Interesting article on aggressive dog breeds
- Thread starter mantine
- Start date
I think you are forgetting something. Many small dog owners treat their dogs like toys and give them no discipline at all. How many of those small dogs had owners who didn't treat them like toys. There are so much to considered it isn't as simple as saying '' this breed is more likely to bite.''
I for one have been around a lot of chihuahuas and all were nice as can be. Of course, these little dogs were on the floor walking on a leash, not being carried around like a doll.
I for one have been around a lot of chihuahuas and all were nice as can be. Of course, these little dogs were on the floor walking on a leash, not being carried around like a doll.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The people on this forum with small breed dogs aren't the ones out there with biting dogs. Heck, the people on this forum aren't the ones with biting dogs, period. That's because we take the time to train and socialize our animals, and if that is not adequate because of some reactivity or temperament issue we take steps to manage the behavior. It's the average John Q. Public who wants a cutzy smootzy lap dog or a yard ornament that is "good with kids" without any kind of training that has these kinds of behavior issues. What it essentially comes down to is one thing. Training. Any dog of any breed has the potential to fit in with human society or to become a complete outcast. It is the actions of the human beings around it that determine the outcome.
I totally agree with you Romy among others. I think way too many people out there don't give their dog/pet what it needs to be a good pet. Thats why so many dogs and other animals are abused or given up for adoption. For some reason when it comes to dogs some people look at them as a thing instead of an animal. I also believe all dogs are good dogs! It just takes understanding and patience from these owners and to know what their getting into before they buy a puppy just because hes cute. And its amazing enough that a lot of people don't consider breeds and the dogs temperament which can make a huge difference. I believe if everyone did this than the shelters wouldn't be so full.
I know what you mean by people buying these little dogs as for vanity or something. I had a friend a long time ago that had a chihuahua and she carried it every where. It was such a scared little dog and she wouldn't let any body play with it because "he might bite" she said. I feel she put that dog around too much when it was such a little puppy and so he never got time to get used to people or environments. He was way too overwhelmed. She only carried him; never did she play with him. And she wouldn't let anyone hold him; like it was her "thing" she was being selfish with (yeah like a toy) and so he never got used to people and was bitey . I felt bad for the little guy.
I know what you mean by people buying these little dogs as for vanity or something. I had a friend a long time ago that had a chihuahua and she carried it every where. It was such a scared little dog and she wouldn't let any body play with it because "he might bite" she said. I feel she put that dog around too much when it was such a little puppy and so he never got time to get used to people or environments. He was way too overwhelmed. She only carried him; never did she play with him. And she wouldn't let anyone hold him; like it was her "thing" she was being selfish with (yeah like a toy) and so he never got used to people and was bitey . I felt bad for the little guy.
Breeding and training have a HUGE ammount to do with it. I never said otherwise. The behavior of dogs is a mixture of nature and nuture, but like that of human beings. But some breeds seem to have an innately shorter fuse. It doesn't mean they are "ticking bombs" but it means that they are less "forgiving" of poor training and socialization. I'm not sure why this is so controversal.
As for Chis, I haven't known too many of them, but most of them were nice. THe ones that weren't were downright nasty. I actually think with them it is a combiantion of training and being tiny that makes them nippy.
i agree. on the other end i can think of a great dane in particular that was reinforced as a lap dog. the lady owning it just happened to be wide enough to support him. not a pretty sight.
because bsl laws are written on the basis of breed, not on the basis of the owner's ability. to categorize a breed without factoring in nature and nurture is to condemn the breed instead of the individual dog.
sure owners need to be educated on their dog's breed(s), but lets categorize owners and target them for legislation since owners are responsible for most of the nurture, and let's categorize breeders and target them for legislation since breeders are responsible for most of the dog's nature.
this is what you call being proactive, but we're a reactionary society anyway so i'm dreaming of a utopia.
