# Dangerous Dog Breeds



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm always being sent something through the e-mail about BSL and dangerous dog breeds. So what is it about these breeds that's making them hit the "Top 10" list for bad boys? Bad in the 1970's folks said that the Dobie was a child killer and would turn on their owners in a heartbeat. The Pit Bull Terrier is a bloodletting machine, the German Shepherd is a cop dog that is out of control on bad guys. 

IMO it isn't the breed of dog that is the problem, it's the mindless owner/s who make dogs the way they are showcased. Maybe the Malinois is the next to make the list, or the Beagle, how about the poor mixed breed dog? The old Heinz 57...


----------



## marcy bukkit (Oct 4, 2007)

There are no dangerous breeds.

There are occasionally dangerous dogs who truly have a screw loose and more often there are irresponsible owners who don't train their dog, don't socialize their dog, don't keep their dog leashed/confined and criminal owners who use dogs as a weapon and often use inhumane methods to make their dogs viscious.

There is a skewed media that reports selectively and skewed data on dog bites. If I'm playing ball with my dog and he accidentally grabs my hand instead of the ball, The people who want to up the count of dog bites would call it a dog bite, period. I would call it an accident.

There are gullible politicians who believe the erroneous statistics that are presented to them and who are too disinterested to do any independent research on the subject.

The ARists are taking our dogs from us by any method they can fathom, using propaganda and scare tactics. BSL is only one piece of their agenda.


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

My amateur opinion is that there are indeed dangerous dog breeds--dangerous defined as a proclivity to bite humans. If all breeds were the same, why aren't all breeds used for military, police, and personal protection applications? However, having a proclivity to bite humans, does not mean that they should banned, restricted, or otherwise controlled by legislation. Responsibility and accountability should remain with the owner and that's where our moronic legislators (unsurprisingly) fail us.


----------



## Frank Smego (Feb 29, 2008)

The only dangerous breed is Humans. Maybe it's tied to the opposable thumb gene.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Eros Kopliku said:


> My amateur opinion is that there are indeed dangerous dog breeds--dangerous defined as a proclivity to bite humans. If all breeds were the same, why aren't all breeds used for military, police, and personal protection applications?


Cocker spaniels are about the most prone dog to bite humans...I do believe there are some sort of statistic to back that up somewhere. In my personal experience, I'll add in Chihuahuas and toy poodles and some labs.

They aren't used cause they are not physical "man stoppers" (though potentially a lab could be) nor do they have the correct temperament, nerves, and drives. IHMO, having a low bite thresh hold does not make a good working police dog.


----------



## Frank Smego (Feb 29, 2008)

Eros Kopliku said:


> My amateur opinion is that there are indeed dangerous dog breeds--dangerous defined as a proclivity to bite humans. If all breeds were the same, why aren't all breeds used for military, police, and personal protection applications? However, having a proclivity to bite humans, does not mean that they should banned, restricted, or otherwise controlled by legislation. Responsibility and accountability should remain with the owner and that's where our moronic legislators (unsurprisingly) fail us.


I completely disagree, there are no dangerous dog breeds.

IMHO there is no bad or good dog behavior, all behavior is either acceptible or unacceptible based on the situtation.

"Dangerous breeds" is emotional media hype.


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

Frank Smego said:


> The only dangerous breed is Humans. Maybe it's tied to the opposable thumb gene.


I agree with this thought. Us humans always find a way to ruin the planet or what's on the planet.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2008)

Alex Corral said:


> I agree with this thought. Us humans always find a way to ruin the planet or what's on the planet.


That's only because you have no basis of comparison.

Let chimps take the helm for a while, then you'll be eating crow.


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

Steven Lepic said:


> That's only because you have no basis of comparison.
> 
> Let chimps take the helm for a while, then you'll be eating crow.


