Please I Need Some Help

[Greytmate]

Yes megan I agree that a dog that attacks when not provoked is a danger to the community, but how has it gotten to the stage

If a dog is "weak nerved" then I dont think it is born this way. If it IS, then why was it picked as a family pet? Either way, it is the owners responsibility. If you take on a dog with 'weak nerves' then you have to take the proper precautions. If that means never letting it be around kids, then so be it.

When we talk about 'weak nerved' here, we are always talking about a genetic tendency.

Good breeders will try to cull weak-nerved dogs from breeding programs, and there is less risk for puppy buyers buying from these breeders.

However there are a large number of bad breeders, breeding from weak-nerved dogs, and producing more of them. Buyer Beware! (or come here for advice).

Which breeds have a tendency to be 'weak nerved'? I assumed that 'weak nerved' was the result of poor treatment in most cases (ie. an adopted 'weak nerved' dog probably got that way from being mistreated by its former owner or being sheltered in poor conditions)...?

I don't want to name breeds, because any breed can contain examples of people not culling weak-nerved dogs from breeding programs.

I know that there are a bunch of bad breeders that will breed from any dog, weak nerved, aggressive, whatever, but at the end of the day, is it STILL not the owners responsibility? They have a choice of who to buy from. They have a choice of which puppy to take in most cases. There are multiple opportunities to make sure that you buy the best you can, and if you dont, then I think that it is your own doing if there are problems down the track. Obviously, there is always variance between dogs and who knows, one just might be crazy (after all, there are crazy people too), but I think that is an exception to the rule. Generally speaking, people have the chance to pick the best dog possible (or at least from a group of the best possible), and then bring them up in such a way as to make their dogs temperaments reliable (or, i liked the term "bombproof").

No. At the moment there are many dogs being sold that are not of merchantable quality. They are not capable of fulfilling the role they where purchased for.

I believe that dodgy operators are able to get away with selling anything, as long as there are people continuing to believe the myth that it is always bad owners that cause bad dogs.

We have a real lack of regulation to protect puppy buyers, and too few people are prepared to put that responsibility to produce good dogs back onto the breeders where it should be.

[megan_]

I'd be interested to hear from breeders but weak nerves don't always show up by 8 weeks I believe. A dog may be a bit more reserved (not a bad thing) at 8 weeks, and only show their true temperament later on.

[Joel]

I wouldn't want to be matched up by the breader - I would want to do it myself after seeing the puppies. The breeder may give recommendations and explain what they have seen over the past 8/10 weeks, but I want to be the one that chooses the dog for me, and I think thats the way it should be. Then I am responsible from then on out.

Why can you not have a dog that cant be around kids? People own dogs that aren't able to be around other dogs without issue...? EDIT: Obviously its not desirable by any means, but if those are the cards you're dealt, then you need to use them.

As for the poking and proding.. it was an example of my trust in my dog. I don't encourage this in any way, but at the end of the day, kids are kids. You have to expect them to do things like that. Im not talking about toddlers - they should have a adult sitting right with them, probably holding their hand as they pat a dog, but about older kids - 3-10 say. Kids can be sneaky and can do something that you dont like before you have a chance to stop it (eg, pulling a tail). I'm not talking about your own kids, because you have the chance to teach them the proper way to behave around a dog, but you dont have that chance with other peoples kids (you can give them a quick talk about what they can and cant do, but at the end of it, they're still kids (and from my experience, like to test things out for themselves ). With that said, you could always just let them pat for a little bit, then remove the dog, but I think that kids should be around animals as much as possible.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Joel

[Greytmate]

I'd be interested to hear from breeders but weak nerves don't always show up by 8 weeks I believe. A dog may be a bit more reserved (not a bad thing) at 8 weeks, and only show their true temperament later on.

Once the litter is born, you work with what you have.

The work needs to go into selecting the right (proven adult) dogs to breed with and the right dogs to desex.

