Stayed out of this thread, but have to comment here. I may have missed it, but all this conjecture about improper training and personality traits in dogs has very little to do (with some exceptions) with how they react. It's all about instinct.
When I was an 8 year old kid, we had a German Shepherd. Biggest baby and the most gentle dog you've ever seen. One day when he was eating dinner, I was sticking my fingers in his dog food. He snapped at me and bit me on the cheek. Even then I could tell the dog was ashamed for nipping me, but I realized right at that moment, you don't interfere with instinct in an animal. The problem with having any animal, is that it's often very difficult to tell when instinct is going to overshadow training.
One of the few bad bites I've ever gotten came when I was about 2-3 years old. I tried to take a bone away from a Boston Bull. I know because when I got older I had to ask my folks where I'd gotten that scar on my hand :-).
It often does. This part of the debate is a rehash of the old nature/nurture debate. It's very hard to prove stuff along these lines, since you can't have one without the other, which makes experiment difficult. However, there have been a number of studies recently that show that genetics is more important for human behavior than previously thought. It's simply not true that you can blame all behavior problems on poor parenting. In fact, barring very good evidence, it would be a very arrogant thing to claim. Since genetic traits are so important for human behavior, it seems likely that it's quite important for dog behavior as well, as we're genetically quite similar. It follows that not all bad dog behavior can be blamed on poor training. Note: pointing out that humans are not dogs would not count as a rebuttle. You'd actually have to have evidence that genetics plays less of a behavioral role with dogs than it does with humans.
Consider two people, Mary and Tom. Assume that both are raised in a relevantly similar environment. It's perfectly possible in this situation for Tom to have a problem with alcohol, due to a genetic predispostion, but Mary does not, since she lacks the genetic predisposition. Let's now put Tom in rehab, and let's say he stay's clean. Good going Tom! Does anyone really think that Tom's desire for alcohol has been removed? Moving back to the canine world, does my dog's desire to chase the squirrel stop even when I tell him "no" and he doesn't chase it?
Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different behavioral traits? Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming evidence, such as, for instance, the various studies that analyze the intelligence of different breeds. Yet such an unlikely claim must be assumed by those who say that all doggie behavioral problems are caused by bad training. It's simply not true.
Not concerned in this case. I've seen plenty of the herding instinct in my dog, and it's all been benign. It's pretty funny to watch him herding the cat around the house! He also does it with small children, but only with gentle pushes from his muzzle.
Not nearly as much as you think, apparently. (We'll save the argument about humans for a later time). However, start with this: An attack is a behavior, not an instinct. In dogs as in humans, behavior is plastic. Temperament, which is the expression of genetically determined psychology (among other things) notoriously varies widely among individuals of all breeds. How the temperament is expressed can be, and is, routinely modified.
In the case of aggressiveness it is in fact _supported_ by the evidence, notably the dog bite statistics. As nearly as we can tell from the facts, and despite the reputation to the contrary, dog breeds don't vary significantly in biting behavior. And we know both from experience and studies that dog behavior is quite straightforward to modify.
Major error there. The specific claim is that in at least the vast majority of dogs, regardless of breed, adequate training and socialization will produce a dog with acceptable behavior, including not attacking people or other animals. That is a very different claim and one well-supported by the facts and experience.
What causes 'doggie behavioral problems' is a moot point. The important point is that such problems can almost always be controlled with training and socialization. The secondary point is that unacceptable behavior, such as aggression, can be controlled in all breeds of dogs.
My Sheltie herds only at mealtime - his mealtime and then I'm the sheep. His previous owners taught him to get a ball when he wants to play and he still does this with me, ditto for any child even looks his way. When I have a group of people here at least one ball per person will be someplace on the floor. No one taught him to herd the balls up and put them away.
I've never said otherwise. Clearly, though, one can have an instinct to attack that causes the actual behavior.
Yep. To a certain extent anyway. Try teaching a great Pyrenees not to bark at "strange" noises.
Well, we're having a little problem since we're not directly citing the "evidence" or studies. I'm guilty of this as well. In our defense, this isn't an academic journal, thank God! Are we talking about dog's biting humans? Has the study taken into account the size of each of the breeds? What data do we have on dog on dog aggression? I don't know the answer to the latter, as I haven't found any good studies. The CDC, however, thinks that there's a good enough case to put the pit bull on the dangerous breeds list. To that I'll add the extensive experience that I've had at dog parks. Others have chimed in on this as well. Our anecdotal evidence is relevant if yours is.
But that's not the major issue. The question is not whether most dogs of a given breed can be made relatively safe, the question is are some breds inherently more dangerous, whether to humans or to other dogs, than others. The most recent statistics that I've seen indicate that pit bulls killed twice as many people than any other breed during the time span looked at. You say that's due to poor training. Why are these dogs getting training significantly worse than rottweilers, dobermans...? In my experience the character of a pit bull's attack on another dog is of a different kind than that made by most other dogs. The pit bull has a relentlessness that most dogs lack. Sure, some other terriers have a similar disposition, but their size makes them easier to handle.
We probably should politely agree to disagree on this one. Although we really aren't that far apart. We disagree on how much genetics affects behavior, and the extent to which training can curb instincts. We also disagree on whether medium to large dogs should always be walked on a leash. More importantly, though, we agree on the need for proper training (and treatment in general!) of any dog.
