Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[Sandra777]

For you to even insinuate that people who prefer docile, small or less powerful dogs are causing BSL to grow is pathetic.

Your post has to be the most stupid and ill thought out post I have read in a long time on here. You talk of someone who prefers a Pug as causing a divide in the dog world when your post is what causes divide.

If you honestly believe the entire issue here is the protection of the public then you are very deluded.

Do you honestly believe that once the do-gooders and animal rights nutters have finished raving about the dangers of the bull breeds they're all going to go home and take up knitting?

You do know that many governements are looking to bring in laws to prevent "deformed" breeds such as the Pug being permitted to continue in their current form?

No I am not insinuating that your preference for a specific breed which is not affected by BSL at this point in time is contributing to the spread of BSL - however IMO if you fail to stand up for right of people to prefer their specific breed you lose your right to prefer your specific breed.

Take off your blinkers and look at the real world. There are powerful groups out there who want to prevent people owning pet dogs. Period.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Sandra777

[Souff]

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

And it is that attitude, whether you mean it humorously or semi-seriously or not, that will sink everyone.

I have Pugs so I don't care if they ban all those "big powerful nasty dogs that are born vicious"

Oh no, now the law makers have decided my "hideously deformed Pugs" need to be banned too.

What's that old saying about hanging together or we'll surely hang separately?

If Souff is going to be hanged then I would be prefer not to be hung with a bunch who chose to breed dangerous dogs.

String me up with the deranged if you will, but I cannot defend the breeding of dangerous dogs.

Souff

[poodlefan]

Greytmate:

if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training,

I choose to disagree with you there Greytmate. The aim of the socialisation and training for different breeds may not be identical but the same effort is required. People who think Whippets are timid dogs (and that's a lot of folk) need to meet Howard my boy. He's outgoing, confident and friendly with strange people and dogs. The fact that I socialised the pants of him as a bub and keep that up is not a coincidence in my eyes. He was a confident pup but I chose to build on that, not take it for granted.

If you want any chance of recalling a sighthound that has to be constantly practiced also.

I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all.

Edited March 25, 2010 by poodlefan

[Guest Tess32]

I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all.

Do you think it's a myth completely (they don't exist) or just the prevalance of them?

[HugUrPup]

And there we have it, that's what the ignorant, uneducated idiots who are commenting on the article on the news sites are saying, great to see a fellow dog lover bringing it up. Comparing wild animals to large dogs will be the end of them.

I am not speaking about specific breeds of dogs when comparing lions and bears. I am saying that if ANY breed of dog has the potential to cause such horrific injuries like the ones suffered by this 67 year old women, then people MUST do as a bear or lion handler would in a zoo or circus (that's another thread, totally against exploitation of circus animals) and bloody well educate themselves and not just be nuff nuffs like in Texas and get them because they are exotic or look cool etc etc

My point has totally being missed and it seems some of you are picking apart my posts and taking them out of context to build an attack. Trust me I am not for the banning of breeds, I am for the forced education for potential pet owners. Like with ANY breed, make sure you know about them and make sure you can handle them (for the protection of yourselves and others) before getting one.

[Bindii]

You do know that many governements are looking to bring in laws to prevent "deformed" breeds such as the Pug being permitted to continue in their current form?

No I am not insinuating that your preference for a specific breed which is not affected by BSL at this point in time is contributing to the spread of BSL - however IMO if you fail to stand up for right of people to prefer their specific breed you lose your right to prefer your specific breed.

Take off your blinkers and look at the real world. There are powerful groups out there who want to prevent people owning pet dogs. Period.

It's interesting that you are going on so much about deformed pugs etc etc when i've read many-a post where Anne is concerned for the health of pugs being bred. She has been involved in rescue for years (still?) and has seen a lot of health issues in the breed but protects them for the gorgeous nature. We're talking about temperament. I understand where you are coming from about BSL but i actually don't think Anne will disagree with you on that one

[poodlefan]

I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all.

Do you think it's a myth completely (they don't exist) or just the prevalance of them?

I think biddability and people focus can be selectively bred for but I've yet to meet a dog, for example that, recalls under any level of distraction and that hasn't been trained to do so. Obedient dogs IMO are the product of genetics and training.. in varying combinations.

