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

[Ford]

I'm not making anything up.

Of course you are.

Do you know the employee was not frightened (you told me you know the employer).

Yes. I don't understand why you refuse to believe this. The employer was not just some random guy I knew. He lived with my mother for 10 years. His daughter was my sister's best friend at one point. His son in law has been my mother's financial adviser for at least 20 years.

If he were not frightened, can you imagine anyone being frightened?

Yes. I can imagine someone breaking into the business being frightened by a guard dog.

Why are you defending the dog as if I thought the dog had been inappropriate? It was the owner who was inappropriate.

The owner was not the least bit inappropriate. In fact with regards to "dangerous" breeds of dogs (the subject of this increasingly absurd thread) he did right. Instead of getting a couple of aggressive attack dogs and leaving them chained up in the yard outside his business, he got a couple of dogs and trained them to defend the property against intruders while at the same time not causing harm.


You have repeatedly and deliberately ignored the fact that the dog did a rather remarkable thing...restraining a human without hurting them. There are police dogs that can't pull that off.


So to turn your own question around...which would you rather have? A couple of attack dogs that would tear into your mother without a second thought? Or a guard dog that would take care not to harm her while at the same time removing her from where she might not belong?


I don't expect an answer.

 

[arkirk]

I was kind of amused at the fact the Chihuahua was rated at the very bottom of the dangerous dog list. I was a mailman in loose dog infested Hermosa Beach in the late '60's for about a year. During that time I was attacked by only two dogs. One was a german shepherd that wasn't even shown on the list. I fended that one off with my mailbag and didn't even have to use my doggie spray on it. The other was the only one that actually drew blood...a Chihuahua. They don't do dangerous bites, but that is not because they do not desire to do so. If you were to scale one of those dogs up to the size of a Boxer for instance, you would be have the most dangerous creature. The meanest dispositions are often found in these little lap dogs...especially yorkies and Chihuahuas. I am glad they are as little as they are.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. I don't understand why you refuse to believe this. The employer was not just some random guy I knew. He lived with my mother for 10 years. His daughter was my sister's best friend at one point. His son in law has been my mother's financial adviser for at least 20 years.

You knew the employer, not the employee. It sounds as if you never spoke to the employee, and only have the employer's version of events.

I'm not 'refusing' to believe anything. I'm asking for information.

Yes. I can imagine someone breaking into the business being frightened by a guard dog.

Now the employee broke in?

The owner was not the least bit inappropriate.

He was careless at best and downright negligent at worst. He hired someone without telling that person there was a guard dog, he did not 'introduce' his dog to the employee, he did absolutely nothing to ensure that the person he hired to work for him wouldn't be mistaken for an intruder.

You have repeatedly and deliberately ignored the fact that the dog did a rather remarkable thing...restraining a human without hurting them. There are police dogs that can't pull that off.

I don't care if the dog juggled five skittles while saving Timmy hanging over a cliff. I'm not talking about the dog. I'm talking about the owner.

So to turn your own question around...which would you rather have? A couple of attack dogs that would tear into your mother without a second thought? Or a guard dog that would take care not to harm her while at the same time removing her from where she might not belong?

I don't expect an answer.

Correction: you don't expect an unqualified answer to your ridiculous false dichotomy, and you are correct, you won't get an unqualified answer to your ridiculous false dichotomy.

What I would prefer is that an owner, who hired someone to work for him, had actually cared enough to make his workplace safe.

Instead of the caninephiles acknowledging the owner erred in not introducing the dog to the employee and not warning the employee, all we've had is accusations that I'm a hysterical liar.

 

[Ford]

I'm not 'refusing' to believe anything. I'm asking for information.

Bullshit. You've got this imaginary "caninephiles" thing you're arguing to death. I'm not playing your game anymore.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not 'refusing' to believe anything. I'm asking for information.

Bullshit. You've got this imaginary "caninephiles" thing you're arguing to death. I'm not playing your game anymore.

The game where my experiences are minimised and I'm called a hysterical liar? I'm glad you're not playing any more.

 

[Toni]

It was the employees fault. He behaved inappropriately.

No: the onus is not on any employee to know the correct way to 'behave'. I don't expect to go to work on my first day, not be warned that there are dogs and then be blamed for reacting to the dog in some forbidden 'stupid' way.

Remember the cop that shot a fleeing 50 year old in the back? If the man had 'behaved appropriately' he wouldn't have been shot. But if the fucking cop had simply not shot him, he wouldn't have been shot.

Wow. I was expected to know how to behave at work on my first and every single day.