The very act of showing a dog successfully is an adequate test of nerves for most breeds. If a dog can handle that environment and being handled by a complete stranger repeatedly without any aggression or anxiety, then that is a good thing.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

<snip>

No. At the moment there are many dogs being sold that are not of merchantable quality. They are not capable of fulfilling the role they where purchased for.

I believe that dodgy operators are able to get away with selling anything, as long as there are people continuing to believe the myth that it is always bad owners that cause bad dogs.

We have a real lack of regulation to protect puppy buyers, and too few people are prepared to put that responsibility to produce good dogs back onto the breeders where it should be.

i have owned dogs most of my life and as good as i am (sometimes) it is very difficult to pick out the weak nerved dogs (so i can discount them from the pick) when you only have a few minutes/maybe hour if lucky to choose a dog or the breeder chooses for you and you have to accept or reject. for less experienced dog owners they have no hope.

so there is a huge reliance on breeders to cull these weak nerved dogs to ensure they are not placed in pet homes.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[sas]

A dogs behavior is determined by its environment, just like anybody elses. If you create an environment where your dog will be aggressive, then the problem is yours, not the dogs

Not always, there are so many variables.

A little bit of re-educating yourself on the subject wouldn't go astray.

[Greytmate]

Why can you not have a dog that cant be around kids? People own dogs that aren't able to be around other dogs without issue...?

Hell, why don't we just keep lions and crocodiles as pets too?

[Joel]

Ease up tiger.

My point was that just because you find out that your dog is not suitable to be around kids (this is obviously assuming that it is not in a household with kids in which case it can be rehomed to people without kids and that are aware of the issue) does not mean they need to be destroyed. People find out their dogs cant be around other dogs, and yet are perfectly content with it.

EDITED TO ADD:

Sas, I probably should have worded it better, but I still believe that a dogs behavior is MOSTLY determined by its environment. Sure, breeding etc comes in to it, but there are plenty of examples of 'poorly bred' dogs that have even had poor environments that get rehomed into great environments and end up fantastic. With that said, there are also plenty of examples of excellently bred dogs that end up in a poor environment that end up being a nightmare.

Anyway, I would like to read up more about how genetics effects temperaments, so if you have any good links, post them

Edited August 13, 2010 by Joel

[Greytmate]

Ease up tiger.

My point was that just because you find out that your dog is not suitable to be around kids (this is obviously assuming that it is not in a household with kids in which case it can be rehomed to people without kids and that are aware of the issue) does not mean they need to be destroyed. People find out their dogs cant be around other dogs, and yet are perfectly content with it.

It is unethical to offer a human-aggressive dog for sale.

[megan_]

I'd be interested to hear from breeders but weak nerves don't always show up by 8 weeks I believe. A dog may be a bit more reserved (not a bad thing) at 8 weeks, and only show their true temperament later on.

Once the litter is born, you work with what you have.

The work needs to go into selecting the right (proven adult) dogs to breed with and the right dogs to desex.

The very act of showing a dog successfully is an adequate test of nerves for most breeds. If a dog can handle that environment and being handled by a complete stranger repeatedly without any aggression or anxiety, then that is a good thing.

I agree. I was responding to Joel's post that buyers/brrders should know which dogs are weak nerved by 8 weeks (when buyers come to collect their new pup). I don't think it is reasonable to expect a buyer or a breeder to be able to 100% identify every weak nerved dog.

Joel - a lot of very experienced people (sas, greytmate) are telling you that weak nerves are also genetic. Take their advice on board!

One last example to demonstrate the point. I have a rescue dog who used to be a breeding bitch at a puppy farm. Awful amount of abuse. She was rescued and rehomed along with her other "sisters". Within a few days of being witha foster carer, all the other dogs (I hate calling them bitches ) were coming up to the foster carer, wagging their tails, happy to see her. But not Lucy. She stayed in the back, ears pinned down, trembling.

Six dogs. Same shitty environment, but very different outcomes. The only variable was genetics (nerves).

