sandgrubber

I know this both from having dogs of my own PTS, and from having, in several years running a boarding kennel, had to deal with a few dogs who faced their last days while boarding. It's hard. When someone comes into a kennel with an oldie who is tottering and books for a long stay, you really should ask them what happens in the case of a serious health problem. How much do they want to pay for emergency treatment, should there be organ failure (or whatever)? Do they want the cheaper form of cremation, or a private cremation, for an additional $100 or so, where they get their own dog's ashes back. People don't like to deal with these questions when they come into a kennel. So it often gets glossed over. I'm sure it's the same at the vets. Should there be standard forms, eg., an addendum to the stuff vets put in to make sure you pay your bill asking what sort of burial/cremation you want and are willing to pay for, should the pet not make it through? I don't know. Maybe it would be good for us to get desensitized early by seeing this in writing . . . and to be forced to make up our minds when we aren't grief-struck. But then, there's already too much paperwork in this world.

I am no fan of Bible bashers. But I'd have no problem selling a pup to someone who came with the Watchtower in hand . . . or who asked me if I take Jesus Christ as my personal saviour. I admit my prejudice. It is irrelevant to the question of loving and caring for a puppy. There are some people I like that I wouldn't sell a puppy to . . . cause I know them to be irresponsible.

Maybe this is naive . . . but how about going in to you local Rangers with the dog, stating your concerns, and making it clear that you're going to do socialisation, training, etc. Invite them to come look at your containment. The Ranger is a human being and most of them like dogs, but are under a lot of pressure from all directions. Can't hurt to establish an understanding before any problems arise.

Joke. Hope she gets laughed out of court.

The Mountain Cur isnt here but the Black Mouth Cur is.It has just been imported not the same dog but similar.Remember the movie old yeller.As usual I think you read too much into a breed description.Do you know what a tree dog or bay dog is.they are terms fromyour country not here.A tree dog is bred to hunt the quarry and tree it so it can be shot they arent holding dogs.A bay dog will trail the quarry and sound off and hold it at bay once again not a holding dog.They are more natural cattle dogs and bred as the quintessential american farm dog in parts of the rural south and yes they can be territorial but lets face it which breed of cattle dog isnt. I think breed descriptions should be taken at least as seriously as romantic movies. Temperament differences between breeds are real. Denying them is stupid. In the movie, Old Yeller was played by a Labrador X. Of course I know what a tree dog is, and I once had a neighbor with a pack of 17 bay dogs, making the full moon a notable occasion. I agree, cattle dogs are in some ways equivalent to the larger Curs. Heard plenty of stories of people being bailed up by heelers, and a few about serious damage. They show up in the bite statistics. Yes, other breeds cause problems. The breeds I have, personally, been bitten by are Irish setter, GSD, ridgeback, miniature poodle, and JRT. And in my days running a boarding kennel, heelers, shephards, and bull breeds were the types that required the greatest caution (for some reason, we never had trouble with any of our boarding Rottis . . . probably cause we happened to get a group of responsible Rotti owners). As someone pointed out in another thread, a lot of people agree with Matthew B, probably more than not. I think people who legitimately feel their dogs are threatened by BSL will have better success in defending their right to keep their dogs if they admit that dogs are unequal in both ability and propensity to hurt people and other animals. As I've said elsewhere, 'ban the deed not the breed' isn't a great slogan when the public is up in arms about 'deeds' and want to prevent further deeds. It's a bit late to ban the deed when a child is dead. I don't know the solution, or even if there is a 'solution'. Education sounds wimpy, cause the people who need educating are often the hardest to reach. Owner licensing is another thread in the general discussion, and I don't see a consensus emerging. But I don't think things are going to get better until people stop denying that temperament has a genetic component, and dogs bred for confronting bulls, bears, cougars, wild boar, etc. shouldn't be in the hands of inexperienced or anti-social owners, especially not in the 'burbs. I don't think attacking an individual who is marching to a different drum is constructive.

You needing to ask why the morons choosing this type of dog? The moron wants ezy aggression not dogs that need training is why they choose this dogs. Plenty morons owning other breeds also for tough dogs, but the other breeds from the morons not getting on the media for biting as much as these Bull breedings, so there is patten happening see? Joe Curious, Joe. I think I agree with you on the basics. Dogs bred for attacking bulls, bears, other dogs, large game, etc. pose greater danger and require owners who better understand how to manage their dogs, and who take responsibility for having a potentially dangerous dog. How can you prevent 'morons' from using such dogs to enhance some sick macho image of being tough--or, for that matter, prevent calculating bad guys from employing such dogs to protect their drug production facilities or other illegal activities?

