Jed

If you are going to write one, or add to one, I think it would be great if it had some tips to choosing the breed --- big, small, activity level, grooming, and about buying the dog, not the pup.

Um, hello, I didn't disagree with a word you said. Covertly, you did, by presenting other methods. From a platform of nil experience

Ontario from http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare...stop-dog-bites/

Too right. I sigh when I see some 35kg 12 month old boxer I bred towing his owner down the driveway in his haste to see me - and I find he does this all the time, despite obedience training etc. Abby Dogs understand the check chain because the act and the reaction are almost immediate. It doesn't pull and annoy as a flat collar does on a pulling dog. Dogs pull because they haven't learned otherwise, and imho, treats etc don't work so well at this time, because there is too much sensory input. Unfortunately, dog owners now think check chain = nasty punishment, but used correctly, it isn't punishment at all. I train my pups on a flat collar, and before that, I teach them to lead without a collar or lead. When they follow, stop and start, I put a flat collar on them and train them with that. So the question of pulling never arises, and by the time they are big enough to be a problem, they don't pull, so there is no problem. (gee, that's Irish ) When I walk my dogs, they wear a flat collar or a loosely fitted soft web martingale collar - and like your dog, they might be a step in front, or a step behind, but they never walk in front of me, and I can go for a nice stroll with the dog. They wear slip leads or chokers in the ring, of course. With an older dog, it's easier on handler and dog, I think, to use a check chain for early training. And if the dog is very strong, or doesn't understand at all, go back to basics and teach in a confined boring space. He'll soon be all good on a flat collar, and like your dog, if trained correctly, he wont pull at all, so walks will be enjoyable for both. To the OP - one of the problems with pulling, jumping or out of control boxers is that when they were little, their funny ways, jumping up, being silly was rewarded. Boxers are pretty clever, and they do love to please their owners ... not as a Border Collie does though. By the time they reach 7 months, and they have exhibited exited behaviour all that time, they consider it to be what you actually want. So what you are doing intially, is training him out of excitable behaviour, so he will listen to you. Hence "brainwashing". A very wise boxer breeder said to me many years ago "never raz a pup. Treat him gently and affectionately. That's what he needs and wants. When he is about 2, you can raz him all you like. He'll love it, but he will understand by then to be calm". She was right. I treat all my boxers like this, they learn their lessons before there is any nonsense. When they understand "calm" - no matter what they are doing, I know I can raz them without repercussions.

Corvus, I think it would be more helpful and relevant if, rather than disagreeing on training methods for a breed you have absolutely no experience with, you had refrained from posting. Your post contains bad advice, and obscure methods which are likely to exacerbate the problem. Your mother's dog is simply badly trained. The reason she wont switch off is because she has never been trained to. Why don't you apply the methods you advocate to her and return and relate your experiences? Do you have any idea at all, even a glimmer, of the repercussions of doing this with a boxer which already pulls like a train, and is not contained at slow paces? Any idea at all? It certainly will give the dog "more time". More time to be in a flat out gallop and totally unstoppable, he will probably pull the handler over and the amount of force necessary to actually stop him will rip him over backwards or pull his head off. I would prefer not to be totally disagreeable, but I would hate to see someone, or their dog injured by taking this advice.

NO

If the vet suspected parvo he/she should have carried out a parvo test! To assume something as serious as parvo and only give antibiotics to the owner and tell her to take the dog bag if the antibiotics don't work sounds very unprofessional. A dog with suspected parvo should be on the drip, first and foremost. This is just pathetic really! I would expect better from a vet and the owner obviously doesn't understand the seriousness of parvo to simply toddle off with antibiotics in tow! Anyone with an ounce of common sense would not allow their dog to go on vomitting and diarrhea for weeks; downright bloody idiotic!!! :D Can't you read? Maybe revisit the post?

Probably would be handy if you read the thread before replying.

There are a lot of owners who have no idea whether the dog is well or not. They rely totally on their vet, and whatever he says is gospel. If he treats the dog, but it doesn't really improve, they cannot tell. Mostly they are kind, decent people and they want to do the best for the dog but they have no idea. I have had a couple of puppy buyers like this (never again). And sometimes you cannot tell them because the vet knows best. Not bagging vets either, these people often don't know enough to know that the treatment didn't work, or the dog is half dead.

