Yet another Pitt Bull attack (2 Viewers)

[mr roboto]

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

The CDC recommends against using breed as a factor in dog-bite prevention policy and states: “Any dog of any breed has the potential to bite.”

Yes. Some bite. Some maul. I’d rather be bitten. 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Here's the one I used Joe

The temperament data published by the group is not based upon scientific random sampling of any dog breed.

 

[SWC]

my main man pitbull said that time is money only difference is i own it and those are words to live by take that to the bank bromigos 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

this is sad. I can only speak for myself, but I do not see this like a sporting event where one side wins and another loses. I know politics in our country has turned many things into this, but do you honestly think that we are striving for a winner and a loser here? My dog, and other people I know who own pit bull mixes, have not come close to attacking or mauling anything their entire lives. I like to think the blind generalizations in this thread are not spoken gospel.

I know some in here feel becauase they have read an article or 2 that they know more then an expert in the field with 20+ years of experience, but hopefully that is only a small portion of the people in here

Dont mean win-lose... my side vs your side.

I meant the PR battle of those who own pit bulls.  Its the thugs and wanna-be toughguys and drug dealers who are winning that. Pits and Parolees anyone?

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Yes. Some bite. Some maul. I’d rather be bitten. 

This is where i think the huge disconnect in this thread is.

Are pit-bulls more likely to bite than other breeds?  Maybe not.

Are pit-pulls more likely to maul someone and injure them in a major way than other breeds?  Absolutely.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

PetSmart Groomer Badly Injured in Pit Bull Attack -- Dec 28, 2017

Pit bull attacks woman and her labradoodle during Farolito Walk -- Dec 27, 2017

8-year-old girl in pitbull attack released from hospital -- December 28, 2017

 

 

[modogg]

PetSmart Groomer Badly Injured in Pit Bull Attack -- Dec 28, 2017

Pit bull attacks woman and her labradoodle during Farolito Walk -- Dec 27, 2017

8-year-old girl in pitbull attack released from hospital -- December 28, 2017

 

oh c'mon, i'm sure the bolded above is double dipping here bud. i'm sure there were tons of articles when the bite occurred, a few while hospitalized, and now a couple saying she is coming out of the hospital 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

ok, fair enough...

Toddler mauled by pit bull in serious condition -- Updated Dec 27

 

[stbugs]

You're not funny.

Also, from that horrible story:

"While some friends said Bethany had a close bond with the dogs that she had raised from birth, she hadn't actually been looking after them for some time before the attack, the Sheriff added.

They had previously lived indoors but had recently been in an outdoor kennel at her father's home with very little human contact."

Sounds like these dogs lacked training and socialization....but let's focus on them being pit bulls, right?

That's as delusional as the vet who didn't know the girl or the dogs saying that there must have been another attacker and there needs to be a further investigation. Good on the cops and her family for releasing what was horrific news about the attack because some stupid vet is trying to make it pro-pit bull even though they killed and ate their owner.

So, you are basically saying that even though she raised them from birth, the fact that they were staying with her father for some time means that the dogs lacked socialization. How long a vacation where the dogs are boarded should we expect it to be a reasonable to blame the owner for lack of socialization and say they deserved to be eaten?

 

[eoMMan]

That's as delusional as the vet who didn't know the girl or the dogs saying that there must have been another attacker and there needs to be a further investigation. Good on the cops and her family for releasing what was horrific news about the attack because some stupid vet is trying to make it pro-pit bull even though they killed and ate their owner.

So, you are basically saying that even though she raised them from birth, the fact that they were staying with her father for some time means that the dogs lacked socialization. How long a vacation where the dogs are boarded should we expect it to be a reasonable to blame the owner for lack of socialization and say they deserved to be eaten?

Stop. I never said "she deserved to be eaten". You're being ridiculous. 

