Speaking of pernicious, the website Dog Notebook is definitely not a credible info source on dogs. Any website that publishes a list "article" with no byline on the 25 most dangerous dog breeds (with no in-text cites or footnotes to back up the claims) is beneath contempt. Whoever wrote this "article" included just enough positive content on each breed to keep the text from out and out LYING.
Thankfully, owners of several of the breeds listed came to their defense in the comments section. Of course, there were also commenters who insisted they were right and the American pit bull terrier is just born vicious. There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. Any dog not properly socialized from puppyhood is capable of "turning on its owner." Any dog not firmly introduced to the pack leader-human and consistently corrected without forceful physical is capable of bad behavior.
Man, talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect. As the comment writer using this phrase explained, it's "the utter confidence of those who, with no expertise, remain stubborn in their views regardless of overwhelming evidence."
Sound like any one you know?
The site owner is First Beat Marketing, one of far too many content mills more interested in ad bux than verifying content. What a surprise (NOT).
Another offender in this area is Dog Show dot com. It's also a content mill, and its "20 Worst Breeds for Small Children" is also a load of bovine poo. The similar writing styles suggest the same person or persons wrote both "articles." What a surprise (again, NOT).
Folks, it bears repeating that just because something you read is on the Web, it doesn't mean that it's correct or right.I have two words for all those naysayers out there about large-breed dogs: Cesar Milan.
