Multifactorial
Irradiated by LabRat
Typically for me, SayUncle became instantly more interesting to me (and upgraded from a semi-frequent read to a daily one, probably) when he went from just being a sharp gun guy to a sharp bully breed guy who actually understands the nature of the “pit bull”. Naturally, I had to go back and start reading about the Politically Incorrect Dogs. Also naturally, I ran across a rather typical idiot in the comments that thinks that pit bulls are Killer Death Droids and should all be shot on sight. SayUncle had linked to statistics from the Temperament Tests that showed pit bulls generally score about like Goldens do, so the Golden Retriever was the point of comparison on this guy’s rant for, I guess, a “normal” dog versus the Lethal Mutant Caninething.
Now I’m going to back up a bit. When I was in the latter part of high school and college, I earned my spending money by working as a vet tech in the clinic that had taken care of our animals for about as long as I could remember. People who work with other people’s pets on a daily basis have a unique perspective on dog breeds; they definitely develop some breed prejudices, because trends do become apparent, but they tend to be very, very different from the breed prejudices developed by people whose outlook is shaped by the media. That outlook is also shaped by their class of clientele- different businesses attract different sorts of owners depending on both the location of the business and the likelihood that certain types of owners would spend money on that business. Owners of utilitarian working and hunting dogs are not likely to use a dog groomer, less likely to use a vet (you can do a lot more basic veterinary care at home than some vets will let on and these owners know it), and the sorts of ghetto/redneck-culture idiots who own the scary-as-fuck dogs aren’t likely to spend money on their animals at all beyond food or a really macho collar. It means the pros do miss some trends- like the backyard hellhounds that most often turn up in the news as having devoured a passerby- but that they do get a rather keen perspective on what breeds are currently more likely to have nasty aggressive tendencies by nature rather than as a product of their raising and training or lack thereof. The “currently” is important- breeds change a lot over time, depending on their level of popularity, who they’re popular with, and what the core of breeders devoted to the breed are doing. This is another thing you won’t generally see media awareness of, although if you track which the scary breed they’re reporting on over time, it’s certainly reflected.
Our vet clinic was located in a fairly upscale section of Phoenix, and while the clientele was very varied (the vets practicing there are GOOD and the pet-owner jungle-drum system is efficient), it mostly trended to middle to upper class suburbanites- not the sort of people that generally want a backyard hellhound to impresss their homies. More the kind of people that generally want something to get on with the kids and play ball.
As you may have guessed what I’m leading up to, pit bulls were NOT something I developed a wary eye for while I was working there. I was generally very happy to see that the next patient I had to deal with was one of our pit bull regulars; the people who brought them to the clinic were people who knew the potential hazards in the breed(s), who knew VERY WELL that bully dogs have image problems and had taken extra care to socialize them well and to choose dogs of sound temperament, and generally had worked to get a clue. Their dogs were pleasant for the staff to deal with because they were of correct bully breed type and temperament: wildly friendly face-lickers with extremely high pain tolerances. Even nice dogs we had to deal with could get overwhelmed by pain and become dangerous to deal with; we could do ANYTHING to the bullies and they’d still just want to lick us. Cactus in the face? No problem. Hit by car? No problem. Things could get exciting if they were brought in for a nail trim, because they were very strong, but they just wanted to get out of the nail trim, not maul us. All in all, pleasant animals to deal with.
The Goldens, on the other hand, were a much more mixed bag. Goldens have been popular for a very long time, and more than that their reputation has been “ideal family dog” all that time. They have been wildly bred, and overbred, and sold to people under the impression that a Golden is a Golden and will always be the ideal family dog- totally sweet and unaggressive, if rambunctious. Unfortunately, that isn’t so; breeding by the unscrupulous and the clueless for as long as it’s been going on has finally resulted in temperament problems becoming increasingly widespread- including various forms of aggression, which would have been totally unheard of in a Golden thirty or even twenty years ago. Our Golden patients ranged all over the place from the wonderful dogs they can be, to the neurotic, to the outright unstable and aggressive. By coincidence, the worst injury incurred by any of the staff while I was working there was from a Golden: the vet had been kneeling down to greet the dog, the dog’s tail had been sticking out under the door to the waiting room, and somebody in the waiting room had stepped on or bitten the tail. The Golden lunged forward and bit the vet- hard. I think she still has lingering nerve and tendon damage in the wrist that dog nailed; there was no bite inhibition at all, which is WAY out of bounds for normal in Golden temperament. They should be very strongly bite-inhibited- and relatively insensitive to touch or pain. This dog was neither, and it cost the vet a trip to the Emergency Room.
If you really want to know the nature of a breed, don’t look to the media and don’t look to dog-bite statistics- ask dog trainers what kind of problems that breed comes in for and how often they see them. Ask the vet clinic staff how easy or tough it is to deal with. Ask groomers if they’re wild or mild. You’ll get a clearer picture, although the perspective for each would be different; a trainer would probably have had a dimmer eye of pit bulls than I developed, because they would have been the people hired to deal with aggression toward dogs and other animals. A groomer probably wouldn’t have had much to say at all, because the coat is short and wash-n-wear. (You’d probably get quite the earful about Lhasa Apsos from them, though.)
If you’re really curious, the top five rogue’s gallery I really DID come to look at with automatic caution and suspicion were: Chows, Dalmatians, Jack Russel Terriers, Cocker Spaniels, and Shar Peis. In roughly that order. I wouldn’t be surprised if it changed if I went back to work there today, either.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The lady in France that had the first full face transplant had her original face bitten off by a Labrador Retriever.