Joel - I think you can have a dog that doesn't love kids, but not one that attacks kids out of the blue. Why? Because you can't guarantuee 100% that your dog will never come into contact with a child. You need to take your dog outside to get mental stimulation (child might run out of a house/garden - happened to me a few times), to the vets etc. The risk to the community is too great. This doesn't mean that the dog is "bad" and needs to be punished by PTS, or that it is the dog's fault, it just means that the dog can't live as a companion animal in our society - it just doesn't fit.

[dee lee]

Oo-ee, lucky OP when they come back to check their thread!

To add my 2 cents worth, I agree that the dog being a mastiff has decided that it needs to protect the OP. This may be rectified by a behaviourist, however, if it were MY family the dog would be out of my house. With children in the house the risk is too high and they (AND the unavoidable visitor children) must come first.

If it has gotten to this stage then the family environment is wrong for a guarding breed and it is very hard to change that. Children, not just the adults contribute to the problem and good luck getting them to change if they are very young.

Sadly, Greytmate is right, rehoming would be unethical and irresponsible.

[megan_]

Oo-ee, lucky OP when they come back to check their thread!

To add my 2 cents worth, I agree that the dog being a mastiff has decided that it needs to protect the OP. This may be rectified by a behaviourist, however, if it were MY family the dog would be out of my house. With children in the house the risk is too high and they (AND the unavoidable visitor children) must come first.

If it has gotten to this stage then the family environment is wrong for a guarding breed and it is very hard to change that. Children, not just the adults contribute to the problem and good luck getting them to change if they are very young.

Sadly, Greytmate is right, rehoming would be unethical and irresponsible.

Yeah - it has got a bit OT! Sorry!

Deelee - I agree with this advice. What is going to happen if a kid comes to visit? Or if the parents have a huge fight? Will the dog think it needs to step in?

If it were my house, I'd consult a behaviourist, and then have a very serious think about what to do. It would take a lot for me NOT to PTS. I like feeling comfortable and safe in my own home, and I like my guests to feel the same way. I think lots of people like the idea of a guarding breed to protect their family, but don't think of the negatives that go with it (just my opinion, not saying the OP fits into that category).

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Oo-ee, lucky OP when they come back to check their thread!

To add my 2 cents worth, I agree that the dog being a mastiff has decided that it needs to protect the OP. This may be rectified by a behaviourist, however, if it were MY family the dog would be out of my house. With children in the house the risk is too high and they (AND the unavoidable visitor children) must come first.

If it has gotten to this stage then the family environment is wrong for a guarding breed and it is very hard to change that. Children, not just the adults contribute to the problem and good luck getting them to change if they are very young.

Sadly, Greytmate is right, rehoming would be unethical and irresponsible.

Yeah - it has got a bit OT! Sorry!

Deelee - I agree with this advice. What is going to happen if a kid comes to visit? Or if the parents have a huge fight? Will the dog think it needs to step in?

If it were my house, I'd consult a behaviourist, and then have a very serious think about what to do. It would take a lot for me NOT to PTS. I like feeling comfortable and safe in my own home, and I like my guests to feel the same way. I think lots of people like the idea of a guarding breed to protect their family, but don't think of the negatives that go with it (just my opinion, not saying the OP fits into that category).

there are humans everywhere of a dog is HA then to mitigate the risk the dog will either get little to no socialisation of the human in c harge of the dog will be on guard all the time and we know humans are not 100% right or on all the time so mistakes can be made....and the dog can hurt a human and then we know what will happen to the dog.

IMO i would have a lot of difficulty supporting a HA dog to be rehomed

Edited August 13, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[persephone]

It is unethical to offer a human-aggressive dog for sale.

indeed!

agreed

[Joel]

I realize that I am getting advice from experienced people, and I know both of their reputations as such, but it is their opinion none the less. Yes, I take their experience and reputation into account, but that doesn't create a fact. I want some studies, recorded observations etc so I can either have it PROVED to me or make a decision for myself. I'm not pretending to know it all, because I dont (and in fact in this subject I am probably quite ignorant and am just going by past experience and observations of my own (however limited they are)), but I do not follow advice as fact.