Sense? Poppycock!!!! It is PC to say that 'all breeds are equal'. But it's not true. Breeds whose 'work' has involved hunting large, difficult quarry, or baiting bulls or bears, or both, are bolder and more inclined to do serious damage in the wrong hands. Gun dogs, on the other hand, are bred for soft mouths, strong bite inhibition, and low propensity to fight (a dog fight is the last thing you want when you're hunting birds). Sure, there are hard dogs in soft breeds and soft dogs in hard breeds. Soft breed breeders have a responsibility to make sure their more aggressive progeny do not pass on their more aggressive genes. I agree, it's better to come down on bad owners than on 'game' breeds. But given a few more incidents, legislation is going to come down on all dog owners. As a gun dog breeder who will gladly cull (usually by sterilization, but in extreme by the green dream) any pup or dog who shows signs of aggression, and who will verbally attack anyone in my breed circle who tolerates HA or DA dogs/bitches, it pisses me off to hear people deny that there is a genetic component to aggression. It's there. Any breeder who sells pups into the 'burbs as pets has a responsibility to avoid setting up nasty accidents waiting to happen.

"The dog that killed the child was reportedly not a purebred but a cross breed of the type often used pig hunters etc. Such dogs at least need to have a desire to stand up to and defend themselves against, if not attack, an aggressive quarry. I daresay out of a litter of such dogs 3 or 4 might go to hunting homes while the cast offs end up in the general community. If hunting with dogs was banned then there would be no need for such dogs but I don't think a government would have the political will to stand up to the hunting lobby." I think this is the crux of the problem. Question: What should happen to the cast offs? Is there a way to prevent them from going to owners who won't provide adequate restraint 365 days of every year, and training?

Aren't you fighting fire with fire here? Ie, looking for the part of the post with which you have a quarrel (exaggerating the alpha dog stuff) and ignoring the more substantive part (tough dog bred for big game, courageous, not recommended as a pet). Your moniker suggests that sympathetic rather than argumentative listening would be better. I think that some breeds are less fit for urban/suburban situations than others, on average. Not sure how to use that in policy design. I'm no policy expert. But I think that denial causes more problems than it solves; and you're going to have a hard time convincing most owners of small/gentle breeds that their dogs need the same measure of control as pig dogs and other dogs bred for courage in the hunt or the ring. Even pit bull advocates (see, eg. http://www.workingpitbull.com/whydodogsbite.htm) agree that dogs from fighting stock are a problem with irresponsible owners. The policy challenge is how to prevent the morons from owning the wrong sort of dog. I don't know how to do this without putting hardship on responsible owners. Btw, I think the bull breeds were more often bred for bull baiting and bear baiting than dog fighting. Bull baiting was dying out in the 1800's when bans came into effect. Dog fighting grew as bull baiting ceased because it's much easier to conceal a dog fighting event than a bull-baiting event. Most stud dog registries were closed after bull baiting was banned, and modern dog breeds, in general, weren't established until after that time. Btw, I haven't spent much time around hunting dog packs in the US south . . . but I suspect that doing so would increase my support for 'alpha' theories. I keep Labbies, and find the 'alpha' theory is pretty useless for my dogs. btw., Your moniker isn't correct. Backburning is effective, and often more used in wildland fires than water.

I can see Matthew's point to a degree. While all breeds can bite, some are bred for temperaments that are likely to become a hazard. Take the bull breeds out of the picture because many people have loving investments in t hem. Let's look at the temperament description for the Mountain Cur, a US landrace that, so far as I know, isn't found in Australia. I don't think this breed should be welcomed to suburban or urban environments. 'Cat' here is likely to mean mountain lion; a 'razor back' is a wild boar. Underlining and colour changes in original. This is not a submissive, easygoing dog. With the toughness and courage to confront a very angry, very large cat, these curs have learned to be decisive and dauntless. Usually silent on the trail, they make consistent guard dogs but certainly are not ideal for suburbia, where there is no call to work. Trailing ability varies with strains, but they have enough nose to follow game and many carry treeing ability. Some lines are bred for tree dogs and others for baying. This very tough large game, raccoon, and squirrel hunter is willing to face a squealing razor back or an angry wild cat when it is cornered. They have a strong desire to please their master. Very protective of the property and family; and without an owner who is more dominant than themselves they can become over-protective. The Mountain Cur is noted for his courage. This hunting dog will catch a mad bull head- on in the nose and will hold his ground even against a bear when threatened. The objective in training this dog is to achieve a pack leader status. It is a natural instinct for a dog to have an order in their pack. When we humans live with dogs, we become their pack. The entire pack cooperates under a single leader. Lines are clearly defined and rules are set. Because a dog communicates his displeasure with growling and eventually biting, all other humans MUST be higher up in the order than the dog. The humans must be the ones making the decisions, not the dogs. That is the only way your relationship with your dog can be a complete success.

As my grampa used to say: "All the fools ain't dead yet."

This wasn't a government speaking. It was TAS state Liberal MP Rene Hidding, and it's not clear whether he was saying ban crossbreeds in general, or something like "why bother with pitbulls when there are so many cross breed pig dogs around the place".

I'm among the skeptical. But I'd guess there is some useful action that could be taken 1) understanding what rangers do and what pressures they face 2) supporting them in doing a better job enforcing existing laws The brunt of any dog legislation is going to fall on local officials. Nothing will be done well if those people lack the resources, or the education, to carry out the needed work.

