sandgrubber

You can find kelpies in the US, and there are people breeding them as working or agility dogs. See, eg: http://www.kelpiesinc.com/kelpie_registry/working_kelpie_breeders.htm The ACD is another matter. Here in Florida ACD's, and ACD X's are readily available in most rescues, or cheap in local newspapers.

The pedigree American pit bull terrier emerged from a land race, called pit bull, or simply 'pit' in the US. The land race is especially common in poor areas of the South. If you do a web search on 'pedigree pit bull' and look at the resulting photos, you'll find that there is a lot of variation in pedigree pit bulls. Some are broad and muscled like they are on steroids. Some are lean and not overbuilt. If you're talking about a free roaming urban dog pack in Texas, you can count on some of them coming from the land race, though the wankers who keep pedigree fighting pit bulls almost never desex them, and their genes (which are hard to distinguish from the land race dogs) do find their way onto the street. Staffies are not common in the US, so staffy mix isn't expected., as it might be in Oz. You're right, the breed of the pack leader doesn't matter. BFD, pit bull. Good thing it wasn't a mastiff. Unlikely it would be a chihuahua (the other common breed-type in those parts). The notable thing is that dog management has disintegrated to the point where there are large roaming packs of dogs in a major metropolitan area.

It's a system. Empiricism needs to be coupled with causal understanding. High correlation may confuse cause and effect. Or two variables may be connected in a feedback loop, and cause and effect may be obscure. The feedback behaviour may be affected by changes in boundary conditions. Eg, over, say, 20 yr time horizon, do changes in dog breed ownership explain changes in aggressive episodes, or does social pressure to reduce aggressive episodes cause breed selection? Or have breeds, themselves, changed? Or all three...operating under pressure from higher population density, more indoor living, and less exposure to livestock and wildlife. We won't ever have good enough good numerical data to test these hypotheses via study of statistical correlations or cluster analysis. There's as much need for historians as statisticians.

Judges are more likely to look to statutes and prior rulings than to the dictionary. Legal terms often depart widely from common usage. I suspect, however, that this is a sterile argument, cause the number of dog owners prosecuted under this clause is zero, or close to it. I suspect that the UK law under discussion is, like the Calgary Bylaws, multi-faceted. Some reporter has jumped on one section and created a tempest in a teapot. Maybe I'm naive, and I know there are injustices in the justice system, but I generally think that prosecutors are willing to look at the circumstances, and can generally tell the difference between a truly dangerous dog and one that does minor damage. On the other hand, I do think that societies have become much less tolerant of dogs being used as protection, and dog owners who defy that social trend do so at their dog's and their own risk. Many places are approaching zero tolerance for dogs that attack children.

It is, or would be if the data were available, important to note differences between, say, the 5 year trend and the 20 yr or 50 yr trend. I would guess, based on personal experience, that over the long term, dog aggression has gone down because, with progressive urbanization and decline of 'country ways', dog aggression has become less tolerated. I'm in my 60s. I got bitten a few times as a child and that was viewed as ok. No one took action or was shocked or talked about law suits. Many people of my generation have had similar experiences. And then there's James Thurber's famous short story titled "The Dog That Bit People", written ~1939. The dog was a standard size Airdaile. It bit people, particularly guests, indiscriminately. The response, at Xmas, give boxes of chocolates to those who got bitten, and try to confine the damn dog. This was funny at the time. The only stats I have come across that show this are some I came across trying to figure out whether the famed Calgary model of dog control was working. (These show a long decline in dog aggression over the years before the new, much acclaimed, laws came into effect, and a small rise after the new laws were implemented). See graph below: source: http://www.calgary.c...Over%20Time.pdf note: the famous Calgary Bylaws were passed in 2006. If anyone knows of any other long term stats on dog aggression, it would be great to see them! I suspect that the most important long term trend is in people's preferences for guard dog breeds (shown by the huge declines in dogs like the GSD, Rotti, and Doberman) and the rise in popularity of relatively playful and friendly breeds (or DD's, or Xbreed types). The increase in popularity of small molasser / large terrier breeds, some lines of which are aggressive, bucks the trend. My very subjective reading is that in urbanized situations, particularly low income urbanized situations, many people feel threatened, and want a dog that can be both a companion, and a guardian. And some parts of youth culture go for aggressive posturing, or in the extreme, dog fighting. This goes wrong a lot. Hence BSL focussed on bull breeds.