We all know (and studies show) that bite inhibition needs to be trained and can only be effectively trained in a pup.

I think the high level of prevalence of very popular, supposedly 'tolerant' breeds like Labs and GRs in bite stats also reflects that people take that trait for granted in those breeds and in individual dogs. How often has it been said here (including by me) that a dog that is great with kids has been raised, not born, that way.

You put even the most tolerant and obedient breed in the hands of those who indiscriminately breed, not selecting for sound temperament, whelp the pups in non-domestic environments, wean and ship at 5 weeks and sell to owners with no interest or inclination to socialise and train and you're begging for problems.

And guess what.. that's what's occuring overseas and I anticipate will happen here. Happy, stable well adjusted family dogs do not do what this dog did. What I'd like to know is more about this individual dog, not just what breed or breeds it was.

Edited March 25, 2010 by poodlefan

[Greytmate]

If Souff is going to be hanged then I would be prefer not to be hung with a bunch who chose to breed dangerous dogs.

String me up with the deranged if you will, but I cannot defend the breeding of dangerous dogs.

Souff

Yep. Let's not all align ourselves with the lowest common denominator.

Let us do the best we can do, and if that makes us better than those that don't do their best, that is their problem not ours.

The problem that is this topic, may be seen to belong to all dog owners. We have to reject that, and if that causes problems for bad owners and bad breeders, I don't care. The problem could have been avoided, and most easily avoided if the dog had never been bred at all.

I don't advocate cross breeding dogs, I don't advocate owning bull breed crosses, the list goes on. The reputation of all dogs is being damaged by those ignorant people that breed or obtain dogs. I am happy to help educate them, but I will never stand by them or align myself with them.

[Greytmate]

Greytmate:

if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training,

I choose to disagree with you there Greytmate. The aim of the socialisation and training for different breeds may not be identical but the same effort is required. People who think Whippets are timid dogs (and that's a lot of folk) need to meet Howard my boy. He's outgoing, confident and friendly with strange people and dogs. The fact that I socialised the pants of him as a bub and keep that up is not a coincidence in my eyes. He was a confident pup but I chose to build on that, not take it for granted.

If you want any chance of recalling a sighthound that has to be constantly practiced also.

I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all.

The same effort isn't always required to have a dog behaving acceptably. I am not talking about behaving optimally, but just not the type of problems that end up on the evening news.

A timid whippet isn't going to sever somebody's arm.

[poodlefan]

A timid whippet isn't going to sever somebody's arm.

Neither did this dog. But a Whippet is more than capable (if motivated) of inflicting severe damage on you. Lucky for us, that's not how the breed has been selectively bred and its not seen as an image enhancement for dickheads.

[HugUrPup]

So, other than mistaken identity, why is it the majority of dog attacks that make it to the evening news, involve a PB or Amstaff? Is it the damage they do? Surely it couldn't be because they are the main breed attacking..because it's not the breed that's the problem right?

I know that there are loads of aggressive small breeds such as JRT who bite, never known one to severe an adults arm and make it to the news though.

[huski]

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.

I don't think it is hypocritical to place an importance on raising, socialising and training our dogs so they do not develop any behaviourial problems (not just aggression).

I have lost count of the number of dogs I have met whose owners bought them because 'x' breed is a great family dog yet the dog has xyz behaviourial problems - not because of it's breed or genetics but simply because the owners have failed to raise and train it appropriately.

It is vital to choose a breed that is suitable for your lifestyle, and to go to a good breeder to ensure you are getting the best chance you can to have a healthy dog with a good stable temperament but very few dogs will automatically grow into a perfect, well adjusted adult if we don't raise and train them accordingly.

Whilst I am a huge advocate for the purebred dog, we do not want owners to become complacent about properly raising and training their dog because it's 'x' breed and should just automatically be a well behaved dog.

[poodlefan]

So, other than mistaken identity, why is it the majority of dog attacks that make it to the evening news, involve a PB or Amstaff? Is it the damage they do? Surely it couldn't be because they are the main breed attacking..because it's not the breed that's the problem right?

I know that there are loads of aggressive small breeds such as JRT who bite, never known one to severe an adults arm and make it to the news though.

