bee properly trained disapproved of my disapproval of his jumping on me and administered a correction. He was only trying to nip, not to inflict serious injury but I got a fair bruise out of it through the same denim that basically stopped the yappers.

2) I think there is an owner factor with pit bulls. People who want an aggressive dog will go for the breeds with a reputation for being aggressive.

 

[Lugubert]

A few problems here:

1) Note that the dangerous dogs are large, the safe dogs are small.

Counterexamples:

The setter isn't exactly small. Males weigh 60 to 70 lb (27 to 32 kg). My theory is that retrieving dogs are safer, because they are bred to fetch game in such a way that they don't sever them with their teeth. To curious kids who wanted to pet her, I used to describe a setter I owned as "She doesn't even know how to bite." Also, although mischievous, she was too lazy to be dangerous.

The Bernese mountain dog is in the range (males) 80–120 lb (35–55 kg). Not what I call small. Another theory of mine: herding dogs are bred to herd without hurting the cattle or other animals.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you treat a dog badly, he will most likely bite you.

If you treat a dog well, he will most likely love you.

Pretty much all you need to know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you treat a dog badly, he will most likely bite you.

If you treat a dog well, he will most likely love you.

Pretty much all you need to know.

If it's your dog. The problem comes when others encounter the dog--how I treat animals has nothing to do with how a dog I encounter has been treated.

Every dog bite I've gotten (nothing serious) has been due to my not accepting the dog doing something to me that I didn't want the dog to do. I did not treat the dogs badly, I simply stopped the improper behavior.

 

[Archimedes]

I just realised why this thread is in political discussions and not in a more appropriate home... It's not actually about dog breeds at all...

 

[laughing dog]

I just realised why this thread is in political discussions and not in a more appropriate home... It's not actually about dog breeds at all...

Yup. It is badly mangled "scientific" analysis of dog breed "behavior" as a metaphor for "scientific racism". Dog bites are mostly a function of training (not breeding) of the dog. Dog bite frequencies are functions of many variables including training, use, popularity, etc..... The charitable explanation for honing in on "genetic variation" when there are more important variables is extremely poor reasoning.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I just realised why this thread is in political discussions and not in a more appropriate home... It's not actually about dog breeds at all...

Yup. It is badly mangled "scientific" analysis of dog breed "behavior" as a metaphor for "scientific racism". Dog bites are mostly a function of training (not breeding) of the dog. Dog bite frequencies are functions of many variables including training, use, popularity, etc..... The charitable explanation for honing in on "genetic variation" when there are more important variables is extremely poor reasoning.

It is mainly about dog breeds, and the taboo against racism is a related tangent. If it wasn't for the very common taboo against racism, then the perspective of the pit bull defenders would seem hair-brained to nearly everyone. I think it is rather easy to connect the dots. The pit-bull defenders seem to be caricatures of the anti-racists, as dogs are analogous to people, with about as much emotional investment, so defenders of pit bulls have applied the blank slate theory to dogs. But, let's make this about dogs, not people. What important variable do you think makes a Chow a thousand times more dangerous than a Greyhound? I think it is because Chows have the longest breeding history oriented toward herding and guarding, whereas Greyhounds were bred merely for game coursing and racing. If you don't agree with that, then what? Are owners of Chows the biggest dicks in the world but owners of Greyhounds the most gentle caring people in existence?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you treat a dog badly, he will most likely bite you.

If you treat a dog well, he will most likely love you.

Pretty much all you need to know.

If it's your dog. The problem comes when others encounter the dog--how I treat animals has nothing to do with how a dog I encounter has been treated.

Every dog bite I've gotten (nothing serious) has been due to my not accepting the dog doing something to me that I didn't want the dog to do. I did not treat the dogs badly, I simply stopped the improper behavior.

How many dog bites have you gotten?

I have been around dogs all my life, both familiar and unfamiliar and have bitten just once.

Then again, I like dogs.

 

[Juma]

. I think it is rather easy to connect the dots.

And there is the root of your problems: you are way too fast connecting imaginary dots.

 

[Toni]

Dog bites are a function of temperament, which is highly heritable in dogs, training (or lack of) and socialization, and size. Chihuahuas, I believe, are responsible for more bites but at their size, the bites are rarely serious. I've never met a miniature poodle who was not a nasty creature although I know that there are plenty of very sweet ones. A mastiff is huge and even a small, play bite from one can be serious and is very likely to be regarded as serious and a serious act of aggression, even when it occurs with a young dog who is playing and who has not yet learned to mind his mouth and that people are not two legged puppies.

