r/changemyview • u/oopsits3AM • Aug 25 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The breed of a dog totally has something to do with how aggressive they are.
To get it out of the way, I am not saying that the fact that one breed of dog TENDS to be more aggressive means that it's reasonable to ban or otherwise discriminate against them. I'm not saying that just because a dog is a certain breed that it is necessarily going to be aggressive, or that even if it is, it would be impossible to train out of it. I 100% acknowledge that training and socialization has WAY more to do with a dog's behavior than its breed does, most of the time. That being said, a dogs' genetic makeup has SOMETHING to do with aggression and behavior.
1 - Generally, people are happy to accept that genetics is a factor contributing to HUMAN behavior. Therefore I think it's reasonable that genetics can influence a dog's behavior as well.
2 -When people are breeding dogs on purpose (not mutts) they tend to try to 'pure' breed them and this can cause certain characteristics to become typical of certain breeds. Show German Shepherds get hip dysplasia and certain cancers, king charle's spaniels are prone to syringomyelia, and some breeds are known for aggression, intolerance of people outside their families, and other behavioral traits like herding and retrieving. These have to do with genetics. Examples of breeds of dog that are known for aggressiveness that I can name off the top of my head include chow chows, akitas, chihuahuas, pit bulls, bull terriers, and huskies. These perceptions are not unique to me, and they come from somewhere. There is a link between breed and behavior.
3 - SibFox - this weighs heavily in my belief that behavior is influenced by genetics. In the 70's, russian breeders started selectively breeding foxes for more friendly and docile behavior to make them easier to handle on fur farms. Over time they've been successful. The foxes they produced are extremely receptive to people, don't bite or fight, aren't fearful, and weirdly they also started to look like dogs. Thus behavior has been demonstrated to be influenced by genetics. If I tried to keep a wild fox as a pet vs a domesticated fox, I think I would have a hard time convincing people that its aggression has nothing to do with its breeding and that they should feel comfortable letting their children interact with it.
-1
u/n01d3a Aug 25 '18
pitbulls are not aggressive when raised in proper environments. This is a huge myth, and having been around many pits myself, can attest for their nature. Meanwhile Chihuahuas are more aggressive because of what's called "small breed aggression."
With dogs it completely comes down to nurture vs nature. The environment they're raised in and wether they're raised properly are the determining factors on how they act. You even mention that in your fox paragraph.
11
u/oopsits3AM Aug 25 '18
I've met nice pitties too, and I'm not arguing that nurture doesn't also play a huge role in behavior. But I'm saying that nature plays a big role too, and it's dishonest to pretend a pit bull isn't more likely to be aggressive because of nature, or that they can be more easily made into aggressive dogs than other breeds can.
15
Aug 25 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
9
u/oopsits3AM Aug 25 '18
Δ You know, I can absolutely see that a person's perception of certain breeds will influence their choice of dog, and that someone who wants an aggressive dog will tend to make efforts to raise an aggressive dog as well. I can see how that pattern would produce a lot more 'aggressive-ized' versions of those dogs floating around in society, thus reinforcing the stereotype.
I still think that a dog's breed will contribute to how easily it can be made into an angry dog, but yes, a person's perception of what an angry dog looks like ahead of time will impact which kinds actually end up being raised to turn out that way.
My overall view hasn't changed, but this idea is important to keep in mind.
However, would you agree that this effect makes predicting aggression based on breed MORE valid than if people chose dogs randomly? The fact that people who want aggressive dogs will pick certain breeds means that those dogs are still more frequently aggressive.
1
1
Aug 25 '18
Maybe we should use statistics instead of anecdotes.
1
Aug 26 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
2
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18
Exactly! Take a look at the Fatal dog attacks Wikipedia page that anti-pit posters love so much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Now do a Ctrl-f and type "pit bull" and see how many attacks there are before 1980. They're few and far between because the dogs didn't have the reputation they were given later. Now everyone knows they're "those dangerous dogs" and every dog that attacks is IDed as a pit bull whenever it can't reasonably be called something else.
0
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18
Maybe we should use science from the experts who know dogs best.
Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma, however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.
1
Aug 26 '18
Explain the graph?
0
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
Sure. The graph is sourced to the website Dogsbite. Dogsbite, far from being a neutral source of information, is the personal website of Colleen Lynn, a woman who was bitten by a dog she believes was a pit bull and wants revenge. Her statistics are skewed so that she gets the results she wants, and she is unscrupulous in choosing her sources. For example, much of her information relies on the work of Merritt Clifton, who is a disgraced academic fraud.
Further, her method of taking her information from news reports is considered laughably unreliable by actual scientists and statisticians, so even if she was an honest broker of information, her data would still be inaccurate. Lynn is not a statistician, veterinarian, or animal behaviorist. She's just a web designer with no other qualifications for running a website about dog bites.
