melzawelza
-
Posts
2,564 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by melzawelza
-
As I said, without provocation. It's not natural to want to fight to the death for no reason other than you saw the other animal.
-
I don't know about this. The instinct in my 'show' border collies is pretty strong despite their ancestors not working for years and years. It is something that has always surprised me. Same with other 'show' breeds that I have seen herding. Forty years? Do you completely disregard herding skill in your breeding program (or actively select against it?) or is it still something you keep in the back of your mind and want to preserve in your lines? Also - herding is a very natural, base instinct in dogs in general, strongly selected for in herding breeds. Fighting your own species without provocation is not, and as such is not as long lasting when not selected for.
-
No argument here then. Selecting for proven performance is always going to ensure a higher level of those traits. Agreed. And the reason I mentioned this is that I've seen a lot of people in this thread comparing the two as a way to disparage bull breeds to nothing but their heritage i.e 'herding breeds herd, fighting breeds fight'. I don't believe the two are a good comparison. At the moment, dogs of herding breeds are pretty reliable at showing a good or fair level of herding instinct, and the people making such statements were implying that 'fighting' in the bull breed dog will also be pretty much reliable. Ban herding completely for the next 40 years and I think that trait would be much much more watered down and unreliable, and then we'd have a fair comparison.
-
It makes sense, but it's not the only way to read history. Using dogs to pull carts has been banned for almost as long as dog-fighting, and, unlike bans on dog fighting, this ban has been successfully enforced. I would be surprised if you didn't find some breeds are more inclined to pull than others. Without active selection, it takes a long time for a trait to drop out of a breeding population. As for frequency of DA, ask anyone who runs a kennel or rescue if they find bull breeds more inclined to require veterinary treatment for puncture wounds than other breeds. In my kennel days we had a couple of regular clients who had more than one staffy x and required that their two dogs be kenneled separately. We did supervised play groups. While there were individuals bull breed dogs who were goodl in play groups, there were as many who just weren't reliable with other dogs. I'm not saying bull breeds should be banned. But I think people need to be realistic if they buy a bull breed dog, and I'd love to see more breeders actively screening dogs with DA tendencies out of their breeding programs . . . or even better, actively selecting for dog-sooks. I have acknowledged that bull breeds can be more narky than other breeds as a whole, and I worked in a kennel for a long time so know what you're saying. (I'd argue that a kennel is an incredibly high stress environment for breeds that generally crave regular direct human contact and can be prone to anxiety, and that's part of the reason we see more issues in kennels). I recognise the higher level of reactiveness/intolerance to other dogs, I just don't believe it's sooo prevalent and inevitable as many in this thread will make it out to me. I'd also argue that most bull breeds that have other dog issues are reactive or intolerant, as opposed to outwardly DA (i.e chase another dog down to attack).
-
Unless dog aggression served as useful for a breed's original function why would any breed still performing its original task be more inclined to be DA than a former fighting breed? Lets take Greyhounds. Are you suggesting that as a breed, Greyhounds will be more dog aggressive than fighting breeds these days? And working Foxhounds? How does DA enhance function in a working herding dog??? As I see it, dog aggression serves only to enhance one function - killing dogs. The only breeds that I can think of still performing a task where DA is desirable are LGDs. You've misinterpreted my wording (which in all fairness probably isn't clear enough). I'm not saying herding breeds are more inclined to be DA than 'fighting' breeds. I'm saying that as they are still being actively tested and worked and selected for herding traits, I would argue that the amount of herding type dogs who still display strong herding traits would be much higher than the amount of 'fighting' dogs who still display active DA - simply because overall that trait is not being tested and selected for the way herding is in those breeds.
-
Or expect them to wrangle an aggressive dog like a pro. I don't really know why you're getting so defensive, seeing I and everyone else that has posted so far have not blamed the officer for doing what he did. We are simply discussing some alternatives that may have a better outcome for all in the future. I think most of us can agree this is not an ideal situation for the officer, the community or the dog. Or would you prefer we simply say 'oh well, person should have trained the dog to be less aggressive (while he is drugged out and unconscious)' as you have?
