Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[Longcoat]

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.

I totally agree with what Kavik is saying here This situation happens often in some working breeds and the raising and training of a weaker temperament dog compared to a harder temperament is completely different. Some working dog owners will condemn an owner of weaker temperament dogs for being reactive and brag about how their harder temperament dog doesn't react and do the things that the weaker dog does. It's more good fortune than good management for the harder temperament dog as the owner hasn't had to contend with the behavioural issues that the owner of the weaker temperament dog has. Some people I know have worked extremely hard with stranger aggression and dog aggression problems with a particular breed where someone else with same breed and a different temperament dog has never been faced with the aggression whatsoever.

[huski]

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.

The type of aggression certainly is relevant, because that determines how you train and manage the problem and gives you insight into what is driving the behaviour.

What is the behaviour I descibe that isn't unusual for Sibes?

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.

COULD is the key word there. Any breed of dog does not mean all dogs, but that developing behaviourial problems after bad experiences is not something that can purely be restricted to a certain breed of dog.

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

And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training?

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.

Go down to your local dog park. Or obedience club. Or chat to a local trainer... they will all confirm that there are many people out there who through a lack of or inappropriate training, create problems with their dogs.

[huski]

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.

I agree, but dogs with weak nerves (for eg) can often improve hugely with the right training to assist them to become more confident and learn what to do when they are in a stressful situation.

Lack of socialisation can also impact hugely on dogs already predisposed to weak nerves.

[~Anne~]

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?

Because if you didn't put importance on those things you would be seen as a negligent dog owner. It is also an argument used by some people against breed specific legislation, so there is an ulterior motive.

But those of us who have closely observed and documented the behaviour of dozens of dogs, can see that the genetic factors are the really important thing.

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.

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.

That may not be fair that some dog owners don't have to put as much effort in as others to have their dog behaving in a way that is acceptable, but it is true.

Those who are seeking to overturn legislation on the false basis that environment plays a bigger part than genetics are doomed to fail.

Great post.

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

Umm, what issue where? I think you have gone off on your own little tangent and assume things that are not true or real to be honest.

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.

Wow, again I'll applaud you on a very ridiculous post. It is so filled with assumptions and stupidity I can do no more than laugh. I am sitting trying to figure out what exactly you are actually saying. I'll start, and finish, with the fact that you have wrongly assumed my knowledge level, my stand on BSL and other animal welfare issues including purebred dog breeding, my past and present support of the EDBA, the MDBA and my beliefs regarding current, future and past legislation.

I think you need to pull your head in and find another tree to bark up 'cause you've got the wrong one here.

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.

Totally agree with your post except you are either deliberately misreading what I am saying regarding hypocrisy or I am not explaining myself well. Greymate and others seem to understand what I am saying though without any problems.

To me it is simple. Don't play the illogical or weak argument and whilst no-one should be emphasising negatives, to completely disregard facts in the debate will see the debate lost for ever.

[WoofnHoof]

And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training?

Just had to address this bit, I don't recall anyone saying that mistreatment or lack of socialisation and training won't affect the dog, it's just that it's reaction will not necessarily be agressive, it might react submissively or with anxiety in certain situations but it wont necessarily become agression.

This is what genetics and selective breeding is about, it's not just about deciding whether a dog will react to a certain situation it's about determining (and predicting) how the dog will react to a certain situation. A dog bred to herd sheep upon seeing sheep for the first time can find itself acting out herding behaviours, it may not know what it is doing or where it is herding them but it is reacting to the sheep in a way which it has been genetically predisposed to react.

That your dog's ancestors never displayed the fear agression that yours does may simply be due to the lack of the appropriate triggers, which is where environment comes in. However if your dog had a different genetic makeup it's possible his reaction to those same triggers may have been entirely different, perhaps instead of agression you might see him showing excessive obesiance to other dogs, perhaps he might run from other dogs, or he might display a combination of behaviours, all of these are reactions the nature of which is determined by the genetic predisposition of the animal.

[Greytmate]

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.

The type of aggression certainly is relevant, because that determines how you train and manage the problem and gives you insight into what is driving the behaviour.

What is the behaviour I descibe that isn't unusual for Sibes?

A reaction towards certain behaviour displayed by other dogs.

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.