I was simply relaying what was in the article...that the dog's were outside and had very little human contact. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

it really is hard to say because there are so many variables. if we take the human element out of it, then I would say no, the average pit bull is not more likely to attack. My wife knows this better then I do, but I think pit bulls in particular have been used in dog fighting (and lol, my wife isn't running a dog fighting ring, she has just written papers on this and stuff) because they are more obedient with humans and also more inclined to be aggressive with other dogs. But many breeds have similar characteristics. there is the fury dog breed from China (totally escaping my mind) that really is nasty with other dogs, but they are less likely to be human friendly then pit bulls.

but in reality, I would say they may be mostly due to where they are located in the country and potential owners. I live in Philadelphia, and when we went to look for a dog from the local SPCA they had something like 450 dogs, 440 of them were pit bulls or pit bull mixes. So you likely have less responsible owners, etc. who are more likely to get a pit bull then a golden retriever. but in essence, this isn't the pit bulls fault.

@eeoman pointed out a stat about more Rotty attacks in the 80's and early 90s. I think that clearly shows the breed isn't the issue, it is more so on the owners and who is taking these dogs in.

if we are talking breeds more likely to maul humans, I think German Sheppards would be up there high. now these are police dogs and are great training dogs, but at the same time they are protective and are stronger then most pit bulls.

ETA: my wife cares about this more then i do. here are her thoughts:

" Aggression towards humans and other animals are two completely separate issues and have nothing to do with one another. Terriers, in general, are more prone to aggression toward other animals so I would say they are more likely to have issues with other dogs.  However, there are definitely exceptions and you cannot assume that every "pit bull" is going to be dog aggressive. Every dog is an individual.  Ours pit has been run up on and gone after by countless little yappy dogs and has never done anything more than bark to correct the other dog.  As for aggression to humans, I would say that a pit bull is no more likely to attack a person than any other type of dog. If you look at temperament testing, "pit bulls" test about the same as golden retrievers (actually a little higher). Below are stats from the American Temperament Test Society.  "  Of course this is statistical information that is collected by people who are actually credentialed and work in the dog behavior field, so I doubt your anti- pit bull people will believe it, but there it is.  I'm sure they will point out the lack of golden's in the news, but how many golden's are being kept chained up in someone's backyard or basement, abused, neglected, and under socialized? These are the types of dogs who generally cause harm to people, whatever the breed. ####ty people aren't keeping Golden Retrievers chained in their yards to look tough, otherwise we'd hear about them on the news too."

https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page4/

Thanks. Let's throw out aggression towards other other dogs than and just focus on aggression towards humans.

Is it fair to say you feel the average Pit Bull is no more likely to attack or maul a person than a Golden Retriever is? 

 

[modogg]

Thanks. Let's throw out aggression towards other other dogs than and just focus on aggression towards humans.

Is it fair to say you feel the average Pit Bull is no more likely to attack or maul a person than a Golden Retriever is? 

yes, my wife does, and feels the links she has are valid. For me, i agree that i don't think pit bulls are more likely to attack than golden retrievers. Actually, thinking about it, i have never been attacked by a pit bull, but was nipped by either a golden retriever/lab (was about 19 years ago, memory is little rusty).  i stuck my hand out to pet him as they walked by, and the bugger bit me in the butt, tearing my pants. i was somewhat in the wrong and had my hand above the head of the dog instead of the more friendly way under their chin. 

Come to think of it i have actually met quite a few pit bulls (again though pit bull isn't really a breed, but people would likely lump these dogs in that group). Have probably had about 8 in my house (we adopted one, and my wife and i have fostered dogs and there are 7 i can remember as pit bulls). can honestly say i have never run into a situation with any of them where they seemed particularly aggressive or violent. and i used to take my dogs to dog parks daily, and can say i can't remember a time when a "pit bull" was aggressive or out of line (dog or human). i have seen other dogs (aggressive toward other dogs, not really humans).

i will also say my experience does not represent the country as a whole. We live in a nice neighborhood, and i would bet that more than 95% of the people/families that own the pit bulls here have trained them well and are responsible owners. There was one pit bull we used to see when we walked that the owners would always cross the street and never let that particular dog interact with other dogs, but that seemed specific to that individual dog and its experiences. never saw any aggression or anything, but it seemed that the dog had some issues. 

