O-Trap;1186101 wrote:On my phone, so please excuse spelling errors, but here goes.
If you insist:
This study suggests that no "aggressive" genetic disposition exists.
http://www.mercer.edu/psychology/faculty_staff/wright_jc/downloadable_articles/Canine%20Aggression%20-%20Dog%20Bites%20to%20People.pdf
A Cornell University study on the genetics of canine species suggests since 1998, there are more human deaths by Rottweiler than by pittbull terrier:
http://actavet.vfu.cz/pdf/200776030431.pdf
The same study goes on to explain that a rise in attacks from a particular breed is most likely the result of the popularity of the breed, and that if fatalities increase, it is the result of the size and strength of the dog, and not an ingrained aggressive trait.
If you look up a study done by the American Canine Foundation on dog bites in Ohio from 2001 to 2002, you'll read that pitbull bites only acounted for about 2% of all the documented dog bites reported. Conversely, mutt/mixed breeds accounted for 34%, German Shepherds accounted for 7%. Labs accounted for 7%. Rotts accounted for 6%. Boxers accounted for 4%, and Chows 3%. Excluding the mixed breeds, pitbulls were sixth in bite attacks in Ohio during that stretch of time. Fatalities are higher based on their strength, but aggression measured by bite attacks found that those other five were more aggressive than pitbulls. The study was cited in an Ohio court hearing in 2006, per below:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf
I can keep going if you'd like.
Correct, but each one becomes dangerous if acted upon improperly.
Not at all. Most dogs are not trained properly at all. But that's the fault of the owner, not the genetics of the breed or type.
Evolution requires genetic change. Zero genetic change has been documented to suggest an increase in aggression among a particular breed or type. Plus, while they have been bred to be aggressive as of late, it hasn't been NEARLY long enough for any actual genetic evolution to take place, and we still have documented history of a time when pitbulls were bred to never be aggressive to humans.
Of a very low number, yes, because their attacks carry a higher average mortality rate, but this is skewed by the low number of deaths each year by dog attack. For example, in 2011, only 31 people in the entire US died from canine attacks. Plus, as I mentioned above, they have been seen to attack less often than other breeds, per the American Canine Foundation's study as well as the Cornell University study.
False. Statistics in that same 2011 report showed that most victims killed were between 32 and 60.
And the protection of human intelligence should supersede the lunacy of the baseless paranoia you exhibit here and wish to inflict on other communities. Feel free to follow your conspiracy, but for the sake of intelligence, stop spreading the fear mongering so selectively. At least have the intellectual honesty to vilify Shepherds, Labradors, Rottweilers, Boxers, and Chows as well.
