- I am broke and nothing to lose
- My impoverished neighborhood is full of crime and I need protection
- Police do not protect and X number of my family are felons as a byproduct of poverty so I cannot keep gun accessible in house
- therefore get big scary dogs for protection
High-risk dogs are entirely owner created. People with behavioural issues acquire a breed with a reputation, and proceed to train and encourage that behaviour. It would be shocking if this wasn't correlated with other deviant behaviours.
Unfortunately, some dogs do have higher potential for harm than others, even setting aside training. For some, this is due to their bite strength (e.g. Rottweilers, Doberman, and yes, pitbulls.) Some tend to be more skittish/wary of strangers (e.g. guard dogs like Akitas and Dalmations) and act more unpredictably around them.
On the other hand, breeds like Beagles and French Bulldogs seem to very rarely cause serious injury. Even a Pomeranian or Chihuahua, while often wary of strangers, can't typically do much damage...
edit: Since I'm being downvoted, I'd love if someone could explain why? I don't think I said anything particularly controversial. I grew up with a Rottie-Pitbull mix and my family has numerous pitbulls (and other dogs) in it. I've had numerous friends with Akitas. I agree that owners are responsible for training their dogs to behave appropriately, and yet I've also seen the damage that larger dogs can do, and the difficulty that even experienced dog owners can have with these behaviors.
Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point. A very large dog need very good training simply because their strength is greater than that of most humans. A German shepherd that jumps into people faces is bigger problem than a Chihuahua that can't even reach you knee.
That said, potential for harm is a poor measurement, and dogs are fairly low on the list if one looks for high risk ownership. Most stuff people own or have in their house is more dangerous, and even among pets they are far from the top.
> Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point.
Yes! Thank you for summarizing half of my original comment. This is exactly right - larger, stronger dogs carry a higher risk because they are harder to overpower. That said, even small dogs can and do hurt vulnerable humans. But they are certainly lower-risk than larger dogs.
The other half of my comment points out that dogs are bred not just for specific looks, but for specific behaviors and temperaments. I understand why people don't like to discuss this (either because they worry it takes responsibility away from the dog owner, or because it sounds a bit too much like eugenics) but it's absolutely true. This is why we have pointing dogs, sight hounds, and scent hounds, for example.
As for the second part of your comment, this seems a bit like whataboutism. Certainly there are bigger risks in life besides dogs, but it's kind of besides the point of this discussion.
When it comes to behavior, individual behavior generally exceeds that of breed. There are behavioral commonalities within breeds, but they are also mixed with the health of the breed, size, and how fast they mature. A breed with inherent narcolepsy and poor strength tend to be more easier to handle and get perceived as having calmer behavior. In term of domestic behavior, breeds with higher independence and intelligence tend to be more difficult and often get describe as having a energetic and strong willed behavior.
I disagree with the whataboutism. Comparing risk is a under utilized skill in society, and people are commonly surprise when informed. If we are talking about risk to children, parents with a pet dog has a different risk profile than that of a pet horse or a pet cat. If we are assessing which kind of parent has a higher risk factor in their pet ownership, then we should not limit it to simply dog breeds. It also makes no sense to just compare pet owners, but also owners of other objects which carry risk to children. A simplistic proxy for comparing risk is to use life insurance and see what kind of risk that insurance companies find to be higher or lower. People who converts risk assessment into money don't usually care too much about the object that causes risk, but rather reduce it down to how high the risk is.
It sounds like you object to the premise of the study itself, rather than its findings. I'm not really sure what to say on that point.
I can tell you that I currently have a Beagle-Border Collie (50/50 per two DNA tests) mix that is incredibly energetic and intelligent, and was very easy to train. She doesn't love strangers, but she is not aggressive towards them. While she looks very much like a Beagle, she has a temperament resembling that of a Border Collie: meaning she can be let off-leash and doesn't run off following smells, and she looks to me constantly for her next move, taking to training extremely well. While many Beagles are also easily trained, they have a reputation for being stubborn and very few can be let off leash. On the other hand, BCs are known for sticking close to their handlers. However, like a Beagle, she will stuff her face until she pukes given the chance.
These are well-documented traits of these breeds. When I interact with other BC's (or related breeds, like Australian Shepherds) and Beagles they behave very similarly.