Well you know, after some of the shit I see daily on the "bad news", because that's all they report. A rotting crow, seems tasty.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

JMHO but popularity and careless breeding HAS created dangerous dogs!
Those two, combined with crap training.
The APBT, for instance, is often being bred by clueless owners that think aggression is what makes a great PIt. 
I can say the same for a lot of GSDs. The overly sharp dog that some breeders think is what's needed to keep the breed strong isn't what a good dog is all about.
The crazy, OCD, sport Mal that seems to be popular is another breeding fault. Again JMHO! :wink:


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

Alex Corral said:


> Well you know, after some of the shit I see daily on the "bad news", because that's all they report. A rotting crow, seems tasty.


Lol.. nevermind, that did not come out right. It's late, I'm tired & too late to edit! Anyways, Bob, good point. I agree!


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

marcy bukkit said:


> There are no dangerous breeds.
> 
> There are occasionally dangerous dogs who truly have a screw loose and more often there are irresponsible owners who don't train their dog, don't socialize their dog, don't keep their dog leashed/confined and criminal owners who use dogs as a weapon and often use inhumane methods to make their dogs viscious.
> 
> ...


Pretty much sums up my position.

Any dog (of any breed) is potentially dangerous IMO...


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

The dangerous dog breeds is alot like a gun. Anti-gun folks will have you think that guns kill people. Cars kill, ropes kill, kitchen knives kill, a spouse coming home too soon can..., the trained human body can kill. I strongly feel that with some breeds, certain K-9 behaviors should have the well informed owner on guard. It is the genetics of the dog breed and the owner training that are the two MOST important links.

Pits are dog aggressive and people friendly, unless made differently. I know of many Pit Bull Terriers that get along well with other animals. Working Border Collies will try and herd anything that moves, nip it to get it to move. If this unwanted behavior is properly addressed, it should never be much of an issue any home. For dog breeds which are "protective" by nature, the wise owner will make living style adjustments to ensure the succes of that animal in the home!

No bad breeds, no bad guns, just a few screw loose folks having these things and can't get with the program. :evil:


----------



## Frank Smego (Feb 29, 2008)

"No bad breeds, no bad guns, just a few screw loose folks having these things and can't get with the program."

Well said Howard.

A few shy sharp, or mentally cross wired dogs in any breed population does NOT a dangerous breed make. 

Time, place & LACK OF HUMAM CONTROL create the danger. That over-the -top, dog aggressive Pitbull may not be in the right situtation in a suburban neighborhood but, may be the best hog hunting catch dog. 

It's up to the hunams to train, kennel & leash thier dogs.


----------



## Frank Smego (Feb 29, 2008)

Steven Lepic said:


> That's only because you have no basis of comparison.
> 
> Let chimps take the helm for a while, then you'll be eating crow.


Umm ,Steve, other primates besides humans have oppoasble thumbs, Ie. *Chimpanzees*, gorillas, and orangutans. I rest my case.\\/


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Cocker spaniels are about the most prone dog to bite humans...I do believe there are some sort of statistic to back that up somewhere. In my personal experience, I'll add in Chihuahuas and toy poodles and some labs.
> 
> They aren't used cause they are not physical "man stoppers" (though potentially a lab could be) nor do they have the correct temperament, nerves, and drives. IHMO, having a low bite thresh hold does not make a good working police dog.


One is more likely have a negligent discharge with a .22LR Derringer than with an AR-15. Does that make the Derringer more deadly? Not necessarily; 55 grains of badness flying at 3100 fps is much more dangerous to my health. Again, the responsibility rests with the humanoid who couldn't keep his booger-picker off of the make-go-bang thingy. Conspicuously, the Derringer in the analogy is the Cocker Spaniel, and the AR-15 is the dog that has been bred to combat humans. The former may cause damage, but certainly not more than the latter.


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

Frank Smego said:


> I completely disagree, there are no dangerous dog breeds.
> 
> IMHO there is no bad or good dog behavior, all behavior is either acceptible or unacceptible based on the situtation.
> 
> "Dangerous breeds" is emotional media hype.


