# Dangerous Dog Breed Signs



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Apparently these signs went up in Ireland



The politician that pushed for them made this statement...




The signs are one thing but to say that because they are of this breed or that breed they don't make ideal pets kinda bothers me. 

Thoughts?


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

That sign is ridiculous and the politician's comments are even more ridiculous.If they are going to insist on those restrictions why not apply them to all breeds or just not allow dogs at all.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Well that's crap! Aggravating and idiotic.

So we are lumping them all together. I don't think any of those breeds are in the same level as a Tosa. RR's are hunting dogs and the warnings about them are more in relation to their independent, primitive natures.

This guy is just a moron


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

He has made lots of people mad. I would just hope that this stays there and it doesn't make its way here.


----------



## Niexist (Feb 19, 2016)

It's so annoying for people to lump German Shepherds with pit bulls.


----------



## Heartandsoul (Jan 5, 2012)

I just focused on the sign at first then saw where it was posted. I'm relieved it is not here..Isn' t Ireland one of the countries that banned prong collars also.

It doesn't make any sense to restrict certain breeds to a leash and not all breeds. Especially if they are doing this for child safety.

Also states cross breeds. Are they referring to a mix? So if your dog looks slightly like one of those breeds the rules apply? How in the world would that work. 

I see a lot of false accusations happening if a mix and a small dog gets into a fight while off leash.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Someone needs to leash and muzzle the sun, because I've been injured more by the sun than by my hoard of GSDs. 

Glad I live here and not there.


----------



## gsdluvr (Jun 26, 2012)

Actually, the sign is wrong, wrong WRONG!! It is the owners that are dangerous!


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

So according to that sign if I had a Caucasian Ovcharka I'd be good?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cloudpump said:


> So according to that sign if I had a Caucasian Ovcharka I'd be good?


Don't be a sissy. Get a Boerboel. :grin2:


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Don't be a sissy. Get a Boerboel. :grin2:


Really? Now I'm going all in! Anyone know where I can get pet hyenas? They aren't listed...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

I hear they make good pets.


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I hear they make good pets.
> 
> View attachment 364802


Exactly what I was thinking! Lol. Kens Exotics - Striped Hyena
In all seriousness that sign is a joke. Yes there is a danger in all of those breeds, but if a politician wants to get behind a cause, why not mandatory dog training, and certified trainers? Not petsmart certificied...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cloudpump said:


> Exactly what I was thinking! Lol. Kens Exotics - Striped Hyena
> In all seriousness that sign is a joke. Yes there is a danger in all of those breeds, but if a politician wants to get behind a cause, why not mandatory dog training, and certified trainers? Not petsmart certificied...


Dogs are purpose bred to exhibit specific behavioral traits, the very thing that gives us dog breeds. That has nothing to do with training but everything to do with genetics, which can only be enhanced or suppressed with training, but not changed. So what would mandatory training and certified trainers have to do with a dog's inherent behavioral dispostion? 

Notice the hyena is muzzled because of its inherent danger, there are some that train them as pets. Would you trust one? Would you want one living next door to you? What would you think if somebody accidentally left the gate open for the hyena when your child was playing on your front lawn? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWI2YV4juk


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Dogs are purpose bred to exhibit specific behavioral traits, the very thing that gives us dog breeds. That has nothing to do with training but everything to do with genetics, which can only be enhanced or suppressed with training. So what would mandatory training and certified trainers have to do with a dog's inherent behavioral dispostion?


I believe it would stop the casual dog owner who gets the dog that was genetically bred to fight, and kill. I think that it would cause better dog ownership. If I went to get a gsd, I'd be required to go to a certified trainer who would know something about dealing with a smart loyal breed. If I got a pit, I'd learn how to properly own a dog aggressive breed. Will it end all issues, no. But it might stop some. 
I completely agree with genetics. You will not stop a breed from being what it is. But mandatory certified training will make an owner more accountable. 
It might stop those people who think their pit is dog friendly from letting them off leash when they know the facts, and they know that they could be held more liable due to mandatory training. I guess I'm thinking they'd have no more excuses. 
If that makes sense...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cloudpump said:


> I believe it would stop the casual dog owner who gets the dog that was genetically bred to fight, and kill. I think that it would cause better dog ownership. If I went to get a gsd, I'd be required to go to a certified trainer who would know something about dealing with a smart loyal breed. If I got a pit, I'd learn how to properly own a dog aggressive breed. Will it end all issues, no. But it might stop some.
> I completely agree with genetics. You will not stop a breed from being what it is. But mandatory certified training will make an owner more accountable.
> It might stop those people who think their pit is dog friendly from letting them off leash when they know the facts, and they know that they could be held more liable due to mandatory training. I guess I'm thinking they'd have no more excuses.
> If that makes sense...


I agree with much of what you said. The problem is that most people already know whether their respective breeds are known for aggression, be it dog or human, and the problem people choose to ignore it while others remain in a state of denial and refuse to accept it. I wish I had saved it, but I read a thread on here where members went off the deep end when informed that GSDs are bred to have varying degrees of HA. Say it ain't so! :smile2:


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

According to people posting the breed that is the top biter over their is a lab, yet the lab isn't on the sign.second was a jack Russell, not on the list either. If the guy wanted to be safe he would have done some research and been fair.


