Breeds To Be Wary Of

[Pepper21]

Totally agree with what RiverStar-Aura said; Staffies are terriers, and like any terrier they can be tenacious little monsters (I love that quality, to be honest).

I personally wouldn't let my little dog interact with larger dogs. My smaller dog was accidentally trodden on by my larger dog which resulted in 6 months of cage rest and multiple surgeries. On another forum I am on, a poster was very distressed because his 10 month old BoerBoel (I think that was the breed) stepped on his Brussels Griffon's head and ultimately killed it (extensive brain damage resulted in it being put to sleep later that day). A total accident, simply due to size differences and lack of body awareness.

I agree with other posters who suggested you find some similar sized doggy friends to socialise with. I'm not a fan of on-leash greetings anyway, so I'd recommend you avoid that too.

[Alison03]

Hey, My puppy got a bit roughed up by a pair of bulldog like dogs the other week when we were having a walk, and today i met my first bull terrier, it was not a good encounter if i'm honest and i will not be letting my dog any were near Large bull breeds. Are there any other breeds commonly known for being overly aggressive or just a bit untrustworthy around other dogs?

I just want to be able to know when to get my dog out of the area, ive learned not to trust any unknown dogs but there are clearly some that it pays to be no were near by.

I know its not the dogs fault and most of the time its just a bad owner but it does seem like some breeds are more susceptible to aggression problems and i need to know witch they are so i can avoid any possible issues.

Unfortunately the breed of the dog is no indicator as to whether it will attack your dog, in someways it would be easier if it was but it's just not. In my experience any dog of any size can be aggressive, any off leash dog is suspect, but not all, some are just on their own mission.

I've been rushed by a Kelpie, Sheltie, Border Collie, Doberman, several Maltese crosses and once by a bull terrier.

The best advice is to try to avoid an off leash dog, carry a stick or something that makes a noise like a loud whistle and if you see someone walking a highly reactive dog, give them a wide berth.

[Kajtek]

Really? Breeds to be Wary Of!

It's like saying 'all red heads are feisty' or 'blonds are dumb'. Quite offensive me thinks!

It's about the personality of the dog not the breed.

I parent 3 bullies - each is different, each copes differently with stress. It is my responsibility to understand them and make sure they and others are safe.

So by all means be wary of the owners, be wary of individual dogs but not the breed.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kajtek

[megan_]

I agree with this. It doesn't matter what types of dogs you love, it matters what type of dogs your dogs don't get on with. If a bull breed come to my park I leave because they have a very different play style to my boy . They tend to like rough and tumble and he likes chased. For similar reasons he doesn't play with labs. He loves poodles, whippets and small terriers. I'm sure done owners get offended, but I don't give a sh*t.

ETA: I do let my lit tiles interact with large dogs. It is important for them not to be overwhelmed. However, I know these dogs and their owner and trust them 100%.

While I agree with everything else said another way to look at it is from your dog's preference. I find my dogs get on poorly with dogs most dissimilar to them - i.e. they generally get along well with other kelpies, pretty well with border collies, ok with shepherds down to bully breeds where things are often quite tense. So although I love bullys and boofas I generally avoid them to keep the peace.

Edited November 8, 2013 by megan_

[halfthewords]

Agree with Haredown Whippets on this topic, despite owning a staffy/Cairn Terrier mix who is a lot heavier than my 3kg Miniature Pinscher. It's just better not to take risks with larger dogs, particularly an unknown bull breed, because they have such variable personalities and obviously the size difference presents a problem. Having said that, I avoid anything larger than 10-15kg altogether because Mischa is 11, and all it takes is a big dog to step on her and she would have serious injuries. It isn't even worth it. No more dog parks for us (except on rare occasions late at night or early morning).

[Salukifan]

As long as I live I will not understand how it is "offensive" or "racist" to expect a higher incidence of a particular trait in a breed selectively bred for it.

I would hardly be offended if a person suggested I not let my Whippets near their chickens, pet cat, rabbit or rat. They were bred for prey drive, triggered by small running animals and they have it in spades.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[mita]

ou would find that it says there are statistically significant differences between breeds...and that it presents data from a peer reviewed paper to illustrate those differences.

Good to see a reference to fact there is rigorous peer-reviewed research on canine aggression.