I knew my opinion would not be popular in this emotionally charged subject. Would you rather be bitten by a toy dog or a working dog?

Instead of denying that some breeds have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, we need to stick up for our right to own such animals.


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

Howard Gaines III said:


> No bad breeds, no bad guns, just a few screw loose folks having these things and can't get with the program. :evil:


I fully agree.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Couldn't agree more - pity there isn't a breeding programme for human beings.

A lot of the problems lie with the breed clubs in that they don't have reliable temperament tests, beauty goes before good temperament and a lot of fear biters are allowed to pass the tests (if the breed clubs have them, that is). I find it shocking that many tests have been diluted to suit the dogs that are being bred although a good breeder is still allowed to breed what he thinks will produce "well balanced" dogs, regardless of tests, etc.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Eros Kopliku said:


> I knew my opinion would not be popular in this emotionally charged subject. Would you rather be bitten by a toy dog or a working dog?


If that was the definition of dangerous, I would agree with you. However, either one can kill an infant.



> Instead of denying that some breeds have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, we need to stick up for our right to own such animals.


I don't see anyone denying that quite a few breeds have the potential to cause serious bodily harm - I assume people on this board are well aware of that potential. I also agree that we should stick up for our rights to own such animals.

I don't see how this equates with a view that only some breeds are dangerous...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Sorry, the "wink" should be at the end but I don't seem to have the smilies under control!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2008)

Frank Smego said:


> Umm ,Steve, other primates besides humans have oppoasble thumbs, Ie. *Chimpanzees*, gorillas, and orangutans. I rest my case.\\/


Well, I don't think colobus monkeys would do much better (no thumbs). Touché


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Eros Kopliku said:


> I knew my opinion would not be popular in this emotionally charged subject. Would you rather be bitten by a toy dog or a working dog?
> 
> Instead of denying that some breeds have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, we need to stick up for our right to own such animals.


Eros the opinion might not be popular with everyone, and some might agree that you are allowed to have it even IF you are wrong, but...
We all can agree to respect other's positions and do it in a positive and fun manner like this forum. \\/ 

The only thing more dangerous than a bad dog...is Kim in a bite suit! You out there girl???


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

Ian Forbes said:


> I don't see anyone denying that quite a few breeds have the potential to cause serious bodily harm - I assume people on this board are well aware of that potential. I also agree that we should stick up for our rights to own such animals.
> 
> I don't see how this equates with a view that only some breeds are dangerous...


Ian, a higher potential to cause serious bodily harm does make a dog more dangerous--not bad just dangerous. Dangerous does not equal bad or evil. Same as with violence: In spite of the Department of Indoctrination's efforts to turn our children into effeminate pansies, violence, when applied appropriately, is a very good thing.

Back to the firearm analogy, for self-defense, I would rather use a rifle devised specifically for fighting than a single shot .22LR that was designed for use by children. Is a fighting rifle more dangerous than the single shot .22LR? Absolutely! Is it bad? Absolutely not! It is actually very good because it enables the good guys to stop the bad guys.

Is a dog that is bred to combat humans more dangerous than a toy breed? Absolutely! Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not! It is actually a very good thing as countless of these dogs work in military and police capacities or protect citizens' homes 24/7.

Again, use of these resources depends solely on the owner, whether good or bad.


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Eros the opinion might not be popular with everyone, and some might agree that you are allowed to have it even IF you are wrong, but...
> We all can agree to respect other's positions and do it in a positive and fun manner like this forum. \\/
> 
> The only thing more dangerous than a bad dog...is Kim in a bite suit! You out there girl???


I think, we actually all agree, but are caught in a battle of words.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Eros Kopliku said:


> Ian, a higher potential to cause serious bodily harm does make a dog more dangerous--not bad just dangerous. Dangerous does not equal bad or evil. Same as with violence: In spite of the Department of Indoctrination's efforts to turn our children into effeminate pansies, violence, when applied appropriately, is a very good thing.