I'm not sure why you're resistant to the idea that breeds have different temperaments.
To take Border Collie, common behavior issues are jumping (which can cause issues with children or vulnerable), Anxiety (common with females) which can lead to aggression, strong herding instinct which can also lead to situation of perceived aggression, higher than normal need for mental stimulation that can lead to property destruction, and nipping behavior which is a form of unprovoked biting of humans (Usually towards the face, hands or arms). All those are well documented traits of Border Collies and could be used to describe a violent breed, and yet for most people who has owned one (like me), would find each of those very unfair description of what it actually means to own such breed. They are well known issues, especially if the dog is not handled correctly, and is a reason why they sadly often end up being sold or sent to a shelter when inexperienced dog owners fail to provide the necessary training and stimulation that a Border Collie usually need, resulting in unwanted behavior.
Does that mean the temperament of Border Collie is that of aggressiveness? No. Does it mean they can't be near children? No. Their temperament can look like aggression from the outside but they are generally not aggressive. They are however a breed that is not recommended to inexperienced owners.
Honestly, it sounds like we are in agreement except that I don't find those descriptions to be unfair, and I'm not sure why you would, after stating them yourself. They are common behavioral traits of the breed.
Some breeds carry higher risks than others, due to both size / strength and temperament. This is the reason you suggest experienced owners.
It’s almost like parenting. Children from a bad environment are more likely to have problems later. Not very different from dogs. Both try to fit into their environment and take clues for “correct” behavior from there.
That’s as opposed to cats. They always plot to kill you.
The vast majority of fatal dog attacks are carried out by a handful of breeds (66% of deaths in the US are caused by pitbulls). In the UK, the majority of recent deaths were caused by the recently introduced Bully XL, which is now banned.
The study doesn't have anything to say about dog behavior, and makes no attempt to connect individual dog behavior to environment as far as I can tell.
The connection they're pointing to is that criminal behavior correlates with choosing one of these dog types.
You have to look beyond the study to common sense and why this produces “duh” level of insights. It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture.
As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they all have pit bulls with spiked collars in their music videos. This promotes what’s already happening IRL. (I say this as a huge “gangster rap” fan!)
An aggressive personality is drawn to an aggressive breed of dog and then when treated aggressively is considered vicious.
> It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture.
> As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they
You're talking about country music right? Because in the rural south where I grew up the most visible pitbull-venerating subculture by far was also really into country music, gun violence, and selling xanax and percocet.
No I think you know I clearly referenced another culture/subculture via musical genre but I’m also not saying it’s mutually exclusive in any sense so I’m glad you’ve pointed out another example that illustrates my point
I don’t know much about about the one you spoke about despite being a WASP from Texas I don’t listen to country music but know rap quite well and pull from my knowledge base when writing comments online.
I don’t want to make the comment racial at all, but poor people in America have a lot of similarities whether they be white or black they glorify violence, drugs, etc the main difference is urban/rural.
Reminds me of a perfect illustration of this. The dog owner was a prison inmate serving three lifetime sentences, who was adopted by two attorneys who cared for his two killer dogs.
This look like a correlation study between risk taking and dog ownership. I strongly doubt it will pass any form of replication, especially if done cross culture.
It should be added that many of the high-risk association with dog breeds is also an association with breeds of working dogs, hunting dogs, and with size. The more difficult the breed is, the more work is required for training and socialization, and thus the risk is higher if the owner is inexperienced or lack time and effort. The physically larger breeds also require better training since a human can't just use brutal force to get their will through.
Since the article brings up assessing risk for child endangerment, I wonder how horse ownership correlates with good parenting.
They tend to be protective breed like a cute Rotweiler.
Seems harsh to label any of these breeds as aggressive when it stems from human behavior or deliberate training to make aggressive.
dogs don't have agency. I get that they have different conformation and temperaments, but every single one of them is the responsibility of their owner.
what bothers me about "research" like this is that it is designed remove agency from the owners and fearful anxious and irresponsible people, turn it into regulatory power, and undermines my culture, which has lived in harmony with other beings in nature for millennia.
essentially european descent, landowners. horsemen, peasants, yeomen, etc. not of cities, mainly.
people from more urbanized cultures aren't usually as acclimatized to dealing with animals and don't recognize it as a competence or skill. everyone can learn, but chances are if you have been in a city for generations, it's not as normal. if you didn't learn, and see them mainly as symbols and objects instead of beings, you're going to be a crappy dog owner who ends up in a study like this.
living with animals as pets, especially indoors, and barring some of the asian horse cultures, is pretty western-coded.
