# Weird Story of the Day



## David Baxter PhD

Man bites dog biting dog
CBC News 
Monday, September 28, 2009 

It's a true-to-life case of man bites dog.

A Saskatoon man says he unleashed his inner canine in order to stop a wandering pit bull terrier from attacking his neighbour's dog about two weeks ago.

In a Sept. 24 interview, Jonathon Schacher said he heard a scream outside his home and looked outside to see the pit bull and the other dog entangled.

He said he ran outside and tried to pull the aggressive dog off the other, but the pit bull had its jaw locked around his neighbour dog's muzzle.

He tried yanking the pit bull off, but Schacher said that didn't work.

Trying to pry its jaw open didn't work either.

"I could just feel I needed to so something, and so I bit the dog right on the nose," he said.

He said the pit bull yelped in pain and he was able to pull on its jowls to give up his attack on the other animal.

Amazingly, the pit bull turned meek, Schacher said.

"He just sat down and his tail started wagging, and then I let go of him." But that's not all. Schacher said the dog licked him on the face, seemingly in supplication.

Schacher's neighbour told CBC News the pit bull left the neighbourhood following the incident.


----------



## Banned

I really don't like how they identify breeds in bite cases.  All we hear about are the pitbulls, Rottweillers, and Dobermans, but statistically, mixed breeds deliver far more bites per year than purebreds.  Plus, what most people don't realize is that "pitbull" is a generic word that applies to numerous dogs within the terrier family - American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Bulldog, and others.  

*End of dog-trainer rant*


----------



## Jazzey

Every pit bull I've ever encountered has always been very affectionate.  Turtle, do you think that has to do with how they're trained maybe?


----------



## Banned

"Way back when" they were trained to fight to the death in the pits.  And, as we know from the Michael Vick horrors, that still occurs today, sadly.  

However, every breed of dog has the potential to be aggressive and deadly.  While we can attribute a very small portion of that potential to breeding and genetics, certainly proper training and socialization will go miles in ensuring a well-rounded and happy dog.  

Part of the problem, I think, is the stereotypes of the type of people that get pitties - the big tough macho man that wants a protector dog.

Dogs are great fodder for the whole nature vs nurture debate.  

There are so many variables that make a dog a great pet.  There are just as many variables that make the dog a liability.


----------



## Banned

Also, I've had lots of pitties come through my classes and have never had a problem.  The dogs I've had to ask to leave are the Jack Russells, the Heelers, and a couple Shepherds.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

HA-HA-HA!

I love that AdSense Bot. In case you missed it, I'm typing this reply below a Google ad that says, "Sick of your dog's BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS? Aggression? Whining? Chewing? click here" 

Getting back to pit bulls, I think a lot of them are either Jehovah's Witnesses or in the NDP...


----------



## NicNak

Turtle mentioned, the Jack Russels,  I have met were more vicious (in my opinion) than any "Pitbull" or Rottie, that I have ever came across.  

The "Pitbulls", larger breed bull terriors, and Rotties I have met would drown someone with slobbery wet, kisses before biting someone.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

NicNak said:


> The "Pitbulls", larger breed bull terriors, and Rotties I have met would drown someone with slobbery wet, kisses before biting someone.



The problem is not that they are always aggressive or that they're never affectionate. The problem is that certain breeds were selectively bred for aggression and they are unpredictable. You never know when those slobbery wet kisses are going to turn to bloody jaws clamped like a vise on your face.


----------



## Andy

LOL There are so many things wrong with this story. lol 

First of all I wonder which one of the dogs developed the ability to scream? I suppose that would attract more attention than a plain old "woof".

What kind of stupid pills did this man take? Why would you put your face down towards an aggressive dogs face? A lot of people are getting plastic surgery these days but this is just going to far.

Of course last of all. Why would you put your face in a previously aggressive dogs face, after you have bitten him, to get some kisses? 

Where is that Darwin award?


----------



## Banned

I think he's definitely a candidate for a future Darwin award, STP.