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

The photo with the hyena is that most wildest photo I hAve seen. I can't imagine it be legal to own one- such a scary and sad thought and should be criminal for the safety of others and for the animal itself.


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

Does not look like a well thought out sign to me at all and looks more like someone just did research on a YouTube search for "most dangerous dogs"and took it from there.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

Am I the only one who thinks the hyena picture is really sad? Reminds me of circus pics of bears in muzzles with looks of total despair on their faces.


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the hyena picture is really sad? Reminds me of circus pics of bears in muzzles with looks of total despair on their faces.


Have you not read the posts I don't think anyone is happy about it. People are better off jumping at planes to get a rise and leave the wild animals alone.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

Um yeah I did read the other posts....


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

Who's happy about it?


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Wow, 4 breeds that I would actually own (GSD, Doberman, Akita and Rhodesian Ridgeback) are listed. How ridiculous. I hate breed bans!


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

llombardo said:


> According to people posting the breed that is the top biter over their is a lab, yet the lab isn't on the sign.second was a jack Russell, not on the list either. If the guy wanted to be safe he would have done some research and been fair.


Over there dogs that are considered dangerous are required to be muzzled and leashed any time they are out in public. So it would make sense they would have very few bites or attacks on record.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

@ Jenny I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone, single anybody out or make anyone feel bad. I was simply trying to comment that I thought the hyena pic was sad. People seemed to be joking about it.

For some reason you seem to be hostile about this. Whatever. Sometimes this board makes me want to rip my hair out, signing off for the day!!!


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> @ Jenny I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone, single anybody out or make anyone feel bad. I was simply trying to comment that I thought the hyena pic was sad. People seemed to be joking about it.
> 
> For some reason you seem to be hostile about this. Whatever. Sometimes this board makes me want to rip my hair out, signing off for the day!!!


Im sorry if I came across hostile and sometimes I can get my back up but it was not meant that way. I Reread these posts myself and can see it can be read either way and took it differently as made me aware of more crazies in the world wanting to own such an animal as the hyena. I agree this photo is sad. I never really thought of hyenas to much as powerful creatures before -until seeing this photo next to man- as I was in no way condoning this photo though. I am on the same page with you that this is no life for the poor animal in the photo. I know what you mean about the board occasionally wanting to rip your hair out. It's the last thing I really want to make people feel like doing. I hope you enjoy your gorgeous day and no hard feelings on my end.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

Someone posted this on of Facebook lol couldn't help but share


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I guess there is now a petition to get either the signs or him removed.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

apparently for the doberman they took the pic off of someones facebook instead of a stock photo... the fb user is threatening to sue


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

girardid said:


> Over there dogs that are considered dangerous are required to be muzzled and leashed any time they are out in public. So it would make sense they would have very few bites or attacks on record.


Nice point.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> @ Jenny I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone, single anybody out or make anyone feel bad. I was simply trying to comment that I thought the hyena pic was sad. People seemed to be joking about it.
> 
> For some reason you seem to be hostile about this. Whatever. Sometimes this board makes me want to rip my hair out, signing off for the day!!!


I think that some people are laughing at what the picture implies, not the plight of the hyena.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> Over there dogs that are considered dangerous are required to be muzzled and leashed any time they are out in public. So it would make sense they would have very few bites or attacks on record.
> 
> Nice point.


For your information, nobody uses muzzles here and nobody enforces the legislation. I am from Ireland, I know. 

This politician is obviously trying to bring the fact that nobody cares about the legislation to the publics attention. 

The question on why we don't have issues with dogs is a good one, but the answer is not the legislation.

We have the same dogs as the UK and US but not the issues. Percentages are probably hugely different and society is, i'm sure very different considering the paranoia people here exhibit about dogs in there streets. But the fact that nobody ever was killed by a dog in Ireland is interesting.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

MadLab said:


> For your information, nobody uses muzzles here and nobody enforces the legislation. I am from Ireland, I know.


Very interesting! thanks for the info! I was only pointing out that it was a requirement for those breeds in response to a post about labs and terriers being responsible for most bites. 

In regards to you saying no one has ever been killed by a dog there you have to realize you are comparing a very small population to the whole of the US. I doubt there are more people in Ireland than in my city and its suburbs alone. 

Did you say people exhibit paranoia in Ireland? And its good to know the law is not enforced my dog would go crazy not being allowed to run off leash!


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> In regards to you saying no one has ever been killed by a dog there you have to realize you are comparing a very small population to the whole of the US. I doubt there are more people in Ireland than in my city and its suburbs alone.


I know population of dogs and people are very different. Still when we look at the US, there is a steady a stream of fatalities for the last 100 years. Why is that. Statistically it should crop up in other countries at some stage as well, but it hasn't here. My only point is maybe the whole breed issues comes down to underlying societal issue in the US. Are people more sensible in other countries and treat there dangerous dogs more accordingly?



