Sure, I’ll agree that some people get their pits tested because of the bias, likely to try and show that the bias is largely unfounded. But you’re saying the “average owners” of the 721 Lab Retrievers, 831 Collies, and 720 Golden Retrievers were testing just for good fun?
As for your Dachshunds... (three takes on the same 6000 dog study published in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science in 2008).
http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/598/the-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-in-the-world-revealed/
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/26/dog-aggression.html
In the end, it’s how you train and treat your dog and how you let your dog treat others. Genetics aren’t everything. Smaller dogs aren’t as feared... but that doesn’t make them automatically less aggressive.
Tell ya what brainiac - you go right ahead and buy a border collie and train it not to herd. But a scent hound and take it for a walk and train it not to stop and sniff every 3 feet. Good luck with that. After all, it all depends on the owner.
Honestly, I just don't get it w/ some of you pit bull apologists. A hypothetical - You all would have no difficulty thinking the woman who got her friend killed because she kept a chimp was stupid. You would have no trouble acknowledging that Siegfried and Roy worked in a dangerous profession (HIV not withstanding). That guy who lived w/ grizzlies until they ate him knew there was an elevated risk. Why? Because that is the nature of what those animals are.
YOU ALL know that a larger stronger dog poses a greater risk than a smaller and less powerful dog. And yet if it is a pit bull it is automatically no more dangerous than any other dog? Michael Vic didn't buy pit bulls because they are wonderful family dogs.
The statistics for Pits and Rotties show that they are disproportionately involved in attacks, and not just by a little. The evidence also shows that pits are much more likely to act beyond typical territorial defense responses - it will leave it's own property - go out of its way - to attack other dogs and people, sometimes when their territory was not even approached. Accounts of pit attacks indicate that, unlike other breeds, once an attack has started pit bulls will not break off the attack.
Pit bulls are very strong dogs. They have large powerful jaws - close to the top of the scale for dogs. They are disproportionately owned by idiots who do not train them properly. They have been bred to be agressive and fight. Only ONE of these three things is not a part of the breed itself.
But you can keep believing that all of this is complete hype - unfounded bias. I hope and pray you never have first hand reason to believe differently.
Of course genetics are not everything. Anyone who would say that is being stupid. But no one here that I know of is saying that. And oh, by the way, since you acknowledge that "genetics are not everything", you are also conceding that they play a part; that what a dog is bred to do will influence its behavior - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
Smaller dogs aren’t as feared... but that doesn’t make them automatically less aggressive.
And in related news, the sky is blue! It is good to see you absorbed some of my point. I'm perplexed as to why you would restate it as a supposed defense. So far you have acknowledged that size and genetics play a part in how dangerous a dog can be. Glad you agree with me.
In the end, it’s how you train and treat your dog and how you let your dog treat others.
And here is where we part company. You imply that the danger posed by a particular dog can be eliminated by how it is trained. It can be mitigated, but it cannot be eliminated. How often has the pit bull owner described how well behaved and trained the dog was before it shredded their child or a neighbor?
The different factors that make a dog dangerous come into play with every type of dog. But when a large very strong dog with powerful jaws has a genetic background selected for aggression and fighting it makes that dog particularly dangerous. The statistics agree.
Here is an easy task for you. Do this and you will have the undying admiration of pitbulldom throughout Free Republic. Go find all of the newspaper articles where two or three unprovoked golden retrievers stormed out their front door past their owner and crossed the street to shred a child. The article should include witness accounts of how they beat and stabbed and even shot the dogs but they would not break off their attack as they ripped off the child's face and tore flesh from arms and legs. Goldens must be right at the top in numbers owned so this should be insanely easy. Goldens are not quite as strong, but they are larger and their mouths are about the same size. The only problem I can foresee is that the media bias may have reported they were pit bulls - the breeds look so similar, after all.
Uh, no - the average pit bull owner will get it tested because they want to be sure their dog is safe. No one gets their dog tested to convince them of what they are already convinced of. If you really think (and I'm using the word loosely) owners get their pit bulls tested in order to boost pit bull statistics you are truly self deluded.
But you’re saying the “average owners” of the 721 Lab Retrievers, 831 Collies, and 720 Golden Retrievers were testing just for good fun?
Are you even aware that the rest of what you wrote agrees with what I wrote? Did you even understand what I wrote?
LOL! I'm done. I spend just too much time on these threads. I suppose it occurs to the cat eventually too - the inanimate ball of thread is fun for a while, but live prey is much more entertaining.