*Rant on dangerous pets and their owners*

[Menarker]

@rpg: Animals that are trained to be aggressive to SOME humans but not all could be even trickier because there are more chances of the people in the "do not attack catagory" bleeding into the "attack catagory". Also, because they have been allowed to exercise their aggressiveness, the likelihood that their aggression will lead to severe physical injuries are higher. Also, their aggression can become habit-forming and they become more aggressive in their neutral states and it is quicker for them to shift from neutral to "provoked" with fewer or weaker stimuli.

EDIT: @Premmy's Link: Holy Shit, look at the numbers for Sharpei breeds! How the hell do those guys gets numbers double the the next highest dog for injuries and deaths and not get any sort of negative reputation!?

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Originally Posted by Menarker

EDIT: @Premmy's Link: Holy Shit, look at the numbers for Sharpei breeds! How the hell do those guys gets numbers double the the next highest dog for injuries and deaths and not get any sort of negative reputation!?

I think you're looking at the Shar pei/Rottweiler mix stats; on my end, the purebred Shar pei stats are completely blank. It might be disproportionately inflated by the dog-fighting circuit; Shar peis can have a nasty temper in spite of their (to us) goofy looks because they were bred for fighting and guard work in China.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article on Shar Pei

Western breeders maintain that any dog in China that protects property is called a fighting dog, whereas in Canada and the United States, they are referred to as guard dogs. This is still a moot point. Up until the introduction of Breed Specific Legislation, designed to target breeds alleged to be "more likely" to attack and largely aimed at criminalising the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Shar-Pei was regarded as a breed designed, bred and selected for dog fighting. After the introduction of various Breed Specific Legislation, many breeders started to deny the fighting ancestry and concocted fanciful tales of a hunting heritage. It is worth mentioning that the Chinese and Taiwanese still regard the Shar-Pei as a dog-fighting breed, although the prohibitive cost of the breed has done much to discourage such abuse.

However, since Shar Peis are so rare in the West to begin with and expensive even when and where you do get them, a lot of fighter dog breeders might decide to mate them out to other breeds to stretch what they have to work with. Additionally, those numbers might represent attacks among groups that get under reported in the media, such as minorites. To the news networks and legislators, a suburban white kid getting savaged by a family pet gets more attention than a poor brown kid in the same situation.

[Nikose Tyris]

Gotta say my girlfriend has been part of Daschund Rescue, and I have learned that if you don't baby those adorable weiner dogs from the time they hatch, that they'll happily maul the shit out of you. [She has scarred hands from an ignored dog [not abused] named Woody.]

In terms of scary dogs man Daschund's top my list. Nothing that cute and harmless looking should be so dangerous.

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by Premmy

Labrador breeds bite Pretty often, actually

Originally Posted by Krylo

Only straight labradors, though.

Also, they're in second with pitbulls in third.

Rottweilers have no numbers.

Only paying attention to maimings. Just bites that cause some kinda bodily harm are hardly worth considering.

Edit: I'm pretty sure labradors are a lot more prevalent than pitbulls as well, but I don't care enough to look for numbers.

Edit2: I mean, arguably I chose a bad breed for the direct comparison, but there are only three breeds that are in the triple digits or higher (goddamn sharpei), and one of them is pitbulls. That is not exactly helping your case.

Just took a look at that table actually. It's a really, really shitty table.

Mostly because the dog breed names don't actually line up with their statistics.

See, I was wondering why they had things like:

German......................39
shepherd/husky...........2
mix............................1

and when I looked at the bottom of the chart, it looked like Shar Peis had about as many incidents of violence as all the other breeds put together.

Then I noticed that there was no entry next to "Total."

So yes, some idiot just threw all of their statistics into that chart without making sure the names lined up. That's why there are so many different entries that just say "mix." Just from counting line by line, it looks to me like Pitbull Terriers have about 1110 recorded attacks that caused bodily harm, which is more than half of all recorded attacks put together.

Labradors, as an aside, only have 26. So no, they aren't that bitey of a breed.

EDIT: Just by checking other big numbers, it looks to me like Rottweilers have 409 recorded attacks that caused bodily harm, second only to the Pitbulls themselves. So really, the table (arranged properly) is EXACTLY in line with what you'd expect.

The sad thing is that goddamn Wolf Hybrids only have 71 attacks. Fuckin' wolves aren't even all that dangerous compared to the big two, relatively speaking.

EDIT2: I feel I should say something more relevant to the original topic, while I'm here anyway.

I'm a dog owner myself, and I feel like my golden retriever would never hurt anyone on purpose. He was never mistreated, and he's a breed that doesn't really get territorial or aggressive. But the possibility is still there, I acknowledge, and I can see where people are coming from when they say "My dog would never do such a thing."