I wouldn't bother too much about numbers. I don't know "how many" are But I would want to know Do the dogs have access to outside exercise areas? Are the dogs well groomed and clean? Are the dogs well socialised? Are the pups round, friendly, happy, and appear well socialised? Do the pups have access to outside exercise areas? And I would ask the breeder how much time is spent with the pups. The "look" of the adults and pups would tell me.

In every case which has been properly reported, there IS a trigger. I would suggest there is a trigger for every single attack - but owners and those bitten didn't see the trigger. In some cases, the trigger was there for months or years, but no one saw it. The case of the Border Collie in Victoria some years ago springs to mind. The dog, which was older, and belonged to the grandparents, bit a 6 (?) year old on the face, doing a lot of damage. The dog had always been good and trustworthy with the grandchildren. Reports indicated that the child was sitting on the dog when it attacked. Sitting on the dog was seen as normal behaviour by the owners. Ergo - the child had been sitting on the dog for years - the dog got older, maybe there was arthritis, the child sat on the dog, the child was heavier, something hurt, the dog snapped - the child's face was in the way. That is my interpretation. The dog didn't attack, as we understand it, the dog snapped. I don't believe dogs "turn". There is always an exciting cause, and a trigger, but no one is looking for the trigger, they simply euth the dog. Sometimes, when studies are done, the cause of the attack is unknown - but these are rare. Some attacks are pack attacks, some are territorial, some are dominance - and so on. Most attacks, both dog and human are by mixed breed dogs. A lot of attacks in US are by dogs which have been abused, or starved. The pitbull in Germany which fatally attacked a child in a schoolyard belonged to convicted criminals, was used for fighting, and on pm examination was found not to have been fed for at least several days, and contained a lot of drugs, including steriods. The dog was known to be dangerous, many complaints had been lodged with the police prior to the attack, nothing was done. St Bernards have killed more people in USA than Dobermanns. Yet no one would think a St Bernard would be vicious. Any large, powerful breed can attack and kill, the miracle is that, with so many dogs there are not more fatal attacks!!

I don't think so WoofnHoof - there is some educational advice about not letting children approach chained dogs, not leaving babies with dogs, not leaving children with new dogs, which is the result of studies on the reasons for dog attacks, but I don't know that it is in the public arena. And there is a lot of stuff about BSL being ineffective, as it is, from trainers, researchers etc. I think it is basically too hard to implement effective measures - and the bans negate government responsibility. However, I haven't done much research lately. The information is there, but governments don't seem to use it, although they know about it. Maybe some are? The answer in most European countries, Lo Pan, is more bans. Staffies are banned in some countries, GSD in others, large dogs must be muzzled in public in others. I've lose track of what the laws are where, and they have changed. At UAM conferences, it was obvious they did know, but the attitude was cynicism. I personally think that education about the right breed for the right owner would be a good beginning, and more educational material available to "the public" about how to handle and train dogs, and the importance of containment. People who buy dogs because they like the way they look, or take a pup from a neighbour without understanding the potential of the dog are part of the problem. Backed by enforcing containment laws, behaviour in off leash parks etc, and collaring of dangerous dogs AT the first attack, not the 10th, would go a long way to reducing attacks. However, and I'll be soundly howled down for this - dog bites are not terribly high, considering the number of dogs. In US, more cattle kill people than dogs do, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figures were similar here. However, attacks on dogs and people could be reduced, I think, if existing legislation was enforced.

