Malamute Club Pres Says Pedigree Dogs 'placid'

[mikebailey]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/attack-dog-owner...0308-1blfy.html

I was disappointed to hear the Alaskan Malamute Club of NSW president say that if you get a pedigree malamute it's generally placid but if it's mixed with another breed you can get "issues".

If there any science to back this up or is it simply another case of ANKC members protecting their own dogs while throwing the rest to the wolves? We see this with papered vs. unpapered AmStaffs in NSW.

[megan_]

sounds like codswallop! There is no programme to ensure that all pedigree mal's (or any dog) have a placid temperament.

I thought it was well known that they have a high prey drive?

What he really should be saying is that the dogs aren't for everyone and here is the kind of owner that they suit.

[Sandra777]

I am reminded of the rep from the Siberian Husky club that expressed astonishment at the tragic death of the baby in West Australia a while back. Claimed they'd never heard of a Sibe doing such a thing before, which displayed an appalling lack of knowledge of the breed.

Sibes are grossly over-represented in the deaths of very small babies and don't appear at all in stats for deaths of children older than about 6 months. This is obviously some sort of anomaly in the breed and for a representative of a breed club not to know this is frankly a bit scary.

No I don't know how they could have spun it to avoid the press going nuts so perhaps they just said they'd never heard of it to stop the witch hunt.

[geo]

Typical response from people who think that they're dogs are infallible. Next the breed clubs will say the dogs involved in these attacks aren't pure breds.

They're beautiful animals, but are not for inexperienced owners at all.

[mita]

The Malamute Club has a point that there's a better chance that purebred Mals from registered breeders are less likely to be aggressive to humans.

But they've got the reason wrong. It's not a case of being purebred, per se.

The evidence is compelling that it's how a dog (of whatever breed or mix) is bred, raised and managed by PEOPLE which results in worrying aggressive behaviours.

Like, there's a study from a Spanish university which compared a whole range of breeds. And, for the development of aggressive problems, it came down to human management , not breed per se.

There's also home-grown research from UQ that registered breeders of purebreds are more likely to raise their puppies (during the critical developmental period) to be better socialised. Which means, the study pointed out, their dogs are less likely to show inappropriate aggression problems later.

All of this does not mean that a purebred Mal will never turn out to be worryingly aggressive. It will still depend on how an individual puppy was raised, (especially in the key period for socialisation). It just means there's a better chance the dog has been better socialised, if it's come from a registered breeder.

Every time one of these 'attacks' occurs, an opportunity to educate about the critical need for socialisation of pups from the earliest age, is lost.

Only breed club I've ever heard speak to this angle, in the press, was the Rottie Club in Victoria. Their comments were spot on. Whoever is associated with that club, knows their onions!

Edited March 9, 2011 by mita

[geo]

There's also home-grown research from UQ that registered breeders of purebreds are more likely to raise their puppies (during the critical developmental period) to be better socialised. Which means, the study pointed out, their dogs are less likely to show inappropriate aggression problems later.

All of this does not mean that a purebred Mal will never turn out to be worryingly aggressive. It will still depend on how an individual dogs was raised, (especially in the key period for socialisation). It just means there's a better chance the dog has been better socialised, if it's come from a registered breeder.

Every time one of these 'attacks' occurs, an opportunity to educate about the critical need for socialisation of pups from the earliest age, is lost.

Only breed club I've ever heard speak to this angle, in the press, was the Rottie Club in Victoria. Their comments were spot on. Whoever is associated with that club, knows their onions!

I have heard of the studies and they seem quite reasonable, and i agree, but having a piece of paper means nothing when the dog is out of the breeders hands.

The UQ study though mentions dogs during the critical period, this could be after they have left the breeder so did they follow up buyers? (sure rego'd breeders may attract better owners to start with) but it is open to criticism as they could surely not get a good cross section of breeders or owners that breed pure breds that are un registered.

[mita]

I have heard of the studies and they seem quite reasonable, and i agree, but having a piece of paper means nothing when the dog is out of the breeders hands.

The UQ study though mentions dogs during the critical period, this could be after they have left the breeder so did they follow up buyers? (sure rego'd breeders may attract better owners to start with) but it is open to criticism as they could surely not get a good cross section of breeders or owners that breed pure breds that are un registered.

It's got nothing to do with 'having a piece of paper'. It has everything to do with what happens for a puppy while in their 'first human's' hands. That's the beginning of hard-wiring to become well socialised....or not. That was already known in the science. Of course, it could be speculated that breeders who place an emphasis on socialising their puppies well from the earliest age, would be likely to seek out homes where that was valued and continued.

But the critical early base must be in place....on which later learning can build.

(Incidentally, the Spanish study picked up on how people managed their dogs after acquiring them & living with them as pets.)

The UQ study compared how registered and unregistered breeders dealt with their puppies. Of course, they recruited numbers of registered and non- registered breeders in numbers which would make the study scientifically viable. UQ is in the top 3 research universities in the country.

Registered breeders were found to socialise their puppies better, during the critical first period. And the link was made with less likelihood of aggressive problems later.

Have a look at this info on the Rotti Club of Vic website. See what you think. They pull together very well both findings (from those 2 pieces of research)....early base for socialisation by a breeder, then on-going management by an owner.

http://www.rottweilerclubofvictoria.com/site/index.php?id=34

Edited March 9, 2011 by mita