I work with dogs professionally, all day, every day.  I don't put my face in any dogs face.  And these are dogs I know.  It's just dumb on so many levels.  If the guy had gotten nailed, or the dog redirected his bite to dude's face, well, he totally would have deserved it and I would be lacking in the sympathy department.


----------



## Eye Stigmata

I agree with all of Turtle's statements...

And I also think too that it's not right to put a stereotype on certain breeds...I think when it really comes down to it, any canine regardless of size, breed, training etc, will/can react right down to their canine roots...where I'm going with this is : Let's say a Rotti reacts out of fear and bites someone...due to whatever circumstance, people will respond and say...oh well no wonder, it's a Rotti. But if the exact same scenario happens and it's a Golden Ret or Lab, people will say, WOW that's so out of character blah blah blah. Whereas I think both dogs could have reacted based on uncontrolled instant responses.
It's peoples attitudes/judgements behind so much of this "breed blaming"....

Uh...sorry if none of that made sense...I'm tired.....but It made sense in my head...lol


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Eye Stigmata said:


> I agree with all of Turtle's statements...
> 
> And I also think too that it's not right to put a stereotype on certain breeds...I think when it really comes down to it, any canine regardless of size, breed, training etc, will/can react right down to their canine roots...where I'm going with this is : Let's say a Rotti reacts out of fear and bites someone...due to whatever circumstance, people will respond and say...oh well no wonder, it's a Rotti. But if the exact same scenario happens and it's a Golden Ret or Lab, people will say, WOW that's so out of character blah blah blah. Whereas I think both dogs could have reacted based on uncontrolled instant responses.
> It's peoples attitudes/judgements behind so much of this "breed blaming"....
> 
> Uh...sorry if none of that made sense...I'm tired.....but It made sense in my head...lol



And I have to disagree with it.

Of course, given the right circumstances, any dog can become aggressive, just as any human can become aggressive given the right combination of circumstances.

But as I said above, certain breeds are far more likely to attack and to do so unpredictably, without warning, because they have been deliberately and selectively bred over the years for exactly those characteristics. To deny that seems foolish to me. 

Greyhounds were built to run. Would you deny that they exhibit those traits? Other dogs were bred specifically for hunting, pointing, retrieving, etc. They exhibit those traits. They do so because they are genetically predisposed to do so through selective breeding.

Some dogs


----------



## Eye Stigmata

I'm not pinning this down to certain breeds, all I'm saying is that any dog in the world has the potential...ANY potential to react... I'm not getting into statistics of which or what dogs are more or less likely. I was just saying that....any dog has the potential to react, but PEOPLE assume that just because one "Rotti" attacks that suddenly it means all Rotti's are 'aggressive' 'vicious', and whatever else - Thus leading to breed stereotypes...
Geez - Look at what's happened in so many cites. Ontario has an all Pitbull ban....New Brunswick passed a Law, banning Pitbulls, AM Bull Terries, Rotti's and Akita's. It's totally ridiculous...


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Eye Stigmata said:


> I'm not pinning this down to certain breeds, all I'm saying is that any dog in the world has the potential...ANY potential to react... I'm not getting into statistics of which or what dogs are more or less likely.



But that's just dodging the issue. The facts are as I stated: Those breeds that were intentionally and systematically bred for aggression are statistically more likely to attack and are responsible for a high proportion of all attacks by dogs.



Eye Stigmata said:


> I was just saying that....any dog has the potential to react, but PEOPLE assume that just because one "Rotti" attacks that suddenly it means all Rotti's are 'aggressive' 'vicious', and whatever else - Thus leading to breed stereotypes...



They are not just stereotypes. They were bred for that purpose.



Eye Stigmata said:


> Look at what's happened in so many cites. Ontario has an all Pitbull ban....New Brunswick passed a Law, banning Pitbulls, AM Bull Terries, Rotti's and Akita's. It's totally ridiculous...



Not at all. There's a reason they've banned those breeds. Research the statistics on dog attacks.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

DOG BITE LAW - Statistics about dog bites in the USA and elsewhere



> *The deadliest dogs*
> Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, _Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006_; click here to read it .) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
> 
> According to the Clifton study, *pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question*. Clifton states:
> 
> _If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price. _​Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."