Not only is the linked paper correct in that the ownership of of these kinds of animals is a proxy for deviant behaviours but the ownership itself is a deviant behaviour with the owners all too often using their dogs to terrorize their neighbours and assert dominance in their community.
It's really shocking to me that many societies allow people to possess and weaponize intrinsically dangerous animals within city limits.
Like I get why a place like America where little regard is placed on the consequences of the mentally ill or violent owning firearms is overlooked but it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures with little recourse for the people who are chronically victimized by them.
The solution seems straightforward to me:
A) Prohibit the ownership of these kinds of animals in urban environments.
B) Enact laws that hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves.
If you own a particularly aggressive dog that exhibits a pattern of threatening behaviour and it eventually kills someone, you should be charged with manslaughter. There’s no excuse for allowing preventable violence to occur when the warning signs are so clear.
> it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures
Just for reference, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK imposes strict liability (including criminal liability) for dangerous dogs and maintains a list of breeds that are banned. Recently 'XL Bully' dogs were put on that list, but there is controversy regarding the breed-specific limits. It is always easy to look back and say 'that dog and its owner were the source of a series of problems and should have been detained' but turns out that preventing future problems is harder than you would think...
Comparing some risk/danger people are upset about to car accidents is a red flag. Concepts like risk-return and self-determination and dignity are fundamental to these topics, and the "look at car accident numbers" line almost always implies a minimization to the easiest thing to "win an argument" with: Statistics. Numbers. Anybody who believes they can ignore numbers is a fool, but on the other side, anybody who believes they only need numbers is just as detached from reality.
This is a classic false equivalence. Comparing the ownership of an inherently aggressive animal to the risks of driving, falling down stairs, or eating food is misleading.
The key difference is that cars, stairs, and food are essential parts of our society and and built environment whereas vicious and threatening dogs simply are not. Dogs, especially breeds with a known propensity for aggression, can and do actively attack and maim, often with little provocation. When an aggressive dog attacks, the harm is not an accident — it's a foreseeable outcome of allowing a high-risk animal into an environment where it can threaten others.
Cars and other 'risky' activities you mentioned are heavily regulated, with safety standards, licenses, and liability laws in place to mitigate harm. Yet, aggressive dogs often exist in a legal gray area, where irresponsible owners can inflict lasting harm with little consequence.[0][1] The fact that some people choose to neglect or improperly train their animals makes the situation worse, not better.
This isn’t about banning all dogs. It’s about preventing preventable violence from animals that have no place in densely populated urban areas. I can't drive a monster truck in a city, why should I be allowed to walk a monster animal?
Dogs are highly regulated, do you know how draconian courts are about dog to people attacks? In most cases the dogs dont get a second chance.
Monster Animals?
Let me ask you this, do you believe that statistics about certain races committing a large percentage of violent crimes should be interrupted as them being innately more dangerous? Would you suggest we ban them from cities? I'd truthfully like to know.
Dogs are not people, they do not have human rights, and the vast majority of dog breeds were created in the past few hundreds years via selective breeding by humans. It's not genocide, racism, or environmentally destructive to eliminate dangerous (meaning: capable of mauling or killing a healthy adult) dog breeds. Literally the only downside is that doing so would make some people sad.
I don't think that purpose bred animals are comparable to human beings, and won't be entertaining that odious notion.
Do you support regulations that would hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves?
First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently.
Second of all this is an argument about the fallacies of correlation and causation when reading data and how hardcore emotional takes like yours tend to be from a misunderstanding of the data.
Also, the part that makes me the most disappointed is you are on here trying to regulate other peoples things and dont even bother to do a quick google search or educate yourself on the fact that all the things you are crying about already exist.
//// Under California Penal Code Section 399 PC, a person may be criminally liable if a dangerous animal he or she owns injures or kills another person. While this offense typically applies to dangerous dogs, it can apply to any animal owned or kept by a person. ///// Also the civil liability is off the chart.