COULD is the key word there. Any breed of dog does not mean all dogs, but that developing behaviourial problems after bad experiences is not something that can purely be restricted to a certain breed of dog.

Could is such a random word. It WILL apply to those of a certain genetic predisposition, it WILL NOT apply to others that have a different genetic predisposition.

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

And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training?

It plays it down yes, so it should. How a dog behaves does not alter the responsibility of the owner to provide adequate socialisation and training. The responsibility is a lot greater if a dog has a genetic predisposition to cause harm to other dogs.

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.

Go down to your local dog park. Or obedience club. Or chat to a local trainer... they will all confirm that there are many people out there who through a lack of or inappropriate training, create problems with their dogs.

Oh of course, the local dog park, why didn't I think?

I was an obedience instructor for fifteen years and I have sold hundreds of dogs to people over the last five years. I have been very active in the dog world, and spoken to literally thousands of Brisbane dogs owners. In some forums I have met 'countless people' with problem dogs. But overall, I have found that most people that have a dog are happy to have that dog and it doesn't cause the type of problem that started this thread.

Now why don't you go out there and spend a decade or two living and working with many dogs, or perhaps go and get a degree in animal behaviour or genetics before you expect me to take your opinion on this subject seriously.

[WoofnHoof]

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.

But returning the breed to the original purpose is impossible and performance testing has been rejected time and time again so how exactly do you bring in a more rigorous selection for breeding? Temperament testing has it's own problems but I suppose it's better than nothing?

[Guest Tess32]

I agree, but dogs with weak nerves (for eg) can often improve hugely with the right training to assist them to become more confident and learn what to do when they are in a stressful situation.

Lack of socialisation can also impact hugely on dogs already predisposed to weak nerves.

I think you're missing the point of what people are saying a little.

No one would argue that behaviour problems are not created by poor training/socialisation etc etc. Of course they can be.

What they are saying, is that the path the dog takes in relation to the 'mistake' the Owner makes, is mostly decided by genetics.

So Dog A that is poorly socialised might still end up absolutely fine and bomb proof. Dog B might end up a basket case.

It was the same mistake and the same environment, but the response from the dog is primarily genetic.

[Greytmate]

And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training?

Just had to address this bit, I don't recall anyone saying that mistreatment or lack of socialisation and training won't affect the dog, it's just that it's reaction will not necessarily be agressive, it might react submissively or with anxiety in certain situations but it wont necessarily become agression.

This is what genetics and selective breeding is about, it's not just about deciding whether a dog will react to a certain situation it's about determining (and predicting) how the dog will react to a certain situation. A dog bred to herd sheep upon seeing sheep for the first time can find itself acting out herding behaviours, it may not know what it is doing or where it is herding them but it is reacting to the sheep in a way which it has been genetically predisposed to react.

That your dog's ancestors never displayed the fear agression that yours does may simply be due to the lack of the appropriate triggers, which is where environment comes in. However if your dog had a different genetic makeup it's possible his reaction to those same triggers may have been entirely different, perhaps instead of agression you might see him showing excessive obesiance to other dogs, perhaps he might run from other dogs, or he might display a combination of behaviours, all of these are reactions the nature of which is determined by the genetic predisposition of the animal.

That is really well-explained Woof. Trust a scientist.

[WoofnHoof]

That is really well-explained Woof. Trust a scientist.

Lol thanks, I knew that degree had to come in handy for something

[Jed]

*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

So, are you saying pitbulls are dangerous? Staffies are dangerous?

[Cosmolo]

Huski- consider the difference between temperament and behaviour. It might help to explain where others are coming from.

[~Anne~]

And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training?

Just had to address this bit, I don't recall anyone saying that mistreatment or lack of socialisation and training won't affect the dog, it's just that it's reaction will not necessarily be agressive, it might react submissively or with anxiety in certain situations but it wont necessarily become agression.

This is what genetics and selective breeding is about, it's not just about deciding whether a dog will react to a certain situation it's about determining (and predicting) how the dog will react to a certain situation. A dog bred to herd sheep upon seeing sheep for the first time can find itself acting out herding behaviours, it may not know what it is doing or where it is herding them but it is reacting to the sheep in a way which it has been genetically predisposed to react.

