moosmum

We've had minor aggression over the years, Mostly just quick spats and all noise. ( that I don't realy count as aggression) More serious incidents resulting in minor scratches etc: 1 bitch is very high drive and dominant. And likes to make things happen to get her way. She challenged an old girl for top dog position and was stopped almost instantly by myself and my male. No injuries,We were too quick. Never repeated. I regret that the male was there at the time because he is very protective of his pack. It took 3 days for tensions to ease, with the male growling and posturing at the younger when ever the 2 girls were close. The old girl stepped back into her position and tensions eased. Mostly. For the last 7 years we have had a small bitch who fits the profile ie rehomed several times. Definitely has increased the potential for more.She will posture and strut, challenge the bigger, drivey girl. For the past year I've kept those 2 females separated for peace in the pack and the little ones safety. There have been no serious incidents though they have lived together for 7 years. The change in management came with the passing of the old, top female. The little 'rescue' upped her strutting and posturing for the other girl, and would be an accident waiting to happen otherwise. The male who intervened in the 1st incident would also defend the little rescue, so her presence adds LOTS of tension if I allow both bitches to run with the pack at the same time. Other bitches have learned to ignore the little ones posturing. The Moo tries , but is just too 'hot blooded' for me to put that much trust in her control. I think any one who runs multiple dogs has a good chance of encountering aggression sooner or later. Some times it can be fixed,some times managed. As my pup grows, the terrier is starting to try provoking aggression to her too, so the little one realy is the problem and that situation will need watching too. Pup could take her on easily now but is being taught to ignore and respect.

Lots of examples of dogs knowing things, but most can be explained if I look hard enough. A trip to the river one year with the whole family and our very 1st dog tho' thats not so easy. The dog ( a cattle fox terrier cross) spent the whole time this one day trying drag us kids from the water and running along the banks barking. 1 hour after we left there was a flash flood.

Brother in law brought his new wife and grandson to visit us on the farm. My dogs are large, but very well behaved. They have free run inside and out. The wife was horrified and kept making pointed comments about the dog being inside. I ignored them. Its my dogs home, she was behaving perfectly and not frightening or annoying anyone. The poor little boy couldn't even play outside 'cos there might be "Poo Poo".( maybe from the chooks,not the dogs who go 50 yards away from the house) The new wife has never been back. Had visitor recently barking at the dogs when they met for the 1st time.

So sorry MonElite. Run free beautiful girl.

Agreed. I think in your shoes I would 1st, stop offering money for spey etc. I think it will cause offense. Id likely still offer a shelter though. :) as a basic requirement. I would explain to the owners I genuinely thought I was helping out, but dogs thrive best when they know, and are comfortable with their place in a pack and she has now bonded with mine, and mine with her. I am sorry. Can I please give you what you paid for her to buy her? Because to reverse that, you need to put a lot of time into it. Again, I am very sorry, but if you allow me to buy her from you you could borrow her back when ever you want her. But thats me.

Oh so you are in the mood to stir the pot again :laugh: Interesting photo. :laugh: No stir intended! I figure to remove or not is an individual choice with different factors to consider.But these pics seem clearer to me of the purpose well attached dew claws can serve.

My pup uses hers a lot. Shes very dextrous with them and its easy to see how they can be used as thumbs. I thought the pics were worth bringing up this thread again.

How about we require any animal owners at fault of not taking reasonable steps to protect their community to wear a forehead stamp proclaiming then as such? This idea was inspired by the "some people should be muzzled" comment by Christina. Crime: dog has never been trained to basic obedience or been socialised adequately and the owner regularly just lets the dog out in the evening to take itself for a walk. Result: owner must wear green IPO (Irresponsible dog owner aka Idiot Prick Owner) stamp on forehead. Ink takes six weeks to wear off. Crime: owner selects dog for aggressive traits and encourages aggression towards other dogs or cats or people Result: owner must wear red IPO stamp on forehead. Ink takes six months to wear off. During that six months owner may not reside in a household where dogs are kept. Anything that makes us point and laugh sounds good. I was thinking more along the lines of how to get people more interested in their dogs. So many just "have" them. There aren't many incentives to do or learn more more. Social benefits are decreasing. If there were ways to increase social benefits and involvement to encourage a sense of community in dog ownership, I think we would see better informed ownership.

