Doggy Danger

[pipelineaudio]

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/310184450

Seems there is legisaltion in California to label some types of dogs vicious breeds and force spaying/neutering of them. Also in Colorado, "vicous breeds" can be put to sleep if found I hear.

I am always hearing 6 of one half dozen of the other when it comes to pit bulls and such. Are they really nuts? I know tons and tons of ok ones...but I know from my own household and from a few very close friends, that happy healthy, well cared for pit bulls can just go nuts and hospitalize you. But is that true for ANY dog?

 

[Dragonrock]

The problem with the so-called "vicious" breeds is not that they are more likely to attack, but rather they do more damage when they do attack. rotweillers were specifically bred to be docile and to mind their masters. But, because they have strong teeth and jaw muscles pwerful enough to crack a cow's femur they can be dangerous if they choose to be.

In my opinion, 99% of dog attacks are due to poor handling by the owners.

 

[Hagrok]

Statistically I think there are other breeds that are much more dangerous than Pit Bulls. I believe someone posted dog attack statistics in a similar thread a few years ago.

However, in Albuquerque, Pit Bulls seem to be the "I got a dog 'cause I thought it was cool but I really don't want to train it or take care of it at all" breed of choice

 

[Dragonrock]

However, in Albuquerque, Pit Bulls seem to be the "I got a dog 'cause I thought it was cool but I really don't want to train it or take care of it at all" breed of choice

Just to be racist, it is popular among mexican immigrants to get a pit bull, chain it to a tree in your front yard, neglect it, feed it occasionally, tease it for fun, then show your friends how powerful you are by demonstrating that your dog is completely out of control.

 

[Hagrok]

Just to be racist, it is popular among mexican immigrants to get a pit bull, chain it to a tree in your front yard, neglect it, feed it occasionally, tease it for fun, then show your friends how powerful you are by demonstrating that your dog is completely out of control.

Well, to be classist, it seems to also be popular amongst the poor.

 

[Bradk3]

I worked at a Veterinary hospital for seven years and was never bitten by a rottweiller or pit bull. Chihuahuas, however, got me on several occassions. I say they're focussing on the wrong breed!

Damn dog-rats...

 

[Dragonrock]

I worked at a Veterinary hospital for seven years and was never bitten by a rottweiller or pit bull. Chihuahuas, however, got me on several occassions. I say they're focussing on the wrong breed!

Damn dog-rats...

Me too, in two years I was bitten three times, 2 by chihuahuas and one from a poodle. I was also snapped at dozens of times, but only once by a large dog and that was a rabies observation that was eventually euthanised after sinking its teeth in a tech's arm and breaking a tooth against one of the bones in her forearm. It turned out to not be rabid.

Now, I'm not against small dogs, just the owners of small dogs. They refuse to disipline the dog so the spoiled little s**thead dog doesn't like it when we (veterinary workers) don't do exactly what it wants.

 

[rudar]

I also believe the stats may be off for two reasons: first, trying to temper the racist/ classist remarks above, it's possible that many pitbulls are owned by the sort of people who tend not to register them. Second, people in general are really bad at identifying breeds, so any smallish short-haired dog, if aggressive, will be labelled a pitbull.

So if you divide the number of reported pitbull attacks (high) by the number of pitbulls registered (low), to get a breed-danger rating, it will be higher than it should.

 

[Hagrok]

I've found several mentions of the "fact" that mixed-breed dogs are much more likely to bite then pure-bred dog. However, I can't find any actual breed-by-breed statistics to back that up.

 

[Bradk3]

Me too, in two years I was bitten three times, 2 by chihuahuas and one from a poodle. I was also snapped at dozens of times, but only once by a large dog and that was a rabies observation that was eventually euthanised after sinking its teeth in a tech's arm and breaking a tooth against one of the bones in her forearm. It turned out to not be rabid.

Now, I'm not against small dogs, just the owners of small dogs. They refuse to disipline the dog so the spoiled little s**thead dog doesn't like it when we (veterinary workers) don't do exactly what it wants.

[Sorry for getting us farther OT]

Lucky for the tech that the dog wasn't rabid... Ouch.

The problem with small dogs (and cats for that matter - I learned to *hate* cats) is that you CAN'T RESTRAIN 'em! I can wrap myself around a 150 lb Rottweiller and guarantee not to be bit. A 4 lb chihuahua or poodle, however, no thanks...

I agree with your point about discipline. Responsible large dog owners understand that they have to discipline their dogs for everyone's safety. Small pet owners, however, don't seem to understand that li'l Fifi actually can cause damage if she's misbehaving. I had the tip of my left thumb bitten off by a 10 lb dog...

And yet, I miss those good old days sometimes. The sights, the sounds, the... er... smells, the maggots... Good times.

Keep up the good work!

 

[casebro]

I think that large dogs are less controllable than pistols. Yet pistols must be registered, or are completely illegal. The same should hold for dogs. Probably with a background check and a proficiency test required, just like for a concealed weapons permit.

My feeling on dogs with mean reputations is that they are owned by people who want a dog with a mean reputation. And, it turns in to a self fulfilling prophecy. I've never heard of a pack of Cocker Spanials mauling a child to death.

 

[Hagrok]

...Yet pistols must be registered, or are completely illegal...

Nope; only in some states.

