No need to be snarky here. It’s just good practice to provide a source when making claims to statistics. “Just Google it” doesn’t validate a position.
Now that you’ve provided a source, we can talk about the information at hand instead of talking out of our asses.
With the source you’re quoting, and in fact the specific sentence in this Wikipedia article, the sources provided for that claim are 3 news articles and a UK government webpage.
That government web page details the way someone can safely and legally have a dog of these breeds.
With the news reporting, even a cursory glance at those news articles show that there could be reasons other than the biology of the breed in play here.
Asks for sources. When gets source, comes up with any excuse including government figures as to why they’re wrong.
You don’t want source, you just don’t to believe it because you always had that believe that all dogs are good, they just got bad owners. Maybe you’re partly right, owners and training plays a big part, but even with that, these dogs are overwhelming involved in incidents and fatal incidents in the UK despite there being horrible dog owners of every breed.
The allowing these dog breeds was a compromise to try and get the legislation through, but most know these dogs are bred for fighting, and are so strong, they are lethal. Even families who cared for the dogs and loved them well, and one accident, and a child is dead. Ooops. Some dog breeds just ain’t safe.
There’s no such thing as a fighting breed, only dogs that have been abused historically and contemporarily.
As for the statistics, there’s a shitload of factors that skew them that have nothing to do with them being inherently aggressive.
To name a few:
People are more likely to report an attack by a dog of a breed with a bad reputation.
People who should never own dogs often choose big and strong ones and don’t train and socialize them properly
well-meaning but thoughtless people take on dogs without considering the exercise and discipline needs of the breed, leading to acting out
when a stronger dog DOES attack, it tends to be more serious and thus more likely to be reported
In conclusion: there’s no such thing as an inherently dangerous dog breed, only bad owners who should never have been entrusted with the care of a dog who needs to be trained in ways they (the owners) are unable or unwilling to do.
A pit bull will guard you with its life. Not only will it, it can.
Other types are:
Herding Dogs
Sporting Dogs
Hound Dogs
Working Dogs
Terrier Dogs
Toy Dogs
Non-Sporting Dogs
Companion Dogs (sometimes included within Non-Sporting or Toy groups)
Mixed-Breed Dogs (not an official group, but commonly recognized)
Guard dogs fall under working dogs
Working dogs = Guarding, Pulling, Rescuing, Sledding, and Service assisting.
Like you said, the reports are probably skewed to some degree, but that doesn’t stop the fact that you’re more likely to get mauled to death by a Pit Bull then say a Shetland Sheepdog.
Pit bulls are both able and willing to guard. They will stand their ground or attack.
Could you train your Pit Bull to always run in a precived danger situation? Maybe. But you have to train it.
In conclusion: there’s no such thing as an inherently dangerous dog breed
only a dog who needs to be trained in ways they (the owners) are unable or unwilling to do.
If you have to train a dog to do something or else it will “naturally” or “inherently” do something different. Then it is naturally or inherently trained to do that thing, “Guard”.
Do a guard dog equals a fighting dog? Protective equals aggressive? Gtfo with that weak bullshit 🙄
A pit bull will guard you with its life. Not only will it, it can.
If trained to do so. Because of bad owners.
For someone talking a lot about working dogs, you seem utterly clueless about how they BECOME working dogs.
Dogs aren’t machines with certain behaviors hard coded. Some might have generational trauma and/or PTSD from previous owners, but properly trained and socialized dogs EXTREMELY rarely exhibits aggressive behavior and when they do, it’s not caused by being a specific breed.
If you have to train a dog to do something or else it will “naturally” or “inherently” do something different. Then it is naturally or inherently trained to do that thing
That’s a Ben Shapiro sized “let’s say that” 🙄
You don’t have to train a guard breed to not guard any more than you have to train a seventh generation farmer not to farm or he’ll just spontaneously start growing crops.