Here's the thing: the employee behaved badly. Swatting at a dog is an aggressive move. Also a foolish and ineffective one. It is common sense.

Here's another thing: the employee was not harmed in any way.

I realize that you had a frightening experience when you were a kid. That's really a shame. I wish someone had given you some comfort and better yet, helped you figure out constructive solutions to your dilemma with the dog.

But you are tremendously extrapolating your reaction to an entirely different situation and applying your own fear and horror where there was none.

People have bad experiences all the time. That doesn't mean that the experience will be universally bad for everybody or that some/most people won't benefit from that experience.

 

[Metaphor]

Wow. I was expected to know how to behave at work on my first and every single day.

How many workplaces have you attended as an employee that had guard dogs you were not told about and were not introduced to?

Here's the thing: the employee behaved badly. Swatting at a dog is an aggressive move. Also a foolish and ineffective one. It is common sense.

I get it. The victim needs to be blamed.

Here's another thing: the employee was not harmed in any way.

No-one has the employee's word, and in any case, I would count being 'escorted' away on my first day on the job by a dog as harm . Your mileage obviously varies.

I realize that you had a frightening experience when you were a kid. That's really a shame. I wish someone had given you some comfort and better yet, helped you figure out constructive solutions to your dilemma with the dog.

It was not a single experience. I delivered pamphlets, and walked home from school, for years. My father was bitten by a dog and had to have stitches and a tetanus shot. He was accused of provoking the dog. (In the world of caninephiles, 'provoking'=walking past). I have had many dogs attempt to bite me as they roamed the streets. Things are a lot better in suburban streets in Australia now than they were in the 1980s, but only because the law has finally forced dog owners to take responsibility. But things still aren't perfect. There are owners who are apparently illiterate, and don't understand the difference between an on-leash public park and an off-leash one. (Hint: in an on-leash park, there's supposed to be a leash on your dog).

 

[Toni]

I have been around dogs most of my life too. I was bitten once when I was at a party and was running. The dog bit me to stop me. It was a little dog.

That has happened to me, except the dog was a >30kg sheepdog that latched onto my upper arm and pulled me off my feet. Left nice big holes and earned me a tetanus shot. The owners didn't have the nous to realise the dog couldn't differentiate between running children and errant livestock, even though it was habitually behaving in that manner whenever kids came over to play in the yard.

The owners were to blame, of course.

I know sheepdogs rather well. The instinct is to go after (and by going after, I mean pursue and herd, not bite) running creatures which might be in need of herding. With sheepdogs as pets, this is an instinct which can and should be trained out of the dog. BTW, a good sheepdog will not grab errant livestock but will use its body to nudge the errant animal into place. Some breeds will also perhaps nip at heels. Both behaviors can be trained out of dogs but the instinct to herd has been bred into the dogs for many, many generations and in fact, is a behavior which has been selected for in breeding. Nowadays, most sheepdogs are pets but the herding instinct still abides and will until and unless it is bred out over many generations. Training and socialization can enhance genetics and can overcome genetically ingrained behaviors as well.

The bite is unfortunate--very! but you were due for a tetanus shot.

 

[Toni]

How many workplaces have you attended as an employee that had guard dogs you were not told about and were not introduced to?

The same number where I arrived without telling anybody and let myself in without telling anybody.

We do not know that the employee was unaware that there were guard dogs on the premises. That's an assumption you have made.

Here's the thing: the employee behaved badly. Swatting at a dog is an aggressive move. Also a foolish and ineffective one. It is common sense.

I get it. The victim needs to be blamed.

No, you don't get it. This human was being well tolerated by the guard dog--until the human behaved aggressively towards the guard dog. At which point the guard dog stopped the human--WITHOUT HURTING HIM--and escorted the human to another human who would have better luck reasoning with the employee and letting them know how to behave.

The employee was not a victim. You are projecting your own fears onto the employee.

Here's another thing: the employee was not harmed in any way.

No-one has the employee's word, and in any case, I would count being 'escorted' away on my first day on the job by a dog as harm . Your mileage obviously varies

Ford seems to know the employee and certainly knows the situation very well. Apparently you think you know it better although you clearly have a number of facts wrong. Among those facts you have wrong: the employee was not escorted away. The employee was escorted to the boss/dog's owner. And was not harmed.

I realize that some people would have been very frightened by this and may have shit themselves or pissed themselves or both. Me? Had I been stupid enough to swat at a (large!) dog, I would have been very embarrassed at my behavior and would have been worried about being fired for idiocy. I wouldn't have been frightened of being bitten by a dog who wasn't biting me and who clearly had no intention of biting me.

