dog_fan

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds. Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer. The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

The best way to 'be seen to be breeding away from' the problem would be to move the goal post. CHANGE THE BREED STANDARD and have BOB's that have at least some nose, open nostrils, and no bug eyes. Yes I agree.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do. I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly. Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad. Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems. Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though. Have you heard of the Retro Mop project? It's a outcross and back cross breeding project in Germany to make for healthier sturdier pugs. There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness. So there are some breeders out there working towards healthier dogs. It's a shame there's so much backlash from other breeders for them doing this. Results speak for themselves in the dogs and the studies coming out of them. I agree. Look at the backlash breeders got and probably still do when they worked to lower the uric acid problem that dalmatians get.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do. I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly. Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad. Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems. Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though. this: I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. I totally agree

In some ways I think some of those breeds which are bred by BYB's may even be healthier than those bred for the show ring. If I think of the focus of the two groups, one group breeds to a conformation standard that their dogs will be judged against (and a winning dog is what the judge wants to see) vs a group of breeders where it doesn't really matter if the dog has a longer snout or a less round head.

Yes the fashion of the moment that will win seems to be the driver for some breeders who show their dogs. I think the quest to get a ribbon has a lot to answer for when it comes to dogs health and conformation. Which I think means that the people who judge the dog shows need to go back to basics and maybe a less extreme interpretation of the breed standard.

Maybe breeders need to be seen to be breeding away from these undesirable and unhealthy problems. If this is not done then these dogs will be legislated against.

It isn't just a purebred site, it is a show site. I assume that the owner makes money from the show stuff on the website. Things can be discussed in a respectful manner. Saying "maybe we should stop having shows" is not respectful. denaili's post showing a dog she admires is respectful and positive. It is an observation which is just that, neither respectful or nor disrespectful. So far we have at least 2 threads on dogs being shown and winning where their conformation is suspect. If people who show or people who breed do not see this as an issue then I despair for pure bred dogs.

Seems breeding for the show ring is causing problems in many breeds. Maybe we should stop having shows

I would say unsound temperament plays a bigger part in dog bites than testicles.

According to this they are labradoodles with a different name. http://www.the-australian-cobberdog.com/ Then that site would be wrong. Not every Web site has accurate information.

Have a look at lagottos. Thank you for the suggestion, I appreciate the thought. I have looked into Lagotto's but they have been bred to work and their exercise requirements are much different than the Australian Cobberdog. They have been described as best fitting in with active families which we are not. They are also a "nose" dog and not easily distracted when on the scent of something. I am not sure the Lagotto and my family would be the best mix. The oodle that you're looking at is cross between two very active retriever breeds. I am not sure we are talking about the same dogs. Australian Cobberdogs aren't an oddle. Yes they had in their beginnings Labradors and Poodles but they have come a long way since then. They aren't a first cross so they can't be compared to first crosses. I spent some time with them in Europe and they were very laid back and their temperament was amazing and I think they will suit my family.

Have a look at lagottos. Thank you for the suggestion, I appreciate the thought. I have looked into Lagotto's but they have been bred to work and their exercise requirements are much different than the Australian Cobberdog. They have been described as best fitting in with active families which we are not. They are also a "nose" dog and not easily distracted when on the scent of something. I am not sure the Lagotto and my family would be the best mix.

I have met Australian Cobberdogs and they are lovely dogs. They are very human focused, smart, their coat stays remarkably clean and they don't shed. This breed will in all likelihood be my next dog. It is a good thing that people are breeding a dog that is a new breed. It doesn't hurt any breed or breeder currently breeding. I would rather support breeders who are breeding towards a breed standard rather than breeding first crosses. Puppy buyers will get a pedigree of the pup's lineage with DNA test results. That is a good thing.

This looks good https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/glow-fetch-premium-dog-collars-with-led-pet-safety-technology

You are starting to sound and behave like a troll. You are publicly stating you break the law and in fact you don't care about doing this. I hope you get caught and fined. What I also know is that no matter what you say here, I know you don't give a crap about your dog because, guess what, your dog will pay the price if anything goes wrong.

The diplomat did not actively seek to own a dog he inherited it. Seems to me the real problem lies with the person who left the dog in the first place. The vet had no right to take money for a procedure and then not provide it, that is fraud and a breach of trust.

In my world go for it as long as you manage and contain your dogs so they don't cause any problems. The more we try to put the responsibility onto breeders and take it off dog owners the more chance we will have very few breeds to choose from as our pets.

