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

[Rhea]

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.

And the non-dog person MAGICALLY knows the difference! It's fucking ASTONISHING how keen are their powers!

Oh and the friendly family Shep who tore a chunk out of my leg for cycling past?
Who had the right perception there? me or the dog-person who was shouting "She's friendly! She doesn't bite!"
Yeah, fucking meow.

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

Can you tell me what it means, then? It sounds like the ones who don't like dogs are doing something wrong in your eyes. What? What are they doing wrong?

 

[Toni]

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?

If you are talking about the dog in Ford's story, there was no attack. The employee swatted at a dog he didn't know because he was annoyed, not attacked.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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

Actually, the dog swatted him with its nose first. That was an invitation for the human to attack it.

 

[Rhea]

I've never seen her do that before!
He's never bitten anyone before!
I don't know what made him do that!
He's usually not like that!
I can't believe she did that!
This is not like her!
He's always been so gentle!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

If you are talking about the dog in Ford's story, there was no attack. The employee swatted at a dog he didn't know because he was annoyed, not attacked.

The dog was poking up against him. If you're working and I come up and start poking you, I suppose that everything that happens after that is your fault, correct?

 

[Rhea]

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?

If you are talking about the dog in Ford's story, there was no attack. The employee swatted at a dog he didn't know because he was annoyed, not attacked.

Oh, I get it. This is the part where everyone reads the dog-owner's mind and the dog's mind and submits to the heirarchy that anyone's dogs are allowed top touch any person despite allergies or fear or just plain distaste, and you automagically know whether this is a guard dog or a guide dog or a vicious dog or a well trained one, and you automagically know just how to handle this animal that you have never seen before and exactly what precise level of firmness is the training that this animal knows and loves. And you get to rub your loving hands and gently love this friendly dog that you do not actually want to touch at all! And if you do it wrong, you're a fool. And all is well in doggie la la land.

 

[Toni]

And the non-dog person MAGICALLY knows the difference! It's fucking ASTONISHING how keen are their powers!

Oh and the friendly family Shep who tore a chunk out of my leg for cycling past?
Who had the right perception there? me or the dog-person who was shouting "She's friendly! She doesn't bite!"
Yeah, fucking meow.

That is NOT what I said or meant.

Dog owners are responsible for their dogs' behavior. Period. This includes even when humans are behaving inappropriately. Which you were NOT. You are allowed to bike on public roadways and other paths. The dog should have been confined so that it could not get out and give chase. The dog should not have bitten you. I hope the owner did the responsible thing and made sure that you were ok, took care of any medical bills, bills to repair your bicycle and took better care to confine the dog.

That said, people would be safer if they learned some techniques for dealing with badly behaved dogs. I'm writing this with NO suggestion that you did anything wrong, but with concern that you and everyone be as safe as possible. You like to bike. There will be dogs. Sometimes, dogs get loose. Sometimes, those dogs have powerful guarding instincts coupled with a strong prey drive. That is why, for your own sake, you should learn some techniques for dealing with a dog which, most likely, just wants to run along side you but might, as in your unfortunate experience, be inclined to attack.

I am really sorry you were hurt by dogs.

I am quite allergic to cats so I know the feeling of itchy eyes and a lot of sneezing and even hives. I'm just lucky it's never triggered an asthma attack.

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

Can you tell me what it means, then? It sounds like the ones who don't like dogs are doing something wrong in your eyes. What? What are they doing wrong?

The ones who don't like dogs are not actually reading Ford's story about the employee and the guard dog but are extrapolating, using their own personal negative experiences.