My wife and I both work in human services field in Philadelphia, and my wife has worked in plenty of crappy homes with pit bulls. and she is the first to say these pit bulls are much more like the ones in the stories in this thread. But it isn't the fault of the breed why the dogs are the way they are, it is because those owners make it a point to not socialize their dogs (because they don't want the dog to be friendly to other people, they want the dog to be protective of their home). this is obviously faulty thinking (makes the dog unpredictable and not friendly with anybody, even owners). Another client she worked with had a pit bull, and when the pit bull came up to see my wife the mother in the home beat the dog with a yard stick (didn't want the dog to bother my wife). As a behaviorist, it is obvious that this particular dog learns that to associate approaching people with getting hit, and likely fear/fear aggression. 

Sorry this was long-winded, but i do like these types of conversations. happy to answer any questions. 

 

[seahawk 17]

I just think some things are black and white. Pit Bulls are bad news.

 

[GilbertGrape]

I just think some things are black and white. Pit Bulls are bad news.

I think Pit Bulls are usually ok until they eat Grandma/the Baby/an innocent passerby. But then it's the owners fault. I guess. 

 

[steelerfan1]

More worried about results then combine measurements.

So if the result is death then, we can agree that  death is death, correct?

I'd still like to get your answer on this if you're willing?

 

[Dedfin]

 i don't think pit bulls are more likely to attack than golden retrievers.

I think the math of Joe's question makes the significance nonsensical.  Let's say there are 3 million pit bulls that account for 30 deaths.  Let's say there are 5 million golden retrievers that account for 5 deaths.  So .001% of pitbulls kill and .0001% of golden retrievers kill*.  What's the meaning of that?  They are both approaching zero.  Where is the meaningful here?

*Please check this, I might have incorporated MOP pizzamath somehow

 

[steelerfan1]

Thanks. Let's throw out aggression towards other other dogs than and just focus on aggression towards humans.

Is it fair to say you feel the average Pit Bull is no more likely to attack or maul a person than a Golden Retriever is? 

Hi Joe,

Forgive me, but curiosity is getting the better of me. I don't believe I've ever saw you in this thread before. Pro or Anti, it's a welcome to get people who can share respectful views (At least most of the time anyway).

Why the sudden interest if you don't mind? A family member get one? You don't like them? You're curious what the heck could 90+ pages be about?

Thanks for any insight.

 

[-jb-]

Steelerfan, using Joe’s scale, if a lab is a 1, and a pit is a (revised) 3, what is a 10?  I need to stay the #### away from that one.

 

[Dedfin]

Steelerfan, using Joe’s scale, if a lab is a 1, and a pit is a (revised) 3, what is a 10?  I need to stay the #### away from that one.

Komodo dragon

 

[steelerfan1]

Steelerfan, using Joe’s scale, if a lab is a 1, and a pit is a (revised) 3, what is a 10?  I need to stay the #### away from that one.

Hi jb, Joe's question was the average. I'm guessing now that I have been around quite a few average pitbulls for the last 25 years. If there are 5 million with less than a half percent of those attacking what number would be better? I really don't know. I based a number on my experiences and with a temperament test for a stability factor, which may or may not be a good gauge. 

 

[steelerfan1]

Komodo dragon

Plus the chances of getting salmonella with the lizard makes it a dual threat...

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi Joe,

Forgive me, but curiosity is getting the better of me. I don't believe I've ever saw you in this thread before. Pro or Anti, it's a welcome to get people who can share respectful views (At least most of the time anyway).

Why the sudden interest if you don't mind? A family member get one? You don't like them? You're curious what the heck could 90+ pages be about?