-
I think these situations are not common enough to justify issuing cops with catch poles. God knows how you'd get into and out of a car with one on your belt or carry one on a foot patrol. And if you think a dog can't bite you if you have a catchpole, you'd be wrong. They're not designed for fending off attacks. I think the comment that the dog had a history of being "over protective" is the one to focus on. If you don't want emergency services to have to shoot your dog to get to you, then perhaps some socialisation to lower aggression to strangers might be called for. Who is to say this dog is in other situations aggressive towards strangers? From that comment they are talking about other times the owner has been unconscious (seems he is a junkie or has some other issue?). I know my dog wouldn't behave this way if I was unconscious because she is a useless guard dog and would just be scared but a lot of dogs would, and that wouldn't make them bad dogs. In fact it would be a desired trait in a lot of breeds. You seem to be making the assumption that the dog behaves like this at all times. It's not hard to put a catch pole in a police van. And it seems to happen often enough considering all the stories coming out of the US of people's dogs being shot.
-
This is very, very sad to watch. The poor dog was only doing what we've bred dogs to do for thousands of years. His owner was incapacitated and I agree, the police would have seemed very threatening. At the same time after watching the video I don't really blame the cop for doing what he did either. The dog was actively running at him when he shot it, I can understand why he would have felt the need to defend himself and he certainly seemed upset at that after it happened. Cops need training in animal management and they should have catch poles and other equipment for urgent situations like this when Animal Control may not be able to get there quickly enough.
-
It's not illegal in the ACT or the NT. But I hear what you're saying and fundamentally I agree, but in practice it doesn't seem to be the case. Of all the dogs I've met that have been called 'pit bulls' by their owners or seem to closely fit the 'red nose pit bull' type in pounds and shelters (of which I've probably met a hundred or so over the years), they have absolutely overwhelmingly been lovely dogs that are at the bare minimum dog tolerant or even as far as dog friendly. I'm not really trying to make a point with that comment, just that it's quite interesting.
-
I agree that breed/genetics influence the likelihood of certain behaviours in individuals in that breed. I also hear what Lo Pan is saying. A lot of people are discussing the fact that the purpose of a breed will shape their behaviour and I agree. But we have to remember that the 'purpose' of bull breeds (i.e fighting other dogs) has been illegal for many many years. Sure, there are still people out there fighting their dogs and therefore selecting dogs for this purpose. But (particularly in this country) they are an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the amount of bull breeds that are around. So these breeds have not been overwhelmingly selected for such traits for a very very long time. A dog wanting to kill other dogs is quite unnatural and that trait only has a heritability of around 20% in pups. So even those rigorously selecting for those traits will not get overwhelming success. When you stop breeding for these traits they are lost very quickly as these traits are quite simply counterproductive genetic-wise. So while I will be the first to agree that bull breeds can be more narky, reactive etc towards other dogs, this trait is a lot less common than it once was overall. There are masses and masses of sooky la la bull breeds out there that would never start a fight and a lot that also won't fight back if attacked too. The DA is being watered down considerably and will continue to be as long as people aren't selecting for it. Yes, bull breeds as a whole can be more narky with other dogs, but I would argue that the incidence of DA in 'fighting' breeds is much lower than other breeds that are still performing the task they were bred to do regularly (lets say herding breeds) and regularly being selected for such traits. I hope that makes sense.
-
I find labs go well with bull breeds. They like a rougher style of play and are happy to do so with a bull breed. Herding breeds seem to be the worst match, they dont tend to like body combat and some bull breeds are unnerved by their stare.
-
Pound rounds strikes again....