if you're referring to the chihuahua, their place of origin of course is mexico, where it's much warmer in climate than up north. so they are most likely shaking because to them it's cold.
because bsl laws are written on the basis of breed, not on the basis of the owner's ability. to categorize a breed without factoring in nature and nurture is to condemn the breed instead of the individual dog.
sure owners need to be educated on their dog's breed(s), but lets categorize owners and target them for legislation since owners are responsible for most of the nurture, and let's categorize breeders and target them for legislation since breeders are responsible for most of the dog's nature.
this is what you call being proactive, but we're a reactionary society anyway so i'm dreaming of a utopia.
if you're referring to the chihuahua, their place of origin of course is mexico, where it's much warmer in climate than up north. so they are most likely shaking because to them it's cold.
That aol blurb didn't do justice to the original scientific article.
That article distiguished between dog aggression and human aggression, also between strangers and humans that the dog was familiar with.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2dea06b943e1938ee330a4e15a0a3d1c
There was a LOT more to it than just saying Dachshunds are aggressive."
That article distiguished between dog aggression and human aggression, also between strangers and humans that the dog was familiar with.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2dea06b943e1938ee330a4e15a0a3d1c
There was a LOT more to it than just saying Dachshunds are aggressive."
Oh my gosh!!!! I don't think this has anything to do with the breed but circumstances.
Many people get a doxie unaware of doxie behaviour..some bark alot and some don't..many are not prepared for the barking and so in turn start to mistreat them...Hence!... the poor dogs develop issues!!..Doxies are very sensitive to humans emotions...So now they blame a dog whose only mistake was having a bad owner!!!...Uggg!!!!...Totally NOT breed related!..It's OWNER related!!
Why is it that just because a dog nips people go wild and call it agression? Do they even know the definition of the word...A dog must be so uncontrolable and so vicious,and not just once or twice but he/she would be behaving this way frequently...What many people deem as agression needs to be addressed.
I also think that the word "Agression" is used to loosely...If a dog bites out of self defense they call it agression...if he's scared and bites they call it agression...if a bad owner provokes a dog and the dog bites the owner..they call it agression....WRONG!!! WRONG!!WRONG!!
My dog trainer told me that in the 20 years he has been dog training only one or two dogs have had serious dog agression and had to be PTS.He went on to say that if they suspect a dog has agression they(Not my trainer but whoever does this test) put the dog in what is called a"helicopter ride" where the dog is spun around and lightly dropped to the ground...if the dog doesn't get up right away he is NOT considered agressive..if the dog gets up right away and tries to lunge at a person then and ONLY then is he considered agressive,which means that this particular dog has some kind of nerological chemical imbalance that can not be repared and sadly no hope for the poor dog..Most likely from poor breeding or a genetic fluke. I found this info. very interesting so when I see an article like this it just shows how absurd it really is. They need to do their homework before writing and sterotyping doxies or any other kind of breed!!
A few years back it was the doberman,then the rottweiller and then the pitbull(which is still on the list) and NOW dachshunds?....Oh! Come on!
Not to mention I have two doxies myself and a lab....Sorry...no agression here, they behave just as any other dog would..no better and no worse!
Perhaps they should take a survey on humans..Hmmm.. Say...Someone was stealing your car and you ran after them and kicked them in the leg!...Are you NOW considered aggressive?...UH! No,....Trying to get back what is yours!...They need to put this into perspective whoever desgins these surveys!
Sorry to ramble!! This stuff just gets to me!!
Take care
Angelika
Many people get a doxie unaware of doxie behaviour..some bark alot and some don't..many are not prepared for the barking and so in turn start to mistreat them...Hence!... the poor dogs develop issues!!..Doxies are very sensitive to humans emotions...So now they blame a dog whose only mistake was having a bad owner!!!...Uggg!!!!...Totally NOT breed related!..It's OWNER related!!
