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

[Metaphor]

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.

I know people who have actual phobias. A friend of mine has a snake phobia. It causes her distress to look at pictures of snakes.

I am not terrified of dogs. I am situationally frightened if a large, off-leash dog has adopted an aggressive posture and has its teeth bared and is growling and barking at me.

If you don't find such a situation frightening I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Toni]

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.

I know people who have actual phobias. A friend of mine has a snake phobia. It causes her distress to look at pictures of snakes.

I am not terrified of dogs. I am situationally frightened if a large, off-leash dog has adopted an aggressive posture and has its teeth bared and is growling and barking at me.

If you don't find such a situation frightening I don't know what to say to you.

I am not sure what that has to do with this thread.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The thread is supposed to be about the genetics of dogs making them vicious.

Now we hear its about how bad the owners of some dogs are.

I am inclined to believe the purpose of the genetics argument is to show how the genetics of say, black people, make us dumb and criminals.

But a favored dodge around saying that is to say we, black people, make horrible parents.

So there is a parallel, but not in the breeding but arguing.

What I find really interesting is that this so called scientific arguement keeps popping up in a politics forum.

 

[gmbteach]

Metaphor,

It's good to know you don't 'hate' dogs.

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.

Fair enough on this point. I did have a dog that attacked my other dog for no reason whatsoever. Not once, but twice. She was destroyed, because in my eyes she had gone bad.

So do I destroy my current German Shepherd dog because she doesn't like other female dogs? She like the two male dogs she lives with. In fact, I would go so far as to say she loves them. However, put her near any other female dog and she goes nuts with the barking etc. Should I destroy her? She hasn't been violent towards them, though she has been aggressive and we have restrained her when this occurs.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

 

[gmbteach]

The thread is supposed to be about the genetics of dogs making them vicious.

Now we hear its about how bad the owners of some dogs are.

I am inclined to believe the purpose of the genetics argument is to show how the genetics of say, black people, make us dumb and criminals.

But a favored dodge around saying that is to say we, black people, make horrible parents.

So there is a parallel, but not in the breeding but arguing.

What I find really interesting is that this so called scientific arguement keeps popping up in a politics forum.

Shouldn't genetics vs environment be a better discussion?

 

[gmbteach]

HMMM.... I am pretty sure these dogs are being provoked and yet they aren't attacking...

Just an example....



[video]http://www.suggestedpost.eu/dogs-annoying-cats/[/video]

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor,

It's good to know you don't 'hate' dogs.

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.

Fair enough on this point. I did have a dog that attacked my other dog for no reason whatsoever. Not once, but twice. She was destroyed, because in my eyes she had gone bad.

So do I destroy my current German Shepherd dog because she doesn't like other female dogs? She like the two male dogs she lives with. In fact, I would go so far as to say she loves them. However, put her near any other female dog and she goes nuts with the barking etc. Should I destroy her? She hasn't been violent towards them, though she has been aggressive and we have restrained her when this occurs.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

As long as you don't have other female dogs, no, why would she need to be destroyed?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

To whoever said dogs are not moral agents, I disagree. They have a sense of fairness and show signs of guilt and group norms. They evolved to be social animals as did we. They dont have the same moral sense as we do and dont have the same level of moral development as most humans do, but have more than some (ie sociopaths).

They are not mindless, as many humans pretend that they are. It is a pet peeve of mine when humans over anthropomorphize animals, and also when they leap in the opposite direction to claim that humans are even more special and unique than we really are.

More often than not when I hear somebody claim humans are unique in doing or having this or that, a study comes along to prove them wrong.

 

[scombrid]

I am inclined to believe the purpose of the genetics argument is to show how the genetics of say, black people, make us dumb and criminals.

I didn't feel that was so thinly veiled in the opening post.

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?),

And we all know his whipping post. So I may be strongly inclined to agree with your inclination.

It isn't even remotely reasonable parallel though. Dog breeds are a lot more in-bred than human "races". You'd expect all sorts of traits in dogs to have levels of between-group variation that are greater than between-group variation in humans, including behaviors. Comparing dog breeds to human races is kind of a non-starter from a genetic standpoint.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't even remotely reasonable parallel though. Dog breeds are a lot more in-bred than human "races". You'd expect all sorts of traits in dogs to have levels of between-group variation that are greater than between-group variation in humans, including behaviors. Comparing dog breeds to human races is kind of a non-starter from a genetic standpoint.

