"Bad Dogs" or "Bad Owners"

[Blerv]

Hmmm...a thread disappeared. Saved me a pointed response. :p

Regarding DOG BREEDS and OWNERS, what do you all think about the scenario of violent animals?

Statistically dogs like pitbulls seem to offend violently much more than some other breeds. I know that some animals have a tamer temperment (eg: Golden Retreivers), and others are much more defensive or territorial. Canine length I hear impacts natural aggression in animals.

Where do you all stand?


EDIT: People who vote for the middle-ground can assume the "dbag" factor has a great deal to do with it. People who eat testosterone and insecurity sandwiches daily often are drawn to aggressive "tough" dogs which they allow to become monsters. Self-fulfilling prophecy, etc.

[The Deacon]

While it would often be both more appropriate, and more soul satisfying, to kill the owner of an out of control dog, killing the dog generally has fewer negative legal consequences.

To answer your other question, it's not just a case of some breeds being more prone to biting. Small, yappy, self propelled dust mops with teeth probably bite people more often than the breeds perceived as "attack dogs". Thing is, the dust mops rarely do any real damage, whereas a pitbull, doberman, rottweiler, cane corso, and other such breeds can maim or kill a person.

[Stephen]

While it would often be both more appropriate, and more soul satisfying, to kill the owner of an out of control dog, killing the dog generally has fewer negative legal consequences.

Generally..... HAHAHAHA :D :D. That's some Grade A snark there. And for what it's worth, people who mistreat/abuse/neglect their animals should face much stiffer penalties than they currently do.

[Blerv]

While it would often be both more appropriate, and more soul satisfying, to kill the owner of an out of control dog, killing the dog generally has fewer negative legal consequences.

To answer your other question, it's not just a case of some breeds being more prone to biting. Small, yappy, self propelled dust mops with teeth probably bite people more often than the breeds perceived as "attack dogs". Thing is, the dust mops rarely do any real damage, whereas a pitbull, doberman, rottweiler, cane corso, and other such breeds can maim or kill a person.

Haha Paul! That first line was very Dexter :) . Agreed though.

The rest is very true. Size of the offender has a HUGE impact on the damage and legal result. Women in many domestic violence scenarios hit men and can be very aggressive (often instigating the encounter). However, usually when men hit women worse things happen. It's not sexism...it's physics and biology.

NOTE: ZOMG please don't think I compared women to dogs!!! I compared the entire human race to drooling smelly 4-leggers. Happy? :p

[rosconey]

pits have the rep because idiots who dont know how to own a dog buy them-dogs are either the alpha or you are-if you dont present yourself to them as the alpha they will try to be it-size of the dog dont matter-thats why so many little rat dogs are so bad -owners treat them like people instead of dogs and they try to be alpha


i have a 125# pittrott who by looks would scare anyone-he is such a wimpy baby its not funny-

my 110#plus cane corso is also quite intimidating in the looks department -again so friendly its not a good thing

i also have a 75# chow mix-not sure if its shep or dobe-she is the sweetest little thing

breed legislation-a total joke-

[Blerv]

pits have the rep because idiots who dont know how to own a dog buy them-dogs are either the alpha or you are-if you dont present yourself to them as the alpha they will try to be it-size of the dog dont matter-thats why so many little rat dogs are so bad -owners treat them like people instead of dogs and they try to be alpha


i have a 125# pittrott who by looks would scare anyone-he is such a wimpy baby its not funny-

my 110#plus cane corso is also quite intimidating in the looks department -again so friendly its not a good thing

i also have a 75# chow mix-not sure if its shep or dobe-she is the sweetest little thing

breed legislation-a total joke-

Good points! I forgot to add something in the description about the "dbag factor". I'll edit that.

[Evil D]

I definitely lean more towards it being more owner than breed, but i can't completely rule out breed because of inbreeding, and because the nature of some breeds is just plain old more aggressive than others.

