Freudian Slit said:
rhubarbarin, is there any reason you prefer intact males? I'd always heard that most dog bites come from unneutered males.
It's hard to describe the personality difference. In general intact males just seem more intense. They have a masculine 'energy' so to speak. And they are much easier to keep slim and muscular.
I'm not really interested in dog bite statistics. The information is mostly based on information the victims report which I don't consider to be reliable (how many hysterical parents of children bitten by a strange dog know the difference between an American Pit Bull Terrier and a Rottweiler mix?), and correlation isn't causation, etc. I only worry about what I see myself.
None of my dogs have ever bitten a person. I assume they never will, but I take what I consider reasonable precautions. For instance I don't let young kids come near my dogs, because unlike my dogs, I don't trust the kids and know what I can expect from them. I've had kids run up to my leashed dogs and smack them in the face before... it's my job to protect my dogs from all the dumb things people do, plenty of which deserve a swift bite.
IME the main factor in dog bites is the owner. Every single dog is capable of tooth contact with a human in the right circumstances, although I've met a few where I'm pretty certain you would have to start sawing their leg off before they would. Furthermore a snap, a hard sideways blow with their teeth, a light bite that bruises, a deep bite that draws blood, or tearing your leg half off- are all distinct and separate ways the dog is communicating with you (from 'knock it off before I actually smack you with my teeth' to 'DIE!!!') and the dog doing whatever it is means to do just that (unless you're getting in between him and someone else he's trying to do it to). The dog who snapped at you lighting-fast and missed by a fraction of an inch didn't intend to sink his teeth into you and somehow miss - he was telling you to get the fuck away from him before he had to go there.
Anyway, it's up to the owner to know their dog well enough to understand where that threshold is and recognize signs that the dog is nearing it, and keep their dog from biting people. Whether that dog is constantly aggressive or has never shown one sign of aggression doesn't make much difference.
But would a dog who's not trained for fighting react to a strange kitten by tearing it apart? It seems a strange assumption.
Doesn't have anything to do with being trained for fighting, just on whether the dog knows how to kill animals. It's largely natural instinct, for dogs that have the opportunity to learn how to use it. Most pet dogs these days don't. A hundred years ago 90% of American dogs probably knew how to kill rats/rabbits/kittens, and ate them too.
My oldest dog (a 20-lb white, fuzzy Tibetan Terrier - the breed is not known for having a strong prey drive) has killed a shitload of small animals in her time - by shaking them hard as soon as she catches them, not by tearing them limb from limb - including several kittens. My other two will chase animals, but don't have that killing instinct once they catch them. They just hold them in their mouth and look confused. If they had more opportunity to catch animals and were around dogs that knew how to kill (my oldest dog is 14 and has bad eyesight now, she hasn't killed anything in years), I'm sure they'd learn to kill and eat small animals. Dogs are predators and there are few that would be physically incapable of killing for a living.