I think most of the problem is on the human side. Carnivores are dangerous
to each other, too, and have developed elaborate submission gestures as well
as aggressive gestures to get business transacted short of death. The
reason most bites are on kids is that they advance in spite of the warnings
the animals are giving.

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...

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.)