I realize that you had a frightening experience when you were a kid. That's really a shame. I wish someone had given you some comfort and better yet, helped you figure out constructive solutions to your dilemma with the dog.

It was not a single experience. I delivered pamphlets, and walked home from school, for years. My father was bitten by a dog and had to have stitches and a tetanus shot. He was accused of provoking the dog. (In the world of caninephiles, 'provoking'=walking past). I have had many dogs attempt to bite me as they roamed the streets. Things are a lot better in suburban streets in Australia now than they were in the 1980s, but only because the law has finally forced dog owners to take responsibility. But things still aren't perfect. There are owners who are apparently illiterate, and don't understand the difference between an on-leash public park and an off-leash one. (Hint: in an on-leash park, there's supposed to be a leash on your dog).

I've had multiple bad experiences with dogs as well. In each case, the dog was not leashed nor under any kind of control by the owner who was not within sight. In each case, the dog came out from a hidden position and went after me from behind. Once, I was holding my young child and was in fact pregnant. THAT delightful owner claimed she had no idea whose dog it was (the dog had run out of her front door while I was walking past, carrying my sleeping toddler). A neighbor told me she was lying (which I already knew) and that the dog frequently got out and went after anyone who passed by. I don't know what was up with the dog--whether it was just untrained and abused enough to be randomly aggressive or whether it was 'crazy.' The owner was crazy and irresponsible.

I've never been bitten, aside from puppy nips/teething. Mammals teethe. Human babies, too. Puppies learn quickly that chewing on humans or older dogs is not acceptable--assuming they have the time with older dogs and have responsible owners.

But several times, dogs have come out from behind cars, out of houses, from gaps in fences at me. It's a frightening experience.

I've had many, many more good experiences with dogs. I've had dogs most of my life. Never an aggressive dog, although my current female had some issues, as they say, and needed a great deal of patience and training. We are working on getting her to be a bit more quiet when guests arrive but aside from that, she's a really good dog.

 

[Toni]

You knew the employer, not the employee. It sounds as if you never spoke to the employee, and only have the employer's version of events.

I'm not 'refusing' to believe anything. I'm asking for information.

You are not paying attention to the information that is being given to you. I realize you have had bad experiences but you are letting your bad experiences cloud your judgment and your ability to comprehend when information is being provided you.

Yes. I can imagine someone breaking into the business being frightened by a guard dog.

Now the employee broke in?

The employee was frightened? I don't recall reading that. You are projecting.

The owner was not the least bit inappropriate.

He was careless at best and downright negligent at worst. He hired someone without telling that person there was a guard dog, he did not 'introduce' his dog to the employee, he did absolutely nothing to ensure that the person he hired to work for him wouldn't be mistaken for an intruder.

The employer may have been careless about who he hired. The employee was well tolerated until he behaved badly. At which point he was escorted--with out being harmed--to the employer. That shows exemplary training and behavior on the part of the dog and owner. The employee? Not so much. But he was new. I am sure he learned how to behave.

You have repeatedly and deliberately ignored the fact that the dog did a rather remarkable thing...restraining a human without hurting them. There are police dogs that can't pull that off.

I don't care if the dog juggled five skittles while saving Timmy hanging over a cliff. I'm not talking about the dog. I'm talking about the owner.

The employee was frightened of the owner? I didn't get that at all. Although if I had been that employee, I would have been frightened that my own foolishness would cost me my job.

So to turn your own question around...which would you rather have? A couple of attack dogs that would tear into your mother without a second thought? Or a guard dog that would take care not to harm her while at the same time removing her from where she might not belong?

I don't expect an answer.

Correction: you don't expect an unqualified answer to your ridiculous false dichotomy, and you are correct, you won't get an unqualified answer to your ridiculous false dichotomy.

What I would prefer is that an owner, who hired someone to work for him, had actually cared enough to make his workplace safe.

The only 'dangerous' person was the employee but the dog very professionally and very gently contained that danger.

Instead of the caninephiles acknowledging the owner erred in not introducing the dog to the employee and not warning the employee, all we've had is accusations that I'm a hysterical liar.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. And you do seem to be letting your own fears and bad experience overcome your ability to read and to reason.

Yes, there are bad dogs. There are even more bad dog owners. Ford's case seems to have neither bad dogs nor bad dog owners.

There are bad employers who don't adequately inform employees of the security of the building. There is no evidence of that happening here, either. What we do know is that a new employee didn't bother to behave decently to the guard, who happened to be a dog. The guard wasn't hurting or threatening the employee. The employee made threatening gestures towards the guard who took the employee to the boss. Without harming the employee. This showed great responsibility and skill and training on the part of the guard and the owner. The employee had some catching up to do in that regard.

