Why?

Why are my favorite breeds of dogs not allowed at apartments? I can't get a Staffordshire Bull terrier or Doberman because apparently they are viscous dogs. I have never met a mean Doberman and I have spent a lot of time with Dobermans.

Also apparently on the list of viscous dogs is a Great Dane. Are they mean dogs? I sure don't imagine them as being one.

Buy a house. Preferably not next to mine. Problem solved.

poopshovel wrote: Buy a house. Preferably not next to mine. Problem solved.

I would like to but that isn't really a possibility right now.

with some of dogs you have to shop around for homeowners insurance as well.

some companies will not offer you a policy if you have a certain breed as we found out last year. And we only have a husky and a husky mix.

I'm more interested in keeping the sort of people who want a doberman or bull terrier away than I am in keeping those specific breeds away. The problem is the shiny happy people who own them, y'know? 20 year old punks who buy a tough looking dog, fail to train it, then let it go and maul some kid.

ppddppdd wrote: I'm more interested in keeping the sort of people who want a doberman or bull terrier away than I am in keeping those specific breeds away. The problem is the shiny happy people who own them, y'know? 20 year old punks who buy a tough looking dog, fail to train it, then let it go and maul some kid.

Bingo.

Joey

I'm trying to figure out what seems the sanest in the face of all this stuff.

I don't like breed bans for the effect they have on dogs who are already here and who have done nothing wrong.

But I think there are some breeds which are more likely to have a problematic temperament and the physical attributes to do real damage when they run amok.

I know there are plenty of very sweet examples of virtually every breed you can think of, but I also don't think it's 100% bad or absent training that causes every problem. My impression is that a pitbull is just genetically more predisposed to violence than a basset hound.

What's the difference between a pit bull humping your leg and a chihuahua humping you leg?

The pit bull gets to finish.

poopshovel wrote: Preferably not next to mine.

For every ONE dog owner who treats their animals properly and respects their neighbors yard, there are over 100 that don't. My sister has a little retarded E36 M3-zu. I love him, but I'd never look after him, too much work.

If you look at the way both the UK Kennel and American Kennel club describe the temperament of a Staffordshire, they shouldn't be predisposed to violence. The problem is a lot of shiny happy person owner's beat their dogs and train them for fighting because pitbulls have very strong jaws. I mean if you train a Westie the way a lot of pits are trained they would attack to but a pitbull is very strong and have very strong jaws so they will do damage.

The Doberman is a very loyal dog so it takes more training but they do learn easily in my experience.

ransom wrote: I'm trying to figure out what seems the sanest in the face of all this stuff. I don't like breed bans for the effect they have on dogs who are already here and who have done nothing wrong. But I think there are some breeds which are more likely to have a problematic temperament and the physical attributes to do real damage when they run amok. I know there are plenty of very sweet examples of virtually every breed you can think of, but I also don't think it's 100% bad or absent training that causes every problem. My impression is that a pitbull is just genetically more predisposed to violence than a basset hound.

believe me when I say that any dog can be a vicious mauler. breed laws just stereotype dogs into a corner.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

If you think that is bad, there are entire neighborhoods and towns that have breed bans.

Dobermans are sweet dogs usually but they are so big, everything they do gets amplified. I've seen people get knocked on their keester by a doberman just because he wanted to lick their face. They wag their tail and vases fly off shelves. So some of it is perception and some is shiny happy person owners who bought their dogs as a lifestyle accessory.

We had a german shepard/black lab mix growing up. That dog was like another adult that kept us in line. It listen very well to my parents, but when they were away, he protect our house in the woods with german efficiency. There were multiple times when you'd hear someone honking out in the drive way from their back seat of their car becaus the dog pushed them back into it.

On the flip side, if my dad was outside and some one brought over some new kids, they could climb all over the dog and he would happily take it. Roll over and loved.

At the end of his day, he bit the neighbor kid in the face when there was nobody home and we had to put him down. In the dog's defense, we rarely had visitor walk up to the house and the kid did try to hug the dog.

I don't know of another way my dad could have trained him, it was just the perfect setting for the dog to feel like it was protecting our house in the wood... too much guard dog in him and not enough retriever I suppose...

The dog learned to open the slidding glass door and to turn on the water faucet outside, but never learned to close the door or turn the water off.

4cylndrfury wrote: believe me when I say that any dog can be a vicious mauler. breed laws just stereotype dogs into a corner.

I think that people who would do a good job raising them are sometimes deprived of the opportunity to do so by breed bans, and its always bad when a dog loses an opportunity to be raised and treated well.

