The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by krynski

Yes, I did, and it makes sense in the comparison made. The genetic selection of physical dog traits in the last 2000 years that we have been breeding and selecting for traits has not correlated to behavioural traits. Behavioural traits are much less genetically selectable (which is science).

In terms of aggression or behaviour, no there is no difference between a yorkie and pit bull. When my german shepherd goes to my friends place, it is far more gentle and well behaved than his chihuahua. Maybe read the results of the study if you disagree.

No, it’s an insanely stupid comparison. The difference between a pit bull and a yorkie is the capacity for destruction/violence if they do “snap” or whatever. Your German shepherd might be the best doggo, but should something go off the rails, it poses a far greater risk to people than a chihuahua.

Maybe use some common sense if you disagree. Jesus.

[PeteMoss]

Regarding the breed stats and biting prevalence - I'm not sure anyone has said that a Pitbull or whatever is more likely to bite someone. In fact - I'd guess that tiny dogs are more likely to bite based on experience.

But the extent of damage is more important here. In my area - the most likely animal to attack me is a goose, but we worry more about the odd bear or a coyote even though they will probably just ran away if they see me versus the goose that will attack me virtually 100% of the time if I walk anywhere near its nest.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by GGG

So based on the above are you advocating for consequence based bans?

I wouldn't say I'm arguing for it, but I wouldn't be against it. At the end of the day, a dog's behaviour is the responsibility of its owner.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, it’s an insanely stupid comparison. The difference between a pit bull and a yorkie is the capacity for destruction/violence if they do “snap” or whatever. Your German shepherd might be the best doggo, but should something go off the rails, it poses a far greater risk to people than a chihuahua.

Maybe use some common sense if you disagree. Jesus.

Ok, size does matter when it comes to incidents, but it has nothing to do with behavioural traits, particularly propensity for aggression, which is what my argument was about. No need to red herring this and taking my argument to a size comparison, I never disagreed with size, I was arguing about dog breeds and the incorrectness of "breed specific behaviour".

If you want to take it in that direction then, when it comes to an infant, an infant doesn't care whether a chihuahua or a german shephard is attacking it.

I don't know why you are getting all worked up about this; I'm presenting facts and you are clearly unhappy with science and facts.

If you think the facts and science are stupid, then I think your opinion is stupid, and we can rest our cases.

[Alpha_Q]

Jesus Christ, the argument isn't how one breed is aggressive and another isn't or a breed is actually more agressive than that one or another breed is more likely to bite, and even small dogs can bite, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. It's about how a certain type of dog kills at a rate far exceeding all other breeds.
A chihuachua is great until it isn't and it bites and you Coleman-kick it to the curb. A retreiver is great until it isn't and it bites and you slap at ot and it runs off. A pit bull is great until it isn't and it bites and you can't get it to stop.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-st...fatalities.php
Sure, that link has an agenda, and is totally anti-dog. Here's another:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ask...g-breed/%3famp
There are others. And yes, I'm racist against pit-bulls. Seriously, that was a pretty dumb comparison which incidentally, proves that within that species, that race of dog was bred to kill.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, it’s an insanely stupid comparison. The difference between a pit bull and a yorkie is the capacity for destruction/violence if they do “snap” or whatever. Your German shepherd might be the best doggo, but should something go off the rails, it poses a far greater risk to people than a chihuahua.

Maybe use some common sense if you disagree. Jesus.

It's also bull to say that behavioral traits can not be selectively bred for. It's mainly why breeds exist in the first place. You want a dog to help herding or corralling on the farm? There's a breed for that. You want a hunting dog that has unbreakable spirit and a strong motivation to chase? There is a breed for that. There are hundreds of breeds specifically bred to exhibit different behaviors or strongly target specific instincts. Dog owners shouldn't be shocked when these behaviours manifest themselves at inappropriate times.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by krynski

Yes, I did, and it makes sense in the comparison made. The genetic selection of physical dog traits in the last 2000 years that we have been breeding and selecting for traits has not correlated to behavioural traits. Behavioural traits are much less genetically selectable (which is science). Maybe there should be rules for larger dogs regardless of breed? That makes sense to me, but it truly does not if you are making rules based off of breeds specifically.

