Most aggressive dog breeds
-
That's not what I said dude
A bird can naturally know how to build a nest but a dog can't naturally know how to follow an animal?
-
Bred for the size, trained for the aggression. I've seen typically passive breeds be overly aggressive in exactly the way that the breed is known for not being.
They're animals.
If you're suggesting my neighbours trained her to be aggressive - they didn't - it was their family dog, they did the standard obedience training (sit, stay...) but no protection training.
All their other dogs (german shepherds) were friendly. -
This massively differs per country. Pitbull bites are generally nastier than other bites so they're overreported. It's also partially the public image of pitbulls being nasty dogs that gets them reported more often.
Historically the "most dangerous breed" has changed quite a bit. For a while Great Danes were the worst, then it was Dogo Argentinis, Malinois, German Shepherd, Akitas, Labradors, Jack Russells, etc...
In France for example pitbulls only rank 12th for most bite incidents.
Research on it has been mixed, with studies focusing on nature finding that the breed matters surprisingly little when it comes to aggression. It seems more likely that there's a certain group of owners that handle their dogs irresponsibly, which tend to popularize specific breeds. This seems more likely because places that banned 'dangerous' breeds don't see a decrease in bite attacks; the owners of the dangerous breeds mostly get new dogs, which then just bite people again.
This is because pitbulls are a restricted breed and France. So either people don't have them, or they get the vet to say it's some other breed (more often than not)
-
This is because pitbulls are a restricted breed and France. So either people don't have them, or they get the vet to say it's some other breed (more often than not)
Point being that different dog breeds are listed at the top of being most dangerous in France.
You're still allowed to own a pitbull in France, but you do require a training and need to muzzle them in public (but not at home).
-
Point being that different dog breeds are listed at the top of being most dangerous in France.
You're still allowed to own a pitbull in France, but you do require a training and need to muzzle them in public (but not at home).
Yes, when pitbull ownership is restricted, pitbulls fall from the number one spot for most dangerous
-
Yes, when pitbull ownership is restricted, pitbulls fall from the number one spot for most dangerous
Obviously. Point being that these owners take different dogs which then rise in the ranking to take the pitbulls place.
-
A bird can naturally know how to build a nest but a dog can't naturally know how to follow an animal?
Still not comparable to what I said.
-
Obviously. Point being that these owners take different dogs which then rise in the ranking to take the pitbulls place.
Yes, and to the original point you used french rankings to attempt to make, the ranking of pitbulls is not because they are treated better or just culturally aren't regarded as dangerous, it is because they are restricted legally.
-
Yes, and to the original point you used french rankings to attempt to make, the ranking of pitbulls is not because they are treated better or just culturally aren't regarded as dangerous, it is because they are restricted legally.
No, the point I was making regarding what's culturally considered dangerous didn't relate to France directly, that was about the US which went through various phases of panic regarding certain dog breeds. I only brought up France because there different dog breeds have risen to the top of the bite attack statistics. The restriction on pitbulls just let other dog breeds rise to the top. The breed matters less than who owns them. In France, the more irresponsible dog owners gravitate to German Shepherds and Labradors whereas in the US it's pitbulls.
I don't mind the French ban on pitbulls, because their attacks can be significantly more damaging than those of other breeds. But it won't really reduce the number of incidents.
-
Still not comparable to what I said.
It is comparable.
I implore you to look up videos of working dog puppies. Duck hunters don't get retrievers because they like how they look, they get them because they have been selected over generations on their inherent retrieving drive, which is a natural trait of dogs. You are objectively wrong about these traits not being inheritable. These dogs need to be trained what to retrieve, or what to point, not how to do these things. My sister's pointer would point piles of shit, she had to train it to point birds.
I'm sorry but you are completely wrong about this topic.
-
If you're suggesting my neighbours trained her to be aggressive - they didn't - it was their family dog, they did the standard obedience training (sit, stay...) but no protection training.
