WoofnHoof

Even more so IMO, humans have bred a dog which has the morphology which allows it to bring down a large animal on its own. The gray wolf or the village dog or whatever form of ancestral canine you prefer never had this ability, they hunted large animals in packs using slashing wounds and hounding the animal until it bled to death. Those dogs of the past would never have even tried taking down a full grown bovine, it was humans who developed the jaw and the front end of these animals which allowed them to tackle the job. My chihuahua is agressive, but most of the time nobody cares because if he's not in anyone's face he's not a danger to anyone, the only way he might succeed in severing my arm was if I had died already and he'd had a week or so to gnaw at it. So what we have is a combination of powerful animals and humans who no longer use them for work and therefore have little understanding of the proper management of powerful animals, and the reasons for it. Therefore controls over ownership and breeding are a logical step to take IMO.

I agree, and the importance of genetics is central to the whole debate because ethical breeders have an interest in breeding dogs which have appropriate temperaments using the knowledge of the dogs contributing their genes. Which brings us to this pertinent question: So the picture from my perspective is that we need to work out who is breeding the more 'bombproof' dogs of the type in question, and who is not.

Lol thanks, I knew that degree had to come in handy for something

Do you think that might be in part due to the fact that any young greyhound that displayed aggression to being handled wouldn't last long? It seems the further we take any breed from its original purpose and from very rigorous selection for breeding, the more problems creep in. Popularity, and its attraction of irresponsible, ignorant breeders, has long been the curse of some breeds. But returning the breed to the original purpose is impossible and performance testing has been rejected time and time again so how exactly do you bring in a more rigorous selection for breeding? Temperament testing has it's own problems but I suppose it's better than nothing?

Just had to address this bit, I don't recall anyone saying that mistreatment or lack of socialisation and training won't affect the dog, it's just that it's reaction will not necessarily be agressive, it might react submissively or with anxiety in certain situations but it wont necessarily become agression. This is what genetics and selective breeding is about, it's not just about deciding whether a dog will react to a certain situation it's about determining (and predicting) how the dog will react to a certain situation. A dog bred to herd sheep upon seeing sheep for the first time can find itself acting out herding behaviours, it may not know what it is doing or where it is herding them but it is reacting to the sheep in a way which it has been genetically predisposed to react. That your dog's ancestors never displayed the fear agression that yours does may simply be due to the lack of the appropriate triggers, which is where environment comes in. However if your dog had a different genetic makeup it's possible his reaction to those same triggers may have been entirely different, perhaps instead of agression you might see him showing excessive obesiance to other dogs, perhaps he might run from other dogs, or he might display a combination of behaviours, all of these are reactions the nature of which is determined by the genetic predisposition of the animal.

The stats on what breeds are involved are so notoriously unreliable that most researchers discount them. Despite what you think, most people don't know what breeds look like and anything over 10kg that's brindle or red and that's not fluffly is a "pitbull". You need to move on from the breed issue Puggerup. It cannot explain how such severe attacks happen. I would think a lot of it comes down to type: large, muscular and having the tendency to bite and hold rather than slash and dash type of mechanism. There is definetly a 'type' which seems to be predominant in these extreme sort of attacks, and I'd say this does stem from the original purpose of this hunting type, for example a retriever has a genetic predisposition for a softer hold so this is probably reflected in the shape and musculature of the jaw, whereas the bull breeds were bred for a stronger hold to penetrate the hides of larger animals. This is not to say that the bull breeds are any more likely to bite than the retrievers but when they do they are more likely to do more damage - all else being equal. As far as genetic predisposition for biddability goes I've seen in action the 'ease' with which you can train recall to a BC as opposed to a husky so that combined with many other factors suggests to me that genetics does play as much, if not more of, a part in the overall result.

Because it enables you to manage the behaviour, a dog with a predisposition for agressive or fearful behaviour is always going to have that predisposition but it can be managed effectively so that the behaviour is less likely to manifest.

Most attacks are due to people not recognizing the triggers - which is ignorance. What lilli and Sandra say is correct. People often just do not realise that they are p%$sing their dogs off. Some think it is funny if the dog growls at them, or lunges at them. You tell people the dog is telling them to back off, they laugh. You can't teach common sense. I went through this exercise with some incredibly nice people and a boy boxer. The husband was ticking the dog off very severely - the dog was telling him he was doing it. I explained what was going on. The husband ignored me, the dog bit him. THEN he learned. The wife listened and understood. It amazed me that the dog didn't take his face off, and if he had, he would have been pts. He had been warning this bloke for at least a year. No one was listening. IMO that is why compulsory animal behaviour should be taught in schools, while they are still young enough to learn and before they get bitten. The fact is though some adults actually do have the capacity to learn new things which is why I think adult education courses should also be implemented, if it only educates 50% of the population then it's still done more than all the other legislation put together

I just registered there seems to be a problem with their security certificate or something so I had to ignore my computers security warnings, bit of a worry I got through though. They don't seem to have an email just one of those forms to fill out I will put in a plug for you

He's a bit of an old man these days, you should ring them up Cosmo and ask them to put you on tomorrow you are much closer to their demographic

Lol all I can suggest is keep plugging away at it, Wirth has been building his profile for years but if you keep nagging them they are bound to give in and every time you get one comment in print or on air it's a victory Anyone can be sensationalist - just make fun of bogans or wear a skimpy top or dress your dog in a jailbird outfit or something equally 'out there'. Take a leaf out of PETAs book, they rarely have people protesting outside fast food places in sensible clothing it's usually either a girl in a bikini or a guy in a whacky costume, they do this because it's almost guarenteed air time/print. The novelty factor gets the air time and the air time gets the message out there. The news doesn't just report that a PETA person dressed in a chicken suit stood outside KFC they usually add that they are protesting against whatever it is they are protesting against.

