geo Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Talking of answering questions Danielle, you haven't answered mine. There are many many dogs that can possibly be DA everywhere yet they've never attacked so should we euth all of those just in case? because essentially they all pose just as much a threat as the 2 mals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The sort of drive a GSD or Malinois presents is very different in appearance to the sort of drive a Bordie Collie, sighthound, or Sibe might present. I agree entirely. A working dog owner telling a Husky owner they haven't seen 'real' prey drive is absurd. It might not look the same on a sleeve. But it's real prey drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 What I am getting at is your statement above Huski assuming your dog's upbringing is the reason why it doesn't see cats as prey. It might be because your dog doesn't have enough prey drive and predatory predisposition to chase and kill cats in the first place??? How do you measure prey drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) What I'm really getting at is that to prevent these two from doing further damage they should be put down. I know training, rehoming etc "could" solve the problem, but who would be willing to take on two DA huskies that have such a history? Not many people I can assure you. In a perfect world we could save them all and I really do wish we could, but we need to face reality here. These two are in fact dangerous (not evil or nasty) and there is already an over burdened population of dogs in our society. There are so many dogs being pts in shelters across this country every day that are perfectly balanced animals. I know it seems cruel but why spend time and energy on those who are dangerous when there are so many others who would slot perfectly into society without having to be rehabilitated. I have an issue with this sentiment. There are innumerable dogs in pounds who could be saved. But can any of them replace a loved family pet, however untrained? To me each dog is unique. They are not cars that if one breaks down you simply get another one. I know that legally dogs are property, but for many people dogs are family. That needs to be taken into account before we callously ask for dogs to be PTS. We don't know the history, we have only read newspaper accounts of what happened, and we don't know if it was the first time this occured. If my dogs had been aggressive and some one had suggested I should PTS them since I could save a better tempered one from the pound, it would be extremely offensive. Yes, aggressive dogs need to be contained. Yes, the owner is responsible for what happened. But if it was my dog who did this, I would do anything to keep it safe, including keeping the dog in a dog run so that this can never happen again. And I would do this because it is my individual unique dog that I love, not the idea of 'a dog'. And I would spend as much time and energy as it takes to keep my dogs safe. Edited January 11, 2011 by Odin-Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielle Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Talking of answering questions Danielle, you haven't answered mine.There are many many dogs that can possibly be DA everywhere yet they've never attacked so should we euth all of those just in case? because essentially they all pose just as much a threat as the 2 mals. Putting words into my mouth isn't going to help your argument Geo. No, not all DA dogs need euthanizing, just the ones who are proven killers. Hope that answers your question. ;) Edited January 11, 2011 by Danielle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abed Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What I am getting at is your statement above Huski assuming your dog's upbringing is the reason why it doesn't see cats as prey. It might be because your dog doesn't have enough prey drive and predatory predisposition to chase and kill cats in the first place??? How do you measure prey drive? It depends on the definition of prey drive???. Genetic prey drive is the desire to chase and bite (capture) a moving object. In extension to that to complete the package is the amount of fighting drive in the dog to win the object when challenged under pressure. A prey driven act is the chase and capture and the intensity of both components of the act provides the measure. A field bred Labrador, Siberian Husky or Greyhound etc may have similar drive in the chase compared with a GSD or Belgian Malinois, but the fighting intesity to win the prey when challenged is no comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 A field bred Labrador, Siberian Husky or Greyhound etc may have similar drive in the chase compared with a GSD or Belgian Malinois, but the fighting intesity to win the prey when challenged is no comparison. IMO once the chase is over, its not prey drive that sees a dog fight to keep prey but resource guarding or sheer social dominance. Lets not confuse the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 My wife's old beagle got hit by a car, was dragged up the highway, then kept running with half an ear missing. Thankfully I don't know, but I doubt my GSD would do that. No doubt she would do similar in defence, but not prey. That could just be her lines (DDR), the old Vic lines I am familiar with are similar. Some of the more sporting lines might be different. In any case, empirically, the evidence would suggest that a dog who has killed multiple species has high prey drive. For Huski to teach that particular dog to co-exist happily with another species of small, fast, furry thing demonstrates that she has the necessary expertise, at least with Sibes. After all, this thread started with Northern breeds. Whether she could, should or would offer advice on working line GSDs or Mals, I don't know. I think you would be impressed by working examples of other breeds, abed. A friend of mine in the US hunts hogs with pitbulls and Filas. He now has a kennel of working Patterdales. I think any of these dogs on the hunt would make a GSD or Mal look fairly laid back, after all, if they don't hunt tenaciously they are culled. We don't ask GSDs to do that, we ask them to bite a sleeve and we make sure they do it with training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Owners