All their other dogs (german shepherds) were friendly.Do you know how they treated their dogs? I'm not insinuating anything, I've just never dealt with a dog that becomes aggressive and I've owned both rotties and pitties.
-
No, the point I was making regarding what's culturally considered dangerous didn't relate to France directly, that was about the US which went through various phases of panic regarding certain dog breeds. I only brought up France because there different dog breeds have risen to the top of the bite attack statistics. The restriction on pitbulls just let other dog breeds rise to the top. The breed matters less than who owns them. In France, the more irresponsible dog owners gravitate to German Shepherds and Labradors whereas in the US it's pitbulls.
I don't mind the French ban on pitbulls, because their attacks can be significantly more damaging than those of other breeds. But it won't really reduce the number of incidents.
Do you have evidence that other breed attack rates have risen, as opposed to the attacks by staffy/bully/pit breeds simply not occuring? I wasn't able to find this evidence in eurostat.
-
Do you have evidence that other breed attack rates have risen, as opposed to the attacks by staffy/bully/pit breeds simply not occuring? I wasn't able to find this evidence in eurostat.
Best Friends Animal Society, โProtecting the Public while Preserving Responsible Ownersโ Property Rights,โ bestfriends.org (accessed July 6, 2021)
This source shows that pitbull bans did nothing to reduce bite attacks in Spain, showing the same numbers 5 years before and after the ban.
They also state this:
Best Friends Animal Society explains three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97% of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84% of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78% were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets.
Then there's this one:
ASPCA, โPosition Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation,โ aspca.org (accessed July 6, 2021)
Council Bluff, Iowa, banned pitbulls, and saw Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites rise as those were the breeds people switched to.
Same source shows that it Winnipeg, Canada, instead saw Rottweiler bite attacks increase.
And from this source:
Emily Anthes, โBut How Much Does Breed Shape a Dogโs Health and Behavior?,โ nytimes.com, Feb. 9, 2025
Rather than breed traits, the ASPCA notes chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks.
-
Best Friends Animal Society, โProtecting the Public while Preserving Responsible Ownersโ Property Rights,โ bestfriends.org (accessed July 6, 2021)
This source shows that pitbull bans did nothing to reduce bite attacks in Spain, showing the same numbers 5 years before and after the ban.
They also state this:
Best Friends Animal Society explains three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97% of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84% of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78% were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets.
Then there's this one:
ASPCA, โPosition Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation,โ aspca.org (accessed July 6, 2021)
Council Bluff, Iowa, banned pitbulls, and saw Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites rise as those were the breeds people switched to.
Same source shows that it Winnipeg, Canada, instead saw Rottweiler bite attacks increase.
And from this source:
Emily Anthes, โBut How Much Does Breed Shape a Dogโs Health and Behavior?,โ nytimes.com, Feb. 9, 2025
Rather than breed traits, the ASPCA notes chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks.
Bestfriends.org advocates for pitbull acceptance providing an opinion here, and I don't see the actual data that says the rates of dog attacks remained the same when staffy/bully/pit ownership is reduced.
If what you hypothesize is true, we should expect to see the overall rate of dog attacks stay the same, while proportionally other breeds become responsible for more of the total sum of dog attacks. Have you found actual statistics to back this assertion up? Your links all point to the home page of the sites, rather than stats.
-
Bestfriends.org advocates for pitbull acceptance providing an opinion here, and I don't see the actual data that says the rates of dog attacks remained the same when staffy/bully/pit ownership is reduced.
If what you hypothesize is true, we should expect to see the overall rate of dog attacks stay the same, while proportionally other breeds become responsible for more of the total sum of dog attacks. Have you found actual statistics to back this assertion up? Your links all point to the home page of the sites, rather than stats.
I didn't put those links in there, that's just Lemmy auto-linking. The full cited source has a bit more info, but it's quite a rabbithole of sources tbh.
