Salukifan

The obvious choice is a Golden Retriever bitch. It would be smaller than your boy. Or do you want another breed?

If your friend had died while waiting for those poles, would that have been an acceptable outcome? Quick and easy sometimes saves lives and time delays aren't always acceptable. Sabbath I dont' think anyone expects it. But when a dog doesn't 'play nice' what then? Look I'm not advocating a 'shoot on sight' approach to these incidents but that dog had already put teeth on a member of the public and wasn't simply staying by his owner's side. He rushed a cop armed and trained to use one method of defence against a serious threat to his safety - and the cop used it. The outcome was distressing and hardly ideal but it did work. "Threat" negated. Police actions are continually judged in 20/20 hindsight by folk who've never had to deal with such situations and usually there will be a raft of armchair experts telling them what they should have done or how it can be done better. It's not that easy when you're in the moment, you've got a person in god knows what medical condition because you can't get near them and an animal that is presenting a clear danger to passersby and yourself. You do what you know. And public condemnation isn't a fraction of the angst they put themselves through as to how it might have gone differently. I'd not argue for a moment that cops are infallible. But here's a question. What else could those cops have done right there and then with what they had on them? You can hear them struggling to get people out of the area and the dog is rushing around and then rushes them. What do you do?? Wait to see if it actually engages and inflicts a career ending injury? Cops are continually expected to deal with the failures of society to deal with issues. Mental health crises, drunkenness, over doses, family violence and yes, animal aggression. It sobers me to hear young cops calmly tell me they're waiting for the results of the latest AIDS test on another human bite that they got. Spit, vomit, blood - all in a days work for community police. Lets not add dog bites to that list and lets not forget that rabies is one possible outcome of such situations in the USA.

No one else has mentioned this but getting your pup lean will also help him. Lab pups should not be 'roly poly'. You should be able to see a hint of rib. There is a link between excess weight and joint issues so trim him down.

I have one that can't swim and loves the water. It's a scary combination.

Bulldog breeds and pugs can struggle to keep their large heads above water. Quite a few swim like bricks. Poorly conformed dogs can also struggle. One of my poodles needs a float vest to swim.

That presupposes that you actually engage explaining your point by answering questions posed by posters and resisting the urge to post dismissively or insultingly. You've been dodging expanding on your posts in this thread for some time. "You are incorrect" and "why would I want to do that" isn't the sort of response you generally give when you wish to discuss a topic with 'due diligence". Debate involves the expression of counterpoints not dismissal of arguments in such a manner. Play the ball, not the man. My conclusion two days ago from our engagement in this thread is that you've got some kind of pre-existing personal issue with me. If that's not the case, then perhaps some adjustment in your posting style might be an idea?

What's the "mistake" I'm meant to concede? That I defined the qualities of a supposed "generic pet" as including no aggression? From that you interpret my response as suggesting that I think such an ideal is possible? No such thing as a generic pet Lo Pan. But shouldn't that be what breeders with no interest in function should be aiming for? I don't hold with the concept but if you throw breed function out the window then wouldn't that be what pets should be for most people? You said your breeder was producing 'pets'. You were asked a few times to define what "pet' was and you've yet to offer a definition. When I asked: Your carefully considered and constructive response was: I've discussed dog aggression on this forum often enough for you to know fully well that I don't hold that any dog can't aggress. God knows I've stated it often enough. But at least I'm putting ideas out there rather than focussing on finding fault with those of others. I honestly don't know what you want from me here. How does "you are right and I am wrong" do for you. No bloody idea what the point of this is but hopefully it might move you on from picking my posts to pieces by selectively quoting me. It would actually be nice to read what you think rather than what you think about what others write.

Obviously absurd, which is why I didn't reply other than to state that I didn't agree. Re the GR, I don't need to explicitly state that it's aggressive; aggression is implicit in the behaviour I described. Always dangerous to quote a person out of context Lo Pan: And here it is :)

Good question. I think that combinations of drives can be involved but I"m no expert. I do wonder however if there's a reason why certain combinations of breeds in crossbreeds seem to produce dogs that feature reasonably frequently in attack stories. If you take a breed with a low trigger to react, a hard bite and tenancity (but low HA) and cross it with a breed that's suspicious of strangers, territorial and bred to guard but doesn't tend to aggress as easily, it seems to me that certain individuals of that breed will inherit a pretty volitile combination of characteristics. Place such pups in the hands of someone who fails to socialise and train it and I think you've got a recipe for disaster. Frankly I think this is what we see play out in quite a few of the attack stories we read in this country. Some years back there was a litter of Golden Retriever/Maremma pups, most of whom became well known to trainers in this area. They had low triggers to bite (gundog genes), but bit hard (LGD genes) were highly territorial and very protective. At least one was also a serious resource guarder and aggressing to the owners family aged 5 months.

