Beware Of Dog

[custosnox]

I saw it as a stereotypical assumption that a breed of dog is always vicious and totally uncalled for.  If ZYX had said something along the line of a large threatening dog, I would have let it pass.  I still would have probably given the dog the benefit of doubt regarding being surrounded by threatening strangers on his/her property. 

Certainly a large dog can inflict more damage than a small one.  Any animal when cornered will try to defend itself. Dogs will also try to defend their property.  There have been several instances where the police were a bit to quick on the draw to eliminate a "threatening" pet. 

Our family has had German Shepherd dogs for 50 years. My mother has been active in dog Obedience Training for showing in AKC (and more recently UKC) Obedience trials a few years more than that.  In the 60s, German Shepherds and Dobermans had a really bad, mostly undeserved as a breed, reputation.  Within a breed, any particular blood-line (family) can have undesirable traits.  Individual dogs can be made to be vicious by training.  That is not reason to condemn the entire breed. It's actually more of a reason to condemn the dog's owner.  I remember a picture at "dog school" in the 60s of the young (4?) daughter of one of the trainers biting the leg of a Doberman.  The caption was: "Really now, which one is vicious".

I really do see prejudice against a breed of dog as similar to racial prejudice among humans.  There was no attempt to hijack the thread with my comment.

If I had a vicious dog coming at me the breed would make a world of differance as to how I dealt with it, even large dogs.  I know that Pit Bulls were bred as fighters, hence their name, while German Shepherds have a more recent history of police dogs and Dobermens have a bloodline meant for attack/gaurd dogs.  Because of this, when each attack I know they will have a different threat level.  I know that what would stop the other two breeds would not always stop the Pit.  Can you honestly tell me that the difference in breeds does not make a difference in the level of threat a dog present when it is attacking? 

Other than that if you try to tell me that a dogs breeding does not effect it's tendancies at all than you are trully mislead.  Both nature and nurture play a part in these things.  Or do you also think that wolves, brought up from birth in captivity, will always be a good house pet?

Oh, and just to point out, Chihuahuas have a lot higher vicious nature than other dogs.

[ZYX]

I saw it as a stereotypical assumption that a breed of dog is always vicious and totally uncalled for.  If ZYX had said something along the line of a large threatening dog, I would have let it pass.  I still would have probably given the dog the benefit of doubt regarding being surrounded by threatening strangers on his/her property. 

Certainly a large dog can inflict more damage than a small one.  Any animal when cornered will try to defend itself. Dogs will also try to defend their property.  There have been several instances where the police were a bit to quick on the draw to eliminate a "threatening" pet. 

Our family has had German Shepherd dogs for 50 years. My mother has been active in dog Obedience Training for showing in AKC (and more recently UKC) Obedience trials a few years more than that.  In the 60s, German Shepherds and Dobermans had a really bad, mostly undeserved as a breed, reputation.  Within a breed, any particular blood-line (family) can have undesirable traits.  Individual dogs can be made to be vicious by training.  That is not reason to condemn the entire breed. It's actually more of a reason to condemn the dog's owner.  I remember a picture at "dog school" in the 60s of the young (4?) daughter of one of the trainers biting the leg of a Doberman.  The caption was: "Really now, which one is vicious".

I really do see prejudice against a breed of dog as similar to racial prejudice among humans.  There was no attempt to hijack the thread with my comment.

I have waited until now to respond to your post because I was not sure if you were joking or being serious. First off, I know that not all pit bulls are violent animals. My older sister actually has one which is even around her one year old daughter quite often. One of the sweetest dogs I have ever met. What I actually meant with my above post was more along the lines of that a pit bull is much more capable of hurting someone than a Chihuahua. Not that simply because it was a pit bull it would be violent. I do not see this as being similar to comparing races of people, but more like comparing a six year old with a stick to a six foot three 250 pound man.

[Red Arrow]

I do not see this as being similar to comparing races of people, but more like comparing a six year old with a stick to a six foot three 250 pound man.

That is obviously not the impression you left with me.