That your dog's ancestors never displayed the fear agression that yours does may simply be due to the lack of the appropriate triggers, which is where environment comes in. However if your dog had a different genetic makeup it's possible his reaction to those same triggers may have been entirely different, perhaps instead of agression you might see him showing excessive obesiance to other dogs, perhaps he might run from other dogs, or he might display a combination of behaviours, all of these are reactions the nature of which is determined by the genetic predisposition of the animal.

Great post. Thanks.

I agree, but dogs with weak nerves (for eg) can often improve hugely with the right training to assist them to become more confident and learn what to do when they are in a stressful situation.

Lack of socialisation can also impact hugely on dogs already predisposed to weak nerves.

I think you're missing the point of what people are saying a little.

No one would argue that behaviour problems are not created by poor training/socialisation etc etc. Of course they can be.

What they are saying, is that the path the dog takes in relation to the 'mistake' the Owner makes, is mostly decided by genetics.

So Dog A that is poorly socialised might still end up absolutely fine and bomb proof. Dog B might end up a basket case.

It was the same mistake and the same environment, but the response from the dog is primarily genetic.

Yes, exactly.

To be honest, I think the greater majority of people in this thread are on the same side. We just view the debate from different angles. I doubt there are many here that feel the APBT or other bull breeds should be banned and treated with the fear they currently do. The idea that innocent family and much loved pets are dragged from their homes, caged and then killed horrifies me as I am sure it does many, many, many others.

DOL and the debates I have been involved in and watched on the sidelines, has taught me that legislation IS NOT the answer. Blanket bans are useless, cruel and stupid.

Education and control in my views are the key.

Edited March 25, 2010 by ~Anne~

[WoofnHoof]

To be honest, I think the greater majority of people in this thread are on the same side. We just view the debate from different angles. I doubt there are many here that feel the APBT or other bull breeds should be banned and treated with the fear they currently do. The idea that innocent family and much loved pets are dragged from their homes, caged and then killed horrifies me as I am sure it does many, many, many others.

DOL and the debates I have been involved in and watched on the sidelines, has taught me that legislation IS NOT the answer. Blanket bans are useless, cruel and stupid.

Education and control in my views are the key.

I agree, and the importance of genetics is central to the whole debate because ethical breeders have an interest in breeding dogs which have appropriate temperaments using the knowledge of the dogs contributing their genes.

Which brings us to this pertinent question:

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 ?

So the picture from my perspective is that we need to work out who is breeding the more 'bombproof' dogs of the type in question, and who is not.

[BJean]

Education and control in my views are the key.

Control - how so?

[Greytmate]

So the picture from my perspective is that we need to work out who is breeding the more 'bombproof' dogs of the type in question, and who is not.

Yes.

[BJean]

*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

So, are you saying pitbulls are dangerous? Staffies are dangerous?

The Portland dog 'Rocky'

is increasingly being referred to as a "Staffordshire bull terrier cross".

If you support PBs as danergous

you support Staffies as dangerous -

in the eyes of the public they are the same; they cannot differentiate.

[huski]

And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training?

Just had to address this bit, I don't recall anyone saying that mistreatment or lack of socialisation and training won't affect the dog, it's just that it's reaction will not necessarily be agressive, it might react submissively or with anxiety in certain situations but it wont necessarily become agression.

This is what genetics and selective breeding is about, it's not just about deciding whether a dog will react to a certain situation it's about determining (and predicting) how the dog will react to a certain situation. A dog bred to herd sheep upon seeing sheep for the first time can find itself acting out herding behaviours, it may not know what it is doing or where it is herding them but it is reacting to the sheep in a way which it has been genetically predisposed to react.

That your dog's ancestors never displayed the fear agression that yours does may simply be due to the lack of the appropriate triggers, which is where environment comes in. However if your dog had a different genetic makeup it's possible his reaction to those same triggers may have been entirely different, perhaps instead of agression you might see him showing excessive obesiance to other dogs, perhaps he might run from other dogs, or he might display a combination of behaviours, all of these are reactions the nature of which is determined by the genetic predisposition of the animal.

I'm not arguing that genetics makes no impact, I have clearly said I believe it does. I just believe that environment also play an important role.

Could is such a random word. It WILL apply to those of a certain genetic predisposition, it WILL NOT apply to others that have a different genetic predisposition.