Wanted to touch on this too....

This doesn't mean that the dog is "bad" and needs to be punished by PTS, or that it is the dog's fault, it just means that the dog can't live as a companion animal in our society - it just doesn't fit.

This statement is contradictory (in my mind anyhow). You are saying that they dont need to be PTS and that its not the dogs fault, but that it cant exist in our society. Where does it exist then?

Greytmate, I don't think its unethical to offer a HA dog to an informed adopter. Hypothetically, lets say that a behaviorist and trainer wanted to adopt a dog that had bitten someone to rehabilitate it... is that unethical to allow them to do so? They are completely aware of the dangers and risks involved and have an understanding of not only what they are getting in to, but what needs to be done to solve a problem (if there is a solution). I, personally, don't think so. The question may become "At which point does it become unethical to adopt out a HA dog", and/or "What constitutes a dog being HA to the point of being unadoptable" but thats a whole other can of beans.

[Greytmate]

I realize that I am getting advice from experienced people, and I know both of their reputations as such, but it is their opinion none the less. Yes, I take their experience and reputation into account, but that doesn't create a fact. I want some studies, recorded observations etc so I can either have it PROVED to me or make a decision for myself. I'm not pretending to know it all, because I dont (and in fact in this subject I am probably quite ignorant and am just going by past experience and observations of my own (however limited they are)), but I do not follow advice as fact.

You are going to have to do the research yourself. This is not an academic forum. It is a community forum. I feel that my opinions are backed up by the experiences of many here.

Wanted to touch on this too....

This doesn't mean that the dog is "bad" and needs to be punished by PTS, or that it is the dog's fault, it just means that the dog can't live as a companion animal in our society - it just doesn't fit.

This statement is contradictory (in my mind anyhow). You are saying that they dont need to be PTS and that its not the dogs fault, but that it cant exist in our society. Where does it exist then?

In doggy heaven.

Greytmate, I don't think its unethical to offer a HA dog to an informed adopter. Hypothetically, lets say that a behaviorist and trainer wanted to adopt a dog that had bitten someone to rehabilitate it... is that unethical to allow them to do so? They are completely aware of the dangers and risks involved and have an understanding of not only what they are getting in to, but what needs to be done to solve a problem (if there is a solution). I, personally, don't think so. The question may become "At which point does it become unethical to adopt out a HA dog", and/or "What constitutes a dog being HA to the point of being unadoptable" but thats a whole other can of beans.

No. They probably are not completely aware. Normal pet buyers don't want faulty dogs. Those that do either are unaware of what they are in for and/or unrealistic about what can be achieved and probably acting out of their own need to 'fix a broken dog' at the risk of the rest of the community.

[ash&elar]

So a dog that will chase down a child and kill it should be allowed to live because it isnt its fault that it is that way???? Any dog in my whole extended family would be pts if it so much as attempted to bite a child even if the child accidently stood on its tail and the dog snapped at the kid, a dog is aware of who it is biting/going to bite unless it was cornered and being threatend it should move away from a child, complain vocally but not bite, i do not believe the way a dog is has everything to do with the owner, some dogs are genetically predispositioned to bad temps, some dogs should be pts for the safety of others.

to the OP i agree that a behavourist is needed, but if this dog has had a go at a child in the past it is something you will ALWAYS have to watch out for, is that something you are capable or even willing to do for the rest of this dogs life?

Are you kidding???

I agree the dog should not start viciously attacking the child or even draw blood, but you would PTS if it even snapped near a child who had injured it?

The OPs dog has not "chased down a child and killed it" so i don't even know why that was mentioned here...

I mentioned it in regards to joels comment.

And no i am not kidding at all, everyone is entitled to their own opinions not everyone agrees that is life. I would not have a dog that would bite at a child that is my choice and my beliefs.