of small dogs - here's a question. Imagine if your dog somehow escapes your yard - someone breaks a hole in the fence without your knowledge as may have happened here - and your dog goes roaming. He runs into the nextdoor neighbours front garden where the neighbour is feeding their chickens, and grabs and kills one of their pet chickens! Are you OK with the council euthanising your dog as a danger, to make sure it doesn't do this again? Or would you argue that your dog was just being a dog, and shouldn't be punished for your mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Owners of small dogs - here's a question. Imagine if your dog somehow escapes your yard - someone breaks a hole in the fence without your knowledge as may have happened here - and your dog goes roaming. He runs into the nextdoor neighbours front garden where the neighbour is feeding their chickens, and grabs and kills one of their pet chickens! Are you OK with the council euthanising your dog as a danger, to make sure it doesn't do this again? Or would you argue that your dog was just being a dog, and shouldn't be punished for your mistake? No but I'd expect a very big fine (current fines not enough to be a deterrant IMO. Easier to risk fines than repair fences/build a dog run etc), I'd expect the council to come and inspect my fences etc and give me due dates for remediation (and the dog not allowed outside unleashed until fixed). If I didn't comply the dog would be seized. These threads often focus on fault (it isn't the dog's fault, der). What needs to happen IMO is for owners to take their responsbility seriously and be held to very strict account when things go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielle Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Owners of small dogs - here's a question. Imagine if your dog somehow escapes your yard - someone breaks a hole in the fence without your knowledge as may have happened here - and your dog goes roaming. He runs into the nextdoor neighbours front garden where the neighbour is feeding their chickens, and grabs and kills one of their pet chickens! Are you OK with the council euthanising your dog as a danger, to make sure it doesn't do this again? Or would you argue that your dog was just being a dog, and shouldn't be punished for your mistake? No but I would expect one hell of a fine and restrictions to be placed on me. Chickens are birds, they are in fact prey animals so that would in fact be a prey driven act. Killing another dog is different, dogs do not prey on other dogs naturally, dogs are not by nature cannibalistic. They can be but only in extreme circumstances, which was not the case with these two huskies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 These dogs were Mals, not huskies. Not that breed is particularly relevant. There are no hard and fast rules regarding what a dog can and can't see as a prey item. To a large prey driven dog, what is the difference between a small 5kg fluffy dog and a possum or a large chook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rules Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Owners of small dogs - here's a question. Imagine if your dog somehow escapes your yard - someone breaks a hole in the fence without your knowledge as may have happened here - and your dog goes roaming. He runs into the nextdoor neighbours front garden where the neighbour is feeding their chickens, and grabs and kills one of their pet chickens! Are you OK with the council euthanising your dog as a danger, to make sure it doesn't do this again? Or would you argue that your dog was just being a dog, and shouldn't be punished for your mistake? If the small dog had been intent on taking the chicken from the arms of a human, then yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Of course it is natural ! It is the subject of this story. Are these artificially intelligent cyborg Malamutes ? The only reason wolves don't kill Shitzu's in the wild is because they don't exist in the wild. Small mammals are hunted all the time by wolves. Suppose you took a small breed dog and put it near a pack of dingoes or wild dogs, what do you think would happen ? eta - I think we know the answer to that so consider it rhetorical. The point is, we have created large breeds, small breeds, and everything in between, and we keep them in our society together, there would be no such coming together and no such circumstances in the wild. Problem is, we keep them as pets, and we love our pets and don't wish harm to fall upon them, so most people do their best to contain their dogs. This is a man made problem and we must deal with it as best we can and understand the issues for what they are, but claiming that it is not natural for a large dog to kill a small dog is absurd. Edited January 12, 2011 by Lo Pan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mum to Emma Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Owners of small dogs - here's a question. Imagine if your dog somehow escapes your yard - someone breaks a hole in the fence without your knowledge as may have happened here - and your dog goes roaming. He runs into the nextdoor neighbours front garden where the neighbour is feeding their chickens, and grabs and kills one of their pet chickens! Are you OK with the council euthanising your dog as a danger, to make sure it doesn't do this again? Or would you argue that your dog was just being a dog, and shouldn't be punished for your mistake? No but I'd expect a very big fine (current fines not enough to be a deterrant IMO. Easier to risk fines than repair fences/build a dog run etc), I'd expect the council to come and inspect my fences etc and give me due dates for remediation (and the dog not allowed outside unleashed until fixed). If I didn't comply the dog would be seized. These threads often focus on fault (it isn't the dog's fault, der). What needs to happen IMO is for owners to take their responsbility seriously and be held to very strict account when things go wrong. And here lies the main issue - dog control by Councils has regressed to that of the 1970s. In other words, it is non-existent. Sure, dogs don't roam the streets as they once did, but Councils take a wait-and-see approach, or a "wait until after the event (attack)" approach to the issue. In Stonnington (for