I have rehomed a dog that is nervous agressive – I think if he had gone to another owner he could quite easily have ended up biting and being put to sleep. I however, have worked hard on his training – he is now competing in obedience, we regularly go on group socialisation walks and he is fine when mixing with a large pack of dogs, he is calm and not nervous so is allowed off leash. If a couple of the dogs have a little spat (let’s face it dogs will be dogs) he tends to come straight back to my side for reassurance or as if to say nothing to do with me.

However, and despite training and advice, if he’s out and see just one dog in the distance, he wants to go for it – so I don’t let him off the leash where other dogs are around – I don’t want to be responsible for any accidents to other dogs or people that naturally want to protect their dog. I get some great owners who see that my dog is on a lead and call their dogs to them, and not so great who let their dogs come running up shouting ‘it’s ok he’s friendly’. But it’s not ok cause my dog isn’t ok!

I wish as an earlier poster said – there was compulsory training for dog owners – cause I don’t blame the dogs I blame the owners.

The lab’s attack WAS based on fear, fear that here comes someone he doesn’t know with weird things on his eyes, which does not allow the dog to see the person’s eyes, he attempted to retreat by going in the house with his owner, but this strange thing kept coming.

In 20 years of working with owners and their dogs, 99% of bites are do to FEAR AGGRESSION, not dominance.. Every dog is fearful of something and just as we lash out when someone scares us, so do our dogs. You can not verbally reassure a dog that everything is ok. They figure out people by the person’s body language. And most people present the worst possible body language when meeting a dog. the lab should not have been down and the labadooble should not be put down until a thyroid panel and complete CBC are done. If that is all clear then a behaviorist should be called in that only uses positive training methods, like people some dogs need medication to decrease their anxiety so they can relax enough to learn. And believe me both groups of these dogs gave their owners plenty of warnings this would happen, the owners were just to unaware to see the warning signs.
Why is it the first thing owners want to do is kill their dog rather than take some responsibility to learn about why this happened?? Again there are many options owners can take before euthanizing. If their are children in the home, that does complicate things, and the dog would have to be kept separate from the kids while working with the dog, or placed in rescue which won’t be easy, but the children have to be kept safe.

A year ago, they bit our niece (a rather large woman) after they had been introduced to her and she petted them. She then walked past them and went to the bathroom. When she returned she walked past them to sit in a chair and both dogs lunged at her simultaneously. One grab her arm and puncture her skin. The other tried to bit her butt and ripped her pants. Luckily, my wife had them on leads and were able to drag them off of her. They were intent on doing more than just one bite and then retreating. We were in another person’s home where they had been a couple of times before, so they weren’t protecting they territory.

A couple of weeks ago, my wife took one of the dogs to visit some people who were congregating in a barns on our property. The dogs a very rarely in the barn so they shouldn’t be protective of that area. People were sitting around in a circle in lawn chairs. A fairly large man who they had met a couple of times before was there. The let the dog sniff him petted him while he was seated. After a while, he got up to walk over to someone else. The dog jumped at him and bit him in the butt.

With us, these dogs are the best dogs one could ask for. They are smart, obedient, and very affectionate.

They have also tried to bite other people but have not been successful. None of the situations have been threatening.

They are friendly with most people and seemed friendly with even the two people that they bit. (The last time only one of the dogs bit.)

Does anyone have any thoughts? We are considering putting the one dog down.

It seems the problem tends to occur after large people greet them and then walk away.

When the APBT was accepted in the UKC (United Kennel Club)registry, it was primarily being used as an all purpose farm dog; though it was descended from fighting breeds primarily. It was employed in cattle herding, pig herding, and hunting. It was looked on as a good childrens companion. The dog “Petey” in “Our Gang” was the first registered APBT and was typical of the breed at that time.

Since then, the breed has been co-opted by dog fighters due to its toughness and willingness to please. The ones bred for fighting have changed appearance to a smaller more compact type. In appearance they are partway between the early APBT and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier type.

Even those pit bulls bred and “trained” to fight other dogs, are often not human aggressive to adult humans. But they are a danger to other dogs and, depending on the method employed in their conditioning; to all young animals including human young. The reason so many of those used in fighting will eagerly attack children, is that they use young animals, such a kittens, in conditioning them to fight. ALL young mammals have a high percentage of potassium on their skin. The dogs smell this and perceive children as their legitimate target. Also, I believe the treatment of these dogs could very well cause them to become unbalanced or insane. My favorite breed, the GSD (German Shepherd Dog) would not behave as GSDs normally do if treated and conditioned as the dogs in dog fighting are.