Thanks for any insight.





2

Thanks Steelerfan,

The interest was a combo of most all those. Something was reported about the thread and I was drawn to it. I'm a dog lover and have had lots of different breeds and mutts over the last 30 years as an adult.

I had always been 100% rooted in the "it's 100% about how the dog is raised. There aren't bad dogs, there are bad people who abuse or don't raise a dog properly and they create bad dogs". 

A Rhodesian Ridgeback changed that for me. My friend who's a vet strongly advised me not to get one. I did anyway. Excellent breeder and raised him from 9 weeks. I'm not super hardcore into dog training but know a good bit. Well versed in the different training styles and such. I'd put myself as easily above average dog owner. I laughed off the "protection / aggressive stuff about Ridgebacks. At 1 year old, I had an awesome dog that was my best friend. And if another person got between me and him, he'd bare his teeth and growl. He never had any sort of protection or guard dog type training. I raised him exactly like I'd raised my other dogs. 

I was floored. Couldn't believe it. He snapped at my wife one day when she was between me and the dog. It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog. Sending him back to the breeder was a tough decision. But with at the time 4 kids in my house under 12, I felt I had no choice. 

What this told me in no uncertain terms was some breeds are WAY more naturally and inherently aggressive than others. 

I've since seen this with several other dogs I've owned, We have a small bit of property and we often have multiple dogs. Lots of rescue / strays over the years. I've seen a dramatic difference among those dogs in respect to how likely they would be to attack a person. 

I've also personally experienced plenty of dogs that are thought to be "aggressive" breeds be completely fine. I have a good friend with a Doberman that's completely chill. Another friend with two pit bull mixes that both seem like excellent dogs. 

But I've personally experienced the Nature over Nuture among different breeds when they were raised the exact same way. 

I"m not sure what that means in a practical sense. I'm not in favor or exterminating a breed. But based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree all breeds are the same when it comes to how likely they are to attack a person.

 

[mr roboto]

Steelerfan, using Joe’s scale, if a lab is a 1, and a pit is a (revised) 3, what is a 10?  I need to stay the #### away from that one.

Hippopotamus. 

 

[mr roboto]

Thanks Steelerfan,

The interest was a combo of most all those. Something was reported about the thread and I was drawn to it. I'm a dog lover and have had lots of different breeds and mutts over the last 30 years as an adult.

I had always been 100% rooted in the "it's 100% about how the dog is raised. There aren't bad dogs, there are bad people who abuse or don't raise a dog properly and they create bad dogs". 

A Rhodesian Ridgeback changed that for me. My friend who's a vet strongly advised me not to get one. I did anyway. Excellent breeder and raised him from 9 weeks. I'm not super hardcore into dog training but know a good bit. Well versed in the different training styles and such. I'd put myself as easily above average dog owner. I laughed off the "protection / aggressive stuff about Ridgebacks. At 1 year old, I had an awesome dog that was my best friend. And if another person got between me and him, he'd bare his teeth and growl. He never had any sort of protection or guard dog type training. I raised him exactly like I'd raised my other dogs. 

I was floored. Couldn't believe it. He snapped at my wife one day when she was between me and the dog. It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog. Sending him back to the breeder was a tough decision. But with at the time 4 kids in my house under 12, I felt I had no choice. 

What this told me in no uncertain terms was some breeds are WAY more naturally and inherently aggressive than others. 

I've since seen this with several other dogs I've owned, We have a small bit of property and we often have multiple dogs. Lots of rescue / strays over the years. I've seen a dramatic difference among those dogs in respect to how likely they would be to attack a person. 

I've also personally experienced plenty of dogs that are thought to be "aggressive" breeds be completely fine. I have a good friend with a Doberman that's completely chill. Another friend with two pit bull mixes that both seem like excellent dogs. 

But I've personally experienced the Nature over Nuture among different breeds when they were raised the exact same way. 