Why is it that just because a dog nips people go wild and call it agression? Do they even know the definition of the word...A dog must be so uncontrolable and so vicious,and not just once or twice but he/she would be behaving this way frequently...What many people deem as agression needs to be addressed.
I also think that the word "Agression" is used to loosely...If a dog bites out of self defense they call it agression...if he's scared and bites they call it agression...if a bad owner provokes a dog and the dog bites the owner..they call it agression....WRONG!!! WRONG!!WRONG!!
My dog trainer told me that in the 20 years he has been dog training only one or two dogs have had serious dog agression and had to be PTS.He went on to say that if they suspect a dog has agression they(Not my trainer but whoever does this test) put the dog in what is called a"helicopter ride" where the dog is spun around and lightly dropped to the ground...if the dog doesn't get up right away he is NOT considered agressive..if the dog gets up right away and tries to lunge at a person then and ONLY then is he considered agressive,which means that this particular dog has some kind of nerological chemical imbalance that can not be repared and sadly no hope for the poor dog..Most likely from poor breeding or a genetic fluke. I found this info. very interesting so when I see an article like this it just shows how absurd it really is. They need to do their homework before writing and sterotyping doxies or any other kind of breed!!
A few years back it was the doberman,then the rottweiller and then the pitbull(which is still on the list) and NOW dachshunds?....Oh! Come on!
Not to mention I have two doxies myself and a lab....Sorry...no agression here, they behave just as any other dog would..no better and no worse!
Perhaps they should take a survey on humans..Hmmm.. Say...Someone was stealing your car and you ran after them and kicked them in the leg!...Are you NOW considered aggressive?...UH! No,....Trying to get back what is yours!...They need to put this into perspective whoever desgins these surveys!
Sorry to ramble!! This stuff just gets to me!!
Take care
Angelika
The survey was the C-BARQ survey.
http://w3.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/
It was designed by Dr James Serpell, Director of the Center for Interaction of Animals and Society.
http://www2.vet.upenn.edu/research/centers/cias/publications.html
They look like they have experience designing questionnaires.
http://www2.vet.upenn.edu/research/centers/cias/pdf/Segurson et al., 2005.pdf
http://w3.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/
It was designed by Dr James Serpell, Director of the Center for Interaction of Animals and Society.
http://www2.vet.upenn.edu/research/centers/cias/publications.html
They look like they have experience designing questionnaires.
http://www2.vet.upenn.edu/research/centers/cias/pdf/Segurson et al., 2005.pdf
Let's all go off of anecdotal evidence, why don't we? I see tons of people on all forums saying 'this must be right, I've been attacked/bitten by more small breeds than large breeds'. It quite frankly pisses me off. I'll be blunt.
Anecdotal evidence for me suggests labs must be the most aggressive breeds. I see more out of control labs than anything and actually watched a lab try to maul my father. But really what does that really matter? Why do people feel the need to list what breeds have attacked them in any thread related to dog attacks? You get this all the time. What does it matter that X person was bitten by a chihuahua, but never a pit? I mean really, it doesn't. My area is filled with labs, they're the most common breed, I hardly ever see pit bulls because they're just not here like they are in other places. Of course when you put more labs in an area, more will be nuisances and of course when people breed them out the wazoo more will have temperament problems.
Why is it always the small dog owners that never train their dogs? In my experience it's NOT. At least not any more than any other size of dog. Yes, many small dog owners do not train their dogs and do not socialize their dogs or treat them like dogs. However, I can count just as many, probably more medium to large dogs that are the same way. The difference? The large dogs just get thrown in the back yard and forgotten about whereas the small one is being dragged about everywhere.
You can't come up with any reliable stats in these surveys. It's a survey of 6000 and it's a SURVEY. You have NO idea what training these dogs have. You have no idea that the people answering even are answering correctly. How do the people answering know what kind of aggression their dog is displaying or not? How do they know it's not a defensive bite? You have no idea of the breeding of these dogs. What if all the dachshunds are poorly bred and never socialized whereas the mastiffs were? There's no way to know.