I'm sure they do, which is why everyone needs to be media savvy, Wirth says want he wants to say nothing more nothing less, nothing of his gets twisted because he only says the one same thing - which is also the way most politicians operate, as long as you have that down pat you'll be right

And that folks sums it up. Only because the knowledgable people don't step up and demand real solutions, first thing on the news was Hugh Wirth mouthing off, where are the dog trainers, the educators? The only reason councils don't enforce existing registration laws is because it's not a priority for any government, it's not an election issue and the problem isn't big enough to pervade the public conciousness (yet). Perhaps everyone with an interest in actual solutions and strategies needs to present them to their local, state and federal members so that it begins to be perceived as an important problem which needs to be addressed by people with knowledge of dog behaviour and the ability to present that knowledge to the public in an accessible form. I think it's a real shame that Wirth is the only mouthpiece around when it comes to dog attacks, ranting about pitbulls is just pointless - it's past time the dog world got a spokesperson with some balls and something useful to say! Did any of our professional dog behaviourists here ring the local news to offer their expert analysis of the matter? If not, why not? Phone calls are cheap grab a notepad jot down the essential message and shout it from the rooftops to anyone who will listen, offer to write an article for the local rag about risk factors in dog attacks, now is the perfect time to get the message out there. If you have something that qualifies you to speak about an issue you may be a trainer, a behaviourist, a breeder or an owner there is no reason you can't ring up and offer to be interviewed about your thoughts on the latest dog attack.

Are you espousing that the general public undergo a dog license or just anyone who lives in proximity to a dog? Shall we all pass a dog test before we can walk into a park where there are dogs? What about dog beaches - only licensees to habituate there too? If we go away on holiday, must our friends/family who agree to look after the dog, also go and get a dog license? How will we keep those that dont have a dog license away from the dangerous dog object? We put guns in gunsafes, cars only by current licensed drivers ... at what age do children need to get their own dog license before they can handle the family dog - 16, 18, 21? In order for licensing to be implemented, there needs to be a system of rules about how and when the handling of the licensed object is legal. Does equating dog ownership to owning inanimate objects like cars and guns, really seem a sensible, practical idea to you? How far you want it to go is only limited by your imagination ;) Ideally a compulsory course in schools could be implemented and only actual owners of dogs would absolutely have to be licensed/do the course as they ultimately control where the dog goes and who it comes into contact with. If the dog's owner/handler has a basic idea of whether the dog is displaying signs of stress/agression etc at the park or whatever they can then remove the dog from the situation/stressor. Initially it could be an optional course for non-dog owners until the school education filters through the general public and basic dog behaviour becomes a general knowledge similar to the way basic literacy and numeracy is fairly widespread in the population these days because of it's inclusion in the cirriculum.

Been outside the uni for a while now but thanks anyway The obtaining of the license requires a basic understanding of the road rules, a basic understanding of dog behaviour would probably signficantly reduce dog attacks in the general public. It has been stated by a number of people here that a lot of the general public do not have a basic understanding of dog behaviour, I dare say the trainers here would concur that a lot of people who go to them do so because they do not have this basic understanding. Clearly there is a need for people to learn these basic rules so why not make it compulsory as part of a licensing system. Heaps of people know how to drive before they get a license does this mean they don't need to demonstrate a good knowledge of the rules in order to get a license?

You wouldn't be teaching common sense you would be teaching basic dog behaviour and obedience, there will always be people who choose to remain ignorant but how many attacks are the result of wilful ignorance and how many are not?

No you are being naive. I get 100% on a driving test, doesn't stop me from collecting speeding fines. Knowing what is law and following the law are not the same thing. Impulse control, your own belief of what you can and cant do are not dictated by the letter but your own perception of boundaries. Following your reasoning there would be no need to license people to drive then? Awesome.

It would be no different to administrating and implementing vehicle licensing laws, somehow that manages to work *most* of the time.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D Which, to me, is fairly alarming. If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog? I have no answers; I'm just wondering. No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example) and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog. A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.) He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range. I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why. Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him. Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him. I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten." Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face. I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head and it will be all your fault." The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more. Isn't that all the more reason to place certain conditions on dog ownership? Compulsory training for a start should be introduced to train both dogs and humans. I don't see pet ownership as a right I see it as a privellidge, like driving a car it comes with certain conditions and responsibilities that have to be learned and followed. The larger our population gets the more idiots there are going to be, it has to be regulated somehow. I also think that it shouldn't be tied up in endless discussions about rights, most people have the right to get a driver's license but some people don't because it impacts on the safety of others, it should be the same with dogs.

Totally agree, even when the dogs aren't bred by registered breeders they still remain amazingly true to type, my husky is a textbook husky with textbook husky behaviours and he was bred by a byb.

Depends on what they are breeding for I suppose? Many a breed has begun with just one dog that someone liked for whatever reason and wanted more of.

How frustrating for you, I can't stand it when people stuff others around it's so rude :rolleyes:

Poor Milo

My current chi and my previous one tended to do this I think they are very aware of how tiny and fragile they are compared to us With my boy I have taught him to raise up his front end when I want to pick him up so that he is ready for it and he wants to come up for a pat/cuddle or be carried around - nothing wrong with that they are the perfect size for carrying around!

I'd be taking Danois' advice, just keep the dogs there with you until the issue is resolved if they don't like it tell them to take it up with the owner because you took the property on the understanding that dogs were allowed.