I"m not sure what that means in a practical sense. I'm not in favor or exterminating a breed. But based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree all breeds are the same when it comes to how likely they are to attack a person.

Of course there are. That’s literally the only reason to have selective breeding. To pick/enhance traits, both physical and temperamental. 

Some dogs are bred to retrieve. Some to track. Some to dig and burrow. Some to herd. Some to guard and protect. 

Not sure why anyone would think nature is 0%. 

 

[Thorn]

It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog.

This is the beginning and the end for me.  I don't care much whether it's bad owner, "bad" breed, it's a matter of degree when the dog does bite.  One is a band aid or maybe a tetanus shot, the other is a morgue.

Edit: I can't say I'm for exterminating any breed either, that's likely impossible to enforce.  But choosing a dog with the power to kill seems nuts to me.

 

[-jb-]

Hi jb, Joe's question was the average. I'm guessing now that I have been around quite a few average pitbulls for the last 25 years. If there are 5 million with less than a half percent of those attacking what number would be better? I really don't know. I based a number on my experiences and with a temperament test for a stability factor, which may or may not be a good gauge. 

Yep, I get the “on average” part. My question is what breed, on average, would rank a 10 in your mind?  Without a 10 on the scale, the other numbers (1 for lab, 3 for pit) don’t mean anything.  Otherwise, all we really have is a scale of 1 to 3. 

 

[DallasDMac]

Of course there are. That’s literally the only reason to have selective breeding. To pick/enhance traits, both physical and temperamental. 

Some dogs are bred to retrieve. Some to track. Some to dig and burrow. Some to herd. Some to guard and protect. 

Not sure why anyone would think nature is 0%. 

Then you haven't been paying attention to this thread. There are numerous examples of people thinking exactly this way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Then you haven't been paying attention to this thread. There are numerous examples of people thinking exactly this way.

And it's cool to have different opinions. That's what we're doing here. 

To get a pulse on what the board thinks, I threw up the question here https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764193-pit-bull-poll/

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Of course there are. That’s literally the only reason to have selective breeding. To pick/enhance traits, both physical and temperamental. 

Some dogs are bred to retrieve. Some to track. Some to dig and burrow. Some to herd. Some to guard and protect. 

Not sure why anyone would think nature is 0%. 

Exactly. Heck, its been done with humans.

 

[steelerfan1]

Thanks Steelerfan,

The interest was a combo of most all those. Something was reported about the thread and I was drawn to it. I'm a dog lover and have had lots of different breeds and mutts over the last 30 years as an adult.

I had always been 100% rooted in the "it's 100% about how the dog is raised. There aren't bad dogs, there are bad people who abuse or don't raise a dog properly and they create bad dogs". 

A Rhodesian Ridgeback changed that for me. My friend who's a vet strongly advised me not to get one. I did anyway. Excellent breeder and raised him from 9 weeks. I'm not super hardcore into dog training but know a good bit. Well versed in the different training styles and such. I'd put myself as easily above average dog owner. I laughed off the "protection / aggressive stuff about Ridgebacks. At 1 year old, I had an awesome dog that was my best friend. And if another person got between me and him, he'd bare his teeth and growl. He never had any sort of protection or guard dog type training. I raised him exactly like I'd raised my other dogs. 

I was floored. Couldn't believe it. He snapped at my wife one day when she was between me and the dog. It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog. Sending him back to the breeder was a tough decision. But with at the time 4 kids in my house under 12, I felt I had no choice. 

What this told me in no uncertain terms was some breeds are WAY more naturally and inherently aggressive than others. 

I've since seen this with several other dogs I've owned, We have a small bit of property and we often have multiple dogs. Lots of rescue / strays over the years. I've seen a dramatic difference among those dogs in respect to how likely they would be to attack a person. 