I found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8730379/ which does have some hard stats, showing that a law enacted in 1991 did little to nothing to prevent bites, whilst also showing the most dangerous breeds bite about as much as other humans do.
-
I didn't put those links in there, that's just Lemmy auto-linking. The full cited source has a bit more info, but it's quite a rabbithole of sources tbh.
I found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8730379/ which does have some hard stats, showing that a law enacted in 1991 did little to nothing to prevent bites, whilst also showing the most dangerous breeds bite about as much as other humans do.
This study seems to show that of 134 mammalian bites studied, about 73% were from dog bites both before and after the dangerous dogs act. I don't have full access to the article but the abstract seems to imply that dangerous breed attacks represented a small percentage of the total bite treatments.
I'm not sure it can conclude that the rate of attacks overall stayed the same when dangerous breed ownership rates as a whole reduced. The conclusion seems to be that "dog bites are still a similar percentage of mammalian bites" without regard to the overall rate of dog ownership and the impact of the law on dangerous dog ownership rates specifically (but perhaps it is inside the study?)
One would expect that this sort of statistic would be easy to find if it were true, given the advocacy of bully-breed groups.
-
It is comparable.
I implore you to look up videos of working dog puppies. Duck hunters don't get retrievers because they like how they look, they get them because they have been selected over generations on their inherent retrieving drive, which is a natural trait of dogs. You are objectively wrong about these traits not being inheritable. These dogs need to be trained what to retrieve, or what to point, not how to do these things. My sister's pointer would point piles of shit, she had to train it to point birds.
I'm sorry but you are completely wrong about this topic.
Border Collie of a friend is trained to work with mentally ill kids (of course his training isn't that specific but that's what he does)
Anyways in his spare time he herds everything. When the wind piles up leaves he will run around that pile frantically barking at every single leaf that falls out of line. "Herding cats" lost all its appeal as a figure of speech to me, as i've seen him do it successfully. -
This study seems to show that of 134 mammalian bites studied, about 73% were from dog bites both before and after the dangerous dogs act. I don't have full access to the article but the abstract seems to imply that dangerous breed attacks represented a small percentage of the total bite treatments.
I'm not sure it can conclude that the rate of attacks overall stayed the same when dangerous breed ownership rates as a whole reduced. The conclusion seems to be that "dog bites are still a similar percentage of mammalian bites" without regard to the overall rate of dog ownership and the impact of the law on dangerous dog ownership rates specifically (but perhaps it is inside the study?)
One would expect that this sort of statistic would be easy to find if it were true, given the advocacy of bully-breed groups.
The study measures the totals before and after the ban. If the totals did not change, then one can reasonably conclude there was little to no effect (as that was the point of the ban; reduce bite attacks). The only way you could still justify the ban worked is if dog ownership increased after the ban, which seems unlikely (and iirc the study touches on that).
One would expect that this sort of statistic would be easy to find if it were true, given the advocacy of bully-breed groups.
I mean ultimately the burden of proof isn't on them. There are some statistics that seem to support them. If thess BSL bans worked, one would expect evidence to show that they did, but that's seemingly completely absent too. The vast majority of independent organisations seem to be against these bans.
If these bans worked, where are the statistics that show they do? What about the myriad of studies saying bite incidents are caused by neglect of the dog rather than breed?
-
Do you know how they treated their dogs? I'm not insinuating anything, I've just never dealt with a dog that becomes aggressive and I've owned both rotties and pitties.
Well I didn't watch them 24/7 if that's the burden of proof now. I guess they treated all their dogs roughly the same though and for some reason the one whose breeding description essentially reads " Psychotic mauler of all that breathes" behaved accordingly.
-
Well I didn't watch them 24/7 if that's the burden of proof now. I guess they treated all their dogs roughly the same though and for some reason the one whose breeding description essentially reads " Psychotic mauler of all that breathes" behaved accordingly.
No, mainly just curious - like I've said, I haven't dealt with aggression in dogs.