I can understand why some people are afraid of dogs and I can certainly understand having negative and very frightening experiences with dogs. Read my earlier post about being attacked by a dog while I was pregnant and carrying a sleepy toddler. Or the fact that I had to move my entire family because a neighbor had an insane dog who frequently leaped fences and broke out of doors to attack such threatening people as the postman and an old lady who was walking past. No way I was risking my children or myself or my husband, not to mention visitors to my home. That dog should have been put down. The owner 'felt sorry' for the dog and instead of dealing with the dog's behavior, expected no one else to walk past his house (densely housed neighborhood, too) or be in their own yard or driveway. And to 'understand' that the dog had been abused. I am sure the dog had been abused but that didn't mean that a nice bed in a nice neighborhood was rehabilitating the dog, or that it was possible to do so.

 

[Toni]

If you are talking about the dog in Ford's story, there was no attack. The employee swatted at a dog he didn't know because he was annoyed, not attacked.

Oh, I get it. This is the part where everyone reads the dog-owner's mind and the dog's mind and submits to the heirarchy that anyone's dogs are allowed top touch any person despite allergies or fear or just plain distaste, and you automagically know whether this is a guard dog or a guide dog or a vicious dog or a well trained one, and you automagically know just how to handle this animal that you have never seen before and exactly what precise level of firmness is the training that this animal knows and loves. And you get to rub your loving hands and gently love this friendly dog that you do not actually want to touch at all! And if you do it wrong, you're a fool. And all is well in doggie la la land.

You are not actually reading what I write. I know this is upsetting to you but you really need to get a grip. You are projecting your own bad experiences onto what I am writing. I can't fix that. You don't want to fix that. Keep on doing what you are doing and if everyone is really lucky, the next dog who bites you will be put down instead of you actually being very seriously injured. Neither are good outcomes but I infinitely prefer that a dog be put down than you be seriously injured.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are talking about the dog in Ford's story, there was no attack. The employee swatted at a dog he didn't know because he was annoyed, not attacked.

The dog was poking up against him. If you're working and I come up and start poking you, I suppose that everything that happens after that is your fault, correct?

You are anthropomorphizing the dog.

The dog was not doing anything aggressive. It nudged at him with her nose, to get some attention. The guy wasn't even seriously upset--he didn't cry out or try to defend himself against this non-attack. He was annoyed and swatted at the dog. What the dog did was not aggressive. What the man did was aggressive. And stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

If you are talking about the dog in Ford's story, there was no attack. The employee swatted at a dog he didn't know because he was annoyed, not attacked.

Oh, I get it. This is the part where everyone reads the dog-owner's mind and the dog's mind and submits to the heirarchy that anyone's dogs are allowed top touch any person despite allergies or fear or just plain distaste, and you automagically know whether this is a guard dog or a guide dog or a vicious dog or a well trained one, and you automagically know just how to handle this animal that you have never seen before and exactly what precise level of firmness is the training that this animal knows and loves. And you get to rub your loving hands and gently love this friendly dog that you do not actually want to touch at all! And if you do it wrong, you're a fool. And all is well in doggie la la land.

You seem to be ill-informed as to the sequence of events in Ford's story.

First, the dog did not touch the employee until the dog was swatted (or should I say attacked?). One might infer from your response, that you think it is appropriate to swat (or attack?) any dog for just existing. Do you really think it is wise or reasonable to swat at any unknown animal who has the potential to harm you just because you are frightened? If so, you must think it is wise or reasonable to swat any unknown person just because you are frightened.

Second, there is no need to mind read any dog. One simply observes how the dog is actually behaving.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Actually, the dog swatted him with its nose first. That was an invitation for the human to attack it.

Only if the nose was wet.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The dog was not doing anything aggressive. It nudged at him with her nose, to get some attention. The guy wasn't even seriously upset--he didn't cry out or try to defend himself against this non-attack. He swatted at the dog. What the dog did was not aggressive. What the man did was aggressive.

That's still the owner's fault. The employee has no obligation to know how to properly react to a dog while he's busy working. The employer is the one with the obligation to ensure that these potentially aggressive animals are either kept away from his employees or that the employees have some training in how to deal with them. He created an unsafe work environment by having this animal interact with employees who had no been taught how to interact with them.