[Red Arrow]

If I had a vicious dog coming at me the breed would make a world of differance as to how I dealt with it, even large dogs.  I know that Pit Bulls were bred as fighters, hence their name, while German Shepherds have a more recent history of police dogs and Dobermens have a bloodline meant for attack/gaurd dogs.  Because of this, when each attack I know they will have a different threat level.  I know that what would stop the other two breeds would not always stop the Pit.  Can you honestly tell me that the difference in breeds does not make a difference in the level of threat a dog present when it is attacking? 

Other than that if you try to tell me that a dogs breeding does not effect it's tendancies at all than you are trully mislead.  Both nature and nurture play a part in these things.  Or do you also think that wolves, brought up from birth in captivity, will always be a good house pet?

Oh, and just to point out, Chihuahuas have a lot higher vicious nature than other dogs.

A vicious dog is a vicious dog.  A large vicious dog can certainly inflict more harm than a small one.   You may wish to consult with the AKC regarding "Pit bulls" and their breeding. The official name is along the line of Staffordshire Terrier, not Pit bull. (On Wikipedia they list 3 breeds often called "Pit Bulls".)  I would consider "Pit Bull" to be along the same level as "Junk Yard Dog".  Some unscrupulous breeders have certainly bred a line of undesirable dogs.  I believe that you still misunderstand the difference between a breed of dog and the particular blood line or family.  Wolves are not domesticated. They are NOT dogs.  Some are tame but that is not the same as domesticated.  Wolves do not make good pets.

An attack/guard dog is usually a highly trained dog, not a vicious dog.

Regarding Chihuahuas, the training director at the dog school where we started (in 1959) pointed out that small dogs are frequently like small people.  They have a need to prove their capabilities.  You are actually more likely to be bitten by a small dog than a large one.  The consequences of the bite are obviously different.

[ZYX]

The consequences of the bite are obviously different.

Exactly, so where was the need to shoot the dog three times??

[Red Arrow]

Exactly, so where was the need to shoot the dog three times??

I don't see the need to shoot the dog even once without more info.  If a dog is backed into a "corner", there is probably reason to give the dog the benefit of doubt unless it displays aggressive behavior,  not defensive.

One of our dogs escaped from the fenced-in back yard many years ago.  I specifically called the Bixby Police to tell them she was basically a woose and not to shoot on sight.  We got her back without incident.

[custosnox]

A vicious dog is a vicious dog.  A large vicious dog can certainly inflict more harm than a small one.   You may wish to consult with the AKC regarding "Pit bulls" and their breeding. The official name is along the line of Staffordshire Terrier, not Pit bull. (On Wikipedia they list 3 breeds often called "Pit Bulls".)  I would consider "Pit Bull" to be along the same level as "Junk Yard Dog".  Some unscrupulous breeders have certainly bred a line of undesirable dogs.  I believe that you still misunderstand the difference between a breed of dog and the particular blood line or family.  Wolves are not domesticated. They are NOT dogs.  Some are tame but that is not the same as domesticated.  Wolves do not make good pets.

An attack/guard dog is usually a highly trained dog, not a vicious dog.

Regarding Chihuahuas, the training director at the dog school where we started (in 1959) pointed out that small dogs are frequently like small people.  They have a need to prove their capabilities.  You are actually more likely to be bitten by a small dog than a large one.  The consequences of the bite are obviously different.

Do you deny that an attacking Pit Bull is more of a threat than an attacking German Shephard?  I'm simply stating that they have a natural advantage, brought about through selective breeding, that makes them more dangerous in an attack.  My point with the wolf (yes, a hyperbole) was that not all K9s where created equally and that some breeds will be naturally more aggresive.  In any case, I degress.

Regardless of the breed shooting a dog that was not agressive until you cornered it was over the top and just plain stupid.  Doing so to a dog that would have to work at it a very long time to do any real harm is beyond stupid.  Of course, I'm the guy that has the German Shepherd that manged to bite a cop without any retaliation of any kind.  Well, we still haven't let him live it down, but I don't think it really bothers him any.

[Red Arrow]

A couple of Google entries and I found this:

http://www.pitbulls.org/article/brief-history-american-pit-bull-terrier

Yes, I noticed the name of the organization.

