# Are Certain Breeds Inherently a Hazard?



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

Please, I am not looking to open a can of worms here. And I am not looking to offend anyone's 4 legged friend. There are exceptions to everything, and I personally hate people who generalize with sweeping statements.

For anyone that cares I am just asking an objective question. I was just recalling the National Geographic program about dogs and their fantastically moldable DNA. 

No question a breed can have certain behavioral traits stronger than others. Some retreive dawn 'till dusk. Some are crazy about water. Some are just more aggressive than others. Some of these behaviors may come with a price tag... maybe less able to be controlled. "I can't ever get the dog out of the water once he's in."

I think we all would agree (maybe not) that you can have individual dogs that are just too aggressive, lack the orientation to be controlled and are simply loose cannons. Many are destroyed. It also seems reasonable to then extract that some breeders have bred for this exact trait. Blind aggressiveness possibly at the clear expense of control. 

Given that, isn't it possible that a good portion of a breed could eventually be afflicted over time? Let's face it. In the news 95% of the dog attack stories revolve around one generalized breed.

I'm sure not affiliated with some fringe radical animal rights group, but I like to think I'm analytical and objective. 

If there are rational unemotional responses, I would be interested to hear them.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

This link can show you what breeds are most susceptible to what conditions.
*Canine Inherited Disorders Database*
http://www.upei.ca/~cidd/intro.htm

If a tight line can be developed distinctly within a particular breed without detrimental effects, then you can assume that no small feat, as the breeder has been very objective in selecting against inherited disorders which in most breeds would naturally occur with each narrowing of the gene pool. Some breeds, though having a great population widely spread, may be very prone to particular problems, and yet fanciers of the breed perpetuate the lines. Many purebred breeds would have to be drastically reduced to a few select founders, and begun anew to have any hope of recovering from their affliction.


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

Hi Daryl,

That's a really great web link. Never saw that before. I didn't see any behavioral issues listed. I assume behavior is subjective, and the site is listing definitive things that can show up on an x-ray or be lab tested.

So it seems you might feel that some (perhaps irresponsible?) fanciers may have perpetuated these aggressive traits? I guess my question involved your last sentence. Is it possible that a breed need to begin anew?


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

There is a problem with reporting breed of dogs. First, the CDC gets its information from the media.

Here's a cliassic example that happened close to home. "Pit Bulls Attacks Family and Horses" Hmmm.... really? The 3 dogs did not bite any person, or horse - however, a cocker spaniel bit two people. 

This will go down as 2 pit bull bites because the news station refuses to change the story. We are continuing to pursue this case.

The media picks and chooses. 
In 1997, there were 400 newspaper headlines containing the words "pit bull."
In 2004, there were 900 newspaper articles containing the words "pit bull"
In 2005, there were 1,700 newspaper articles containing the words "pit bull"
In 2006, there were 2,800 newspaper articles containing the words "pit bull"

But the numbers of dog bites have not dramatically risen.. What has changed is the reporting of the incidences in the media.

This is not a new phenomenon. It was first noted in the 1800's with the extraordinary fear of the Bloodhound.

When we hear the stories behind the attacks, we find out much more. Typically the dog is intact, chained, malnourished and suffering from health problems. But people would rather read "Pit Bull Attacks Child" than "Abused and Starved Dog Bites Child."

The media is simply catering to what people want to hear. A friend of mine has 4 videos of her pitty licking her niece and nephew on YouTube. 2 of them contain the search tags "maul" and "attack." These 2 videos have THOUSANDS of views, while the other two that don't contain these search terms have just a handful of views.

I believe it is shadenfreuden.

Yes, dogs can be selectively bred for unwarranted aggression. There is no denying it. But at this time it is impossible to determine if one breed of dog is statistically more dangerous than another.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Media is largely responsible for specific focus on certain breeds. Behavior geneticists understand that problematic and abnormal behaviors in dogs run in family lines, not particular breeds. Breeders who select FOR such behaviors are doing their breed no service, as the behaviors become more widespread and appearances become that the breed itself is responsible. Behavior genetics is relatively an infant study as of now, but I believe it will grow very rapidly soon, since the recent completion of the mapping of the canine genome. It's said that the DNA of all domestic breeds is basically 99.8% the same.

*Canine Behavioral Genetics Project*
http://psych.ucsf.edu/k9behavioralgenetics/

This project is beginning with a very useful (IMO) approach, hoping to identify the genes associated with anxiety and aggression. Particularly, the sensitivity to loud/sharp sounds, that we find associated with weak nerves in working dogs.


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

I think that in twenty years, maybe less, we'll see a marked reduction in congenital defects in many breeds. Almost every serious breed issue has a team of researchers somewhere isolating genes with the intention to form testing for elimination purposes. Once this comes into play, a couple of generations of responsible breeding will knock it way down.

of course, the key there is "responsible breeding", and there would still be a whole passel of people who either didn't care or didn't believe in 'newfangled technology' and wouldn't take the opportunity. 

