BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:16 PM

I think Sorcha's response to her grandchild was perfectly rational: "don't tease or provoke animals: they're not stuffed toys and will react".

Adults also need to be conscious of the fact that animals are not stuffed toys or rational beings either however, and may behave in an unexpected instinctive fashion with other 'little animals'.

The answer lies neither in demonising 'devil dogs' nor blaming 'idiotic' owners. Dogs can be sometimes dangerous and people can be careless too, but the ultimate responsibility in any situation that goes wrong, must always lie with the parents and/or owners, and not with the child and/or animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM

Well, it was not hard to find some statistics, if not scientific research into causes:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in 2000 a study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979-1998. The study found reports of 238 people killed by dogs over the 24-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 76, or about 32 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities or about 18 percent of the study-identified fatalities. In aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 50% of the fatalities identified over the 20-year period covered by the study, and for 67% of the DBRF reported in the final two years studied (1997–1998), concluding:
"It is extremely unlikely that they [pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers] accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."[3]

Another study, with similar statistics, concludes:

""Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."

So...it would be interesting to KNOW what is responsible...DNA, perhaps... for such statistics, but it would still appear to be prudent to be especially careful around certain breeds.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Maryrrf
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:21 PM

"I know I would be extra careful around certain breeds of dogs"

I agree with Bill. Any dog will bite under the right circumstances -It is my understanding that close to 70% of all FATAL dog attacks are by Pit Bulls and Rotweillers. They may or may not have more of a tendency to bite - but they are so powerful that when they do, it's bad news.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM

Good point Maryrrf.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM

Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."

Make up your mind.

DeG - anyone who has a Labradoodle has to be barking mad.

Lox - we know you hate dogs. I am sure you ahve been banging on about it for ages. But there is a history of symbiosis of dog with man that goes back thousands of years. Most people like most dogs - and most dogs like most people. Most (indeed almost all) dogs are not dangerous to most (indeed almost all) people most (indeed almost all) of the time.

Personally, I can't stand the aptly named Shit-sues - a dangerous foul smell at both ends, said ends being distinguishable only be the fact that one has teeth and eye disease. But I don't want to condemn all the sad little inbreds to wearing nappies and being unable to open thier mouths.

There are however breeds that have been specifically bred for hundreds of years for aggression and to maximise their abilities to capitalise on that aggression. For those alas the only answer (for the next few hundred years until that innate aggression has been bred out - as it largely has in Great Danes which as well as being boarhounds were once warhounds and manwork dogs - is muzzling, and licences to breed.

The problem with Labradors is showring driven. A high tail carriage became fashionable first in black labradors and then in other labradors. A specialist lab showring judge once told me that 40 years ago if you stood at the tail end of a line of labs standing inthe showring you would never see an arsehole - but now you see them all. Watch any dog resisting threat or itself threatening. Its hackles go up and so does its tail. This is to make itself look larger and a more substantial opponent. Breeding for the high tail carriage selected for dogs that tended to be aggressive.

I don't know if the problem has now been solved in Pointers (to those from other places than England, that is what you call "English Pointers") but when people were trying about 25 years ago to re-create the lost strain of all-black pointers there was a similar temperament problem in mostly-black pointers - not afaik becuase of any association between colour and temperament but simply because breeders forgot to consider temperament.

The main problem however is people. A few years ago a woman in the USA was badly savaged by a pair of mastiff-type dogs that were rather rare. If I remember correctly they were Dogo Canario. Immediately after the breed was identified the few show breeders who had been preserving the breed became wholly inundated with potential purchasers. People wanted dangerous dogs.


The Japanese Tosa in action

Dogo Canario merely threatening

American Pit Bull in training

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:55 PM

""More generally, the human/dog symbiosis is of such long standing that in general it does not need interfering with. Nothing in the world is 100% safe, but if the only way to placate the nanny state is to be crual to dogs I would rather they became extinct.""

In this, we are totally in accord, and I think that to remove dogs entirely from contact with children, would be detrimental to the welfare of both.

Babies and toddlers IMO should have only tightly controlled contact with animals of any species.

