mp wrote:

According to the CDC, Fluffy The Yorkie killed at least one person. Had to
have been an infant, or the Yorkie From Hell.

I'd imagine if you let a Yorkie chew on your flesh over an extended period
of time it'll eventually kill you. Maybe.

Or the dog goes for your face and severs an artery. Can happen in an instant,
even with something as small as a Yorkie. Especially with a small child.

--RC

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois wrote:
Searcher wrote:
A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.

(snip story of dog endangering people)

Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.

Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
will make noise for a minute or three.

True in a lot of places.
Arizona is an interesting state because it consists of urban islands isolated by
miles and miles of desert, rangeland, etc. In the urbanized areas you call animal
control when you encounter a dog running loose. In the un-urbanized, mostly
uninhabited areas, the rule is more direct. Free roaming dogs are likely to be shot
on sight.

In neither case are dogs running loose tolerated. Nor should they be.

--RC

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois
wrote:
Searcher wrote:
A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.

(snip story of dog endangering people)

Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.

Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
will make noise for a minute or three.

True in a lot of places.
Arizona is an interesting state because it consists of urban islands
isolated by
miles and miles of desert, rangeland, etc. In the urbanized areas you call
animal
control when you encounter a dog running loose. In the un-urbanized,
mostly
uninhabited areas, the rule is more direct. Free roaming dogs are likely
to be shot
on sight.

not really, otherwise we'd likely have no coyotes left.

In neither case are dogs running loose tolerated. Nor should they be.

--RC

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Rick is obviously quite emotionally incensed by this discussion. Well,
that's fine. It doesn't follow from one's being emotionally involved
that one's mistaken, although clearly one should be careful. He claims
that pit bulls, as a group, aren't more dangerous or aggressive than
other dogs.

Notice that this is a different question than whether or not other
breeds of dogs can be trained to be aggressive. Of course they can.
Other breeds can also have individuals that are naturally aggressive,
either towards other dogs or whatever.

That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate
aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't have
them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked.
Nonetheless, the studies clearly proved that some breeds are more
dangerous than others,

Actually the studies prove exactly the opposite. The number of dog bite
incidents correlates (as best we can determine) with the relatively
popularity of the breeds. The more popular the breed in a particular area,
the more likely they are to bite someone.
There's no correlation with 'aggressive' breeds.

Note that this was exactly the question before the Alabama supreme court in
the only (AFIK) 'dangerous breeds' case to go up on appeal. After studying
the evidence the court came to the conclusion that there is no proof that any
breeds are inherently dangerous.

Dog bite fatalities show a different picture. There's a direct correlation
between the size and strength of the breed and its involvement in fatalities.
That's why pit bulls, rottweilers and such figure high on that list. But St.
Bernards and most other large breeds of dogs are high on the list as well.

and the fact that one might know a number of
examples of non-aggressive dogs of a more aggressive prone breed does
nothing to undermine the statistics.

Except the statistics don't support the idea of 'aggressive breeds' in that
sense.

If I remember correctly, german
shepherds were the breed most likely to bite a person.

There was a time when German Shepherds were one of the most popular breeds in
the US. More German Shepherds, more bites by German Shepherds. That simple.

Someone will no
doubt respond, "But I've known tons of g. shepherds and they've all been
goofy little pudd'n pops! They wouldn't bite anyone!" That doesn't
change the statistics, or the fact that breeds vary in there general
aggressiveness.

The fact is that dog breeds very quite considerably in their behavior. I
would not take a full grown intact male Great Pyrenees to a dog park,
and it doesn't matter how well socialized the dog was. These dogs,
which are great dogs by the way, were bred to see other large animals as
a threat to the flocks of sheep that the great pyrs guarded. As such,
they tend to be very aggressive towards other dogs, and they will not
back down, as they were bred and trained to defend their flocks with
their lives. This tendency towards aggression is recognized in the breed
standard, and a person ignores this genetic predisposition at their
peril, or, more correctly, at the peril of other people's dogs.

My acquaintances with Pyrs are only casual (and favorable), but I would be
willing to bet that with proper training you could take a full male to the
dog park with no worry that he would attack another dog. What you can't be
sure of -- for any breed -- is whether any of the other dogs there would
attack the Pyr.



Let's stay with Pyrs. All of the major Pyr sites, books and breeders
will tell you not to walk your Pyr off-leash.

Most responsible sources will tell you never to talk _any_ medium to large
size breed off a leash.