[ash&elar]

So a dog that will chase down a child and kill it should be allowed to live because it isnt its fault that it is that way???? Any dog in my whole extended family would be pts if it so much as attempted to bite a child even if the child accidently stood on its tail and the dog snapped at the kid, a dog is aware of who it is biting/going to bite unless it was cornered and being threatend it should move away from a child, complain vocally but not bite, i do not believe the way a dog is has everything to do with the owner, some dogs are genetically predispositioned to bad temps, some dogs should be pts for the safety of others.

to the OP i agree that a behavourist is needed, but if this dog has had a go at a child in the past it is something you will ALWAYS have to watch out for, is that something you are capable or even willing to do for the rest of this dogs life?

Are you kidding???

I agree the dog should not start viciously attacking the child or even draw blood, but you would PTS if it even snapped near a child who had injured it?

The OPs dog has not "chased down a child and killed it" so i don't even know why that was mentioned here...

children are defenceless against dogs and can be very damaged by a dog, inpart because they are very close in height to a dog and therefore their faces get the snap. that is why imo it is much worse if a dog snaps at a child than an adult.

a dog should know its place in the heirarchy and snapping at a child shows it doesnt know that, this imo is a very dangerous situation.

That is what i believe.

[Joel]

No. They probably are not completely aware. Normal pet buyers don't want faulty dogs. Those that do either are unaware of what they are in for and/or unrealistic about what can be achieved and probably acting out of their own need to 'fix a broken dog' at the risk of the rest of the community.

That is a HUGE assumption. We're not talking about normal pet buyers. We're talking about experienced professionals in the canine field. I'm pretty sure they are aware of the dangers.

This statement is contradictory (in my mind anyhow). You are saying that they dont need to be PTS and that its not the dogs fault, but that it cant exist in our society. Where does it exist then?

In doggy heaven.

My point exactly. Contradictory.

You are going to have to do the research yourself. This is not an academic forum. It is a community forum. I feel that my opinions are backed up by the experiences of many here.

Your opinions may very well be backed up by many, but that doesnt change the fact. People have opinions on everything under the sun, with many people having the same opinions, but fact is not a majority vote.

I am fully prepared to do the research myself. Stop being so quick to jump down my throat. What I was saying was that these remain opinions, and until such time as fact is put forward, then it will be seen as the exactly that - opinion. I had previously asked that if sas had any links/references to studies then it would be greatly appreciated. If she chooses not to, then thats fine too - I can find it myself. You're right, this is a community forum and I thought the whole idea of community was to help eachother? Whether that be teaching or helping someone into a situation where they can teach themselves. Meh.

EDITED TO ADD:

a dog should know its place in the heirarchy and snapping at a child shows it doesnt know that, this imo is a very dangerous situation.

Couldn't have hit the nail more on the head. What everyone seems to be missing here is that it is the owners responsibility to make sure that the dog knows that its place on the pack heirachy is at the bottom. The dog should not be expected to just assume that position on its own without any direction.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Joel

[Aidan]

I want some studies, recorded observations etc so I can either have it PROVED to me or make a decision for myself.

A good way to think, IMHO. The nature-nurture debate is not dead, although I don't believe anyone would seriously pigeon-hole any particular behavioural trait as being either all nature or all nurture. Google will give you quite a lot of information on the heritability of behaviour traits, and if you search using Google Books or Google Scholar you will get some quite good information.

Don't search for "weak nerve". Weak nerve (if it means anything) would mean something else entirely in academia. I dare say you won't turn up much specifically related to dogs, but there will be quite a lot of research on other animals - mice, rats, humans; and topics such as aggression, impulse control, anti-social behaviour etc.

It might be simpler to begin your research on "heritability of alcoholism" for e.g, which gives a very good overview of the nature vs nurture debate and I think it has many strong parallels worth consideration. This is a good starting point: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh21-3/210.pdf (in case you want to know later, the rate of MZ twins in dogs is very low and finding them is cost-prohibitive, so dogs aren't used in behavioural genetics research very much).