It definitely isn't a reasonable parallel, but it may be two points along a continuum. That remains an open question. That we see it in dogs is good evidence that it probably exists to some extent in humans, and it MAY manifest in some meaningful way, or it may not. It shows that it is possible, not probable, that there could be meaningful genetic differences in human behaviour between "races" or other groupings. It is not a point for those who claim it to be so, but it is a point against those who claim it can't be so.

 

[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.

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

It's not harmless. A big animal clamped onto his leg and dragged him around. That's no more "harmless" than if a security guard had shot at him for being in there but missed. No actual lasting damage occured, but it's a violent and potentially dangerous and employers should face severe legal liability for putting their employees in that type of situation.

It's not the type of thing which employees should know how to handle properly without any training so that they become the ones at fault if they handle it poorly.

 

[Toni]

The thread is supposed to be about the genetics of dogs making them vicious.

Now we hear its about how bad the owners of some dogs are.

I am inclined to believe the purpose of the genetics argument is to show how the genetics of say, black people, make us dumb and criminals.

But a favored dodge around saying that is to say we, black people, make horrible parents.

So there is a parallel, but not in the breeding but arguing.

What I find really interesting is that this so called scientific arguement keeps popping up in a politics forum.

Shouldn't genetics vs environment be a better discussion?

Dogs are very different than humans. For thousands of years, humans have been deliberately breeding dogs to select for desired behaviors and instincts as well as for specific physical characteristics.

Terriers were specifically developed to be hunters of vermin, with some breeds specifically developed to go down holes after their prey. Nowadays, most terriers are pets rather than ratters. Herding dogs were specifically developed to herd/manage livestock, with different breeds developed specifically for different types of livestock. Hunting dogs: pointers were developed to locate or point certain game birds; retrievers to bring back birds which had been felled. Both types of dogs were specifically developed to have a 'soft' mouth: one that would not harm the game animal they bring back to the hunter. There are guard dogs breeds and some which were specifically developed to fight bears. These are just a very few examples of types of dog breeds developed for specific purposes.

I have seen some of these characteristics appear in puppies of only a couple of months old because a particular instinct was so well developed through breeding--that is, genetics. These characteristics are further enhanced through training. Or trained away from if the dog is a pet rather than a working dog. This holds true in modern dogs as well as ancient breeds.

Currently, there is a trend in at least my corner of the US to 'adopt' vs 'purchase' a dog from a rescue agency although as far as I can tell, there is significant money exchanged. People who don't really know better talk a lot about how much healthier mixed breeds are vs well developed breeds. The truth is that a good dog breeder will select for physical and mental HEALTH over all else with temperament, and breed conformation coming in second and third, ideally temperament coming in a very, very close second to physical health. Of course there are plenty of bad breeders who breed for looks first (whatever is in fashion) and puppy mills simply breed with no regard for anything other than volume. Mixed breeds may avoid some known genetic predispositions to some diseases--or they may exacerbate the worst of these diseases and temperaments. It's not fashionable to say so and people who 'adopt' mixed breed animals from shelters, etc. are quick to blame their dogs' shortcomings, health and temperament, on their early disadvantages rather than any genetics, genetics gone wrong or their own lack of training of the dog. At once, they over anthropomorphize their dogs and simultaneously absolve themselves of any responsibility for the dog's behavior and quirks.

I could go on but I don't think that is the intention of this thread.

Humans are quite different as there is and never has been as far as I can tell any planned breeding scheme to select for specific temperamental characteristics or talents. We do not destroy human babies which are born with serious deformities; we do not neuter or spay humans we deem unfit for breeding at early ages. Or against their will (historically, some exceptions have existed, though). We strongly disapprove of human eugenics, or at least almost all of us do, and many of us strongly disapprove, explicitly or implicitly of NOT practicing genetically planned breeding for dogs and other animals.

