Which Breed Of Dog Is Most Aggressive?

[cyber-sibes]

[url]The newspaper reported that some of the lowest scoring breeds for aggression included the Basset hound, golden retriever, Labradors, Siberian huskies and greyhounds.

Well hallelluia! Somebody go inform the insurance companies! (Huskies are on the blacklist of several insurance co.'s as "dangerous dogs". You can be denied insurance, or denied renewal of insurance, if you own one.)

[Karen]

I wonder how much of it due to the fact that many people don't bother with training for the "little cute" dogs, because they're just "so darned cute," and create a problem when there need not be one. Dachshunds were bred for generation upon generation to be independent little vermin hunters. This does NOT a lap-dog make them! Training, training, training!

[cassiesmom]

My upstairs neighbor has a black and tan long-haired Dachshund, Bailey. I don't know that I'd use the word aggressive to describe her. She can be very feisty, though. If she doesn't want someone to pet her, they'd best not even try. A big dog in a small body is a very accurate description. She does allow me to pet her head when her person is nearby.

[Jessika]

I wonder how much of it due to the fact that many people don't bother with training for the "little cute" dogs, because they're just "so darned cute," and create a problem when there need not be one. Dachshunds were bred for generation upon generation to be independent little vermin hunters. This does NOT a lap-dog make them! Training, training, training!

Exactly my point too, Karen!

[BC_MoM]

I wonder if Border Collies were deemed "aggressive" because of their nipping... I honestly don't think it is a very accurate or researched article.

[Catlady711]

I have to basically agree with the article overall. The smaller dog breeds it listed are the ones we most often have to put caution or muzzle lables on their files. I've told people time and time again I'd rather deal with a rottie or pit anyday (of course I'm partial to those breeds) than a small dog anyday. I can't say how much is the owner, the breeding, or the dog itself, but it does seem to bear up with what I encounter at work most often.

Although we've noticed a tendancy for long haired chihuahuas, dashounds, and Jack Russels to be a bit more cooperative and friendly compared to the short haired versions of their breeds. Maybe it's just the particular ones we've encountered.

I wonder if Border Collies were deemed "aggressive" because of their nipping... I honestly don't think it is a very accurate or researched article.

Not that I have anything against you or Boder Collies (they are rather cute). However the article states the survey was based on OWNER responses to their own dogs. "About 6,000 dog owners were questioned about their dogs' behavior."

From a vet assistant's standpoint I'm not going to stop and take the time to determine if a dog is 'nipping' or actually going to bite. After recently having had 7 stitches in my finger from a dog bite I can tell you the difference is irrelevent when it comes to safety.

[Jessika]

"Aggressiveness" is in the eye of the beholder though -- Aussies should also be deemed "aggressive" for their nipping in that sense. I think that BCs are on the list along with ACDs because they have a strong drive to work and eventhough they may not be aggressive in the sense that they are going to maul someone, they probably have and do injure people on a regular basis because of their strong herding drive. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've come home from school and HJ says "Charlie really got so-and-so's ankle again today...". Yes, he has bruised and even drawn blood before, but it is never anything major, and to him it's a "game", a "job", he isn't doing it TO injure the person.

However bottom line, an injury is an injury, no matter the extent, and I think that's the basis they are going off of.

[Twisterdog]

Interesting. Probably too small a sample to be truly representative, but interesting nonetheless.

When I volunteered at a shelter in Colorado, we kept county-wide bite statistics. The largest number of bites per breed was labs or goldens. Why? Because there were far more of those dogs in the county then any other breeds. If there are 10,000 labs and 100 Akitas ... of course there are going to be people bitten by labs than by Akitas. Common sense. However, when we looked at the statistics of bites per capita ... number of bites per one dog of one breed, the most prolific biter was the cocker spaniel.

My experience with dachshunds - they are either extremely sweet, or quite likely to bite, nothing in the middle. We board and groom our share of aggresive ones. I would certainly agree with the chihuahua being a biter. I own a chihuahua cross, and currently have a purebred rescue, so don't get me wrong, I like the little buggers. However, I have always said, if the chihuahua weighed 80 pounds it would be the most dangerous dog on the planet.