If you have exposed wires in your office and one of your employees electrocutes himself, that's your fault for having an unsafe environment, no matter what kind of stupid decisions by the employee led him to come along and touch the exposed wires. Having the guard dogs wandering around free where employees are working creates an unsafe environment, no matter what kind of stupid decisions the employee makes to provoke the dog. It was the owner's responsibility to keep them separate or, at the least, train the employees in how to interact with them as opposed to simply assuming that they'd know how to make good decisions regarding the animals. He failed in that responsibility and is liable for the results of his failure.

 

[Toni]

I've never seen her do that before!
He's never bitten anyone before!
I don't know what made him do that!
He's usually not like that!
I can't believe she did that!
This is not like her!
He's always been so gentle!

Yes, sometimes dogs do behave unpredictably. Sometimes dog owners are clueless. Sometimes visitors deliberately provoke dogs--I've seen this happen, btw--and then cry fowl when the dog gives a very low warning growl.

I am a big believer in safety. This does not mean that the world must be made safe for me, but that I need to learn to behave safely, including around dogs.

There are dogs. You may never like them. You will probably always be very allergic to them and should avoid them. But the dogs do not know that you are allergic to them anymore than you know that your guests may be violently allergic to peanuts or tree nuts (and that almond furniture polish is so good!) or shellfish or that lovely tree that is in full bloom. Or to your cat.

There are bad dog owners. Most mean well but really don't consider the safety and well being of other people or their dogs when they fail to teach their dog basic manners (sit, wait to be greeted, no noses in crotches, etc.). Some of this is due to the same anthropomorphism that Tom Sawyer was engaging in (every time someone refers to themselves as their dog's 'mom' or 'dad' I just want to scream! Not that those people would teach their children to behave decently, either).

Most 'bad' dog owners are more along the lines of lazy or overly sentimental. Usually both.

But there are some bad dogs, dogs who are unstable and unsafe. There are dogs who are not placed in the correct environment: a dog who was bred for centuries to guard property is not an ideal family dog in a suburban setting, for example. A dog that likes to run and run and run is better served in a rural setting. A dog that likes to dig should not live with someone who wants a pristine golf course like yard. And so on. The last is usually only annoying to its owners while the first two can become menaces or are likely to be killed by a passing car.

There are some bad owners who intentionally keep dogs which are aggressive and are prone to attack. Usually trained to do this. These people should never be allowed to own dogs.

I'm not a perfect dog owner. My dog is noisier when people come to our house than I would like. She also gets enough mixed signals from the many, many people she encounters, some of whom gush and goo as soon as they see her and want to pet her (sometimes without asking if it is ok first) and some who will bolt when they see her at a distance (which isn't smart. Running triggers instinctual prey drive). She doesn't always know immediately who will behave which way with her and sometimes tries to be friendly (pushing her nose towards someone) when someone does not want to be near a dog. It's my fault if I allow her enough slack on the leash to permit this.

 

[Toni]

The dog was not doing anything aggressive. It nudged at him with her nose, to get some attention. The guy wasn't even seriously upset--he didn't cry out or try to defend himself against this non-attack. He swatted at the dog. What the dog did was not aggressive. What the man did was aggressive.

That's still the owner's fault. The employee has no obligation to know how to properly react to a dog while he's busy working. The employer is the one with the obligation to ensure that these potentially aggressive animals are either kept away from his employees or that the employees have some training in how to deal with them. He created an unsafe work environment by having this animal interact with employees who had no been taught how to interact with them.

If you have exposed wires in your office and one of your employees electrocutes himself, that's your fault for having an unsafe environment, no matter what kind of stupid decisions by the employee led him to come along and touch the exposed wires. Having the guard dogs wandering around free where employees are working creates an unsafe environment, no matter what kind of stupid decisions the employee makes to provoke the dog. It was the owner's responsibility to keep them separate or, at the least, train the employees in how to interact with them as opposed to simply assuming that they'd know how to make good decisions regarding the animals. He failed in that responsibility and is liable for the results of his failure.

