Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

And if it believes you're in danger, you are in danger.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

tracking is hunting. if the handlers of bloodhound teams werent highly trained in dealing with and controlling their charges, dont think for a second that a bloodhound that just 'tracked' (e.g hunted) you down over 4 miles of rough terrain wouldnt then proceed to bring you down. with its teeth. painfully. Its an excellent example. Why waste scent tracking ability breeding a large dog to be better able to bring down bears or large game when it needs only be strong enough to bring down a fleeing person.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Possibly, but not necessarily, even a dog can be wrong. ;)

Consider a situation where you are out on a walk at night with your dog, lost in a phone conversation and are approached by a shady-looking stranger smelling of old alcohol and sweat who is listening to music and has started running straight towards you. You are made uneasy by the dark surroundings and further shocked by something in your conversation and send signals of fear that are observed by your dog, the next moment you run into the stranger. Is it an insane murderer who is going to slash your throat or just someone who has consumed alcohol earlier out exercising? Does your dog make the right decision?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Let's look at the definitions:

Tracking in hunting and ecology is the science and art of observing a place through animal footprints and other signs, including: tracks, beds, chews, scat, hair, etc

Hunting is the practice of pursuing animals for food, recreation, or trade. In modern use, the term refers to regulated and legal hunting, as distinguished from poaching, which is the killing, trapping or capture of animals contrary to law.

I bolded the important part. Bloodhounds were trained to track, not kill. They did not hunt quarry down "with their teeth" as you claim. The dogs were bred for their sense of smell; the dog's job was to find you so the people it was with could do what they want for you. Bloodhounds were often used in criminal investigations, and it'd suck pretty bad if the dog ate the criminal before the person could be tried.

Do you have a source that says bloodhounds are lethal killing machines or are you just making it up?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Source
Source
Source
Source

Your turn.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dude, here's the difference between dogs bred for fighting and mechanical/chemical/electrical weapons that humans use.

Normal weapons have one person who can choose what they do, and that is the owner.

Dogs have a mind of their own. Sure, they aren't terribly bright, but they can make the decisions like "defend!" or "fight or flight", that can end with some kid having a new furry, 150-pound throat piercing.

And as for killing them off: 1), we created them, so we can decide to "retire" the breed without much ethical qualms. You don't see too many dogs that were bred for turning roasting spits around anymore, do you? Besides, you don't need to take them out back and put a bullet through their brains, you can just sterilize them and they'll be gone in 20 years.


PS n0e, German shepherds are good police dogs, but they weren't bred for fighting exactly. They're strong, heavy enough to inconvenience a fugitive who has one latched on a limb, and smart enough to be trained for pretty much anything the police want them to be trained for. Sure, they can kill, but they're not quite as good as it as, say, a Rottweiler.

Roaming East: bloodhounds can attack, but they're really, really bred for the nose and the stamina. They rely on having a handler nearby to take down anything.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

What happens when they decide certain types of humans are more likely and more capable of committing crimes? Will we see genotypes like muscular strength phased out, or perhaps it's that thinking is the problem. It's a dog breed, but phasing out a breed opens a door to some disturbing thoughts.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Deal with each case as it comes, I say. Humans can be highly dangerous animals as well, but we don't ban those.

If a dog goes nuts and seriously hurts, or even kills somebody, then deal with it. Lock it up, put it down, castrate it, whatever is necessary. If a dog doesn't go nuts and hurt or kill somebody, then that's cool. As has been said before, although some breeds might be more prone to an aggressive disposition due to their breeding, if they're raised properly and taken care of well they'll never harm a fly.

You still have to be careful with certain breeds though. It is debatable that due to their breeding some dogs might be more prone to violent reactions to certain circumstances, but all dogs given the right (or wrong) situation can become violent, and in that situation some dogs can be more dangerous than others.

For example, with a canine like one of our English Springer Spaniels, the worst that could happen if you piss them off is that you get a bruised, slimy hand, possibly broken skin - they're gun dogs, originally bred to retrieve birds and rabbits and stuff after being shot, so their bite is pretty much physically incapable of causing serious harm to prevent them from causing damage to game. Aside from very young, feeble children, whom they typically guard rather than try to harm anyway, they can't cause you any significant harm, as well as being slightly harder to goad into that state of mind.

A Rottweiler on the other hand was bred as a large attack dog, with sharp teeth, a powerful bite, and a muscular body, and they can rip your throat out if you piss them off. Regardless of whether or not it is actually easier to piss them off because of their genetics, extreme caution still needs to be taken.

And all dogs, irrespective of how much of your body they can tear away with one bite, should never be left alone with children, so it's moot.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

my mother babies him. Although to be fair he has a huge yard to run around in and it's mostly muscle.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

As I mentioned earlier if you want to allow dogs and not guns then you need to advance a significant argument for it which just doesn't seem to be there. Most gunshots don't kill, at least as inflicted by a civilian, the people using the weapon have no real knowledge of how to do so and the weapon they're using is often illsuited to killing; being of low calibre, rate of fire, or accuracy. Just look at how few people are killed in school shootings compared to the number of shots fired.

Nearly four thousand people go to hospital every year in the UK with injuries from dogs, (3,800 IIRC). How much damage has to be caused before it's too much? Even if you can set that point at some arbitrary number, say a couple of thousand, then by contrast to dog injuries there were only 792 people injured with handguns in 2002. Why should dogs, which cause much more damage than handguns, be legal while the latter not? If you want to advance the argument on the grounds of how much damage is caused then dogs should be banned and handguns allowed. I think we've already covered the problem with an argument from the nature of the thing, so I don't really see there's anywhere left to go without making a recourse to a, 'damage doesn't matter,' kind of argument which would involve the logical conclusions and associated problems which you've pointed out. Gimme my guns or ban the dogs seem to be the only ways out of the problem.