Dog attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A study by Merritt Clifton, which analyzed serious attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2006, determined that Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios, and their mixes were responsible for 74% of attacks studied and 65% of fatalities.[6][7] Another study indicates that pit bulls and their mixes were involved in approximately one third of the reported human dog bite-related fatalities between 1981 and 1992, while Rottweilers were responsible for about half of those fatalities reported between 1993 and 1996. [7]
> 
> Due to the pit bull-type breeds' perceived aggression, owning such an animal is not allowed in many European and Australasian countries and in several US and Canadian localities (see breed-specific legislation for details).



Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org



> *Dog bite deaths and maimings US and Canada (1982-2007)*
> By compiling US and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2007, Animal People News determined the types of breeds most responsible for death and serious injury.
> The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids:
> 
> 77% of attacks that induce bodily harm
> 73% of attacks to children
> 83% of attack to adults
> 70% of attacks that result in fatalities
> 77% that result in maiming
> Interesting fact about pit bulls:
> 
> Pit bulls attack adults nearly as often as they attack children, a characteristic not found in any other breed.





> *Dog bite fatalites in the US (1979-1998)*
> Researchers reviewed a 20-year period from 1979 to 1998 to determine the types of breeds most responsible for US dog bite fatalities.
> 
> At least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human dog bite related fatalities during this time span. Pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in over half of these fatalities and from 1997-1998, over 60%.
> Researchers note that it is extremely unlikely that pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 60% of dogs in US households during this period thus, there appeared to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.


----------



## Banned

Some of you may remember that many, many years ago, Dobermans were *the* breed to avoid.  They were known for their aggression.  They didn't even look nice, with their cropped ears and strong demeanour.

Breeders were breeding for aggression at that point.  

It became such a problem, that the kennel clubs (that award championship titles on dogs) changed their breed standard for the Doberman to state that a Doberman showing ANY sign of aggression is to be immediately excused.  

What happened?  Breeders had to start breeding for temperament, as well as looks.  Today, the Doberman is one of the friendliest breeds around, and are known to be great family dogs.  

There will always be puppy mills and backyard breeders who sadly, are still breeding the wrong dogs for the wrong reasons, and letting them go to the wrong homes.  Its those dogs who make a bad name for the entire breed.

I'm not in favour of breed-specific legislation, which is the hot topic in the dog world.  I *am*, however, in favour of putting more efford into ending puppy mills and backyard breeders, where the majority of the "bad dogs" come from.  And, potential homes for the "bully breeds" need to be screened much, much better to ensure the dogs go to proper homes.  But of course, puppy mills and backyard breeders don't care where their dogs go, as long as the person on their doorstep can pay for the dog.

<sigh>...


----------



## Jackie

David Baxter said:


> Getting back to pit bulls, I think a lot of them are either Jehovah's Witnesses or in the NDP...



Whats NDP? For some reason I thought of NLP

Never had trouble with pitbulls or staffs or anything, everyone I know with these dogs have dogs that are sweeties and very affection. I think its down to the way you treat them.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

shuttered3 said:


> Whats NDP? For some reason I thought of NLP



A Canadian political party.



shuttered3 said:


> Never had trouble with pitbulls or staffs or anything, everyone I know with these dogs have dogs that are sweeties and very affection. I think its down to the way you treat them.



No, not entirely. See the statistics above.


----------



## Jazzey

David Baxter said:


> And I have to disagree with it.
> 
> Of course, given the right circumstances, any dog can become aggressive, just as any human can become aggressive given the right combination of circumstances.
> 
> But as I said above, certain breeds are far more likely to attack and to do so unpredictably, without warning, because they have been deliberately and selectively bred over the years for exactly those characteristics. To deny that seems foolish to me.
> 
> Greyhounds were built to run. Would you deny that they exhibit those traits? Other dogs were bred specifically for hunting, pointing, retrieving, etc. They exhibit those traits. They do so because they are genetically predisposed to do so through selective breeding.
> 
> Some dogs



And unfortunately, with pure-breads, you have to be careful about not too much in-breading.  A few years ago I purchased a beautiful pure-bread. Unfortunately, he was extremely aggressive.  Even with me.  I eventually had to put him down after the veterinarian told me that, because of the in-breading, there was nothing to do with him - no amount of training was going to solve his aggression problems.  