Eros,

I think that is only one part of what makes a dog more dangerous - I believe we would also need to look at nerve strength, stimulus thresholds, training, socialisation etc. etc.

To take your gun analogy: A small, poorly maintained handgun in the hands of an untrained person is IMO more dangerous than a well maintained assault rifle in the hands of a professional (assuming we are talking about accidents, rather than actually trying to shoot someone).


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Eros Kopliku said:


> Ian, a higher potential to cause serious bodily harm does make a dog more dangerous--not bad just dangerous. Dangerous does not equal bad or evil. Same as with violence: In spite of the Department of Indoctrination's efforts to turn our children into effeminate pansies, violence, when applied appropriately, is a very good thing.
> 
> Back to the firearm analogy, for self-defense, I would rather use a rifle devised specifically for fighting than a single shot .22LR that was designed for use by children. Is a fighting rifle more dangerous than the single shot .22LR? Absolutely! Is it bad? Absolutely not! It is actually very good because it enables the good guys to stop the bad guys.
> 
> ...


100% with that! PPDs and handguns are both tools used by skilled people.


----------



## kim guidry (Jan 11, 2008)

Howard Gaines III said:


> The only thing more dangerous than a bad dog...is Kim in a bite suit! You out there girl???



*Howard Gaines!* :evil: 

The only difference between the small dog bites and the big dog bites is that you will only hear about a big dog attacking a child on the news.

When I was a child a friend of the family had a pit. When I would watch tv I would use the dog as a pillow. One day he bit a child and was taken away and put to death. Yeah, it was on the news, but they did not say that the child had been teasing the dog for months threw the fence with sticks and rocks. They also did not say that the child had his arm up to his elbow threw the fence when he was bit! 

Hell, my vet told me how surprised I would be if I knew the amount of dog bites at the local Petsmart that occured with small dogs. Time and time again I am asked why I would want a big dog like Zo and take the chance of it "attacking" my child. In the meantime they can't even control the 3lb fuzz ball on the extend lead! The whole thing just burns my a$$$

Sorry, got off subject.8-[ I believe that you have good & bad dogs as well as good & bad owners. Yes, you have dogs that will protect more than others. That is why we work with those breeds instead of a Shit-zu.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I haven't really read this thread (probably way off topic by now ;-)) Thought I'd share this link to a study that's BSL related.

Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups
_"The current study has statistically shown, based on a defined temperament test, that the classification of dog breeds and dog breed types (breed groups), with respect to their aggressiveness toward humans is not supported scientifically. The complex and contributing conditions related to the upbringing of individual dogs are not considered by BSL and such laws unfairly target the vast majority of individual dogs, which are temperamentally stable. The temperaments of animals are fundamentally and universally acknowledged to be influenced by age, sex, early socialization, early nutrition, training, health and genetics, while BSL only takes one of these factors into account."_


----------



## Erin Sullivan (Jul 24, 2007)

> Ian, a higher potential to cause serious bodily harm does make a dog more dangerous--not bad just dangerous.


not sure i entirely agree with this . . . my dog (a pit bull) has the physical capability of causing more harm than my lab mix. but my pit bull has a much more people-friendly and stable temperament than my lab, so she's actually the more dangerous dog. he's not apt to perceive a threat from a stranger who does not provoke him; she is pretty defensive and somewhat fearful, so she might actually do so. he also loves children; her, not so much at all and i do not allow kids to pet her.

as the owner of a pit bull, and someone who has known lots of pit bulls over the years, the breed is not one i consider inherently "dangerous." but i do believe, as bob scott said earlier, overbreeding by unscrupulous (and i might add, stupid) people has caused an increase in lesss-than-stellar temperament and nerves in our dogs. it seems to me that i see more "poor" representatives of our breed these days than i did, say, 7 or 8 years ago. i would imagine the same was true back when the doberman gained the reputation for being a "dangerous" dog . . . and i imagine that will be the case for the next "dangerous" breeds that come down the pike.