All the best with the next steps. Thank you to all involved.

O.K, Called council and confirmed that it is NOT required unless the dog has been declared dangerous, as most here have suspected. It seems this is becoming a popular urban myth, possibly helped along by some council employees. I can understand how tempting that would be at times :D But it drives home to me how we are failing to educate people to live with and accept dogs and instead relying more on regulations and laws that are only going adversely affect dog ownership. And how easy it is to open the way for more of the same. How can we reverse that?

Would it be rude to ask which Council? certainly not rude, but I'd rather not say more than it borders on Lithgow city council area. :)

I'm not taking it as gospel,I have a feeling its misinformation. I will call council tomorrow and find just what the regs are. I can't find them online. Very little there. It is worrying that this is not the 1st time I have heard of this, but now in 2 different council areas. I was told by the owners of a dog in Lithgow they were informed of the same regulation when registering their pup. Even if it turns out to be misinformation, It makes me uneasy.

About to join obedience with my new pup. I also hope to train her in tracking and to a level where I could take her to schools, nursing homes etc for educational/therapy purposes. Anything we can accomplish to show case the usefullness of a well trained dog. Just heard that all large dogs must be muzzled in public according to local council regs. This is unverified as yet and too late to ask today. I was told its "Taken for granted" when I asked the source. Is this a common council regulation? ( we are well out of town so unfamiliar with in town regs) If its true, I find it discriminatory. I think it would lead to a false sense of security for some,unreasonable fear for others and possibly lead to behaviour problems with both dogs and their handlers. Opinions?

Done.

I'd be rapt if there were quality ring sports accessible to me. The politicians and public who think its a yobbo sport can allow the yobbo view of dog ownership to be the norm, or allow promotion of better examples for management training understanding and breeding. I think interest would grow with promotion and expertise, but doubt it would be an easy journey.

Makes perfect sense to me . How else can a consensus be reached that will keep working ?

I think you have made some good points, but I don't think this is of any concern to me let alone a threat. O.K. But in the human mind, Domestic dogs will remain a single species. Attitudes and beliefs will be reflected across the board, regardless of type breed or purpose. Their viability as a species depends wholly on their continuing to fill their communities needs, values and beliefs.On humans finding value in having them in their lives in changing times. Legislation allowed to pass, and views promoted, play a huge part in that, and in forming the values of those communities and the direction that evolution takes. It WILL, sooner or later, have an effect on pedigree registered dogs since we are forming attitudes to the species "Domestic dog". Its evolution in progress. I see a paradox in your views. If you say you are "Safe" because your dogs are pedigree and have the proof, That it makes all the difference in what you get, you are saying pedigree matters in these decisions. You promote discrimination based on pedigree. Forget breeding practices. Forget ownership skills or knowledge.Forget management. It all comes down to pedigree. I don't see how that can not come back to bite you eventualy. I agree with HDW. I don't think this will get much support from many of the bodies in question. I don't do face book

Yes and the first one which was aimed at reducing euthanasia in shelters. Many of the recommendations in the latest document were from the taskforce. None of the breed-specific ones were in there. I've read it back to front numerous times and made a submission on it personally and on behalf of an organisation. These breed specific recommendations are not in there. You can either just believe me or read it yourself, it's up to you. You do realise they are looking to add more breeds to the menacing and restricted list? Why exactly do you feel your pedigree dogs would not be subject to this? They will be the first ones to be caught up as they are easily identified as of said breed. You do realise that pedigree dogs are banned and restricted in many countries around the world? Because the deal was done long ago when Dogs NSW the then Canine Council made sure that ANKC registered breeds were exempt. Providing my animals do not menace, rush, attack, then there is no danger to them being declared restricted or dangerous. You are assuming that all owners of your breed will continue to be as responsible as you. The key word here is BREED, not just individual dogs. Pugs? Maybe a long way off before people will see them as menacing or dangerous. Or maybe not, relatively. If this sort of legislation is allowed to gain ground as the prefered method of dealing with human ignorance, since it leads only to more human ignorance. You may think you are safe with ANKC registration and pedigree, but by allowing this sort of legislation with out defending the idea of deed instead of breed, you are supporting a future where any problems concerning dogs in society will look 1st to restricting dogs based on breed. ANKC papers will just make the restrictions easier to enforce. No risk in your life time, perhaps. But it directs focus to restrictions of dogs in society , rather than education and acceptance. If people accept and understand dogs LESS and LESS in society, where will the K.Cs be in future? Pretty much alone I think.

