Baby killed by 2 Rottweilers

Haha, yeah, I've never personally been bitten by a dog, but all the dogs that my friends and family have been bitten by have been small breeds. You go to our local SPCA and what's in the kennels? Large dogs. Pitbulls and huskies especially I've noticed. There was one pitbull that I looked after while volunteering there, and oy, sweetest dog in the world. Needed to be trained, but he was just a big cuddle bug. I ended up switching off to look after a different one because he was just too big though. I couldn't control him.

I didn't say that only these breeds end up in bad hands, I implied that they're not as liable to end up in bad hands and become dangerous. In some bizarre instances, a Yorkie or a Beagle or a similar small dog have maimed and killed people, even adults. But the breeds of dogs responsible for the almost all the serious and fatal dog attacks are those you'd expect - the Rottweiler, the pit bulls, etc.

The CDC's 1979-1998 study of fatal dog bites shows that the most serious dog attacks are by a group of breeds that are large, common and attractive to bad people because of their perceived aggressiveness and threat potential.
These breeds do not include Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers in the top 10, which is absolutely astounding, considering the sheer number of both these breeds (and their mixes) in the US. The breeds/types in the top 10 were:
1) Pit bull type
2) Rottie
3) GSD
4) Husky type
5) Malamute
6) Wolf/Dog hybrid
7) Mixed Breed (aparently, where the contributing breeds weren't clear)
8) Chow
9) Doberman
10) Saint Bernard

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

There has been debate about this study, and the use of it by BSL and critics of pit bulls, in particular, to 'prove' that some breeds are intrinsically bad. I believe that this quote from the website www.understand-a-bull.com
"less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds" is the same thing as I said earlier. I do not believe any breed is inherently bad, but I no longer believe that that's enough of a response when the question of breed comes up in reference to dog attacks.

There is not a huge difference. For one thing, we who own small dogs or dogs who are not dog-aggressive dogs (defined as dogs who do not attempt to maul or kill other dogs) are actually rather fond of our pets too, and it's getting a little upsetting to be repeatedly told that well, if their throats are torn out in front of us, that's not the pit bull's fault, he had a bad owner, or, well, that's the way God made him. For another, a dog who is willing to kill another animal is not simply a sweet puppy with a little quirk. I've heard this 'he loves people, but oh, boy, he's dog-aggressive" stuff way too often. A dog who has the boldness and confidence necessary to attack another dog is a dog who is comfortable using force to make the world suit him/her. That's a dog who is more dangerous than a dog who ignores other dogs or scuffles with them harmlessly. One dog is clearly further along the path that leads to a violent confrontation with humans than the other.

Sorry I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say in regards to that quote, in no way was i implying that little dogs don't matter as I personally love all breeds even ones I've had been run ins with, I simply meant to point out a lot of people try and use the argument that pitbulls and other "fighting breeds" are dangerous to humans because they are bred to fight however its a different type of prey drive which makes it an invalid argument against their so called inherit, "viciousness"

The other thing I wanted to comment on was your stats; its important to understand that, unfortunately when certain breeds reach a very high level of popularity usually do to stupid Disney movies and the like, the resulting craze usually leaves the breed itself genetically disfigured and problems starting popping up as back yard breeders start mass producing unsound dogs to meet the demand by crazed families who want a perfect dog just like the one the saw in the movie. In fact the result of releasing the sequel movies of Beethoven left a large chunk of the St.Bernard gene pool that we see today completely destroyed with regards to temperament and health which serious breeders and enthusiasts have started trying to fix through better breeding practices.

Another problem with bite statistics and statistics in general ( ever tend to notice one medical study will say one thing and many others will say the exact opposite) is that their is no national standard for them and in most cases towns/provinces and states all keep their own individual records. Also since all bite statistics are taken by eye witness most who have very little knowledge about dogs ( I constantly have people grab their children up to save them from my oh so vicious boxer while screaming get your bloody pitbull away from me ). Also they can be as biased as they want to as most times census aren't done to accurately access the total number of all breeds kept in one place let alone a whole country.

Also when you said

I will have to again disagree, are you suggesting goldens, labs, cocker spaniels, pointers, hounds and terriers will all eventually turn on their owners because they were bred with the specific intention to be animal aggressive. Last time I checked dogs were pack animals meaning that they HUNT together, the FIGHT alongside one another if their territory is invaded but they do not turn on each other and defiantly not their pack leader. Which again bring us back to the basis of dog phycology that REGRADLESS of what the breed was bred to do, weather it's a gaurd dog, war dog, hunting god, a food source ( chow chow literally means food), retrieving dog, they all have the same inherit pack nature that drives them to find meaning in their life’s by either becoming the pack leader or by following one and living by their rules. Telling yourself that pitties ( which aren't even a real breed), dobs, rottis are 9 times out of 10 are owned by irresponsible owners would be extremely naive. Simply because the media chooses which stories to cover does not mean their isn't another side.

Cheers
Kayla

oops....

I think that in order to believe that there is no connection between dog-aggression and human-aggression, you need to discount an awful lot of dog attacks involving both species as targets.

I said that dogs bred to be confident and bold and aggressive toward other animals are more likely to turn that attitude toward people, are further along on a path to a confrontation with humans. Hounds and terriers, both originally designed to be independent hunters who usually kill the hunter's quarry themselves, are indeed rather more likely to be biters than spaniels and retrievers, who were originally created to back up a hunter who did the killing.

Packs aren't herds. Packs exist so individual predators can more easily and safely hunt and kill. They're not some idyllic family life between animals, they're very basic and brutal survival arrangements. I think a lot of the pack theorizing that's done these days is bizarre and dangerous and anthropomorphic, putting humans into the position of animals they most certainly are not. Almost any average dog is a more frightening and dangerous attacker than average unarmed human. Humans have been steadily breaking the packing instinct from dogs throughout domestication, to bond the dog to themselves. We do that because dog packs do turn on their leaders, do fight and tear at each other, do test each other constantly, and humans are spectacularly unsuited for phsyical showdowns with dogs. Dogs still test and fight back and challenge authority when humans are running the show, but a lot less vigorously than when their own survival depends on it. A dog who tries to take over his owner's favorite armchair is usually motivated by a bumptious temperament, not by a primal need to test the owner's fitness to lead the pack to a fat rabbit.

Yes, but the existence of another side doesn't mean that it's correct, or that the media has got it all wrong.

You read my mind, Lizzie

that's awful