Why? Because they were
bred to be independent and to roam with their flock of sheep. This
required patrolling a very large territory. As a result, when given the
chance, they often take off. There are are even stories of obedience
champions who get loose, and despite their very good training they
nonetheless take off. How many people do you think have lost a dog
because they thought that _their_ dog wouldn't do that, and hadn't taken
off the prior times when they were let loose? Training, even very
conscientious training, does not guarantee the extinction of a genetic
behavioral predisposition.

Let's get back to the American Pit Bull Terrier. They were bred to hurt
and kill other dogs. While it's true that their jaws don't "lock",
consider this from the American Pit Bull Terrier Faq:

"Those of you who frequent dog shows for the APBT will no doubt
eventually be witness to dogs getting loose and starting a fight.

I'm told this is common at dog shows with all kinds of breeds.

So,
what happens when they are serious? Well, each dog will bite the other,
take hold and start to shake its head punishingly. It is so serious that
in most cases nothing you do will cause the dog/bitch to give up that
precious hold! Nothing! Choking, shocking, etc...It just doesn't matter!"

That's certainly true. As I say, a pit bull can do a lot of damage.



This is different behavior than a large number of other dogs. These dogs
were bred to be killers,

No. Killers don't win dog fights. Dogs with game, stamina, strength,
endurance and speed win dog fights. A dog that just wants to kill is at a
disadvantage. And a dog that shows aggression towards humans in the middle of
a dog fight is a liability -- and not going to survive.

just like other dogs were bred to be
retrievers, herders, working dogs, or companion animals. Each of these
classes has dogs with unique behavioral instincts. Why then would the
pit bull be any different?

They're not. But you're exaggerating the 'unique behavioral instincts' of the
various breeds of dogs. Look, dogs were dogs for tens of thousands of years
before modern breeds appeared on the scene. In all those tens of thousands of
years they were bred for socialization with humans and other traits. Those
are still predominant.


There's no reason to think so. Does this
mean that they aren't good dogs? No! But it does mean that special care
need to be taken with them, just as it does with a number of other
breeds of dogs, such as mastiffs, rottweilers...

I've said repeatedly that pit bulls are not dogs for everyone.


So you're upset by people being wary of pit bulls? Get over it!

I'm not upset at people being wary of pit bulls or any other kind of dog. I
am upset by the kind of hysterical nonsense that all too often passes for
fact when they're discussed.

My dog,
a Leonberger, was bred to be a companion dog, which is the reason that
the breed was created. Nonetheless, he's a very big dog, roughly the
size of a great dane. He's goofy and lives for playing with people and
other dogs. Nonetheless, he often scares people. Take the UPS guy. He
won't come into are yard. Now I could get all ****ed off about how
Murphy is being ignorantly maligned, but then I realize that he's a very
big dog who could be very dangerous if he wanted to be, and I recall all
of the idiot's I've met who've had dogs. Example, I once pulled a husky
off of another dog. Luckily, there was only a little blood. The owner of
the husky said, "I don't know why, but every time I come to the dog park
Klondike picks out one other dog to attack."... A person should be
wary of an unknown large dog, especially one that might have aggressive
predispositions, and that certainly applies to pit bulls.

By the way, the angrier pit bull fanciers get,the more dismissive they
become of the worries of others, and the more they brush off the dangers
of the breede, the more likely it will be that ownership of the dogs
will be restricted.

All pit bull fanciers can do is try to educate people about the actual nature
of their dogs by countering the sort of absurdities that some people put out
as 'fact'. Pit bulls are not for everyone, but they are not the 'four-legged
assault weapons' the ignorant and fearful try to make them out to be.

--RC



-Peter De Smidt

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in news:415fa764$1_2
@newspeer2.tds.net:

That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate
aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't have
them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked.


Number one in deaths, Rottweiler number two, other large dogs dominating
mist of the list. Surpisingly, a Yorkie gets a mention! Less than 1%
involved a leashed dog off the owners property.

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

But dog deaths are related to size and strength, not to number of attacks.
--RC

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

Prometheus writes:

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:54:48 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
wrote:

To make the bald statement that "...those pit-bulls are nasty creatures..."
is wrong.

I did agree with a previous poster's sentiment to that effect a few
minutes ago. The original statement was a gut reaction to several
very bad encounters with that particular breed, most of whom were kept
by people who could also reasonably be called "nasty creatures".