Do a guard dog equals a fighting dog? Protective equals aggressive? Gtfo with that weak bullshit 🙄
A guard dog DOES not EQUAL a fighting dog. No. But a fighting dog does equal a guard dog.
Gtfo with that weak bullshit 🙄
Good argument point
For someone talking a lot about working dogs, you seem utterly clueless about how they BECOME working dogs.
Do you even know how they BECOME working dogs?
A Shetland Sheepdog doesn’t need to go to doggie college to learn to herd sheep. It is in their nature to chase and get everything together. You put my sheltie in a field of sheep, and he’ll make sure no sheep wanders off.
There is very little training you have to do to get a beagle to hunt rabbits.
Try training a St. Bernard to hunt rabbits…
Dogs aren’t machines with certain behaviors hard coded
Since you said it, it must be true
Some might have generational trauma
So you are saying that past generational experiences can shape a breed? That’s the opposite of what you are trying to argue.
Many studies have been done about aggression in breeding.
One would be The Russian Silver Fox Experiment.
They took wild foxes and tried to domestic them through selective breeding, and they took aggressive foxes and tried to make more aggressive ones.
Turns out that they could do both, make them less aggressive and more aggressive through breeding.
It has been studied a ton in mice and it has been found that aggression is heritable that follows the Mendelian inheritance patterns with genes located on autosomes. That expression of aggressive behavior is influenced by androgens.
So yes, in a way, we, like dogs, are all “machines” with certain “codes”
You don’t have to train a guard breed to not guard any more than you have to train a seventh generation farmer not to farm or he’ll just spontaneously start growing crops.
Oh geez
I’ll ask you this question.
Set up: Pit Bull and Shetland Sheepdog. Both in separate large pits. Gold bars in middle. Food and water is given to both, but no human contact ever.
Which pit would you want to retrieve the gold bar from?
In your mind, it shouldn’t make a difference which pit
A Shetland Sheepdog doesn’t need to go to doggie college to learn to herd sheep. It is in their nature to chase and get everything together
That’s 100% wrong. Except for the “doggie college” part. A working sheepdog ABSOLUTELY needs to be trained. Before, I thought that you might be under the illusion that dogs are machines that just instinctively knows exactly how to do a job without any training. Now I KNOW you’re that stupid.
You put my sheltie in a field of sheep, and he’ll make sure no sheep wanders off.
Not if he’s not trained to do it right, no. Genetic disposition isn’t a cheat code that teaches animals skills automatically. It’s still learned behavior regardless of breed.
There is very little training you have to do to get a beagle to hunt rabbits
Hunting them in the right way rather than just randomly haring after them, pun intended, is another story…
Try training a St. Bernard to hunt rabbits…
Successfully? Sure. Unsuccessfully chasing after wildlife is something all breeds need to be trained out of, even gentle giants like St Bernards or tiny lapdogs.
Dogs aren’t machines with certain behaviors hard coded
Since you said it, it must be true
And since every single expert in canine training and behavior says so.
Some might have generational trauma
So you are saying that past generational experiences can shape a breed?
Not to anywhere near the extent that you’re implying, no.
Set up: Pit Bull and Shetland Sheepdog. Both in separate large pits. Gold bars in middle. Food and water is given to both, but no human contact ever.
Which pit would you want to retrieve the gold bar from?
In your mind, it shouldn’t make a difference which pit
Speaking of minds, judging by that insanely contrived scenario, you’ve CLEARLY lost yours. We’re done here.
Read this to know the history of roughly thirty breeds of dogs that were selectively bred (some over hundreds of years) with the primary goal of being used in fighting.
You are just another of the many people who will happily ignore or hand-wave statistics and historical facts simply because it supports your predefined ideas that your special puppy would never. Until, they do.
Selection bias is running rampant here when interpreting the (partial) statistics around dog attacks and their seriousness.
For example: the dog breed most statistically likely to bite in the UK is the labrador (source). Jack Russels, chihuahas and dachshunds also rate highly in aggression but attacks are mostly unreported because they are rarely serious.
