I don't like the use of the term "racial profiling"
Don wrote, I don't like the use of the term "racial profiling" since it forces a view that I think distorts the real question. Racial profiling is typically based on ignorance or bigotry (and for that reason, I object to the Irreverent Vet's assertion about it, too).
In dogs, some breeds have been intentionally bred for their aggressiveness, and I think that's true of Pit Bulls. Not only wouldn't I trust one if my pet walked through its yard, but I wouldn't trust one walking past my yard. The analogy to "racial profiling" in people is faulty and fails to acknowledge a serious human relations problem in our society. I do think 'species' profiling exists in regards to dog breeds
Anne wrote, I didn't actually answer the poll this time, because the wording was problematic for me. But, I do think 'species' profiling exists in regards to dog breeds
. I also think that although we *can* point fingers and say 'this breed has more instances of aggression than this one; it;s not because of the breed so much as the human expectation (and therefore training and/or attitude towards) certain breeds. The 'aggressive' ones, as they are profiled, are that way because we bred their bodies a certain way, and then persisted in training them to take advantage of that breeding.
Without the training, the dogs of any certain breed are less likely to match the 'aggressive' nature of their reputation. And, when you lay it across the board, and take examples from eahc breed that haven't actually been trained and raised to be 'aggressive', you'll find that the likelihood of any one breed being more 'aggressive' than another is mostly nonsense (I'd like to point to the studies that show that dogs like Golden Retrievers are just as likely to bite and attack their humans as a pit bull...and Goldens are considered and usually raised as 'family dogs'.). Likewise small dogs, including 'tea cup' dogs that are even more likely to bite and attack when not trained properly. And those were never meant to be 'attack dogs'.
Point being, what makes an aggressive dog is the training and care (or lack there-of) that makes the dog that way, not the breed of the dog.It's absurd to label an animal based on it's breed alone
Feneda Baer Wrote, I think it's absurd to label an animal based on it's breed alone. Many of the dogs which were being trained on Michael Vick's propery are now in loving, caring facilities. W/that treatment, they are showing what loving animals they truly are, even after being subjected to such horrors by other humans. I know a few pits personally, and I adore the little guys.
My own cat [which I've raised since he was 1 1/2 weeks old, bottle fed him and cared for him since day one], attacked me when he was a few years old. He also attacked my husband on one occasion. These attacks were bad enough to send us to the hospital ER. There was no reason whatsoever for him to act in this manner. He is not 17 years old and nothing but a bundle of love, but he did go through a few very difficult years [as did we dealing with him.
My point is that there is not alwas a predetermined way of telling when an animal will be vicious or when they will not. Diciding an entire breed is "bad" is beyond ridiculous.There are a lot of dog breeds that are bred to be a certain way
wildfire2911 wrote, Is this question some kind of joke? There are a lot of dog breeds that are bred to be a certain way. It can be overcome, but there is still the breeding. I love dogs very much, but am always aware of that. It is especially true of the types I prefer, such as huskies, purebred german shepherds
, malamutes, etc. They are closest to their ancestors, the wolf, and can never be underestimated. It shows more respect, not less, to know the dog.I fully understand vicious dogs are caused by bad owners
Rick wrote, I vote, Yes. I fully understand vicious dogs are caused by bad owners. But the reality is there are too many bad owners unable or unwilling to control powerful dogs that are bred to be aggressive and capable of killing.