That's why now I really promote getting dogs at the local pound.  

Darn...now I want a dog.


----------



## Banned

There is a bite assessment scale that determines how bad of a biter your dog is.

Level one - growling and air snaps
Level two - skin contact, bruising, no breakage of skin
Level three - breaking of the skin, less than 1/2 the depth of the canines, no tearing
Level four - breaking of the skin, deeper than 1/2 the depth of the canines, tearing of the skin
Level five - severe injury, multiple bites, multiple tears
Level six - the bite or attack caused the death of a person or animal

It's pretty much generally accepted by anyone who knows anything about aggression that pretty much a level four or higher is considered non-rehabilitable. A level three or under can usually be worked with and changed around _to a certain extent_. After level four, anyone with a brain will recommend euthanasia as the prognosis is extremely poor.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

> Level one - growling and air snaps



Is that the canine equivalent of air guitar?


----------



## Jazzey

Turtle said:


> There is a bite assessment scale that determines how bad of a biter your dog is.
> 
> Level one - growling and air snaps
> Level two - skin contact, bruising, no breakage of skin
> Level three - breaking of the skin, less than 1/2 the depth of the canines, no tearing
> Level four - breaking of the skin, deeper than 1/2 the depth of the canines, tearing of the skin
> Level five - severe injury, multiple bites, multiple tears
> Level six - the bite or attack caused the death of a person or animal
> 
> It's pretty much generally accepted by anyone who knows anything about aggression that pretty much a level four or higher is considered non-rehabilitable. A level three or under can usually be worked with and changed around _to a certain extent_. After level four, anyone with a brain will recommend euthanasia as the prognosis is extremely poor.



He was a level four...


----------



## Banned

There's no doubt you did the right thing, Jazzey.

My first dog had to be put down at 20 months for aggression, so I know the pain, doubt, and confusion all too well.  But, the night I euthanized him, I slept better than I had in almost two years because I never had to worry about him attacking another person, child, or me again.  It was hard, but I knew it was the right thing.  I just didn't know anything about having a dog, picked a really hard breed, didn't know the early warning signs, and things escalated.  Thankfully I'm much wiser now


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> Is that the canine equivalent of air guitar?


 
Er, sure, I suppose it can be.  In fact, I'll ask them to update the assessment list to include "If your dog begins playing air guitar at an early age it may be aggressive".


----------



## Banned

I just did a tonne of googling on "naturally aggressive dog breeds".  The jury is out.  Some websites state that some breeds are naturally aggressive.  Others state that it is not true that some breeds are naturally aggressive.  So, Dr. Baxter, Eye Stigmata, and myself, well, we're all right .

It is interesting and important to note, however, that the "dangerous breed list" is going to vary by country.  Pembroke Welsh Corgis used to be on the dangerous breed list in Italy.  They are no longer, but they used to be.  They would not even come close in other countries.  

At the end of the day, if you have a dog who is giving you warning signs at a young age, do not try to train or rehabilitate the dog yourself, ESPECIALLY using methods frequently seen on TV by some "trainers".  Remember that for every minute of footage they show on TV, there is another hour or so of "training" (and I use the term loosely) happening that they are not showing you.  You cannot learn to train a dog watching TV anymore than you can become a heart surgeon by watching TV.  Consult a certified professional who uses positive reinforcement and work through the problem properly. 

Wow, I could type pages on this...I'll stop now though.


----------



## Eye Stigmata

:sigh:  Amen...

:thankyou: Turtle


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Nonsense. I'ver also done the research. Saying "the jury is out" is like saying the jury is still out on evolution. It's only "still out" if you ignore the evidence.