Sorry, but I did not say that. I suggested that surely those breeding "pets" would be aiming for zero aggression. There is the odd dog that will shut down rather than aggress but it's not that common. But you can certainly select for lower levels of it and its precisely what happened in fighting breeds when they culled dogs that aggressed to people. And now that they're no longer culling it, guess what. You didn't actually say the GR was aggressive by the way. You postulated that in certain circumstances he could be. I won't argue with you - I agree. They also seem to be more prone to resource guarding than some breeds - that's expressed in aggression a fair bit of the time. As for ingression being inherent in all dogs' temperaments, it's hardly a level playing field. As I said, we've selected for lower triggers to aggress, harder bites and greater tenancity in some breeds - that tends to produce higher levels of aggression in the breed, if not individual dogs.

I doubt you'd get many DOLers denying that any dog can be aggressive in the right set of circumstanes. They've all got teeth and they're all prepared to use them at some stage. However, how easily a dog can be triggerred to aggress, how hard it will bite in aggression and how long it will sustain its aggression vary. Those factors all have a genetic component and some breeds have been selectively bred to aggress easily and fiercely to other dogs. I named two such groups of dogs earlier. Only an insane dog will attack unprovoked. Otherwise there will be a trigger for an attack - but such triggers may not be recognised by those who witness it. For some dogs, the presence of another dog is trigger enough. Im not certain of what you're intending to discuss with this statement. Your mum's dog is a pet isnt' he? Probably bred to be a pet which is what you suggest most dogs are. What is he 'useless' at as far as she's concerned? Aussie3: There is an inverse relationshp between the incidence HA and DA. I'd expect bull breeds to be at the bottom of the list of bites on kennel staff - its how they were bred to be. But that is no indicator of how they are with other dogs.

No argument here then. Selecting for proven performance is always going to ensure a higher level of those traits.

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.

Yes, it would be hard. It would be unreasonable to expect every police resource to carry a catch pole. Sorry but thats lunacy...they already struggle to house the tools and devices they currently have that might actually make a difference - flakjackets for example. Where/how would a police officer, having to respond out of a vehicle, carry a 4 foot long catch pole?

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? No they haven't blamed him but they'd like to see him equipped and skilled to deal with dog attacks other than with what they usually carry. I think the the suggestion that every police officer should be equipped and trained to deal with aggressive dogs is expensive and unworkable. How much are you prepared to see your taxes increased to equip every police officer? How will motor cycle and beat cops carry their catchpoles, nets, tranquillers and every other tool folk like to suggest they employ. Will they now be expected to fend off an attacking police dog with a catchpole every year during their annual use of force training on the off chance that they might be attacked? Even rangers don't do that. And if they don't get to practice, are career ending bites an acceptable result for lack of experience? The issue is that a person had a dog that had a history of aggression and that had in that situation already had a crack at a member of the public. To expect your average police officer to have the skill and experience to deal with that other than by methods they know well and practice regularly is unrealistic. Here's a solution. Don't own a dog with a history of aggression and find yourself in a situation that requires an emergency service response and expect cops to do anything other than shoot a dog that threatens them or members of the public. Can you imagine the condemnation if that dog had attacked a member of the public while the cops were trying to catch it? Or if the owner had died while animal control were being waited for? The dog should be confiscated from the owner for this - he's clearly not going to behave in a manner that protects public safety were the dog is concerned. Local cops here aren't all equipped with tasers by the way. They are not standard issue and they don't always work on dogs. Sometimes the lives of dogs are not the priority and folk need to accept it IMO. If you want to own a dog that will protect your person or property then accept the fact that in emergency situations your dogs life may be forfeit. Choices have consequences. How would a catch pole have helped here?

Rebanne: Or expect them to wrangle an aggressive dog like a pro.

Perhaps its best to wait however long for animal control to arrive. After all, its not like anyone is going be in a rush to see if the guy is OK or give medical aid or anything. There's simply no "win/win" result here.

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.

Extended breed standards tend to be more enlightening. This is what the Whippet Extended Breed Standard says about temperament.

