Dog breed discrimination

wae wrote: That is pretty eye-opening about the boarding process. We've never boarded our dogs, but yikes -- charging extra for more bathrooms breaks?

Yup, some of them can be quite ridiculous. The last time we actually boarded ours, we paid a bit extra for extra play-time with a 'tuck-in' service that gives the dog a bit more attention and (doubtless with ours...) snuggling time before lights-out. We considered it worth it because he's such a baby and as much as possible wants to be around people all the time that we'd always get reports back that he had been very mopey and sad the whole time he was boarded.

The last time we were going to be away (our cruise a few weeks ago) we did the math and found that it was cheaper to pay for my brother to come house and pet-sit for the week while having the added advantage of him being able to stay at home and have someone to play with and pester constantly. Was amusing hearing my brother's thoughts on the experience too... "Well, but the third night I finally got him to stop trying to sleep actually ON TOP of me and just up against me on the bed..."

We're lucky... I didn't know anything about the whole insurance policy thing because until recently I didn't know that USAA (who our insurance is through) doesn't have breed restrictions on pits (or hopefully on any kind of dog). I imagine this may be a result of the military families having on average more of the 'higher risk' breeds than non-military.

foxtrapper wrote: Yep. Every one of the dogs that we've had running and killing livestock wouldn't hurt a fly. Several owners insisted it was the fault of our livestock, or us. And yes, insurances prohibit certain breeds.

Of course not, its always someone else's fault......and at that point, its shoot on site. Its why I searched nonstop for 36hrs to find my current GSD when he escaped the yard.

yamaha wrote: I couldn't take my German Shepherd anywhere due to his aggressive nature. Heck, he bit me the first time I met him(I rehomed him at 3yo), but that was probably a "Hey berkeleyer, pay attention to me barking at you" moment.

Our leopard gecko bit SWMBO the first time they met...apparently she's Daddy's girl!

Jumper K. Balls wrote: I LOVE pitties and would have one in a heartbeat. I want to make this clear. The reason I didn't offer up the name of the breed that almost killed my dog is because I abhor the reputation they have.

I am realistic and never forget that their reputation is earned. Pits that are mistreated, abused and trained to do bad things are in fact dangerous dogs. This is 100% the fault of the owners IMHO, and the same could be said about any breed if they were treated the same way. I respect other people's reactions and prejudices against the breed and try to educate and inform. Having such a sweet guy usually does the trick pretty quickly.

I grew up around all kinds of susposedly dangerous dogs. One friend of mine breeds Dobermans and another has Rottweilers. The only dog I have ever been wary of was my brother's dachshund, Inky.

If you were in the house when he discovered you, he loved to sit on you lap and be petted. But when people came to visit they had to put Inky in bedroom until you got in the house and settled. If you just opened the door and walked in he would bite you. My brother's BIL who lived just 2 houses down the street and visited 4-5 times a week forgot the routine one time. Yep, he got bit.

I don't believe theres such a thing as a bad breed of dog. Just bad owners or circumstances. Unfortunately for pit bulls, they suffer the same fate as a few other breeds of dog, they're shiny happy person magnets. Pitties, rotties, German Shepard's, dobermans and dogo argentinos due to their fierce looks and reputations end up being highly sought after by dickheads, deadbeats and shiny happy people. Sometimes they want them for fighting, other times to protect their stuff and other times just so they can look tough in front of their mates. Often when dogs like these end up with people like that they end up poorly trained, poorly socialised and in many cases even abused.

There are plenty of dog breeds that were originally bred to hunt, for battle or for aggressive purposes that don't carry the same kind of reputation.

Having spent a few years as a courier, I delt with a lot of different and unfamilliar dogs. My biggest problems and close calls were more often the breeds of dog you wouldn't expect to be aggressive. And before anyone chimes in, I treated any unknown dog as dangerous, any dog can be unpredictable when defending its turf.

mtn wrote: The rules exist for a reason. Some of it unfair, sure. But the truth is, they are statistically more dangerous.

Please show your work.

Jerry wrote:

mtn wrote: The rules exist for a reason. Some of it unfair, sure. But the truth is, they are statistically more dangerous.

Please show your work.

Anecdotally, there are other breeds that bite more, no question.

Chihuahua's may be much more likely to bite, but something like a Pit Bull/German Shepard, etc are going to be much more likely to do serious damage if they get a hold of you.

(I love pits and hate that I had to give mine back to the rescue since the wife and I are getting a divorce)

z31maniac wrote:

Jerry wrote:

mtn wrote: The rules exist for a reason. Some of it unfair, sure. But the truth is, they are statistically more dangerous.

Please show your work.

Anecdotally, there are other breeds that bite more, no question. Chihuahua's may be much more likely to bite, but something like a Pit Bull/German Shepard, etc are going to be much more likely to do serious damage if they get a hold of you.

So would a doberman. So would a rott. So would a mastiff. But to say "statistically" that Pit's are more dangerous than any other breed is just downright wrong. Period.