By this I mean that both animal and child need to be under a degree of restraint which allows for instant separation if necessary.

In answer, Lox, to your comments about children too small to have provoked attack being dragged from pram or cot, I can only suggest that these animals, barring the one in a thousand which is psychotic, have simply not been trained to defer to all humans in the pack structure. No wolf ever attacks another higher in the pecking order except when challenging the alpha animal for leadership, so a properly trained dog won't behave as the ones you mention have done.

It's not about being soft, or favouring dogs over humans, but about settling pack status.

Owning a dog is a privilege, and I would like eventually to see compulsory training with the dog, as a condition of obtaining a licence. That would prevent the mismatching of dog and owner.

Yeah! I know. Nanny State. But it has to be better than doing away with domestic dogs, and remember, children get nasty bites from rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and pet rats too.

Do we really want to keep them away from all animal contact?......I wouldn't have thought so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:03 PM

""Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."

Make up your mind.""

SIGH!!!!!

Context Richard. The posts above had singled out some breeds as dangerous and some as safe.

My response was that, dependent on the effectiveness of training, no breed was intrinsically less dangerous than another.

Perhaps I should have said "more or less dangerous", but I assumed that the context would take care of that.

So here goes for another try.

All breeds represent the same degree of risk, higher or lower, according to how well they are taught to socialise with humans, particularly small humans.

Does that suffice?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:08 PM

Here's sommat I don't get. If a dog kills an innocent person, why does the dog owner not spend time in prison for at least the crime of manslaughter?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM

There are so many sites devoted to praising & defending Pit Bulls that it is hard to sort thru possible 'neutral' opinions. People are quite vociferous about their favorite pets.

What is clear to me is that 'almost' all defenders and a large number of those who campaign against Pit Bull & Rottweilers abandon clear & logical arguments in favor of first person accounts and lists of examples to support their own subjective opinions. (Why, you'd think it was about race, religion or politics or something!)

The truth is almost always somewhere in between the extreme opinions, and all that is really clear is that care must be taken in dealing with all animals....and more so with 'some' animals. Breeding for specific characteristics IS a common practice, and this applies to behavior as well as physical characteristics. When a breed is described as "well suited for children's companions", there is the obvious suggestion that other breeds are less well suited.

I am quite aware that many, many Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and others can be friendly, happy family pets and never cause a problem, but to ignore the statistics about the % of problems that include those breeds would be to ignore reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:39 PM

a lot of damn fool questions about when my dog should be on a lead.

No damn fool questions involved. A dog in public should be on a lead AT ALL TIMES. The old rule that your right to swing your arm ends where the other fellow's nose begins.

When Dogs - or for that matter any animals - start having more "rights"[sic] than humans ( animals HAVE no "rights", but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated humanely)) we're all in very, very deep shit.

Anyone who equates the life of an animal with the life of a human being is an idiot, and a dangerous one at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:42 PM

"Here's sommat I don't get. If a dog kills an innocent person, why does the dog owner not spend time in prison for at least the crime of manslaughter?" gnu

In the US, gnu, it most certainly does happen. Not long ago the owner of two dogs that killed a woman in San Francisco was first convicted of murder on the basis that she knew her dogs might kill. On appeal the charge was reduced to manslaughter; the defense argued that she could have known they might cause injury but that she had no way of knowing they would kill. She served more than two years.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM

Greg F.... yes. Common law and common sense.

Ebbie... two years.... well, I suppose that may send a message. A message that dearly needs to be sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:33 PM

SRS, I have had dogs ever since I was a small boy, and my chosen breed is Labrador Retriever. I have never seen or heard of a Lab biting anyone.
We have a TV program called JUDGE JOE BROWN and many of his cases involve dog bites. On his wall is a chart with many breeds of dog from the most vicious biters to the least. The Pit Bull is number one and the Lab isn't even on the chart.
My Brother had a Pit Bull, my Grandson has one, my Grand daughter has a Pit Bull mix, none of them have ever shown any tendency to bite.