Unsocialised dogs facing a new experience can do three things basically. 1:Do nothing. 2:Flee from the unknown in fear. 3:Perceive the unknown as a threat and respond aggressively. IME, the dogs who react "out of the blue" are dogs not so stable in environmental strength that their true character has been masked by heavy socialisation. An unsocialised dog who doesn't react to new experiences either by fight or flight will always be the dog of greater genetic environmental stability. In a breeding program, not socialising dogs is often used to breed on dogs who exhibit genetic soundness over dogs who's apparent stability is the result of training/socialisation. For a pet dog, socialisation is a must and good practice, but my point in regard to this is good genetically sound dog in character doesn't need socialisation to prevent adverse reaction to new experiences as they simply don't care what's new due to their extreme in self confidence, that is they see nothing as scary or threatening to cause reactivity. Maybe I have an over literal mind. :laugh: The do nothing nothing option bothers me. I would expect SOME reaction in recognition of some thing new at least.

Actually, I have been fortunate I guess given that playing tug with potential service dogs and raising puppies for that line of work has extended into people asking me for demonstrations and teaching the game of tug with owners of many breeds. Growling on the tug is sign of pressure that exceeds play....play and excitement in prey drive exhibits high pitched yaps and whines which to date I am yet experience anything different from any breed, not that I have played tug with every breed of course, perhaps there are some breeds who growl in pleasure and if that's the case I will stand to be corrected from the people experienced with growly breeds. Growling in general terms is a precursor to bite aggressively, and although they will all growl eventually dependant on pressure applied and threshold at which a dog switches into defence drive, early growlers on a tug toy with little pressure I have found in the breeds I have tested and taken an interest in the phenomena, have also been the dogs more prone to resource guarding with an aggressive response. If you watch a dog carefully playing tug; on the initial bite and tug there is no growling, then as the dog tugs harder and the handler tugs harder against the dog, the growling begins......then if the handler releases the pressure where the dog starts to win......the growling stops. The growling is actually the dog switching into defence drive to retain and win the tug, in other words protection mode of the possession is what the growling indicates. ...."Play and excitement in prey drive exhibits high pitched yaps and whines" This may well be true of dogs when prey drive is the dominant factor. My last dog was working guardian breed. Not the 1st, last or only. She NEVER gave high pitched yaps or whines, even as very young pup. Growls were her way of vocalizing and she would growl on the tug from the word go,or even to get my attention. She was very vocal with the growls in play with dogs and people. There was a distinct difference in tone when the growl was meant as a warning. In that case tho', she rarely growled but would "roar". That was never misunderstood and she never had cause to do any more than that. Mostly she would work silently with out vocalization, using her body to block, herd or slow the target into compliance. She was not a resource guarder, never bit another human or animal in her 14 years but but would come growling and grumbling to me to to let me know she couldn't get to her dish for the kitten sitting in it, or to wake me in the night if anything needed my attention. I don't think generalizations do people or the dogs any favours where behaviour is concerned. P.S. On truely stable dogs not requiring any socialization... That may be true to an extent. However the flip side can be a dog that reacts with out visible warning "out of the blue" . After seeing "bombproof" dogs, and horses do just that I think I would be very wary of a dog whos owner tells me their dog hasn't been socialized because its "stable" and doesn't need it. A bit of honest reaction I think is both justifiable and normal.

Lou, 14 years. Fun instigator!

Heat stress could well have been a factor.

I'm going to be seeing that in my dreams tonight Congratulations all 'round, and for the day.

And in a perfect position to influence the market the way that suits themselves. What other areas are ripe for an influential voice/expansion of the brand? Its not their current stake or plans that worries me.Its the logical progression unless there are changes to bring closer relationships between breeders and their communities.

I'm more worried about the marketing power this gives to corporate concerns within the pet industry. So it begins in earnest.