This discussion sounds suspicoiusly like that about overpowered cars:
Their defenders tell you "just because my car has 400 horsepowers and
can go 300km/h does not mean that i need to drive too fast...:

Well, there is this difference. This argument is essentially analogous to whether
or not that 400 horsepower vehicle will really do 300km/h.

If the 'car' in question is a semi-tractor designed to haul trailer loads of
freight, then the 300km/h claim is obvious nonsense. But if you're dealing with
people who can't see beyond the horsepower rating and are absolutely, totally,
unshakably convinced that the vehicle _must_ be capable of 300 km/m because it
has 400 horsepower, well. . .

--RC



--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...
But I do have a question - what is a pit bull? What were they bred
from? I'm familiar with bull terriers, but the dogs I've seen called
pit bulls look more like a boxer/Rottweiler mix. They weren't around
in my earlier years.


I think a Boxer/Rottweiler mix would produce a dog roughly 3 times larger
than a Pitt Bull. I put them on the large end of the small sized dog group
or small end of the medium sized dog group. I have a small female Chocolate
Lab that is larger than the typical Pitt Bull.

Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois
wrote:
Searcher wrote:
A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.

(snip story of dog endangering people)

Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.

Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
will make noise for a minute or three.

True in a lot of places.
Arizona is an interesting state because it consists of urban islands
isolated by
miles and miles of desert, rangeland, etc. In the urbanized areas you call
animal
control when you encounter a dog running loose. In the un-urbanized,
mostly
uninhabited areas, the rule is more direct. Free roaming dogs are likely
to be shot
on sight.

not really, otherwise we'd likely have no coyotes left.

My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see them.
Second, they are very prolific animals.

In days gone by people not only shot coyotes on sight, they killed the litters
in the dens, lured them into range with varmint calls (and 'range' was likely to
be 200 yards or more!), poisoned them, trapped them and hunted them.

Killed a lot of coyotes, but the coyotes kept bouncing back.

They're not my favorite animals, but it's hard not admire them in a sneaky sort
of way.

(And did I mention they are a major killer of free-roaming dogs?)

--RC



In neither case are dogs running loose tolerated. Nor should they be.

--RC

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...
You're not gonna like this, but. . .

The reason the dog displayed unacceptable levels of aggression is that it
wasn't
properly trained. Just being around people (socialization) is important,
but it
is not enough for any dog. You have to train them in what you want them to
do.

Um are you saying that the dog had to be "Properly" trained to not attack
and kill? Seems to be contrary to what you have been indicating about Pitt
Bulls.

This is especially important with a large, strong dog. You _have_ to train
them
or you're going to have trouble.

Some maybe but not all. Take the Great Dane for instance, a fantastac
indoor dog and superior around kids. Or a Lab, again naturally great around
kids.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:33:36 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:


My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
them.

Like the one that shadowed my wife and me for four holes on the golf
course! He made no attempt at not being seen and hung around at 25 to 50
yards. I don't see them regularly, but it's not uncommon to see them
either - many times as road kill.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois

wrote:
Searcher wrote:
A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.

(snip story of dog endangering people)

Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that
dog.

Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut
up.
If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
will make noise for a minute or three.

True in a lot of places.
Arizona is an interesting state because it consists of urban islands
isolated by
miles and miles of desert, rangeland, etc. In the urbanized areas you
call
animal
control when you encounter a dog running loose. In the un-urbanized,
mostly
uninhabited areas, the rule is more direct. Free roaming dogs are
likely
to be shot
on sight.

not really, otherwise we'd likely have no coyotes left.

My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
them.
Second, they are very prolific animals.

i see them daily in my back yard and neighborhood, as close as about 20'
from my patio. they also visit in packs at night, and howl at all hours of
the evening and night. they, along with the 3 eagles living in my neighbor's
trees, help keep the rabbit population down. currently, there is not a great
amount of shooting of coyotes, at least the 4 footed variety.

In days gone by people not only shot coyotes on sight, they killed the
litters
in the dens, lured them into range with varmint calls (and 'range' was
likely to
be 200 yards or more!), poisoned them, trapped them and hunted them.

Killed a lot of coyotes, but the coyotes kept bouncing back.

They're not my favorite animals, but it's hard not admire them in a sneaky
sort
of way.

(And did I mention they are a major killer of free-roaming dogs?)

--RC



In neither case are dogs running loose tolerated. Nor should they be.

--RC

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:33:36 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:


My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
them.