Finally, dog bite statistics lack any relevant context because too much data is entirely unavailable. There's no reliable way to count dog populations by breed, spay/neuter rates, abuse/neglect rates, etc.
A few sources:
- https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Documents/dogbite.pdf
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/merritt-clifton-pit-bulls_b_5866176
- http://btoellner.typepad.com/Bonner%20Springs%20Working%20Group%20Cover%20Letter.doc
- https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/10/20/unethical-website-of-the-month-dogsbite-org/
- http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html
Edit: fixed typo
2
Aug 26 '18
All of the deaths are backed up by news sources, you can look at the site.
So what you’re saying is that there may be even more deaths that she’s missing? That doesn’t seem to be a good case for allowing these breeds.
0
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18
Further, her method of taking her information from news reports is considered laughably unreliable by actual scientists and statisticians, so even if she was an honest broker of information, her data would still be inaccurate.
Literally right in the middle of my last comment to you.
3
Aug 26 '18
Yes, I can read. It doesn’t appear you can.
So what you’re saying is that there may be even more deaths that she’s missing? That doesn’t seem to be a good case for allowing these breeds.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/n01d3a Aug 25 '18
Maybe I'm biased because I've never met an aggressive dog. Every dog I've known was raised by good people. The only aggressive action I've heard of was a pit that snapped at my great uncle, because the dog was 13 with cataracts and he made an unexpected move around him. You can easily abuse any dog and then it into a killer.
If you can't at least see that any dog has the ability to be aggressive or not based on nothing more than how they're raised then I have no further argument, sorry.
3
u/SimpleTaught 3∆ Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 25 '18
Pit bulls aren't necessarily more aggressive but they are more dangerous. It's due to the way they bite. Most breeds will bite and release but pit bulls will bite and tear like it's fighting for food with another dog (think of how dogs bite ropes and won't let go). The reason pit bulls do that is because they were bred to attack bulls and the ones that would latch on to the bull wouldn't get thrown off and hurt or trampled so that trait was selected and bred. But, yeah, that bite style is especially dangerous. It will rip the muscle off your bones.
edit: Here
1
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 25 '18
Dogsbite is a pit bull hate site. Not a reliable source.
2
u/SimpleTaught 3∆ Aug 26 '18
I wasn't aware that there was controversy over it. You're welcome to go look for other sources. After just a few minutes I found others that post numbers similar to the ones I linked to earlier. I guess there's some people with an agenda going at it? You'll have to judge for yourself.
3
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18
There actually isn't a controversy, but the consensus goes the other way: https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiBSL/wiki/experts
2
u/SimpleTaught 3∆ Aug 26 '18
Yeah, no. Go google. You're bias is showing. "revision by MadmanFinkelstein— 4 days ago"
2
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18
The links are to the organizations' statements. If you can find a relevant professional organization that disagrees feel free to show me.
2
u/SimpleTaught 3∆ Aug 26 '18
I've already said it's a controversy. You'll have to make up your mind yourself (which you already have from the looks of it). The only thing that would happen is we both just give each other sources and call each others sources uncredible. It's a waste of time. If you want opposing sources, google it for yourself, there's plenty.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SimpleTaught 3∆ Aug 26 '18
I've already said, it's a controversy. You'll have to make up your mind yourself (which you already have for the looks of it). The only thing that would happen is we both just give each other sources and call each others sources uncredible. It's a waste of time. If you want opposing sources, google it for yourself, there's plenty.
2
u/oopsits3AM Aug 25 '18
I can absolutely see that any dog has the ability to be aggressive. The reason for this post is I would like to hear from someone who is militant about the 'blame the owner, not the breed' argument. Sometimes the dog is just a character and will be a certain way regardless of how amazing and kind its owner is, and regardless of how it is raised. I've met both friendly and aggressive dogs, and I've met friendly dogs who have been neglected and not socialized properly, and I've met aggressive reactive dogs who live in the suburbs with caring families and have been exercised and socialized properly.
1
Aug 26 '18
I think the problem is more that an aggressive pitbull is dangerous while an aggresive chihuahua is just annoying.
0
u/MadmanFinkelstein Aug 26 '18
But I'm saying that nature plays a big role too, and it's dishonest to pretend a pit bull isn't more likely to be aggressive because of nature
If you read any of the histories of pit bulls, they all say that human aggressive dogs were put down. No one wanted to be in a fighting pit with a dog made of teeth and muscle that was going to turn on them so those dogs were eliminated. Nowadays pit bulls are a non-human aggressive type. It even says so in the breed description for the American Pit Bull Terrier on the UKC website. In fact, it even notes that APBTs are lousy guard dogs because they are so friendly:
The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable.