It wouldn't matter if ihad a ha or da dog nor would it bea problem for anyone else IF I manage that dog properly and take the responsibility for it. Eta I don't believe in accidents but I sure do believe in carelessness and inattention.

Sorry if someone has already picked up on the bit I've highlighted - I've just discovered this thread and haven't been through the whole 8 pages yet. Federal, state and local govt funds are very seperate pools of money. Pretty much 90% of all application fees or fines simply go back into general coffers at each of these 3 levels. The reason for this is that this money is then invested on the stock market and in other money making efforts to help boost shortfalls. This is why Qld has had to sell off a lot of assets after the GFC and several natural disasters. Govt agencies (or local govt sections) then have to apply for monies to meet certain purposes, fund projects and employ new staff from those who protect these coffers (usually the Treasury depts. at federal and state level). It is rare that the two ever meet, ie that fines or application fees are used directly to fund the same work. Local govt could apply to the state or federal govt to access funds for a specific purpose (like more rangers to police state legislation) but here too, because of funding shortfalls they are likely to only receive base funding and would have to come up with additional monies through their own pockets to cover all salary and operational costs (vehicle for example) needed for a ranger. Base funding means that while a ranger's salary might range from $80,000 to $95,000 they will only get funded $80,000, so as an employee gains more experience or years of service that extra $15,000 has to be found internally. Operational costs are usually an on top percentage figure of base salaries and this percentage does not necessarily reflect actual operational costs either. And I have no idea what a ranger's salary is worth - just plucked those figures out of my head. Ah if only it were all so simple! Indeed. The motoring lobby have for years been trying to have all monies collected from vehicle registration to be directly put into roads and this hasn't happened for the reasons you have outlined. Even if it was a possibility, however remote, it would take many years and a great deal of cooperation from government all levels to achieve it. I think I see a flying pig.

I agree with your no dog should be out full stop argument hands down. But The Ayen Dog is not your run of the mill loose dog. part 9 of inquest saw the dog's first charge at the attacked family part 10 sees the same dog visit the neighbors opposite whom state the saw the dog and discribed it as wanting to play but were intimidated by it's side. part 11 sees the dog return to the victims in an aggressive manner and rush lady (aunt of Ayen) who hit it with a bag and ran inside, dog ripped bag and followed inside part 12 sees 5 yrs (daughter of aunt) attacked at the head causing severe injury. Aunt grabs dogs collar when she is bitten on the arm. 13 sees aunt try to remover her arm from dogs mouth 14 sees aunts call for hel and another female hits dog with table 15 sees aunt removed injured daughter, and calls for other lady to call police, meanwhile other children are in the house on the kitchen table 16 sees Aye and mother in lounge room scared on dog Ayen attached to mothers legs. when she was attacked and ripped from mothers legs by face 17 states mother heard 1 scream and saw dog thrashing and dragging Ayen towards kitchen. There is no reason for this dog to be that aggressive and as corvus and I have stated posts about experienced most dogs aren't like that. It was stated that the dog was able to escape due to a faulty electric garage door. Sometimes mistakes happen and sdogs get loose despite all efforts. My goldy boy got out last week cause he doesn't like the new pen. But he wouldn't try to kill multiple people. My dog was out a whole 40 mins which is longer then this attack in it's entirety. This owner didn't care about the law therefore this happened, but he had managed to keep them contained for the 4 years of this dogs life as there were never any reports of it being loose prior to the incident. And had managed to keep the other older dogs secure as well. yes we got owner bad bad man, lawbreaking idiot responsible for murder < not disputed. Ignoring all other aspects right now A once off unpredictable failure of equipment could see anyones dog out for a brief period but most other dogs wouldn't set out to kill. Returning to dogs temperament this dog did not bite and release as if in fear, this dog was not instigated or teased. And this got was not injured or frightened in any way. Annual vet check never returned any concern of mistreatment or malnourished. So what Santos and I are saying is this dog while probably un-socialized this would not result is such a Malicious attack by meaning of intent to harm and in this case kill. Would come down to breed traits aka genetics. So now dogs can have intent, that was a huge leap for that species. I stated that ages ago and specifically to you in stating the oxford meaning to Malicious. A Jack Russel when attacking a rat isn't just doing it, it has intent to capture and kill the rodent as instilled within it's genetics. or is this another it just wanted to play? T does not have intent it has instinct which is quite different. Until people stop attributing human felling emotions or ac to ions to dogs we will never solve anything