Like the one that shadowed my wife and me for four holes on the golf
course! He made no attempt at not being seen and hung around at 25 to 50
yards. I don't see them regularly, but it's not uncommon to see them
either - many times as road kill.

there are bozos in my neighborhood that carry dry dog food to feed them
whilst out on their daily walks. that's why they're learning to follow
people. it is very spooky when they do so.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Juergen Hannappel" wrote in message
...
Eddie Munster writes:

Not that I want one but....

It would be illegal for me to have a pet pot bellied pig, but okay for
me to have a pitbull!

Substitute chicken for pig if you prefer.


A pot bellied chicken?

Hey, let's leave Bay Area Dave out of this!

B.

Let's stay with Pyrs. All of the major Pyr sites, books and breeders
will tell you not to walk your Pyr off-leash.


Most responsible sources will tell you never to talk _any_ medium to large
size breed off a leash.


Then they're guilty of the same type of hysteria that you've been
arguing against in this thread. I'd like to see how one goes hunting
with one's dog on a leash.

In any case, you're ignoring the main issue which is different breeds
have different behavioral traits, some of which are aggressive in
character, and which can only be mitigated by training. Since that's
true, then some dogs are inherently more dangerous than others. Given
the characteristics that the American Pit Bull Terrier FAQ ascribes to
pit bulls, it follows that they are a more dangerous breed than most
others. So are mastifs, rottweilers, ... This doesn't mean that people
shouldn't own them, or that they don't make good dogs under the
appropriate circumstances.

I will add that there are a number pit bulls that come to our dog park.
When certain of them show up, everyone leaves. Why? Because these
specific dogs have demonstrated their aggressiveness. Sure the owners
are idiots. But a cocker spanial in the hands of a poor dog owner is
less dangerous than a pit bull owned by a similar person, maybe not
always, but certainly on average.

-Peter De Smidt

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:


That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
faith that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might
make it less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you
totally remove that urge? I doubt it.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.


What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.

True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.
They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
seems like it would be a trial. You're a lot more likely to break
their spirit first. If I yell at my dog (only once or twice in the
seven years I've had him) he won't eat for days. Hardly a candidate
for guard-dog at a crack house!

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:21:11 -0400, (J T)
wrote:


OT bad experience today

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sun, Oct 3, 2004, 8:27am (EDT-1)
(Prometheus) says:
ROFL!! You just made me imagine trying to turn my 70-lb. Collie into an
attack dog- he'd much rather sleep on the couch than eal someone alive.

Dunno. There was a story about an attack rabbit, a few years back.
Seems some young idiots had constantly teased it, over a period of time.
It would actually jump at people and try to bite them. I didn't bother
to check to verify it, but sounds like something that could happen. I
do remember reading about it, and believe I saw something on it on TV.
But, you know how true those TV news stories are.

I saw that on TV too... it was called "Monty Python and the Holy
Grail."


JOAT
We will never have great leaders as long as we mistake education for
intelligence, ambition for ability, and lack of transgression for
integrity.
- Unknown

Rick Cook wrote:
Prometheus wrote:

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation.

That statement is technically correct, but you have to look at
things from the dog's perspective. A dog, any dog, may be moved to
attack by things that seem utterly innocuous to humans. The
resulting aggression may seem utterly unprovoked to humans unless
they speak dog pretty fluently. Simply looking at a dog, or walking
close to it may appear to the dog to be an attack under the proper
circumstances. (This is why it is dangerous to approach any dog
that's running loose, btw. The dog is most likely out of its comfort
zone and prone to nervous aggression. This can be true of even the
most docile, well-behaved dogs.)

Here is a good discussion of aggression in dogs, what causes it and
how to prevent it.

http://www.accesskent.com/Health/Hea.../kcas_bite.htm

Excellent site, thanks!

Josie

Rick Cook wrote in
:



Lobby Dosser wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415fa764$1_2 @newspeer2.tds.net:

That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate
aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't
have them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked.


Number one in deaths, Rottweiler number two, other large dogs
dominating mist of the list. Surpisingly, a Yorkie gets a mention!
Less than 1% involved a leashed dog off the owners property.

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

But dog deaths are related to size and strength, not to number of
attacks. --RC



Well of course they are. But the Pit Bull is #1.

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
snip

What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.

True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.
They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
seems like it would be a trial. You're a lot more likely to break
their spirit first. If I yell at my dog (only once or twice in the
seven years I've had him) he won't eat for days. Hardly a candidate
for guard-dog at a crack house!



