Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[mantis]

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.

For ratings & to sell papers, they know if they mention PB in the story, they well get major ratings. It's a Salem witch hunt, I have tested it out, by reporting to TV networks that my dog was attacked by a (insert name of any so called nice breeds) & the first thing they all asked me, was I sure it wasn't a PB X, when I said no it was definitely the said breed, all of them said they were sorry, but they had enough news for the night.

It's disappointing that fellow dog lovers have been sucked into this media propoganda & witch hunt.

[Souff]

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".

Poodlefan

Glad to hear that those stats are not taken seriously for research. The general public can be horribly inaccurate when it comes to identifying a breed of dog, and some of us who THINK we know the breeds can also be wrong at times!

Puggerup

Many of the most aggressive crossbred dogs I have met had little of no PB genes. Other large breeds were used in their mix. One, I am sad to say, was a purebred dog from a large breed which in the past was not known for aggression. Selection for certain traits have brought out the worst in this dog and the stupid owner was proud to tell me that he never had to lock his house! The dog was aggressive towards me, an invited visitor, in the presence of his owner.

This is totally unacceptable but as house breakins, illegal stashes and home invasions are on the increase, I am seeing more of these owners and their aggressive dogs. These dogs were bred to be aggressive and the owners have encouraged that aggression.

Totally unacceptable!

Souff

[huski]

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.

I never said environment was strictly more important than genetics. I just struggle to see how genetics can be responsible for the majority of behaviourial problems we see in our dogs. It removes any responsibility that we have to raise well adjusted dogs or ensure that we train and raise them properly.

Are you honestly saying you haven't met countless owners whose lack of training negatively affect their dogs behaviour?

[WreckitWhippet]

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.

You need only look at the generic brindle dog that is labelled " Staffy" by pounds , rescues and every second person that has one.

[HugUrPup]

Got to run, but just wanted to say, that I am here to learn. I am not here to argue, so thanks to those that are responding with their views, opinions and facts.

[poodlefan]

Got to run, but just wanted to say, that I am here to learn. I am not here to argue, so thanks to those that are responding with their views, opinions and facts.

Argue away.. debating can be very edumacational.

[sandgrubber]

I'm reminded of a fellow Group 3 (gun dog) breeder who imported a pup from the UK. great looking dog, Crufts-certified sire and dam. expensive exercise. As an adult, the dog mauled an un-related puppy. The breeder had the dog pts because she wanted to avoid any possible further association of her lines with aggressive behaviour.

If others were as conscientious, hereditary tendencies to aggression would not be an issue.

Problem is, lots of breeders won't cull (by desexing or pts) when aggression shows up . .. and a few deliberately promote aggression.

[Bindii]

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.

:laugh:

Interesting.. you don't seem to think that about dogs who have aggressive genetic backgrounds.

[WoofnHoof]

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.

I would think a lot of it comes down to type: large, muscular and having the tendency to bite and hold rather than slash and dash type of mechanism. There is definetly a 'type' which seems to be predominant in these extreme sort of attacks, and I'd say this does stem from the original purpose of this hunting type, for example a retriever has a genetic predisposition for a softer hold so this is probably reflected in the shape and musculature of the jaw, whereas the bull breeds were bred for a stronger hold to penetrate the hides of larger animals.

This is not to say that the bull breeds are any more likely to bite than the retrievers but when they do they are more likely to do more damage - all else being equal.

As far as genetic predisposition for biddability goes I've seen in action the 'ease' with which you can train recall to a BC as opposed to a husky so that combined with many other factors suggests to me that genetics does play as much, if not more of, a part in the overall result.

[poodlefan]

I would think a lot of it comes down to type: large, muscular and having the tendency to bite and hold rather than slash and dash type of mechanism.

Bite inhibition and bite threshold also have a genetic component. As you suggest, breed purpose does have its role in these issues.

So many folk buy a dog on looks with no genuine understanding of its original purpose or likely characteristics. While pets can be bought on impulse from folk motivated only by profit, that ignorance will continue.

[Greytmate]

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?

Not at all. Your dog does not have identical genetics to every other Siberian. It has a combination of its ancestors genes only. Nothing to do with other Siberians.

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 dog is not the only dog that has been attacked by other dogs during a critical phase. Yet your dog is fear aggressive, and not all dogs would behave aggressively as a consequence of being attacked. The difference is the genes you dog has.

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.

Who are you disagreeing with? I didn't say that pugs and whippets or any breed requires no socialisation. Not all dogs will develop fear aggression from a single negative experience. Some dogs do not have a genetic tendancy for that to happen.

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.

I never said environment was strictly more important than genetics. I just struggle to see how genetics can be responsible for the majority of behaviourial problems we see in our dogs.

And that is why this discussion is going in circles. Your struggle to see facts.

You can either accept the words of people that have had years of experience with many dogs and understand genetic tendencies. Or you can sit there saying, I don't see it, so I don't believe it.

It removes any responsibility that we have to raise well adjusted dogs or ensure that we train and raise them properly.

That is total garbage.