The most liberal state in the whole US even has the laws you claim dont exist. Your fear is understandable, but your crusade without even spending a second on the issue is beneath the spirit of this website.
According to this site[0] the maximum penalty for breaking this law is a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine.
I'm suggesting something far different from what this law implements. I'm suggesting that people who own a high-risk dog that maims someone should be charged with assault, and if that animal kills someone they should be charged with manslaughter.
Again, a simple search would show that 2-4 year sentence is standard for heavy assault and/or involuntary manslaughter. Your wish is literally already the reality of dog ownership, but you are still committed to vilifying other peoples choices.
The law you cited seems to only apply in cases where the owner knows their animal is dangerous and does nothing to prevent harm. It’s about negligence. What I’m suggesting is that if a person’s dog — regardless of prior warnings or known aggression — causes severe injury or death, the owner should face charges similar to assault or manslaughter, not just negligence.
Current laws often only apply in cases where the owner had prior knowledge of the danger. I’m arguing that severe outcomes from owning inherently high-risk dogs (like certain breeds prone to aggression) should carry more serious consequences regardless of prior knowledge.
And while sentences for assault and involuntary manslaughter may be similar to what I’m proposing (which I oppose because I feel that sentences for violent crimes should be far higher), the distinction is that I’m advocating for this standard to be applied to all severe cases involving high-risk animals, not just those where negligence can be proven.
So no, this isn’t ‘literally already the reality’ — there’s a meaningful gap between negligence laws and what I’m suggesting.
Ok, youre arguing that we should ascribe character to the statistics. So answer my question about what we should do with group of people who commit more violent crimes.
This is barely disguised racism. And it makes me angry. But then that was the point wasn't it?
Dogs, like humans, are pack animals. They will follow the pack. Dogs like humans, exhibit higher intrabreed differences than intercommunity, just like humans. That is to say, dogs and humans will always follow their pack, and there are more differences in-between individuals, than there are between the color of your skin, or your coat.
How did this malicious study find this significance? Sample bias. They didn't control for breed ownership. If you're more likely to learn violence as a survival skill (The paper calls this deviance, fuck off with that obfuscation) you're also, more likely to adopt a dog with that same reputation in your community.
how did these breeds get this reputation? papers like this for one. but also you can breed a dog to do things mine likes to chase cows. which means he also likes to bite ankles... except mine doesn't. he doesn't give a shit about ankles. He loves balls though. The most classic example in my circles are pitbulls, breed to be fighters, they have a natural tendency to not let go after a bite. This is not viciousness.
all the paper does is perpetuate a myth that these breed are dangerous. It should be rejected as junk the same way we reject statistics about [race] on [race] crime.
If you need another reason to reject this trash, ask why this doesn't correlate well with dog trainers, and professional dog rescuers understanding about which breeds are more likely to bite unprovoked? (which is what viciousness actually is)
"High-Risk" dogs present increased legal liability that owners tend to discount or disregard.
"Disregard for legal liability" is a fairly reasonable description of criminal behavior.
This scientific study merely validates the basic logic involved.
Another cause for disregard for liability:
High-risk dogs are entirely owner created. People with behavioural issues acquire a breed with a reputation, and proceed to train and encourage that behaviour. It would be shocking if this wasn't correlated with other deviant behaviours.
> High-risk dogs are entirely owner created.
Unfortunately, some dogs do have higher potential for harm than others, even setting aside training. For some, this is due to their bite strength (e.g. Rottweilers, Doberman, and yes, pitbulls.) Some tend to be more skittish/wary of strangers (e.g. guard dogs like Akitas and Dalmations) and act more unpredictably around them.
On the other hand, breeds like Beagles and French Bulldogs seem to very rarely cause serious injury. Even a Pomeranian or Chihuahua, while often wary of strangers, can't typically do much damage...
edit: Since I'm being downvoted, I'd love if someone could explain why? I don't think I said anything particularly controversial. I grew up with a Rottie-Pitbull mix and my family has numerous pitbulls (and other dogs) in it. I've had numerous friends with Akitas. I agree that owners are responsible for training their dogs to behave appropriately, and yet I've also seen the damage that larger dogs can do, and the difficulty that even experienced dog owners can have with these behaviors.
Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point. A very large dog need very good training simply because their strength is greater than that of most humans. A German shepherd that jumps into people faces is bigger problem than a Chihuahua that can't even reach you knee.
That said, potential for harm is a poor measurement, and dogs are fairly low on the list if one looks for high risk ownership. Most stuff people own or have in their house is more dangerous, and even among pets they are far from the top.
there was infamously the case of a newborn that was mauled (to death) by a pomeranian. 6 week old babies can't really do anything except cry.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dogfree/comments/ezqzs9/pet_pomeran...
in its heart it is wolf, but in it's body it is fluff-ball. larger dogs like GSDs don't have those limitations.
> Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point.
Yes! Thank you for summarizing half of my original comment. This is exactly right - larger, stronger dogs carry a higher risk because they are harder to overpower. That said, even small dogs can and do hurt vulnerable humans. But they are certainly lower-risk than larger dogs.
The other half of my comment points out that dogs are bred not just for specific looks, but for specific behaviors and temperaments. I understand why people don't like to discuss this (either because they worry it takes responsibility away from the dog owner, or because it sounds a bit too much like eugenics) but it's absolutely true. This is why we have pointing dogs, sight hounds, and scent hounds, for example.
As for the second part of your comment, this seems a bit like whataboutism. Certainly there are bigger risks in life besides dogs, but it's kind of besides the point of this discussion.
When it comes to behavior, individual behavior generally exceeds that of breed. There are behavioral commonalities within breeds, but they are also mixed with the health of the breed, size, and how fast they mature. A breed with inherent narcolepsy and poor strength tend to be more easier to handle and get perceived as having calmer behavior. In term of domestic behavior, breeds with higher independence and intelligence tend to be more difficult and often get describe as having a energetic and strong willed behavior.
I disagree with the whataboutism. Comparing risk is a under utilized skill in society, and people are commonly surprise when informed. If we are talking about risk to children, parents with a pet dog has a different risk profile than that of a pet horse or a pet cat. If we are assessing which kind of parent has a higher risk factor in their pet ownership, then we should not limit it to simply dog breeds. It also makes no sense to just compare pet owners, but also owners of other objects which carry risk to children. A simplistic proxy for comparing risk is to use life insurance and see what kind of risk that insurance companies find to be higher or lower. People who converts risk assessment into money don't usually care too much about the object that causes risk, but rather reduce it down to how high the risk is.
It sounds like you object to the premise of the study itself, rather than its findings. I'm not really sure what to say on that point.
I can tell you that I currently have a Beagle-Border Collie (50/50 per two DNA tests) mix that is incredibly energetic and intelligent, and was very easy to train. She doesn't love strangers, but she is not aggressive towards them. While she looks very much like a Beagle, she has a temperament resembling that of a Border Collie: meaning she can be let off-leash and doesn't run off following smells, and she looks to me constantly for her next move, taking to training extremely well. While many Beagles are also easily trained, they have a reputation for being stubborn and very few can be let off leash. On the other hand, BCs are known for sticking close to their handlers. However, like a Beagle, she will stuff her face until she pukes given the chance.
These are well-documented traits of these breeds. When I interact with other BC's (or related breeds, like Australian Shepherds) and Beagles they behave very similarly.
I'm not sure why you're resistant to the idea that breeds have different temperaments.
To take Border Collie, common behavior issues are jumping (which can cause issues with children or vulnerable), Anxiety (common with females) which can lead to aggression, strong herding instinct which can also lead to situation of perceived aggression, higher than normal need for mental stimulation that can lead to property destruction, and nipping behavior which is a form of unprovoked biting of humans (Usually towards the face, hands or arms). All those are well documented traits of Border Collies and could be used to describe a violent breed, and yet for most people who has owned one (like me), would find each of those very unfair description of what it actually means to own such breed. They are well known issues, especially if the dog is not handled correctly, and is a reason why they sadly often end up being sold or sent to a shelter when inexperienced dog owners fail to provide the necessary training and stimulation that a Border Collie usually need, resulting in unwanted behavior.
Does that mean the temperament of Border Collie is that of aggressiveness? No. Does it mean they can't be near children? No. Their temperament can look like aggression from the outside but they are generally not aggressive. They are however a breed that is not recommended to inexperienced owners.