You never know. I suppose it would depend on the fringe benefits.

ann archy wrote in
:

i'd be willing to bet dollars to donut holes that
there are *really* far more dog bites from chihuahua's
than any other breed; its just that while 90% of the
doberman/etc bites may get reported in some fashion,
i bet 90% of the chihuahua 'bites' don't get reported
because A. it's embarassing B. what's to report ?
ow, i got four little dents on my ankle...


Saw a neighbor lose a finger to a Chihuahua. We were both drinking home
made applejack at the time so he felt relatively little pain. I had a hard
time keeping a straight face in the ER.

Rick Cook wrote in
:

Pit bulls were bred for strength, speed and 'gameness' -- the
unwillingness to quit --

I suspect also a considerable lack of nerve endings close to the surface.
My former Pit Bull/Boxer seemed impervious to pain. She walked into the
kitchen one night with one of the cats hanging from her lower lip by its
fangs. All 8 pounds of cat just swaying back and forth and that 'can
somebody get this cat offa me' look. She was one of the gentlest dogs I've
ever owned, but she was never off the leash off our property and, though
she was well trained, if we saw other animals on a walk I literaly tied the
leash to my arm. She did not suffer other creatures off the property.

Rick Cook wrote in
:

As I say, pit bulls are not for everyone and they most certainly need
to be both trained and socialized. If you don't do both, you're going
to have trouble.



As you may see in a previous response, I've owned a Pit Bull/Boxer mix and
dearly loved that dog. But, I sure as **** would not have tried to
socialize her with cattle! And don't know anyone that would.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Rick Cook wrote in
:



Lobby Dosser wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415fa764$1_2 @newspeer2.tds.net:

That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate
aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't
have them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked.


Number one in deaths, Rottweiler number two, other large dogs
dominating mist of the list. Surpisingly, a Yorkie gets a mention!
Less than 1% involved a leashed dog off the owners property.

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

But dog deaths are related to size and strength, not to number of
attacks. --RC



Well of course they are. But the Pit Bull is #1.

Which demonstrates that a Pit Bull is a strong, fast dog. However it says
nothing about the breed's aggressiveness, which is the point at issue.

Remember my analogy to a powerful shaper.

--RC

Peter De Smidt wrote:


Let's stay with Pyrs. All of the major Pyr sites, books and breeders
will tell you not to walk your Pyr off-leash.


Most responsible sources will tell you never to talk _any_ medium to large
size breed off a leash.


Obviously there are exceptions. But the rule is well-nigh universal. Keep any
medium to large dog leashed.



Then they're guilty of the same type of hysteria that you've been
arguing against in this thread. I'd like to see how one goes hunting
with one's dog on a leash.

In any case, you're ignoring the main issue which is different breeds
have different behavioral traits, some of which are aggressive in
character, and which can only be mitigated by training.

Actually I spent most of my message to you responding to exactly this point. To
recap:

1) Dog bite statistics show no correlation between breed of dog an aggression.
2) The Alabama Supreme Court found no evidence that some breeds are inherently
dangerous.
3) There is apparently no factual basis for your argument that pit bulls as a
breed are more aggressive.
4) While different breeds have different characteristics, I think the evidence
shows the differences are much, much less than you seem to believe and are in
any case not determinative.
5) All that said, pit bulls are large, strong dogs that are quite capable of
doing a lot of damage. That means that their owners have a special
responsibility to make sure their dog is properly trained, well-socialized and
properly restrained. This is true of Rottweilers, German Shepherds and many
other breeds of large dogs.

Since that's true, then some dogs are inherently more dangerous than others.

Some dogs are much more dangerous than others. But this owes much more to the
training, socialization and temperament of the individual dog that it does to
the breed.

Given
the characteristics that the American Pit Bull Terrier FAQ ascribes to
pit bulls, it follows that they are a more dangerous breed than most
others. So are mastifs, rottweilers, ... This doesn't mean that people
shouldn't own them, or that they don't make good dogs under the
appropriate circumstances.

I will add that there are a number pit bulls that come to our dog park.
When certain of them show up, everyone leaves. Why? Because these
specific dogs have demonstrated their aggressiveness. Sure the owners
are idiots. But a cocker spanial in the hands of a poor dog owner is
less dangerous than a pit bull owned by a similar person, maybe not
always, but certainly on average.

Actually cocker spaniels have a reputation as biters as well. But no, a 20-pound
cocker isn't as big or as strong as a 40-pound pit bull and probably won't do as
much damage if it does attack. But again, that doesn't go to the inherent
aggressiveness of the breed.