I think that the observation that any dog can be a mauler (Teacup chihuahuas excepted, or at least it matters less) is no more relevant than the observation that any dog can be a sweetheart. My central point there is that if you have 10,000 pitbulls and 10,000 black labs, and each are raised by an identical random cross-section of humanity, you're going to see more problems with the pitbulls. Or at least that's my understanding.

Nature and nurture come into play in all cases, and individual dogs should be considered as individuals, but that doesn't change the big picture. There will be individual pitbulls who are treated viciously and turn out sweethearts anyhow, and there will be psycho basset hounds who are inexplicably vicious despite attentive raising, but these are statistical outliers.

I want to be against breed bans, but I also think that 99% of the time there's no good reason for another litter of pitbulls (and throughout this I'm using pitbulls as the most visible example, but not the only one), and that they should only be bred with less problematic breeds or not at all.

I think my points stand, but if they sound like they result in much more than internal conflict and confusion, that's not the case...

ransom wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: believe me when I say that any dog can be a vicious mauler. breed laws just stereotype dogs into a corner.

I think that the observation that any dog can be a mauler (Teacup chihuahuas excepted, or at least it matters less) is no more relevant than the observation that any dog can be a sweetheart. My central point there is that if you have 10,000 pitbulls and 10,000 black labs, and each are raised by an identical random cross-section of humanity, you're going to see more problems with the pitbulls. Or at least that's my understanding.

This is exact problem that pitbull type dogs is people believe this. It is complete bullE36 M3.

From the UK Kennel club With the human race, however, he is kindness itself, and his genuine love of children is well known. He is descended from a cross between the Bulldog and a terrier, and thus combines the temperaments of the two breeds.

AKC's description of the temperament From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog.

Both about the Staffordshire Bull dog. Does that sound like a viscous killer to you?

In reply to 93EXCivic:

You'll have to understand my reluctance to take either the UK Kennel Club or AKC's descriptions as unbiased.

OTOH, where does my impression come from? I went to find some hard numbers, but all you find for numbers come from lawyers and breed ban proponents, mixed in with pit bull fanciers insisting the opposite. I cannot find any information I would describe as unbiased, on top of which, I don't think you can separate instances which should be ascribed to lousy owners from the bulk data...

Dogs just know how to be dogs. People shape them into their ideas/purposes. Earlier in the 20th century Am-staff's were known as the nanny dog - great companion for kids.

HiTempguy wrote: My sister has a little retarded E36 M3-zu.

Language filter FTMFW!

In reply to ransom:

Basically my thinking on breed bans is kinda like banning guns. Sure guns can be used to kill some one but does that mean they will for sure, no.

The reason that pitbulls are in so many deadly attacks is that number there owners get them and train them to be mean and two the strength of their jaws. Pit bull type dogs are supposed to be give special toys because they will rip thru normal dog toys so quickly.

Sadly, the Doberman and German Shepard get bunched in with the pit bull because of their work history, not at all because of their breed characteristics. Both are intelligent working dogs, no different than a Corgy or Collie in that respect, the difference is that their work is defence and not herding sheep. German Shepards get passes because they are soft and fuzzy, Dobermans not so much.

In a dark alley, a full-sized regular poodle would fill me with 100x the fear of a Doberman any day. Those are truly terrifying dogs, and whack-a-do enough to tear you limb from limb, but no one ever mentions banning poodles.....

Sounds like a great reason to buy a house!

1988RedT2 wrote: Sounds like a great reason to buy a house!

Except I am 22 and I don't know for sure where I will be in two years and I would like to save up plenty so I can make the biggest possible down payment.

Why would you want a dog in an apartment? Doesn't make much sense to have a dog all couped up in an apartment while you are out and about. Not fair for either you or the dog.

The bottom line with dogs is that most people, I'd say 95% fail to train any dog to the degree the dog deserves. If you don't train a lab, you might end up with a goofy dog who jumps up on you and tries licking your face. If you don't train a pit/dobby/rott you end up with a dog which doesn't know limits and might do something rash. If you get a large/aggressive dog you have to rule the dog with an iron fist. If the dog doesn't listen, make him listen. Another issue is people get working dogs and don't give them something to work at. This will cause the animals to develop issues and cause problems. I won't get another dog until I have the time to train him.

93EXCivic wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: Sounds like a great reason to buy a house!

Except I am 22 and I don't know for sure where I will be in two years and I would like to save up plenty so I can make the biggest possible down payment.

Then not buying a purebreed 100lb dog, feeding it, properly caring for it and paying the increased rent you will pay to have a dog should be your number 1 priority. I would bet you will easily spend 2000 on a dog in the next two years.