Sadly few breeding decisions are this clear cut. It's not "good v bad" in temperament, performance or structure or type in any breeding decision. Its a balancing act of all of them. It's ancestry and marrying lines to produce that drives good breeders. They're going far beyond considering the dogs in front of them. A dog of outstanding temperament with shite conformation is never a good choice as a breeding prospect. You do not correct structural faults easily and a dog that it not close to standard is unlikely to throw good type. Poorly put together ancestors can bite you in the arse way down the line. And poorly constructed dogs make for heartbreak pets, no matter how sweet they are. A dog of outstanding conformation that's won its arse off but has shite temperament is also a bad choice (although in my experience shite temperament means dogs will not show well). Good breeders also aren't just considering the dogs in front of them but what's behind them. They will research pedigrees and blood lines and talk about them until they are blue in the face. So sometimes grandparents or other ancestors will be considered in the mix. A superb dog from ordinary parents can be a questionable choice also. if you ask good breeders why they've done a particular mating, be sure to have a fresh cuppa and time to listen. The answer won't be short.

Then slow down. Instead of being committed to disagreeing with me, try a commitment to thinking carefully before you post. Those statements do not contradict each other. Doesn't interest me what others do. I evaluate what's said based on it's merit, not on how much support it draws from others. How bloody rude are you? How about you try a commitment to not patronising people you disagree with Lo Pan and take a break from dismissive comments designed to make you sound more intellecutal than others. It would be a nice change for you. You chose to start this "argument" by marking smart arse comments about my posts and you've disagreed with every point I've made (pretty rudely) while refusing to engage with facts, Why don't the two statements conflict?? How about some explanation rather than yet another assertion that a poster is not your equal. Comprehension is not evaluation. The fact you may not understand my points doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you "right". Merit has jack sh*t to do with it if you're misunderstanding me and somewhat deliberately it seems. If you cannot see the conflict between this and this: then I give up. How can no probabilities apply to the characteristics of an individual dog of an individual breed if some traits occur more commonly in some breeds than others?? That's it from me. It's clear you're more interested in mocking me than explaining your postion. Sayonara

Are you getting this pup from a registered ethical breeder? If not I would maybe continue your search because IMO 6 weeks is to young... No ethical registered breeder would be rehoming pups at 6 weeks without extraordinary circumstances and CC permission.

If you are breeding for colour and considering other issues then this is not the kind of breeding being talked about. Colour breeders breeding for demand will breed any dog to any dog provided it will produce the desired colour. Conformation and temperament become lesser considerations and they don't outcross to other colours to keep type. And the doubling up on recessive genes required to produce some of these colours is doubling up on some of the less desireable links to those genes - like skin and hair issues. Blues in many breeds are a case in point. The colour is known to create health issues but there are those churning out blue Staffords with not a care in the world about the welfare of the pups they're selling at inflated prices to unsuspecting buyers.

No it doesn't, assessing a temperament is a matter for individual dogs, not breeds. As a collection, it's true that particular traits are stronger or occur more commonly in one breed than in another, but on an individual level, each dog is what it is, no probabilities apply. There's two conflicting statements right there. Yes Lo Pan, individual dog temperament can be assessed. But the statement that started this argument was that bull breeds were no more likely to be dog aggressive than other dogs. That's a crock and you know it. Some of them were selectively bred for dog aggression and it still manifests in a considerable number of individual dogs. More so than in many other breeds. You've just ignoring the entire purpose of selective breeding - to enhance the probability that individuals within that breed will possess the characteristics sought. Temperament is one of those characteristics. Genetics are not lollies - you can decrease the range of characteristics in any living species by selecting for some and rejecting others over generations. Yes, individual temperament can vary within a breed. But the degree to which it varies is reduced within a closed gene pool. And that's the whole point of having breeds - so that even with individual temperament testing, you test less dogs within the pool to find what you want. There's a reason sheep farmers aren't testing Labradors for herding ability and the police and guide dogs have narrowed their testing to specific breeds - the rate of success in getting particular temperaments improves with selective breeding. Are you suggesting that there is no genetic component to temperament. If you aren't I simply cannot follow your logic. As for my 'mistake' - you seem to be the only person having difficulty comprehending me.

I would listen to Vickie. if the vet thought your pup's behaviour of sufficient concern to mention it, I'd suggest you contact a decent professional and have him assessed. Problems identified in pups tend to have better outcomes than in adult dogs - you more have time to work on solutions. If you want assurance your pup is "normal" get it from someone who's actually seen the dog.