You might think i'm talking about Pitbulls, which sure they can be, but take Chiuauas for example...they're among the most territorial and protective of all dogs and no matter how sweet and loving the owner is, chances are very good that they'll try to bite anyone that comes around that they don't know. The only reason you don't see them in the media more is because when they do bite people they don't maul them to death, because they're so small. If a chiuaua was built like a Pitbull, we'd all be in serious trouble.

I have a chiuaua, but she's all bark and would rather sit in your lap than bite you but she'll do her best to scare you away if she doesn't know you. I have a friend with a pitbull that is the biggest baby you've ever seen...unless you do something she doesn't like around his kids and then that dog will turn on you in a heartbeat. She's the most child protective dog i've ever seen and she hasn't had any training for it..maybe it's her mothering instinct. One time i was rough housing with his son and this dog went after me...luckily he got between us before she reached me. The amazing thing is, when i stopped "attacking" the boy, she came back over and licked all over me.

I think pitbulls get a bad rep just like rotweilers did a few years back. Both breeds take turns as being the top dog in America for attacks/maulings. You can't ignore the fact that those dogs are inbreed by puppy mills to make money, and sometimes the bottom rung of society choose those dogs for bad reasons.

[unit]

I guess the best way I can put it is to compare a "menace breed" to an "assault rifle". Apparently, it seems easier to some people to try and ban the existence of them instead of dealing with the people who are responsible (or IRresponsible) for what you see on the news.

It has been demonstrated that both "menace breeds" and "assault rifles" CAN be managed by responsible people and result in nothing newsworthy. Unfortunately it has also been demonstrated that both "menace breeds" and "assault rifles" can be transformed into a news story with little effort.

Edit to add...also like guns...you can eliminate some breeds or models of gun...but bad people will either find a way to get them, or they will make the news with other breeds/models.

[The Deacon]

I guess the best way I can put it is to compare a "menace breed" to an "assault rifle". Apparently, it seems easier to some people to try and ban the existence of them instead of dealing with the people who are responsible (or IRresponsible) for what you see on the news.

It has been demonstrated that both "menace breeds" and "assault rifles" CAN be managed by responsible people and result in nothing newsworthy. Unfortunately it has also been demonstrated that both "menace breeds" and "assault rifles" can be transformed into a news story with little effort.

Edit to add...also like guns...you can eliminate some breeds or models of gun...but bad people will either find a way to get them, or they will make the news with other breeds/models.

All that is true, but until the day that iRobot starts selling a Boomba that can zip around by itself shooting people, the difference is that dogs can, and almost always have, attacked without being directed to do so. Banning breeds may not be a valid response, requiring proof of training and insurance to own them, might be.

[stonyman]

Hey I have had a love for pitbulls since I was a child. Grew up with them. I am also critical of the owners of this breed. They are wonderful pets, but need firm personality types. So I place the burden of responsibility on the owners. Love the bullies!

[unit]

All that is true, but until the day that iRobot starts selling a Boomba that can zip around by itself shooting people, the difference is that dogs can, and almost always have, attacked without being directed to do so. Banning breeds may not be a valid response, requiring proof of training and insurance to own them, might be.

I agree, but couldn't someone argue that if your dog is out attacking someone, you are not being a responsible owner?

Now the other way around...if you do not properly secure your firearms...they may well be out shooting people without your knowledge.

You make good points though. I honestly do not know enough about all the breeds to say what ought to be the case...the fact is some dog breeds were created by humans to get a more aggressive beast.

Laws and sausages...

[psychophipps]

The "most vicious" dog is the Chihuahua, actually. They have a very strong natural pain-to-bite reflex and they supposedly nail more people than any other breed.

But they don't take your arm off at the elbow, as mentioned above, so most folks don't the bites as being a big deal vs. larger breeds...