Speaking in absolutes is chancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM

In further elucidation of the pit bull, Juneau, Alaska, has its own icon, and a waterfront statue to boot.

A pit bull named Patsy Ann lived for 13 years - from 1929 to 1943- in downtown Juneau (which was basically the whole town then). Although profoundly deaf she was somehow able to 'hear' approaching ships long before any were visible and always met each ship at the dock. She even knew which dock an approaching ship would take; on at least one occasion the paperwork said the ship would tie up at one specific point. Patsy Ann gave one look at the assemblage and trotted on past to the correct point.

She had no owner- a doctor had left her behind when she was still a pup and after that she belonged to everyone. Most of the time she slept at the longshoremen's hall and she had a regular routine all over town for her meals.

One year the city of Juneau passed a licensing law decreeing that all dogs should be tagged. Citizens passed the hat and bought her a license; they even bought a collar for the license to be fastened to. That was the only year she was licensed- there was a tacit agreement that she was exempt.

Friendly and confiding to all, her popular title was 'The Mayor of Juneau, Alaska'. She played with children; I have a friend who remembers being with a group of kids who were playing house with her 7 blocks up the hill when suddenly Patsy Ann left them and galloped down the hill and headed for the docks. Sure enough, about 20 minutes later a ship hove into view.

When she died in 1943, citizens of the town gathered at the dock and ceremonially lowered her in a covered box into the waters of the Gastineau Channel she had overseen for so long.

Today, her larger-than-life-size bronze statue stands guard on the dock where she watches forever for the next ship.

Long live Patsy Ann!

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM

I think the post eater has been at it again.

Don - which is it?

"No breed is more or less dangerous than another", or "all blonde Great Danes have the temperament of an angel"

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM

Whenever I went to visit my Brother, his Pit Bull female would wiggle all over and scream like a Banshee until I made of her with petting and hugging.She was a sweetheart.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Rowan
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:47 PM

What is clear to me is that 'almost' all defenders and a large number of those who campaign against Pit Bull & Rottweilers abandon clear & logical arguments in favor of first person accounts and lists of examples to support their own subjective opinions. (Why, you'd think it was about race, religion or politics or something!)

To some, it may well be all of them.

Several years ago the NSW govt decided that pit bulls (favoured by many as dogs for hunting both pigs and kangaroos, usually in packs where the dogs ran the target animal down and mauled it until the owner dispatched it with a firearm) needed to be specially registered. A friend of mine had access to the details of applicants for registration and discovered that something like 90% of the applicants came from one particular part of Sydney's suburbs rather than being more widespread over the whole state. The generally rednecked attributes of that part of Sydney was regarded as at least "associative" in the statistical sense,; some cynics regarded it as "causative".

Personally, although I had good experiences with a cocker spaniel when a child, I resisted having companion animals of any sort, even though other stats indicate I'd live longer if I kept them. My missus and I were given a fox terrier-chihuahua cross shortly after we arrived in our current neck of the woods and I was emphatic about keeping it outside when Daughter #1 was an infant; I'd long known about pack status. It became a liability when we were staying in sheep country and was sent to Melbourne to become a lapdog with the inlaws. Nowadays I keep dogs and cats off the property as I much prefer macropods and the smaller marsupials (all of which are and must remain "Wild" animals) around me, all of which are in fear of carnivores.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:41 AM

"Question: Lox, what is your solution? "

Answer: Ebbie, read the thread and you will see that I have made initial suggestions.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:03 AM

Richard,

I haven't said anything about hating Dogs.

What pisses me off, as i thought (despite my confused ranting) I had made pretty obvious, is the whole denial thing that goes on around the risks involved in owning a dangerous dog.

There's a wilful ignorant community of dangerous dog owners - as in owners of dangerous dogs - in Britain who seem to make it their lifes aim to take risks in the name of proving that there aren't any.

And they aren't all young chavs. Many are otherwise apparently sensible grown up middle aged prodfessional types with educated accents.

One such woman, who lives 3 doors down from me, is always saying of her dog "he's fine" yet everytime I se him out of my window, he is growling at some passer by and being forcibly restrained.

He Isn't Fine!