It's obvious you have an agenda with no desire to be objective. Enjoy your thread.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/most-dangerous-dog-breeds.html

Jerry wrote: So would a doberman. So would a rott. So would a mastiff. But to say "statistically" that Pit's are more dangerous than any other breed is just downright wrong. Period.

So, Jerry, in your own words:

Jerry wrote: Please show your work.

z31maniac wrote: It's obvious you have an agenda with no desire to be objective. Enjoy your thread. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/most-dangerous-dog-breeds.html

Interesting article- but I do find one slight quibble with the compiled data.... FTA:

To rank the most dangerous breeds, we used a report compiled by Merritt Clifton, the editor of Animal People, which lists all of the press accounts of dog attacks organized by breed type.

Emphasis mine. The 'data' isn't a complete and objective picture- it's a survey of what the press reported regarding dog attacks. How often do you think a) the press outright gets the breed wrong and b) reports attacks by a 'bully breed' more frequently because it's going to get more attention while passing on reporting someone being bit by a rat dog because it isn't going to garner many clicks/outrage? I'd be willing to bet that most larger dog attack/incidents are going to be reported as being perpetrated by a pit bull, just like most automatic pistols in shootings are assumed to be Glocks (or AK's if larger).

The point brought up earlier (I think) about capacity to do damage though is valid- a Pit, Doberman, other larger/more powerful dog actually legitimately attacking someone IS going to do a lot more damage than say a Chihuahua. But I think most people are going to laugh off a rat dog attacking them while at the same time being a lot more likely to claim that they were 'attacked' by an overly friendly/roughhousing pit.

It also does in the end come back to the dog's upbringing, training, and care- as was stated earlier, 'bully breed' dogs are exponentially more likely to be sought out by those who WANT a dog to be intimidating and vicious and if trained and abused to try and bring out those traits of course they're going to be dangerous. Frankly I wish that the people who treat their dogs like this should be subject to MUCH more stringent punishment- they're ultimately responsible for their dog's behavior, and it's sad that the dogs themselves often pay the ultimate price despite their not having any real choice in how they were raised.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

In reply to Ashyukun:

In our area, the news retards think any firearm that isn't a revolver is fully automatic, sneaks out from the house at night to spray bullets at random everywhere, and somehow sneaks back into the house after it has killed 5 million newborns......

At least locally they were partially smarter than NBC's Today when it came to defaming a business....

In reply to Ashyukun:

Just recently I can think of local news accounts of PITBULL attacks local woman (which wasn't a pit), while a story of a pitbull saving a family during a fire was reported as DOG saves family's life.

Sonic wrote:

Jerry wrote: So would a doberman. So would a rott. So would a mastiff. But to say "statistically" that Pit's are more dangerous than any other breed is just downright wrong. Period.

So, Jerry, in your own words:

Jerry wrote: Please show your work.

Still waiting.

They'll just lick you to death.

Some dog breeds are more aggressive than others. Are we agreed on that? Larger dogs do more damage than smaller dogs for any given aggressive instance. Agree? I'm not talking furniture, I'm talking ripped open throats and death. Yeah, a little dog will nip and maybe even break skin on your ankle, but it won't kill a Lab.

I can see why a doggie day care place would want to exclude Pit Bulls. They are an aggressive breed. They do more damage if they "go off." If your dog kills someone else's dog during "doggie play time and socialization," someone esle is gonna be real pissed off and it is going to cost the doggie day care people a lot of money. I doubt they do teh maths, but probably have a "gut instinct" of what teh maths would show.

Risk=Probability of being aggressive * probability of doing damage

Making up some numbers, but numbers that would not surprise me:

For a Chihuahua: 0.9 * 0.05 = 0.045 or 4.5% risk of a problem.
For a Pit Bull: 0.3 * 0.95 = 28.5% risk of a problem.
For, say, a Lab: 0.1 * 0.5 = 5% risk .

Note that I've had Pit Bulls. I'm not a hater, but I'm realistic. The ones I have had or that have stayed with me and their kin have been hand grenades with the pin pulled.

z31maniac wrote:

Sonic wrote:

Jerry wrote: So would a doberman. So would a rott. So would a mastiff. But to say "statistically" that Pit's are more dangerous than any other breed is just downright wrong. Period.

So, Jerry, in your own words:

Jerry wrote: Please show your work.

Still waiting.

http://www.beachpetpals.org/info/display?PageID=5124

"Pit Bulls are no more vicious than Golden Retrievers, Beagles or other popular dogs! In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS), Pit Bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than Beagles ... 78.2%, and Golden Retrievers ... 83.2%"

http://dogbitelaw.com/dangerous-vicious-dogs/the-problem-with-statistics

"Three commonly accepted sources of information about canine homicides are the CDC, Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People), Colleen Lynn (author of dogsbite.org), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks). However, none of their figures agree."

http://americanpitbullregistry.com/unwaranted%20negative%20stigma.htm

"The American Temperament Test Society continually ranks PitBulls better in temperament than many other breeds. The Airedale Terrier, Basenji, Beagle, Bichon Frise, Border Collie, Chihuahua, Collie, Dachshund(4 of 6 varieties), English Setter, Lhasa Opso, Pomeranian, Shar-Pei, Shiba Inu, Shih Tzu, Schnauzer, and Toy Poodle all score below average and many more far below than that of the PitBull."