I agree with your no dog should be out full stop argument hands down. But The Ayen Dog is not your run of the mill loose dog. part 9 of inquest saw the dog's first charge at the attacked family part 10 sees the same dog visit the neighbors opposite whom state the saw the dog and discribed it as wanting to play but were intimidated by it's side. part 11 sees the dog return to the victims in an aggressive manner and rush lady (aunt of Ayen) who hit it with a bag and ran inside, dog ripped bag and followed inside part 12 sees 5 yrs (daughter of aunt) attacked at the head causing severe injury. Aunt grabs dogs collar when she is bitten on the arm. 13 sees aunt try to remover her arm from dogs mouth 14 sees aunts call for hel and another female hits dog with table 15 sees aunt removed injured daughter, and calls for other lady to call police, meanwhile other children are in the house on the kitchen table 16 sees Aye and mother in lounge room scared on dog Ayen attached to mothers legs. when she was attacked and ripped from mothers legs by face 17 states mother heard 1 scream and saw dog thrashing and dragging Ayen towards kitchen. There is no reason for this dog to be that aggressive and as corvus and I have stated posts about experienced most dogs aren't like that. It was stated that the dog was able to escape due to a faulty electric garage door. Sometimes mistakes happen and sdogs get loose despite all efforts. My goldy boy got out last week cause he doesn't like the new pen. But he wouldn't try to kill multiple people. My dog was out a whole 40 mins which is longer then this attack in it's entirety. This owner didn't care about the law therefore this happened, but he had managed to keep them contained for the 4 years of this dogs life as there were never any reports of it being loose prior to the incident. And had managed to keep the other older dogs secure as well. yes we got owner bad bad man, lawbreaking idiot responsible for murder < not disputed. Ignoring all other aspects right now A once off unpredictable failure of equipment could see anyones dog out for a brief period but most other dogs wouldn't set out to kill. Returning to dogs temperament this dog did not bite and release as if in fear, this dog was not instigated or teased. And this got was not injured or frightened in any way. Annual vet check never returned any concern of mistreatment or malnourished. So what Santos and I are saying is this dog while probably un-socialized this would not result is such a Malicious attack by meaning of intent to harm and in this case kill. Would come down to breed traits aka genetics. So now dogs can have intent, that was a huge leap for that species.

Yeah we know all that.......problem is we can't rely on people being responsible so the next step is to remove the type of dogs who kill and maul people when the owners are irresponsible.......the idea is to save lives and prevent the trauma of injury by dogs.....don't you get that What I don't get is how you and those like you can look at any and every dog and determine which are dangerous and which aren't. Sounds a bit like magic and soothseeing to me.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that Rubbish, unprovoked aggression is in the breeding, the genetics of the dog, until people accept this, there is not much hope of improvement really I can take the best bred dog with a great temperament and make it into a fear biter or an aggressive dog simply by managing it poorly and treating it badly. Breeding is not the cause of dog attacks the causes can be lack of awareness of the species and their needs, lack of proper management, a propensity for dog owners to think they are above the law, a lack of common sense etc. I watch every single day dog owners walking the streets with dogs who are unleashed, who do not pick up the crap of their dogs, who leave their dogs untethered outside shops, who let their dogs wander and who really have the attitude that their dog is ok.....but in whose eyes are they ok? I live in Victoria where the "draconian laws" are in place which seem to have made no difference to managing dogs well. Councils need to do what they are aid to do by rate payers and that is to police their area for breaches of their laws and by-laws and to fine people who are not obeying those laws. You can laugh all you like but people must be responsible for their property, their dogs and if they are not they need to suffer the consequences which should be hefty fines. ETA I live in inner city Melbourne known more for hipsters not bogans No you can't make a well bred dog into a fear biter unless the nerve strength is lacking in the dog, hence, not well bred dog. You can make a well bred dog handler aggressive with poor treatment but the dog has conflict with the handler not other people whom it has no connection with. Poor breeding does cause dog attacks as if the same owners had a different dog without traits of active/social aggression, in their irresponsible management it wouldn't matter as an environmentally stable dog won't bite people unprovoked. Plenty of people have dogs running off leash with no control of them whatsoever but they don't all attack people which depends on the dog, not the lack of proper management. Just in case you missed it, dogs are required by law not to run loose which means their breding or lack thereof is of no consequence.

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing. I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks. Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component. Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed. In my opinion.... Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions. Malicious isn't an emotion. oxford meaning= adjective characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm: he was found guilty of malicious damage a hotbed of rumour and malicious chit-chat the transmission of malicious software such as computer viruses I would class rushing into the home of that little girl malicious. Then you would be wrong.