-
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
Killing a possum or a cat would not be considered reasonable defence of person or property. Same with killing birds (and try keeping those out of your yard- we have a bird killing foster at the moment and there's really nothing we can do to stop it, short of draping a huge net over the entire property- which the council wouldn't allow anyway) Edited to add.. In Tasmania, as I've also previously mentioned in this thread, vermin are not excluded so a dog that kills a mouse or a feral rabbit or a starling could be declared dangerous, just as if it had killed someone's pet. Now that I'm home and had another look at the act - here in NSW you wouldn't have to worry about that. The reasonable defence I quoted is there but section b protects against the situation you describe. From section 16 (which covers attacks): I'm pretty appalled that you don't have any such thing covering you in TAS. That isn't right. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
I haven't read further into the TAS act, will have a look when I get home, but here in NSW your dogs would not be declared dangerous due to the 'reasonable Defence of person or property' ( or something along those lines) exclusion. If you do not have that in TAS then I completely agree, it is unreasonable. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
They can't or they don't want to? Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed. Can we help at all with ideas? Unfortunately no. I won't go into the specifics but they can't comply on a very fundamental level, there is no way they could. If there was I'd already be assisting them to do so, as this dog being PTS is a sad waste of a life. This job can be very hard sometimes as it all comes down to human error but it is the dog that pays the ultimate price. But the results of not declaring the dog can be that another pet is killed (and it would be, the dog has history). It does need to be kept secure. And while the dog is not human aggressive, a person or child could certainly be injured while trying to intervene while the dog is in prey drive. My reason for bringing up this case is to show that while the dog is just 'being a dog' and is no threat to people, it still is in need of the restrictions that come with a PD or D label once it has shown it is able to escape and kill someone's pet. It's counter intuitive as we dog people don't think of a dog that kills a cat as 'dangerous', but in the eyes of the law they are. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
They can't or they don't want to? Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
I agree completely. I can't remember if 'protection of persons or property' is in there. It certainly is already in NSW and I'm assuming other states, and would stay. This would only mean if the dog escaped and killed someone's cat out in public or on their property. I agree (having two indoor cats myself) but the law doesn't. Not here in NSW anyway. Cats are able and allowed to roam. And while I believe all cats should be contained I'm not convinced it would be law. If it was, Council officers would be spending all of our time seizing wandering cats and putting nuisance orders on the owners, taking them to the pound... there'd be no time left to implement this proposed legislation. You're missing the point that the 'Dangerous Dog' title in NSW and I think most states is not exclusively human aggression. It encompasses aggression towards other animals as well. If someone's dog killed your dog would you want them to be declared dangerous or would you say 'It's ok, don't declare them dangerous as they're not human aggressive so I wouldn't want to lump them in with dogs that harm humans'. A dog that has killed someone's cat after escaping is dangerous towards people's cats. A dog that has killed another dog is dangerous towards dogs. A dog that has killed a human is dangerous towards humans. A dog can have all three or just one, but either way - if they have done the deed they are 'dangerous' under the eyes of the law. This isn't a new proposal at all. Your profile says you're in Tasmania, the TAS dog control act says: DOG CONTROL ACT 2000 - SECT 29 Division 3 - Dangerous dogs and restricted breed dogs 29. Declaration of particular dangerous dog (1) A general manager, by notice served on the owner of a dog – (a) may declare that dog to be a dangerous dog if – (i) the dog has caused serious injury to a person or another animal; or (ii) there is reasonable cause to believe that the dog is likely to cause serious injury to a person or another animal; and (b) is to give reasons for the declaration in the notice; and © is to advise the owner of the right of appeal under section 31. (2) . . . . . . . . Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/dca2000134/s29.html So this has already been the case in your state since 2000. If you prevent your dog from escaping and killing people's cats then you have no worry. I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
You just can't compare the danger posed to cats with danger posed to humans, they're two entirely different things. If all dogs that would chase (and possibly injure a cat) if they got the chance were to be declared potentially dangerous dogs, the ramifications would be severe. In Tasmania, a dog that attacks any animal may be declared dangerous, this includes vermin- does this consider prey drive, breed or purpose? No, obviously it does not. Part of the problem with the proposal is the generalisation of definitions, without considering that a dog can kill something without there being any aggression present. Prey drive is prey drive, aggression is aggression, a dog that chases cats is not necessarily a dog likely to attack children. The dog actually has to do something to be declared PD or Dangerous. So a dog with prey drive that has always been kept under control will not be declared. 'The label of PD or Dangerous dog is not solely to do with human aggression. By that logic dogs also shouldn't be declared dangerous if they kill another dog, as there is no correlation between dog aggression and human aggression. Yes it's prey drive not aggression. But at the end of the day. The point is someone's pet cat was killed because the owner was irresponsible, you can't just ignore that - action has to be taken. As I said, dogs are regularly declared dangerous in NSW for killing cats and from what Megan said this is the same in other states too. This provision already exists. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
