Paranormal Wolf Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 [url=' http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com%2Fblog%2Fnew-study-finds-banned-breeds-no-more-aggressive-than-any-others%2F&t=Banned%20breeds%20are%20no%20more%20aggressive%20than%20others%2C%20new%20study%20finds%20%7C%20National%20Canine%20Research%20Council&src=sp'] http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/new-study-finds-banned-breeds-no-more-aggressive-than-any-others/ Every study completed to date has found breed specific legislation to be completely ineffective in reducing the incidence of dog bites. Now a study of pet dogs in Spain published in The Journal of Veterinary Behavior, offers new insight into why. The study found that the so called dangerous breeds simply behave no differently from dogs in general when it comes to behaviors likely to lead to biting. The authors looked for risk factors for various behavior problems as reported by dog owners. They found that dogs identified as belonging to breeds designated as dangerous according to Spanish law were no more likely to behave aggressively toward people or toward other dogs than were dogs of the random group of breeds in the sample. What the study did find was that the larger the dog (dividing the 232 dogs studied into 3 size categories), the less likely it was to exhibit aggressive behaviors toward people such as barking, growling, snarling lunging, snapping or biting. Large dogs were also less likely to behave fearfully. This is particularly striking with regard to the breeds identified as dangerous according to Spanish law, since most fall into the large dog category and the rest into the medium. Thus they are disproportionately represented within the least aggressive groups the study identified. Another notable aspect of this finding is that it is consistent with a larger study conducted in Canada a decade earlier, (Guy, 2001) suggesting that this inverse relationship between aggression and size may carry over across continents and long periods of time. In looking at aggression toward their fellow dogs, the study found that gender and age played a role. Males were more likely to show aggression toward other dogs, as were to a small degree, the older dogs in the sample, but dangerous breed identification made no difference. The researchers conclude simply, that “dogs classified as dangerous do not seem to be more aggressive than the rest.†Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elyse Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Always knew it. Hopefully they'll ease the ban of some breeds...and then hopefully restrict the breeding of fighting-breeds (like pitbulls and rottweilers.). That's the least I can hope for...though I'd like it if they restricted the breeding of ALL dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Wolf Posted January 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think they should make it to where breeders need either a certificate or license and in order to obtain such they should have to pass a test and or take a class(es). So many other careers require such so I see no reason why dog breeding couldn't be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDawn Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think adopting a dog should be the same as fostering a child. Where as you are interveiwed and your house is inspected to meet the requirements in owning the dog. It's not the breeders you have to worry about its the people adopting these dogs. A puppy is not born into this world with a preconceived notion to bite people, their owners make them this way. Maybe they should enact a responsible owners bill which somehow evaluates your fitness to own a dog. Always knew it. Hopefully they'll ease the ban of some breeds...and then hopefully restrict the breeding of fighting-breeds (like pitbulls and rottweilers.). That's the least I can hope for...though I'd like it if they restricted the breeding of ALL dogs. As a owner of a Rottweiler, I really dislike your post as you side with the Dangerous Dog Act labeling Rottweilers as fighting dogs. They are huge, muscular and highly intelligent dogs with a desire to please, this makes them very vunerable to idiot owners. Its the overall power of these dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners which get them in trouble. If a shit zhu weighed 120lbs, it would more than likely be on the DDA. My Rottweiler is submissive to my parents 1yr old shit zhu.. As is my husky. But, if it came down to the Rottweiler backed into a corner Im more than sure it would stand its ground. Dogs are selected for fighting for various reasons such as gore factor, muscle, drive, intelligence. When you look at the entire list of dogs selected majorely for fighting very few dogs are #1 in all these categories. You wouldn't bring a chihuahua to a dog fight if you didn't know that the other contestant would be for sure bringing another chihuahua. You want the best odds to win, which tells you to pick the biggest dog and train it to be vicious. Thus, you end up with Pitbulls and Rottweilers. The thing that gets me is.. You don't hear about the Dogo Argentino in news stories(Dog Fighting & Maulings), yet these dogs contain the most potential to inflict the most fatalaties or wounds. With a estimated bite force upwards of 400lbs psi surpassing the Rottweiler by approximately 100lbs psi and the Pitbull by 100-120lbs psi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Rottweilers are a very popular breed in SA. I I have been in contact with a lot of them as I have quite a few friends and family who have one or two. I have found, and this is purely from observation/speculation, that all the Rottweilers I have met that have been nervous or aggressive are from backyard breeders. The ones I have met from very, very