Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewla | Hacker News Reader

The attack specifically mentioned in the article was an Alsation (in the US called a German Shepherd). Though not typically included in breed-specific legislation I think there is good data to suggest that they are in the top five for dog attacks resulting in serious injury.

EDIT: the linked report from the postal workers union [1] cites specifically the underenforcement of the Dangerous Dog Act [2], which does not affect German Shepherds in its current form, so would not help this case.

[1] https://cwue5.org/2024/07/12/rm-cwu-national-dog-awareness-w...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991

View on HN

German Shepherds are a great example of a good dog breed that is taken up by people that "just love them" who don't give the dog what it needs to be happy.

GSDs must have their daily exercise and stimulation. If they don't get it, they get restless and anxious and begin to freak out and get aggressive. They're not meant to sit in a terrace house in England or American apartment.

This is a common refrain from fans of all breeds. I’m not sure that I buy it. The null hypothesis is that the “proper stimulation” correlation with “propensity to attack” is a function of population prevalence. There are simply more dogs that don’t receive the “proper stimulation” than dogs that do (especially with True Scotsman-style goalpost moving) so they are overrepresented in attacks. But anecdotally we’ve seen the testimony across all breeds - “my dog is so gentle and likes to play with children, I can’t imagine where this attack came from”.

I’d have to have some serious data on non-attack-involved dogs before I’d consider rejecting the null hypothesis.

In any sort of analytic consideration here the first thing to look at is whether the breed is capable of causing grievous harm. Temperament second, and treatment/training third. And of course overall prevalence. But in terms of the policy decision around breed-specific legislation all that really matters is the number of attacks.

I'd see a license for breeding and owning GSDs. They're not ill-socialized like a lot of other attack-prone breeds are, but they do need to herd and run around and be stimulated. It's literally in them at an atomic level to do so, and you can't simply train it out of them.

So many dogs are just ill-suited for the modern concept of having a dog. This thing where we just have a dog around a <1500sqft home where they eat and sleep and occasionally go for a walk is less than 100 years old. For the other 20,000+ years of hominid-canine interaction, they had an actual job to do that was typically physically and mentally demanding. They were warding off wolves or enemy tribes, or helping us hunt, or pulling loads. Now they just sit around all day in this tiny little slice of territory. People get in love with the aesthetics of the breed instead of what they were actually bred to do, and it has consequences.

The fact that the German Shepherd and the Rottweiler are not on that list tells that dog bites are an owner problem. On the other side of the spectrum are excessively territorial Chihuahas and toy poodles, and there are far too many members of the public failing to control their rats-on-strings.

One factor which also needs to be taken into account is the potential damage. What damage can do a Chihuahua let loose, and what a German shepherd? It's quite a difference. And even in training and handling - I own a toy poodle and if he wants to get nasty I can pull him away with one finger. While if a shepherd wanted to jump at somebody, well, paying constant attention and the right footwork are essential.

Once can see how situations with pocketbook dogs can escalate - the aggressive creature has a go at someone's dog who then sees the need to defend himself or latches onto a pedestrian's ankle. No one wants that.

And when you express concern at the irresponsible owner it's you who is the bad guy. Not the neglectful owner, because in America intent counts. You could have restrained your anger, but look at the poor little dog, it doesn't know what it is doing. (No, it doesn't, it never learned and it never occurred to anyone around it that it should learn.)

Everyone immediately perceives that large dogs require constant attention and handling skills, but the less immediate but very real dangers from small dogs are downplayed.

I see your argument but is this (biting around) really happening or it's your worry? My experience (one data point!) with dogs I've seen is that they're totally concerned with their quarrel, not bothered at all with passersby...

My concern is that the overterritorial Chihuahua comes busting out of a door while I am walking my 100-pound Labrador and then gets a hold of his leg. He has a peaceful demeanor, but there are limits. Or the unsocialized creature gets a hold of my ankle while walking to the park without dog.

There's nothing good that can come out of this. The likely outcome is a dead small dog and a vet/physician bill. I'm not risking a hand injury over someone else's animal, hand injuries can be disabling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com