> Did you say people exhibit paranoia in Ireland? And its good to know the law is not enforced my dog would go crazy not being allowed to run off leash!


No, I said I've witnessed people here show paranoia about breeds. I presume they are from the US.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

318.9 million people in the US
32 dog bite fatalities

that means 1 fatality per 9.8 million people.

In a country like Ireland with 4.6 million population with stricter laws regarding dogs and less people to manage dog attacks will be lowered. I live in America but i am a first generation immigrant. People here are not paranoid about dogs I would say the opposite. They are too relaxed with untrained dogs at the park running around off leash. I think the US has a larger amount of pit bulls then most other countries. Just like any high drive dog they can be dangerous in the wrong hands. and pits accounted for 28 of the deaths last year. What i see is that in the US there is a distinct lack of understanding on how to deal with powerful high drives dogs by the general public and an over population of high drive dogs in shelters, owners and byb.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

MadLab said:


> For your information, nobody uses muzzles here and nobody enforces the legislation. I am from Ireland, I know.
> 
> This politician is obviously trying to bring the fact that nobody cares about the legislation to the publics attention.
> 
> ...


Do you think the fact that there actually is a law in place, although unenforced, has an impact on how people manage and control these breeds while out in public or do you think they would behave the same if there were no law? 

Do you think that by targeting those breeds which the government has recognized as having the potential to be more aggressive has made an impact on dog owners themselves, such as some who own these breeds having an eye opener and realizing their breed has an inherent, propensity for aggression or that those who don't own those breeds, but do own other breeds that may also have the predisposition to aggression, such as Rottweilers, having more of an incentive to manage and control appropriately lest their breed be added to the list?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

MadLab said:


> Are people more sensible in other countries and treat there dangerous dogs more accordingly?


No, that is definitely not the case. In the US, out of the 32 dog bite related fatalities, 82% were by Pit Bulls, Pit mixes or Pit derivatives while the combination of the three only account for 6% of total dogs owned. If there was any credence to your supposition, the more popular breeds with inherent aggression would be making a better showing within the realm of fatalities, and extreme maulings, but they are not, leaving one no choice but to take a harder look at other factors.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

And if this turns into a Pit Bull thread, it will be locked. Thank you!


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

Castlemaid said:


> And if this turns into a Pit Bull thread, it will be locked. Thank you!


Just to clear things up while I did mention Pitts i used the words "large powerful and high drive" with the intent of lumping gsd there too. I believe if every single person who owned a pit had my gsd instead would not change the statistics. A high drive dog like either one needs proper training and management


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

I only mentioned the stats to clarify that one can't paint Americans that own aggression prone breeds with one brush suggesting they are not sensible dog owners when the stats prove differently.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Someone asked him in his page that if cared so much about dogs why isn't he doing something about puppy mills. I think that is a good question.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Castlemaid said:


> And if this turns into a Pit Bull thread, it will be locked. Thank you!


So is that a banned topic? I mean, post a sign about dangerous dog breeds, and stands to figure the dog that tends to make the news the most often for serious attacks will be talked about. Not surprised people don't like their breed lumped in with them.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Selzer, you know that is not what I'm saying or implying. Some people use the board to promote a personal agenda, and THAT is what is going to get this thread locked, if it comes to that.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

girardid said:


> Just to clear things up while I did mention Pitts i used the words "large powerful and high drive" with the intent of lumping gsd there too. I believe if every single person who owned a pit had my gsd instead would not change the statistics. A high drive dog like either one needs proper training and management


I don't know that this is true. Lots of people own large powerful, high drive GSDs and they do actually stop short of killing people. Even very irresponsible people own the breed, and while their dogs might bite someone, usually they don't kill. Most of the breeds listed other than GSDs and Rhodesian Ridgebacks seem more prone to serious attacks and even deaths resulting in shoddy handling or genetics or both. No, we don't want to be lumped with breeds used for fighting. The aggression and sustained attacks the dogs are bred for, seem to easily cross over from animal aggression to human aggression when the breeding or handling or both is shoddy.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

cloudpump said:


> So according to that sign if I had a Caucasian Ovcharka I'd be good?


LOL according to that sign ... yep!


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

I never heard of any one selling a Tosa in Ireland at all. You can probably get them in the uk with the local Bully Kuta breeder. Get your Kangal too I'm sure.

The list is a funny one alright. Some one was like, everyone else has some breed specific legislation, so we need it too. They checked a you video on the worlds scariest dogs and came up with the list.

We're i used to live a lab bit a kid in the face. Dog left unattended tied to a post, and child went up to it and got bit. Owner brought it home and put it in the back yard. Police called to see the dog and the owner refused. Because a lab wasn't on the list the owner didn't do anything wrong. Family got no case as it was out of bounds for the judicial system, and police. End of story. No investigation.

That legislation doesn't protect people.

Only if a dog on the list bites someone can there be legally a case to answer or at least an investigation. 