Within human beings, there are some behavioral characteristics which have some heritability: shyness being one that leaps to mind. There is some evidence that talents can be inherited although there is often such a strong reinforcement through exposure to sports, music, art, science, etc. that it is not clear where genetic influences start and where environmental influences begin. There is some suggestion that intelligence is at least partially inherited yet there are certainly many easy famous examples of offspring of famously brilliant parents not achieving nearly so high a level of expertise. Albert Einstein's offspring are easy examples of the limits of any inheritabilty of intelligence

But I think what Athena is getting at is that some people like to assign blame for inequality of groups of people, especially racial groups, to other people: either genetics or upbringing rather than acknowledge and accept the role that society as a whole and specific segments of society play in human intellectual and human social development.

 

[laughing dog]

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

It's not harmless. A big animal clamped onto his leg and dragged him around.

On what basis did you draw that conclusion because it certainly did not come from the description posted by Ford.

That's no more "harmless" than if a security guard had shot at him for being in there but missed.

I suspect more people would be frightened from being the target of a shooter than having a dog clamp on them and take them somewhere.

No actual lasting damage occured, but it's a violent and potentially dangerous and employers should face severe legal liability for putting their employees in that type of situation.

That conclusion does logically follow from your false premises.

It's not the type of thing which employees should know how to handle properly without any training so that they become the ones at fault if they handle it poorly.

Anyone with an ounce of sense ought to know not to swat at unknown dog.

I do apologize in advance if your response was intended as satire.

 

[Rhea]

I'm surprised by the posts that blame the human victim for dog bites. And yes, surprised by the approval of a dog trained to fetch a human with its teeth.

But mostly surprised and a little insulted by the replies about "you can tell who doesn't like dogs" as if that is somehow a provoking behavior that we should be ashamed of.

What does that even mean?

I do not care for dogs. They seem to not care that I don't. And their owners don't seem to care either, letting them get up on me and lick my crotch and slobber and yes, BITE ME.

One of the more serious bites I had was while cycling on a public road past a house. The dog comes barreling down the driveway at me, while the owner shouts from above, "don't worry, she's friendly!" As if barreling down the driveway at my bike is a friendly behavior!? And not something you should be STOPPING!? But that's okay, she caught me and sank her teeth into my thigh and pulled skin off as I tried desperately to stay upright and get away. (She's SO! friendly, perfect family German Shepherd, oh, how fucking cute)

We used to also have two neighbor or dogs that would chase and knock you off your bike, although they wouldn't bite - only because they were muzzled.

Then there are the "nice" ones and their owners who don't read the fucking signals - if I do not reach out to pet your pet, get it the fuck off of me, okay? Don't let it put its claws on my car door "saying hello," don't let it lift my skirt with it's nose, don't let it lick my hand. I do NOT want to say "hello!" to your dog. I should not have to touch its allergy-inducing fur to stop this invasion and push it away.

And when I say I'm allergic to them (which I shouldn't really have to do, it should be a given that your dog does not TOUCH people who have not invited it), don't make the mistake of thinking I'd just love Fido if it weren't for the fact that he gives me asthma and makes me want to scratch my eyes out of my face. You might not like spiders or chickens or snakes and it is okay and I should not require you to be crawled on by them and force to you say "get off". It should be a given that they don't get on in the first place.

IT IS PERFECTLY OKAY FOR A PERSON TO NOT CARE FOR DOGS. This is not a character flaw. It is not a sin or a thing of which I should be ashamed.

And yes, they bite unprovoked BECAUSE THEY ARE DOGS and everyone who thinks their perfectly trained fluffy would never do that because you're a responsible owner who Did it Right forgets that it is a DOG whose training will not always supersede its environment.

 

[Rhea]

It's not the type of thing which employees should know how to handle properly without any training so that they become the ones at fault if they handle it poorly.

Anyone with an ounce of sense ought to know not to swat at unknown dog.

.

I disagree with this ENTIRELY. A person who does not know the dog has no reason to think their life is not in imminent danger when a dog's teeth are attached to one's torso. A reasonable person would be in full-on fight-or-flight mode when being restrained by an unknown dog.

Anyone with an ounce of sense, in my opinion, would expect this reaction to a dog attack.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Anyone with an ounce of sense ought to know not to swat at unknown dog.

