I have a Golden Retriever and a mutt that looks like a big rat terrior and is rather unsettled. She's aggressive but hasn't bit anyone and has had ample opportunity.. Once in a great while she gets out and charges the neighbors, their huge Doberman...I worry about one of her victims pulling a gun and shooting her. She's adverse to biting but certainly sounds like she's going too. My golden is beautiful, friendly, loving....but the hair he leaves in the house maddens me. Though we enjoy our companions, when the dogs pass on, I might get a cat.
CDC stats aren't myth they're the cold hard irrefutable facts of dog attacks on humans based on police reports, Pitts and Rottweilers are 1 and 2 in human deaths and mauling...claiming otherwise is the myth...
Of course they are. I never said they weren't. My comment was a response to yours saying that no amount of training will reduce the inherited danger of the Pitbull breed. That's just not true.
Another myth, virtually all dogs have crappy owners/trainors but the most popular dog on the planet the Lab doesn't have a record for human deaths and mauling despite they're huge numbers...are you suggesting all Lab owners are expert dog trainers? ...naa, Labs are just fantastically good natured non aggressive dogs despite their inept owners... pitts were specifically bred for aggression and damage as were Rottweilers, neither were ever intended by the original breeders to be family pets...Labs like all retrievers were bred to be gentle and not damage retrieved game, violent aggresion is not in their nature...
They can never be trusted their breed specific genetics make them lethal always...how many times have we heard the excuse " my dog has never bitten anyone before" yeah every agressive dog has its first bite, with pitts and rotties that first attack is devastating...you apparently missed my earlier link to the pitt/rottie attack on the baby, 17 yrs the perfect pet until that perfect pet decided to lunch on the baby...abused doggie? No pitt rottweiler genetics... http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/bri...-mauls-newborn-girl-in-saanich-home-1.2885099
If they were the size of rotties or pitts we'd have serious problem, but then I'm sure most intelligent people would stear well clear of them if they were...
Nonsense. I do not support breeds being made illegal. Period. You are misinformed about Rottweilers - they are a popular, intelligent breed. If trained properly they are no more or less dangerous than Jack Russell Terriers.
While I'm a firm believer that ALL breeds of dogs are only as good as their owners, there is some historical proof that breeds have gained some genetic traits that give them some general leanings. The Pit Bull is an example. From the ASPCA comes this: Bulldog Beginnings Modern dogs are nothing like their origins millennium ago. They have become what their human owners want them to be.
A number of perfectly good owners have been killed by their pets...pitts and rotties have been breed to be aggressive, training doesn't eliminate inherited behaviour, it will always be present....in my 2 links which everyone avoids acknowledging a family pet of 17 yrs attacked the family baby of 16 days, what can a newborn do to provoke a pitt/rottie cross into an attack?...pitts unlike other dogs have been bred to press home an attack and not stop, this is abnormal dog behaviour bred into it...normal dogs don't do this, there is a lot of snarling, teeth flashing and the occasional nip but little else, for all the drama there is little actual damage done...
that's absolutely ridiculous, please humour us and show us the CDC fatality records for rotties and jack russells... The only person misinformed here is you, I reference CDC stats you use your warm and fuzzy puppy dog love intuition. ..
That's not what I wrote. 1,000's of years of breeding have made the species "dog" man's companion and worker. At this point their nature is to accept humans as master, the traits that make them dangerous to humans have been bred out of the vast majority of dogs breeds and for good reason - dogs that are dangerous to humans do not make good pets, companions, herders, trackers, hunters, etc. That's why "virtually all dogs have crappy owners/trainers" yet dogs perform so well. Millennia of selective breeding has resulted in a human oriented species that requires little formal training to function successfully in extremely close contact with humans. Most truly dangerous dogs were trained to be dangerous by unscrupulous people who wanted an intimidating animal for fighting, guarding areas (usually areas engaged in illegal activity), and sometimes for intimidation. There are a few breeding lines of powerful dogs (usually all lumped into the "pit bull" category) run by dog fighters whose intent is to breed fighting dogs - those are dangerous and unstable, but rare. Many breeds were bred for aggression and power - German Shephards, Rottweillers, Bulldogs, Boxers, Doberman, and more. All are common household pets. "Aggression" is a subjective term - hunting dogs are aggressive to animals. A loyal dog might be protective of its family, which is aggressive to an intruder or stranger. "pitts" is a generic term usually applied to any dog with a short snout, broad square head, broad muscular chest, narrow hips, irrespective of actual breed. A person should have a dog which meets their ability and interest. Boxers are very smart but also stubborn and require an owner with a strong personality who will actively train the dog. American Pit Bull Terriers are average intelligence for dogs but probably the most loving and loyal dog of all breeds.