OK, he's 7 months old. His brain is the size of a pea, and he weighs 25 kg+. When he is out, he is so excited about it all, he cannot process your commands, and the exciting stimulation he is receiving, so he goes with the exciting stimulation. Boxer pups need to be trained at 2 - 3 months. If you missed that (or someone else did) you have a problem. First, he needs to fully understand what he should do. Baby steps. Buy a check chain. You might manage to train him on a flat collar, but you will probably damage his windpipe in the process. Learn how to fit the check chain. It should fit comfortably over his head,but not have too much slack. Buy a medium thickness one, not a fine one, and not too heavy. If it is too thin, it might hurt him, which is not what you want, and imho, a very heavy one is not appropriate for a boxer. Don't but it from Woolies, buy it from a good pet shop, and pay a bit more. Begin in your own back yard. Say "walk" and lead off. If he walks nicely beside you, say "good dog" - not too excited, as you don't want to rev him up. If he pulls, go "uh" and a nano second later give one short sharp jerk (not too hard) on the chain, release immediately. Continue to do that until he walks nicely beside you on a loose lead. Don't punish him with the check chain - use it as a training tool, there is no need t o pull hard, or to continue to pull. Short jerk, immediate release then "good dog". Don't try to pull him backwards. Even if he pulls again after 5 steps, don't keep pulling. Continue with "uh", short jerk, immediate release, "good dog" - even if he manages TWO steps without pulling, he is a good dog. Short lessons, 5 minutes or so each, as many times per day as you can manage. Reward him too. If he walks nicely, keep saying "good dog" but in a soothing voice. When he will walk anywhere in the back yard on a loose leash, it is time to take him outside. Tire him out first in the backyard, throw a ball. play tug. If he revs up, take him home, put him on the leash again in the back yard. Then take him outside. Just for a short walk. Maybe to the corner. Pick somewhere quiet, where there aren't likely to be any dogs he can lunge at. Exactly the same routine. If he becomes over-excited, stop, quieten him, with voice, and begin again. Don't expect to actually go anywhere, be happy if you can get to the corner and back without him getting over excited. Until he is well behaved, don't take him for long walks. Play with him in the back yard to exercise him, or train him - sit, down etc. so that he has physical and mental stimulation instead of his walks. Once he sits on command, and he is walking nicely for a reasonable distance, teach him to sit as soon as he stops. Reward him. It is important with boxers, not to make the reward exciting, or they become excited, and forget what they are doing, at that age. You need to stroke him to reward, and speak to him in a low encouraging voice, not an excited one. When you can take him out without him pulling like the 6.04 express, see if you can meet some other dogs - you stop, he sits. Of course, he stands up straight away - you go "uh" and sit him again. When he is sitting and quiet, he can meet the other dog. He can walk over to it, as long as he is not pulling. I'm not much of a trainer, but I've never had a boxer who pulled, and I've trained a lot with this method. And some I've bred who needed retraining Once he is excited, you can't train, he needs to learn "calm" first. And that's why you are going to begin training somewhere boring, where there is no stimulation. Good luck. If it doesn't work, ask again. The secret is to brain wash him, so that not pulling is automatic, and he can do all those exciting things he wants to do, without pulling, and if he is calm, he will do it. it is really important to stay calm, do not lose your temper, do not punish the dog with the check chain - it is a traing tool, not a punishment. He will learn that pulling = uncomfortable, loose = reward and comfort. this is what you are aiming for. Oh, and don't think this is a very placid boxer - this dog's idea of greeting me is to jump around me in circles - as high as my head and she was as loony as could be. But she is well trained. She's a boxer, she loves to please me, and she learned early on how to do that.