In terms of aggression or behaviour, no there is no difference between a yorkie and pit bull. When my german shepherd goes to my friends place, it is far more gentle and well behaved than his chihuahua. Maybe read the results of the study if you disagree.

I realize I'm going to get crapped on for my last post, but frankly, it's science and I'm a little tired of seeing the fingers being pointed without any hint of truth or science being used.

Ignoring the other ridiculous post you made, this suggestion is flat out wrong. Try as you might, you could never train a yorkie or maltese to be a hunting dog.

Dogs breeds have known behavioral and repeatable traits. Just because *YOU* trained your German sheppard to be a good dog, doesn't mean everyone will. And if a German sheppard isn't trained well, it can kill someone. If someone's Weiner dog isn't trained well, it won't kill someone.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by krynski

Ok, size does matter when it comes to incidents, but it has nothing to do with behavioural traits, particularly propensity for aggression, which is what my argument was about. No need to red herring this and taking my argument to a size comparison, I never disagreed with size, I was arguing about dog breeds and the incorrectness of "breed specific behaviour".

If you want to take it in that direction then, when it comes to an infant, an infant doesn't care whether a chihuahua or a german shephard is attacking it.

I don't know why you are getting all worked up about this; I'm presenting facts and you are clearly unhappy with science and facts.

If you think the facts and science are stupid, then I think your opinion is stupid, and we can rest our cases.

You aren't presenting facts and science. Dogs are bred for their behaviors as well as physical traits. THAT is a fact.

[nik-]

#PittieLivesMatter

[krynski]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Ignoring the other ridiculous post you made, this suggestion is flat out wrong. Try as you might, you could never train a yorkie or maltese to be a hunting dog.

Dogs breeds have known behavioral and repeatable traits. Just because *YOU* trained your German sheppard to be a good dog, doesn't mean everyone will. And if a German sheppard isn't trained well, it can kill someone. If someone's Weiner dog isn't trained well, it won't kill someone.

Ok.....

https://www.fluffydogbreeds.com/are-...this-tiny-pup/

Although Yorkies were excellent ratters in the mills and mines of the north of England, their small size and bravery enabled them to be used to hunt various other species. The dogs were small enough to be carried in the pockets of hunters and then unleashed to enter the dens of wild animals such as foxes and badgers.

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/un...shire-terrier/

[CroFlames]

I guess I stand corrected. The well known hunting breeds of Yorkie & Maltese lol.

[monkey brewery]

I've hesitated to comment here because some of you are quite insufferable.

My family had a pitbull-lab cross for about 8 years. He was a handful, but a nice dog. no incidents. Our kids were maybe 7-8 when we got him, I'd have to do the math.

He was so strong. My kids couldn't even walk him on leash. He was leash trained, but sometimes dogs are just dogs and they're going to do what they want, you can't reason with them.

Anyway, I was always against breed bans, but my opinion has changed. This is actually the video that persuaded me on banning bully breeds in the city. It's quite awful, and I don't remember how I came across it, but it showcases how strong pitbulls are, and how dumb their owners can be.

In case you don't want to watch, a pitbull who was leashed, has grabbed on to a golden retriever's leg, and just won't let go. They don't show what instigated it (the golden retriever could've been a dink for all I know) but it doesn't really matter. Nobody had control of that pitbull, including the owner.

They don't belong in the city.

NSFW!

[krynski]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's also bull to say that behavioral traits can not be selectively bred for. It's mainly why breeds exist in the first place. You want a dog to help herding or corralling on the farm? There's a breed for that. You want a hunting dog that has unbreakable spirit and a strong motivation to chase? There is a breed for that. There are hundreds of breeds specifically bred to exhibit different behaviors or strongly target specific instincts. Dog owners shouldn't be shocked when these behaviours manifest themselves at inappropriate times.

My point in the first post was this:

Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds.

There is some heritability in behaviour traits, but it is not as heritable as physical traits as those are clearly defined in genetics and you can see that, but a huge proponent of behaviour has an environmental component.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by krynski

Ok, size does matter when it comes to incidents, but it has nothing to do with behavioural traits, particularly propensity for aggression, which is what my argument was about. No need to red herring this and taking my argument to a size comparison, I never disagreed with size, I was arguing about dog breeds and the incorrectness of "breed specific behaviour".