And keep in mind that pit bulls are enormously strong dogs for their size. They
are commonly used in pulling contests and it's not unusual to have a single pit
bull pull over 1000 pounds. It's kind of funny to watch a pit bull trying to
swim. They have so much muscle they're very dense dogs and they have to paddle
frantically just to stay afloat.

--RC



-Peter De Smidt

Leon wrote:

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...
You're not gonna like this, but. . .

The reason the dog displayed unacceptable levels of aggression is that it
wasn't
properly trained. Just being around people (socialization) is important,
but it
is not enough for any dog. You have to train them in what you want them to
do.

Um are you saying that the dog had to be "Properly" trained to not attack
and kill? Seems to be contrary to what you have been indicating about Pitt
Bulls.

I'm saying any medium to large dog must be properly trained in addition to being
socialized with the family. It is not just about 'attacking and killing'. It
includes everything from not charging the door when excited to responding to the
leash properly and not trying to drag you all over the place, jumping up on
people, etc. Above all, the dog has to be trained well enough to be under
control at all times.

A dog that challenges other animals or people is an extreme example of a dog in
bad need of training. So is a dog that crashes into the door an in effort to get
at someone or something on the other side.



This is especially important with a large, strong dog. You _have_ to train
them
or you're going to have trouble.

Some maybe but not all. Take the Great Dane for instance, a fantastac
indoor dog and superior around kids. Or a Lab, again naturally great around
kids.

Have you ever been around a poorly trained Great Dane or Lab? It's no fun and it
is dangerous. I very nearly had my head taken off by a Great Dane when I was a
kid because I approached the dog where it was sitting on the grass with its
owner. Fortunately the dog was on a leash. I have some friends who had a Dane
who was as mellow as you describe -- unless he thought the family's daughter was
in danger. Unfortunately the dog didn't have very good discrimination as to what
constituted 'danger.' It took some doing for them to train that out of him.

The bottom line is that any medium to large dog needs to be carefully socialized
and trained. It's a fundamental responsibility of owning a big dog of any breed.

--RC

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Rick Cook wrote in
:

As I say, pit bulls are not for everyone and they most certainly need
to be both trained and socialized. If you don't do both, you're going
to have trouble.



As you may see in a previous response, I've owned a Pit Bull/Boxer mix and
dearly loved that dog. But, I sure as **** would not have tried to
socialize her with cattle! And don't know anyone that would.

Actually it's fairly common to have pit bulls who are fine around livestock.
One of my pit bull owning friends likes to work around horses and she has
trained pit bulls not to bother either horses or cattle. This same friend had
a pit bull who was an obedience champion.

Not all that difficult, actually to train a pit bull. You just have to make
sure the dog understands that certain things are no-nos. If you're consistent
with them pit bulls are extremely easy to train -- at least according to
people who know dog training and have trained many breeds.

--RC

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:


That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
faith that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might
make it less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you
totally remove that urge? I doubt it.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.


What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.

True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.

As nearly as we can tell from the dog bite list, bites correlate with the
popularity of the breed.


They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
seems like it would be a trial.

Just a matter of making the dog crazy. It works the same for any dog.
Understand, a vicious dog is not a mentally healthy dog and usually shows an
exaggerated fear response.

Now if you're concerned about the 'instinctive characteristics' of the dog,
keep in mind that a collie's herding behavior is a sublimated version of
chasing prey and bringing it down by hamstringing it. In fact I am told that
at least some shelties have a tendency to nip (bite) at the heels of running
children and it has to be trained out of them.

--RC

Doug Winterburn wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:33:36 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:

My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
them.

Like the one that shadowed my wife and me for four holes on the golf
course! He made no attempt at not being seen and hung around at 25 to 50
yards. I don't see them regularly, but it's not uncommon to see them
either - many times as road kill.

-Doug

That one had learned he had nothing to fear from people on the golf course.
Obviously he'd never been hit by an errant golf ball.

Actually, that's the reason people think coyotes are more common in some
areas. Not only are they spreading their range, but they've learned they
don't have to worry about people in semi-urban or suburban areas.

In all my years in Arizona I've only seen 2 coyotes in the wild. Even when
I'm in areas with coyote sign all over the place.

--RC



--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Rick Cook wrote in
:

Pit bulls were bred for strength, speed and 'gameness' -- the
unwillingness to quit --

I suspect also a considerable lack of nerve endings close to the surface.
My former Pit Bull/Boxer seemed impervious to pain. She walked into the
kitchen one night with one of the cats hanging from her lower lip by its
fangs. All 8 pounds of cat just swaying back and forth and that 'can
somebody get this cat offa me' look.


