re: Non-Pit Bull Thread: infant killed by family dog

Whenever I sweep our kitchen floor I'll occasionally get a floof of white hair, but it's not bad at all.

quote:

---

There are serious professional organizations like the AVMA and the CDC that give informed opinions on animal policy. They have seriously studied the issue and concluded that dog breeds are not a variable that should be addressed in the way that people who would like to ban "pit bulls" would like to see done.


That's fine, but even the most "favorable" studies on pit-bulls and Rottweilers suggest they're markedly more dangerous than most breeds.

---

I can't say this in a nice way so I will just be direct. Your response is idiotic.

If there were real data to suggest that a particular breed were more dangerous then the professional organizations that try to protect human and animal welfare would be strongly in support of things like breed specific legislation. Because it would make sense and reduce the number of serious dog bites.

There are no such data. What's more the AVMA has pointed out in their policy statements that breed specific legislation laws are not good policy.

Dog ownership is not random. People may choose guard dogs based on their perception that a certain breed is tougher or more dangerous. They then interact in a way with that dog to make this behavior more likely. Getting rid of a particular breed only leads to a different breed being selected as a replacement and results in the euthanasia of large numbers of well behaved and well loved family pets (like we saw in Colorado).

Dog behavior is also heavily affected by their socialization (with humans and with other dogs). Dogs which are kept chained, left unsupervised in yards, or allowed to roam in packs are often much more territorial. The tendency of people to do this to different types of dogs is also not randomly distributed. A bigger "tougher" dog will be more likely to be chained, more likely to be poorly socialized, more likely to be left unattended, and more likely to have an incident. Smaller dogs are often more likely to bite but owners more frequently don't treat those incidents as seriously because of either being embarrassed or being emotionally less worried about the consequences of their smaller dog hurting a child.

Medical care is also a serious variable. Animals which are sick or injured may also be at much higher risk of being aggressive. In cases where the dog was obtained or maintained by a person because they want it for guard dog duties they are often reluctant to spend money on providing the medical care that keeps them in better health, and may even maintain a severely abused animal in a fashion that encourages aggression (regular physical abuse is a norm in many situations).

Lastly, investigations into media descriptions of dog bite incidents have often revealed terrible reporting. Using these unverified reports (instead of animal control or other veterinary reports) as the source of your data is deliberately stupid for any person who really has an interest in good data. One of the confounding issues with these reports has been that a report of a dog bite incident that involves a "pit bull" reliably generates more hits for whatever website makes that description.

quote:

---

Extremely unusual

---

I agree. All the German Shepherds that I have been around are very loyal to all members of the family. I have had one for 11 years and when we had our two daughters he was very protective of them and would not harm a hair on their head.

Cold to the touch. 20 minutes isn't enough time to really go cold to the touch, is it?

quote:

---

It doesn't matter the breed if the dog is incorrectly raised it can hurt someone.

---

Not according to the dog experts on the OT. Only Pits are bad.

Thanks for your rational, factual posts. I got mad in the pit bull attack thread last night and didn't do my argument any favors.