You are equating "dangerous" with specific breeds because of media coverage of dog bites. The media do not want to know if a border collie, foxy, or dachshund bites somebody, but if a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, or a Dobermann bites somebody it is big news, and yes obviously if a bigger dog bites it causes more damage. However, the question isn't about which breed of dog bites, it is about why the owner didn't socialise and train the animal when he got it. Why the new owner didn't know the dog was unreliable and had a history of aggression if it was a rescue, and if so why it wasn't either retrained or euthanised before it injured somebody.

Natural instinct in canines has always required that there is a leader (Alpha) which the pack follows, a dog owner should take the place of the Alpha and dictate which direction the dog takes; this is naturally accepted and in fact preferred by dogs. Any breed will eventually go rogue or become destructive if unsupervised, unsocialised, untrained, ill treated, or left to its own devices and becomes bored.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:45am:


why thank you ... neither do I ...

although your comment is still crap.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:56am:


Keep going, View. Don't stop now. You're slowly nutting-out the fact that some breeds are dangerous, and some are not, and this depends upon whether they're more likely to nip your finger or rip your face off.

It's also a matter of which breeds are more intensely loyal and protective of their 'family'.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:56am:


Exactly.

And these can be divided into the breeds which then become dangerous to humans, and the breeds which don't.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:


Well, that's not entirely true.

You seem to be stubbornly holding onto the idea that all dogs are born equal, and that it's only contact with humans that differentiate them thereafter.

Not true.

Part of the reason for 'dangerous breeds' is that they have very powerful pack instincts which drive them to protect and defend a little more aggressively than the more passive breeds.

Trust me, I know about dangerous breeds of dog.

I had to have 14 injections in my stomach at a hospital to ensure against rabies when I got mauled by a guard dog in China, and my brother had to have his X-Alsatian put down because it was too loyal to him only, and not so much the rest of the family.

Perhaps if you tried a little harder to divorce your ego from the subject of this discussion you wouldn't feel so threatened by being found wanting in your opinions.

So you judge all breeds on the actions of a smacking guard dog in China.....and the actions of a cross bred dog your brother had? Oh yes and the articles you search out online about breeds you deem to be dangerous ......sounds a bit like your fairy tale about being a former policeman.....then you suddenly change your mind and admit you were talking crap.......no ego problem here, but you appear to have a credibility problem Herbert.

Incidentally, just because a dog is a certain breed, DOES NOT mean it's from the working bloodlines of the same breed......ie all GSDs are not working bloodlines!

Anyway, you stay with your cats mate......you should be safe there......unless you visit the zoo.....!

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:


Can you see the irony in your post?

Angry people shouldn't own dogs renowned for aggressiveness. Yes the owners can be held partly responsible for the actions of a savage dog. If they've got a short fuse - the dog usually picks up on it and behaves accordingly.

mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:


Well said. If VP won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to you.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:


Precisely.



(Have you noticed how the polling has gone from 3 to 4 ~~ to 3 to 11 all of a sudden after weeks of inertia?)