The first thing to remember about dogs is:
A dog hangs around because it thinks that you are a dog. Many people talk about their dog thinking of itself as a person. These people are deluded (present company excepted, if you wish to be). It is not within the dog's capacity to think of itself as a human. On the other hand, their ability to extend their pack awareness to humans is what allowed them to hang around humans in the first place. Certainly, many kinds of animals would be attracted to a human settlement, including wolves, coyotes, and jackals. However, it is only dogs that adopted humans as members of their own pack. A wolf can be very tolerant of humans and will even respond, in a Pavlovian fashion, to human mimicry of canid signals but it is never really able to make the same commitment that a dog does.
The second thing to remember about dogs is:
People kept dogs around, not because of the comradrie of the hunt, but because they make a great mobile, self sustaining emergency food source. Their willingness to join in the hunt is a side benefit of the relationship, not the primary benefit. Plus, they will allow themselves to be put to work.
The third thing to remember about dogs is:
Throughout the entire history of the human/dog relationship, humans have never taught dogs even one new trick. All of the "working" traits that breeders have selected are behaviors that already existed. Pointing, soft mouthing, retrieving, guard duty, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. are all behaviors the species already held within its gene pool. Breeders have, on the other hand, meddled with the natural balance that regulates these behaviors in otherwise uncontrolled populations. For example: When a dominant dog attacks a subordinate dog, the subordinate responds with submissive behaviors (e.g., head down and canted, side lips raised, ears down, tail down, flank exposed, rolling over). In an uncontrolled population, the dominant animal would normally possess an "off switch" gene that would stop its attack once it perceives the submission of the subordinate. In some individuals of some modern breeds, this genetic switch is non-functional. This was useful, historically, for disabling opponents or (when not at war) baiting bears for fun and profit. It doesn't, however, serve any useful function in a family full of children (and is somewhat annoying from the perspective of postal delivery personnel and others who visit your property). How do you tell if your animal possesses an "off switch?" You can't: not until you find out it doesn't. It is also possible that a dog attacking a human may never receive the appropriate off signals from its victim. After all, it is a human being attacked - not a dog. If the human victim cannot mimic the appropriate signals, there is no reason to assume the dog should halt its attack.
The fourth thing to remember about dogs is:
"Nipping" is a natural behavior for dogs. Even for the most loving and devoted family pet, a "gentle" nip may be appropriate, occasionally. In assessing the behavior of your dog, you must differentiate between nipping and a genuine attack. My dog is subordinate to me. I made sure she understood that very early on. From her perspective, my children are the "pups" of the alpha male (and by extension, of the alpha female - my wife [don't tell her I called her alpha female :laugh3: ]). When my son reached into my dog's food bowl and she, quite naturally, nipped his finger, I laid into her like a force 5 tornado. I had her scrambling all over the place until she flopped over and submitted to me. I then drug her back to the bowl, stuck her muscle in and stuck my sons hand in. When she growled at him, I lit into her again. I drug her back again, stuck my son's hand in and, when she didn't growl, had my son lift out some food and feed it to her. All of this took less than five minutes. The result is, she learned that she better not nip the pup of the alpha male, and she learned that when that pup sticks his hand into her bowl, she still gets to eat the food. If she had not been able to learn this lesson, I would have put her down - pure and simple. From the dog's perspective, at no time is one of my "pups" responsible for causing a nipping incident. The dog is always beaten for nipping. On the side, the child is punished ('though not beaten) for mistreatment and admonished to have respect for an animal and not tease or cause injury. Both are taught respect, although both are in no way equal.
The fifth thing to remember about dogs is:
They are dogs: not people. They do not have the rights of humans. They are not as important as your own children, or the neighbors' children, or even the postman. They sometimes might not even have the same value as other property. When one of our dogs would not stop chasing our neighbor's Angus calves, it was put down. We buried it, with all appropriate tears, next to it's predicesors under the peach tree. Dogs are property and (if the local laws make any sense) should be subject to the same liability provisions as any other property. If you are negligent in your vehicle's maintenance and the park-lock slips (Ala '63 Dodge 330) and it rolls off of your property and causes damage, you are liable. If your dog leaves your control and causes damage, you should be liable. If your dog injures anyone legally on your property, you should be liable. Please note: I said, legally on your property. Despite the tendency in claims courts, I believe if someone enters your property with intend, then they are on their own. However, one must remember that someone entering your property "unwittingly" might have a claim against you for negligent battery (so goes the tort system). You can't claim freedom from responsibility on the basis that your dog acted on its own. If it's your dog, it's your responsibility.
So, should a community ban a breed wholesale? Pretty dumb really. Not all individuals of a breed are dangerous. Also, any individual animal can be taught to be vicious, no matter its geneology. I don't understand why owners cannot be held responsible for their own animals. If the costs of owning a vicious animal were higher, there would be fewer of them in the population. At the same time, stiffer penalties would deter malicious training or mistreatment of otherwise normal animals. It's the same mentality as "ban all guns," "never cut another tree," "don't wear any animal products," blah, blah, blah.
On the subject of dangerous breeds - My sister is a veteranarian. The breed she fears the most is the St. Bernard. She will not allow one in her exam room unless the owner agrees to permit sedation. The breed that has bit her the most (aside from cats) is the cocker spaniel: partly because there are so many of the little drop-kicks.
hijack: has the SPCA/PETA seen this smiley - hasta . I'm surprised they haven't banned it as promoting a wrong relationship with our equine neighbors.