If you have a good look at the statistics, that's not borne out. Breed misidentification is alive and well. A goodly proportion of dogs who seriously harm folk arent' purebed either.

Do your homework Puggerup.. the facts are out there. Right now you're voicing what the media report without critically analysing it.

You might want to start by reading this. Please note the part where it says that in the majority of attacks, the breed of dog cannot be accurately ascertained.

Edited March 25, 2010 by poodlefan

[HugUrPup]

I have lost count of the number of dogs I have met whose owners bought them because 'x' breed is a great family dog yet the dog has xyz behaviourial problems - not because of it's breed or genetics but simply because the owners have failed to raise and train it appropriately.

It is vital to choose a breed that is suitable for your lifestyle, and to go to a good breeder to ensure you are getting the best chance you can to have a healthy dog with a good stable temperament but very few dogs will automatically grow into a perfect, well adjusted adult if we don't raise and train them accordingly.

Whilst I am a huge advocate for the purebred dog, we do not want owners to become complacent about properly raising and training their dog because it's 'x' breed and should just automatically be a well behaved dog.

great points

[HugUrPup]

So, other than mistaken identity, why is it the majority of dog attacks that make it to the evening news, involve a PB or Amstaff? Is it the damage they do? Surely it couldn't be because they are the main breed attacking..because it's not the breed that's the problem right?

I know that there are loads of aggressive small breeds such as JRT who bite, never known one to severe an adults arm and make it to the news though.

If you have a good look at the statistics, that's not borne out. Breed misidentification is alive and well. A goodly proportion of dogs who seriously harm folk arent' purebed either.

Do your homework Puggerup.. the facts are out there. Right now you're voicing what the media report without critically analysing it.

No that's what I am saying, misidentification is alive and well, but surely people can tell the difference between a PB and a poodle. They get cross breeds mixed up, but Staffies unfortunately are copping the most flack from mistaken identification because they do look similar KWIM?

So, do the stats show that more Cross bred PB's are attacking than pure? If so it is because there are less breeders of that bred now, so most are crossed?

[Souff]

Greytmate:

if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training,

I choose to disagree with you there Greytmate. The aim of the socialisation and training for different breeds may not be identical but the same effort is required. People who think Whippets are timid dogs (and that's a lot of folk) need to meet Howard my boy. He's outgoing, confident and friendly with strange people and dogs. The fact that I socialised the pants of him as a bub and keep that up is not a coincidence in my eyes. He was a confident pup but I chose to build on that, not take it for granted.

If you want any chance of recalling a sighthound that has to be constantly practiced also.

I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all.

Have to agree. The amount and type of socialisation does vary a lot, even between dogs from the same bloodlines. They are not all wired the same. Your example of trying to recall a sighthound is a good one. Sometimes we are working against the dog's strongest instincts - trying to do things that do not come naturally for the dog.

Early socialisation and training is vital, but the amount and type of training can vary between dogs.

Souff

[poodlefan]

So, do the stats show that more Cross bred PB's are attacking than pure? If so it is because there are less breeders of that bred now, so most are crossed?

The stats on what breeds are involved are so notoriously unreliable that most researchers discount them. Despite what you think, most people don't know what breeds look like and anything over 10kg that's brindle or red and that's not fluffly is a "pitbull".

You need to move on from the breed issue Puggerup. It cannot explain how such severe attacks happen.

Edited March 25, 2010 by poodlefan

[Greytmate]

I have lost count of the number of dogs I have met whose owners bought them because 'x' breed is a great family dog yet the dog has xyz behaviourial problems - not because of it's breed or genetics but simply because the owners have failed to raise and train it appropriately.

It depends on how tightly you define 'breed'. One vet I know puts a dog's parents names as the 'breed' on certificates. While breeds as we know them ideally should have uniform temperaments, it is actual lines that carry desirable or undesirable traits. If the particular breeder isn't very careful, their own examples of the breed will deteriorate.

You haven't given a valid argument for environment playing more of a role than genetics in behaviour. It might suggest that the owners did not have a realistic idea of what 'family' dog means. It also suggests that you might come across more problem dog owners than the average person would, which usually happens if you are out there getting help with your own dog.

[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.

