Quote Originally Posted by Jessika View Post
Did I say that owners who don't spay/neuter are irresponsible?? I just said that spaying and neutering IS responsible, and I do feel that way, and I'm sorry if you don't agree but that's what I think.

And I also said that neutered males are LESS LIKELY to bite, not they won't completely, whereas intact males ARE MORE LIKELY to bite, but not that they will.

And I'm obviously not talking about responsible pet owners... sure, dog bites and attacks can happen even with the most responsible owners, but it is more likely to occur with IRRESPONSIBLE owners, and irresponsible owners are obviously not going to get their pet from a responsible source, so most likely their pits will be poorly bred.

Don't be so quick to assume what I'm saying is against you, in fact we're really on the same side of the fence on this. My previous post was referring to irresponsible owners, and if you aren't irresponsible then there is no reason to take offense to anything that I've said.
I wasn't taking offense, sorry I didn't mean it that way. I was just saying that if someone doesn't s/n doesn't make them irresponsible is what I meant.

I guess my questions is why is a dog who is intact more likely to bite?

I know you were not speaking in absolutes, but saying things like more or less likely is still saying that one has a tendency over the other and basically as it reads it going to be more likely to happen, I just don't think it is true in general. In certain situations, a dominant male with temperament disorder around a female in heat and child gets bit. A neutered male wouldn't be frustrated and trying to get the female to breed with him who keeps pushing him and see the kid as a threat and have a temperament issue that escalates. So I do believe dogs with certain temperament problems might be more inclined to bite in certain situations then those who are not. Males as a whole I don't think so. A stable dog with proper handling and training who is intact is not going to be more likely to bite you then one that is not. I've been bit and know people who have been bit/attacked by both intact and s/n animals. I have been bit by an intact Chow and a neutered Poodle.

I think you proved the point that dogs owned by irresponsible people are probably more likely to bite and less likely to be neutered. To me doesn't translate to intact males are more likely to bite, it just happens that more irresponsible people own intact males.

I know what you mean about irresponsible people and all, but I just wanted to make it clear (about some responsible owners have intact dogs) and didn't mean to cause controversy.

The only kind of attack people have to worry about from my intact males is being licked and rolled on.