ROF,LVH. Poor long-suffering dog. But that _is_ funny, especially in light
of the prior content of the thread, which would attempt to convince us any
dog that had ever even _seen_ a pit bull would eat the cat and look for
more.

She was one of the gentlest dogs I've
ever owned, but she was never off the leash off our property and, though
she was well trained, if we saw other animals on a walk I literaly tied
the leash to my arm. She did not suffer other creatures off the property.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dog charges, target panics, trouble starts. Leash is a perfect way to work
on that behavior.

My Australian shepherd was an end-of-leash sniffer, so I had to drag him
past tempting domestic foliage while my four-year-old walked the female
borzoi who stood taller than he and outweighed him by three. Used to get a
lot of strange looks.

Actually he was the epitome of "dog" - if he couldn't eat it or screw it, he
****ed on it.

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...

I'm saying any medium to large dog must be properly trained in addition to
being
socialized with the family. It is not just about 'attacking and killing'.
It
includes everything from not charging the door when excited to responding
to the
leash properly and not trying to drag you all over the place, jumping up
on
people, etc. Above all, the dog has to be trained well enough to be under
control at all times.

A dog that challenges other animals or people is an extreme example of a
dog in
bad need of training. So is a dog that crashes into the door an in effort
to get
at someone or something on the other side.

Then there's disease. My former collie got into a ****ing (and rolling)
contest with one which absolutely fouled the corner of the shed by the trash
can, and resulted in mange for my dog.

One positive to the return of the wolf hereabout is the diminished coyote
population.

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...
My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
them.
Second, they are very prolific animals.


(And did I mention they are a major killer of free-roaming dogs?)

J T wrote:


OT bad experience today

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sat, Oct 2, 2004, 10:18am (EDT-1)
(Swingman) says:
snip I had my right hand completely bitten through by a pit bull
snip

I've seen videos of them blowing out tires on vehicles (people
taking refuge in them), so the dogs took it out on the tires.

struggling to get my right hand from those jaws snip

A lot of days late, and several dollars short, but kicking it in
the stomach, or other areas, might have done it. But, getting your hand
bitten, and thinking clearly enough to remember something like that,
might not go together.

but to me there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these
dogs, particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons, and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around
one,

That seems to be the reason most people own them.

except for the owner.



I was in the military (USMC) and we were trained to respond to attack
dogs like this:


1) If a dog is charging you, you will be bitten, so prepare for it. Do
not run and do not turn your back to the dog. Force your hand violently
into the dog's mouth as he opens it to bite you. Reach as deeply into
his throat as possible.

2) The most sensitive and critical component of a dog attack is his
feet. Stomp them as many times as possible. A broken foot will terminate
most attacks.

3) If you have a free hand, grab a front leg and pull it behind the
dog's back as though you were attempting an arm lock. It is easy to
dislocate the dog's leg, which will terminate the attack.

Any dog can be dangerous, it's just that there are lots of idiots who
consider owning a pit bull(s) to be a reflection of their character and
personal discipline. Naturally, since criminals tend to favor the more
intimidating breeds, a negative stigma has developed. I don't doubt that
the majority of pit bull owners are responsible people, but it certainly
seems like there are a lot more stray pits at SPCA than there are Rotts.
It might have something to do with the fact that a Rott with good
bloodlines can cost two grand ow more. I have a Rat Terrier and two very
large Rottweilers. The terrier seems to be the noisiest, rowdiest one of
the bunch, even though she only weighs twelve pounds.


just some random thoughts...

--
-linux_lad
To verify that this post isn't forged, click he
http://www.spoofproof.org/verify.php...e795cae14cfced

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:23:51 -0700, -linux_lad wrote:
I was in the military (USMC) and we were trained to respond to attack
dogs like this:

1) If a dog is charging you, you will be bitten, so prepare for it. Do
not run and do not turn your back to the dog. Force your hand violently
into the dog's mouth as he opens it to bite you. Reach as deeply into
his throat as possible.

Makes sense. The general principle is sound as well, even though
it makes people whine about "you don't have proof he was going
to bite you".

2) The most sensitive and critical component of a dog attack is his
feet. Stomp them as many times as possible. A broken foot will terminate
most attacks.
3) If you have a free hand, grab a front leg and pull it behind the
dog's back as though you were attempting an arm lock. It is easy to
dislocate the dog's leg, which will terminate the attack.