interstaters, one of Melbourne's wealthiest municipalities) there are only TWO council workers dedicated to enforcing leash laws. As a result, animal control regulations are routinely ignored. In Stonnington there is clearly more money to be made enforcing parking restrictions than leash laws, so dog control is a joke. The result? Responsible dog owners cannot walk safely through on-leash areas and elderly dog-walkers are at risk of injury by out of control animals in Council parks. My 87 year old father recently fell on the footpath when an dog charged from the front of a property, and my brother has (similar to the woman and her JR that sparked this discussion) been stalked on 2 occasions by packs of off-leash dogs in ON leash Stonnington parks. My brother was fit enough to hold his mini-schnauzer above his head, away from snapping jaws. I fear what would have happened if my father had been in the same situation. Edited January 12, 2011 by Mum to Emma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idigadog Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 There are no hard and fast rules regarding what a dog can and can't see as a prey item. To a large prey driven dog, what is the difference between a small 5kg fluffy dog and a possum or a large chook? In my yard, neither would last for very long! I know that some of my dogs would be O.K. with a small dog, under supervision, but there is not a chance in hell they would be left alone with it, or a chook, or a possum because let's face it, any of them would end up being dental floss very quickly. Would my dogs attack a small dog if they were to accidentally get out of our yards? I honestly don't know Can anyone be absolutely certain that their dog wouldn't do the same if unsupervised and roaming in a pack? Because if you think your dog is infallable, you are kidding yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zizzi Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Wow I have read alot of this thread and admit I don't know alot about training and natural behaviors it's all still learning to me but how can people say "don't have a small dog"'or "a big dog would be a safer bet"'people like what they like you can't expect my mother to own the same dog I do. It's just stupid. Given my English mastiff x dane has been raised with all smaller dogs I can't say how he would react out alone approaching smaller dogs. The small dogs might nip him where he hasn't been nipped before. I guarantee he would approach them and scare the hell out of the owner and perhaps small dog to. And I wouldn't blame people for being scared. His not a little dog. But I don't know what he would be like without me there to correct him. The same would go if he did come across a huge dog. I don't know how he would react I don't think he would approach a big dog as he was attacked at 16wks and isn't a fan of other big dogs. But I just don't know. His scared when I'm with him but maybe it's because I'm there to protect him and he thrives on keeping me happy. If he was alone I dare say he would be scared but have nobody to hide behind. I have no idea what so ever how he would be without me around. The minute anything larger than a labrador approaches him at the beach he runs back to me. But happily plays with dogs smaller than my mums beagle... If council let him out while I was at work and did nothing I'd be fuming. But if I knew of the fencing damage and he got out I'd be fuming at myself. I also read somebody said leaving two huskies alone in a yard all day isn't smart? Where else would you leave them? I certainly wouldnt give them free range of the house for 10hrs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielle Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Here is something to ponder.... There is a thread in general about someone who shot two dogs that were on her property killing her chickens and turkeys. She was well within her rights to destroy these dogs as they were mauling her critters. So please tell me how this scenario is any different? Why should the right to protect ones animals only apply to rural folk? If these huskies were to attack my beloved dogs, chickens, horses, whatever they would cop a bullet straight away from my .22 rifle. So why should city dogs get away with destructive and violent behavior? Considering they are in a more populated area, therefore posing an even greater risk, why should they be kept alive? Killing chickens and killing a jrt is no different. These chickens may have been pets just like the jrt. This is just another angle of looking at this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The dogs didn't 'get away' with anything. They are dogs. There is a marked difference between killing a dog that poses an imminent threat ( i would have no issue if the woman with the JRT had somehow managed to kill one of the dogs to halt the attack) and killing a dog after the fact just 'because'. Whether these dogs are killed or not isn't the point to me. My point is that if they are killed and that is the only action taken- nothing is achieved and it does not make another attack any less likely, it just means it will be from the other dogs, not these ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) She was well within her rights to destroy these dogs as they were mauling her critters. So please tell me how this scenario is any different? The main difference for me is the timing. The shooting of those dogs killing poultry was at the time of the attack, and presumably to prevent the attack continuing on other stock. If I had been there when the JRT was attacked and had some way of killing the malamutes to stop the attack, I would have. Not so they didn't 'get away with it', but to save the dog being attacked in that moment. Btw, I think the attack on the JRT is a worse reflection on the attacking dogs. Because I think there was less in it's on-lead behaviour to trigger prey drive then there is in a chicken or turkey's behaviour, and they must have very low thresholds to attack. That's assuming the JRT attack was prey driven. The noise and movement of poultry is an high stimulus for the majority of dogs imho, esp if no previous exposure to them which is more feasible for poultry then for other dogs. Edited January 13, 2011 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now