[rosconey]

umm no to the thought of breeds being done to be more aggressive-

a dog being a animal was born nasty enough-anger genes arent anymore transferable than with humans-
a dog will only become nasty because of human contact and or training imho

99% of dogs have been bred for help in putting food on the table-the others are lap dogs developed over the last 100 years or so when you didnt have to own a dog for hunting because you could buy food much more easily

if they were large they also were used for guard duty-they protect the alpha-

without proper leadership they can become as confused as a human as to right and wrong-

do we off a whole nation because of a poor leader who murders millions because they have been bred to kill?


btw-"menace breed" is a term that boils my blood -i hate to call it a ignorant term and start some snit-but it is


people think of labs and golden retrievers as nice friendly dogs because of tv and most contact with them is with owners who are good-ive seen more than a few of those breeds that were just and crazy as a pitt

[unit]

umm no to the thought of breeds being done to be more aggressive-

a dog being a animal was born nasty enough-anger genes arent anymore transferable than with humans-
a dog will only become nasty because of human contact and or training imho

99% of dogs have been bred for help in putting food on the table-the others are lap dogs developed over the last 100 years or so when you didnt have to own a dog for hunting because you could buy food much more easily

if they were large they also were used for guard duty-they protect the alpha-

without proper leadership they can become as confused as a human as to right and wrong-

do we off a whole nation because of a poor leader who murders millions because they have been bred to kill?

Some breeds were created for sport that had NOTHING to do with putting food on the table or being a lap dog.

From Wikipedia:

During the 19th century, England, Ireland, and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between bulldogs and terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog.[1]

The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears.[3] When baiting bulls was deemed inhumane, ratting, a sport where a number of rats were placed in a pit for a specified time with the dog, and dog fighting became more popular.

Perhaps creating a breed for the purpose of baiting bulls and bears is not necessarily creating a "more aggressive beast" as I put it...but it seems that there are some breeds that were created to engage in actions that I would call aggressive and beastly.

No, I am not suggesting we eradicate any breeds or people or nations. Nor do I want to start a debate or argument here.

Nature or nurture? I am honestly not sure...but I think a lot of people smarter than me would tell you that it is not one or the other, but rather both to various degrees.

[rosconey]

Some breeds were created for sport that had NOTHING to do with putting food on the table or being a lap dog.

From Wikipedia:



Perhaps creating a breed for the purpose of baiting bulls and bears is not necessarily creating a "more aggressive beast" as I put it...but it seems that there are some breeds that were created to engage in actions that I would call aggressive and beastly.

No, I am not suggesting we eradicate any breeds or people or nations. Nor do I want to start a debate or argument here.

Nature or nurture? I am honestly not sure...but I think a lot of people smarter than me would tell you that it is not one or the other, but rather both to various degrees.

first off its Wikipedia-

secondly what breed is this? is it known or was this just some drunks looking to have fun?

heck the russians tried to breed people with chimps to get a more aggressive human-

just shows how screwed up man can be

i take it your not the type who had had dogs his while life-if you did i think our opinions about them would be about equal-

a bad dog can also be retrained quite often -this alone to me proves its more what the human does to the dog than its bloodlines

[unit]

first off its Wikipedia-

secondly what breed is this? is it known or was this just some drunks looking to have fun?

heck the russians tried to breed people with chimps to get a more aggressive human-

just shows how screwed up man can be

i take it your not the type who had had dogs his while life-if you did i think our opinions about them would be about equal-

a bad dog can also be retrained quite often -this alone to me proves its more what the human does to the dog than its bloodlines

Yes, it is off Wikipedia...but I know some VERY knowledgeable ex-breeders and historians of the breed (American Put Bull Terrier) who will say essentially the same thing. Additionally, it is a pretty popular subject and if the information was wildly wrong...perhaps someone would have alerted them a time or two about correcting it, wouldn't you think?

I have had dogs almost my entire life. I have spent a lot of time training dogs, and have a lot of exposure to some people that breed dogs...one friend of mine was quite involved (prior to me knowing him) in breeding and fighting pit bulls (and had numerous contacts with others that did the same before he quit the game with a little help from the authorities). Another friend breeds and trains dogs for the purpose of support (for disabled people). These sources have indicated to me that nurture is very important in determining the temperament of a dog...and so is nature.

The fact that a dog that was in a horrible environment was successfully trained to be a docile animal only proves that the power of nurture is greater than the influences of nature on that particular animal...it does not rule out the possibility that nature can be a much greater influence on temperament for another animal. I DO NOT KNOW, but some people I know quite well that have (or had) a VERY financial interest in breeding, believe that there is a component of nature that determines the temperament of a dog.