I do visibly cringe when dog people really get behind stats like these. There are too many variables to ever get any really good stats on this.
Anecdotal evidence for me suggests labs must be the most aggressive breeds. I see more out of control labs than anything and actually watched a lab try to maul my father. But really what does that really matter? Why do people feel the need to list what breeds have attacked them in any thread related to dog attacks? You get this all the time. What does it matter that X person was bitten by a chihuahua, but never a pit? I mean really, it doesn't. My area is filled with labs, they're the most common breed, I hardly ever see pit bulls because they're just not here like they are in other places. Of course when you put more labs in an area, more will be nuisances and of course when people breed them out the wazoo more will have temperament problems.
Why is it always the small dog owners that never train their dogs? In my experience it's NOT. At least not any more than any other size of dog. Yes, many small dog owners do not train their dogs and do not socialize their dogs or treat them like dogs. However, I can count just as many, probably more medium to large dogs that are the same way. The difference? The large dogs just get thrown in the back yard and forgotten about whereas the small one is being dragged about everywhere.
You can't come up with any reliable stats in these surveys. It's a survey of 6000 and it's a SURVEY. You have NO idea what training these dogs have. You have no idea that the people answering even are answering correctly. How do the people answering know what kind of aggression their dog is displaying or not? How do they know it's not a defensive bite? You have no idea of the breeding of these dogs. What if all the dachshunds are poorly bred and never socialized whereas the mastiffs were? There's no way to know.
I do visibly cringe when dog people really get behind stats like these. There are too many variables to ever get any really good stats on this.
Laurelin that is a very good point - if the training or lack of it isn't part of the survey then you can ask what is the point of even gathering those data.
To me the only reason would be to see if there is some legitimate reason for BSL - I happen to be opposed to it and so when I see statistics where the usual list of banned breeds (also breeds that will make you lose your homeowners insurance, prevent you from getting an apartment etc) are absent from the top ten, I like to make them more well known. That old CDC report that everyone quotes as a justification for BSL was seriously flawed, the authors even said so in the report, but it keeps getting warmed over and served up as justification for BSL. Newer statistics - where the breeds were actually known - will hopefully replace that old CDC report. And people who are trying to convince their legislators to dump BSL can use the ammunition.
Here is another one by the way - unforunately you can no longer view the pdf online but it is references by many other links.
"Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression"
http://www.huliq.com/36585/behavioral-assessment-of-child-directed-canine-aggression
To me the only reason would be to see if there is some legitimate reason for BSL - I happen to be opposed to it and so when I see statistics where the usual list of banned breeds (also breeds that will make you lose your homeowners insurance, prevent you from getting an apartment etc) are absent from the top ten, I like to make them more well known. That old CDC report that everyone quotes as a justification for BSL was seriously flawed, the authors even said so in the report, but it keeps getting warmed over and served up as justification for BSL. Newer statistics - where the breeds were actually known - will hopefully replace that old CDC report. And people who are trying to convince their legislators to dump BSL can use the ammunition.
Here is another one by the way - unforunately you can no longer view the pdf online but it is references by many other links.
"Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression"
http://www.huliq.com/36585/behavioral-assessment-of-child-directed-canine-aggression
I agree with Lauelin, excellent post.
We see so many ill mannered and non trained dogs that are small/er in public because the owners can just pick them up to control them. Where as with larger dogs, I think they are kept at home more because the owners can't control them and they certainly can't pick them up and walk away lol.
We see so many ill mannered and non trained dogs that are small/er in public because the owners can just pick them up to control them. Where as with larger dogs, I think they are kept at home more because the owners can't control them and they certainly can't pick them up and walk away lol.
Actually, from every thing I have read about surveys and statistical accuracy, a survey size of 6000 is more than adequate to come to a conclusion on a population as large as the dog population. It would take less than that simply to achieve the 95% confidence level.