The dogs were bred for aggression. They are responsible for a disproportionate number of serious attacks compared to other breeds. That has been demonstrated in one study after another. What's unclear about that?

Psychopaths have certain innate personality traits, too. They are responsible for a disproportionate number of homicides and violent crimes. That has been demonstrated in one study after another. Are you also going to claim the jury is still out on that?


----------



## Eye Stigmata

By stating that, then you are also stating that every single aggressive or violent trait of a psychopath gets passed down from generation to genration, and I don't believe there is 100% evidence to prove that this is true.
So - thus with dogs, yes some dogs were "bred" to be aggressive, but the dogs bred for aggression were also trained and used for aggression purpose on a daily basis...or whatever. 
And although some of those "bred lines" still exist today...many of them are not used for aggression purposes.
That's like saying every cattle dog is 100% perfect and automatically "trained" to be a herding dog...but we all know, without activly training these activites, a cattle dog may have no interest in "herding".
See where I'm going with this...
It's not fair to blame an entire breed on aggression when only a handful of dogs have shown aggression, and we don't know their past or how they were brought up.
I know people who are big tough guys and they have pitbulls or rotti's and they want their dog to be a big 'tough' dog and they egg the dog on to be tough. I also know people who are calm, quiet people who have acquired pitbulls or rotti's and the dogs show absolutly no sign of aggression, never have, and probably never will.

So...I think the jury is out on this one.
No one will ever 100% agree on one side, and no one will ever 100% be right. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the facts/evidence are not 100% to either side.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Eye Stigmata said:


> By stating that, then you are also stating that every single aggressive or violent trait of a psychopath gets passed down from generation to genration, and I don't believe there is 100% evidence to prove that this is true.



I don't believe I said that. Show me where?



Eye Stigmata said:


> yes some dogs were "bred" to be aggressive, but the dogs bred for aggression were also trained and used for aggression purpose on a daily basis...or whatever.



If it were only dogs that were trained and used for aggression that were committing the attacks, you might have a point. But that's clearly not the case. The majority of the attacks in question are family dogs who are kept as pets, not trained as attack dogs.



Eye Stigmata said:


> That's like saying every cattle dog is 100% perfect and automatically "trained" to be a herding dog...but we all know, without activly training these activites, a cattle dog may have no interest in "herding".



Are you trying to claim that "herd dogs" do not have instincts about herding? Or more generally that there are not genetically-based personalities to different breeds of dogs?



Eye Stigmata said:


> See where I'm going with this...



Yes. Nowhere fast.



Eye Stigmata said:


> It's not fair to blame an entire breed on aggression when only a handful of dogs have shown aggression, and we don't know their past or how they were brought up.



In fatal injuries, we often do know a lot about their past and we are not talking about animals used as guard dogs here - we are talking about family pets.



Eye Stigmata said:


> I know people who are big tough guys and they have pitbulls or rotti's and they want their dog to be a big 'tough' dog and they egg the dog on to be tough. I also know people who are calm, quiet people who have acquired pitbulls or rotti's and the dogs show absolutly no sign of aggression, never have, and probably never will.



You hope. And the owners hope. And that may be true for any specific pet. That doesn't alter the fact that if you own one of the listed breeds you are more likely to be involved in a violent act than if you own a Golden Lab or Retriever. That's not opinion. That's a statistic.



Eye Stigmata said:


> No one will ever 100% agree on one side, and no one will ever 100% be right. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the facts/evidence are not 100% to either side.



That's pretty much what the anti-evolutionists (aka creationists) say. Of course, you're entitled to an opinion. It would be nice if it were based on evidence but if you insist on reverting to faith when the evidence clearly proves you to be wrong, good luck on getting anyone to take that opinion seriously.


----------



## Banned

And this is why I love my profession...so much controversy, everyone is right, and everyone's an expert , except those of us who have been actively working in the profession for most of our lives.

Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

(As an FYI for anyone reading this thread - I've been professionally training dogs for over ten years, I've been a breeder of a breed who could be deemed to be naturally aggressive, but horrors - never had an issue with my puppies!, I've been a judge with two highly reputable organizations for nine years, I've competed and titled my dogs in agility, flyball, obedience, scent hurdle, herding, and tracking, I'm a groomer, and I evaluate and test potential therapy dogs for two different organizations. Its probably safe to say I know a little bit about dogs ).


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Again, please show me where I or anyone else has claimed that ALL members of any given breed are going to attack or kill anyone.

That still does not alter the *fact* that among all known breeds of dogs the listed breeds are a significantly higher risk (1) for seriously aggressive acts and (2) for sudden attacks with little or no warning than breeds not on that list.

I may not be an expert about dogs but I do know research and statistics.


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> Again, please show me where I or anyone else has claimed that ALL members of any given breed are going to attack or kill anyone.


 
I never said that you claimed that. Nobody has said that because it's ridiculous. 




David Baxter said:


> That still does not alter the *fact* that among all known breeds of dogs the listed breeds are a significantly higher risk (1) for seriously aggressive acts and (2) for sudden attacks with little or no warning than breeds not on that list.


 
That may be true. My original point in this thread was about stereotyping specific breeds, because more often than not, the breed is not the issue but rather the type of people who acquire the breed of dog, and then train it to be aggressive. The same dog, in other hands, may be a completely different dog. Yes, genetics play a _small_ role, but we know its not the entire role. And yes, I know numerous herding and working dogs who don't have a herding or working bone in their body. Some are even from championship herding lines. 



David Baxter said:


> I may not be an expert about dogs but I do know research and statistics.


 
I don't doubt that for a second, but there is also a bigger picture. Keep in mind that less than 25% of actual dog bites are reported. Which ones do you think get reported? Certainly not the man who's neighbour's Chihuahua bit him. Certainly not the person who owns the Shih Tzu. Certainly not the mother of the son who has a Labrador Retriever. It's "unprovoked" attacks on strangers, usually by bully breeds, that are most frequently reported. There are a large, large number of bites that do not get reported, so the statistics we are left to work with are only but a very small sampling of the big picture. THAT'S why we have breed stereotypes.  The statistics are seriously skewed against the bully breeds.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

We're not talking about ALL bites. Dogs bite for a variety of reasons, as do cats and other animals, and it's not always an act of aggression.

We're talking about - and the studies I've cited are bout - seriously aggressive acts which cause significant injury or death. And we're talking about statistical risk associated with specific breeds.

Pointing out one or more exceptions from among dogs you have seen or known does not change that risk.

If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?


 
I would ask alot more questions, such as, what is the family's activity level like? Are you ok with lots of hair? Where do you plan on acquiring your dog? What is your feeding, grooming, and health care budget? 

Temperament is important, obviously, especially with young children, but lots of things affect temperament.

A Golden from a bad breeder is going to give you far more grief than a pitbull from a shelter or reputable breeder where they breed for temperament and health and have had their temperament assessed prior to the dog ever being placed in a home.  Over 75% of Goldens are going to be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life, and over 60% of them will die from it.  Those are pretty gloomy health statistics, and I'm not going to get into a debate about what causes cancer, but we know that genetics does play a factor in that.  Poor breeding?  I'll say.

My previous dog, Jessie, was horrifically attacked by a Golden, and had puncture wounds down his back, through an inch of fur.  On the other hand, his Team Relay partner in agility was always a pitbull named Erik.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Turtle said:


> I would ask alot more questions, such as, what is the family's activity level like? Are you ok with lots of hair? Where do you plan on acquiring your dog? What is your feeding, grooming, and health care budget?



Now you're quibbling and avoiding the issue. 



Turtle said:


> Temperament is important, obviously, especially with young children, but lots of things affect temperament.



The #1 determinant of temperament in dogs, cats, horses, gerbils, humans, or any other species is genetics.



Turtle said:


> A Golden from a bad breeder is going to give you far more grief than a pitbull from a shelter or reputable breeder where they breed for temperament and health and have had their temperament assessed prior to the dog ever being placed in a home.  Over 75% of Goldens are going to be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life, and over 60% of them will die from it.  Those are pretty gloomy health statistics, and I'm not going to get into a debate about what causes cancer, but we know that genetics does play a factor in that.  Poor breeding?  I'll say.