But when I see people saying that you shouldn't jump to conclusions about pitbulls - that they only attack if provoked, or the ones that fight must have come from broken households, that sort of thing - then I have to disagree. The evidence is there that they are the MOST aggressive breed out there by a long shot, and that's because they were bred to be aggressive. It's nature, not nurture. Their instincts will tell them to fight more often than not.

Like, yes, it's a bad reputation, but they certainly earned it. Their wikipedia page tells a little story about how San Francisco relabelled them to St. Francis Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the bad blood associated with the name Pitbull, but they had to turn it back almost immediately when some of the dogs killed other domestic animals in their new homes.

[Marc v4.0]

It is important to note from the Wiki article as well...

Temperament

The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."[8]

However, the entire article seems to go back and forth between them good breeds and horrible breeds, so I don't even know what the hell.

Krylo, I didn't mean to fume so much vitriol about it. I disagree with your assertions on the breed, and think it is more the fault of people who breed the dogs to enhance the aggressive behaviors. Out of an entire litter, only one or two might express the traits to the level they were breeding for, and the rest get sold off as pets to people none the wiser. A properly bred Pit Bull Terrier shouldn't show increased signs of aggression to people over any regular dog bred to hunt animals that aren't human. This is where, I think, the problem comes from. They can be easily bred to be super-aggressive and unstable, which makes them better suited for people who WANT those traits, so litters of badly bred PBT's get more and more widespread. More of a 'vicious cycle' viewpoint then a 'bad in the genes' one. It is, apparently, a topic I am passionate about, more so then I actually realized and I really could have worded everything a lot better then I did.

Not to use as a solid example, it was more of an amusing one to me, bows are just as deadly as firearms. Yet more people want to ban or control firearms because you see much more crime involving guns then you do wandering bands of English Longbowmen.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Bows take a life time of practice to use effectively as well as constant workout to keep in physical condition to use it. A gun is much easier to use and requires far less training and physical condition.
A bow and the arrows are difficult to get, not so the gun.
A bow is much more limited by weather conditions.
A bow is much more difficult to haul around and is impossible to conceal.
It also takes longer to set up and fire and is fairly difficult to use effectively at close range.
We stopped using bows for a reason.

If you try to go on a killing spree with a box, good luck to you.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Bows take a life time of practice to use effectively as well as constant workout to keep in physical condition to use it. A gun is much easier to use and requires far less training and physical condition.
A bow and the arrows are difficult to get, not so the gun.
A bow is much more limited by weather conditions.
A bow is much more difficult to haul around and is impossible to conceal.
It also takes longer to set up and fire and is fairly difficult to use effectively at close range.
We stopped using bows for a reason.

[PyrosNine]

My experience is that all dogs will bite you for different reasons, including relatively friendly dogs, in that they will mimic their owners treatment to them to other dogs, but also mimic the actions of other dogs in their company, or even in their neighborhood. My dog Lilu is about as fierce as cotton candy, but when we had a dumb as bricks Great Dane who barked at everything until she figured out it wasn't a threat or was in fact her owner, Lilu would follow her around and would mimic the bark at everything for years after the Great Dane vamoosed.

It can also work if your neighbor raises their dogs bad, and your dog is across the fence or whatnot: Your puppy, raised apart from other dogs, sees the other dogs as models of 'proper' behavior.

And yeah, unless you discourage violent or rough play/behavior without reacting with your own violence, most dogs will be carnivores: territorial and easily defensive. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but mankind's a carnivore, and we too tend to be reared to be aggressive and violent, regardless of race, gender, or situation, and fiercely territorial towards people and places. Just go onto a forum and make an illogical statement!

I've lived in some rough neighborhoods and I've known some mean ol' dogs, and I have smelled of both cats and a female Weimador in heat, and I have learned a thing or two about dealing with aggressive dogs. If you're not in their "turf", most dogs will just bark, aggressive and unaggressive, and get as close to you as they can get without exiting their territory. Aggressive dogs however, will be willing to leave the boundaries of their territory if you tary too long by their territory- and dogs will sometimes increase the boundaries of their territory over time, so what was safe one day might not be the next.

To tell the difference between the nonagressive and aggressive while you're in their territory, the non-aggressive will just bark at you, and remain a safe distance from you. It will respect your presence, because you're kinda a BIG dog. Small children are at a disadvantage, but for anyone over 13, or even 8, most dogs will treat you with the same deference as a dog of equivalent or more size and weight. The fact we stand upright like a Bear is an intimidating factor as well (another note, don't go on all fours or get low to the ground near dogs you're not friends with)

The aggressive dog will maintain some distance, but also inch closer- it's not respecting your space and it's not afraid of you to the extent it'll keep away. It will also have a visible difference- it'll be like there's an electric current in the air surrounding it if you're paying attention. A lot of people who are inexperienced or afraid of dogs will sometimes not notice this because they were too busy thinking about something else or performing a task, but dogs are very communicative with body language. This is your cue to back away, and get on your defensive. Sadly, most won't notice until...