Honestly, it sounds like we are in agreement except that I don't find those descriptions to be unfair, and I'm not sure why you would, after stating them yourself. They are common behavioral traits of the breed.
Some breeds carry higher risks than others, due to both size / strength and temperament. This is the reason you suggest experienced owners.
As in nearly all nature-vs-nurture behavioral discussion, the word "entirely" usually has no place.
[dead]
[dead]
It’s almost like parenting. Children from a bad environment are more likely to have problems later. Not very different from dogs. Both try to fit into their environment and take clues for “correct” behavior from there.
That’s as opposed to cats. They always plot to kill you.
> Not very different from dogs.
The vast majority of fatal dog attacks are carried out by a handful of breeds (66% of deaths in the US are caused by pitbulls). In the UK, the majority of recent deaths were caused by the recently introduced Bully XL, which is now banned.
The Bully is basically a pit bull as well.
The study doesn't have anything to say about dog behavior, and makes no attempt to connect individual dog behavior to environment as far as I can tell.
The connection they're pointing to is that criminal behavior correlates with choosing one of these dog types.
You have to look beyond the study to common sense and why this produces “duh” level of insights. It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture.
As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they all have pit bulls with spiked collars in their music videos. This promotes what’s already happening IRL. (I say this as a huge “gangster rap” fan!)
An aggressive personality is drawn to an aggressive breed of dog and then when treated aggressively is considered vicious.
> It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture.
> As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they
You're talking about country music right? Because in the rural south where I grew up the most visible pitbull-venerating subculture by far was also really into country music, gun violence, and selling xanax and percocet.
> You're talking about country music right?
No I think you know I clearly referenced another culture/subculture via musical genre but I’m also not saying it’s mutually exclusive in any sense so I’m glad you’ve pointed out another example that illustrates my point
I don’t know much about about the one you spoke about despite being a WASP from Texas I don’t listen to country music but know rap quite well and pull from my knowledge base when writing comments online.
I don’t want to make the comment racial at all, but poor people in America have a lot of similarities whether they be white or black they glorify violence, drugs, etc the main difference is urban/rural.
Nah. Cats are fine as long as you keep the food and scritches coming and Do Not. Touch. The Tummy.
Reminds me of a perfect illustration of this. The dog owner was a prison inmate serving three lifetime sentences, who was adopted by two attorneys who cared for his two killer dogs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple
This look like a correlation study between risk taking and dog ownership. I strongly doubt it will pass any form of replication, especially if done cross culture.
It should be added that many of the high-risk association with dog breeds is also an association with breeds of working dogs, hunting dogs, and with size. The more difficult the breed is, the more work is required for training and socialization, and thus the risk is higher if the owner is inexperienced or lack time and effort. The physically larger breeds also require better training since a human can't just use brutal force to get their will through.
Since the article brings up assessing risk for child endangerment, I wonder how horse ownership correlates with good parenting.
Since when is a Chow a high risk dog? Aren't they fluffballs?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic - it's a pretty obvious trope to confuse how cute an animal is with how safe it is.
Edit: To be clear, I don't know what the statistics/literature on Chows say. I'm just remarking on "aren't they fluffballs?"
They tend to be protective breed like a cute Rotweiler. Seems harsh to label any of these breeds as aggressive when it stems from human behavior or deliberate training to make aggressive.
I can't get into the site, I agree with the title except in very rare cases these dogs are useful
any statistics including the words "vicious" and "deviant behavior" in its title is already worthless.
to paraphrase a gunnery sergeant I used to work for:
"only [gang]bangers and meth heads own those dogs bro.
like i'm sure there is a wallstreet banker with 3 pitbulls out there, but that's not a trend you see outside of hoodrats and hillbillies.
and real hillbillies will have something more like bloodhounds or livestock dogs"
dogs don't have agency. I get that they have different conformation and temperaments, but every single one of them is the responsibility of their owner.
what bothers me about "research" like this is that it is designed remove agency from the owners and fearful anxious and irresponsible people, turn it into regulatory power, and undermines my culture, which has lived in harmony with other beings in nature for millennia.
