- 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
[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 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.
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
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
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)