5 ms·

Ownership of High-Risk ("Vicious") Dogs as a Marker for Deviant Behaviors

25 points by jnord 2y ago

jqpabc123 2y ago
"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.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Another cause for disregard for liability: - 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
  - johnea 2y ago
    You failed to list "Attorney" as a cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple One was convicted of murder for the death of a woman killed by their dogs... Dog's became massively popular during the plague, and most of these new owners neither knew nor cared about training the dogs, with significant bad results. It's reached the point where I actually search for "dog free" restaurants to patronize...
- cwillu 2y ago
  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.
  - happytoexplain 2y ago
    As in nearly all nature-vs-nurture behavioral discussion, the word "entirely" usually has no place.
    - numbrzgames 2y ago
      [dead]
  - radlad 2y ago
    > High-risk dogs are entirely owner created. Unfortunately, some dogs do have higher potential for harm than others, even setting aside training. For some, this is due to their bite strength (e.g. Rottweilers, Doberman, and yes, pitbulls.) Some tend to be more skittish/wary of strangers (e.g. guard dogs like Akitas and Dalmations) and act more unpredictably around them. On the other hand, breeds like Beagles and French Bulldogs seem to very rarely cause serious injury. Even a Pomeranian or Chihuahua, while often wary of strangers, can't typically do much damage... edit: Since I'm being downvoted, I'd love if someone could explain why? I don't think I said anything particularly controversial. I grew up with a Rottie-Pitbull mix and my family has numerous pitbulls (and other dogs) in it. I've had numerous friends with Akitas. I agree that owners are responsible for training their dogs to behave appropriately, and yet I've also seen the damage that larger dogs can do, and the difficulty that even experienced dog owners can have with these behaviors.
    - belorn 2y ago
      Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point. A very large dog need very good training simply because their strength is greater than that of most humans. A German shepherd that jumps into people faces is bigger problem than a Chihuahua that can't even reach you knee. That said, potential for harm is a poor measurement, and dogs are fairly low on the list if one looks for high risk ownership. Most stuff people own or have in their house is more dangerous, and even among pets they are far from the top.
      - 2y ago
- numbrzgames 2y ago
  [dead]
jmclnx 2y ago
I can't get into the site, I agree with the title except in very rare cases these dogs are useful
Teever 2y ago
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
- evgen 2y ago
  > 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...
- beepbopboopp 2y ago
  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
rqtwteye 2y ago
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.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  Nah. Cats are fine as long as you keep the food and scritches coming and Do Not. Touch. The Tummy.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  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.
  - conductr 2y ago
    You have to look beyond the study to common sense and why this produces “duh” level of insights. It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture. As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they all have pit bulls with spiked collars in their music videos. This promotes what’s already happening IRL. (I say this as a huge “gangster rap” fan!) An aggressive personality is drawn to an aggressive breed of dog and then when treated aggressively is considered vicious.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      > It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture. > As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they You're talking about country music right? Because in the rural south where I grew up the most visible pitbull-venerating subculture by far was also really into country music, gun violence, and selling xanax and percocet.
theonlyjesus 2y ago
Since when is a Chow a high risk dog? Aren't they fluffballs?
- happytoexplain 2y ago
  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?"
- desertmonad 2y ago
  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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
PopAlongKid 2y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple
puppycodes 2y ago
any statistics including the words "vicious" and "deviant behavior" in its title is already worthless.
belorn 2y ago
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.
grayhatter 2y ago
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)
motohagiography 2y ago
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.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  > 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
  - motohagiography 2y ago
    essentially european descent, landowners. horsemen, peasants, yeomen, etc. not of cities, mainly. people from more urbanized cultures aren't usually as acclimatized to dealing with animals and don't recognize it as a competence or skill. everyone can learn, but chances are if you have been in a city for generations, it's not as normal. if you didn't learn, and see them mainly as symbols and objects instead of beings, you're going to be a crappy dog owner who ends up in a study like this. living with animals as pets, especially indoors, and barring some of the asian horse cultures, is pretty western-coded.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
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"

25 points by jnord 2y ago

"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.