If you want to take it in that direction then, when it comes to an infant, an infant doesn't care whether a chihuahua or a german shephard is attacking it.

I don't know why you are getting all worked up about this; I'm presenting facts and you are clearly unhappy with science and facts.

If you think the facts and science are stupid, then I think your opinion is stupid, and we can rest our cases.

Just saying you’ve got “facts and science” on your side doesn’t mean much while you single-handedly take the cake for the most ridiculous, nonsensical, and flat out wrong posts in the entire thread (including possibly one the dumbest comparisons to racism I’ve read on this board). I’m not worked up about it, I was honestly shocked I read something so ridiculous that wasn’t meant as a bad joke.

Like yes, the difference between a chihuahua and a German shepherd still matters a whole bunch to an infant. Have you ever seen either of those two dogs? Have you ever seen an infant? I’m just trying to gauge what level of reality we’re playing with here.

If breeds don’t have any distinct behaviourism traits, why are some breeds harder to train than others? Why are some really high energy and requiring a ####load of exercise to maintain composure while other breeds of similar sizes are considerably less? Why are some used for herding and others aren’t? Aren’t all dogs just interchangeable then?

And that’s not to mention their physical traits, which you’ve already brushed off as well. It’s not some red herring, it’s common sense, the minimum level of sense we like to see from the human breed.

If breeds are all the same behaviourally, then you win. We can just destroy all dogs over a certain size. No worries.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by krynski

Yes, I did, and it makes sense in the comparison made. The genetic selection of physical dog traits in the last 2000 years that we have been breeding and selecting for traits has not correlated to behavioural traits. Behavioural traits are much less genetically selectable (which is science). Maybe there should be rules for larger dogs regardless of breed? That makes sense to me, but it truly does not if you are making rules based off of breeds specifically.

In terms of aggression or behaviour, no there is no difference between a yorkie and pit bull. When my german shepherd goes to my friends place, it is far more gentle and well behaved than his chihuahua. Maybe read the results of the study if you disagree.

I realize I'm going to get crapped on for my last post, but frankly, it's science and I'm a little tired of seeing the fingers being pointed without any hint of truth or science being used.

1. Dogs most certainly do have behavioural traits. They are bred for specific roles.
2. Dogs are not like people, for many reasons, but also in that we neuter dogs without their permission. Humans also breed dogs for specific purposes.

Here's the question. Pit Bulls were bred for the specific purpose of baiting, fighting, and killing large animals, like bulls. These activities are now illegal. Therefore, the purpose of this breed no longer exists. As we neuter dogs anyways, why are we still breeding dogs with physical traits designed for fighting, killing, and baiting when the dogs no longer have that role? Why not just breed less physically powerful companion dogs?

And yes, I'd much rather deal with a bity Chihuahua than a bity German Shepard. Even, if the Chihuahua is more likely to nip. I could literally boot a chihuahua across the room and likely deal it fatal damage with a single kick. If I had to fight a German Shepard, it would probably eat my face. Even the German Shepard, unlike a Pit Bull, still serves a purpose: guarding, military, herding, farm work, search and rescue, etc... We should keep that breed around, but not allow them to be owned in residential areas. The Pit Bull, on the other hand has zero purpose. There is zero reason to continue breeding Pit Bulls.

[Ryan Coke]

Again, the issue isn’t whether various dog breeds may exhibit aggressive behaviour, I accept that any dog may do that. The issue is that a select group of dog breeds have the capability to kill humans when they exhibit that aggressive behaviour, compared to most other breeds.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just saying you’ve got “facts and science” on your side doesn’t mean much while you single-handedly take the cake for the most ridiculous, nonsensical, and flat out wrong posts in the entire thread (including possibly one the dumbest comparisons to racism I’ve read on this board). I’m not worked up about it, I was honestly shocked I read something so ridiculous that wasn’t meant as a bad joke.