The bloodline and the handling are what count. Fifty years ago Cocker spaniels were the perfect dog for kids, placid and passive.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Agreed on all counts. Being the only dog-friendly camping ground in town, we tend to get a lot of varied breeds through over the course of a single year. I’ve met pit-bull type dogs that have been the sweetest, most playful dogs you could find. So long as you keep them away from the yard our dogs play in, of course. We’ve also had a few bad dog owners through here now and then who have aggressive, sullen pit-bull type dogs that should probably be given extensive retraining with a professional owner.
Myself, I generally feel pretty comfortable approaching a pit bull, so long as the owner is around or it’s in a controlled environment. And once they’ve had a sniff and gotten to know me, they’re almost always very affectionate and open for attention, then and in the future.
December 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
GeorgeH: Yeah, the Cockers and Beagles went through first what Goldens and now probably Labradors are going through now: nearly destroyed by their great reputation.
Today’s Cockers still contain a few little gems that are true to original breed type, but most of the ones we had to deal with had raging, chronic, painful health problems to go along with unstable temperaments. Dealing with a dog that’s already “weird” is that much more fun when it also has incredible, intractable ear infections. Add in some really, really scary aggression that can pop up with them, and I still won’t pet or really even go near a cocker unless I already know the dog well.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I’ve never owned a pure bred anything. All of my dogs have been “dawgs”, as sweet and loyal as can be. The only money I have ever spent to buy a dog were the shelter fees for shots and snips.
AKC has brainwashed the public into thinking that “pure” means “good” hence the over/in breeding you sited.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:33 am
great big applause for the lovable mutts from the local shelter. paying top dollar for a purebreed is silly when mixed-breeds are typically healthier and often smarter.
of course, some part of that is no doubt due to shelters killing the unmanageable head cases first, but that’s no worse than the culling a responsible breeder ought to be doing anyway, so…
December 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
For the last 15 years or so, every dog who has come to me has been a rescued animal of some sort. Roscoe, the huge black Labrador, was the ‘farm dog’ who lived at a friend’s dairy. One of the dairy neighbors shot him with birdshot after he ‘acted aggressively’ toward one of their evil spawn. I was visiting our dairy owner friends when he ran under their porch after being shot; I bundled him up in a blanket and took him back home with me for the vet to repair. Fortunately, nothing penetrated anything truly vital, and he healed quickly, but he was never the same after that and was quick to snap if he felt the least bit threatened.
Currently, I have the Fox Terror, who came from the vet tech program at a local community college, the yellow Lab who my mom adopted from the shelter, then decided was ‘too big and wild’ and tried to send back, and the Siberian, who came from a rescue after her owner died. The only problems I’ve had with them are that they’re all too clever for their own good- the Siberian can open doorknobs, for example.
A long time ago, I raised Spitzes/American Eskimos. I love the Arctic types, but Spitzes can be little 25 pound Maverick missles with faulty guidance systems. You know it’s going to go off, you just never know when or where…and they cloak it behind a smile that is the very spirit of Christmas.
Regards,
Rabbit.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Rescues vs. Purebreds is a pretty muddy issue. Y’all are right in that most of the public’s mindset on “purebred” is pure bullshit, but mutts are DEFINITELY not automatically healthier, more stable, or brighter- I’ve seen and heard just as many horror stories on rescued dogs as on badly-bred or badly-chosen purebreds, ultimately speaking. More of the hazards are the same than some people realize- unstable temperaments are everywhere- but ultimately it boils down to a choice of which set of risks and rewards is most appealing/least threatening.
…Actually, it merits its own post when I get the time, really.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Our family has had several dogs in my lifetime, most of them rescues — my uncle is a vet and we ended up taking dogs brought in to be euthanized because the owners didn’t want them anymore. Got the best dog in the world that way (gorgeous Shepherd/Akita mix). Also got a pretty yucky dog that way, too. It’s a gamble.
Edited to note: I’d never even heard of pit bulls until the late ’80s. The big bad bully dog when I was growing up was the doberman. Shepherds kinda, too.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Since my experience is limited to two rescues, I’ll defer to those with greater knowledge.
My only point being that the AKC’s insistence on desirable traits have doomed several breeds to chronic health problems.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
On that score you’re absolutely right. Terrierman on my blogroll has written a lot of very caustic and very on-target rants about that. The AKC has utterly ruined several working breeds for work as well as perpetuating breeding practices that lead to chronic health problems.
January 1st, 2008 at 3:34 am
Now this is interesting.
“Several lions and a cheetah that used to belong to Saddam Hussein’s son Uday are among the major attractions. Some of the animals might seem odd for a zoo in another part of the world. For example, a caged black Labrador that many Iraqi visitors refer to as the “American dog” is a popular attraction.
Shoupe, the public affairs officer, said the Labrador is an object of fascination because it is a purebred, uncommon in Baghdad. But it is unclear why some Iraqis refer to the Lab, a breed prominent in many countries, as the “American dog.”
January 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I’m a fellow dog lover, but I’ve never had one of my own. However I still grew up with dogs(grandparents/neighbours).
So far I have only encountered 3 dogs with any sort of mental problems.
1 Japanese Chin – extreme fear, this dog would barely get out from under the couch for the owners, much less anyone else.
2 St. Bernards – two of them, and I think from the same litter, they became hostile to strangers when they grew up(I could play with them when they were pups/young), only grandpa and the neighbour that owned them could handle them after that.
Of course, I have left out the many dogs that are afraid /cautious of strangers, but can be befriended by those with patience, or be cured by simple training.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Yeah, Saints suffered a lot from the same popularity problem Goldens experienced. They’re not supposed to be aggressive in any way, especially not to strangers- they’re supposed to RESCUE strangers, not guard against them!
There’s a big difference between a naturally reticent or outgoing dog and a dog with a fundamental temperamental instability.