I've worked with tens of thousands of dogs over the years, of every conceivable breed and mix. I have to honestly say that there are very few breeds that I am automatically cautious of, assuming they are biters just because of the breed. Actually, only one breed comes to mind. I do think it also has a lot to do with the area one lives in. A few prolific backyard breeders or puppy mills churning out poorly bred, badly tempered dogs of a certain breed year after year will certainly alter the characterisitc and temperment of that breed in that specific area. I can't really say I agree that small dogs are more likely to bite than big dogs. I've been snapped at by both.

Here are my thoughts on the whole big dog/little dog/aggresive dog issue: I do think people have a tendency to make light of bad behavior in smaller dogs. And not necesarily because it's "cute", but because it's not terribly dangerous. If you have a three pound yorkie or chihuahua that runs up and bites someone on the shoe, it's not scary or dangerous. However, if you have an 80 pound dog that runs up and bites someone on the thigh or arm or face, you have a serious problem. Certainly, small dogs should be trained and behave. But I think a lot of people know the dog isn't going to do serious damage, so they let it go.

It's true even of grooming ... if we are trying to groom a toy poodle that wants to bite us, we just muzzle it, hold it and groom it. If we have a GSD that wants to bite us, we call the owners and send it home. The poodle isn't going to hurt us, we are 50 times it's size and strength. Not so with a powerful, strong dog that weighs half as much as we do.

[Giselle]

I find these blatant "this breed is the most aggressive" statements VERY hard to swallow.

Because of Ivy's reactivity, I've become all too familiar with aggression, arousal, and reactivity problems, and this is my take:

All dogs have some type of aggression. Aggression is a highly aroused state of mind, a step past a dog's normal threshold of tolerance, if you will. If you take a happy Lab who has never growled at anyone, but confine it and taunt it, it will probably bite. In a normal situation, it probably would choose flight and close its eyes or "shut down" into a state of helplessness, where the dog simply hunkers down and mentally shuts down. But take away the ability of flight, add increasing stress, and the dog will show 'aggression'.

ALL dogs have thresholds of tolerance. Some dogs, such as Greyhounds, tend to be very very calm and tolerant. They tend to choose flight before fight. They can tolerate pokes and prods. They can be in high-stress situations and do absolutely fine. But that is their norrmal threshold. Again, if you push them past their threshold (whatever that may be), they could and probably would bite. Giselle, for example, is a certified therapy dog has never growled at a fly. But if she is sleeping and you crouch over her and poke her, she would growl and probably snap at you. Can we fairly call that aggression or an invasion of her threshold? Aggression is a matter of the individual dog and the individual dog's mental state.

It should not be a list of most or least aggressive. Rather, the study should have focused on dogs' high or low tolerances and their susceptibility to overarousal.

Furthermore, there must be a distinction made between aggression and reactivity. Ivy was a regular dog park goer and never had any problems. Yet, whenever she was on leash, she would go bonkers whenever she saw another dog on the streets - lunging, growling, and, yes, she would attempt to hurt them. How can that be? How can she be fine at an off-leash park and an absolute monster on-leash? Aggression is not a black and white thing. It cannot be statistically gauged, IMO. A better factor to gauge would be a dog's arousal and threshold limits.

[BC_MoM]

Interesting. Probably too small a sample to be truly representative, but interesting nonetheless.

Exactly. There are MILLIONS of pet owners out there. Not just several thousand.

[Glacier]

Well hallelluia! Somebody go inform the insurance companies! (Huskies are on the blacklist of several insurance co.'s as "dangerous dogs". You can be denied insurance, or denied renewal of insurance, if you own one.)

The problem with those lists is that they list "husky", not Siberian Husky. Any dog with prick ears and a curled tail is a husky on most of those lists, including the CDC bite list, which is what many insurance companies base their banned breeds on.