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:16 AM

You don't need to say it Lox. Is my memory at fault? I think you have been over all this ground before, several times.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:26 AM

Hunting Kangaroos with Pit Bulls may seen cruel, but what about hunting Foxes with hounds? Is the Roo any deader than the Fox?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:41 AM

what about hunting Foxes with hounds?

I think you may be a bit late with that comment, Kendall. I agree that it is no worse than hunting kangaroos but there has been legislation preventing the activity in the UK for some years now. I am not saying it does not go on but if it does - it is illegal. Don't know about anywhere else in the world.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:47 AM

DeG - the Old Etonian party has promised, if elected, to repeal the legislation dealing with hunting with dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:54 AM

I used to be a postman and every postman was familiar with these two sentences, ' it's alright, he doesn't bite ' and ' well he's never done that before '

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:56 AM

One of my Brothers used to walk every day, and he always carries a golf club. An old woman asked what the club was for and he said "Dogs".
She said "That's cruel"! he said, "Not if they stay on their fucking property."

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM

I don't see that anyone has mentioned what has come to be called "Springer Rage" but is known also as Rage Syndrome and "Sudden Onset Aggression." It was originally diagnosed in English Cockers amny years ago but the English Springer seem to have gotten the worst of it lately. From a doggie site, here's some info:



"Rage Syndrome" is in fact an epileptic seizure in the emotional lobe of the dogs brain. Like other forms of epilepsy (motor, or behavioral) the dog behaves normally 98% of the time. It is the 2% that is the problem. This can happen in any breed of dog. This condition is common enough in Springer Spaniels to be commonly referred to as "Springer Rage". Springers have more of a genetic predisposition toward this condition for some reason than other breeds. Again, I must stress that this is extremely rare and therefore just because you have a Springer Spaniel you should never assume that this condition will automatically be an issue.

Like other forms of epilepsy this condition can be treated with Phenobarbital which has the effect of lessening the seizures in the brain. The obvious problem in the case of "Rage Syndrome" is that even one occurrence is one too many, and therefore dogs diagnosed with this condition are generally put down. Because the stakes are so high it is recommended that at least two opinions are sought before a diagnosis is made. The best professional opinion you can obtain is a Neurologist. Your Veterinarian can give you his or her opinion, as well as a referral.

This condition is also being studied in humans. Almost every condition that can be found in the brain of a dog can be found in a human being. These tests may some day explain some criminal behavior in humans. The symptoms of this condition are:

* Unexplainable aggression that comes out of nowhere.

* Aggression that seems unrelated to dominance.

* A marked change in the dogs eyes, snarling and growling, lunging.

* The dog seems to abandon the behavior as suddenly as it came on.

* The dog seems not to recall the previous aggressive behavior.

* Unpredictable timing of the aggression.
**********************************************************************************************

Rage Syndrome has also been diagnosed in several other breeds:

American Cocker Spaniel
Bernese Mountain Dog
Chesapeake Bay Retriever
Doberman Pinscher
English Bull Terrier
German Shepherd
Golden Retriever
Pyrenean Mountain Dog
St. Bernard

Note that many of the breeds including the Springer are very popular and not known for aggression......Golden Retriever??? This problem is spreading and has also been reported as a possibility in several mixed breed attacks. Not all aggression is related to this as the causes can be otherwise genetic or many times a normal canine reaction to some situation. We too often try to own and train and act toward dogs as if they are humans instead of US learning the behaviors of the dog.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM

Meanwhile here's a woman who tried for a Darwin Award at a generational remove:

Pitbulls attack and castrate unattended baby

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:59 PM

"You don't need to say it Lox."

Well you need to back that statement up with the evidence you base it on if you're going to go round presenting it as clear or in any way apparent.

Of course if you ask I'll tell you the answer.