reputable breeders are the most amazing dogs I have ever met, very affectionate and playful. I must say that the nervous and slightly aggressive ones I know are owned by people who only show love for their animals and they are not brought up to be nervous or aggressive (maybe over protective would be a better way of explaining it), so I was wondering if it is a breeding thing, that poorly bred Rotties have a temperament problem. Just a thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephona Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 That's why, in my opinion, it is important to control the breeding of such breeds of dogs. These breeds are also usually seen as status dogs, I mean let's face it, most people that buy a pitbull, one way or another, are just looking to parade it around the neighbourhood and brag about how tough and aggressive their dog is. So yes, the breeds in themselves are no more dangerous than a siberian husky or a golden retriever. But the people owning them most of the time contribute to their bad reputation and this why I think it is important to regulate the breeding of these dogs and enforce having permits to own them. And I agree that reckless breeding surely adds to temperament issues, a backyard breeder most of the time will either not know what is the right temperament of a dog or if they know, just choose to ignore it. Of course, in the case of pitbulls and such, there are also so called breeders that like to breed dogs displaying wrong temperaments because they think it's cool to have a super-aggressive dog, when it shouldn't be so. I personally disagree with banning certain breeds, but at the same time also see the necessity for this, as it is extremely difficult to erase the public image these "tough" dogs have and bad people will keep buying "bad" dogs because it's "cool" to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephona Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Also, would like to add that after looking at that study, it is hard to say whether it is reliable or not. There were 232 dogs participating in the study, out of which only 32 were listed as "potentially dangerous". Therefore, in my opinion, the sample they used to analyze the behaviours of dangerous dog breeds is not large enough to support this claim. Further more, the study was done by giving owners a questionnaire and there was only one question related to aggressiveness, which in very broad terms asked whether the dog is aggressive or not. It is unclear whether the frequency of the aggressive behaviour was taken into account as I couldn't see any guideline given to the owners in this respect. So I have no idea if dogs that displayed aggressive behaviours once or twice were put in the same pot as dogs that regularly display aggressive behaviours. No distinction was made between different aggressive behaviours either. Finally, I would like to add that studies are incredibly easy to manipulate in such a way that the authors can conclude whatever they were set out to conclude and not necessarily the truth. Personally, I think it is impossible to conclude that "dangerous" dogs are as likely as other dogs to be aggressive, when the frequency of the behaviour was not really taken into account. Also, there were only 32 "dangerous" dogs, compared to 200 non dangerous ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyka&Diva Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 always knew this!!! lol ive got 2 staffordshire bull terriers now alot of people think they are dangerous now look at the photo ive added (jessie my 18month old staffie and my 7 year old son ) and tell me if it looks like a dangerous dog the problem is with the owners and the ignorant people who believe everything they read in the media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 and they are only just realising this now!? divaandjessie - thats a brill pic - i have a similar one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca_&_me Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 ok lol.....can I just say a big fat "DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowpup Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 always knew this!!! lol ive got 2 staffordshire bull terriers now alot of people think they are dangerous now look at the photo ive added (jessie my 18month old staffie and my 7 year old son ) and tell me if it looks like a dangerous dog the problem is with the owners and the ignorant people who believe everything they read in the media [ATTACH=full]33920[/ATTACH] They are called 'Nanny dogs' For a reason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyka&Diva Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 They are called 'Nanny dogs' For a reason! And she defiantly lives up to being a nanny dog lol x --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.149617,-0.408708 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Part of the reason staffs are used for fighting is that you need a dog that is loyal and trusting enough for the owners to be able to handle them even when they're physically injured. They generally have a high pain threshold and I've heard tales that they're able to reduce their heart rate when injured to slow down bleeding (not sure how accurate that info is though) They're not used because they're naturally vicious. Yes, there is a tendancy for dog to dog agression but then malamutes and akitas are prone to this too. It really irritates me that you only ever hear about staffs attacking people on the news when there are lots of other breeds doing the same thing. The difference being, that tiny little terrier who bites your ankles from down the road every time you walk past doesn't do much damage, therefore doesn't make headline news. Arrrrgggh! :mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.