# Ranking dog aggression by breed size Apparently, German Shepherds, Cocker Spaniels and Dachshunds are the most aggressive (in the test). Akitas scored really well, although of course they don't say whether they were American or Japanese akitas, I would assume American Akitas. Results by category: http://blogs.discovery.com/news\_anima… ## Thread In Behavior · started by tsukitsune · 6 replies - **Category:** [Behavior](https://nihonken.org/community/c/behavior) - **Forum:** [Nihon Ken Forum](https://nihonken.org/community/) ## tsukitsune (moderator) · 2008-07-07T17:18:49.000Z Apparently, German Shepherds, Cocker Spaniels and Dachshunds are the most aggressive (in the test). Akitas scored really well, although of course they don't say whether they were American or Japanese akitas, I would assume American Akitas. Results by category: http://blogs.discovery.com/news\_animal/2008/06/the-most-and-le.html Full Article: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/26/dog-aggression.html I appreciate the article, not entirely for its statistics, but for its claim that if you want to bring a dog into the family, you should really do research first and be aware of all pros and all cons of the breed, rather than seeing one on a movie or something and not doing the adequate preliminary research. ========== Romi - this might interest you - I was looking at this with a friend who owns a boxer (Fritz is the coolest brindle boxer around town!) and he thinks the stats are interesting... but he thinks his boxer is most times the victim of dog on dog aggression at the park b/c of its language barrier, not having a good sized tail - limited facial expression. What do you think about that? ## okiron · 2008-07-07T19:00:38.000Z And has all the dogs on the test had the same exact environment, training, lifestyle, etc to be able to do a good comparison on? It doesn't say where they were getting their results from. Are they just looking up statistics on dog attacks? Sure, they're telling you to do research on the breed but at the same time, I think it's quite ignorant to pick a characteristic and stereotype a breed with it. Like not being good with kids. Why don't you do the right thing and teach your child how to treat dogs instead of blaming the dog for not liking kids? Not liking kids and not liking to have their ears and tails pulled are completely different. Honestly I'm sick and tired of hearing that you shouldn't own a shiba/other Japanese breed if you have kids. What do you think they do in Japan? Keep the kids away from the family dog? Yeah right. Sure, they're a special group of dogs unlike the typical lab but they're not impossible. They have been owned by the average joe pretty successfully for as long as the breed has been around. *end rant* ## tsukitsune (moderator) · 2008-07-07T19:44:44.000Z I know I get really really nervous if someone brings a kid into the dog park with Hachi and Kitsune running free - kids don't belong at the dog park! - my two are far to reactive to fast and unpredictable human movements to be trusted around kids. I've told several kids and their moms to please stop trying to catch the fox.. No thanks! I would say that having a child would not work with those two dogs as they are right now. Maybe in a couple months or years of continuous rehab.. but I don't plan on integrating them with a child. BUT my step sister brought her 7 month old baby here recently and they all did as they were told, stayed a distance unless invited to sniff. It was pretty cool. === I think this 'study' is an interesting perspective on mainstream knowledge about dogs, breeds and behaviors. The common dog owner could use this study, not everyone thinks on the dog's behalf when choosing a family dog. In rescue, we say "not good with children" or "not good with kids under__" to ensure that if a dog is adopted by a family with children, they are at least older than, say, 8 yrs so they have a better chance of reaching a respectable interaction base with the dog. Most dogs are capable of integrating with a family, just most can't handle the chaos and unpredictablity that comes with standard kid-family life. === according to the article, a group at UPENN did the research: http://www2.vet.upenn.edu/research/centers/cias/ I'm actually doing an internship at UPENN in the spring. SO excited. ## okiron · 2008-07-07T22:39:09.000Z Ok, with your dogs and the rescue you're talking about dogs that's been through god knows what. You can't rate a dog's likeness of children from that. You're not gonna take all the raped women of the world and see how much women overall trust men. I'm talking about the breed in general from rescues to puppies who's had the best treatment since they've been alive. ## Romi (admin) · 2008-07-08T02:55:30.000Z Hm...to be honest, they really don't have any backing to their results. Like Rina has said, all the dogs have not grown up the same, been exposed to the same things, had the same training, etc, etc. This article really has no truth to it besides a handful of strangers who took their online questionaire. I don't think Breed has a big part in aggression. I think its all in the genetics and how they are socialized. The only thing they really make a