Even with the increased number, it's still an incredibly low number for the size of the city. What I find surprising is how drastically the dog aggression indicators dropped from 1985 to 2005 in Calgary. Ie, the new laws came in after the problem was greatly ameliorated. See http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fCSPS%2fABS%2fDocuments%2fAnimal-Services%2fAnimal-statistics%2fReports%2520of%2520Dog%2520Aggression%2520Over%2520Time.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

Calgary's model provides a defence for the dog if the victim was trespassing on the property. The dictionary definition for "Trespassing" is: Unless there is some clause in Calgary's bylaws that state that trespassing does not apply if the person is under X years old, then I would imagine there would be no prosecutions for such a situation, as the dog/owner has not committed an offence. The reason their bylaws specifically mention being on the owner's property is so that the Council can still take action even if the attack doesn't happen on public land. But that would only apply if the person (adult or child) was on the property legitimately and with permission. This comes from. Legal-help FAQ that seems to be Canada-wide. http://www.cliapei.c...ations/CRI6.pdf If my neighbour's children wander into my yard, are they trespassing? The Trespass to Property Act says that no child under the age of twelve may beprosecuted for trespassing. Children often wander from their own yards, and usually thesituation can be dealt with by asking them to leave or by calling their parents.

Calgarians unleash torrent of dog bite reports Complaints have jumped fourfold in five years By SHERRI ZICKEFOOSE, CALGARY HERALD MAY 21, 2013 http://www.calgaryhe...1084/story.html Out of respect for copyright I've not reproduced the article. The author is careful not to say there are more bites...just that there are more reports.

It would be interesting to know how many people have been prosecuted in Calgary for dogs attacking people or other animals on their owner's property. I would guess the number is quite small, and I'd hope it didn't include puppies who knocked a kid over and licked her or his face. Has anyone seen anything written on this?

Evidence? Who needs evidence? Aggression is a subject that causes lots of anxiety, and lots of us love to talk about it.If you want some numbers, these are kinda interesting. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Documents/Animal-Services/Animal-statistics/Reports%20of%20Dog%20Aggression%20Over%20Time.pdf

I would be offended if I went into a doctor's office and the place was packed with expensive, highly commercial 'healthy' foods (but no fresh fruit or veg) and well stocked with leaflets telling me about trendy medicines for maladies I may not have.The high rate of product sponsorship, not only in vet offices, but also all over the walls of vet schools, makes me doubt the objectivity of the average vet...and makes me appreciate vets who give practical, sensible advice.

The US is a BIG place with lots of variation. Many many more pits in most places, it's true. But not everywhere is dog friendly, and the types of dog friendliness differ. Try finding a dog beach in California where you can let your dog off lead. I'm now in Florida in an area dominated by a large university. I'm amazed how seldom I see anybody else walking their dogs, apart from the occasional college student dragging a puppy on a leash. I joined a members only dog park cause I couldn't find a good place to socialize my two with other dogs. On the other hand, if you want to go hunting with dogs, there are lots of opportunities.

Is this the study you're referring to? Journal of Animal and Veterinary AdvancesYear: 2009 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 7 | Page No.: 1412-1418Factors Linked to Territorial Aggression in DogsJoaquin Perez-Guisado and Andres Munoz-Serrano If so, they found breed highly significant, though bull breeds did not show up as aggressive. I have my doubts about the study as it is based on opportunistic interviews with owners and sample sizes were small for most breeds. If bull breed owners feel under threat from authorities, they aren't likely to tell a stranger who walks up to them on the street. But someone who bought a mastiff as a guard dog might well beat his chest while bragging about how the dog barks at everyone and will attack any stranger who comes into the yard. Or maybe the Spanish tradition is to go for extra large dogs when they want a guard dog, keep the thing outdoors, and don't socialize. Meanwhile they are inclined to treat bull breeds as house pets. Just guessing. Dunno. I don't trust the study approach. I wish they had cross correlated breed and socialization factors. It would be useful to know if dogs considered by their owners as highly aggressive were all kept outdoors 24/7 and never exercised. Here's their table of highly significant factors affecting aggression.