Yes, there are temperament differences between different breeds of dog. If there weren’t, any dog of the right size could be employed interchangably for any job. But of the terriers, which as a group are known to be quick to aggression, the APBT is mild mannered by comparison. But they are also larger and more powerful than almost all other terriers. And since they are so eager to please their owners, and are intelligent enough to read their owners unvoiced intent; anyone who wants their APBT to be aggressive will often get their wish.

I’ve been lucky enough to know some wonderful ‘bull’ type dogs and their strong and ethical owners. I’ve also been privy to the dark side of those breeds. Bull baiting and cock fighting and other perverse blood sports are alive and well in our country and it would be an unfortunate mistake to deny their presence.

All purebred dogs started for a reason. Our herding dogs helped with the livestock, hunting dogs were refined to help the hunters, terriers kept feed sheds free of vermin. Even the many toy dogs were bred for, among other reasons, to keep fleas off their masters. ‘Pit’ breeds were and still are bred to fight. Don’t get me wrong, I admire the heart of these dogs very much. It’s not the dog I’d like to see banned, but the human who breeds them for the game. I live very near to where Michael Vics compound. To my knowledge ‘pit’ breeds haven’t been outlawed in his area or any others nearby. As long as this blood sport survives, it’s going to mean that dogs being bred for that purpose will get into the hands of people ill equipped to handle them and there will be instances of people getting mauled.

Ban those breeds? Maybe not, but lets do something about keeping them out of the hands of people who have no clue as to what’s on the end of their leash.
How? I don’t know.
Let’s stop pretending that these dogs, as all others, haven’t been developed for a purpose. They have inherent traits that are specific, in some cases, to their breed. Lets stop blaming the dogs and get serious about criminalization of the people who exploit them.

I disagree with your implication that pit bulls are more likely to attack humans without provocation. Pit bulls, whether APBTs (American Pit Bull Terriers) or other breeds of similar type; are often friendlier toward humans than many working or retriever breeds. But if they are encouraged to be aggressive, their physical ability and their eagerness to please; can lead to extreme damage being done. While small dogs, especially small terriers, are often the most aggressive dogs; their size prevents them from doing as much damage when they attack.

I have trained over two thousand dogs in my life. I started by apprenticing with a trainer of police and bomb detection dogs. I spent two years training at The Seeing Eye. I have studied animal behavior and worked with problem dog households. I have been a 4-H leader, obedience class trainer and competitor, and a guide dog and service dog trainer. I have worked with wolves and wolfdogs, and been consulted by a zoo as to wolf behavior problems they were having.

Again and again I have to point out to people the signs their dogs are giving of aggression. The warning signs are passed over multiple times before the stage is reached where the dog actually atacks.

As for bite reports being higher for labs in the USA today, there is more than one reason for this. One reason is breed bans on pit type dogs laeding macho types to other breeds. Recently there has been an upsurge of golden bites. Two, breed identification. When visiting animal shelters I repeatedly see that any medium size dog or larger that is short haired and solid black, is labeled as a lab. The same sort of mis-identification holds for GSDs (German Shepherd Dogs). Any medium size or larger that is saddle marked, is labelted as a GSD. I have seen pure bred black GSDs labeled as labs. I have seen Akitas labeled as shepherd husky crosses. I have seen tervs labeled as shepherd collie crosses, and Groenendaels as collie lab crosses.

Thanks for your thoughts about what I wrote. I always appreciate the chance to learn more about canine behavoir. Would you be kind enough to let me know the names of the behavior experts who’ve authored books I need to read?
I’d also be very interested in reading the report that states Labrador Retrievers are the most dangerous dogs in the US.
I’m very much aware of how important temperament is in dogs. Fearful dogs are the MOST dangerous of all. According to this story however, Max was not biting because he was afraid.
If you read the story again, you’ll see that the author makes reference to Henry wondering if his children will recognize him. To me, that insinuates that the face was disfigured. You’re right, Max reacted to a situation that he perceived to be threatening. You’re right, his owner should have noticed the signs that there would be trouble. I agree, the story might serve to alert some dog owners to be more aware that their dogs might bite. (And by the way, small dogs probably bite even more frequently than large dogs) I disagree that in this scenario Max would have attacked to that degree. As long as a dog has teeth, he’s able to cause harm. The differences in the breeds bred to be able to mentally and physically cause the damage mentioned in this fable and the breeds bred to be mans best friend and protector are vast. My point is that yes, it’s our place to be sure to breed the very best temperaments we can. There are those who chose not to do that. There are breeds that attract the people in our society who chose to breed dogs for the wrong reason. And…those people do not breed Labradors.
I’m not a Lab breeder, but I understand and test and breed for dogs with great temperament.
There are breeds out there that are bred to bite and grip and tear, but most breeds are not. It would be a very unusual companion dog that would choose to bite the neck or the face if they have a choice.
But I’m willing to change my mind. Please inform me, I’d be happy to read information to the contrary.

Thanks