The problem is that most of us are not "professional dog breeders". It is a hobby, and has to be fitted around whatever else we do. The weekends I have pups ready to leave for their new homes are very full on for me, and it's not the time to be talking to someone who has no intention of buying -- but I have plenty of time otherwise to talk to you, let you see the dogs, and spend a lot of time with you in the interest of you buying the dog which is right for you. I like people to be honest. If they say they are interested in the breed, but do not know if they want a pup or not, I'm good with that. I'll talk to them, and recommend other breeders for them to talk to. However, I really dislike wasting my time on someone who was never interested in a puppy, but purported to be. People looking at pups takes a lot of my time, because I like to talk to them, I like them to understand the breed, I like them to know what they are getting. I like to see them with the adult dogs. About 3 - 4 hours per visit for a puppy buyer with paperwork etc. If people say they would like to see the pups, but not buy one, they could come at another time, and see the pups, and learn about them when I am not flat out, and have time to discuss the dogs and breed with them. People who come to see the pups, and then don't like them are good with me too - it has to be the right dog, and if it's not, leave it here. It doesn't bother me. If you don't like the colour, or the eye, or the way it interacts with you, I'm happy. Don't feel bad about saying "no". I've done it, and I respect your right to do it too. As far as hotmail accounts and mobile numbers go, I've been caught by both these. I am a bit dumber than the average bear, but once I've learned a hard lesson, I don't repeat it. For me, there are many triggers for me not to want to sell a puppy to a person. Those triggers have been learned through hard and bitter experience over a lot of years. I want the pups I breed to go to the best possible homes. I talk to people, and if they hit a "red button", there is no pup. That might seem unreasonable if you are the person who wants a pup. But it ensures my pups go to lifetime homes, and if you miss out, it may just be that this is not the breed for you, or that you are not ready for a pup, or you may not be the right home for a dog at all. And it saves you having the difficulty of a dog or breed which is not suitable, which you can't train, or which harrasses the kids, or which doesn't fit in with your lifestye. I don't care if you are 80, or have kids hanging off each finger - you are either the right home, or not. This is only my opinion, but it is born of experience and knowledge. I don't care if you don't buy one - I am happy for them to stay here until their lifetime home comes along. It's not about money, it's about finding lifetime happy homes for those little lives I was responsible for bringing into the world. And it's about you too - I want you to ring me and tell me that this is the best dog you've ever had, or I'm the best breeder you've ever dealt with. Whether it is true or not is unimportant, what is important is that signifies that you are 100% happy with that life I planned for, mated the parents for, whelped and reared them for. That's why I bred them. And I want them to fulfill my expectations, whether it is strutting their stuff in the ring, or lying on top of your feet and tormenting the pigeons, or helping you eat pies on your worksite. And I have always tried to be the breeder my mentors were. I remember phoning up what turned out to be A Big Time Breeder, although I didn't know that at the time, voicing some serious questions and concerns about the breed. On reflection, I was such a numpty idiot, that breeder would have been within her rights to nick me off. Instead, she spent a couple of hours on the phone on a few occasions, spent an afternoon introducing me to her dogs, and found me the best dog I've ever owned- not one of hers, from another litter she knew about. She armed me with lots of information and advice before I went, and gave me constant advice and assistance for a lot of years after that. Willingly and graciously. But I told her the truth. Turns out she had a criteria, which I discovered years later - only 1 - "genuine" or "not genuine". I was genuine, so I got help. Be genuine, folks.

WoofnHoof Yes, in US. Most do focus on triggers - ie, dog chained, male with female dog in heat, etc etc, but groups of owners are mentioned

I note he agrees with Karen Delise ("Fatal Dog Attacks") on quite a few points. The "pit bull problem" is different in US, of course.

You're not wrong, JRM. But we talked on another thread about how there's a need for authorities (police, rangers...etc) to have criteria to follow in reporting on/investigating dog bites/attacks. Like they have for car accidents (they have 3). Just some mandatory standardised vital boxes to tick. All useful data to pull out to tell about the background & contexts for dog bites/attacks. Like, US studies have extracted interesting info.....which has led their Vet Assoc Task Force on serious Dog Bites/Attacks to say that going down the breed per se route in prevention, doesn't lead anywhere useful. Studies have revealed other interesting descriptors rather than just breed. Like, owners of offending dogs tend to have more than usual traffic offences, the dogs tend not to be registered....& it's not the first time the dog's shown marked aggression. So at a level of seriousness...medical treatment required...it would be mandatory to tick off a box if dog sighted....or not... & .to check microchip & also council registration & if ANKC papered. This data could then be pulled out to get accurate info. All great ideas, but it's not going to happen without some very serious footwork, and I very much doubt that anyone will do the work. It's easier to ban than to classify and categorize. Bans fly in the face of facts. As it's easier to ban than understand the triggers for attacks, and the type, as opposed to breed, of dog which attacks, and control that. It's all too difficult, and too expensive. And the bans are being driven by animal rights. Yep, tell me I am paranoid, but before you believe it, read what I (and others) wrote 4 or 5 years ago. Do paranoid delusions eventuate? I think not.