ty6853 2y ago
Another cause for disregard for liability: - 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
- johnea 2y ago
  You failed to list "Attorney" as a cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple One was convicted of murder for the death of a woman killed by their dogs... Dog's became massively popular during the plague, and most of these new owners neither knew nor cared about training the dogs, with significant bad results. It's reached the point where I actually search for "dog free" restaurants to patronize...
cwillu 2y ago
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.
- happytoexplain 2y ago
  As in nearly all nature-vs-nurture behavioral discussion, the word "entirely" usually has no place.
  - numbrzgames 2y ago
    [dead]
- radlad 2y ago
  > High-risk dogs are entirely owner created. Unfortunately, some dogs do have higher potential for harm than others, even setting aside training. For some, this is due to their bite strength (e.g. Rottweilers, Doberman, and yes, pitbulls.) Some tend to be more skittish/wary of strangers (e.g. guard dogs like Akitas and Dalmations) and act more unpredictably around them. On the other hand, breeds like Beagles and French Bulldogs seem to very rarely cause serious injury. Even a Pomeranian or Chihuahua, while often wary of strangers, can't typically do much damage... edit: Since I'm being downvoted, I'd love if someone could explain why? I don't think I said anything particularly controversial. I grew up with a Rottie-Pitbull mix and my family has numerous pitbulls (and other dogs) in it. I've had numerous friends with Akitas. I agree that owners are responsible for training their dogs to behave appropriately, and yet I've also seen the damage that larger dogs can do, and the difficulty that even experienced dog owners can have with these behaviors.
  - belorn 2y ago
    Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point. A very large dog need very good training simply because their strength is greater than that of most humans. A German shepherd that jumps into people faces is bigger problem than a Chihuahua that can't even reach you knee. That said, potential for harm is a poor measurement, and dogs are fairly low on the list if one looks for high risk ownership. Most stuff people own or have in their house is more dangerous, and even among pets they are far from the top.
    - 2y ago
numbrzgames 2y ago
[dead]

jmclnx 2y ago

I can't get into the site, I agree with the title except in very rare cases these dogs are useful

Teever 2y ago

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

evgen 2y ago
> 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...
beepbopboopp 2y ago
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

rqtwteye 2y ago

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.

psunavy03 2y ago
Nah. Cats are fine as long as you keep the food and scritches coming and Do Not. Touch. The Tummy.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
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.
- conductr 2y ago
  You have to look beyond the study to common sense and why this produces “duh” level of insights. It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture. As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they all have pit bulls with spiked collars in their music videos. This promotes what’s already happening IRL. (I say this as a huge “gangster rap” fan!) An aggressive personality is drawn to an aggressive breed of dog and then when treated aggressively is considered vicious.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    > It’s an entire culture. Violence, crime, usually also associated with poverty, etc. when an entire neighborhood/part of a city is known for this, as often happens, it’s because it’s become the culture. > As an example, you have an entire genre of music that almost solely glorifies gang life, dealing drugs, carrying guns, etc and they You're talking about country music right? Because in the rural south where I grew up the most visible pitbull-venerating subculture by far was also really into country music, gun violence, and selling xanax and percocet.

theonlyjesus 2y ago

Since when is a Chow a high risk dog? Aren't they fluffballs?

happytoexplain 2y ago
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?"
desertmonad 2y ago
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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

PopAlongKid 2y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diane_Whipple

puppycodes 2y ago

any statistics including the words "vicious" and "deviant behavior" in its title is already worthless.

belorn 2y ago

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.

grayhatter 2y ago

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)

motohagiography 2y ago

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.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
> 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
- motohagiography 2y ago
  essentially european descent, landowners. horsemen, peasants, yeomen, etc. not of cities, mainly. people from more urbanized cultures aren't usually as acclimatized to dealing with animals and don't recognize it as a competence or skill. everyone can learn, but chances are if you have been in a city for generations, it's not as normal. if you didn't learn, and see them mainly as symbols and objects instead of beings, you're going to be a crappy dog owner who ends up in a study like this. living with animals as pets, especially indoors, and barring some of the asian horse cultures, is pretty western-coded.

red-iron-pine 2y ago

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"