To me that doesn't make sense. Czech republic has good dog laws if any ones interested in ones that work. Owner is totally responsible for there dog at all times.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> Do you think that by targeting those breeds which the government has recognized as having the potential to be more aggressive has made an impact on dog owners themselves, such as some who own these breeds having an eye opener and realizing their breed has an inherent, propensity for aggression or that those who don't own those breeds, but do own other breeds that may also have the predisposition to aggression, such as Rottweilers, having more of an incentive to manage and control appropriately lest their breed be added to the list?


Obviously Rott is on the list. I listed you the list before, and you can google it if you like and bookmark it. 

There was no major issue before the legislation and there is no major issue after. I wonder what impact it had. As I said before I think nobody takes any notice of it. Very few people actually know about it. I never seen a dog in a muzzle here. Never heard of some one getting stopped for it either. 

I used a muzzle on my bull mastiff mix for a while and people thought i was cruel. 

I think people need to wake up and smell the dog. Look at it's teeth. Watch it 'play' with toys to understand it's nature. Some are more capable than others but they all need managing.


----------



## NormanF (Apr 14, 2013)

I'm surprised they didn't list the Dogo Argentino.

Its banned in the UK.


----------



## James1892 (Jan 22, 2016)

I seen last night the guy who owns the copyright for the Doberman Image is taking legal action for them using it without permission haha. he's demanded all signs featuring his dog are removed, I also seen he is looking to take legal action for slander as the actual dog in the photo wasn't dangerous. 

Seems long winded but I think the sign may have annoyed him!!


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

selzer said:


> I don't know that this is true. Lots of people own large powerful, high drive GSDs and they do actually stop short of killing people. Even very irresponsible people own the breed, and while their dogs might bite someone, usually they don't kill.


I disagree. I have only seen 2 other working line gsds in my city besides training and both were in the hands of very responsible people. German shepherds unlike Pitt bulls were breed to have human aggression while pitts were bred for DA. Pitts that exhibited HA were actually culled because they might redirect during a dog fight. I think just the fact that the are such an overwhelming number of pits and pitt mixes out there attributes to their high attack rate and since the fatalities are mostly if not always children that means an attacking gsd would likely do the same damage. They are generally bred by shady people in shady neighborhoods for shady reasons because it is easy there are so many and it is easy do poorly. I am confident that if they were all replaced with WL gsds the rates probably wouldn't be the same but would be worse.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

MadLab said:


> The list is a funny one alright. Some one was like, everyone else has some breed specific legislation, so we need it too. They checked a you video on the worlds scariest dogs and came up with the list.


lol i think that is exactly what happened


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> Pitts that exhibited HA were actually culled because they might redirect during a dog fight.


I don't buy this theory. It was/is a money and pride game. The breeders just wanted to win matches.

It is the romantic view of the dog men. I would say they were\are simply trash doing a dirty business with no ethics at all.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

MadLab said:


> I don't buy this theory. It was/is a money and pride game. The breeders just wanted to win matches.


Its not a theory its just fact even people that do bite sports with Pitts have said that it is sometimes difficult to teach them to engage on the decoy as oppsed to shepherds and mals that take to it naturally. Mals for example are known to redirect pitts are known not too. You can believe what you want regarding how that came to be but you cant argue with the fact that is a phenomena.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

girardid said:


> Its not a theory its just fact even people that do bite sports with Pitts have said that it is sometimes difficult to teach them to engage on the decoy as oppsed to shepherds and mals that take to it naturally. Mals for example are known to redirect pitts are known not too. You can believe what you want regarding how that came to be but you cant argue with the fact that is a phenomena.


Local police departments that are picking up and using more and more pit bulls say the biggest issue is training them to show any aggression with people so they seem to be using them for scent work and airports and stuff versus on the street. That is working well for them. Yes pit bulls are bred to fight(fight other dogs or game) but GSDs are bred to guard and in a nutshell being able to bite on command gets them a job on the police force.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

It's like saying a bird dog is not aggressive but then you hear about cocker/springer rage. 

lol


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

I dont know to much abuot bird dogs but from what i understand the cocker/springer rage is a genetic defects that manifests it self in that breed.

Im not even sure what point of mine you are trying to argue with


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

Not trying to argue with you. 

Just lightening the mood.

I really don't see you or your friends experience as facts. But you are entitled to your opinions. Not interested in an over and back on this subject. 

There are many forces at play inside a dogs mind and i don't think we can be so general in our presumptions how a breed acts. Look at any breed and you'll see huge differences in lines. 

I do enjoy some of your posts here, like you make some good points in this thread. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just adding my 5 cents along the way.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

I agree there are definitely many forces at play. Im not interested in arguing either. Thanks and sorry if i came across argumentative as well :grin2:


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

girardid said:


> I disagree. I have only seen 2 other working line gsds in my city besides training and both were in the hands of very responsible people. German shepherds unlike Pitt bulls were breed to have human aggression while pitts were bred for DA. Pitts that exhibited HA were actually culled because they might redirect during a dog fight. I think just the fact that the are such an overwhelming number of pits and pitt mixes out there attributes to their high attack rate and since the fatalities are mostly if not always children that means an attacking gsd would likely do the same damage. They are generally bred by shady people in shady neighborhoods for shady reasons because it is easy there are so many and it is easy do poorly. I am confident that if they were all replaced with WL gsds the rates probably wouldn't be the same but would be worse.