I've also personally experienced plenty of dogs that are thought to be "aggressive" breeds be completely fine. I have a good friend with a Doberman that's completely chill. Another friend with two pit bull mixes that both seem like excellent dogs. 

But I've personally experienced the Nature over Nuture among different breeds when they were raised the exact same way. 

I"m not sure what that means in a practical sense. I'm not in favor or exterminating a breed. But based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree all breeds are the same when it comes to how likely they are to attack a person.

Hi Joe, Thanks for sharing.

I used to subscribe to the it's how they are bred and raised, but I've changed my position about that over time.

As you gave your example of you getting a well bred dog as a pup and provided a good home, it didn't stop a potential bad outcome.

The flip side is there are several dogs who have been neglected, not bred well who you think would be bad dogs and they make a great dog. I believe 1 of our current dogs, yes, a pit bull would fit here.

I miss @Genedoc here. He seemed to be a good person to maybe explore deeper why.

I believe some breeds may be more prone to show aggression as well, but as you stated,  your friends Doberman and pit bulls seem like good dogs.

I think handling things on an individual basis rather than abolishing something is a more logical answer myself.

Thanks again for getting involved in the thread.

 

[steelerfan1]

Yep, I get the “on average” part. My question is what breed, on average, would rank a 10 in your mind?  Without a 10 on the scale, the other numbers (1 for lab, 3 for pit) don’t mean anything.  Otherwise, all we really have is a scale of 1 to 3. 

Hi jb, 

Of course to get an accurate ranking would be quite extensive research of numbers that I'm not prepared to do to be honest, but going off the cuff, ten for me would be a Fila Brasileiro and Ovcharka.

 

[modogg]

Thanks Steelerfan,

The interest was a combo of most all those. Something was reported about the thread and I was drawn to it. I'm a dog lover and have had lots of different breeds and mutts over the last 30 years as an adult.

I had always been 100% rooted in the "it's 100% about how the dog is raised. There aren't bad dogs, there are bad people who abuse or don't raise a dog properly and they create bad dogs". 

A Rhodesian Ridgeback changed that for me. My friend who's a vet strongly advised me not to get one. I did anyway. Excellent breeder and raised him from 9 weeks. I'm not super hardcore into dog training but know a good bit. Well versed in the different training styles and such. I'd put myself as easily above average dog owner. I laughed off the "protection / aggressive stuff about Ridgebacks. At 1 year old, I had an awesome dog that was my best friend. And if another person got between me and him, he'd bare his teeth and growl. He never had any sort of protection or guard dog type training. I raised him exactly like I'd raised my other dogs. 

I was floored. Couldn't believe it. He snapped at my wife one day when she was between me and the dog. It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog. Sending him back to the breeder was a tough decision. But with at the time 4 kids in my house under 12, I felt I had no choice. 

What this told me in no uncertain terms was some breeds are WAY more naturally and inherently aggressive than others. 

I've since seen this with several other dogs I've owned, We have a small bit of property and we often have multiple dogs. Lots of rescue / strays over the years. I've seen a dramatic difference among those dogs in respect to how likely they would be to attack a person. 

I've also personally experienced plenty of dogs that are thought to be "aggressive" breeds be completely fine. I have a good friend with a Doberman that's completely chill. Another friend with two pit bull mixes that both seem like excellent dogs. 

But I've personally experienced the Nature over Nuture among different breeds when they were raised the exact same way. 

I"m not sure what that means in a practical sense. I'm not in favor or exterminating a breed. But based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree all breeds are the same when it comes to how likely they are to attack a person.

i might be remembering inaccurately, but i believe Rhodesian Ridgebacks were bred to hunt lions  . Sucks about your experience though, glad it wasn't worse

 

[Joe Bryant]

i might be remembering inaccurately, but i believe Rhodesian Ridgebacks were bred to hunt lions  . Sucks about your experience though, glad it wasn't worse

Yes. They are incredible dogs. They are hounds originally meant for hunting and treeing lions. So bred to be super athletic and tough. 