Oh yes, great! So we can edit peoples posts so that it misinterprets the whole meaning, wonderful!

Actually, Huski "exactly" what i said was this:

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. Not only, but mostly. But yes i agree that with training they have a better chance, and with the right owner they might never be aggressive (but they are born with the tendency, so in the wrong hands it would be bad) In the same way that we all agree that no breed is bad, only the owners.

Which is, interestingly enough, very similar to what you went on to say. Only you feel that training plays the bigger part, and i feel that genetics does.

I thought when you said mostly that you meant most dogs who show aggression, not that most of the aggression in a dog is genetic but some might be environmental.

You yourself speak of how difficult it was, and how hard you worked at training the beagle instinct of sniffing out of Daisy for obedience. Why was that there? Her genetics. YES you were able to train it out of her - she is in great hands! Not every aggressive dog ends up in good hands, not every born aggressive dog is brought up to have it trained out of them. And in the same breath - YES a genetically good natured dog CAN become aggressive due to how they were brought up... but the fact is, you don't have to train aggression out of a Samoyed or a Pug or a Beagle.. because genetically they are good natured.

I haven't trained the instinct of scenting OUT of my dog, that would be impossible. What I did was harness that drive and use it in another way. I actually worked to make the drive stronger. You could never train a scent hound out of scenting.

I think it would have been a lot easier had I started out with the right program from day one. I will let you know when I get my next beagle

Huski, you constantly use your own dogs as examples. Your husky acts like a husky and your beagle acts like a beagle. They are a product of their genetics, they are very influenced by your own mood and body language and possible experience has taught them that it is beneficial to react in a certain way to certain threats and challenges, because it has worked before.

Are you saying that Siberians are genetically programmed to be fear aggressive?

I am 110% confident that my dog would not be DA had he not learned through experience that other dogs were scary and dangerous.

You are to be applauded for the effort you put into training them, but if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training, and you would not see the same sort of aggression.

I disagree that pugs or whippets do not require socialisation or training, or that it is less important with certain breeds. ALL breeds need training and socialisation. ANY breed or dog could develop fear aggression if it has a negative experience during it's critical development phase. I have seen my fair share of timid snappy whippets.

No, this is not a reflection of genetics, I agree it stems from poor leadership. With proper leadership you have taught your dog to be respectful of you, this has nothing to do with genetic aggression. It's the need for a pack leader which EVERY dog needs, regardless of genetic background. Genetic problems such as a bad temperament are quite common, but not every dog out there has temperament problems stemming for its ancestory. It's purely based on bad breeding practices. Bad temperaments can be bred out.

I agree it has nothing to do with genetic aggression, I also don't think it is an uncommon problem.

You assume correctly There is now way in hell I want another one of him gracing this earth. Yes, he is 1/3 of his way to his grand championship but no, this does not mean he is worth breeding from - conformationally he is lovely, all bar his short upper arm however movement is not affected as he has wonderful reach and a solid topline. He has enquieries from breeders to use him, but he is not available for stud. They have been given semen from his uncle to use, who has a great temperament.

Sorry to hear that AM, even though it is the right thing to do it must still feel disheartening

[megan_]

Greytmate:

if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training,

I choose to disagree with you there Greytmate. The aim of the socialisation and training for different breeds may not be identical but the same effort is required. People who think Whippets are timid dogs (and that's a lot of folk) need to meet Howard my boy. He's outgoing, confident and friendly with strange people and dogs. The fact that I socialised the pants of him as a bub and keep that up is not a coincidence in my eyes. He was a confident pup but I chose to build on that, not take it for granted.

If you want any chance of recalling a sighthound that has to be constantly practiced also.

I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all.

I agree with this, but some breeds are far more forgiving of an owner making a socialisation mistake. I'm not going to mention my breed here (small, social dogs) because they'll be in for a bettering, but I have made many mistakes when socialising them. There have been times eg when I was suffering from migraines) when I've been a very poor leader. I haven't endangered myself or anyone else as a result of this. They got a bit too demanding, but they have never snapped or bitten me. Even if they decided to launch an attack, I could pick them upw tih one hand and throw them in the next room to save myself.

With other, more dominant, powerful breeds, my lapses in leadership could have led to very serious consequences.