Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[Cosmolo]

What Tess and Kavik said The identification of certain genetic predispositions in a puppy mean that training and socialisation can be geared in a certain way. But the propensity for certain behaviour has to be there- both good and bad.

I don't think anyone is arguing that critical period socialisation has no relevance- i'm certainly not. But you can't deny the genetic potential for some behaviours in some dogs- thats why we breed purebred dogs!!

[Souff]

lets put this dog breeding talk into human context.

Why?

Dogs are not human.

Souff

[huski]

What Tess and Kavik said The identification of certain genetic predispositions in a puppy mean that training and socialisation can be geared in a certain way. But the propensity for certain behaviour has to be there- both good and bad.

I don't think anyone is arguing that critical period socialisation has no relevance- i'm certainly not. But you can't deny the genetic potential for some behaviours in some dogs- thats why we breed purebred dogs!!

No, i'd never argue that but do you really agree that the majority of aggression displayed in dogs is entirely genetic? Am I really the only one who thinks that the way we train and socialize our dogs is also integral??

[Souff]

What Tess and Kavik said The identification of certain genetic predispositions in a puppy mean that training and socialisation can be geared in a certain way. But the propensity for certain behaviour has to be there- both good and bad.

I don't think anyone is arguing that critical period socialisation has no relevance- i'm certainly not. But you can't deny the genetic potential for some behaviours in some dogs- thats why we breed purebred dogs!!

No, i'd never argue that but do you really agree that the majority of aggression displayed in dogs is entirely genetic? Am I really the only one who thinks that the way we train and socialize our dogs is also integral??

Training and socialisation is vital.

But if the wiring is there for the dog still to unpredictably "go off" then the former is of very limited value.

Ever seen a dog attack and then appear to be sorry for its actions? I have.

And the owner had done all of the right things.

The dog went to God.

And owner wished that they had taken the hard decision when they had seen the unpredictability upon maturity - before the dog attacked.

Souff

[Cosmolo]

Seriously Huski- i didn't say that, read the post again.

Would you buy a puppy from a litter of Cavaliers for herding? Or would you buy a border collie, kelpie or cattle dog pup because of the POTENTIAL for the dog to herd more successfully. It wouldn't matter what you did to the Cavalier in terms of upbringing- it still wouldn't be a herding dog.

[Souff]

Seriously Huski- i didn't say that, read the post again.

Would you buy a puppy from a litter of Cavaliers for herding? Or would you buy a border collie, kelpie or cattle dog pup because of the POTENTIAL for the dog to herd more successfully. It wouldn't matter what you did to the Cavalier in terms of upbringing- it still wouldn't be a herding dog.

Oh I don't know ...... if the Cavvies think there is some food in the herd you might have half a chance of training them to be herding dogs

Souff

[poodlefan]

Another excellent paper on the subject of dog aggression to people and which includes some discussion of breed, can be found here

Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers rate a mention. Bear in mind that breed popularity plays its part in how frequently such dogs rate in statistics.

Edited March 24, 2010 by poodlefan

[huski]

Cos, I am not arguing about the importance of genetics, as I have stated many times. I disagree with the posters who have said the majority of aggression is purely genetic and is not in any way influenced by environmental factors. Why place any importance on training and socializing our dogs if that is the case?

Edited March 24, 2010 by huski

[WoofnHoof]

Cos, I am not arguing about the importance of genetics, as I have stated many times. I disagree with the posters who have said the majority of aggression is purely genetic. Why place any importance on training and socializing our dogs if that is the case?

Because it enables you to manage the behaviour, a dog with a predisposition for agressive or fearful behaviour is always going to have that predisposition but it can be managed effectively so that the behaviour is less likely to manifest.

[Souff]

Another excellent paper on the subject of dog aggression to people and which includes some discussion of breed, can be found here

Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers rate a mention. Bear in mind that breed popularity plays its part in how frequently such dogs rate in statistics.

Good article Poodlefan.

It talks about the size of the dog and the fact that more damage is done by a larger and more powerful animal, something which is rarely discussed.

Souff

[poodlefan]

Good article Poodlefan.

It talks about the size of the dog and the fact that more damage is done by a larger and more powerful animal, something which is rarely discussed.

Souff

Equipping yourself with knowledge of the research certainly helps take some of the heat out of these discussions. The fact that larger dogs can inflict more damage is a rather inconvenient truth to some anti-BSL campaigners but its a no brainer that needs to be acknowledged up front.

Note also it discussed how victims can exacerbate an attack.. that's not a blame game, that's acknowledgement of how struggling triggers further aggression.

Dog attack researchers commonly note two issues with breed ID:

* It's notoriously unreliable

* You need to factor in breed popularity before making conclusions about any breed's propensity for aggression.

My personal view on the whole APBT thing is that people need to acknowledge:

*It's a very powerful breed

* It's commonly sought after by people keen to evoke a tough image (its the urban criminal's dog of choice)

* There's a hell of a lot of ignorant and irresponsible folk involved in breeding and owning this dog

* They are not being rigorously culled if they display aggression to people...