And what exactly does that have to do with the issue of aggression? Of course, there are gentic links to certain health risks. You acknowledge that but then deny a genetic link to aggression? I'd call that selective listening. 



Turtle said:


> My previous dog, Jessie, was horrifically attacked by a Golden, and had puncture wounds down his back, through an inch of fur.  On the other hand, his Team Relay partner in agility was always a pitbull named Erik.



As I said earlier, citing examples of pitbulls who don't attack or dogs from other breeds that do attack does not alter the risk or statstics in the slightest.

And you haven't answered my question at all, so let me repeat it:

If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and *I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children*, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> And you haven't answered my question at all, so let me repeat it:
> 
> If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and *I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children*, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?


 
Neither.  I'd say to get a Pug because you can't see past the bigger picture and this is not a black-or-white question, yet you want a black-or-white response.

The fact of the matter is, we could let this thread go on for 500 pages, and still be in the same place we are now.  That's why BSL is such a hot issue - no one can agree, everyone is from a different camp, and everyone is convinced they are right.  It's exactly what is going on here.


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> Now you're quibbling and avoiding the issue.
> 
> The #1 determinant of temperament in dogs, cats, horses, gerbils, humans, or any other species is genetics.


 
I strongly disagree, but then, based on this thread, it looks like we will disagree on alot of things surrounding this issue.  Additionally, genetics create instinct, and we know we can train past instinct.



David Baxter said:


> And what exactly does that have to do with the issue of aggression? Of course, there are gentic links to certain health risks. You acknowledge that but then deny a genetic link to aggression? I'd call that selective listening.


 
Not at all. Have you ever not been feeling well and been cranky? Snapped when you shouldn't have? Said something you shouldn't have? Dogs get cranky too when they're not feeling well, except they are far more limited in how they respond. Give a dog a nice pat where he's got a large tumour growing under the skin and sure he might bite you. Grab a dog's ear when it's sore and he might bite you. Grab his paw when he has a hot spot and he might bite you. There are so many variables that influence a bite, it's not JUST inbred aggression. 

What about dogs who have had the growl punished out of them? Those are many of the "unprovoked" attacks? The dog learned he wasn't allowed to growl? What does a growl say? It says that he's really uncomfortable, and if something doesn't change, he's going to escalate to a bite. But he wasn't allowed to give you that communication, so he went straight to the bite.





David Baxter said:


> As I said earlier, citing examples of pitbulls who don't attack or dogs from other breeds that do attack does not alter the risk or statstics in the slightest.


 

It does. You and I both know that statistics can be skewed and interpreted any way we want them to.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

You are avoiding the question by throwing up smokescreens. That speaks volumes.

Yes, there are a variety of opinions on this issue. But opinions based on faith or limited personal experience or bias about a specific breed don't mean a whole lot unless they're also based on evidence.

And part of the reason I make an issue of this is because this same problem pervades a lot of the crap you see in books, magazines, on television, and on the net about homeopathy, chiropracty, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and the like. Frankly, I don't want to hear about testimonials or anectdotal evidence because that isn't worth a red cent. I want to hear about real evidence.


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> You are avoiding the question by throwing up smokescreens. That speaks volumes.


 
I'm not avoiding the question at all.  Where have I not answered your question?  And what volumes does it speak?

Fine.  Get a Staffy (Pitbull).  They truly are great family pets and wonderful companions.  But bring me along when you shop for it so I know you're getting a good one (I'd say the same thing if you decided to get a Golden).



David Baxter said:


> Yes, there are a variety of opinions on this issue. But opinions based on faith or limited personal experience or bias about a specific breed don't mean a whole lot unless they're also based on evidence.


 
My opinion isn't based on faith.  My opinion is based on over ten years of professional experience.  It is based on information from top researchers, veterinarians, and behaviourists that is shared with me at the many annual conferences I go to.  It is based on careful analysis of the statistics that are available.  Many of the studies done have also been flawed, or inconclusive.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Turtle said:


> Fine.  Get a Staffy (Pitbull).  They truly are great family pets and wonderful companions



Remind me never to buy a dog from you. 