 

[jmercer]

I'm not a vet; however, I'm a "country boy" and I've owned - and handled - a fair number of dogs. The only dogs that ever bit me were a Chihuahua, a minature Poodle and a Daschund.

I would say that smaller dogs tend to be more aggressive than large or powerful dogs; but I also have to recognize that breeders have bred successfully for traits such as intelligence, agility, temperment, etc... and improved various breeds over the years.

I don't know if it's happening, but I don't see why breeders couldn't also breed for aggressive traits as well. If a particular breed has a bad rep, it could be merely hype - or it could be a reflection of reality.

Having said that, I believe that how a dog is raised is probably the biggest factor regarding it's temperment.

 

[Verde]

I am always hearing 6 of one half dozen of the other when it comes to pit bulls and such. Are they really nuts? I know tons and tons of ok ones...but I know from my own household and from a few very close friends, that happy healthy, well cared for pit bulls can just go nuts and hospitalize you. But is that true for ANY dog?

I am the owner of one, and the frequent caretaker of four more, pit-bulls. They have been raised since puppies in a loving, some would say pampered, environment. For the most part, they are amongst the friendliest and most gentle dogs I have known, but there are times when they show another side. They often play with each other in what appears an aggressive way, but is actually harmless, however occaisionally something triggers them into full fight mode. Rarely is more than superficial damage done, but seeing this happen is very disconcerting. They have never shown aggression to any person, but I have no doubt that if they were of a mind to do so the damage could be more than just a trip to the hospital.
What triggers them into this mode? I have no idea.

The problem with the so-called "vicious" breeds is not that they are more likely to attack, but rather they do more damage when they do attack.
In my opinion, 99% of dog attacks are due to poor handling by the owners.

I agree completely.

Just to be racist, it is popular among mexican immigrants to get a pit bull, chain it to a tree in your front yard, neglect it, feed it occasionally, tease it for fun, then show your friends how powerful you are by demonstrating that your dog is completely out of control.

Unfortunately that is quite common here. It really saddens me to see this cruelty, but there is little enforcement possible. It certainly adds to the damage to the dog's reputation.

I also believe the stats may be off for two reasons: first, trying to temper the racist/ classist remarks above, it's possible that many pitbulls are owned by the sort of people who tend not to register them. Second, people in general are really bad at identifying breeds, so any smallish short-haired dog, if aggressive, will be labelled a pitbull.

So if you divide the number of reported pitbull attacks (high) by the number of pitbulls registered (low), to get a breed-danger rating, it will be higher than it should.

Very interesting. That had not occurred to me before, but it makes a lot of sense. I doubt it would change the popular perception, however.

I've found several mentions of the "fact" that mixed-breed dogs are much more likely to bite then pure-bred dog. However, I can't find any actual breed-by-breed statistics to back that up.

There is no real agreement as to whether the pitbull should be classed as a pure-bred. The origin of the breed, particularly the American version, is a real melting-pot. I was always told that pure-breds were more highly strung, and more likely to be aggressive, but I have come to believe that is not the case.

 

[Bradk3]

I've found several mentions of the "fact" that mixed-breed dogs are much more likely to bite then pure-bred dog. However, I can't find any actual breed-by-breed statistics to back that up.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. Mixed-breed dogs (excluding wolf-mixes) tend to be more docile. I have met more unpredictable pure-bred dogs (especially from heavily in-bred lines) than muts.

 

[Hagrok]

My experience has been exactly the opposite. Mixed-breed dogs (excluding wolf-mixes) tend to be more docile. I have met more unpredictable pure-bred dogs (especially from heavily in-bred lines) than muts.

I would love to find the actual statistics on this; I believe they're compiled by the CDC but I can't find 'em.

 

[Verde]

My feeling on dogs with mean reputations is that they are owned by people who want a dog with a mean reputation. And, it turns in to a self fulfilling prophecy.

In my case, and that of several other owners that I am acquainted with, that is most definately untrue.

 

[calebprime]

I worked at a Veterinary hospital for seven years and was never bitten by a rottweiller or pit bull. Chihuahuas, however, got me on several occassions. I say they're focussing on the wrong breed!

Damn dog-rats...

Ali Seifoori should have to fend off the dreaded Chihuahua. I'd love to see that.

 

[Dogdoctor]

There are breeds of dogs that have more aggressive tendencies compared to others. There are breeds of dogs that are kept more often because people want an aggressive dog. The problem is that breed related vicious dog laws don't solve any problems and they punish nice people with nice pets who happen to be whatever breed is deemed dangerous.

 

[Katana]

Oddly, I remember reading somewhere that chows were the most likely to bite, but they are less likely to cause life-threatening injuries than dogs like pitbulls. I couldn't find statistics to support this, though. Has anyone else heard this?

Bottom line is it is the dog owner who is ultimately responsible. We shouldn't single out the breeds. We need to institute mandatory sterilization laws (most dogs involved in fights are un-neutered males) and address conditions that lead to violent behavior such as a lifetime living at the end of a chain without any socialization whatsoever much less affection. Perhaps we should readjust what is considered humane treatment. The absence of overt cruelty may not be enough. It makes me sick that people turn otherwise lovely dogs into aggressive animals out of some sense that it will reflect on their manliness (to continue the generalizations).