With interesting findings in one particular study, concerning breed differences & canine aggression. Looking at tendency to be aggressive with owners, or strangers, or other dogs. So specifically targeting other dogs was covered. Counter-intuitive outcome on the 2 breeds found to exhibit greatest aggressive tendency towards both strangers & other dogs (among other outcomes). People can read it themselves, because it's posted in the DOL forum listing significant studies (p 7). You posted it, SG & a good thing, too.

In same DOL forum, is another study that picked up the issue of breed typical behaviours & the relationship with historical use of that breed. Significant finding was the influence of more recent times, of the use for showing when contrasted with those used for original purpose. . Appears that has strongly influenced breed characteristics, because there's difference in what's been selected for. You also posted this research, SG, in the same DOL forum. Beating me to it. People can read it... post 87, p6.

Edited November 9, 2013 by mita

[Salukifan]

ou would find that it says there are statistically significant differences between breeds...and that it presents data from a peer reviewed paper to illustrate those differences.

Good to see a reference to fact there is rigorous peer-reviewed research on canine aggression.

With interesting findings in one particular study, concerning breed differences & canine aggression. Looking at tendency to be aggressive with owners, or strangers, or other dogs. So specifically targeting other dogs was covered. Counter-intuitive outcome on the 2 breeds found to exhibit greatest aggressive tendency towards both strangers & other dogs. People can read it themselves, because it's posted in the DOL forum listing significant studies (p 7). You posted it, SG & a good thing, too.

In same DOL forum, is another study that picked up the issue of breed typical behaviours & the relationship with historical use of that breed. Significant finding was the influence of more recent times, of the use for showing when contrasted with those used for original purpose. . Appears that has strongly influenced breed characteristics, because there's difference in what's been selected for. You also posted this research, SG, in the same DOL forum. Beating me to it. People can read it... post 87, p6.

So how does this research translate to answering the OP's question? How does owner reported behaviour about dogs that will snap at strangers or owners assist someone trying to keep their puppy safe from other dogs?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[mita]

The first mentioned article does show findings about aggressive patterns in breeds.... exactly as the OP is concerned about.

This study separates out aggression against other dogs, as I pointed out. And a bully breed is mentioned in that pattern of canine behaviour. Again ... that would answer the OP's question.

The second article throws some light on an aspect.... you have mentioned ... the issue of breed behavioral tendency being related to historical use via selective breeding.

Again.... people can read the articles themselves.

Edited November 9, 2013 by mita

[Guest Maeby Fünke]

As long as I live I will not understand how it is "offensive" or "racist" to expect a higher incidence of a particular trait in a breed selectively bred for it.

I would hardly be offended if a person suggested I not let my Whippets near their chickens, pet cat, rabbit or rat. They were bred for prey drive, triggered by small running animals and they have it in spades.

Me either.

And I wouldn't be upset if anyone suggested that my Pug wasn't cut out for hunting or tracking. Or bite work.

[Salukifan]

As long as I live I will not understand how it is "offensive" or "racist" to expect a higher incidence of a particular trait in a breed selectively bred for it.

I would hardly be offended if a person suggested I not let my Whippets near their chickens, pet cat, rabbit or rat. They were bred for prey drive, triggered by small running animals and they have it in spades.

Me either.

And I wouldn't be upset if anyone suggested that my Pug wasn't cut out for hunting or tracking. Or bite work.

Strange, most Pugs I know are pretty good on the fang where food is concerned.

[dogmatic]

Counter-intuitive outcome on the 2 breeds found to exhibit greatest aggressive tendency towards both strangers & other dogs (among other outcomes).

Counter-intuitive?

"Oh. Isn't she cute." Grrr... "OUCH!" Eight percent of Yorkshire Terriers and seven percent of Dachsunds show stranger aggression (defined as "Snaps, bites, or attempts to bite).

The question is probably similar to the difference between the most venomous snake and the most dangerous snake. AFAIK, there has never been a reported case of a human death from the most venomous land snake in the world (Inland Taipan). I don't know of any statistics for the number of Miniature Dachshunds declared by councils as dangerous dogs. That'd be interesting. :)

[trifecta]

I also stress the need to keep YOUR dog safe and never, never ever assume anything.

The world is there for all dog owners to share, good and bad, well trained and not well trained, well bred and not well bred, responsible owners and totally irresponsible owners.

If your dog is in danger then you need to protect your dog from that danger ... it is your responsibility as an owner.

Blaming the breed never works, but it is a good idea to learn what the different breeds are best at doing - a dog that is good at chasing and crunching is not always the type that you want around your dog, so it is OK to discriminate.