I've seen poodles every bit the size of German Shepherds, and weren't poodles invented to hunt wolves?
Wikipedia lists fatalities by dog attacks, but you would have to add up the numbers by breed. Here is another source of statistics with fatalities by breed: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php
Please humor us a read the ATTS breed testing data, or the aspca's stance on pitbulls, or the avma's "The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention"
"Chihuahua's are great. It's the owners that suck. They let their little "harmless " toys chase people down the street." I was never much for the small toy breeds but, I took in a Chihuahua last year and the thing is the cutest dog ever. She has taken a liking to me and loves to jump on my lap and snuggle. On the flip-side, she has been hard to potty train and is tyrannical toward my 90+ lb Briard. She's lucky she looks so cute.
You are misunderstanding my point. On average rotties and pitbulls are more dangerous, but individual cases can vary greatly based on training and luck of the draw. A good rottie can be just as good as any other breed. You rely too much on statistics and paint all dogs with the same brush. [Hr][/hr] If you can't understand the distinction perhaps your ownership of dogs should be illegal, not rotties and pitbulls.
I may be wrong but I read they were originally bred as waterfowl retrievers, their thick coat of fur was excellent insulation against frigid water...when I was younger and still duck hunting some of my friends discussed using them for duck hunting but no one followed up a full sized poodle was considerably more expensive than Labs and G retrievers... they're very intelligent so training would be relatively easy...
you're misconstruing statistics blaming behaviour problems on owners and not the animals...your "luck of the draw" applies both ways, behaviour is random a dangerous individual dog can be just as easily be owned by a expert trainer or the vast majority of unqualified owners....my 99% of owners being incompetent was the estimate of a professional dog trainer a man whose father bred pitts used for fighting...as 99% of owners being unqualified to own rotties or pitts the odds are dangerous dogs are going to end up in the hands of the incompetent and not experts, and the statistics reflect that...dogs that are no where near being the most popular breeds being responsible for the most attacks, and most popular breed of all(it's not even close)Labs don't even rank for assaults and deaths...how is that possible, surely random selection says just as many incompetent or abusive owners must own Labs, yet Labs are statistically insignificant for homicides despite their enormous numbers...the explanation is obvious, it's the dog not the owner...I know of professional dog services locally that refuse Pitts and Rotties, what does that tell you?... yeah right I know they're not as good as you ... Blaming dog assaults on owners is a cop out as every owner thinks they're a great trainer when reality of stats says otherwise...there is no requirement for competence to own potentially lethal pets...
I've made my position known, rotties are legal here so tough (*)(*)(*)(*). Enjoy your life or whatever.
well that's definitive and damning stats, a dog that makes up a small percentage of the dog population responsible for 78% of all homicides...yeah it's all the owners fault ...
I'm not in favor of outlawing any kind of dogs or any kind of guns, for that matter, and I don't think that wyly has recommended banning dog breeds, either. What we have been talking about here is what kind of dog is best for you. If you have little kids or grandkids or neighbors kids coming around, pit bulls might not be the breed you want to own, for your own peace of mind. Outlawing them might just be opening a can of worms as to what is a pit bull or a pit bull mix, creating more bureaucracy, and private insurance companies are already looking at dog breeds without the government getting involved. But go ahead and laugh it up, anyway.
im laughing at the link, i called that link being used a few posts back, I think we should ban certain people from own dogs. IE one animal abuse charge and you are done
since 99%of dog owners can't train a dog so how about we ban 99% of dog owners from owning one... it's absolutely ludicrous that you recommend banning ownership for one instance of abuse but no mention what's to happen to a dog for one instance of violence because that poor poor doggie must have been abused otherwise it would've never have ate the baby... that's seriously f'd up...and it's not one instance it's many instances repeatedly by the same breeds which defies the odds of random chance... - - - Updated - - - the stats come from the same source, the CDC...
20% wolfdog.......... had one live with us for 16 years until I laid with her on the floor while she passed.