----------



## Frank Smego (Feb 29, 2008)

Eros Kopliku said:


> I knew my opinion would not be popular in this emotionally charged subject. Would you rather be bitten by a toy dog or a working dog?
> 
> Instead of denying that some breeds have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, we need to stick up for our right to own such animals.


My friend I think the problem might be your understanding of my post. The OP posted about Dangerous Breeds. Meaning that the whole population of that breed is "Dangerous". My point is that even the most aggressive dog be it against man or beast, is NOT dangerous if properly controled by it's owner. 

This has nothing do due with who I want to get bitten by. One of the hardest hitting Rottweilers I've ever seen is extremely trust worthy. In contrast the absoultly most "dangerous" dog against man was my Mother's Toy Poodle, the meanest ,most evil 4#s of fur that ever hide under a couch. That little dog drew blood on every human that ever entered the house I grew-up in (Except Mom).


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

If a Pomeranian can kill an infant (which I wouldn't doubt):

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/09/pomeranian.kills.ap/

The size thing is merely relative. We can't really ban or legislate against SUVs (or semi-trucks for that matter) just they are bigger and _can_ cause more damage. What I fear with that logic is that you get this slippery slope of saying "okay, well, any dog over 40 lbs is a large dog and therefore more dangerous." So a 39 lbs dog is somehow okay, but a 41 lbs dog is not. Basically, try as we might, there comes a point where we just can't legislate out stupidity. :roll:

Case in point (this is so brilliant, so true, and so worth the watch):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA


----------



## Eros Kopliku (Jan 30, 2008)

Frank Smego said:


> My friend I think the problem might be your understanding of my post. The OP posted about Dangerous Breeds. Meaning that the whole population of that breed is "Dangerous". My point is that even the most aggressive dog be it against man or beast, is NOT dangerous if properly controled by it's owner.
> 
> This has nothing do due with who I want to get bitten by. One of the hardest hitting Rottweilers I've ever seen is extremely trust worthy. In contrast the absoultly most "dangerous" dog against man was my Mother's Toy Poodle, the meanest ,most evil 4#s of fur that ever hide under a couch. That little dog drew blood on every human that ever entered the house I grew-up in (Except Mom).


And I have seen Rottweilers who would have seriously mauled me and my family if I had not stopped them. That does not make all Rottweilers bad nor form my opinion of the Rottweiler breed. By laws of physics, those Rottweilers would have inflicted more harm on my family than toy poodles with the same temperament and intentions. That's a fact. 

I think we agree more than we probably think. This will likely be my last post on the issue as I'm probably being annoying and beating a dead horse. Feel free to tell me to shut my yap. :-# 

1. There are no breeds whose entire members are inherently evil.
2. Depending on many factors, some breeds are able of inflicting more harm than others.
3. The human owner is the ultimate factor.
4. Legislation regulating ownership of any breed is futile to resolving dogs attacks and is repugnant and insulting to the citizenry.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Eros Kopliku said:


> And I have seen Rottweilers who would have seriously mauled me and my family if I had not stopped them. That does not make all Rottweilers bad nor form my opinion of the Rottweiler breed. By laws of physics, those Rottweilers would have inflicted more harm on my family than toy poodles with the same temperament and intentions. That's a fact.
> 
> I think we agree more than we probably think. This will likely be my last post on the issue as I'm probably being annoying and beating a dead horse. Feel free to tell me to shut my yap. :-#
> 
> ...


And the folks said, "Amen!"
The topic can't be discussed enough, as long as we understand that there is NEVER a breed issue. A dog case by case issue, yes. Rottweilers have the ability due to bite pressure alone to cause more damage than a poodle. Any dog in a pack can cause damage to a person, animal or livestock. Going away from genetics, humans are the biggest factor in how a dog matures. And blanket statements about breeds is speaking from a level of no education on the topic. This is the reason I hate law makers who own fluffy do nothing dogs and then want to crank on the a$$ of working dog folks about their passion. Get off my JOCK! 8-[


----------

