Peter De Smidt wrote:

Rick Cook wrote:

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his
behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different
behavioral traits?


Not nearly as much as you think, apparently. (We'll save the argument about
humans for a later time). However, start with this: An attack is a behavior,
not an instinct.

I've never said otherwise. Clearly, though, one can have an instinct to
attack that causes the actual behavior.

Hmm. In that case we seem to be having a violent agreement. My main point is that
any such instinct can be overridden by training and socialization so it is not a
factor in the inherent 'danger' of the breed. (Which is in essence what the
Alabama Supreme Court found.)



In dogs as in humans, behavior is plastic. Temperament,
which is the expression of genetically determined psychology (among other
things) notoriously varies widely among individuals of all breeds. How the
temperament is expressed can be, and is, routinely modified.

Yep. To a certain extent anyway. Try teaching a great Pyrenees not to
bark at "strange" noises.


Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming
evidence,


In the case of aggressiveness it is in fact _supported_ by the evidence,
notably the dog bite statistics. As nearly as we can tell from the facts,
and despite the reputation to the contrary, dog breeds don't vary
significantly in biting behavior. And we know both from experience and
studies that dog behavior is quite straightforward to modify.

Well, we're having a little problem since we're not directly citing the
"evidence" or studies.

Someone posted the CDC statistics on dog bites by breed earlier. I'll have to look
through and find it. Meanwhile, take a look at the references I cited on
aggression in dogs.

I'm guilty of this as well. In our defense, this
isn't an academic journal, thank God! Are we talking about dog's biting
humans?

That's what we have the best numbers on, so that's been the focus, yes.

Has the study taken into account the size of each of the
breeds?

Size doesn't seem to matter in aggressiveness. Breed popularity is the major
determinant -- as in the more of breed X, the more likely you are to have bites by
breed X.

What data do we have on dog on dog aggression?

There have been quite a number of studies on dog aggression, both by breed and
from a behavioral point of view. The Kent County material I cited earlier
summarizes a lot of this, without giving references back to the original papers.

I don't know the
answer to the latter, as I haven't found any good studies. The CDC,
however, thinks that there's a good enough case to put the pit bull on
the dangerous breeds list. To that I'll add the extensive experience
that I've had at dog parks. Others have chimed in on this as well. Our
anecdotal evidence is relevant if yours is.


such as, for instance, the various studies that analyze the
intelligence of different breeds. Yet such an unlikely claim must be
assumed by those who say that all doggie behavioral problems are caused
by bad training.


Major error there. The specific claim is that in at least the vast majority
of dogs, regardless of breed, adequate training and socialization will
produce a dog with acceptable behavior, including not attacking people or
other animals. That is a very different claim and one well-supported by the
facts and experience.


But that's not the major issue.

For me it is exactly the issue. Remember I chimed on this thread because someone
claimed that pit bulls were urban assault weapons, inherently vicious, etc., etc.,
etc. If that's not the issue for you, we're talking somewhat at cross purposes.

The question is not whether most dogs
of a given breed can be made relatively safe, the question is are some
breds inherently more dangerous, whether to humans or to other dogs,
than others.

Okay, let's be specific here. Based on the evidence from the dog bite statistics,
as well as other evidence, I'd say that it is pretty clear that pit bulls are no
more likely to express _aggression_ than any other breed.

But there's a secondary issue involved in the concept of 'dangerous'. That is the
amount of damage the dog is likely to do if it does attack. There the evidence
pretty clearly indicates that a pit bull, rottweilers, etc. can do far more damage
than other breeds. However if the dog isn't likely to attack in the first place,
that almost never enters into it.

Keep in mind that only a tiny, tiny fraction of all dog bites result in fatality.
There are only about 10 to 20 dog bite deaths in the US each year, but there are
hundreds of thousands of dog bites. Considering the relative proportion of
fatalities to dog bites, I'd argue that the bite statistics are far more
important.

The most recent statistics that I've seen indicate that pit
bulls killed twice as many people than any other breed during the time
span looked at. You say that's due to poor training.

Well, no. What I said was that _attacks_ are due to poor training. The amount of
damage once an attack is made is quite a different matter. You would expect
strong, fast dogs to account for a disproportionate number of fatalities and
that's what you find.

Why are these dogs
getting training significantly worse than rottweilers, dobermans...? In
my experience the character of a pit bull's attack on another dog is of
a different kind than that made by most other dogs. The pit bull has a
relentlessness that most dogs lack.

This is quite true and it's one the reasons dogs like pit bulls, rottweilers, etc.
do more damage.

Sure, some other terriers have a
similar disposition, but their size makes them easier to handle.

This is generally true. However please note that this has no bearing on the dog's
aggressiveness.



We probably should politely agree to disagree on this one.

I think you're correct.

Although we
really aren't that far apart. We disagree on how much genetics affects
behavior, and the extent to which training can curb instincts. We also
disagree on whether medium to large dogs should always be walked on a
leash.

Peter, keep in mind what happens if your dog is involved in an incident while
walking unleashed. It doesn't matter who started it. If your Pyr is jumped by a
psycho Yorkie/toy poodle/whatever, we pretty well know who's going to get the
worst of the ensuing fight. And if your dog isn't on a leash when it happens,
you're going to be lucky to get off with just paying the other dog's vet bills.

There are excellent reasons for keeping your dog leashed in almost all
circumstances that have nothing to do with breed danger, obedience or anything of
the sort.

Responsible pit bull owners have to be especially sensitive to these nuances
because of the prejudice (deserved or not) against pit bulls. A pit bull involved
in a dog fight, no matter who started it, is all to often a dead pit bull once
Animal Control gets involved in the situation.

--RC


More importantly, though, we agree on the need for proper
training (and treatment in general!) of any dog.



-Peter De Smidt