point about is that if a big dog attacked you versus a small dog, the big dog will probably do more damage...thats kind of a given though. I think that people have totally missed the concept of aggression, especially in smaller dogs. With Chihuahua's, yorkies, pomeranians, etc. The general public thinks they are so cute, even if they nip at you..."they are just soooo cute" But when a bigger dog acts the same way...what do people think? "That dog should be euthanized" "that dog is so aggressive". It actually really annoys me how people think that aggression from a small dog is cute and don't mind it because they can't do that much damage and totally think the opposite of a larger aggressive dog and blame it on the breed. Every breed has bad apples, some more than others. A big thanks to BYB, Puppy Mills, and Dog Fight Organizers for that. It seems really unfair to base results from a number of different dogs that live in differerent environments and have different backgrounds. That article really didn't do anything for me. I guess for the general public who isn't too informed about dogs - im sure they find it interesting and hopefully it will somewhat open their eyes and make them do research before acquiring a new dog. However for me, sorry to be harsh, but that article was pretty sloppy. ## tsukitsune (moderator) · 2008-07-08T09:38:55.000Z Not harsh, Romi, its your opinion! thats what i'm looking for. I'm doing an internship with the facility who did the research - I'm an environmental law student and when I see 'puff pieces' like this one that can really do a number on mainstream, or 'common knowledge audiences', I love to get feedback from people who actually understand the subject, like dog aggression, and what the article is doing to either help or hurt the subject knowledge. Intense media focus on recent cases of dog attacks have contributed greatly to this misperception. I, too, think its a sloppy article, but found it extremely interesting that it was aired by Discovery.com, aol.com, newsweek too a snippet of it, major sources! Hell, google "dog aggression by breed" and you will get tons of hits dated for sunday or yesterday referencing the above article.. mainstream. Rarely do we see articles written by behavior specialists on the topics presented about aggression or breed predisposition. My internship is a research grant, and I hope to find out more on the subject on why the mainstream media insists on keeping the masses uninformed, especially on environmental issues. === -why do you think its easier for the general public to accept this sort of information as true without really thinking or questioning? -Would it be harder for the general public to accept responsibility for their actions - making it easier to blame genetic predisposition of some breeds to aggression? -Does this fact alone contribute in great numbers to the pet over population - mass euthanasia problem in the US? In the world? ## StaticNfuzz · 2008-07-08T13:38:33.000Z As Okiron and Romi pointed out there are two factors at work, nature vs. nurture. And both factors play a major role in determining the behavior of an animals/mammals in general. Are “feisty” and "aggression” really the same thing…or is the title hyperbole. I really think the term “aggression” has to be defined by the scientists in the context of the research. In most cases the specific term and concept really is a subjective opinion made as a random judgment call by each person. We should be aware of this fact and understand taht particular situations involving canines are not always correctly interpreted in every circumstances. I see no behaviorist backing the research. The article does not have any cited sources that I could refer to allow me review the specific data to support the validity of the findings. ___ Tsukitsune you ask, Why would the public consider misinformation as true? Because it is easier to sponge it all in through a widely read non scientific publication based on hyperbole to pull in readers. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hyperbole.htm) Researching the authenticity or veracity of the data is not something the average reader has learned how to do or interested in doing. It is simply easier to watch or read “why ___ attack” (fill in blank with species) on animal planet or discovery”. Yes, I would say it is easier to blame the genetics/nature than to look at the flaws of “nurture”. Most folks do no want to think they have caused or enabled the behavior problem in a common pet. That would indicate in some way they as an individual owner/care takers have failed, particularly in the case of something that is perceived so simple like dog ownership. It is easier to toss out the problem (i.e. dog) and start fresh on a new subject rather than coming to the humbled realization that one is a at least somewhat the cause of the issues at hand. If I understand your question correctly, If you are asking if “the public’s inability to take responsibility for their actions” is a contributing factor for pet euthanasia and pet over population, I would say yes. Snf --- **Navigate:** [Forum home](https://nihonken.org/community/?format=md) · [Sitemap](https://nihonken.org/community/sitemap.xml)