Take your puppy to dog training, get involved where there is safety, and let them be a confident and happy pup in a safe environment.

Souff, this is DOL statement of the year for me. It is something that everyone of us, not just airlock, should be mindful of at all times!

[mita]

Counter-intuitive outcome on the 2 breeds found to exhibit greatest aggressive tendency towards both strangers & other dogs (among other outcomes).

Counter-intuitive?

"Oh. Isn't she cute." Grrr... "OUCH!" Eight percent of Yorkshire Terriers and seven percent of Dachsunds show stranger aggression (defined as "Snaps, bites, or attempts to bite).

Counter-intuitive in the context of this discussion which focuses on aggressive tendencies of a bigger, heavier breed type, bullies.

Earlier posts mentioned the 'add on' factor of size & weight to any show of aggression. So little wonder that, in everyday life, it's that whole package which people are cautious of.

So it's dogs bigger than the 2 small breeds mentioned as part of the study, which would be in the forefront of people's minds to be wary of. Understandably so, because any show of aggression by them, poses greater potential for injury.

ADDING: That fits with your spot on comparison with snakes ... the most dangerous as opposed to the most venomous.

Edited November 9, 2013 by mita

[Guest Maeby Fünke]

As long as I live I will not understand how it is "offensive" or "racist" to expect a higher incidence of a particular trait in a breed selectively bred for it.

I would hardly be offended if a person suggested I not let my Whippets near their chickens, pet cat, rabbit or rat. They were bred for prey drive, triggered by small running animals and they have it in spades.

Me either.

And I wouldn't be upset if anyone suggested that my Pug wasn't cut out for hunting or tracking. Or bite work.

Strange, most Pugs I know are pretty good on the fang where food is concerned.

This is true. Pugs love their food!

[Salukifan]

As long as I live I will not understand how it is "offensive" or "racist" to expect a higher incidence of a particular trait in a breed selectively bred for it.

I would hardly be offended if a person suggested I not let my Whippets near their chickens, pet cat, rabbit or rat. They were bred for prey drive, triggered by small running animals and they have it in spades.

Me either.

And I wouldn't be upset if anyone suggested that my Pug wasn't cut out for hunting or tracking. Or bite work.

Strange, most Pugs I know are pretty good on the fang where food is concerned.

This is true. Pugs love their food!

By the way, there is a Pug in Victoria with a Tracking title. :)

[Guest Maeby Fünke]

As long as I live I will not understand how it is "offensive" or "racist" to expect a higher incidence of a particular trait in a breed selectively bred for it.

I would hardly be offended if a person suggested I not let my Whippets near their chickens, pet cat, rabbit or rat. They were bred for prey drive, triggered by small running animals and they have it in spades.

Me either.

And I wouldn't be upset if anyone suggested that my Pug wasn't cut out for hunting or tracking. Or bite work.

Strange, most Pugs I know are pretty good on the fang where food is concerned.

This is true. Pugs love their food!

By the way, there is a Pug in Victoria with a Tracking title. :)

Haha, I didn't know that!

[Rascalmyshadow]

I haven't read through all the posts, I'm sure plenty of people would argue but working hands on with dogs for the last 18years I have definitely found a pattern in breeds more likely to be reactive or bite.

I am most careful around herding/cattle dogs I have found them to be quicker than other dogs to snap.

Rotti's when taken into a situation there not comfortable with seem to react the worst.

Poodles are often very breed biased.

Bull breeds as much as I love them are the last dogs I would let my own dogs interact with just because of they way they play and how rough they are.

Border collies seem to set off a bad reaction in other dogs because of the way they stare.

Cocker spaniels have a bad habit of wagging their tails before they bite making them harder to read.

Never met or groomed an aggressive cavi.

Never met or groomed an aggressive Samoyed.

The three most dangerous dogs I've worked with were a Gordon setter, golden retriever and a curly coated retriever, all supposed to be placid.

Breeds definitely have their traits and any dog can become a problem but all breeds shouldn't be classed the same and certain breeds don't seem to mix well.

[mixeduppup]

I'd argue that it may be the pug's physical attributes that make it unlikely or unable to do some sports. Not discounting the fact that it may not want to if it was built differently.

Edited November 9, 2013 by mixeduppup

[kelpiecuddles]

The three most dangerous dogs I've worked with were a Gordon setter, golden retriever and a curly coated retriever

Interesting RMS, it was a curly coated retriever that attacked my best friends son and put him in hospital.