Any employee has the responsibility to know how to behave in the workplace where he works. If that workplace includes dogs, he better know how to behave.


We don't know whether or not the employee knew that there were guard dogs on premises. We do not know whether or not he was authorized to be at the workplace when he was there. As far as we know, it was the middle of the night and he had insomnia and decided to come in to work off schedule.

The dog did not behave aggressively. The employee DID behave aggressively.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Any employee has the responsibility to know how to behave in the workplace where he works. If that workplace includes dogs, he better know how to behave.

No. That is completely false and totally antithetical to occupational health and safety guidelines, which the owner of the company is legally obliged to abide by. The responsibility for ensuring that employees know how to behave in the workplace lies with the owners. It is their job to make sure that there are no dangers in the workplace and that the employees are trained to deal with any dangers which come up. If there are dogs on the premises and the owner has not specifically trained the employees how to deal with dogs, it is the owner's fault if any incident occurs with the dogs. If there are additional risks to employees when they come onto the premises after hours and those employees have not been trained in the policies and procedures of how to handle those risks but yet have the ability to come onto the premises (like having been given a key) then it's the owner's fault for not having provided them with that training.

The reason that the incident happened was because there was an interaction between the employee and the guard dog. If the employee has not been specifically trained on how to handle that interaction then the owner is at fault for having the employee in an unsafe working environment.

 

[Toni]

Any employee has the responsibility to know how to behave in the workplace where he works. If that workplace includes dogs, he better know how to behave.

No. That is completely false and totally antithetical to occupational health and safety guidelines, which the owner of the company is legally obliged to abide by. The responsibility for ensuring that employees know how to behave in the workplace lies with the owners. It is their job to make sure that there are no dangers in the workplace and that the employees are trained to deal with any dangers which come up. If there are dogs on the premises and the owner has not specifically trained the employees how to deal with dogs, it is the owner's fault if any incident occurs with the dogs. If there are additional risks to employees when they come onto the premises after hours and those employees have not been trained in the policies and procedures of how to handle those risks but yet have the ability to come onto the premises (like having been given a key) then it's the owner's fault for not having provided them with that training.

The reason that the incident happened was because there was an interaction between the employee and the guard dog. If the employee has not been specifically trained on how to handle that interaction then the owner is at fault for having the employee in an unsafe working environment.

You are assuming the employee was authorized to be there at the time of the incident. We don't know that to be true. My assumption is that he was not expected or authorized to be where he was when he was. The basis for my assumption is that was an extremely well trained guard dog. It would be very odd to hire someone and the to set up a situation where a dog you had spent so much effort and expense would be exposed to an employee who was not trained or informed. Also, guard dogs do not typically have the run of the place during normal business hours.

I work with a variety of hazardous materials and dangerous equipment at my job. Yes, I was given training and appropriate signage is posted. I am still responsible for behaving in a safe and appropriate manner. Failure to do so could result in the loss of my job.

 

[laughing dog]

Any employee has the responsibility to know how to behave in the workplace where he works. If that workplace includes dogs, he better know how to behave.

No. That is completely false and totally antithetical to occupational health and safety guidelines, which the owner of the company is legally obliged to abide by. The responsibility for ensuring that employees know how to behave in the workplace lies with the owners.

Really? There is to be no reliance whatsoever on common sense. So, for example, if there is a fire at a gas station, it would be the employer's fault if he/she did not inform the employees not to throw gasoline on the fire? Or that in a knife factory, that throwing knives at people is dangerous?

It is their job to make sure that there are no dangers in the workplace and that the employees are trained to deal with any dangers which come up. If there are dogs on the premises and the owner has not specifically trained the employees how to deal with dogs, it is the owner's fault if any incident occurs with the dogs....