Not a breeder but I think what you are seeing is the show labs ( have bigger heads) and then the working labs have the 'skinny' faces and are usually leaner as well

I have owned all three colours of closely related stock, mostly bitches. All combinations but BBEE and bbee. There can be significant differences between lines, but in my experience colour predicts only human reaction to the dog--people are more likely to be afraid of a black--but says nothing about temperament.

It's a difficult problem. I don't think it will ever be fully solved. It's more realistic to look for improvements than solutions. The difficulty of enforcement, and the fact that the people who most need educating are likely to be the most resistant to education, bedevil the more enlightened approaches. Not to mention that enlightened approaches lack mob appeal, and we're facing mob mentality at the moment.

The problem with 'deed not breed' is that once the deed happens, it may be too late. The killer dog in this story had no previous, and I gather he was well fenced in. As endlessly pointed out, the problem with breed specific legislation is that breed is not a good predictor of aggression, and breed is often hard to determine. As also endlessly pointed out, aggression is not random: some breeds have higher tendencies to be DA or HA; more power = more damage; poor training, lack of exercise, abuse, etc. will bring out the worst in dogs who might otherwise not be aggressive. To make it worse still, whatever regulations are set forward are going to be hard to police, given the resources and mindset of most Councils. Can anyone offer a good solution?

Minority groups can have a significant impact on the attitudes of the majority. Being consistent and coherent is very important. Effective minority groups . . . but dog owners seem inclined to talk among themselves rather than working consistently and coherently to work the power structure or change public opinions. People worried about the fate of bull-type x breeds would do better phoning their state representatives, writing letters to editors, etc. than engaging in bun fights on forums, like this one, that do not reach the general public or the power brokers. (I'm as guilty as the next of this . . . but I'm no longer in Australia and my local and state government isn't going to go into BSL anytime soon.)

It doesn't matter where donations come from, but it does matter where they go. I can't find any guarantees that either of the funds listed will actually deliver money to the family, and both are associated with some ferociously anti pit bull text.

Like the plea for education and against anti-dog legislation. But I would have liked to see support for higher fines and possible jail terms for owners. I think the yabos who keep snarling beasts are hard targets for education.

If pollies need to DO something, why don't they pass legislation that makes it possible for people to be charged with manslaughter when their dogs kill someone? And why don't all the anti-BSL people stop moaning about BSL and get out and work to get the public anger redirected toward irresponsible owners? Sure, it's fun to have a good bun fight once in awhile. But this one is degenerating into a parade of fixed and well advertized positions. Not even entertaining. Someone reported that the owner watched and simply tried to call his dog off while the dog killed the little girl . . . don't know if it's true . . . but if it is, it's a disgrace that he get off with a fine. Keeping a vicious dog is pretty much like keeping a loaded gun. You're responsible if it goes off! The dog owner is a known individual. How come all the attention is going to what breed the dog is, rather than how the dog was (or wasn't) trained, confined, and kept?

It's sad that there are no signs of collections being taken. . . . you even have to search to find the names of the victim and her mother. I just sent the followint to the the Sudanese Cultural Centre in Melbourne via form mail: I don't know if you are in a position to facilitate. There is much anguish about the recent killing of Ayen Chol, and a number of people would like to make financial donations. We can't find a collection fund. If there is one, could you please provide contacts. Thank you. I'll report back if I get a reply. Their website is http://www.sudanesecentre.org.au I'm in the US so phoning is difficult . . . someone might want to phone cause sometimes such things get difficult via email. Eg, I think there are splits in the Sudanese community and this organisation may not be in the same group as Jackline Anchito and her family.

I can see the rationale for regulating powerful dogs of breeds / mixes with bad histories. But by the same rationale, shouldn't we add a few more restrictions on large SUV's . . . I'm sure they are responsible for more traffic fatalities than economy cars? When the cost of restricting the likely-to-be guilty put horrible costs on the almost-certain-to-be innocent, something's terribly wrong. Especially when current dangerous dog legislation is poorly enforced and easily evaded.

Bans can be effective. Dog fighting was banned in England in the 1890s. This didn't end dog fighting, but it sure cut down the amount of it going on. Dog carts were banned shortly thereafter. Sadly, this seems to have all but ended the use of dogs as cart animals. Living in the US, I envy places where there are strict gun laws. Lifting a drug ban generally results in an increase in the use of the drug. But if what you want to get rid of aggressive neighbourhood dogs, banning the APBT is a pretty backassward way of going about it . . . for reasons elaborated by many above. (In a nutshell, too much harm to the good guys to try and prevent a few bad guys from being bad . . . and many/most of the bad guys will evade regulations anyway).

Actually, there does seem to be a growing problem of aggression in Goldies. No way should this lead to a breed ban. But I do think some strong peer pressure should be directed to the bloodlines of aggressive goldies. http://www.ygrr.org/surrender/surrender-aggressive.html http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/are-golden-retrievers-becoming-more-aggressive/ I don't trust government to make good decisions relating to dogs. But it does the dog world no good to deny that there is a genetic component to aggression (HA, DA, fear aggression, any or all of the above). Those of us who breed dogs need to take this genetic component seriously.