Keep in mind that I am a German Shepherd guy.  I just don't want to see any breed of dog unjustly persecuted.  I will admit that within some particular families of pit bulls that aggressiveness is more evident.  I don't believe it to be breed wide.

[custosnox]

But if you look at the numbers from the oppossing site, it paints a different picture

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

When choosing a dog for my home and family I take into consideration the natrual aggression of the breed as well as the potential for damage that can be caused by the breed.  While not all Pits and Rots are dangerous, I know that they do have a higher level of agression and if they did turn on my kids that would be the end of it.  I also don't like blue healers because they are overly territorial.  German Shephars are my large dog of choice.   It is all a matter of responsible ownership, while keeping breed tendancies in mind.  Cops need better training when dealing with dogs, period.  They use whatever justification they can in order to have free target practice on a live animal.  There are some attacks that  present a clear and present danger, and of those I would understand a response like this, but by and large it is beyond what is needed.

[Red Arrow]

German Shephars are my large dog of choice.   It is all a matter of responsible ownership, while keeping breed tendancies in mind.  Cops need better training when dealing with dogs, period.  They use whatever justification they can in order to have free target practice on a live animal.  There are some attacks that  present a clear and present danger, and of those I would understand a response like this, but by and large it is beyond what is needed.

I agree with what I quoted above.  Perhaps you don't remember when German Shepherds had a reputation similar to what Pit Bulls have now.  My first favorite German Shepherd was a dog brought to obedience school because the dog discovered it was fun to kill the owner's pigs.  That dog went one to become a top performer in AKC Obedience trials and stopped killing pigs.  (Regularly got scores of 197 to 199-1/2 out of 200.  That dog and our Mini Poodle often took 1st and 2nd at a trial.)

Sometimes a particular dog goes bad in spite of a good upbringing.  Some unscrupulous breeders may find that desirable and perpetuate that.  If one of your kids turns out to be a Jeffery Dahlmer or something equally hideous, it would be unjust to call all Custosnoxs killers.

[guido911]

Awaiting PETA to weigh in...

[custosnox]

I agree with what I quoted above.  Perhaps you don't remember when German Shepherds had a reputation similar to what Pit Bulls have now.  My first favorite German Shepherd was a dog brought to obedience school because the dog discovered it was fun to kill the owner's pigs.  That dog went one to become a top performer in AKC Obedience trials and stopped killing pigs.  (Regularly got scores of 197 to 199-1/2 out of 200.  That dog and our Mini Poodle often took 1st and 2nd at a trial.)

Sometimes a particular dog goes bad in spite of a good upbringing.  Some unscrupulous breeders may find that desirable and perpetuate that.  If one of your kids turns out to be a Jeffery Dahlmer or something equally hideous, it would be unjust to call all Custosnoxs killers.

I'm simply stating that different breeds have a higher likelihood towards aggression than others.  Mix that with natural ability to do damage and it gives reason to be wary. I'm not saying that every dog of a specific breed is bad.  But we are just going around in circles restating our opinions, so I think I'm going to jump off of this merry-go-round and let the sleeping dog lie.

[Red Arrow]

But if you look at the numbers from the oppossing site, it paints a different picture

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

The breeds most likely to kill

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.
To learn more about dog attacks, see Why dogs bite people To learn about how to take some of the bite out of the dog bite epidemic, see Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.

Interesting section from your source.

When it comes to "I needs to get me a mean dog for protection.", I wonder how many such ignorant people would choose something like a toy poodle, a Lab, the Pomeranian mentioned above, or any dog that is not menacing by its visual appearance alone.  It probably skews the statistics.

[Red Arrow]

But we are just going around in circles restating our opinions, so I think I'm going to jump off of this merry-go-round and let the sleeping dog lie.

Also jumping.

[patric]

Cops need better training when dealing with dogs, period.  They use whatever justification they can in order to have free target practice on a live animal.  There are some attacks that  present a clear and present danger, and of those I would understand a response like this, but by and large it is beyond what is needed.

That department gave it's blessings to an officer holding the dog while another shot it with a Taser, so it may be a matter of policy, or the department atmosphere than a choice made by a "bad apple".