So, if the employee had taken out a knife and started slicing up the dogs, and one of them bit the man before it died, the employer would be at fault? Or, if that dog had been a security guard, and the employee freaked out by seeing that guard and ran through a window, it would be the employer's fault. Sorry, but that is simply unbelievable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are assuming the employee was authorized to be there at the time of the incident. We don't know that to be true. My assumption is that he was not expected or authorized to be where he was when he was. The basis for my assumption is that was an extremely well trained guard dog. Also, guard dogs do not typically have the run of the place during normal business hours.

I work with a variety of hazardous materials and dangerous equipment at my job. Yes, I was given training and appropriate signage is posted. I am still responsible for behaving in a safe and appropriate manner. Failure to do so could result in the loss of my job.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm making the assumption that the owner gave him the spare key, thus allowing him access to the property and the employee hadn't stolen it. Once that happens, the obligation is on the owner to ensure that it can be used properly. If there was a specific policy manual which spelled out that the employee cannot access the workplace during certain hours, that would be one thing, but that does not appear to be the case. The fact that the owner was right outside indicates that it probably wasn't some weird hour either, even if that would be relevant.

The important point that you made was that you had been given training. If you were a new employee and you started working with the hazardous materials before you'd received that training and got injured, then the fault would have been with the employer for having you in an unsafe environment. The employee's actions indicate that he had not been given any training on how to interact with the guard dogs. If it turns out that he had been and ignored that training, I'd be on your side. Absent that specific training, however, it's the owner's fault for having the dog together with the employee.

 

[Toni]

You are assuming the employee was authorized to be there at the time of the incident. We don't know that to be true. My assumption is that he was not expected or authorized to be where he was when he was. The basis for my assumption is that was an extremely well trained guard dog. Also, guard dogs do not typically have the run of the place during normal business hours.

I work with a variety of hazardous materials and dangerous equipment at my job. Yes, I was given training and appropriate signage is posted. I am still responsible for behaving in a safe and appropriate manner. Failure to do so could result in the loss of my job.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm making the assumption that the owner gave him the spare key, thus allowing him access to the property and the employee hadn't stolen it. Once that happens, the obligation is on the owner to ensure that it can be used properly. If there was a specific policy manual which spelled out that the employee cannot access the workplace during certain hours, that would be one thing, but that does not appear to be the case. The fact that the owner was right outside indicates that it probably wasn't some weird hour either, even if that would be relevant.

The important point that you made was that you had been given training. If you were a new employee and you started working with the hazardous materials before you'd received that training and got injured, then the fault would have been with the employer for having you in an unsafe environment. The employee's actions indicate that he had not been given any training on how to interact with the guard dogs. If it turns out that he had been and ignored that training, I'd be on your side. Absent that specific training, however, it's the owner's fault for having the dog together with the employee.

Once I had a job at a small neighborhood store. Because I closed for the night, I had a set of keys. That did not mean I was authorized to be there at any time I chose. In fact, had I been there after normal hours of operation, the owner would have been justifiably upset and I likely would have lost my job. I've had keys to houses where I looked after kids or animals or the property--as I have given, as various offspring have been given. Does not mean there is implicit permission for at will access.

You are making an assumption that the employee was there during normal hours. I am making the assumption the business was attached to the owner's home or that the owner was working late in his office and had no way of anticipating the employee would randomly show up.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Once I had a job at a small neighborhood store. Because I closed for the night, I had a set of keys. That did not mean I was authorized to be there at any time I chose. In fact, had I been there after normal hours of operation, the owner would have been justifiably upset and I likely would have lost my job. I've had keys to houses where I looked after kids or animals or the property--as I have given, as various offspring have been given. Does not mean there is implicit permission for at will access.

You are making an assumption that the employee was there during normal hours. I am making the assumption the business was attached to the owner's home or that the owner was working late in his office and had no way of anticipating the employee would randomly show up.

I specifically said that I'm not making the assumption that he was there during normal working hours. If the owner had given him specific instruction not to use the key during certain hours because the guard dogs were out then I would change my position but it doesn't sound to me like this was the case, so I'm proceeding based on that assumption. It sounds to me like he came in early for work and the owner hadn't forbidden him from doing this. That created the interaction between the employee and the dog which the owner hadn't trained the employee for. That makes it the owner's fault.

