10 Most Dangerous Breeds of Dogs

[gbopp]

Yesterday there was a post about the 'discrimination' against certain breeds of dogs at Campgrounds.

Original Post

Today, on Yahoo, I saw this article about The 10 Most Dangerous Breeds of Dogs.

Apparently Campgrounds have a good reason for excluding certain breeds from their property.

I know it's only a small percentage of dogs that actually attack people but, I guess it's not worth the CG taking the chance. Probably their insurance carrier won't cover them if they allow certain breeds.

[Gavin60]

A lifelong friend of mine is an animal vet. He told me once that most violent dog breeds who end up at many animal shelters are usually put down within 48-72 hours because they know most folks wont be adopting them.
too much liability, too many folks carry a lawyer in their pocket like a pistol and quick to pull it out too.

[AZPops]

BCSnob wrote:
This study includes a column indicating the percentage of each breed in classified ads for pet sales (providing some estimate of relative breed populations). When one divides the number of attacks by the percentage other breeds (Akita, Chow, & Presa Canario) show up as having more attacks per capita than the pit bull types.

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2014.pdf

Here's the link to the pdf file



Calvin


PS ur welcome! ... :C

[Calicajun]

The dogs aren't the danger, there owners are the danger. Some owners train their dogs to be mean and other owners just don't know how to train their dogs.

[FrankShore]

Go Dogs wrote:

FrankShore wrote:
On the topic, NEVER put up a BEWARE OF DOG sign on your property. It's admitting before the fact that you know that your dog is dangerous and should someone get bitten, their lawyers will have your butt in a basket!

On the flipside-If you don't own a dog-it doesn't hurt to put up the Beware of Dog sign, a heavy chain and a large dinged up food bowl. Let the bad guy decide to take a chance.

Great point!

[Go_Dogs]

FrankShore wrote:
On the topic, NEVER put up a BEWARE OF DOG sign on your property. It's admitting before the fact that you know that your dog is dangerous and should someone get bitten, their lawyers will have your butt in a basket!

On the flipside-If you don't own a dog-it doesn't hurt to put up the Beware of Dog sign, a heavy chain and a large dinged up food bowl. Let the bad guy decide to take a chance.

[FrankShore]

On the topic, NEVER put up a BEWARE OF DOG sign on your property. It's admitting before the fact that you know that your dog is dangerous and should someone get bitten, their lawyers will have your butt in a basket!

[dturm]

BCSnob wrote:
There are glaring flaws in these breed statistics, they do not take into account the population of each breed. In many human statistics the data are equated on a per capita basis. This is not done with breed statistics because breed populations are not determined. Additionally, there is no good way to deal with mixed breed dogs.


I'll bet you'll find the bite and fatality statistics indicate that the most dangerous breed of dog is "mixed breed" since it is the most populous "breed" of dog. Those compiling the data often add bite data of mixed breeds dogs to the breed they most resemble.

Glaring problems with dog bite statistics exist to the point that they are just about useless when trying to really evaluate the problem of dog bites.

First, a huge percentage of bites are never reported. If the dog in your family bites but doesn't severely injure, it's not reported but is an important statistical event when trying to solve the dog bite problem.

Second, the dog breed involved in the reported events are notoriously mis-identified. After all, we all know that the dog that bites must be one of those breeds on the list.

Mark's point about mix breed dogs being the most dangerous statistically is REALLY valid.

So often the events surrounding a bite center on the dog while there are several other factors, probably most notable the lack of proper control, supervision and training by the owner of the dog involved.

Doug, DVM

[toedtoes]

Years ago, GSDs, Dobies and Rotties were standard "thug dogs". Because they were easily trained as guard and protection dogs and had an image of no nonsense, common thugs started getting these breeds to compensate for their own lacking. Then they started getting akitas, mastiffs, st bernards, amstaffs, etc.

That is why those dogs are on the list - because of scumdog owners who think a tough dog makes up for having nothing in their pants or in their heads.

They're not going to bother with "cute", friendly, gentle looking dogs, so those dogs aren't getting raised and bred by scum.

[Tyler0215]

Dog discrimination: the next Supreme Court case.

[brewjaz]

Personally I don't care to stay in a campground that discriminates against breeds. To me it's the same as human racial discrimination. Dogs that show aggression, fine...don't allow them in....or make them leave at the first sign of aggression.

I ask on the phone when making reservations if they have breed restrictions--if they do, I let them know why I will not stay there. The only exception is if I want to go to a rally that I REALLY, REALLY want to attend.

I want to make it clear that I (at this time) DO NOT own a breed that is on the dangerous list. I know, and have had, "so called dangerous breeds" and many were total love bugs. I have also had a dog or two that I had enough common sense not to take camping....they stayed home with a sitter or were boarded.

[dave17352]

I can't get to the list! What is the secret?

[RV_CONUS]

Most Dangerous Breed:

Devil Dog!
Teufelshunde

[donn0128]

Great Danes? Really???
They are such couch potatoes, the only say a person they could hurt is when they flop in your lap! Heck, if their dangerous, then Labs must be down right scary.

[Dakota98]

My spill cheek works fine two. :h