 

[seahawk 17]

I think Pit Bulls are usually ok until they eat Grandma/the Baby/an innocent passerby. But then it's the owners fault. I guess. 

http://katu.com/news/local/five-year-old-bitten-by-pit-bull-at-pdx

 

[DallasDMac]

http://katu.com/news/local/five-year-old-bitten-by-pit-bull-at-pdx

Thank god you aren't allowed to ask to prove that it is a service animal because it might upset someone. As for leaving a pit out of it's carrier in an airport environment, glad to see they at least pressed charges. This moron shouldn't be allowed to be responsible for an animal.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Thanks Steelerfan,

The interest was a combo of most all those. Something was reported about the thread and I was drawn to it. I'm a dog lover and have had lots of different breeds and mutts over the last 30 years as an adult.

I had always been 100% rooted in the "it's 100% about how the dog is raised. There aren't bad dogs, there are bad people who abuse or don't raise a dog properly and they create bad dogs". 

A Rhodesian Ridgeback changed that for me. My friend who's a vet strongly advised me not to get one. I did anyway. Excellent breeder and raised him from 9 weeks. I'm not super hardcore into dog training but know a good bit. Well versed in the different training styles and such. I'd put myself as easily above average dog owner. I laughed off the "protection / aggressive stuff about Ridgebacks. At 1 year old, I had an awesome dog that was my best friend. And if another person got between me and him, he'd bare his teeth and growl. He never had any sort of protection or guard dog type training. I raised him exactly like I'd raised my other dogs. 

I was floored. Couldn't believe it. He snapped at my wife one day when she was between me and the dog. It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog. Sending him back to the breeder was a tough decision. But with at the time 4 kids in my house under 12, I felt I had no choice. 

What this told me in no uncertain terms was some breeds are WAY more naturally and inherently aggressive than others. 

I've since seen this with several other dogs I've owned, We have a small bit of property and we often have multiple dogs. Lots of rescue / strays over the years. I've seen a dramatic difference among those dogs in respect to how likely they would be to attack a person. 

I've also personally experienced plenty of dogs that are thought to be "aggressive" breeds be completely fine. I have a good friend with a Doberman that's completely chill. Another friend with two pit bull mixes that both seem like excellent dogs. 

But I've personally experienced the Nature over Nuture among different breeds when they were raised the exact same way. 

I"m not sure what that means in a practical sense. I'm not in favor or exterminating a breed. But based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree all breeds are the same when it comes to how likely they are to attack a person.

You don’t raise a Ridgeback the same way you raise a lab. I’m not being a Smart aleck here but I see numerous reasons your experience with the ridgeback didn’t go so well. With a dog like that you have to commit a lot of time working with them, especially in the beginning.

Now I with you in that most dogs, even a lot of ridgebacks do fall in line even without the strict training but there are certain breeds and more specifically, just certain dogs that need that structure and hierarchy.

With your experience with dogs m sure you already know that In this case you were the boss but your ridgeback saw your wife as beneath the two of you. You would always have to be near to keep your dog in check. 

Ultimatly, training or no training, some dogs are just jerks. 

 

[steelerfan1]

You don’t raise a Ridgeback the same way you raise a lab. I’m not being a Smart aleck here but I see numerous reasons your experience with the ridgeback didn’t go so well. With a dog like that you have to commit a lot of time working with them, especially in the beginning.

Now I with you in that most dogs, even a lot of ridgebacks do fall in line even without the strict training but there are certain breeds and more specifically, just certain dogs that need that structure and hierarchy.

With your experience with dogs m sure you already know that In this case you were the boss but your ridgeback saw your wife as beneath the two of you. You would always have to be near to keep your dog in check. 

Ultimatly, training or no training, some dogs are just jerks. 

This is a valid point as well.