Making unfounded assertions about my likes/dislikes online would be like the BNP making unfounded assertions about your like/dislikes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: romanyman
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:20 PM

Oh and there is no such thing as an american bulldog, they are a simple pit bull cross, so named and bred to get round yet another stupid soft uk law that only reacts once something has happened.
Ban the bloody lot, dont fine the owners jail em, ifn i walked down the road with a loaded gun i guess they would not just take it off me now would they? and yes i love doge, sadly too many people use them as weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:10 PM

We have a rather dubious crowd in a rented house about 6 houses away from me. The truck in the yard bears the logo of a strip club and, well, you know. A VERY large man there has a pit. Next door, in another "transient house, there is a pit that is never on a leash while the owners are on the front stoop. On the parallel street, 100 yards from me, there is another odd bunch that have a large Rotty which confronted me in my back yard last summer. My garage was open and I grabbed an axe, crouched down and called it to come to me... it didn`t, but I am serious when I say I `would have`.

When I go for a walk, I carry my cane and a large VERY sharp jack knife. And, I walk MY end of a dead end street and don't go anywhere near those other houses. When my 83 year old mother walks in her own driveway, I walk with her.

As far as I am concerned, there is no need for anyone to have a large `guard dog` in this neighbourhood. And there is certainly no excuse for not leashing or tethering them. Good doggie do-gooders be damned.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:16 PM

I get SO TIRED of hearing ... "there are NO dangerous dogs, only bad owners!" That's an argument that leads to NO solutions. Yes, I was torn up by two Dobermans (sp?) when I was ten ... spent two weeks in the hospital.

It seems to me that "Stilly River Sage" is doing the responsible thing, trying to protect the public AND her dog. That's as good as it gets.

Some years ago, my next door neighbor's German Shepard attacked my brother as he stepped out of his truck at my house. This was one week after that dog killed my cat. My brother shot the dog, called the cops and had a ciggarett. They checked him out for gun license, warrents, shook his hand and thanked him ... end of story.

In my improving neighborhood, we now have lots of walking families, kids, baby strollers, dogs on leashes ... even some level headed teenagers. It's becomming downright pleasant. Yet when I work in my shop, close to the street, I always have a legal gun close by. bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:29 PM

Be as short sighted as you will.
I knew a family that had thier toddler killed by a pit bull.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:55 PM

Well, romanyman, according to this page the American Bulldog DOES exist (yes,they look a lot like 'pit bulls' aka Staffordshire Terriers but in fact belong to the Mastiff grouping, NOT terriers.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:04 PM

There is a good case for checking out the dog after it does some terrible thing to decide what is best for all concerned. Then, if the dog is incorrigable, kill it. It's that simple.

ALSO, if a dog goes after a kid, and the parents of the kid takes their gun and kills the dog right there, on the spot, in the heat of the moment, there ought to be no action taken against the parents.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM

Deckman, I think our posts crossed in the mail. Sorry for duplicating your posting.

Also, I listened to your CD twice again this week. Since I got it from you, I really have enjoyed it numerous times, Bob, congratulations. There are some important variants of songs there. Really wonderful stuff.

Hope you are well,

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:10 PM

"American Bulldog" is not a KCC recognised breed in the UK. I'd be pretty surprised if it was recognised by the American Kennel Club.

Lots of fruit loops invent breeds of dog. Like Labradoodle - which is a mongrel, as is a lurcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM

Labradoodle is not a breed, it's a cross. Responsible breeders do not breed labradoodles with one another. It defeats the purpose of the cross.

The idea that all dogs are equally dangerous is fatuous self-deception. Dog breeds were bred for certain qualities (running constantly, for certain breeds of sheep dogs; sitting still for long periods of time for duck dogs, to give two examples), and some combinations of qualities make dogs more or less dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: gnu
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM

`qualities`... like weighing a ton and being as stunned as me arse. Only good for killing sommat.

Ya want a dog for a pet... get a dog for a pet. Ya don`t need a killer dog. NOBODY needs one.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:14 PM

I've known one Golden retriever that was bad. It would go out of his way to pick fights.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:57 PM

I totally agree about Labradooles, Peek A Poos, Cock A Poos, What IS it with POOS?


Yea, they all poo. Get a bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:30 AM

One of my Sons in law has two Chihuahuas and I'll be damned if I can understand why anyone would want one of those yapping, snapping, shivering abominations!