Unfortunately, the APBT and now the staffy have been, and continue to be demonised by the press, and the public believe what they read. If you mention to 90% of the public that no pitbull has been involved in a fatal attack in Aust, they simply do not believe you. And the STB is getting the same bad press. There is not much the "breed community" can do to lift it's act, because the problem does not lie with the breed community. The problem lies with skewed reporting, and misreporting of breeds of dogs, to suit an agenda. I have done the hard yards, some of the stats are real, a lot are not. And if you factor in the population of a breed in an area, you get different results. I am more interested in Australian stats than USA ones, because they is more relevant to the situation here. Someone mentioned in another thread that "pitbull" (generic) - was the most popular breed in US. This may or may not be true, as there are no stats, and numbers are higher in some regions than others, but judging by the pound stats, either 100% of pitbulls are dumped, or there are a lot of them around. Many authorities state this. "Pitbulls" are not only APBT in the stats either. Los Angeles reports that 40% of the dogs entering their shelters are pit bulls and pitbull mixes. Their 12 shelters receive 840 pitbulls a week. PSPCA in Philadelphia reported in 1999 over 4000 pitbulls were found wandering the streets, most scarred and abandoned, most were destroyed. New York City (2001) reported that pitbulls were the 3rd most populous dog in that city, after rottweilers and mixed breeds. Figures are the same all over. And are probably the same still. The big problem with pitbulls in USA is the fact that they are often owned by criminals and dog fighters, as well as those in low socio economic groups, as a status symbol. And the fact that they are so numerous, and care has not been taken in breeding them. Purebred pitbulls have a long and honourable history, owned by presidents, movie stars, Helen Keller, starring in movies ... and today, the same dogs are doing the same things. Many of the SAR dogs used to search the World Trade Centre were pitbulls. The "pitbull" problem in Australia is different. The pitbull problem in Australia is the media. The public in Australia has been led to believe that a dog which is not HA has perpetrated many many attacks on humans, when that isn't so. Stats are put out by various bodies, some are correct, some are not. The information available via the media about pitbulls is mostly sensationalist, and incorrect, yet that is what the public believes, without having seen a pitbull in the flesh, or having anything to do with them. One of the reasons you think you get jumped on, Sandgrubber, is because you use stats which are at odds with other stats, but fail to see the validity of the other stats, or fail to understand that the people you are arguing with either have some experience with the breed, or have done a lot of research, or both. For instance, in the USA, there are no known fatalities attributed to SBT. No one would believe that if you told them. They might have a few years ago, but not now. Dogs involved in fatal attacks include Irish Setter, Chow Chows, G. Retriever. Dacshund, Labrador, Pomeranian, Husky, Briard, St Bernards, as well as the usual suspects. Any dog can attack, what we need to do is not ban breeds and wash our hands, we need to make people understand why dogs attack, so they can avoid the triggers, and maybe provide the environment and care which reduces dog attacks. eg "In 1976, a 6 day old girl was left alone on the floor of an unfurnished apartment with a German Shepherd while her mother went out. The dog killed the infant. The mother admitted to not feeding the dog for at least 6 days." That's an extreme example, but when the circumstances of any attack are known (ie, known, not what is reported in the press) it will be seen that there is a trigger for most attacks, if someone will just bother to find it. I have never owned a pitbull, never will. I began by believing what was in the press - and then I did some extensive research, and the truth is at odds with what is in the press. Unfortunately, there is an overwhelming amount of information out there, and you need to read, check, recheck, and validate constantly to even begin to understand the problem. 3 boxers killed a breeder in the USA, boxers have bitten people, cross bred boxers have been implicated in fatal attacks (as have Labradors, by the way), so I can see that there could be a case to ban boxers, if someone got onto their case. And they will. Eurodog.