 

[Metaphor]

The employee was frightened? I don't recall reading that. You are projecting.

I asked a question. It is everyone else who is assuming facts not in evidence (that he was not frightened). The person who told the story originally only has the employer's version of events, and does not appear to have talked to the employee.

The employer may have been careless about who he hired.

No: the owner hired someone, gave them a key, and neglected to tell them there was a guard dog who the employee had obviously not been introduced to.

When you give a key to somebody and hire them, you expect them to be in your workplace.

If in fact the employee had been warned about the dog, then it's a different story.

The employee was well tolerated until he behaved badly. At which point he was escorted--with out being harmed--to the employer. That shows exemplary training and behavior on the part of the dog and owner. The employee? Not so much. But he was new. I am sure he learned how to behave.

The dog and employee were placed in situations they ought never to have been in due to the owner's bad management.

The employee was frightened of the owner? I didn't get that at all. Although if I had been that employee, I would have been frightened that my own foolishness would cost me my job.

I would have been incensed that someone hired me and neglected to inform me that there was a guard dog who would regard me as an intruder.

The only 'dangerous' person was the employee but the dog very professionally and very gently contained that danger.

Yes. 'Swatting' is dangerous but clamping your jaw on someone's person isn't.

The dangerous person was an employer who gave a key to an employee and neglected to inform the employee that there was a guard dog that would regard the employee as an intruder.

There are bad employers who don't adequately inform employees of the security of the building. There is no evidence of that happening here, either.

Did Ford say the employee knew there was a guard dog? It seems he should have mentioned that little fact. Or are you again assuming the owner did everything perfectly?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Da fuck?

Are people actually defending the owner here and saying that the employee was the one at fault?

That's weird.

Stop being weird.

 

[Metaphor]

Da fuck?

Are people actually defending the owner here and saying that the employee was the one at fault?

That's weird.

Stop being weird.

That's exactly what they're saying. The story was intended as a sympathetic portrayal of dogs and dog owners, but when I gave an alternate reading of the text I was accused of being a hysterical liar assuming facts not in evidence, even though it's the others assuming facts not in evidence (that the employee was not frightened, that the employee was warned, that the employee should have known how to react).

 

[laughing dog]

They were taken from different posts, shorn of context, and then put together as if the next two quotes were part of the context of the first one. If one of your students did that in an essay, I suspect you'd have some negative feedback for them.

It was a short list and nothing else.

Can you imagine anyone being scared? Or is beyond the realm of possibility?

Yes, I can imagine someone being scared, but that does not make it "most people".

- - - Updated - - -

Da fuck?

Are people actually defending the owner here and saying that the employee was the one at fault?

That's weird.

Stop being weird.

I don't think anyone was at fault, because the situation, as described, was pretty much harmless.

 

[Toni]

Da fuck?

Are people actually defending the owner here and saying that the employee was the one at fault?

That's weird.

Stop being weird.

That's exactly what they're saying. The story was intended as a sympathetic portrayal of dogs and dog owners, but when I gave an alternate reading of the text I was accused of being a hysterical liar assuming facts not in evidence, even though it's the others assuming facts not in evidence (that the employee was not frightened, that the employee was warned, that the employee should have known how to react).

I don't remember anyone suggesting the employee wasn't frightened. I don't think it was relevant if the employee was frightened. I don't know if the employee was or was not aware that there was a guard dog on the premises.

I do think that the employee should have known how to behave around the dog that was obviously intended to be in the workplace. Now, before you go and say that I am assuming that the employee should have known the dog was intended to be there, there is absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise. The employee didn't raise an alarm, make a phone call, try to leave when he saw an unexpected dog (if indeed, the dog was unexpected.) The employee started swatting at this dog he didn't know. That is an idiot thing to do. It's also potentially dangerous. He was fortunate to not be working for a fool but for someone who knew how to raise and train dogs so that the dog would behave calmly and rationally, which is more than the employee seems to have done..

Ford related a story about an incident with which he was very familiar. You kept insisting that various things happened that didn't happen and that the situation was other than described. In fact, you had no basis for that 'alternative' reading. You could have covered an 'alternative' reading by saying: Well, what if....(and then any of the things you invented). You didn't do that. You kept insisting the situation was different although you have zero knowledge of the facts other than what Ford presented. Your use of hyperbole made your 'version' to seem to be the hysterical imaginings of someone who is terrified of dogs. That may not actually be a description of you and your feelings but that is certainly an easy conclusion to draw.