No dogman ever culled a winning HA Pit Bull. 

Pits are only 3% of total dogs owned. Pits, their mixes, and derivatives are only 6% of total dogs owned. Weren't you the one that posted the article about GSDs being 4.6% of the population? And that does not account for all the GSD mixes out there. Pits are bred to be game, to fight to the finish without regard to self preservation. It is one of the unique qualities that make a Pit Bull a Pit Bull. German Shepherds, and other non dog fighting breeds are NOT game bred. Also, German Shepherds, unlike Pits, are NOT bred to attack unprovoked. Not saying that they can't be trained to attack a passive or non threatening person, but I am saying to do on its own is not considered a stable dog by many and would preclude such GSDs from the gene pool. Maybe the GSDs purpose for which it is bred, genetics, has a lot to do with its low rate of fatalities despite its popularity.


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

Wonder if a Chesapeake retriever would make the list?


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> No dogman ever culled a winning HA Pit Bull.
> 
> Pits are only 3% of total dogs owned. Pits, their mixes, and derivatives are only 6% of total dogs owned. Weren't you the one that posted the article about GSDs being 4.6% of the population?


I cant remember the exact numbers the the number was to show that even though there are a lot of bites by gsd the percentage of gsd that bit people was lower than that of dogs with fewer bites on record.



> Pits are bred to be game, to fight to the finish without regard to self preservation. It is one of the unique qualities that make a Pit Bull a Pit Bull. German Shepherds, and other non dog fighting breeds are NOT game bred.


I never mentioned anything about how much damage a gsd could take and continue fighting. Most of the fatalities that occur if not all were to children and at that point weather a dog is game bred or not wont make much of a difference because a child wont put much pressure on the dog fighting back. Also with working line dogs many gsd can take a lot of pressure still not like a pit but definitely more so than your average dog.



> Also, German Shepherds, unlike Pits, are NOT bred to attack unprovoked. Not saying that they can't be trained to attack a passive or non threatening person, but I am saying to do on its own is not considered a stable dog by many and would preclude such GSDs from the gene pool. Maybe the GSDs purpose for which it is bred, genetics, has a lot to do with its low rate of fatalities despite its popularity.


My point was that the majority of people that own pits do not do the proper training they should in order to manage a high drive dog. While the people that own high drive WL gsd generally do. I think this is because pits are inexpensive plentiful and easy to obtain while a good WL gsd is not. People getting one will likely do research and have a specific purpose in mind when buying a pup or a green dog. 

And back to what i originally said was that the statistic probably would not change much if not be worse if pitts were replaced by working line dogs high drive dogs. Meaning you cant really lump A WL with the statistics on every gsd out there especially with poorly bred nervy ones or dogs with a history of abuse or whatever. Bite records on WL are probably nonexistent because of the responsibilities of there owners compared to the irresponsibility of the owners of pits that did bite.


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

I think one of the big issues we have as a society (in general) is understanding the difference between a bite and an attack. 

The term "dog attack" is way over used and almost never accurate. Almost always it simply described a minor bite requiring no medical treatment.

I'm not saying dogs biting in any form is remotely acceptable, but the danger a nipping blue heeler poses to society vs. an attacking Tosa are two different things completely.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

girardid said:


> I cant remember the exact numbers the the number was to show that even though there are a lot of bites by gsd the percentage of gsd that bit people was lower than that of dogs with fewer bites on record.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> ...


Does your WL GSD make a habit, by nature, out of attacking non threatening or passive people? Mine don't and I honestly have never encountered one that would, by nature. Once again, not saying they can't be trained to, but most trainers would admit that training a GSD to attack a non threatening or passive person can be one of the most challenging of things. 

I highly disagree if you replaced Pits with WL GSDs that mauling and fatality rates would stay the same. You see, it wasn't that long ago that people did not keep Pits as pets in any great numbers, although WL GSDs were kept in family homes then as they are today, maybe even more so. Some would go as far to say that back then, there was little to no divide between WL and SL regarding drive and those dogs had higher degrees of fight/civil drives compared to so many of the WLs of today. And guess what? GSDs, despite their popularity back then, still did not maul and/ or kill people in inordinate numbers when compared to all other breeds combined. Even in their heyday, when GSDs had the "reputation" of being dangerous, the fatality numbers were approximately 10 people spanning one whole decade vs that of over two dozen plus per year, not decade, which is occurring with Pit Bulls this past decade every single year.

There is no rational comparison between the two breeds. They are distinctly bred for different purposes.


----------



## girardid (Aug 13, 2015)

You are right that i did not consider the game bred aspect for them finishing their victims but only looked at it as how much fight they could take. 

The statistic shows that the majority of fatalities were children and of the adults the majority where the elderly. Now while you are right a Pitt is bred to finish the game and gsd to just maul and hold the difference would not be that big to the very vulnerable children and elderly. 