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:49 AM

ME EITHER! And talk about biters!

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:35 AM

""Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."""

I repeat, this was an expression of the fact that whatever the breed of dog, the risk of attack, under certain specific conditions is identical. With appropriate training, no one breed is more, or less likely to attack.

This does not equate to saying all dogs are dangerous, because the risk is in fact low.

Are you getting some perverse pleasure out of chopping logic, because I'm totally unimpressed?

My wife is not a dangerous woman, but if you grabbed hold of her without warning, you would be relieved of the necessity for birth control, and lucky to survive.

She was grabbed by a drunk some years ago. She was wearing high heels, and he got forty three stitches from knee to ankle.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:23 PM

On the one hand - "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."

On the other hand "All blonde great danes have the temperaments of angels" (not an exact quote).

You cannot see that these are inconsistent? Poor you.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:48 PM

""On the one hand - "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."

On the other hand "All blonde great danes have the temperaments of angels" (not an exact quote).

You cannot see that these are inconsistent?

Poor you.""
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication.""

This is entirely true, and if you understand what it means, which you patently do not, you can use the dog's own nature to reduce the chances of attack to a very low level. This can be done with dogs of any breed.

Big dogs with owners who either are not strong enough, or can't be bothered, to control them, along with dogs deliberately trained to attack, are a problem, but that is entirely due to ineffective or inappropriate training, which is the reason for the disproportionate level of attacks by Pits and Rotties, and their strength is the cause of the exceptional severity of injury.

But it is not an intrinsic characteristic of any one breed.

""On the other hand "All blonde great danes have the temperaments of angels" (not an exact quote).""

Glad you admitted that. In point of fact though, a total misquote.

1. I said Bonnie was an angel, and she was, at least, on every occasion when I saw her.
2. I said good temperament seemed to be a charactistic of Great Danes, and that it was a good thing given their size.
3. I never once mentioned blonde Great Danes.

If you wish to quote me, at least do so honestly.

""You cannot see that these are inconsistent?

Poor you.""

You cannot see the consistency?..........POOR YOU!

Who pissed on your picnic today?

You choose to see something that isn't there, fine!

Whatever!

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM

But it is not an intrinsic characteristic of any one breed.

So you claim. What is your proof? The CDC statistics would seem to state otherwise. Between you and the CDC, I know who I'd bet on.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:10 PM

""So you claim. What is your proof? The CDC statistics would seem to state otherwise. Between you and the CDC, I know who I'd bet on.""

Have a wee look at what I've been say in this thread, because I'm getting tired of re-hashing it for those who can't be bothered to read whole posts.

The CDC statistics give the numbers of attacks, and the number of fatalities sorted by breed, and there are a disproportionate number by large, strong jawed, animals such as Pitbulls, Rotweilers, and Doberman Pinschers.

What their statistics do not show, is the numbers deliberately trained to attack by thugs who own them as a status symbol, or the numbers whose owners give them virtually no training at all, either through inability, or indifference.

But, if properly trained, those CDC figures would change dramatically in the dogs' favour, and those breeds need to be carefully matched with good owners.

However, as I have said, there will always be a small risk of attack under certain circumstances, and that risk will apply equally to Jack Russells, Pekes, and toy poodles.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:38 PM

Again I ask, where's your evidence that that risk "will apply equally"?

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:30 PM

Don, the discussion in point was precisely about the difference in temperament between the different colours of Great Danes. The harlequins can indeed sometimes be moody, with the dogs becoming very intolerant of other dogs after puberty. You are demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the central thread topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
From: Rowan
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:55 PM

Big dogs with owners who either are not strong enough, or can't be bothered, to control them, along with dogs deliberately trained to attack, are a problem

And there are those owners who are weak and try to hide their weakness behind their dog's "size". I once had to deal with such an owner who set their Alsation/German Shepherd onto me; I was trying to carry out my duties at the time. Neither the owner nor the dog persisted in the attack after my (quite direct and effectively vigorous response; both became rather amenable to my presence.

Cheers, Rowan

BTW, will the thread bear another 100?