Turtle said:


> Many of the studies done have also been flawed, or inconclusive.



OK. Start with the studies I cited earlier. They lead to some pretty clear and specific conclusions.  Show me the flaws.


----------



## Banned

David Baxter said:


> Remind me never to buy a dog from you.


 
You are totally a product of society's stereotype!!!





David Baxter said:


> OK. Start with the studies I cited earlier. They lead to some pretty clear and specific conclusions. Show me the flaws.


 
I'm kinda busy, and heading out the door to work, and have a tonne of reading and homework to do .  But maybe later.


----------



## Banned

I actually have a couple other points to make before I start my day, working in a dog dayare, with the Rotties, Pitties, Dobies, and Mastiffs.  I'd also like to point out that we have three dogs in our daycare who must be muzzled for aggression - two Labs and a Border Collie.  The only two dogs I've kicked for aggression in two years were a Lab and a Golden.  

That aside, your question about whether or not I would recommend a Golden or a Pittie is not even a fair question, since you weren't even open to a Pittie to start with, so why ask the question?  

Secondly, I didn't say that the studies you cited were flawed, I just said that numerous studies have been flawed.

And finally, back to the original point of this thread, it is entirely unfair to paint an entire breed with the same brush.  In Ontario, anything that remotely resembles a Pitbull is euthanized.  That is akin to determining which sector of society is most likely to be a serial killer/psychopath, and then euthanizing all those people before they've even committed a crime.  It doesn't make sense on any level.


----------



## David Baxter PhD

Turtle said:


> I actually have a couple other points to make before I start my day, working in a dog dayare, with the Rotties, Pitties, Dobies, and Mastiffs.  I'd also like to point out that we have three dogs in our daycare who must be muzzled for aggression - two Labs and a Border Collie.  The only two dogs I've kicked for aggression in two years were a Lab and a Golden.



Again, I'm not interested in debating "by exception". I am discussing risk, which is never absolute whether it's about dogs or humans. In criminal cases, we can categorize human perpetrators as very low to very high risk ; we're talking about the same concept here with breeds of dogs.



Turtle said:


> That aside, your question about whether or not I would recommend a Golden or a Pittie is not even a fair question, since you weren't even open to a Pittie to start with, so why ask the question?



It's a general question - I'm not even looking for a dog. If you prefer, take the same question and answer it with respect to a general anonymous family. 



Turtle said:


> Secondly, I didn't say that the studies you cited were flawed, I just said that numerous studies have been flawed.



Then, to paraphrase your words, "why bring it up at all"? I didn't cite flawed studies and the conclusions of those "unflawed studies" are very clear and very definite. I wouldn't intentionally cite a flawed study concluding that certain breeds were high risk for aggression, and i wouldn't be impressed by flawed studies suggesting or concluding the opposite. So let's stick to the studies I cited and you tell me what you think is wrong with those studies and with the conclusion - based on evidence, not opinion.



Turtle said:


> And finally, back to the original point of this thread, it is entirely unfair to paint an entire breed with the same brush.  In Ontario, anything that remotely resembles a Pitbull is euthanized.  That is akin to determining which sector of society is most likely to be a serial killer/psychopath, and then euthanizing all those people before they've even committed a crime.  It doesn't make sense on any level.



And where did I say that all dogs of these breeds should be euthanized? I don't understand your enthusiasm for arguing against straw dogs, i.e., statements I've never made. What is the point of that? I have made several quite specific statements about risk in this thread. If you wish to address those issues, have at it. Contradicting things I've never said seems pointless in the extreme.


----------



## Banned

I think, at the end of the day, we're going to have to agree to disagree.  We could go on the way we are for months, and get nowhere.  

I'm waving the white flag.


----------



## Eye Stigmata

Wow...

I think I just got whiplash from reading this thread..:hissyfit:

Can I wave a white flag too?


----------