But we see aggression and other behaviourial problems in a RANGE of breeds, that is all I meant when I said that it can occur in just about any breed. Sure some breeds are more likely to act in certain ways but that doesn't mean we don't ever see that behaviour in other breeds, even if it's relatively uncommon.

It plays it down yes, so it should. How a dog behaves does not alter the responsibility of the owner to provide adequate socialisation and training. The responsibility is a lot greater if a dog has a genetic predisposition to cause harm to other dogs.

I don't disagree with you, I just hate to think that we are removing any responsibility the owner has to raise and train their dog appropriately by saying all bad behaviour is purely genetic.

Oh of course, the local dog park, why didn't I think?

I was an obedience instructor for fifteen years and I have sold hundreds of dogs to people over the last five years. I have been very active in the dog world, and spoken to literally thousands of Brisbane dogs owners. In some forums I have met 'countless people' with problem dogs.

Greytmate I think I have spent enough time around you to know all of the above, that is why I used the examples I did.

Dogs with behaviourial problems are out there in relatively large numbers, otherwise we wouldn't have the number of dog trainers we do out there working with these dogs everyday.

Now why don't you go out there and spend a decade or two living and working with many dogs, or perhaps go and get a degree in animal behaviour or genetics before you expect me to take your opinion on this subject seriously.

And to think I thought we were on relatively friendly terms ;)

I am not trying to tell you how to suck eggs, I am well aware of your experience and I respect that and your opinion. I am just really passionate about people taking responsibility for their dog by raising it, socialising it and training it properly and I hate to see dogs suffer because their owners become complacent or blame the dog soley for the problems they are having (and yes it can be the dog’s temperament or whatever but the issues can almost always still be managed in the right environment). It’s not unlike people who tell me their Siberian will always pull on the leash because it was bred to pull or people who tell me they will never get their beagle’s nose off the ground. There's no reason it can't be done.

Obviously I am coming at this from the wrong angle because it seems I am not making myself clear, all I have been trying to say is that we should never discount the importance of training and socialisation. If a dog is predisposed to xyz behaviour that makes how you train and socialise it even more important. If you can raise and train a dog who is predisposed to xyz behaviours to prevent it from being a problem, then I can't see how anyone can argue that environment is not a crucial factor when it comes to our dogs behaviour.

Edited March 25, 2010 by huski

[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

So, are you saying pitbulls are dangerous? Staffies are dangerous?

Many dogs have the potential to be dangerous and when large and powerful breeds are deliberately crossed with the intention of breeding dogs that can take a person's arms off, or are trained to be aggressive towards humans and other animals, then I don't want to be aligned with the people responsible. It is a perverse form of cruelty to animals and the people who are responsible are as guilty as the dog itself when an attack like this happens.

Souff

[Longcoat]

I agree, but dogs with weak nerves (for eg) can often improve hugely with the right training to assist them to become more confident and learn what to do when they are in a stressful situation.

Lack of socialisation can also impact hugely on dogs already predisposed to weak nerves.

I think you're missing the point of what people are saying a little.

No one would argue that behaviour problems are not created by poor training/socialisation etc etc. Of course they can be.

What they are saying, is that the path the dog takes in relation to the 'mistake' the Owner makes, is mostly decided by genetics.

So Dog A that is poorly socialised might still end up absolutely fine and bomb proof. Dog B might end up a basket case.

It was the same mistake and the same environment, but the response from the dog is primarily genetic.

Our first GSD was heavily socialised with people from 8 weeks of age as we took him to work with us, met a dozen new people per day and was a friendly happy outgoing puppy of good nature. Around 5 months of age, someone new came into the reception area where the puppy then had access and he ran at this person, barked and lunged tearing the guy's shirt He scared the hell out of the guy as a 5 month old male GSD is a reasonable size and obviously scared us also as this behaviour suddenly came from out of the blue. ;) We removed his access to the reception area after that incident. He tried to lunge a few more times aggressively at strangers to the mistake we made was avoiding situations where he could react which escalated the problem when he did come into contact with strangers, he would fly off the handle at the end of the leash.

To cut a long story short, it took a lot of training to manage the situation and correct the fault which was genetic as his bloodlines were purposely bred for sharpness by mistake of perceiving this temperament type is necessary in the development of guard and security dogs. For a GSD, his temperament was faulty, but the same temperament we later found out was evident in his ancestors and other breedings with the similar parentage and bloodlines.