4 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - radlad 2y ago
    > Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point. Yes! Thank you for summarizing half of my original comment. This is exactly right - larger, stronger dogs carry a higher risk because they are harder to overpower. That said, even small dogs can and do hurt vulnerable humans. But they are certainly lower-risk than larger dogs. The other half of my comment points out that dogs are bred not just for specific looks, but for specific behaviors and temperaments. I understand why people don't like to discuss this (either because they worry it takes responsibility away from the dog owner, or because it sounds a bit too much like eugenics) but it's absolutely true. This is why we have pointing dogs, sight hounds, and scent hounds, for example. As for the second part of your comment, this seems a bit like whataboutism. Certainly there are bigger risks in life besides dogs, but it's kind of besides the point of this discussion.
    - belorn 2y ago
      When it comes to behavior, individual behavior generally exceeds that of breed. There are behavioral commonalities within breeds, but they are also mixed with the health of the breed, size, and how fast they mature. A breed with inherent narcolepsy and poor strength tend to be more easier to handle and get perceived as having calmer behavior. In term of domestic behavior, breeds with higher independence and intelligence tend to be more difficult and often get describe as having a energetic and strong willed behavior. I disagree with the whataboutism. Comparing risk is a under utilized skill in society, and people are commonly surprise when informed. If we are talking about risk to children, parents with a pet dog has a different risk profile than that of a pet horse or a pet cat. If we are assessing which kind of parent has a higher risk factor in their pet ownership, then we should not limit it to simply dog breeds. It also makes no sense to just compare pet owners, but also owners of other objects which carry risk to children. A simplistic proxy for comparing risk is to use life insurance and see what kind of risk that insurance companies find to be higher or lower. People who converts risk assessment into money don't usually care too much about the object that causes risk, but rather reduce it down to how high the risk is.
      - 2y ago

by cwillu 2y ago

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.
- radlad 2y ago
  > Very small dogs are "safer" because any human can use force to overpower them, making any behavior a moot point. Yes! Thank you for summarizing half of my original comment. This is exactly right - larger, stronger dogs carry a higher risk because they are harder to overpower. That said, even small dogs can and do hurt vulnerable humans. But they are certainly lower-risk than larger dogs. The other half of my comment points out that dogs are bred not just for specific looks, but for specific behaviors and temperaments. I understand why people don't like to discuss this (either because they worry it takes responsibility away from the dog owner, or because it sounds a bit too much like eugenics) but it's absolutely true. This is why we have pointing dogs, sight hounds, and scent hounds, for example. As for the second part of your comment, this seems a bit like whataboutism. Certainly there are bigger risks in life besides dogs, but it's kind of besides the point of this discussion.
  - belorn 2y ago
    When it comes to behavior, individual behavior generally exceeds that of breed. There are behavioral commonalities within breeds, but they are also mixed with the health of the breed, size, and how fast they mature. A breed with inherent narcolepsy and poor strength tend to be more easier to handle and get perceived as having calmer behavior. In term of domestic behavior, breeds with higher independence and intelligence tend to be more difficult and often get describe as having a energetic and strong willed behavior. I disagree with the whataboutism. Comparing risk is a under utilized skill in society, and people are commonly surprise when informed. If we are talking about risk to children, parents with a pet dog has a different risk profile than that of a pet horse or a pet cat. If we are assessing which kind of parent has a higher risk factor in their pet ownership, then we should not limit it to simply dog breeds. It also makes no sense to just compare pet owners, but also owners of other objects which carry risk to children. A simplistic proxy for comparing risk is to use life insurance and see what kind of risk that insurance companies find to be higher or lower. People who converts risk assessment into money don't usually care too much about the object that causes risk, but rather reduce it down to how high the risk is.
    - 2y ago