So saying some breeds are more aggressive than others may be true, but that’s only half the picture and the narrative around this discussion misses out that there are more aggressive breeds than bully types.
Bully breeds are strong, and if they attack, the damage can be serious. But the likelihood of them attacking is relatively small, they aren’t more predisposed to attack than the other breeds I’ve mentioned, and their attack response is heavily dependent on how they are trained, socialized and treated. The cases where a well-trained, well-treated and well-socialized bully breed dog is involved in an attack are pretty rare. Where attacks have happened, digging into the background often shows that the dog’s owners had not properly trained or controlled the dog. It is always the owner’s responsibility to care for and keep these dogs safe around others.
Finally, I’d like to say that this community is for appreciating dogs. Not some dogs. It shouldn’t be for berating people about pictures of particular breeds.
Your own source goes on to say Labradors are over-represented because they’re the most popular breed in the UK and the report count is a flat count of incidents, not a breakdown per 10,000 dogs for instance. They also are rarely serious bites so I’m not sure what point you’re making. The issue with dogs bred as fighting breeds is that they’re much more likely to cause catastrophic injury - that’s the whole problem. Nobody cares much if a Dachshund nips someone that stole its bone, they care if a dog mauls their toddler to death - which happens with far too much regularity, and is usually one of just a handful of uncommon dog breeds. Not Labradors, Dachshunds, or Chihuahuas. Pit Bulls and Doberman.
They also are rarely serious bites so I’m not sure what point you’re making
The point I’m making is that the framing of bully type dogs being more naturally aggressive or violent than other breeds is not the case.
they care if a dog mauls their toddler to death - which happens with far too much regularity
These deaths are tragedies, but are not regular. The reason they’re newsworthy is because of how rare these events are.
I think a large problem with the narrative around dog breeds, and their associated traits, comes from a lack of education and understanding about breeds and traits. You’re right, certain breeds have been selectively bred for certain activities: what this means is that collectively, dogs of this breed respond positively to being trained for that particular activity, as well as having physical characteristics to advantage them for that activity. It’s not that all dogs in the breed are predetermined to show those breed’s traits.
For example: border collies were bred as working dogs, specifically for herding sheep. Some have an innate herding instinct but generally they need to be specifically trained. A friend of mine had a border collie and it was the laziest dog in the world: it had no interest in herding or doing trial training. You can’t assume a dog from a certain breed will display the generalized behaviours the breed is bred for.
It’s telling that the biggest dog charities in the UK oppose measures for banning specific breeds of dog, because it does not work and takes attention away from measures that do improve safety, like responsible dog ownership and training.
Bully XL? Ewww
I’ll bite (no pun intended): what’s wrong with bully XLs?
Nothing. Just dog racism from someone who believes yellow journalism and alarmist politicians practicing hollow symbol politics.
It’s a fighting breed. Accounts for 1% of dogs in UK yet 44% of dog attacks are by American bully -type dogs. How are stats “yellow journalism”?
Stats without a reliable source aren’t stats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom
“Between 2021 and 2023, around half of fatal dog attacks were caused by a single breed, the American Bully XL”
Gee, that was hard to google
No need to be snarky here. It’s just good practice to provide a source when making claims to statistics. “Just Google it” doesn’t validate a position.
Now that you’ve provided a source, we can talk about the information at hand instead of talking out of our asses.
With the source you’re quoting, and in fact the specific sentence in this Wikipedia article, the sources provided for that claim are 3 news articles and a UK government webpage.
That government web page details the way someone can safely and legally have a dog of these breeds.
With the news reporting, even a cursory glance at those news articles show that there could be reasons other than the biology of the breed in play here.
Asks for sources. When gets source, comes up with any excuse including government figures as to why they’re wrong.