Are you honestly saying you haven't met countless owners whose lack of training negatively affect their dogs behaviour?

Yes, but only in forums where people with problem dogs were likely to be present.

When I look at the hundreds of greyhounds I have rehomed, and the very small percentage with any problems, and the absolute bare minimum of handling, training, socialisation and mental stimulation these dogs have been raised with, I get a different picture. When I look at patterns of bad behaviour over a breed, I get an understanding of how different lines contain different genetic behavioural tendancies. Overall, most people I know are very happy with their dogs, without going to much effort to make that happen. Their lives with their dogs are nothing like yours, they do not need to go to as much effort to get an acceptable result.

[poodlefan]

When I look at the hundreds of greyhounds I have rehomed, and the very small percentage with any problems, and the absolute bare minimum of handling, training, socialisation and mental stimulation these dogs have been raised with, I get a different picture. When I look at patterns of bad behaviour over a breed, I get an understanding of how different lines contain different genetic behavioural tendancies. Overall, most people I know are very happy with their dogs, without going to much effort to make that happen. Their lives with their dogs are nothing like yours, they do not need to go to as much effort to get an acceptable result.

Do you think that might be in part due to the fact that any young greyhound that displayed aggression to being handled wouldn't last long?

It seems the further we take any breed from its original purpose and from very rigorous selection for breeding, the more problems creep in.

Popularity, and its attraction of irresponsible, ignorant breeders, has long been the curse of some breeds.

Edited March 25, 2010 by poodlefan

[justin19801]

We heard owners state the breed in past incidents and people still want to argue that it's a media beat up and it couldn't possibly be

Like people who claim their dog is a purebred cockapoo I suppose. Yep, sounds like people really know dogs breeds .

[megan_]

Huski - my boy was attacked by a dobe when he was a pup (actually stalked, charged, picked up and flung). Yet he has no fear of dobes and we've even run into the attacker (I didn't realise they were there until it was too late) and he was fine. IT just isn't in his making to be a "strike first because the other dog might attack" type dog. Genetics certainly played a big part in his reaction, lord knows it wasn't my mishandling of the event (when we bumped into the dobe later I was visibly shaken, he was calm).

[WreckitWhippet]

I would think a lot of it comes down to type: large, muscular and having the tendency to bite and hold rather than slash and dash type of mechanism.

Bite inhibition and bite threshold also have a genetic component. As you suggest, breed purpose does have its role in these issues.

So many folk buy a dog on looks with no genuine understanding of its original purpose or likely characteristics. While pets can be bought on impulse from folk motivated only by profit, that ignorance will continue.

I think that's a valid point. I would like to know what % of dogs involved in attacks in Australia were giveaways or cheap purchases.

Quickasyoucan , has raised the point many times in the past and I would like to know is there any correlation between lower socio-economic areas ( poorer owners in terms of $ and education ) and attacks.

We already know that the pedigree dog from the ethical breeder, is less likely to end up in a pound, the next question. Is the pedigree dog from the ethical registered breeder, less likely to be involved in an attack ?

[Greytmate]

Do you think that might be in part due to the fact that any young greyhound that displayed aggression to being handled wouldn't last long?

It seems the further we take any breed from its original purpose and from very rigorous selection for breeding, the more problems creep in.

Popularity, and its attraction of irresponsible, ignorant breeders, has long been the curse of some breeds.

Rigorous (ruthless?) selection and a uniform style of raising has given us a breed that is extremely unlikely to react aggressively to being handled.

At the other end of the spectrum we would have a pet breeder, who determined to breed from the particular dog, will excuse any and all behaviour as environmental in origin.

It is hard to reconcile that ruthless culling is going to give us a population of better dogs than many small scale breeders are ever able to. But unless we start thinking outside our comfort zone, purebreeds don't have an especially bright future..

Edited March 25, 2010 by Greytmate

[huski]

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.

:laugh:

Interesting.. you don't seem to think that about dogs who have aggressive genetic backgrounds.

No, I think that we can't blame the majority of aggression purely on genetics. I have already said I am well aware some breeds have more tendancy towards aggression than others.

Not at all. Your dog does not have identical genetics to every other Siberian. It has a combination of its ancestors genes only. Nothing to do with other Siberians.

Then what is your point about him acting like a husky? Fear aggression is not a trait that commonly presents in the breed, and having met quite a few dogs from his lines including both his parents, it's not present in the dogs I've met either.

You dog is not the only dog that has been attacked by other dogs during a critical phase. Yet your dog is fear aggressive, and not all dogs would behave aggressively as a consequence of being attacked. The difference is the genes you dog has.

I didn't say ALL dogs who have that experience (and he was attacked on numerous occasions, not just once - had it been just once he might have been ok) but that it is hardly an uncommon problem. Dogs that have negative experiences in their fear stages can be affected by those experiences for life.

My point is that he wasn't born aggressive, he became aggressive due to several negative experiences. Had he not had those experiences, he would not be aggressive.

Who are you disagreeing with? I didn't say that pugs and whippets or any breed requires no socialisation. Not all dogs will develop fear aggression from a single negative experience. Some dogs do not have a genetic tendancy for that to happen.