The dog we rescued last year went through a 3 week integration period with us. It let him get a sense of the hierarchy and to see how we interacted with our other dogs and to let him know that he depends on us to eat, drink, go outside, etc.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

This is a valid point as well.

The dog we rescued last year went through a 3 week integration period with us. It let him get a sense of the hierarchy and to see how we interacted with our other dogs and to let him know that he depends on us to eat, drink, go outside, etc.

Yes, especially true with rescues - I always warn people that the dog you meet at the shelter is NOT the dog they are. It takes about 2-3 weeks before a dog can relax. 

 

[GROOT]

Yes, especially true with rescues - I always warn people that the dog you meet at the shelter is NOT the dog they are. It takes about 2-3 weeks before a dog can relax. 

Same with women you just meet at the bar

 

[steelerfeever]

A different take....my wife manages an injury claims unit for a Top 5 insurance carrier.  Her unit handles everything from horrible car accidents to dog bites.  She shows me photos and continually tells me that of all the dog bite claims her unit receives and investigates, 90% are pit bulls or have pit bull mix.  We consequently don’t allow our kids around them, no matter how well adjusted they seem to be.  Numbers don’t lie.

 

[Wildcat]

Three year year old mauled and killed

 

[Ignoramus]

Three year year old mauled and killed

Doesn't mention the breed. I'm assuming it was a schnauzer?

 

[eoMMan]

Doesn't mention the breed. I'm assuming it was a schnauzer?

They owned the dog for 5 days, fwiw. 

 

[bigbottom]

They owned the dog for 5 days, fwiw. 

Every dog is owned for five days at some point. That was the point I raised upthread in response to people who had owned a pit for many years and were confident that they weren’t a threat. At some point, however, they didn’t own their dog for many years. They owned the dog for just five days and had no idea about their propensity for violence. I myself wouldn’t want to bring that risk into my home, especially if I had kids. 

 

[otb_lifer]

Three year year old mauled and killed

:(

can't even begin to imagine that level of gut-wrenching horror. may that angel rest in eternal peace. 

oh, and  #### this #### all to hell - sickening to see this #### over and over. 

 

[eoMMan]

Every dog is owned for five days at some point. 

But when the article quotes the family as saying "had never done anything strange and had been playing with his son the day before the attack"....the never done anything part is meaningless, right?  They definitely didn't know this dog well and his/her behaviors. That was my point.  They are letting a very powerful animal that they don't know well play with their kids.  

Sad story for sure, though.

 

[bigbottom]

But when the article quotes the family as saying "had never done anything strange and had been playing with his son the day before the attack"....the never done anything part is meaningless, right?  They definitely didn't know this dog well and his/her behaviors. That was my point.  They are letting a very powerful animal that they don't know well play with their kids.  

Sad story for sure, though.

Agreed. Very sad. 

 

[Wildcat]

Doesn't mention the breed. I'm assuming it was a schnauzer?

"The dog, Remington, is a pit bull which they had only owned for five days"

 

[AAABatteries]

But when the article quotes the family as saying "had never done anything strange and had been playing with his son the day before the attack"....the never done anything part is meaningless, right?  They definitely didn't know this dog well and his/her behaviors. That was my point.  They are letting a very powerful animal that they don't know well play with their kids.  

Sad story for sure, though.

And to bb's point - many of these dogs are in the state of someone not knowing his/her behaviors at some point during their life.  They are dangerous - you can argue all you want but the repeated stories of these dogs attacking/mauling/killing isn't something that we are fabricating.  These are real people losing their life so people can have a pet.  I continue to applaud any community, city, state or other that ban the breed.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A different take....my wife manages an injury claims unit for a Top 5 insurance carrier.  Her unit handles everything from horrible car accidents to dog bites.  She shows me photos and continually tells me that of all the dog bite claims her unit receives and investigates, 90% are pit bulls or have pit bull mix.  We consequently don’t allow our kids around them, no matter how well adjusted they seem to be.  Numbers don’t lie.