Pitbulls (which is a very broad category, with a variety of breeds comprising what we commonly regard as pitbulls and most often, mixtures of these breeds) have a few things going against them: their size and their genetics, which is to grab and hold: they have powerful jaws and powerful forequarters and are extremely well muscled. The other thing going against them is their public image as tough enforcer dogs and fighters. Unfortunately, certain kinds of people will breed the most aggressive of these in order to get a bigger, badder dog to shore up the human's tough person image. 50+ years ago, these same dogs were sweet family dogs. If you have ever seen any of the old Our Gang shows, there is a pitbull who is their best friend/playmate and total love. That's what they were for a long time. Of course, there is also a history of using these dogs to bait bears, much longer than 50+ years ago and to fight. Personally, I know several pitbulls and pit mixes who are sweet, loveable, reliable dogs that I would trust with a child--as long as dog and child were supervised as ALL dog/child combinations should be until the child is old enough to know how to behave around the dog and reliable.

I grew up with beagles, as most people in my generation did (Snoopy, from the comic strip Peanuts): beagles of old were the everydog, family dog and utterly reliable and faithful. Yes, they barked (sometimes) and liked to dig but would no more hurt a child than fly to the moon and back. Unless the child was mean, as the kid who lived next door was. Only person our beagle did NOT like and only kid to be banned from our yard. Ever. For good reason. His own family tried a dog but it didn't last. Not a good kid at all. No idea what became of him. I am surprised to see them beagles so far down on the 'danger list' as today, a lot of beagles have been poorly bred and come from puppy mills where females are bred as continuously as possible with little or no regard to the suitability of either parent, poorly socialized, etc. Partly as their size has made them valuable as laboratory subjects. Not good for the breed. The ones I have known in recent years have been timid and not very stable, which is a terrible shame.

Setter is not a breed but a group of breeds. It would be more useful to have them separated out.

The dogs I've had as an adult have all been of a herding variety, and large: 70-100 lbs. Very sweet dogs, but big and prone to knocking small children over when they are in the big puppy phase. BUT a poorly bred one is a nightmare: they are large enough that their mouth can easily carry a soccer ball, which means it could easily take a child or an adult head in its mouth if so inclined. By poorly bred, I am referring primarily to temperament, side by side with good health/good joints, with personality and aesthetics following after.

It's interesting who has posted about having problems with dogs/been bitten.

 

[Toni]

If it's your dog. The problem comes when others encounter the dog--how I treat animals has nothing to do with how a dog I encounter has been treated.

Every dog bite I've gotten (nothing serious) has been due to my not accepting the dog doing something to me that I didn't want the dog to do. I did not treat the dogs badly, I simply stopped the improper behavior.

How many dog bites have you gotten?

I have been around dogs all my life, both familiar and unfamiliar and have bitten just once.

Then again, I like dogs.

I have currently have a very strong willed female dog whose breeders had no business being in the business. I took her because,,, well, it was dumb to encourage them to continue but she needed out of there.

I spent a LOT of time stopping a great deal of improper behavior from her. A LOT of time. She never bit me, beyond the puppy teething thing she had to learn not to do. She's mellowed out pretty well and knows who is the Queen B in our house. She's pretty sure she's next in line, but she really makes certain that she's being a good girl and that I know she's being a good girl.

And no, I've never struck her or used any kind of violence with her at all.

 

[laughing dog]

Yup. It is badly mangled "scientific" analysis of dog breed "behavior" as a metaphor for "scientific racism". Dog bites are mostly a function of training (not breeding) of the dog. Dog bite frequencies are functions of many variables including training, use, popularity, etc..... The charitable explanation for honing in on "genetic variation" when there are more important variables is extremely poor reasoning.

It is mainly about dog breeds, and the taboo against racism is a related tangent. If it wasn't for the very common taboo against racism, then the perspective of the pit bull defenders would seem hair-brained to nearly everyone. I think it is rather easy to connect the dots. The pit-bull defenders seem to be caricatures of the anti-racists, as dogs are analogous to people, with about as much emotional investment, so defenders of pit bulls have applied the blank slate theory to dogs. But, let's make this about dogs, not people. What important variable do you think makes a Chow a thousand times more dangerous than a Greyhound? I think it is because Chows have the longest breeding history oriented toward herding and guarding, whereas Greyhounds were bred merely for game coursing and racing.

What makes you think that herding and guarding required biting? You obviously don't know anything about dogs.

If you don't agree with that, then what? Are owners of Chows the biggest dicks in the world but owners of Greyhounds the most gentle caring people in existence?

I think there are number of factors (assuming, of course, that your data is accurate). First, Chows are more likely to be around more people than Greyhounds. Lots of greyhounds are relatively isolated because they are racing dogs. And it may be that owners of Chows are less likely to understand their dogs and do not do a good job of training and handling their dogs compared to greyhound owners. It is true that Chows are generally more aggressive and territorial than greyhounds, but a good owner knows how to deal with his or her dog.