I disagree entirely. Most people have no idea how to react around a barking dog. Some people may think that swatting it and saying "bad dog" like they would with their own pet is a good idea. Some people may think that running away screaming is a good idea. Some people may think that trying to pet it is a good idea. Some people may think that curling up into a ball on the ground is a good idea. Some people may think that bashing it over the head with a stick is a good idea. It's entirely reasonable to assume that a large subset of people have no clue what do do when confronted with that kind of situation and therefore there's a decent chance that any decision they make on how to react will end up being a poor one. Given that the owner is the one who put them into that situation, the owner is the one at fault since he created a potentially dangerous situation at his place of work which he had not trained his employees to deal with.

Let me ask you the question from a slightly different perspective. You start a new job and your boss gives you the key to the place so you go in and start working. A security guard comes along and doesn't recognize you, so he gestures towards the door, indicating that you should leave. You tell him that you're working there, but he doesn't speak English and doesn't understand what you're saying, so he grabs hold of you and drags you outside. Were you just assaulted? I would say yes. How would you characterize it?

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone with an ounce of sense ought to know not to swat at unknown dog.

I disagree entirely. Most people have no idea how to react around a barking dog. Some people may think that swatting it and saying "bad dog" like they would with their own pet is a good idea.

And some people think God created the Earth in 6 days. That doesn't mean they have any sense. Swatting at any unknown animal is an invitation to an attack. Just like swatting an any unknown person is an invitation to an attack.

Let me ask you the question from a slightly different perspective. You start a new job and your boss gives you the key to the place so you go in and start working. A security guard comes along and doesn't recognize you, so he gestures towards the door, indicating that you should leave. You tell him that you're working there, but he doesn't speak English and doesn't understand what you're saying, so he grabs hold of you and drags you outside. Were you just assaulted? I would say yes. How would you characterize it?

If I were dragged, then I would say I was assaulted. If I were guided, then no. But if I had entered the building and some security guard gestured or told me to leave, I'd leave and then explain to my employer why I was not at work.

 

[Rhea]

I disagree entirely. Most people have no idea how to react around a barking dog. Some people may think that swatting it and saying "bad dog" like they would with their own pet is a good idea.

And some people think God created the Earth in 6 days. That doesn't mean they have any sense. Swatting at any unknown animal is an invitation to an attack. Just like swatting an any unknown person is an invitation to an attack.

Wait, I think you've made a mistake. The "attack" is already happening. That's the part where the dog has its teeth on you. You're saying when a dog attacks you that you should do nothing?

WHY?

And why would you expect non dog people to be assuming that the darling little pooch with its teeth on you means no harm? WHY?

 

[Toni]

Anyone with an ounce of sense ought to know not to swat at unknown dog.

.

I disagree with this ENTIRELY. A person who does not know the dog has no reason to think their life is not in imminent danger when a dog's teeth are attached to one's torso. A reasonable person would be in full-on fight-or-flight mode when being restrained by an unknown dog.

Anyone with an ounce of sense, in my opinion, would expect this reaction to a dog attack.

The swat came first. It was NOT a response to being attacked.

The dog did NOT attack the employee. The dog grabbed the employee, taking care not to actually cause physical harm. There was no bite, there was no attack. In the case Ford described, any fault was human, not dog.

There are certainly a lot of clueless dog owners which result in poorly behaved dogs. There are dogs who are simply unstable and unsafe.

Whoever made the remark that you can tell who dislikes dogs was spot on. No pun intended.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree with this ENTIRELY. A person who does not know the dog has no reason to think their life is not in imminent danger when a dog's teeth are attached to one's torso.

A person could very well know whether their life was in imminent danger or not, depending on how the dog is acting. If the dog is not growling nor trying to throw you to the ground, you are not in immiment danger. If the jaws are firm but not breaking the skin, one is not in danger of one's life. Th

A reasonable person would be in full-on fight-or-flight mode when being restrained by an unknown dog.

Then that person is a fool.

Anyone with an ounce of sense, in my opinion, would expect this reaction to a dog attack.

See above.

- - - Updated - - -

And some people think God created the Earth in 6 days. That doesn't mean they have any sense. Swatting at any unknown animal is an invitation to an attack. Just like swatting an any unknown person is an invitation to an attack.

Wait, I think you've made a mistake. The "attack" is already happening. That's the part where the dog has its teeth on you. You're saying when a dog attacks you that you should do nothing?

WHY?

You did make a mistake. The swat came first. And depicting the resulting reaction by the dog as an "attack" is rather misleading.