Horrible story. Poor woman. Hope she survives.Stray dogs in Texas: of course there will be some pit bull blood. The pit is the favorite dog in less affluent regions of the US south, and the poor can't afford fencing. Bloody Houston. So anti government that they can't be bothered to control roaming dogs. Can you think of another major city that would allow the stray dog problem to get so out of hand that a pack of 15 could form? It's a disgrace.

I don't think it's a question of fault. If she had ripped you it would have been appropriate that she be flagged as vicious and her owners given a kick in the butt to encourage them to get her to a behaviouist or put up a 'dangerous dog' sign. If the goal is to prevent dog attacks, dogs with a tendency to attack need to be identified and put into some sort of management that makes them less dangerous. Waiting till the dog does serious damage and then euth'ing it is not nice.

On label use can also be dangerous. FDA Licensed pyretheroid flea meds nearly killed my old girl. I've had a whole litter of pups come down with kennel cough from the vaccine. There are organochlorides that are approved for flea dips and for ridding kennel premises of ticks. That's more toxic than I ever want to go! What's more, there are counterfeit pet meds on the market. If you buy discount on the Internet you may end out with something other than what is on the label, or no active ingredient. Careless use off label can be dangerous. Accidents with NSAIs, like Ibuprofin or tylenol, are pretty common and serious. Well researched, cautious, off label use can be pretty safe. Dilute vinegar for controlling yeast infections in the ear is quite safe...so long as you have common sense and go to the vet if the infection gets serious. All you're doing is changing pH. My vet recommended Benadryl for a bee sting once. I will use it again for that application without going back to the vet. Many breeders, often with vet recommendations, use livestock meds on their dogs. You need to study toxicities and dosages and be aware of possible reactions. You need to read the testing data on the product--they often do lab testing on beagles for insecticides. There are books, written by vets (eg, Eldridge, D.M. Et al, "Dog Owner's Home Veterinary Handbook" now on 4th Edn.) that advise on safe use of off label meds. Note, also, that most natural remedies are off label. It pisses me off that there is no real price competition in the pet meds market, and drug companies charge what the market will bear (bare?). It's as though they've learned that people will willingly pay $1/day to keep off fleas and ticks, so that's what we'll charge. This ends out with a situation where only the affluent can afford to take good care of their pets.

By my reading, the Calgary dog ordinances, which everyone holds up as the gold standard for controlling vicious dogs, might also put people up for fines if a dog showed menacing behavior toward kids who entered the yard to fetch a ball. I dont know the legal definition of tresspasser in Calgary, but I doubt it includes kids chasing a ball. Here's the text: The Owner of an Animal shall ensure that such Animal shall not: (1) Bite, bark at, or chase stock, Animals, bicycles, automobiles, or othervehicles; (2) Chase or otherwise threaten a person or persons, whether on the propertyof the Owner or not, unless the person chased or threatened is atrespasser on the property of the Owner; (3) Cause damage to property or other Animals, whether on the property ofthe Owner or not; (4) Do any act that injures a person or persons whether on the property of theOwner or not; (5) Bite a person or persons, whether on the property of the Owner or not; (6) Attack a person or persons, whether on the property of the Owner or not; (7) Attack a person or persons, whether on the property of the Owner or not,causing severe physical injury; or (8) Cause death to another Animal.

Speaking of colors, I haven't seen any chocolate-bashing lately on DOL. Have chocolate Labradors gotten accepted, or have the bashers just gotten tired and shut up?

I exported two pups from WA to Singapore. (Both puppy buyers were ex-pats working for major corporations and had decent-sized yards.) Although the requirements for import into Singapore are not horribly demanding, the logistics of meeting those requirements may be tough. Both times I exported, the puppy buyers and I decided it was easier to allow an experienced Singapore-based company handle the paperwork and arrival logistics. As I remember, this wasn't cheap, but it wasn't unreasonably expensive either. It was long enough ago that it's probably better to start fresh in looking for companies.