The dog is only potentially dangerous or dangerous of it has actually killed/injured the animal and subsequently been declared as such by a Council. If the dog has not done this (or has but isn't declared) then it's not a dangerous or PD dog and as such is not subject to any restrictions. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive? All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes. Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair. This is already the case in NSW.. Not sure about other states. But dogs can and are regularly declared dangerous here for escaping and killing cats. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
One thing I do think is a little over the top in the report is a dog being declared potentially dangerous (going to you PD from now on!) for escaping twice in a 12 month period. My girl has escaped twice. Once a month ago - she stayed inside while I was gone for a month while I spent $1000 getting new gates/fencing in the area she had eacaped frlm. And again on Friday night where my front fence literally blew over in the gale force winds. She will again be staying inside until I get brand new colorbond put in there. The first time was my fault but the second not. I was very careful and responsible after the first incident, And the second was beyond my control. Granted, she didn't get picked up by the Council either time but I think if she had been it would be insane to have to muzzle her in public for three years as a result. She is not aggressive to humans or other dogs at all, and my Neighbours picked her up in their driveway on Friday and she spent two hours playing with the kids in the backyard until I got home. Instead there should be a different term that focuses solely on fencing/enclosure that does not have muzzling provisions (except of course if the dog does display PD behaviour once out). -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this. Of course it does. The proposal is a balance of both education and enforcement. For people who will not follow the law then there is enforcement. The Calgary model is completely self-funded by registrations (and they have a 90+% registration rate, much better than what we have here), and they have adequate staff to donate time to the enforcement of the Act. So basically, models like this are so successful that they get most people complying, and from that raise enough revenue to have plenty of staff enforcing - which catches the other non-compliant people. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
Yes, I also really like the emphasis on re-training and behaviour of the dog. It doesn't condemn the dog to a life of misery, it gives the owner a light at the end of the tunnel to take their dog and it's behaviour seriously and work hard to ensure the dog is safe. -
Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'
melzawelza replied to melzawelza's topic in General Dog Discussion
Nothing will ever completely stop dog bites from occurring, other than getting rid of all dogs. We will never know if the policy would have prevented such an occurrance, however I can suggest a couple of hypotheticals that may have. Lets say this dog had previously rushed at/threatened other dogs in some way (and I'm guessing it had. Dog's don't go from perfect behaviour to then killing another dog). Based on this proposed legislation if it was reported the Council could have declared the dog 'potentially dangerous' which would have prevented the dog from being able to break it's collar and kill another dog as it would be wearing a better quality collar and muzzled in public. Or, the owner would have found it all too hard and given the dog up, which would result in it being euthanased. Maybe the owner would be caught out with an unregistered dog, and be forced by Council to register. Maybe he would have chosen to complete the proposed responsible pet ownership type program and also to desex his dog to pay a lesser registration. Maybe those two efforts may have had him consider his dog's behaviour a little more and be at least a little more responsible. Maybe none of these things would have happened at all, and the exact same incident still would have occurred. We'll never know. But as you said, the policy will significantly reduce these incidents from occurring. -
Hi all, We'd been discussing this a little after I posted it in a thread in News and someone suggested maybe it should have a thread of it's own for us all to read. The AVA just this week released their Policy and Model Legislative Framework in regards to Dangerous Dogs. The report covers current legislation in Australia (particularly in relation to Breed Specific Legislation) and analyses both Australian and worldwide data on the topic. It then explores successful legislative framework and research in regards to dangerous dogs from here and around the world and pulls it all together into a model for Australia to presumably adopt. Now, the AVA is a member of the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce that recently released a discussion paper re: euthanasia in pounds and is due to release one on Dangerous Dogs later this year. I would assume this document will form a large proportion of the research and proposed legislation that will come out in that document. It's 47 pages in total but a lot of these are references, the report itself is only 20-something pages and then there is further information at the end. I really encourage everyone to have a read and discuss here. The DLG will be asking for submissions when the taskforce paper comes out so it's useful for all to discuss. Personally, I support it wholeheartedly simply because it is SO well researched and based on models that are already successful. It's also the best analysis of why BSL is such a failure that I've seen, especially as it is Australia-specific. Link to the report and the short summary here: http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution ETA: No idea why but despite trying to edit four times it's uncapitalised 'AVA' and the 'D' in dangerous in the title. Sorry about that.