But what also seems to be missing from this discussion is that the people who conducted this public survey also surveyed the national breed clubs, and got similar results. This survey was aimed to determine from the general population about dogs biting habits, not relying on police reports or hospital records. Smaller dogs may have surprised many, but that is because most of those bites had previously never gone reported.
I tend to agree that the underlying purpose of publishing this study was to let people know the stupidity behind the statistics being used in support of BSL, since the source used would typically rule out pointing at other dogs as being much more susceptable to aggression than the ones being specifically targetted. Then again, there is that other thing about statistics... find me the right interpreter, and I can make that same study say anything I want it to say
But what also seems to be missing from this discussion is that the people who conducted this public survey also surveyed the national breed clubs, and got similar results. This survey was aimed to determine from the general population about dogs biting habits, not relying on police reports or hospital records. Smaller dogs may have surprised many, but that is because most of those bites had previously never gone reported.
I tend to agree that the underlying purpose of publishing this study was to let people know the stupidity behind the statistics being used in support of BSL, since the source used would typically rule out pointing at other dogs as being much more susceptable to aggression than the ones being specifically targetted. Then again, there is that other thing about statistics... find me the right interpreter, and I can make that same study say anything I want it to say
That's a huge reason.
But what amazes me is how quick so many people rise to the defense of these breeds and can somehow manage to think through and rationalize the reasons for those breeds being on the list, yet when it comes to "pit bulls", Rottwieler, Dobermans, & GSDs, people just nod their heads in agreement and go off on tangents about how those "vicious blood-thirsty love-to-eat-children monsters" have no place in society and need to be destroyed.
Actually, from every thing I have read about surveys and statistical accuracy, a survey size of 6000 is more than adequate to come to a conclusion on a population as large as the dog population. It would take less than that simply to achieve the 95% confidence level.
But what also seems to be missing from this discussion is that the people who conducted this public survey also surveyed the national breed clubs, and got similar results. This survey was aimed to determine from the general population about dogs biting habits, not relying on police reports or hospital records. Smaller dogs may have surprised many, but that is because most of those bites had previously never gone reported.
I tend to agree that the underlying purpose of publishing this study was to let people know the stupidity behind the statistics being used in support of BSL, since the source used would typically rule out pointing at other dogs as being much more susceptable to aggression than the ones being specifically targetted. Then again, there is that other thing about statistics... find me the right interpreter, and I can make that same study say anything I want it to say
But what also seems to be missing from this discussion is that the people who conducted this public survey also surveyed the national breed clubs, and got similar results. This survey was aimed to determine from the general population about dogs biting habits, not relying on police reports or hospital records. Smaller dogs may have surprised many, but that is because most of those bites had previously never gone reported.
I tend to agree that the underlying purpose of publishing this study was to let people know the stupidity behind the statistics being used in support of BSL, since the source used would typically rule out pointing at other dogs as being much more susceptable to aggression than the ones being specifically targetted. Then again, there is that other thing about statistics... find me the right interpreter, and I can make that same study say anything I want it to say
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 265
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
subscribing for usefulness of the OP's article.
I'm not suprised at this at all. My old boy could easily break your arm, so of course the police would be called on me if he was to do the unimaginable. However, a little dog that may not break the skin may be considered "cute" for trying to bite by the naive.
Kinda like how people unfamiliar with dog training will tell me to control my "vicious animal" when he is sitting quietly at my side ignoring them and yielding the sidewalk, when their untrained dog, be it big or small, strains at it's leash hell bent on attacking us.
I'm not suprised at this at all. My old boy could easily break your arm, so of course the police would be called on me if he was to do the unimaginable. However, a little dog that may not break the skin may be considered "cute" for trying to bite by the naive.
Kinda like how people unfamiliar with dog training will tell me to control my "vicious animal" when he is sitting quietly at my side ignoring them and yielding the sidewalk, when their untrained dog, be it big or small, strains at it's leash hell bent on attacking us.