Hmm. In that case we seem to be having a violent agreement. My main point is that any such instinct can be overridden by training and socialization so it is not a factor in the inherent 'danger' of the breed. (Which is in essence what the Alabama Supreme Court found.)
Someone posted the CDC statistics on dog bites by breed earlier. I'll have to look through and find it. Meanwhile, take a look at the references I cited on aggression in dogs.
That's what we have the best numbers on, so that's been the focus, yes.
Size doesn't seem to matter in aggressiveness. Breed popularity is the major determinant -- as in the more of breed X, the more likely you are to have bites by breed X.
There have been quite a number of studies on dog aggression, both by breed and from a behavioral point of view. The Kent County material I cited earlier summarizes a lot of this, without giving references back to the original papers.
For me it is exactly the issue. Remember I chimed on this thread because someone claimed that pit bulls were urban assault weapons, inherently vicious, etc., etc., etc. If that's not the issue for you, we're talking somewhat at cross purposes.
Okay, let's be specific here. Based on the evidence from the dog bite statistics, as well as other evidence, I'd say that it is pretty clear that pit bulls are no more likely to express _aggression_ than any other breed.
But there's a secondary issue involved in the concept of 'dangerous'. That is the amount of damage the dog is likely to do if it does attack. There the evidence pretty clearly indicates that a pit bull, rottweilers, etc. can do far more damage than other breeds. However if the dog isn't likely to attack in the first place, that almost never enters into it.
Keep in mind that only a tiny, tiny fraction of all dog bites result in fatality. There are only about 10 to 20 dog bite deaths in the US each year, but there are hundreds of thousands of dog bites. Considering the relative proportion of fatalities to dog bites, I'd argue that the bite statistics are far more important.
Well, no. What I said was that _attacks_ are due to poor training. The amount of damage once an attack is made is quite a different matter. You would expect strong, fast dogs to account for a disproportionate number of fatalities and that's what you find.
This is quite true and it's one the reasons dogs like pit bulls, rottweilers, etc. do more damage.
This is generally true. However please note that this has no bearing on the dog's aggressiveness.
I think you're correct.
Peter, keep in mind what happens if your dog is involved in an incident while walking unleashed. It doesn't matter who started it. If your Pyr is jumped by a psycho Yorkie/toy poodle/whatever, we pretty well know who's going to get the worst of the ensuing fight. And if your dog isn't on a leash when it happens, you're going to be lucky to get off with just paying the other dog's vet bills.
There are excellent reasons for keeping your dog leashed in almost all circumstances that have nothing to do with breed danger, obedience or anything of the sort.
Responsible pit bull owners have to be especially sensitive to these nuances because of the prejudice (deserved or not) against pit bulls. A pit bull involved in a dog fight, no matter who started it, is all to often a dead pit bull once Animal Control gets involved in the situation.
LOL! Hadn't ever thought of that! Must be quite a sight to see, I'd have to gag, muzzle, and hog tie this one to keep him out of the game. Probably need to blindfold him, too, or he'd still manage to wiggle into the game.
Well, even the Marines can get it wrong. I delivered papers for more than a half dozen years as a kid, was charged God only knows how many times but never was bitten. Not that that boxer might not have had it in mind but at that time I carrying a cast metal card punch in my hand and I gave him a pretty good shot in the end of the nose/mouth with it. Probably hurt him all most as much as it scared me, danged thing was shoulder high to my hip. Later in life I took to taking a step towards them, leaning in, putting my arms out to the side like a muscle man pose and growling back; damned funny watching a German Shepherd swap ends as it's digging for traction to run the other way.
I do agree though, the only thing you can do worst than turning your back on them is run. That just triggers every predator-prey instinct they have.
Rick Cook wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com:
Me. It was death resulting from dog bites. They may have numbers on bites that do not result in death, but on a casual search I did not see them. Google ought to turn up the post with the cite.
I had a friend who had a sheltie and two small kids who played soccer. It was wonderful to behold. The dog was having a great time trying to herd both teams and the ball. She was really upset when mom locked her in the car.
I think most of the problem is on the human side. Carnivores are dangerous to each other, too, and have developed elaborate submission gestures as well as aggressive gestures to get business transacted short of death. The reason most bites are on kids is that they advance in spite of the warnings the animals are giving.
As goofy as it sounds, this will usually work with untrained, healthy dogs. Most grown men are at least twice as large an adult male dog and in the animal world, size and confidence are great deterrents. I have also been attacked twice by dogs that were not deterred by my confidence and those I punched or kicked in the throat as hard as possible; in both cases, the attack ended immediately. I don't imagine trained animals would have given up so quickly. Jamming your hand into their throat would probably work if you keep it there long enough to suffocate them.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't recommend trying it as a first thought. Dogs don't open their mouths far enough to get your hand shoved in there. Watch a barking dog - their mouth is not open very wide. Now look at an even more dangerous dog - the one that is giving you those warning growls - his mouth is not open at all. I'm not going to shove my hand past those teeth when I'll have to break them off in order to get in there.
As a cyclist, my preferred method of dealing with aggressive dogs is to pedal a little harder and outrun them. If unable to do that due to terrain, tired legs or laziness, I just pull out my water bottle and give 'em a little squirt in the face. Even the most aggressive mutt is immediately put off by the surprise stream of liquid into their face. It's worked on dogs of all sizes and breeds. There's a big, ugly mixed breed that I've done that to three times lately, and I think he's starting to get used to it. This weekend, I think there'll be some pepper sauce in the bottle.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.