prahocalypse now wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:57 am

They should have blurred out the dog's cock and balls in the photo.

prahocalypse now wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:57 am

They should have blurred out the dog's cock and balls in the photo.

Duncan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:54 am Looks to be [ part ] pitbull terrier.. If it is, they have a certain reputation.

The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) states in an article on their website entitled “Are Certain Breeds of Dogs More Aggressive Than Others?” that the above-cited study did not prove that certain breeds of dogs are more dangerous than others, but simply proved what veterinarians have long believed for years: that nearly any dog can be aggressive, or non-aggressive, based on his early training, socialization and environment.

The most extensive study to catalog breeds of dogs involved in attacks was done by the American Veterinary Task Force on Canine Aggression and Humane-Canine Interactions, published in June 2001. Some analysts have stated that this study indicated that dogs that were consistently high on the list correlated to the breeds of larger dogs which were more popular at that time. In the 1970s, Dobermans were very popular, hence a higher number of attacks by Dobermans during the 70s. Pit Bulls started rising in popularity in the 1980s, which is when their numbers began to rise, and Rottweiler numbers rose for the same reason in the 1990s. Since there are no studies available comparing the number of non-fatal bites by breed, it is hard to know if smaller dogs, who are less likely to be capable of administering a fatal bite, showed a similar correlation during the decades of their greatest popularity.

prahocalypse now wrote:

They should have blurred out the dog's cock and balls in the photo.