> and undermines my culture, which has lived in harmony with other beings in nature for millennia.
what culture and other beings is that? pick a culture and i'm sure I can find plenty of wars and misery and exploitation of the environment.
this reads like Noble Savage living in harmony with Gaia
essentially european descent, landowners. horsemen, peasants, yeomen, etc. not of cities, mainly.
people from more urbanized cultures aren't usually as acclimatized to dealing with animals and don't recognize it as a competence or skill. everyone can learn, but chances are if you have been in a city for generations, it's not as normal. if you didn't learn, and see them mainly as symbols and objects instead of beings, you're going to be a crappy dog owner who ends up in a study like this.
living with animals as pets, especially indoors, and barring some of the asian horse cultures, is pretty western-coded.
Not only is the linked paper correct in that the ownership of of these kinds of animals is a proxy for deviant behaviours but the ownership itself is a deviant behaviour with the owners all too often using their dogs to terrorize their neighbours and assert dominance in their community.
It's really shocking to me that many societies allow people to possess and weaponize intrinsically dangerous animals within city limits.
Like I get why a place like America where little regard is placed on the consequences of the mentally ill or violent owning firearms is overlooked but it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures with little recourse for the people who are chronically victimized by them.
The solution seems straightforward to me: A) Prohibit the ownership of these kinds of animals in urban environments. B) Enact laws that hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves.
If you own a particularly aggressive dog that exhibits a pattern of threatening behaviour and it eventually kills someone, you should be charged with manslaughter. There’s no excuse for allowing preventable violence to occur when the warning signs are so clear.
www.reddit.com/r/banpitbulls
> it's disconcerting that places like Canada and the UK allow people to own such creatures
Just for reference, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK imposes strict liability (including criminal liability) for dangerous dogs and maintains a list of breeds that are banned. Recently 'XL Bully' dogs were put on that list, but there is controversy regarding the breed-specific limits. It is always easy to look back and say 'that dog and its owner were the source of a series of problems and should have been detained' but turns out that preventing future problems is harder than you would think...
With a .9% serious bite rate, (thats not accounting for the fact that they are most often owned by people who purposefully dont train them)
Do you think we should ban these whereve you live too...?
Cars: (Accidents Involving Injury - 0.56%) Stairs: (Falling Down To Serious Injury - 0.77%) Eating Chicken: (Food Poisoning - 0.96%) Bicycles: (Serious Accidents - 0.87%) Alcohol: (Injuries (Non-Fatal) - 0.67%)
Sources: World Animal Foundation MK Law Group Various studies, e.g., JAMA Study Breed Differences Study DogsBite.org
Comparing some risk/danger people are upset about to car accidents is a red flag. Concepts like risk-return and self-determination and dignity are fundamental to these topics, and the "look at car accident numbers" line almost always implies a minimization to the easiest thing to "win an argument" with: Statistics. Numbers. Anybody who believes they can ignore numbers is a fool, but on the other side, anybody who believes they only need numbers is just as detached from reality.
don't forget the completely non 1:1 statistics on banning things vs stopping them from happening.
This is a classic false equivalence. Comparing the ownership of an inherently aggressive animal to the risks of driving, falling down stairs, or eating food is misleading.
The key difference is that cars, stairs, and food are essential parts of our society and and built environment whereas vicious and threatening dogs simply are not. Dogs, especially breeds with a known propensity for aggression, can and do actively attack and maim, often with little provocation. When an aggressive dog attacks, the harm is not an accident — it's a foreseeable outcome of allowing a high-risk animal into an environment where it can threaten others.
Cars and other 'risky' activities you mentioned are heavily regulated, with safety standards, licenses, and liability laws in place to mitigate harm. Yet, aggressive dogs often exist in a legal gray area, where irresponsible owners can inflict lasting harm with little consequence.[0][1] The fact that some people choose to neglect or improperly train their animals makes the situation worse, not better.
This isn’t about banning all dogs. It’s about preventing preventable violence from animals that have no place in densely populated urban areas. I can't drive a monster truck in a city, why should I be allowed to walk a monster animal?
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pit-bull-attack-calga...
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/boy-11-killed-in-dog...
Dogs are highly regulated, do you know how draconian courts are about dog to people attacks? In most cases the dogs dont get a second chance.
Monster Animals?