The APBT is a victim of its image and there are many very poor examples of the breed. Driving it underground has compounded all the problems I've outlined above.

Edited March 24, 2010 by poodlefan

[Souff]

Good article Poodlefan.

It talks about the size of the dog and the fact that more damage is done by a larger and more powerful animal, something which is rarely discussed.

Souff

Equipping yourself with knowledge of the research certainly helps take some of the heat out of these discussions. The fact that larger dogs can inflict more damage is a rather inconvenient truth to some anti-BSL campaigners but its a no brainer that needs to be acknowledged up front.

Note also it discussed how victims can exacerbate an attack.. that's not a blame game, that's acknowledgement of how struggling triggers further aggression.

Logic and acknowledgement of the factors are often lacking in the emotional arguments.

Victims can certainly exacerbate an attack, and sometimes that is done by the victim trying to rescue their cat, their child, their small dog.

I don't know what the woman did to annoy this dog, or why she did it, but I am not going to make excuses for a dog who did this.

Souff

[Souff]

Good article Poodlefan.

It talks about the size of the dog and the fact that more damage is done by a larger and more powerful animal, something which is rarely discussed.

Souff

Equipping yourself with knowledge of the research certainly helps take some of the heat out of these discussions. The fact that larger dogs can inflict more damage is a rather inconvenient truth to some anti-BSL campaigners but its a no brainer that needs to be acknowledged up front.

Note also it discussed how victims can exacerbate an attack.. that's not a blame game, that's acknowledgement of how struggling triggers further aggression.

Dog attack researchers commonly note two issues with breed ID:

* It's notoriously unreliable

* You need to factor in breed popularity before making conclusions about any breed's propensity for aggression.

My personal view on the whole APBT thing is that people need to acknowledge:

*It's a very powerful breed

* It's commonly sought after by people keen to evoke a tough image (its the urban criminal's dog of choice)

* There's a hell of a lot of ignorant and irresponsible folk involved in breeding and owning this dog

* They are not being rigorously culled if they display aggression to people...

The APBT is a victim of its image and there are many very poor examples of the breed. Driving it underground has compounded all the problems I've outlined above.

Well said Poodlefan, except that I would not isolate it to the APBT.

Dangerous, crossbred, large sized dogs of many types are sought after by the lunatics who want to own a dog that will rip the arms off people.

Governments and the RSPCA have been hellbent on legislating many things in relation to dogs these last 10 years. And what has it done?

Driven the problems underground.

The rest of the dog world is now covered with a very long shadow that has been cast by unrealistic owners and breeders of dangerous dogs.

Suffer little children. Pity the innocent victims who were jogging past an enraged dog's home. But they wont put their dog down until the worst happens.

Meanwhile the lawmakers are still in office, still in their cosy well paid government jobs.

Souff

Edited March 24, 2010 by Souff

[HugUrPup]

Another excellent paper on the subject of dog aggression to people and which includes some discussion of breed, can be found here

Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers rate a mention. Bear in mind that breed popularity plays its part in how frequently such dogs rate in statistics.

Good article Poodlefan.

It talks about the size of the dog and the fact that more damage is done by a larger and more powerful animal, something which is rarely discussed.

Souff

*meh* Anne and I mention that all the time hence our preference for pugs

[~Anne~]

What Tess and Kavik said The identification of certain genetic predispositions in a puppy mean that training and socialisation can be geared in a certain way. But the propensity for certain behaviour has to be there- both good and bad.

I don't think anyone is arguing that critical period socialisation has no relevance- i'm certainly not. But you can't deny the genetic potential for some behaviours in some dogs- thats why we breed purebred dogs!!

No, i'd never argue that but do you really agree that the majority of aggression displayed in dogs is entirely genetic? Am I really the only one who thinks that the way we train and socialize our dogs is also integral??

I don't think anyone is saying that though. My argument is that people can not say that genetics do not play a part. It simply isn't true and it blows our arguments for whay a purebred dog is a preferred choice out of the water.

Pugger - I agree. I usually use the term 'powerful and large' breeds as there are many more than just the APBT that I would personally consider to be a breed not matched to certain types of people and families. The Pug lacks strength and size which is a bonus. Over the eyars, we have had many scuffles between dogs with the rescues coming and going and we have only ever once had one draw blood. He managed to latch onto an ear and there was a small mark that oozed a drop of blood. Their face shape and their lack of aggressive drive ensures the only damage they inflict is usually accidental and very minimal.

[huski]

Cos, I am not arguing about the importance of genetics, as I have stated many times. I disagree with the posters who have said the majority of aggression is purely genetic. Why place any importance on training and socializing our dogs if that is the case?