Jerry wrote: "The American Temperament Test Society continually ranks PitBulls better in temperament than many other breeds. The Airedale Terrier, Basenji, Beagle, Bichon Frise, Border Collie, Chihuahua, Collie, Dachshund(4 of 6 varieties), English Setter, Lhasa Opso, Pomeranian, Shar-Pei, Shiba Inu, Shih Tzu, Schnauzer, and Toy Poodle all score below average and many more far below than that of the PitBull."

Bichon? Frise....

(sorry, couldn't resist... )

Jerry wrote: http://americanpitbullregistry.com/unwaranted%20negative%20stigma.htm "The American Temperament Test Society continually ranks PitBulls better in temperament than many other breeds. The Airedale Terrier, Basenji, Beagle, Bichon Frise, Border Collie, Chihuahua, Collie, Dachshund(4 of 6 varieties), English Setter, Lhasa Opso, Pomeranian, Shar-Pei, Shiba Inu, Shih Tzu, Schnauzer, and Toy Poodle all score below average and many more far below than that of the PitBull."

Notice the list contains the who's-who of purseborne ankle-biters

Now multiply in the Probability of Doing Damage factor. For Shih Tzu, Schnauzer (miniature,) Toy Poodle, etc., low. For Pit Bulls, Shar-Peis (weren't they bred to fight?) the Damage factor goes way up.

Dr. Hess wrote: Now multiply in the Probability of Doing Damage factor. For Shih Tzu, Schnauzer (miniature,) Toy Poodle, etc., low. For Pit Bulls, Shar-Peis (weren't they bred to fight?) the Damage factor goes way up.

Shar Peis were bred to guard not fight, it is a slight but important distinction. They do terrible in a fight due to their skin being rather fragile and easy for the attacking dog to latch on to. They do hide some pretty mean teeth under all that though and could do some damage.

If you REALLY want to get pissed off:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/11/12682079-lennox-dog-condemned-as-pitbull-is-put-to-death-in-belfast?lite

Of course in the UK they will seize your dog from you and murder it because of what breed it is.

The problem isn't the dogs it's the owners. Pit Bulls are popular with people who want an aggressive dog. The ones owned by normal owners behave fine.

The stereotypical owner is like a black guy or a bro who is obsessed with his dogs "stance" and it's aggressive demeanor and takes pictures of it in it's most aggressive looking behavior possible chained up and posts that on facebook. It's like this in rap videos as well. Also a lot of pit bull breeding and showcasing places show this as well. That's the kind of people that are attracted to this breed. Not everyone is, i'm sure nobody here is that way, but that's why you get these higher percentages of attacks. It would be the same if they were into goldens or labrodoodles.

Jerry wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Jerry wrote:

mtn wrote: The rules exist for a reason. Some of it unfair, sure. But the truth is, they are statistically more dangerous.

Please show your work.

Anecdotally, there are other breeds that bite more, no question. Chihuahua's may be much more likely to bite, but something like a Pit Bull/German Shepard, etc are going to be much more likely to do serious damage if they get a hold of you.

So would a doberman. So would a rott. So would a mastiff. But to say "statistically" that Pit's are more dangerous than any other breed is just downright wrong. Period.

These are all "breeds of concern" that most superior home ins carriers decline to underwite due to loss experience. Unfortunately these dogs impart massive amounts of pain and suffering when they snap, especially when they injure children.

Wad a small carrier recently change their mind about such dogs, seems like big doggies like to bite little humans in the face & facial reconstruction surgery is not cheap. Dog injuries are approximately 1 third of all homeowners liability claims. Personally I'd seen more claims from dogs jumping and injuring people compared to dog bites. Dogs are like guns and kids: you ARE responsible for them, like it or not.

Some of my best friends have been dogs and that has only taught me that All DOGS BITE. I've had many dogs bite me by accident. Most dogs you can make them stop biting by putting your hand around the base of their mouths and forcing the jaws open with your thumb and forefinger, some dogs you couldn't even reach let alone overcome the muscular strength.

Most ins cos also find Laforzas to be unacceptable as well!

kanaric wrote: The stereotypical owner is like a black guy or a bro who is obsessed with his dogs "stance" and it's aggressive demeanor and takes pictures of it in it's most aggressive looking behavior possible chained up and posts that on facebook. It's like this in rap videos as well. Also a lot of pit bull breeding and showcasing places show this as well. That's the kind of people that are attracted to this breed.

There was this "stereotypical owner" you speak of that used to come around the Harley shop. His Pit Bull, VERY aggressive, was always in the back of the pickup truck. It would lunge at and try to attack anyone that got close to the bed of the truck. The "stereotypical owner" was VERY proud of that dog. Then one day, a guy was at the shop when the "stereotypical owner" and his dog were there. The "stereotypical owner" was telling everyone how bad his dog was. The guy jumped into the back of the truck with the dog, growled at the dog and the dog cowed down in the corner whimpering. The "stereotypical owner" didn't bring the dog around anymore after that.