You don’t want source, you just don’t to believe it because you always had that believe that all dogs are good, they just got bad owners. Maybe you’re partly right, owners and training plays a big part, but even with that, these dogs are overwhelming involved in incidents and fatal incidents in the UK despite there being horrible dog owners of every breed.
The allowing these dog breeds was a compromise to try and get the legislation through, but most know these dogs are bred for fighting, and are so strong, they are lethal. Even families who cared for the dogs and loved them well, and one accident, and a child is dead. Ooops. Some dog breeds just ain’t safe.
There’s no such thing as a fighting breed, only dogs that have been abused historically and contemporarily.
As for the statistics, there’s a shitload of factors that skew them that have nothing to do with them being inherently aggressive.
To name a few:
In conclusion: there’s no such thing as an inherently dangerous dog breed, only bad owners who should never have been entrusted with the care of a dog who needs to be trained in ways they (the owners) are unable or unwilling to do.
Fighting breed = Guard breed
A pit bull will guard you with its life. Not only will it, it can.
Other types are:
Herding Dogs
Sporting Dogs
Hound Dogs
Working Dogs
Terrier Dogs
Toy Dogs
Non-Sporting Dogs
Companion Dogs (sometimes included within Non-Sporting or Toy groups)
Mixed-Breed Dogs (not an official group, but commonly recognized)
Guard dogs fall under working dogs
Working dogs = Guarding, Pulling, Rescuing, Sledding, and Service assisting.
Like you said, the reports are probably skewed to some degree, but that doesn’t stop the fact that you’re more likely to get mauled to death by a Pit Bull then say a Shetland Sheepdog.
Pit bulls are both able and willing to guard. They will stand their ground or attack.
Could you train your Pit Bull to always run in a precived danger situation? Maybe. But you have to train it.
If you have to train a dog to do something or else it will “naturally” or “inherently” do something different. Then it is naturally or inherently trained to do that thing, “Guard”.
Do a guard dog equals a fighting dog? Protective equals aggressive? Gtfo with that weak bullshit 🙄
If trained to do so. Because of bad owners.
For someone talking a lot about working dogs, you seem utterly clueless about how they BECOME working dogs.
Dogs aren’t machines with certain behaviors hard coded. Some might have generational trauma and/or PTSD from previous owners, but properly trained and socialized dogs EXTREMELY rarely exhibits aggressive behavior and when they do, it’s not caused by being a specific breed.
That’s a Ben Shapiro sized “let’s say that” 🙄
You don’t have to train a guard breed to not guard any more than you have to train a seventh generation farmer not to farm or he’ll just spontaneously start growing crops.
A guard dog DOES not EQUAL a fighting dog. No. But a fighting dog does equal a guard dog.
Good argument point
Do you even know how they BECOME working dogs?
A Shetland Sheepdog doesn’t need to go to doggie college to learn to herd sheep. It is in their nature to chase and get everything together. You put my sheltie in a field of sheep, and he’ll make sure no sheep wanders off.
There is very little training you have to do to get a beagle to hunt rabbits.
Try training a St. Bernard to hunt rabbits…
Since you said it, it must be true
So you are saying that past generational experiences can shape a breed? That’s the opposite of what you are trying to argue.
Many studies have been done about aggression in breeding.
One would be The Russian Silver Fox Experiment.
They took wild foxes and tried to domestic them through selective breeding, and they took aggressive foxes and tried to make more aggressive ones.
Turns out that they could do both, make them less aggressive and more aggressive through breeding.
It has been studied a ton in mice and it has been found that aggression is heritable that follows the Mendelian inheritance patterns with genes located on autosomes. That expression of aggressive behavior is influenced by androgens.
So yes, in a way, we, like dogs, are all “machines” with certain “codes”
Oh geez
I’ll ask you this question.
Set up: Pit Bull and Shetland Sheepdog. Both in separate large pits. Gold bars in middle. Food and water is given to both, but no human contact ever.
Which pit would you want to retrieve the gold bar from?