My dog by nature, aside from being sometimes suspicious of an new non treating person, does not actively engage unless he knows its a decoy. But my dog is still young and very well socialized and always under my control. Even so it is very easy to light him up on a passive decoy. The fact is with the fatalities that occur the person is not just being passive and non threatening but either children running around or for some reason triggering the animals instinct to chase and engage. think of high drive green dog with no real training just pure instinct if that dog gets out of his yard or gets to a park it is practically guaranteed that he will maul a runner or child and depending on the age of the victim they will likely succumb to their wounds or be killed by the dog. 

We cant really compare the numbers because I believe it is the way the dogs are handled that is the problem. People dont train and dont know how to manage their dogs properly and the dogs resort to instinct. Gsds with those drive kept with families when there was no divide only were successful because they were worked and managed properly. Pitts and their mixes these day are owned so many people that there is a huge population of untrained ill manner and un-socialized dogs that are causing a problem for the rest. Im saying if all these people had high drive civil gsds with little to no training it would be worse. I think you are right the fact that pits are game breed would effect the out come with less attacks resulting in fatalities but there would be a higher number of attacks to begin with and the fatalities as a whole would increase. I agree that they where bred for different purposes and that would alter the statistics.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

I just don't understand why these dogs aren't trying to herd each other.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Cocker Spaniels and Springer Spaniels should be on "Dangerous Dog" lists! They look all cute and innocent but they are evil I tell you, lol!

Both my sister and my cousin were attacked by different Cocker Spaniels and one of my other sister's friend had 2 aggressive females.

I have scars from my Dad's friend's Springer Spaniel that bit me when I was a kid and that dog ended up biting my Dad and another kid too before being put to sleep.

I feel like I have a much larger chance of getting bit by a Spaniel rather than a GSD or a Doberman.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

girardid said:


> You are right that i did not consider the game bred aspect for them finishing their victims but only looked at it as how much fight they could take.
> 
> The statistic shows that the majority of fatalities were children and of the adults the majority where the elderly. Now while you are right a Pitt is bred to finish the game and gsd to just maul and hold the difference would not be that big to the very vulnerable children and elderly.
> 
> ...


As Muskeg stated above, define attacks. Do GSDs account for more dog bites? Probably. But you can't compare dog bites to dismembering, disemboweling, and a host of other injuries resulting from maulings, not dog bites.


----------



## Saito (Dec 3, 2015)

A 'properly' bred fighting pit is bred to think human flesh is sacred and to never be bitten. The true dog fighting lines were designed to be in mid fight and if a human hand reaches in, it wouldn't be bitten.

Knowing this, it truly pains me to hear of pits/mixes to attack a human. I just don't even want to imagine what things have happened to the poor dogs along the generations that not only now will some bite a hand, but even severely injure a person.

Personally, as an able-bodied male...I would rather a pit attack than a gsd. Same bite strength...but the gsd has larger, longer teeth, and more weight & size to throw at me. I've seen human hostile untrained gsds before...no thank you! Those hostile gsds usually are bite, bite, bite, bite, bite. All very quickly. I would rather take the 'dreaded pit latch' of one bite. 


I find it a little odd people feel a pit that may be several generations removed from fighting of any kind is a time bomb of danger waiting to happen and no body can change that with any training...yet breeds like the gsd which have been bred to bite humans (well, proper working ones that defend property, livestock, & such) for far longer can be managed with training. Seems a little hypocritical to me. One bred's bad behavior can be trained away, yet another can't? We can train border collies to not nip the ankles of children and family pets (read: herding)...but supposedly a pit of any sort is just unchangeable.

I think people get a little too swept up in the fact that they are popular in dog fighting when bred for it and forget the rest of the dog's name: it's a Terrier. Simply put: all Terriers are fierce. So yes, even a pit many generations removed from fighting is going to have some fierceness to it. However, at that point...I view those sort of like being a large Jack Russel Terrier, in a sense. Most Terriers are on the smaller side. But look how fierce a JRT or Rat Terrier is. Imagine that almost as large as a gsd. Pretty scary, right? Well, that's pretty much your pit. But we've seen properly behaved & trained JRTs and the likes. So the very same can happen with a pit that is generations removed from fighting. Side note: I've seen lots of JRTs that bite and don't release. I don't see the 'latch' thing as a pit only thing; I'm pretty certain that's a Terrier trait more than anything.

Maybe the sign sees pits as dangerous to other dogs. And the gsd dangerous towards people. After all, the gsd has its valuables with it at an public place...its owner/family. A territorial protection attack could happen with an untrained/poor temperment/weak nerved/unsicialized gsd. Just as a dog/dog thing could occur with a pit of the same situation.


On a lighter note: "this isn't a Rhodesian Ridgeback! This is a Great Dane mix!" Hey, that's technically what it truly is.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Saito said:


> A 'properly' bred fighting pit is bred to think human flesh is sacred and to never be bitten. The true dog fighting lines were designed to be in mid fight and if a human hand reaches in, it wouldn't be bitten.
> 
> Knowing this, it truly pains me to hear of pits/mixes to attack a human. I just don't even want to imagine what things have happened to the poor dogs along the generations that not only now will some bite a hand, but even severely injure a person.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... seems like the breed stewards disagree with you.