I don't know that any kind of dog is inherently dangerous. I do know that there are a whole lot of PEOPLE who are inherently moronic. Looking at dog bite stats, there is a slightly greater percentage of pitbull bites than other breeds, esp. when you look at it relative to breed popularity and therefore the population of that particular breed in America. But there are reasons for this, too. 

Maybe not everywhere, OK, but in my area - pits are the 'poor man's dog', the dog you most commonly see tied to trees with logger chains outside trailer parks and in the projects. Proportionally, there are a lot less responsible pit bull owners than say, golden retriever owners. 

Pitbulls aren't necessarily people aggressive, but any dog with high prey drive and high 'pack drive' is going to be a liability when not properly contained, esp. when someone owns several of them that are allowed to run loose. Because of the low quality of PEOPLE that often own the dogs, you see more problems stemming from sheer irresponsibility. Thing is, these same idiots aren't going to stop being pet owners because pit bulls are banned - they'll simply move on to something else. I don't know an answer for this, either - there isn't a way to enact legislation to stop the idiots out there without overtaxing the already underfunded animal services and penalizing the responsible owners who actually pay attention to the law in the first place.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

> I don't know an answer for this, either - there isn't a way to enact legislation to stop the idiots out there without overtaxing the already underfunded animal services and penalizing the responsible owners who actually pay attention to the law in the first place.


Laws probiting or restricting chaining/tethering dogs is a start. Especially when they are coupled with a fundraising effort to help low-income families put up a secure fence for the dog.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

> I don't know an answer for this, either - there isn't a way to enact legislation to stop the idiots out there without overtaxing the already underfunded animal services and penalizing the responsible owners who actually pay attention to the law in the first place.


Prohibiting dog ownership for convicted felons, drug sellers and users, those with animal abuse charges or domestic violence charges is possible and another positive step in the right direction.


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

I'm not so sure about the tethering laws. They can be interpreted to target responsible people, too. I have a friend that lives in a subdivision where she is not allowed to have a fence or run, though she has like 3/4 acre of nice backyard. She has one of those long runner-thingys (I don't know what they are called  ) where the dog can slide his part down the cord to run to the ends of the yard. He is left out there for several hours a day altogether, though probably not more than an hour at a time. Technically, he is tethered - but other than underground fences, she doesn't have too many options. Sure, she could leash walk her dog around her own yard. 

I bring this up as a gray area because the rescue organization from which she adopted the dog had threatened to confiscate it when they did the followup visit because the dog was on the runner in the backyard when they arrived. It had to be obvious, having been in her house, that the dog lived inside - the crate's in the living room and there's toys everywhere. She promised to have an underground fence installed and to not put the dog on the runner again (though far as I know, she hasn't.) 

My point is simply that it is difficult to legislate pet ownership without infringing on our basic rights - opening a window for all the AR nuts to get their foot in the door, too - and that sometimes things aren't black and white.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Yeah, careful with the laws against chaining/tethering...Lots of reponsible, well adjusted owners use those types of restraints to keep their dogs safe and happy. 

Amber, are you thinking about 'cable' runs? 




Andy.


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

Ann and Amber you reference dog bite stats. There are online or something?

I realize that media is sensational. Mass media make money when people are shocked. Therefore reality is distorted for profit. However, even factoring this unfortunate fact in, it seems that the breed is more prone to agressive behavior / control problems. 

There's no doubt that there is a human factor here as well. Both in selectively breeding to the detriment of several breeds, as well as (lack of) training or containment.

I appreciate everyone's unemotional and excellent opinions. I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a flame war.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Statistics are from the books "Fatal Dog Attacks" and "The Pit Bull Placebo" both by Karen Delise.

Going back off topic again:
More than half of fatal dog attacks are caused by chained dogs. I find this alarming. Restrictions on chaining/tethering (example: not chained for more than 2 hours per day) can allow the responsible owners to handle their dogs in their usual wayk, but gives animal control opportunity to sieze the neglected, malourished and aggressive chained dogs.

Legislation is hard to create in a way that doesn't infringe on percieved rights, but mimimizes serious danger. I believe it can be done.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

If Poodles became a "tough guy" symbol, then all those PitBull articles would be replaced with Attack Poodle articles. The problem with PitBulls is the stereotypical people that choose to own a badass tough pitbull, rather than the breed itself.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I have a short cable run in my yard, and in the past have had dogs that were on it on a regular basis. Because they are escape artists. 6 foot perimeter fence, 4 foot fence around the dog yard backed up with electric hot wire, and they were still getting out and roaming the neighborhood chasing cars. So I put up a cable run. It was that or find the dog dead because it got hit by a car, or at AC because it scared someone and they called in a vicious dog complaint. I don't have that dog anymore, but I still have the cable run, because now I have a JRT who is a magician at finding ways out of the yard. Every time I think we have her latest hole plugged, she finds/makes another one. And she's not very big, it doesn't take her long. So if she can't be supervised, she's on the cable. 

I have a friend who keeps all his dogs on chain rigs. His dogs are happy, social, well behaved animals, spending time on the chain has not made them vicious or dangerous.