 

[Toni]

Once I had a job at a small neighborhood store. Because I closed for the night, I had a set of keys. That did not mean I was authorized to be there at any time I chose. In fact, had I been there after normal hours of operation, the owner would have been justifiably upset and I likely would have lost my job. I've had keys to houses where I looked after kids or animals or the property--as I have given, as various offspring have been given. Does not mean there is implicit permission for at will access.

You are making an assumption that the employee was there during normal hours. I am making the assumption the business was attached to the owner's home or that the owner was working late in his office and had no way of anticipating the employee would randomly show up.

I specifically said that I'm not making the assumption that he was there during normal working hours. If the owner had given him specific instruction not to use the key during certain hours because the guard dogs were out then I would change my position but it doesn't sound to me like this was the case, so I'm proceeding based on that assumption. It sounds to me like he came in early for work and the owner hadn't forbidden him from doing this. That created the interaction between the employee and the dog which the owner hadn't trained the employee for. That makes it the owner's fault.

Again: you are making assumptions that the owner would have had a reasonable expectation that the employee would be there during whatever off hours he was there. I have 24/7 key card access to my work place and have had keyed access to other places I worked. I typically work some during off hours but it is always with the knowledge of my boss and in fact is documented on the schedule when I will be in. My boss assumes I will be there during my scheduled shift and that it is my responsibility to inform them if I intend to be in during some other time period. It could mean my job if I didn't.

I am making the assumption that if the owner had any notion that the employee might be there during such off hours, he would have made certain that a) the employee knew there would be a dog present and b)the employee knew how to behave properly around dogs. That would only be prudent. The owner had obviously taken a great deal of time and trouble to select and train a dog who could be trusted and who was safe.

The fact is that people do not necessarily know how to behave around dogs and often behave quite dangerously around them. The dog is usually the one who pays for this ignorance.

The fact is that there are bad dogs: ones who are unstable and dangerous. More often, there are dogs who are just badly trained or rather, not trained at all. Or dogs who are placed in situations and environments which are unsuitable for the dog.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I specifically said that I'm not making the assumption that he was there during normal working hours. If the owner had given him specific instruction not to use the key during certain hours because the guard dogs were out then I would change my position but it doesn't sound to me like this was the case, so I'm proceeding based on that assumption. It sounds to me like he came in early for work and the owner hadn't forbidden him from doing this. That created the interaction between the employee and the dog which the owner hadn't trained the employee for. That makes it the owner's fault.

Again: you are making assumptions that the owner would have had a reasonable expectation that the employee would be there during whatever off hours he was there. I have 24/7 key card access to my work place and have had keyed access to other places I worked. I typically work some during off hours but it is always with the knowledge of my boss and in fact is documented on the schedule when I will be in. My boss assumes I will be there during my scheduled shift and that it is my responsibility to inform them if I intend to be in during some other time period. It could mean my job if I didn't.

I am making the assumption that if the owner had any notion that the employee might be there during such off hours, he would have made certain that a) the employee knew there would be a dog present and b)the employee knew how to behave properly around dogs. That would only be prudent. The owner had obviously taken a great deal of time and trouble to select and train a dog who could be trusted and who was safe.

It sounds to me like the guy showed up early, not in the middle of the night or something. Given that he just came in and started working, it doesn't sound like there was much of a problem with this kind of behaviour or, at the least, that it had been specifically forbidden. It sounds to me like this owner did not take these precautions. He had a well-trained dog, so he saw no problem with the dog interacting with the employees or there was a gap in the training and information that he gave his employees. That was an error on his part. If he'd made certain of those two things, there wouldn't have been this issue.

It may be that he has 50 employees and 49 of them got along great with the dog. That doesn't limit his liability when the one employee who does not finds himself interacting with the dog at the office. It's the owner that's the problem here, not the employee.