In your mind, it shouldn’t make a difference which pit
That’s 100% wrong. Except for the “doggie college” part. A working sheepdog ABSOLUTELY needs to be trained. Before, I thought that you might be under the illusion that dogs are machines that just instinctively knows exactly how to do a job without any training. Now I KNOW you’re that stupid.
Not if he’s not trained to do it right, no. Genetic disposition isn’t a cheat code that teaches animals skills automatically. It’s still learned behavior regardless of breed.
Hunting them in the right way rather than just randomly haring after them, pun intended, is another story…
Successfully? Sure. Unsuccessfully chasing after wildlife is something all breeds need to be trained out of, even gentle giants like St Bernards or tiny lapdogs.
And since every single expert in canine training and behavior says so.
Not to anywhere near the extent that you’re implying, no.
Speaking of minds, judging by that insanely contrived scenario, you’ve CLEARLY lost yours. We’re done here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_fighting
Read this to know the history of roughly thirty breeds of dogs that were selectively bred (some over hundreds of years) with the primary goal of being used in fighting.
You are just another of the many people who will happily ignore or hand-wave statistics and historical facts simply because it supports your predefined ideas that your special puppy would never. Until, they do.
Selection bias is running rampant here when interpreting the (partial) statistics around dog attacks and their seriousness.
For example: the dog breed most statistically likely to bite in the UK is the labrador (source). Jack Russels, chihuahas and dachshunds also rate highly in aggression but attacks are mostly unreported because they are rarely serious.
So saying some breeds are more aggressive than others may be true, but that’s only half the picture and the narrative around this discussion misses out that there are more aggressive breeds than bully types.
Bully breeds are strong, and if they attack, the damage can be serious. But the likelihood of them attacking is relatively small, they aren’t more predisposed to attack than the other breeds I’ve mentioned, and their attack response is heavily dependent on how they are trained, socialized and treated. The cases where a well-trained, well-treated and well-socialized bully breed dog is involved in an attack are pretty rare. Where attacks have happened, digging into the background often shows that the dog’s owners had not properly trained or controlled the dog. It is always the owner’s responsibility to care for and keep these dogs safe around others.
Finally, I’d like to say that this community is for appreciating dogs. Not some dogs. It shouldn’t be for berating people about pictures of particular breeds.
Your own source goes on to say Labradors are over-represented because they’re the most popular breed in the UK and the report count is a flat count of incidents, not a breakdown per 10,000 dogs for instance. They also are rarely serious bites so I’m not sure what point you’re making. The issue with dogs bred as fighting breeds is that they’re much more likely to cause catastrophic injury - that’s the whole problem. Nobody cares much if a Dachshund nips someone that stole its bone, they care if a dog mauls their toddler to death - which happens with far too much regularity, and is usually one of just a handful of uncommon dog breeds. Not Labradors, Dachshunds, or Chihuahuas. Pit Bulls and Doberman.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php
The point I’m making is that the framing of bully type dogs being more naturally aggressive or violent than other breeds is not the case.
These deaths are tragedies, but are not regular. The reason they’re newsworthy is because of how rare these events are.
I think a large problem with the narrative around dog breeds, and their associated traits, comes from a lack of education and understanding about breeds and traits. You’re right, certain breeds have been selectively bred for certain activities: what this means is that collectively, dogs of this breed respond positively to being trained for that particular activity, as well as having physical characteristics to advantage them for that activity. It’s not that all dogs in the breed are predetermined to show those breed’s traits.
For example: border collies were bred as working dogs, specifically for herding sheep. Some have an innate herding instinct but generally they need to be specifically trained. A friend of mine had a border collie and it was the laziest dog in the world: it had no interest in herding or doing trial training. You can’t assume a dog from a certain breed will display the generalized behaviours the breed is bred for.
It’s telling that the biggest dog charities in the UK oppose measures for banning specific breeds of dog, because it does not work and takes attention away from measures that do improve safety, like responsible dog ownership and training.
They’re good dogs brent