I think the issue is as much the individual dog, and the people caring for it. I know plenty of dogs who are chained who are nice, and dogs who are kenneled who aren't. Difference being access. How many people aren't bitten by kenneled dogs because they didn't have access to the dog. Vs the dog on a chain who the person can just walk up to? But is that the fault of the chained dog/owner, or the idiot who went up to them? Should chains be outlawed, removing a tool many people depend on to keep their pets safely confined at times, just because of a few idiots?

A number of years ago I was home and heard my Dobe going nuts outside. I went outside to find the neighbor children, ages 3-8, had climbed my fence and were in my yard teasing my dog in his kennel, poking sticks through it, throwing rocks at him, etc. While the 3 year old was trying her best to open the latch and let the doggy out. If this dog had been on a chain, one of them probably would have gotten bit. But is that the fault of the dog/chain (ie the chain wouldn't have changed his behavior/reaction), or the fault of the parents who were not supervising their children and allowed them to run wild through the neighborhood climbing fences into people's yards?


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

> Laws probiting or restricting chaining/tethering dogs is a start


I am not in agreement with this one - sled dogs are generally kept on tethers or chains as are some other working dogs. Perimetre fencing for thethered dogs to protect the dogs? - good idea. Any method of containment can be abused. Only dogs I have been bitten by have been untrained and unchained!and unsupervised. Level of owner commitment (or lack of it) is what I see as the big factor in dog bites as a dog can be neglected as easily with any method of containment.

http://www.freewebs.com/bslworkshop/Bite_Statistics-Ms Jade.doc


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

> Perimetre fencing for thethered dogs to protect the dogs? - good idea.


Many communities have this restriction on chaining. I think it is one of the best approaches to restricting chained dogs.

The situation that anti-chaining laws are trying to prevent is "toddler wandered to chained dog." The majority of chain dog fatalities are children aged 1 - 3. The number of these incidences is really alarming to me.

A plastic snow fence would be adequate to keep a baby away from a chained dog.

I have a former escape artist that I used a tether inside of a chainlink fenced yard with a padlocked gate and while supervised. I use a tether inside of a privacy fenced area for rescue/foster/petsitting dogs that I can't trust to not dig or not chew.

But if I had a chained dog and a toddler wandered to it - you bet I'd be calling CPS. Where is the parent?!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Most any breeds problems start with the turd stuck on the handle end of their leash.


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

You mean like this fine upstanding citizen? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430107/


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Ted White said:


> You mean like this fine upstanding citizen? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430107/


Exactly. :-x :-x :-x


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I'll give DMX a break on this one until it's proven otherwise that he's been gone for two months. 
I'm also curious if the squawking is now gonna start about how celebrities are being "targeted" since the Vikc crap.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> *I'll give DMX a break on this one until it's proven otherwise that he's been gone for two months. *
> *I'm also curious if the squawking is now gonna start about how celebrities are being "targeted" since the Vikc crap.*


I think we can expect to see more high profile athletes/celebrities facing charges in the future. It seems like someone is dropping names to save their own ass...who could that be? ;-) 




Andy.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Andy Andrews said:


> I think we can expect to see more high profile athletes/celebrities facing charges in the future. It seems like someone is dropping names to save their own ass...who could that be? ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That thought did cross my mind. :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> That thought did cross my mind. :lol:





:-o

That makes sense.......


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

the great thing about that is, it WON'T save his a$$. i hope.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

As far as the original question goes, there is a horrible breed out there called the yorkie poo. These things are a hazard, but luckily the only people that buy them tend to be really dumb, so it is classified under natural selection.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

until their dog bites me, and i end up on the defendent-end of a lawsuit. for provoking it or something.....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> As far as the original question goes, there is a horrible breed out there called the yorkie poo. These things are a hazard, but luckily the only people that buy them tend to be really dumb, so it is classified under natural selection.


They've also been know to choke larger dogs when attempting to swallow them.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Anne Vaini said:


> The situation that anti-chaining laws are trying to prevent is "toddler wandered to chained dog." The majority of chain dog fatalities are children aged 1 - 3. The number of these incidences is really alarming to me.
> 
> A plastic snow fence would be adequate to keep a baby away from a chained dog.


Unfortunately this isn't correct. We use the plastic snow fence all the time as temporary fencing for French Ring trials, since the field has to be fenced. Someone falling against it will tear it down, it's also easy to push down enough to climb over, or pick up enough to go under. The 3 year old that was in my yard climbed over a 4 foot wire livestock fence to get it. When I caught them teasing my Dobe there were a number of them so one of the older kids might have helped her over, but I caught her in my yard a couple of times alone also, so she was able to do it without help.

And yes, I called CPS, they were useless. Course they were useless when I called to tell them I found the same 3 year old over 6 blocks away from her house, unsupervised, waiting for her older brother to get out of school and come home. They had already made a couple of homes visits from other complaints, and the kids had cute bedrooms, clean clothes, etc so they didn't feel anything was wrong there. I finally told the parents if I caught the kids in my yard again I'd have them arrested for tresspassing. Since the parents were drug users/dealers, they didn't want the cops coming to the house so they started to supervise the kids.


----------

