True.

About ten years ago, I had a friend's Alsation rip my face up. I bent down to pet the dog, he leapt up and tore a big chunk out of my cheek, gouging a valley from my cheek to under my chin. Why? Because that dog had come from a rescue shelter and been badly abused. For whatever reason, the dog felt threatened and lashed out. Sadly, the dog had to be destroyed.

They became that way through unnatural selection.
Denying it is tantamount to denying evolution.

That's because through 10,000 yrs of selective breeding, general genetic aggression toward humans has been almost entirely bred out of dogs. Any aggressive behaviors are learned, by suffering through abuse and neglect at the hands of humans & by being denied socialization and positive interactions with humans.

Denying the actual science on the subject - AS THE DOG HATERS DO - is precisely denying evolution.

and the data used in the study is pretty weak, questionnaires with a 25% response rate.

Science for people that do not understand the term.

Science that suggests that pit bull-type breeds might not be dangerous is automatically 100% true forever and ever amen.

Science that demonstrates clearly that pit bulls are dangerous is the deception of stupid, ignorant, genocidal bigots.


See?


I expect there we'll now see some kind of frothing, chest-thumping demand that I "back that up." Watch for it, because it's nearly as predictable as the next mauling by a pit bull.

Here's Rachel Casey's original article:
http://theconversation.com/dog-aggression-has-little-to-do-with-breed-so-test-the-owners-22015

And here's one from Feb:
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-aggressive-dog.html

And here's a study from 2011:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/154426276_The%20Relevance%20of%20Breed%20in%20Selecting%20a%20Companion%20Dog.pdf

As well as pretty much every study for the last 20 yrs or so. They all say the same thing: a dogs breed is not the primary determinative factor in aggressive behavior. Any more than the color of their fur is.

And this position also is held by

Humane Society of the United States
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/breed-specific-legislation/fact_sheets/breed-specific-legislation-flaws.html

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

Best Friends Animal Society
http://bestfriends.org/What-We-Do/Our-Work/Initiatives/Pit-Bull-Initiatives/

American Humane Association
http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/breed-specific-legislation.html

American Veterinary Medical Association
https://www.avma.org/public/Pages/Why-Breed-Specific-Legislation-is-not-the-Answer.aspx

National Animal Control Association
http://www.nacanet.org/guidelines.html#dangerous

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors
http://www.nadoi.org/position2.htm

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants
http://iaabc.org/

International Association of Canine Professionals
http://canineprofessionals.com/Articles/IACP%20Breed%20Specific%20Legislation.pdf

American Kennel Club
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/position_statements/Dangerous_Dog_Control_Legislation.pdf

National Animal Interest Alliance
http://www.naiaonline.org/about-us/position-statements/pets-and-the-community#breed

Center for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html

American Bar Association
http://www.abanow.org/2012/06/2012am100/

In short, literally EVERY PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC, MEDICAL & LEGAL ASSOCIATION which deals with dogs & understands canine behavior, and the medical & legal issues surrounding them. And they ALL oppose breed bans and other BSLs, too.

Couple that with the fact that the visual breed identifications used to DEFINE Pt Bulls aren't even as effective as flipping a coin

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/library/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/

- well, that really proves that the dog haters have nothing to stand on other than their own prejudices.

The first one I opened said that breed is not the only factor behind aggression, so is the owner.

Translation: breed IS a factor.

Do you just skip the parts you don't like?

How can you misunderstand that? It's simple English.

You're a prisoner of ignorance, I guess.

Are you unable to understand that?

Especially the MOST IMPORTANT ones? And that the breed is one of the LEAST IMPORTANT?

Are you that enamored of your diabolical myth that you can't admit the fact that you're wrong?

You seem to be the extremist who is unwilling to admit that which is incredibly obvious.

That breed IS one of the factors involved in aggression and that some breeds are more aggressive than others.

Let me repeat in case you don't yet get it.

A reasonable person admits that breed and environment are both factors.

An extremist is one that would deny that both are significant factors and claim that only one of them is.

I believe both are factors.

What about you?

You know how I know that? Because you only seem to be able to muster up the ability to comment on this issue when it involves blaming the breed. You have never posted anything to indicate you believe other factors are involved in dog aggression, or that aggression is actually a minor risk. Just the opposite in fact; your posts feed into & feed off of the anti-dog hatred, fear, hysteria, & ignorance that CAUSES the aggression you claim to want to curtail.

You're among the thankfully small group of DU misfits who seem to emerge from the swamp to cheer whenever a person is attacked by any dog that may be labeled - however erroneously - as a Pit Bull, and who proceed to attack anyone who attempts to bring rationality, actual facts, direct experience & simple truth into the discussion.

Meanwhile you, by refusing to answer, show that you are essentially an evolution denier and a bit off your rocker.

Please provide links.

Now are you going to admit that breed also plays a factor or not?

Above is just an opportunistic response to overwhelming proof that your position is indefensible. As soon as the spotlight is off, you go back to your old, evil arguments.

You're justifiable, dude.

Advocating genocide is always evil.

Please don't bring any form of science into an emotional battleground for the weak-minded, who are forever beholden to data given them by Fox and the like (you know, the ones we shouldn't trust for any real information? I mean, except this.)

At least with certain breeds. Especially *that* one. You know, the one that too many folks are disappointingly stupid about.

*gets off Soap Box of Shaming*

Thanks for posting this.

Interesting.

turn them into assholes.

I'd still like a response to this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024752569#post11

Breed is certainly not the only factor in predicting aggression and I don't know anyone who believes it is. I wouldn't even claim that it's the strongest factor - my gut instinct is that it's not. The reason you see people talking about breed on DU is that there are people like you posting ridiculous claims that breed is not a factor at all and that pit bulls are so safe with children that they used to be called "nanny dogs." I think these are dangerous fallacies that need to be shot down. I don't see anyone on DU making claims that chaining dogs has no effect on their aggressiveness or that unneutered male dogs make great babysitters for small children. If I ever saw anyone claiming that chaining dogs or abusing them or failing to neuter them has no effect on aggression, I would certainly shoot those claims down as well.