Because it enables you to manage the behaviour, a dog with a predisposition for agressive or fearful behaviour is always going to have that predisposition but it can be managed effectively so that the behaviour is less likely to manifest.

But if (for example) a dog that is more predisposed to aggression is raised and trained properly, and does not become aggressive, yet had it not been raised and trained properly it would have become aggressive - how can we argue that environment plays no part in aggression?

I am not saying that aggression is never genetic, or that it's untrue that you can do everything right and still have a dog who develops aggression, just that I cannot fathom how the majority is entirely genetic and not influenced by environment on any level.

[~Anne~]

lets put this dog breeding talk into human context.

pitbulls are born aggressive -

So a human child who is born from say a father who is a murderer and a mother who is extremely aggressive and abusive means the child will turn out to be an aggressive killer?

you could claim a mother who births a child who's father was actually a rapist is giving life to another rapist.

ridiculous..

forget the fact that in the breed standard for pitbulls aggression is not bred for. Every animal is an individual, while yes sometimes the breeding of two aggressive dogs CAN cause the young to inherit this behaviour, there will always be a case of two wrongs making a right, so two negative dogs will make a positive dog. I dont believe a species should be condemned because a few of that one species killed people.. It would be the equivalent of wiping out a country because a few of the people from that country were terrorists.

Not neccessarily, however a child born to parents who have specific personality traits that are common to those who are murderers and similar, such as risk taking behaviour and addictive personalities, WILL have a higher chance of getting themselves into trouble. The environment and experiences they have will also determine if those behaviours are used for good or evil.

[huski]

I don't think anyone is saying that though. My argument is that people can not say that genetics do not play a part. It simply isn't true and it blows our arguments for whay a purebred dog is a preferred choice out of the water.

That is exactly what some posters are saying;

Edit: Sorry i forgot to answer your initial question - yes i feel that the majority of dogs that show aggression are this way because they are born that way.

I totally agree that genetics is also integral and very important, like I have said several times, that is why I buy purebred dogs. But I do not feel that genetics is solely responsible for the majority of aggression we see in dogs.

I do not think you can ever erase natural instinct, but I do think you can harness it and use it to your advantage.

Edited March 24, 2010 by huski

[Guest Tess32]

Cos, I am not arguing about the importance of genetics, as I have stated many times. I disagree with the posters who have said the majority of aggression is purely genetic and is not in any way influenced by environmental factors. Why place any importance on training and socializing our dogs if that is the case?

I don't think anyone is saying environment doesn't INFLUENCE the manifestion of aggression, but that the propensity in the first place is genetic.

On another note, while it's true that Owners should understand dog behaviour and it is reasonably easy in cases where the aggression is dominance/poor leadership related -there are other kinds of temperaments where I really don't blame most people for not realising it could lead to aggression.

I would use my dog as the eg here, because while I own what he did - I don't think ANYONE would have predicted he could attack when he is basically an exceedingly friendly, people oriented dog. You can only expect most people to have general dog behaviour knowledge.

[~Anne~]

It's dumb to argue that the way we raise, socialise and train our dogs has no impact on their temperament.

Considering that the vast majority of aggression in dogs is fear based, how many dogs do you think are simply born that way? Are you saying that even if a pug was mistreated from eight weeks of age or younger, that they would still remain free of any behaviourial issues?

I'm not trying to say all dogs are created equal - we all know that certain types of dogs are better suited to certain types of people. BUT - aggressive dogs can be and are created, every day. It's "total crap" to assume most aggressive dogs are just born that way and believing so does nothing to promote responsible ownership and serves only to lull people into a false sense of security - buy a certain breed of dog and it will just magically grow into the perfect pet, regardless of how you raise, socialise or train it. That. Is. Total. CRAP!

Every dog, cat and human even is BORN with certain behaviour traits. The experiences they have will help shape how those behaviour traits manifest as well. However, they are born with them.

We argue this when we advise people to buy purebred dogs. Buy a Cavvie, they're family friendly. Buy a Pug, they're non aggressive. Buy a Maremma, they're fabulous guard dogs. Buy a Border Collie, they're great at herding. We state "Buy a purebred and you know what you are getting!" We tell people that we can determine the temperament, the look, the longevity and the diseases, purely by the breed. And yet we argue on the other hand that there are any breeds that have character traits that can lead to aggression. Come on. Lets not be hypocritical. We can't say this when we want someone to buy a purebred but then ignore it when it comes to thses issues.

A pug, who is abused, may develop behaviour traits that need to be managed but there is less liklihood that the behaviour that unfolds will be aggression related. In all of the Pugs that come though my home, some who came from abusive backgrounds, I only ever had ONE that showed DA and I have never, ever, ever, ever had one that showed any HA.

I am not saying that the Pug is perfect, but it is at the total opposite end of the spectrum of many large powerful breeds. Aggression is NOT a trait of the Pug. It does happen, but it is rare. There are many breeds where aggression is more common. It is a breed trait. I don't care which way you want to argue it.