You're viewing a single thread.
Properly raised "aggressive breed" dogs. Pitbulls are the goofiest, most loving and loyal dogs I've ever met when they're raised properly. Doberman Pinschers aren't very goofy, but they're pretty needy, loving, and loyal, preferring to lean against their family at all times.
Bears in the wild, or the wild in general. Yes bears and other predators can easily kill you if they want, but they almost always don't want to. They'll run from you well before you know they're there. I've been going backpacking in the high country wilderness my entire life and have never had an altercation with a bear, cougar, coyote, or wolf. Follow proper procedures when you're in their home (the wilderness), and they'll leave you alone.
"The dog bred to point is pointing at a leaf, haha.
The dog bred to fight fought another dog, it must not have been raised right."
Just get a dog that has been bred for companionship if it's going to be a house dog and save the heartache.
No
I understand, most pitbull owners don't change their mind until blood has been spilled. I've seen it firsthand several times and these dogs were not being mistreated.
For other people, please look into dog breeds natural ability. Nurture will get you a well behaved dog but some have nature hardwired into them and it takes mountains of training to get it out of them. There are different breeds for a reason and it's not just for looks. Just get the dog breed that fits your lifestyle.
I don't own a pitbull, but I have friends that own them, and they're the silliest, goofiest, most loving dogs. I have a Doberman though, and he's incredibly well behaved and polite. He will only get rowdy with me, and no one else. He obeys on command, and is very gentle and sweet. He's definitely higher energy than most people can handle, and strong as fuck, so training is important, as is being strong yourself. I did a year's worth of research on breeds before deciding a Doberman is the right breed for us. He's the perfect amount of independent, watchful, intelligent, inquisitive, energetic, and adventurous for my lifestyle. We go for a 3 mile hike in the mountains every day where he gets the exercise he needs, and we work on mental stimulation like nose work and obedience training often. He goes everywhere with me and is the perfect gentleman. But he's a powerful, high-energy, intelligent dog, so definitely not the right choice for most people.
Edit: pitbulls are prone towards dog aggression though, which is in their nature. That's why it's critical to socialize them extensively when they're young. It's very easy to cure them of that if you are intentional about introducing them to lots of other dogs, cats, kids, and people when they're still puppies. They're a lot harder to train into trustworthy dogs if they don't get early socialization, and most dog owners are not very good about ensuring their dog gets proper socialization at the proper age.
The AVMA documented 66 human fatalities caused by pit bull type dogs, 39 by Rottweilers, 17 by German shepherds, 15 by husky type dogs, 12 by Malamutes, 9 by Dobermann Pinschers, 8 by Chow Chows, 7 by Great Danes, and 7 by St. Bernard dogs.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation
And if you think the numbers are skewed due to popularity...
Top 10 Dog Breeds of 2023
It’s no surprise to dog lovers that the Frenchie remains in the No. 1 spot, and the rest of the top five breeds follow a similar pattern. Same as 2022, the Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, German Shepherd Dog, and Poodle are ranked No. 2-5 respectively.
There’s some shuffling in the top 10 from 2022 to 2023. The Dachshund is making moves, jumping from the No. 9 spot in 2022 to the No. 6 spot in 2023. Rottweilers took their spot at No. 9 in 2023, moving down from No. 7 in 2022. Bulldogs went from No. 6 in 2022 to No. 7 in 2023. The Beagle remains at No. 8, and the German Shorthaired Pointer remains at No. 10 with no change in rank.
"Properly raised". Of course a strong animal with sharp teeth who is abused, neglected, or forced to fight for its life in illegal dog fighting rings is going to be aggressive.
What about the pitbulls that were raised properly and then attacked anyway?
There are always exceptions, there are also Labradors or whatever race you want to name that were raised properly and attacked anyways. But as a general rule the life that a dog led is the deciding factor, a Labrador mistreated and made to fight others will have a lot more chance of attacking someone than a pitbull who's been raised in an apartment chilling on the sofa with kids.
I've had almost every races considered dangerous, and never ever have one of my dogs attacked anyone. I have home movies of me as a kid using a great dane as a horse, wrestling a German shepherd, and sleeping in the same bed as a doberman, and the only time in my life I was bit by a dog it was a miniature pinscher.
Dogs are rational beings, they can be taught, claiming a race is more aggressive than others because it's responsible for more bites to humans, without considering that it's also more popular by the people who are assholes to their dogs and mistreat them until they become aggressive is akin to claiming that black humans are more aggressive than white humans because statistically more violent crime is committed by blacks without taking into consideration the social and historical differences that created a scenario in which a disproportionate amount of the marginalized society is black. Just like how it's not a race problem with humans it's the same for dogs, you're completely ignoring the environment in which each individual being was brought up, which has a lot more influence in the aggressiveness outcome, and trying to cast judgement on the race as a whole, in short you're being racist. Put on any other individual of any other race through the same ordeal and you're likely to get the same outcome in average.
That's not a "general rule" based on the statistics. Which you try to excuse by saying "all pitbulls have shitty owners therefore they all bite more and kill a shitload of people despite being less populous than other breeds". Except statistics doesn't work that way, not with a large sample, such as "the entire breed of dogs". So according to statistics with a huge sample size, pitbulls are more deadly than any other breed.
Your argument about human race and trying to somehow equate some sort of "dog racism" is ridiculous and I won't even dignify that with a response.
Here's your argument summarized:
When considering the whole sample size of all dogs in a given area, pitbulls are statistically abnormally dangerous because despite being less populous that other races they are responsible for a large amount of the killings caused by dogs.
Is that your argument? Or am I misinterpreting?
Assuming that is your argument, you're correct in saying that, but what you don't understand is that "statistically abnormally dangerous" is not the same as dangerous or aggressive. You're forgetting one of the most important rules in statistics: Correlation does not imply causation. You have a correlation between dog races and violence, and your conclusion is that the race causes the violence, ignoring all other possible explanations for why it could be that there's a correlation there, for example my example of "some people who mistreat dogs prefer pitbulls, therefore pitbulls are statistically abnormally mistreated".
Following a couple links from the Wikipedia page on list of fatalities by dogs you will find this quote:
Breed is not an accurate predictor of whether or not a dog will bite.
Which links to this, in which you can find this quote about pitbulls:
controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous (...) owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.
Which is very similar to the point I'm trying to make, remember correlation does not imply causation, that is a very slippery slope that anyone with a basic understanding of statistics knows.