Good to know, thanks. At the risk of turning this into more of
a debate than it already is, it's interesting to substitute
"rogue nation/dictator" for "dangerous dog".

Why not. The guy I work for has three Rottweilers. Got to be careful
around them or they'll love you to death. Great big teddy bears. I
can't believe the breed has any inherent evil tendencies. They must be
taught. One man's observation only.

bob g.

Stay tuned - someone is yet bound to introduce the Rottweiller
into this thread...

"Robert Galloway" wrote in message
...
Why not. The guy I work for has three Rottweilers. Got to be careful
around them or they'll love you to death. Great big teddy bears. I
can't believe the breed has any inherent evil tendencies. They must be
taught. One man's observation only.

Stayed out of this thread, but have to comment here. I may have missed it,
but all this conjecture about improper training and personality traits in
dogs has very little to do (with some exceptions) with how they react. It's
all about instinct.

When I was an 8 year old kid, we had a German Shepherd. Biggest baby and the
most gentle dog you've ever seen. One day when he was eating dinner, I was
sticking my fingers in his dog food. He snapped at me and bit me on the
cheek. Even then I could tell the dog was ashamed for nipping me, but I
realized right at that moment, you don't interfere with instinct in an
animal. The problem with having any animal, is that it's often very
difficult to tell when instinct is going to overshadow training.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
snip

Instinct doth prevail :-).


It often does. This part of the debate is a rehash of the old
nature/nurture debate. It's very hard to prove stuff along these lines,
since you can't have one without the other, which makes experiment
difficult. However, there have been a number of studies recently that
show that genetics is more important for human behavior than previously
thought. It's simply not true that you can blame all behavior problems
on poor parenting. In fact, barring very good evidence, it would be a
very arrogant thing to claim. Since genetic traits are so important for
human behavior, it seems likely that it's quite important for dog
behavior as well, as we're genetically quite similar. It follows that
not all bad dog behavior can be blamed on poor training. Note: pointing
out that humans are not dogs would not count as a rebuttle. You'd
actually have to have evidence that genetics plays less of a behavioral
role with dogs than it does with humans.

Consider two people, Mary and Tom. Assume that both are raised in a
relevantly similar environment. It's perfectly possible in this
situation for Tom to have a problem with alcohol, due to a genetic
predispostion, but Mary does not, since she lacks the genetic
predisposition. Let's now put Tom in rehab, and let's say he stay's
clean. Good going Tom! Does anyone really think that Tom's desire for
alcohol has been removed? Moving back to the canine world, does my dog's
desire to chase the squirrel stop even when I tell him "no" and he
doesn't chase it?

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? Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming
evidence, 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. It's simply not true.

-Peter De Smidt

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:48:26 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
snip

What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.

True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.
They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
seems like it would be a trial. You're a lot more likely to break
their spirit first. If I yell at my dog (only once or twice in the
seven years I've had him) he won't eat for days. Hardly a candidate
for guard-dog at a crack house!



You never know. I suppose it would depend on the fringe benefits.

I suppose for all the pizza he could eat and frequent belly rubs, he'd
give it a try....

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:49:08 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:



Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:


That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
faith that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might
make it less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you
totally remove that urge? I doubt it.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.


What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.

True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.

As nearly as we can tell from the dog bite list, bites correlate with the
popularity of the breed.


They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
seems like it would be a trial.

Just a matter of making the dog crazy. It works the same for any dog.
Understand, a vicious dog is not a mentally healthy dog and usually shows an
exaggerated fear response.

Now if you're concerned about the 'instinctive characteristics' of the dog,
keep in mind that a collie's herding behavior is a sublimated version of
chasing prey and bringing it down by hamstringing it. In fact I am told that
at least some shelties have a tendency to nip (bite) at the heels of running
children and it has to be trained out of them.

Not concerned in this case. I've seen plenty of the herding instinct
in my dog, and it's all been benign. It's pretty funny to watch him
herding the cat around the house! He also does it with small
children, but only with gentle pushes from his muzzle.

I had a similar experience just last Tuesday night. Must have been a
Bush supporter. He was VERY angry!

Peter De Smidt wrote:

snip

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. 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.

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.

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.

What causes 'doggie behavioral problems' is a moot point. The important
point is that such problems can almost always be controlled with training
and socialization. The secondary point is that unacceptable behavior, such
as aggression, can be controlled in all breeds of dogs.

--RC



-Peter De Smidt