No, you said it's less important. I would never class training and socialisation of ANY dog as unimportant.

My dog did not have a single negative experience, he was attacked on several occasions.

And that is why this discussion is going in circles. Your struggle to see facts.

You can either accept the words of people that have had years of experience with many dogs and understand genetic tendencies. Or you can sit there saying, I don't see it, so I don't believe it.

What facts? All I am saying is that environmental factors are hugely important. How we raise, socialise and train our dogs is hugely important. I am not discounting the importance of genetic factors but I simply cannot agree that the majority of aggression is purely about genetics. Often it is about a combination of factors, not just environment and not just genetics.

That is total garbage.

Why? You said yourself that certain breeds are just not going to require much if any socialisation or training. Several posters in this thread have named breeds that just will not display aggression and could be raised and treated like shit and will still grow up to be happy, well adjusted dogs because that's the breed. How on earth does laying the responsibility purely on genetics not remove any responsibilty we have to train and socialise our dogs appropriately? How does that not minimize the importance and responsibility we have as owners to treat our dogs properly and train them?

Yes, but only in forums where people with problem dogs were likely to be present.

You've never met people in real life whose lack of leadership/training/etc is causing problems with their dogs? If these issues can be completely resolved with the right training, does that still mean the problems were genetic?

[huski]

Ok, just to clarify because I think I am probably not being very clear.

I think that it's more complex than the majority of aggressive dogs just being born that way. I think the dog's drive, nerves, temperament all play a role in how they respond to environmental stimuli. A dog with bad nerves could be more likely to become fear aggressive if influenced that way by it's environment i.e. a nervy dog who has bad experiences with other dogs could be more inclined to become FA than a confident dog with a strong nerve. I am not doubting the importance of genetics or temperament BUT I don't think a dog with weak nerves is born fear aggressive. For dogs like that, how they are raised and trained has a massive importance on their ability to handle various situations.

[Kavik]

I think we are saying the same thing but from a different angle

A dog that has poor nerves genetically is more likely to react in certain circumstances. This type of dog has to be more carefully socialised and managed to prevent the type of experience occuring which could cause it to behave problematically than a dog with a better genetic temperament. A dog with a more stable temperament could be exposed to things that would cause problems with a weaker temperamented dog and not have any problem at all.

[Greytmate]

Not at all. Your dog does not have identical genetics to every other Siberian. It has a combination of its ancestors genes only. Nothing to do with other Siberians.

Then what is your point about him acting like a husky? Fear aggression is not a trait that commonly presents in the breed, and having met quite a few dogs from his lines including both his parents, it's not present in the dogs I've met either.

He doesn't act outside of what could be considered usual in the breed. The label 'fear aggressive' means little, but the behaviour you describe isn't unusual or rare for Huskies.

You dog is not the only dog that has been attacked by other dogs during a critical phase. Yet your dog is fear aggressive, and not all dogs would behave aggressively as a consequence of being attacked. The difference is the genes you dog has.

I didn't say ALL dogs who have that experience (and he was attacked on numerous occasions, not just once - had it been just once he might have been ok) but that it is hardly an uncommon problem. Dogs that have negative experiences in their fear stages can be affected by those experiences for life.

You said "ANY breed or dog could develop fear aggression if it has a negative experience during it's critical development phase." Any breed or dog would mean all dogs, a negative experience would mean a single negative experience. I disagree with that. Stick by what you said, or retract it.

My point is that he wasn't born aggressive, he became aggressive due to several negative experiences. Had he not had those experiences, he would not be aggressive.

The experiences were triggers, they did not determine how your dog would react.

It removes any responsibility that we have to raise well adjusted dogs or ensure that we train and raise them properly.

That is total garbage.

Why? You said yourself that certain breeds are just not going to require much if any socialisation or training. Several posters in this thread have named breeds that just will not display aggression and could be raised and treated like shit and will still grow up to be happy, well adjusted dogs because that's the breed. How on earth does laying the responsibility purely on genetics not remove any responsibilty we have to train and socialise our dogs appropriately? How does that not minimize the importance and responsibility we have as owners to treat our dogs properly and train them?

I am not arguing that selection of breed removes repsonsibility. I am disagreeing with any assertion that selection of breed removes any responsibility that we have to raise well adjusted dogs or ensure that we train and raise them properly.

There is always a responsibility on owners to socialise and train, and certain genetic combinations can make that responsibility so much easier to handle.

Are you honestly saying you haven't met countless owners whose lack of training negatively affect their dogs behaviour?

Yes, but only in forums where people with problem dogs were likely to be present.

You've never met people in real life whose lack of leadership/training/etc is causing problems with their dogs? If these issues can be completely resolved with the right training, does that still mean the problems were genetic?

Sure I've met a few people, but not the "countless" people you seem to be meeting. Who hasn't met people with problem dogs? Not all dogs can have problems resolved with training, often different management is necessary too.

If you are going to quote me, please read what I am responding to first, as it would have answered all of your questions.