Let me ask you this, do you believe that statistics about certain races committing a large percentage of violent crimes should be interrupted as them being innately more dangerous? Would you suggest we ban them from cities? I'd truthfully like to know.
Dogs are not people, they do not have human rights, and the vast majority of dog breeds were created in the past few hundreds years via selective breeding by humans. It's not genocide, racism, or environmentally destructive to eliminate dangerous (meaning: capable of mauling or killing a healthy adult) dog breeds. Literally the only downside is that doing so would make some people sad.
I don't think that purpose bred animals are comparable to human beings, and won't be entertaining that odious notion.
Do you support regulations that would hold the owner criminally accountable for any harm their high-risk animal causes, equivalent to the charges a person would face if they committed the act themselves?
Why or why not?
First of all, its hard to swallow, but YES there was a period humans were bred similarly and recently. Like very recently.
Second of all this is an argument about the fallacies of correlation and causation when reading data and how hardcore emotional takes like yours tend to be from a misunderstanding of the data.
Also, the part that makes me the most disappointed is you are on here trying to regulate other peoples things and dont even bother to do a quick google search or educate yourself on the fact that all the things you are crying about already exist.
//// Under California Penal Code Section 399 PC, a person may be criminally liable if a dangerous animal he or she owns injures or kills another person. While this offense typically applies to dangerous dogs, it can apply to any animal owned or kept by a person. ///// Also the civil liability is off the chart.
The most liberal state in the whole US even has the laws you claim dont exist. Your fear is understandable, but your crusade without even spending a second on the issue is beneath the spirit of this website.
According to this site[0] the maximum penalty for breaking this law is a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine.
I'm suggesting something far different from what this law implements. I'm suggesting that people who own a high-risk dog that maims someone should be charged with assault, and if that animal kills someone they should be charged with manslaughter.
[0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/399/
Again, a simple search would show that 2-4 year sentence is standard for heavy assault and/or involuntary manslaughter. Your wish is literally already the reality of dog ownership, but you are still committed to vilifying other peoples choices.
The law you cited seems to only apply in cases where the owner knows their animal is dangerous and does nothing to prevent harm. It’s about negligence. What I’m suggesting is that if a person’s dog — regardless of prior warnings or known aggression — causes severe injury or death, the owner should face charges similar to assault or manslaughter, not just negligence.
Current laws often only apply in cases where the owner had prior knowledge of the danger. I’m arguing that severe outcomes from owning inherently high-risk dogs (like certain breeds prone to aggression) should carry more serious consequences regardless of prior knowledge.
And while sentences for assault and involuntary manslaughter may be similar to what I’m proposing (which I oppose because I feel that sentences for violent crimes should be far higher), the distinction is that I’m advocating for this standard to be applied to all severe cases involving high-risk animals, not just those where negligence can be proven.
So no, this isn’t ‘literally already the reality’ — there’s a meaningful gap between negligence laws and what I’m suggesting.
Ok, youre arguing that we should ascribe character to the statistics. So answer my question about what we should do with group of people who commit more violent crimes.
This is barely disguised racism. And it makes me angry. But then that was the point wasn't it?
Dogs, like humans, are pack animals. They will follow the pack. Dogs like humans, exhibit higher intrabreed differences than intercommunity, just like humans. That is to say, dogs and humans will always follow their pack, and there are more differences in-between individuals, than there are between the color of your skin, or your coat.
How did this malicious study find this significance? Sample bias. They didn't control for breed ownership. If you're more likely to learn violence as a survival skill (The paper calls this deviance, fuck off with that obfuscation) you're also, more likely to adopt a dog with that same reputation in your community.
how did these breeds get this reputation? papers like this for one. but also you can breed a dog to do things mine likes to chase cows. which means he also likes to bite ankles... except mine doesn't. he doesn't give a shit about ankles. He loves balls though. The most classic example in my circles are pitbulls, breed to be fighters, they have a natural tendency to not let go after a bite. This is not viciousness.
all the paper does is perpetuate a myth that these breed are dangerous. It should be rejected as junk the same way we reject statistics about [race] on [race] crime.
If you need another reason to reject this trash, ask why this doesn't correlate well with dog trainers, and professional dog rescuers understanding about which breeds are more likely to bite unprovoked? (which is what viciousness actually is)