" Red eyed dogs as red as a ruby. Wild to go very hot dogs that would eat up a person, and Flo would speak up and say “Lord yes,” as she pulled up her long cotton dress to her knees and pulled her knee socks down to her ankles to show her scars from dog bites. Earl then laughed and said Flo got bit two or three times trying to part some that would break loose when I weren’t here. I got where I told her to stay in the house and let them fight to the death. So she don’t get bit no more. She would speak up and say; Phyllis those Henry dogs had a big mouth and you had to beat them in the head with a piece of iron to get them to turn loose. Earl would say, “Ya’ll she’s telling you the truth, she’d have a iron bar or hammer in her hand and if one got on her she’d beat it in the head and kill it."

Earl Tudor "The Oklahoma Kid" - Game Dog History | Gamedog Magazines & Articles about the American Pitbull Terrier

You do know who Earl Tudor is don't you? Maybe you peek around the above referenced site and learn about your breed.

I know many GSDs far removed from working lines that still bite, know a couple of Labs removed a few times from working lines that still like to swim. You don't think that maybe if you breed GSDs from HA lines and keep breeding them to other GSDs from HA lines that you just might get HA dogs? Just saying that although those breedings weren't done with HA as a desired end product, but they still used dogs that have the genetics for HA that it is a possibility? I mean what else would they inherit unless you specifically introduced lines that carried other genes? I know that reputable breeders breed to the standard and dog aggression is acceptable and game is highly prized in Pit Bulls, so reputable breeders, the breed stewards, aren't breeding these Pits lacking in those qualities, so who is? 

Regarding a Pit hold and shake vs a bite and release from a GSD, pick your poison but I will take my chances with a few slashes vs chunks of flesh removed.

Changing with training and managing with training are two separate things. There was recently a very good thread on here that discussed that in detail. Seemed the consensus was without ongoing training, any inherent behavior would most likely resurface, the dog's genetics could not be changed.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I've been bitten good by shepherds in the middle of a fight. I'm not afraid of GSDs at all. I would rather get a bite or two or even three, than be bitten and shook. 

What a gory topic!


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

It is a gory topic, Selzer. Yikes.

The best advice to any dog owner is know your breed and know your dog. What I've seen with malinois or GSD is that they are never sleepers. You get what you get. They are high maintenance dogs and very few people want to deal with the day to day of owning a dog like this. Not even because of human aggressive issues, but just because of the energy levels and need for a job. 

Some of the more stoic breeds are nice and easy until they are very much not. It can make them fit in much better in normal pet homes, and really and truly surpise people when something triggers their instincts. I think that causes quite a few of the problems we see. Where people can honestly say "but she's never done that before."


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Saito said:


> A 'properly' bred fighting pit is bred to think human flesh is sacred and to never be bitten. The true dog fighting lines were designed to be in mid fight and if a human hand reaches in, it wouldn't be bitten.
> 
> Knowing this, it truly pains me to hear of pits/mixes to attack a human. I just don't even want to imagine what things have happened to the poor dogs along the generations that not only now will some bite a hand, but even severely injure a person.
> 
> ...


Let me preface this by saying that I LOVES pits. I've rescued and owned many. This is the first year I haven't owned a pit in the last 20 or so. 

It wasn't so much fighting dogs were bred to believe that human skin was sacred, I mean yes, fighting rules required the dogs to be handled both by their owner and the opposing dogs owner so human aggression was never selected FOR. But a good fighter that bit a human, I'd it was a CH dang skippy it produced pups. What they did attempt to breed out though, and where the myth came from, was the tendency to redirect. Whether it was towards a person in the ring, another dog, or even just to bite another area on the dog they were engaged with. Redirection made them vulnerable to their opponent. Professional dog fights are not like boxing matches with quick punches. More like Olympic wrestling. 

I actually think that criminalising dog fighting has contributed to making pits "dangerous". Maulings with multiple bite wounds are uncharacteristic of a true fighting bred pit. Also irresponsible breeders in general breeding for human aggression trying to turn pits into guard dogs... meh.

I don't think the comparison of training a border not to nip is fair. Border collies and the landrace they were bred from have had hundreds of years of being selected for biddability. Pit bulls - not so much. Much of the "work" they were selected for was of the independent nature

Pit bulls are dogs that need constant management. Several of the breeds on that sign do. One thing ALL of them have in common is that they are NOT for inexperienced owners.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

Socializing is a huge part of a dogs development into what we call a normal dog. Discipline and training is also so important as well as pack structure and human leadership.

People take for granted there dog has been conditioned to be a pet from day one. There is always instinctual behaviors and learned ones. Granted all breeds will exhibit both in there lives. Some will be more ruled by the instinct than others but to say any breed is totally ruled by instinct is wrong as a domesticated dog by definition is not governed totally by a wild instinct. They are some what adaptable an not hard wired like a fox.