 

[gmbteach]

Metaphor,

Having read over the this thread I can see that you have an extremely negative opinion of dogs. Am I right? Does this negative opinion apply to ANY dog? If so, can I ask if you have had a negative experience with every type of dog breed?

What I, and I assume others in this thread, are trying to do is explain that yes, some dogs will not behave appropriately when provoked. Does that mean that all dogs should be destroyed? I am gleaning from your posts that dogs are to blame for every attack that occurs. This is not the case. Please re-read some of the posts about dogs that have behaved appropriately. I noticed you don't 'attack' any of those thoughts.

Gaynor

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was kind of amused at the fact the Chihuahua was rated at the very bottom of the dangerous dog list. I was a mailman in loose dog infested Hermosa Beach in the late '60's for about a year. During that time I was attacked by only two dogs. One was a german shepherd that wasn't even shown on the list. I fended that one off with my mailbag and didn't even have to use my doggie spray on it. The other was the only one that actually drew blood...a Chihuahua. They don't do dangerous bites, but that is not because they do not desire to do so. If you were to scale one of those dogs up to the size of a Boxer for instance, you would be have the most dangerous creature. The meanest dispositions are often found in these little lap dogs...especially yorkies and Chihuahuas. I am glad they are as little as they are.

The list is of dangerous bites. As you say, the little ones don't do dangerous bites. No surprise here.

I think the list would be very different if you counted all bites but it would be hard to do so as many of the minor ones never get reported.

 

[Ford]

Ford related a story about an incident with which he was very familiar. You kept insisting that various things happened that didn't happen and that the situation was other than described. In fact, you had no basis for that 'alternative' reading. You could have covered an 'alternative' reading by saying: Well, what if....(and then any of the things you invented). You didn't do that. You kept insisting the situation was different although you have zero knowledge of the facts other than what Ford presented.

Thank you.

That's all, folks. End of story. Time to move along.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I was kind of amused at the fact the Chihuahua was rated at the very bottom of the dangerous dog list. I was a mailman in loose dog infested Hermosa Beach in the late '60's for about a year. During that time I was attacked by only two dogs. One was a german shepherd that wasn't even shown on the list. I fended that one off with my mailbag and didn't even have to use my doggie spray on it. The other was the only one that actually drew blood...a Chihuahua. They don't do dangerous bites, but that is not because they do not desire to do so. If you were to scale one of those dogs up to the size of a Boxer for instance, you would be have the most dangerous creature. The meanest dispositions are often found in these little lap dogs...especially yorkies and Chihuahuas. I am glad they are as little as they are.

Right. Chihuahuas are not dangerous dogs, but they are still little shits. German Shepherds rank at #11 most dangerous breed, with a second-column value of 3,038.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor,

Having read over the this thread I can see that you have an extremely negative opinion of dogs. Am I right?

No. I have a negative opinion of some dog owners, and I have a negative opinion of a particular (sub)culture of dog owners. These include

i) Owners who are completely (wilfully) oblivious to the inconvenience, discomfort, and stress caused by their dogs
ii) Owners and other caninephiles who look at you is if you're from another planet because you don't care for dogs (notice, not cruel to, not actively against, just don't care about them)
iii) Owners of violent dogs who deny their culpability and blame the victim, and think their property rights are violated if a girl scout knocks on their door to sell cookies so she deserves anything she gets.

I also dislike yappy dogs, large dogs, even the 'harmless' large dogs who, if not going to cause you physical injury, are still well capable of invading your space and then you'll get the predictable platitudes from the owner like 'she likes you'.

I tell you what, if someone's going to paw my thighs and slobber into my lap, I'd like to think I'd consented first.

Does this negative opinion apply to ANY dog? If so, can I ask if you have had a negative experience with every type of dog breed?

No, I venture to say I haven't seen or interacted with 90%+ of dog breeds. But I thought the caninephiles rejected the genetic explanation of the list?

What I, and I assume others in this thread, are trying to do is explain that yes, some dogs will not behave appropriately when provoked.

And what I'm trying to explain is that some dogs behave violently even when not provoked, unless you count 'walking past' as 'provoked'.

Does that mean that all dogs should be destroyed? I am gleaning from your posts that dogs are to blame for every attack that occurs. This is not the case. Please re-read some of the posts about dogs that have behaved appropriately. I noticed you don't 'attack' any of those thoughts.

Dogs with no history of violence should not be destroyed. I don't care if you want to clean up their shit and have dog hair over your furniture. But, no matter what the cause (e.g. a bad owner), if a dog's gone bad, it's gone bad, and the situation cannot be saved.