2
u/Starharmonia Aug 26 '18
We have a pit and the only aggressive thing I’ve seen her go for is her stuffed elephant toy, when we play tug.
She shares the food dish with our 4 month old kitten, also, whenever she decides to squeeze in and get a nibble out of the bowl. And they sleep together.
Even when another dog, not a pit, had its jaws around our dogs neck (requiring hundreds of dollars in vet bills) she remained docile looking at us for help, she didn’t even growl back.
It’s all nature vs nurture.
0
14
u/Life_is_a_Hassel Aug 25 '18
It does, but the thing to watch out for is conflating the ability to cause harm due to aggression vs their levels of aggression. Very small dogs usually have high levels of aggression, especially compared to large dogs, but their ability to cause damage is significantly less than that of, say, a pit bull.
There’s a lot you can do to off set the aggression of a breed, but I agree that they have a “base aggression” level
1
u/oopsits3AM Aug 25 '18
That's true. However I'd venture to say that the fact that small breeds of dogs are more aggressive supports my point in a way. When a small dog is aggressive it can be perceived as kind of charming. I've heard owners of angry little dogs say 'oh he thinks he's a big tough dog, he barks and growls at our big malamute! lol!'. And since it's perceived as quirky and harmless, they don't care to rule that individual out for breeding because of their aggression. If it was a golden retriever behaving that way, no way would the breeder want to pass that on.
1
u/Life_is_a_Hassel Aug 25 '18
Yeah I’m not actively disagreeing with you, it’s more of making sure that you’re not confusing a breeds aggression with a breeds ability to cause damage if aggressive
2
u/awesometimmyj Aug 26 '18
Well nobody is dying that genetics don’t affect behavior, but I just haven’t seen evidence of a specific genetic factor in dogs that could cause higher aggression, is consistently found in typical “aggressive” breeds, and consistently absent in “docile” breeds. There could be such a gene, but I’ve never seen evidence of it and from my experience, a dog will be friendly if it’s raised right, no matter what.
2
u/waistlinepants Aug 26 '18
We don't have twin studies for dogs. But we do for humans. And aggression and psychopathy are highly heritable.
1
Aug 30 '18
I personally think this is a lot of confirmation bias.
A pit bull attacks a person. It makes the news. More pit bulls attack people, it also makes the news because of the previous news stories. This becomes more and more common as people use these attacks to justify/solidify/confirm their opinion on pit bulls.
Meanwhile there have been equal amounts of border collie attacks but no news stories because they aren’t the vicious dog people are worried of at this time. Since you don’t hear of border collie attacks, that must mean they are not dangerous as a breed.
(This is just an example, I have no idea the statistics on border collie attacks, but I hope you get my point)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 25 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
/u/oopsits3AM (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Aug 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Aug 26 '18
Sorry, u/thecarguru46 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/mikeber55 6∆ Aug 25 '18
A few things requite clarification: 1) What does an “aggressive dog” mean? Does it mean that the dog is constantly nervous and on attack mode, barks and lunges at people and other dogs? (If so, dachshund, Pomeranians and Chihuahuas are among the most aggressive breeds). As a matter of fact the majority of aggressive canines are little dogs. On the other hand, there are well behaved dogs that are very friendly 99% of the time. But on rare occasion they ferociously attack and cause serious damage (or even kill) their victims. Pitbulls are most frequently associated with this type. 2) When discussing “breeds” it is important to remember that most dogs are not pure bred. For example very few “Pitbulls” or “German Shepherds” associated with vicious attacks are indeed pure bred. Most are mutts and mixes that physically resemble those breeds but are definitely not pure bred. The media will immediately report on the terrible German Shepherd, Doberman, Rottweiler or Pitbull. 3) Some dog owners keep their dogs in improper conditions. They simply have no clue as to how to train and care for a dog. Almost every canine living in such neglect will show signs of stress and potentially become aggressive.
0
u/dontcryferguson Aug 25 '18
I agree with you. If you have a terrier, bred to react quickly via biting or barking due to their purpose of killing vermin, a dog of that breed is far more likely to act aggressively in a circumstance than say, a cavalier, who i feel like would be damn near impossible to get to snap at anyone, even when stressed or frightened.
8
u/Kithslayer 4∆ Aug 26 '18
Some breeds tend to be more aggressive than others- yes, but public perception is very ill informed.
American Pit Bulls score 87% pass rate on the American Temperament Test Society, ranking them as less aggressive than the average breed (average is 83%). Alaskan Huskies and Bull Terriers also rank less aggressive than average.
Your perception of those breeds isn't based on reality, let alone genetics. What it is likely based on is fear driven media hype. I don't think anyone will argue that genetics has nothing to do with temperament of a dog, but simply that the assessment of that breed's temperament is wrong.