How so many different bull breeds live successfully with humans is testament to the fact that they are not abnormal to general dog behavior. My own is a love bug with a hard edge but very social dog likes people and is safe around stock and any dogs she meets. Like I let her know very strictly certain things were not allowed and once she got the message she could just be herself inside the boundaries i created for her, which is a nice natured dog. 

I'll post this video clip of Darrel Hager again. Interesting this dog is trained and acting very much like it's Belgian shepherd cousins. It is obeying the handler and the e collar training like any other dog would. There is no sign of aggression any different to the other dogs. Food for thought i feel.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

Remember this thread began as a discussion on BSL in Ireland and the publics unease with their pets being included on the list. I don't believe it should be derailed into a pit thread awaiting lock down. 

Anyways, It is an interesting discussion and it is good people now look at the breed specific legislation in Ireland and see does it really work. 

Páraic Ó Súilleabháin, a PhD student in Uni. Galway studied the BSL in Ireland and came up with some interesting findings. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ations_for_current_breed_specific_legislation



> The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of the current breed specific legislation in Ireland by investigating all dog bite hospital admissions throughout Ireland since that legislation was introduced





> Data for statistical analyses were acquired through the National Hospital In-Patient Enquiry Scheme.


His findings


> There was a significant increase in incidences of hospitalisation of humans due to dog bites in Ireland from 1998 to 2013.
> 
> Children under 10 years of age are at increased risk for dog bites.
> 
> ...





> In years 1998-2013, a total of 3164 human hospitalisations (admissions for dog bite) occurred in Ireland.





> This study examined whether reductions in the incidence of dog bite hospitalisations have occurred since the introduction of the latest breed-specific legislation in Ireland





> The objective of the Control of Dogs Act 1998 Regulations is to reduce the incidence and severity of bites from specific dog breeds (11 total, including mixes and strains) deemed capable of inflicting injury requiring hospitalisation more frequently than all other breeds. The regulation of these breeds should have resulted in a decreased incidence of hospitalisations, *whereas a significant increase in incidence was observed.*





> *Regulating dogs based on breed to reduce injuries resulting in hospitalisations and fatalities is contrary to scientific evidence *


It is not gospel but gives people a perspective on the effect of the legislation.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

This is what research I'm finding(Ireland)



"Last week's research paper suggests that the increase could be linked to the implementation of the Control of Dogs Act 1998, which imposed strict controls on eleven breeds of dog (such as Rottweilers, German Shepherds and others). These breeds - and their crosses - are meant to muzzled and kept on a short leash in public areas. There is a theory that this legislation may make people too relaxed around breeds that are not on the restricted list, making them more likely to be bitten by "ordinary dogs" than if the restrictions were not in place."


"The study showed that the two dog types that were most commonly involved in bite incidents (Collies and terriers) also happened to be the two most popular breed types. While some breeds of dogs were more commonly reported in biting incidents, these did not fit with commonly held beliefs(e.g. Papillons and Pekingese were in the top ten breeds, while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was one of the least likely breeds to bite). This aspect of the study confirmed that it's wrong to focus on dog breed when considering how to prevent dog bites."

So is the conclusion that a dog is a dog and any dog will bite? Dog bites are up but now it's other breeds that aren't on the list. Kinda makes me think that people have quite a bit to do with dog bites and not be educated on how to approach or not approach any dog.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

First of all, BSL was *NEVER* intended to address dog bites, at least not in the US or Canada, but extreme maulings and fatalities, which is why the bogus cry "your breed can be next" doesn't float, few dog breeds are out there mauling and killing with regularity. 

I find it odd that anytime somebody tries to prove that BSL is a failure, they have to go outside the US or Canada. 

Maybe the key to effective BSL is these other countries modeling their BSL after the laws in effect in the US and Canada where it has been a tremendous success in every area where it has been enacted effectively eliminating or reducing recurring maulings and fatalities.

And regarding MadLab's comment on socialization, there are many experienced people who know that socialization is not a huge part of a dog's development into a normal dog, knowing that stable dogs don't require socialization. Dogs who are inherently unstable are the ones that benefit from socialization. How many times on this forum alone do we see "nobody pets my dog" and "no doggie meet and greets"? Speaks volumes that these dogs who were exposed, but not socialized, develop just fine and are normal dogs while those who were inherently unstable, despite socialization, continue to struggle and always will. And regarding BSL turning into Pit Bull threads, well in the US, it is the Pit Bull that is the target of BSL, not GSDs, Dobes, etc., so discussing one IS discussing the other.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Well, I disagree MAWL, lots of BSL is aimed at trying to prevent dog bites. My municipality has brought in BSL against a certain breed of dog (must be muzzled when off the owner's property), because of dog bites. Just stupid irresponsible owners doing stuff like tying up their dog outside a store and leaving it unsupervised while they shop.

No serious maulings or killing that I know of - yet the restrictions are there. I don't think that one can speak for an entire country, and/or point the finger at other countries, BSL IS often just a knee-jerk reaction of politicians, wanting to do something that they feel will get public support and make they look good. 

I think this thread has run it's course.


----------