As my grandfather used to say: "All the fools ain't dead yet." That was 50 years ago, but it's as true as ever.

I agree with the general tone . . . BFD, vet prices vary . . . as do costs of apples and oranges. What I'd like to see, instead, is a well researched tirade about how drug companies jack up the prices for dog and cat medicines. So often, you can find the horse or cow version of the same active ingredient selling for 1/10th of the cost, and it's interesting to see how, when there (supposedly) is competition, the prices for online meds come out more or less the same. Eg, they know they can hit you for $1 to $2 a day for flea treatment, so they charge something in this range, even if the active ingredient costs pennies a day. Spinosid, the active ingredient in Comfortis, is cheap sold as an insecticide. Why is it so expensive bundled into a pill for dogs or cats?

Interesting. I didn't read the methods carefully, but thought it was something like factor analysis and putting labels to clusers. I also remember some of their tests involved someone dressing up in a white sheet and jumping out at the dogs. The fact that the Labrador shows up in the top quartile for aggressiveness suggests that his definition of 'aggressive' doesn't coincide with the usual usage of the word. My Labs put on a good show and don't back down when surprised, and would respond fearlessly to someone in a white sheet. They also seek out the source of power tools or gunshot. But faced with, say, attack by a Jack Russell, they look to me for guidance rather than going into attack mode. Probably better to put this in a fresh thread, but you say: "he's the only one I know of that has data to suggest breeding for the show ring essentially homogenises personality across groups". Has anyone else worked with a large enough data set to draw conclusions about show temperament? Has anyone reworked the Swedish KC's data to come up with different conclusions?

Referemces, please. The only such research I know of is K. Svartberg's 2005 review of temperament study of 13000+ pedigree dogs whose behavior was assessed by the Swedish Kennel Club. (Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96 (2006) 293–313). Svartberg tabulated four traits, called "playfulness, curiosity/fearlessness, sociability and aggressiveness". (I put this in quotes because I have quibbles with how the behavioral assessment was done. It looks like a dog that raises its hackles but does not attack will get classed as aggressive. ) Svartberg separated show dogs from working dogs (including dogs entered in any sort of performance trial). He concluded that: "selection for dog show use is positively correlated with social and non-social fearfulness, and negatively with playfulness, curiosity in potentially threatening situations and aggressiveness,whereas selection for Working dog use is positively correlated with playfulness and aggressiveness. Furthermore, correlation analyses show that popular breeds have higher sociability and playfulness scores than less popular breeds, suggesting that a positive attitude towards strangers is an important characteristic of a functional pet dog and desirable by dog owners. This indicates that selectiontowards use in dog shows may be in conflict with pet dog selection." I don't have the link handy, but you can easily find the full paper online by googling the author's name plus "curiosity/fearlessness". edited to correct errors introduced by cut and paste

The pedigree has potential, but as used, it hides as much as it reveals. How I wish pedigrees were kept like human family trees, with records of year of birth and death. I would love to be able to select for longevity! The easiest thing to pick up from a pedigree, how many titles are behind a dog, is hardly definitive. It does tell whether the owners of a dog's ancestors entered their dogs in dog shows, and it will let you select for dogs that did well in both bench and field. It tells you nothing of a fantastic, healthy dog that was never entered in a show. It lets you see whether there has been line breeding or inbreeding in the last three to five generations. But it's hard work to extend that back to eight to 12 generations as required to get an accurate read on COI. If you want to find out whether the lines are prone to early onset cancer, epilepsy, behavioural problems, or other grave, potentially genetic faults, forget it. Btw, there are dogs that don't have the right look for the breed whose pedigrees are faultless. If you breed two solid colored Labradors who are heterozygous at the K locus, you can expect that around 1/4 of the pups will come out with mismarks, eg., some brindling or black and tan looks. The pedigree does not guarantee against recessive traits that occasionally get expressed through the lottery of genetic mixing.

Thanks Nekhbet. Useful info, and you're right about the binders and fillers being potentially hazardous even if the active ingredient is fine. My old girl went into cluster seizures on pyretheroids (the artificial ones) in a spot on flea control product, so I'm a little afraid of pyrethrin.