An aggressive dog will then hackle it's fur (not to the extent of a cat, but it's still visible) and show teeth. The visible display of teeth will be a simple curling up of it's lips. The ears will accentuate all of the previous. This is GO time. This is your last warning, and you can usually still get away without a fight, but you normally don't want to get this far.

This is because when a dog does this, your typical first reaction will range from either OH CRAP to shitting your pants, and while dogs don't smell fear, they do sense when you're vulnerable and receptive to them. You are reacting to the dog, and they notice they have sway over you, and like a four year notices that they have at least the time it takes to count to ten to continue being disobedient, they realize you're not going to do anything.

What you wanna try to do is to get up your guns. Don't be aggressive yourself, don't make any needless motions, and keep both eyes on the dog, but stand firm. Solid. If you've ever seen a big, friendly dog meet up with an aggressive one, it will stand still and watch, and the aggressor will be intimidated. The dog isn't buying into the aggressive dog's shit, and if the big guy is big enough (as a human should be), the aggressor should lose the aggression and back off, or at least not bother attacking and the other dog (Or Human) can leave.

If it's a stupidly aggressive dog, usually one that has gotten into fights with it's owner or other less violent dogs and not been suitably punished for it, it will attack anyway, to the point of stupidity. This is why little dogs can be a menace to people and other dogs, because they aren't adequately aware that they are a small meal or quite punt-able. Bigger dogs need to be punished in a proper way immediately and continually when they show violence to owners or companions, because they are able to back up their threat.

When a dog attacks, typically, the dog being attacked will either dodge and run (not too great an idea), or will wait until the actual attack and then attack back- either with a tackle, or a counter bite, then disengage. The aggressor will usually do the same, because nobody likes an opponent who fights back. Ask any mugger, they're more afraid of the victim deciding to fight back than a police officer showing up.

Now, you don't want to actually fight with the dog, you wan to give the presence of attacking. An intimidation lunge, where you ball up your fist and move your upper body forward suddenly (you know what I"m talking about, whenever you are bullied or bully someone else, the bigger guy will do this) will count as an 'attack', and any sane dog will leap away. Immediately go back to the defensive and step back, minding your environment and your footwork.

You don't want to actually fight the dog (unless you absolutely have to, I myself have tackled a doberman for the sake of my Lejeune!) because then it will be a real fight, and the dog won't back down until you've beaten the ever living crap out of it. You might think that after enough fight, the dog will get scared and run off, but like human beings tenacity and stubbornness will sometimes keep any dog fighting until serious injury. You want to hold it off until it's owner comes out, or until you can retreat to safety.

So it will lunge, or draw close for a bite, and you want to intimidate lunge as a counter, and step back. Do so until it's gone, or you're in safety: a high area, the presence of a group of other people, the owner comes out to get it, the police, or until it considers you no longer a threat, or is scared from being so far out of its own territory and runs back home.

Now, you can run, skip, hop, whatever, call the police or local animal control, or even the owner of the dog to give them a piece of your mind.

More info:
http://leerburg.com/dogattack.htm

Of note, a RABID dog won't do any of the above things, because it might walk up friendly, then decide to maul your leg off. Also, a trained attack dog won't do any of these things because it's raised to tear the shit out of you (but should also be trained to know better), so the link above has some good advice.

Also, I could totally go on a killing spree with a box, if I had some duct tape.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You say that bows are as deadly as firearms when they clearly aren't, mostly due to their massive versatility. I could construct a situation where bows are as/more deadly than firearms but I could do that with anything. It's all about statistics.
And this is what dog dangerous breeds also comes down to. Sure most dogs can do damage but which ones are statisically more likely to.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

You say that bows are as deadly as firearms when they clearly aren't, mostly due to their massive versatility. I could construct a situation where bows are as/more deadly than firearms but I could do that with anything. It's all about statistics.
And this is what dog dangerous breeds also comes down to. Sure most dogs can do damage but which ones are statisically more likely to.

It wasn't a serious example of anything other then a funny thought I had, I SAID that.


I still hold that the statistics are skewed on this because of people taking a dog already built for hutning and fighting and then breeding mental instability into it for illegal dog fighting or because they are stupid and want a vicious guard dog but without all that constly training and picking of proper pedigrees. The entire line isn't tainted, but the ones that are tainted are really really bad with it and in the hands of irresponsible people how distribute the 'failures' as normal animals.