SBT123, whilst I agree with the ANKC distancing themselves from "generic" dogs, being purebred didn't help the registered pit bull, and I very much doubt that it will help the SBT - although the ANKC does have a bit more clout than the pitbulls had going for them. I would be very interested in the number of purebred, properly registered APBT which were involved in attacks. I would think very few, if any, but it is all lost in the media hype, so we'll never know. Any photos I've seen of "pitbulls" involved in attacks, both human and dog, were very problematic - mid size shorthaired boofy dogs, I would think. Exactly the same dogs which were collared, and are being collared. If anything is going to save SBT it will be proof of registration with the ANKC - and not getting into trouble. Whether the ANKC is up to the job is another matter. One can only hope so, because once the SBT is banned, it will probably be open slather on other registered breeds. And I imagine that government would require proof that registered STB were not involved in attacks. And there is no proof of that, nor will there ever be. A registered dog and a cross bred are the same thing to the people legislating. They fail to understand the difference. With dogbesotted, and a lot of experienced people, I don't think much can be done. I don't think the majority of breeders believe it will happen, so they wont do much, and the ANKC wont do much either, until it lobs on the doorstep, and by that time, it will be too late. "Everyone" should have stood up in the beginning, but 90% wouldn't, because it wasn't their breed, it wasn't ANKC registered, and "who cares anyhow, those pitbulls attack people and other dogs. They should be banned." "Everyone" - including the CCs - fail to see that in years to come, it will be their breed under the pump.

I'm not knocking the study, I think it is wonderful that there is scientific proof for things we know, but cannot prove. I am really excited to see all these studies about dogs prove different points. It's difficult for people to believe anecdotes, but scientific studies prove the anecdotes, which is important. There is a lot more depth to the canine race than we know, a lot of their abilities and talents lie in directions which are difficult to qualify. Guide dogs, sniffer dogs, assistance dogs, helpers for disabled people, and more and more abilities are being discovered, and will continue to be discovered. The talents of Endal, the assistance dog in England are truly wonderful, yet most dogs can do some of the things he did, without training. Wonderful thing, dogs, and deserve much better treatment then they get as a species.

I have believed for some time that more breeds would be added to the bans. I have noticed that SBT are now being identified in newspaper reports as the No. 1 attack dog, and this has been for quite some time. I believe this is to promote to the public that the SBT should be banned. Exactly the same thing happened with the APBT. People were led to believe that APBT were extremely savage, and untrustworthy - an uncontrollable killer dog - so the public agreed with the ban. The only disagreement came from APBT owners, and those who had some knowledge of the breed. Even now, people on this forum have read what was in the media, and believed it, so think the bans are good, despite never having met an APBT and knowing nothing about them. People believe umpteen fatal attacks in Aust have been perpetrated by pitbulls, when there has never been one. People believed that all those crossbred dogs which attacked were APBT, because the media so identified them. They will believe the same of the SBT. Wont take much for the media to convince the public, over a few years, that the SBT is just as untrustworthy and dangerous as the APBT. The public will consequently favour bans.

I know of many blind dogs who lead happy, fulfilling lives. the other senses take over, and as long as the owners make some slight accommodations for the dog, there seem to be no problems. Comments such as "it's cruel" are made from ignorance, and little animal knowledge. Better to ignore such comments. Or ask if they think blind people should be euthanased? A national magazine featured a dog born without eyes, which seems to be a happy, well adjusted dog, leading a full life.

Sending good vibes. I am sure she will be ok. Another dog might have jumped on her too. It's bad luck though.

I don't remember any vet I've used clipping a horse for an iv, even the shaggy ones, but I know some do it as a matter or routine. And those horses with colic who didn't sweat, Woofnhoof, what type of colic was it, how long did it go, and what was the resolution? I've seen many colics, and I can't remember one not sweating.

I probably would report it, so there was a record - but mainly because the owner gave you mouth when you tried to discuss it with you. Your arm looks to me as if the dog's teeth grazed it, rather than a full on bite, and it is probable that the dog did not intend to bite you - but it seems that he was threatening you, which is almost as bad, and very frightening. Hope you are ok. Not a nice thing to happen Also, what is a "full on attack" in your book? This sounds to me as if it was not really an attack, just an over active, example of a herding breed wanting a bit of a rumble. I hope an ACO will go and speak to her as the dog does need some training and manners. And the situation doesn't need to acelerate