You suggest that we would of similar opinions if we had similar life experiences...I could not agree with you more!!!

I have a nice scar on my face from being attacked by a dog in my youth. Perhaps that gives me bias? But I can tell you this...the owner, a very close friend's father, was utterly puzzled by the encounter. The dog was born in his home and under his care its entire life according to him. He spoke about how docile the animal was and how it's only hope as a guard dog was if the intruder fled before he got his face licked by this incredibly docile animal. I simply laid down on a bed a few feet away from the dog...and in an instant it was on me.

That would seem as at least one example of how nurture is failing to explain the animals behavior?

For the record, no action was ever taken, the dog eventually died years later of natural causes, I held no grudges, but I also learned that any time someone raves about how well trained their dog is and how friendly it is....

[Pinetreebbs]

Haha Paul! That first line was very Dexter :) . Agreed though.

The rest is very true. Size of the offender has a HUGE impact on the damage and legal result. Women in many domestic violence scenarios hit men and can be very aggressive (often instigating the encounter). However, usually when men hit women worse things happen. It's not sexism...it's physics and biology.

NOTE: ZOMG please don't think I compared women to dogs!!! I compared the entire human race to drooling smelly 4-leggers. Happy? :p

Dexter is very interesting show.

[tonydahose]

i think it is the owners fault. if the person isnt going to train the dog then they should get one that is really mellow bread. my sister had a boxer and they never trained that dog, he would jump on people and scratch them with his nails. i babysat him for 2 weeks and had him trained pretty **** well. they came home and didnt keep up with it and he reverted to his old ways unless i told him not to :rolleyes: . speaking of pitbulls, here is my first save on the FD. he was locked in a trunk of an abondened car becuase he wasnt violent enough i guess. he ate i think 3 steaks and a few hambugers when we got him back to the firehouse...lol. he was a good judge of character too, he did his business in the captain's room who wasn't liked very much :p . we named him Petey after the lil rascals dog :D , he is in a loving home of a fireman now.

[Pinetreebbs]

Dog breeds have their traits. It is amazing how herding dogs take to herding, bird dogs take to water and hunting dogs take to tracking and treeing. Dogs bred to fight and be aggressive are going to be naturally aggressive. The dog owner can make a huge difference in how the animal behaves.

Too many idiots buy a pit bull to give themselves a tough guy image. There are also the 'I love my animals' people that have next to no control of large, powerful or aggressive breeds and whose lack of control over the animal creates a huge hazard for all.

[Neomik]

Hmmm...a thread disappeared. Saved me a pointed response. :p

Hey Blerv,

I did start that thread you are referring too and after reading it again it felt wrong the way I wrote it down!
I do not write things here to impress people I do not even know personally and do not want to put a image of myself on the forum that could mislead people to the conclusion that what I write is bullshit or lead to wrong judgement about my character!

Still the short version without any humoristic writing and only fact is that I was today in a situation when 3 men had 3 unleashed dogs in a rest stop on a public trail! (1 Pitbull, 1 Rotweiler, 1 mixed breed)
Those idiots were amused about the fact that people were scared of their dogs and did not use the rest stop and those 3 "Dog owners" thought it was entertaining them while sitting there drinking beer.
I went there, told them to put the dogs on the leash and to f**k off!
I did this while carrying on my person a legal firearm and some bigger Spydies in my pockets that gave me the security to do that in case something went wrong and I got attacked! And as the one of those bozos answered to my request: "What if I don't!" I just showed him inside my jacket the holster and told him that he would loose his dog if it attacked!
I may have done something morally wrong by that and at the same time maybe not! A woman and the husband of her standing there thanked me and it felt right!

I am a dog owner myself! But there is always a difference between a person and a beast! I would not hesitate to shoot a attacking dog to save myself or someone else like my dad who was with me!

Also I do not like spineless people who use a dog as a intimidating weapon!

Have a nice day and stay save!