Like yes, the difference between a chihuahua and a German shepherd still matters a whole bunch to an infant. Have you ever seen either of those two dogs? Have you ever seen an infant? I’m just trying to gauge what level of reality we’re playing with here.

If breeds don’t have any distinct behaviourism traits, why are some breeds harder to train than others? Why are some really high energy and requiring a ####load of exercise to maintain composure while other breeds of similar sizes are considerably less? Why are some used for herding and others aren’t? Aren’t all dogs just interchangeable then?

And that’s not to mention their physical traits, which you’ve already brushed off as well. It’s not some red herring, it’s common sense, the minimum level of sense we like to see from the human breed.

If breeds are all the same behaviourally, then you win. We can just destroy all dogs over a certain size. No worries.

Again, I never said no behaviour trait, but aggression was less indentifiable between breeds. Perhaps it is better to expand the quote:

But, on average, breed explained only around 9% of the variation in how a dog behaved, a number “much smaller than most people, including me, would have expected,” says Karlsson. Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds .

I was clearly focusing my point on aggression in dog breeds though; that was my sole point.

[blankall]

As far as I can tell, pit bull owners largely fall into one of two categories:

1. People who see pit bulls as a fashion accessory. These people think it makes them look cool to own a dangerous dog. There's a heavy cross-over between people like this and people who have truck nuts, wear Tap-Out t-shirts, shave too much hair off the sides of their heads etc...These people seem prone to bad decisions, but their decisions to wear tap-out t-shirts do not put me and my family in danger.

2. People who have projected some kind of persecution complex onto a breed of dog. Breeds of dogs are 100% artificial creations of humanity, and humanity has 100% control in not producing more of any specific type of dog. We could easily just stop breeding new pit bulls, without harming any existing pit bulls (other than sterilizing them, which is something all pet owners, not involved in breeding, should do anyways). Strangely enough, these people make "what about the children", yet are specifically arguing for something that is dangerous to children. They are also advocating for bringing more dogs, who no longer have a purpose as dog fighting is illegal, into this world. This is cruel. The dog wants to fight, but then we horribly punish it for fighting. People breeding and acquiring new pit bulls are the only one creating any kind of cruelty towards pit bulls.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by blankall

As far as I can tell, pit bull owners largely fall into one of two categories:

1. People who see pit bulls as a fashion accessory. These people think it makes them look cool to own a dangerous dog. There's a heavy cross-over between people like this and people who have truck nuts, wear Tap-Out t-shirts, shave too much hair off the sides of their heads etc...These people seem prone to bad decisions, but their decisions to wear tap-out t-shirts do not put me and my family in danger.

2. People who have projected some kind of persecution complex onto a breed of dog. Breeds of dogs are 100% artificial creations of humanity, and humanity has 100% control in not producing more of any specific type of dog. We could easily just stop breeding new pit bulls, without harming any existing pit bulls (other than sterilizing them, which is something all pet owners, not involved in breeding, should do anyways). Strangely enough, these people make "what about the children", yet are specifically arguing for something that is dangerous to children. They are also advocating for bringing more dogs, who no longer have a purpose as dog fighting is illegal, into this world. This is cruel. The dog wants to fight, but then we horribly punish it for fighting. People breeding and acquiring new pit bulls are the only one creating any kind of cruelty towards pit bulls.

Agree with everything, and maybe you hinted at it in your first point, but to state it more explicitly: pit bull owners tend to be - sort of - low-tier people. I hesitate to use the word trashy, but I suspect there aren't very many pit bull-owning Rhodes Scholars. So you have dumb people owning a super dangerous breed and it always ends up with somebody maimed. All because these freedom convoy types throw huge tantrums when you talk about banning their ####ty dogs.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by krynski

Again, I never said no behaviour trait, but aggression was less indentifiable between breeds. Perhaps it is better to expand the quote:

I was clearly focusing my point on aggression in dog breeds though; that was my sole point.

Yeah we get it. Nobody is confused about what you're saying. It's just super ridiculous is all. An aggressive yorkie is a fataing joke. An aggressive pit bull will rip your face off and kill your gardening-loving grandma. So sure, both are aggressive. You win a point that doesn't matter, isn't in dispute and is immaterial to the conversation. Congrats.