sandgrubber Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) Let's say that the breed standard for some breed calls for temperament that would lead to unprovoked attack on unfamiliar humans and / or other animals, and some or many breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament. What should be done? Edited June 24, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Let's say that the breed standard for some breed calls for temperament that would lead to unprovoked attack on unfamiliar humans and / or other animals, and some or many breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament. What should be done? Ban, maditory desexing and no importing, of the idiot owners/breeders. We already have too many idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) And if import bans can't be imposed this would be a disaster. Any breeder wanting to breed this type of dog needs euthanasing really for they are responsible for creating and distributing a menace to society. Edited June 24, 2011 by dogmad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Where do you draw the line? For example livestock guardians which are designed to protect flocks from predators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Very hard to define HA, or DA, I think. There are very few standards that outright call for a HA or DA temperament (the Akita NZKC standard springs to mind as accepting DA, I don't know of any others). But many standards ask a dog to be protective, or defensive, or say that it should be wary of strangers, or that it should be game. These can all verge on HA or DA in some situations (defensiveness can result in a display of what some would call HA if the dog feels it needs to defend something, for example). Not all dogs are supposed to have the temperament of a labrador or goldie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I don't know how you would define it but either way my opinion is we don't need aggressive dogs brought into the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqui835 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Very hard to define HA, or DA, I think. There are very few standards that outright call for a HA or DA temperament (the Akita NZKC standard springs to mind as accepting DA, I don't know of any others). But many standards ask a dog to be protective, or defensive, or say that it should be wary of strangers, or that it should be game. These can all verge on HA or DA in some situations (defensiveness can result in a display of what some would call HA if the dog feels it needs to defend something, for example). Not all dogs are supposed to have the temperament of a labrador or goldie. This. Have very high penalties for anyone whose dog injures another pet/human - not just these breeds. My breed is meant to be aloof with strangers and naturally protective - he has displayed threatening behaviour towards weird people who have approached me at night and is no labrador - but he's what I want him to be - otherwise I would have bought a golden retriever... But I have no tolerance for people who own my breed and don't train it and make it a dangerous dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I don't know how you would define it but either way my opinion is we don't need aggressive dogs brought into the country. But that is the issue - in order to address the subject with any clarity (rather than pure kneejerk emotion) you need to define it. Saying something should be banned without defining what it is you are banning doesnt really get anyone anywhere IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This. Have very high penalties for anyone whose dog injures another pet/human - not just these breeds. Playing devils advocate here - in what situation? Suppose the dog was protecting a flock of sheep and a neighbourhood dog out on a walk with its owner entered the paddock to chase the sheep and was injured by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatrinaM Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure what you mean. Terriers were designed to kill animals which are now kept as pets which could very well see an unprovoked attack, hounds were designed to hunt animals, again leaving them with the ability to lead to an unprovoked attack, Mastiffs were designed to defend their families, again something that could lead to an unprovoked attack, etc etc. With this line there would be few dogs not banned. On the other hand if you mean that breeds are encouraged to be outright dog and human aggressive then I am not comfortable with dogs being bred for this but I dont know of a breed standard that calls for a dog to be agressive to humans. (But I am certainly not familiar with every breed standard either) Edited June 24, 2011 by KatrinaM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This. Have very high penalties for anyone whose dog injures another pet/human - not just these breeds. Playing devils advocate here - in what situation? Suppose the dog was protecting a flock of sheep and a neighbourhood dog out on a walk with its owner entered the paddock to chase the sheep and was injured by it. The neighbours dog could be shot (dead) in these same circumstances, so being injured while "trespassing" is probably the lesser of two evils. I have no time for people who believe no dog should ever under any provocation be allowed to defend itself or it's "pack", dogs are dogs not little furry pacifists - even the so called "nice" breeds have the same instincts for self preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marion 01 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 There is a big difference in being bred for aggression and having the protective instinct. Tibetan Terriers in their native country were very good watch dogs and you approached their home with caution, they still to this day are wary of strangers, but are not aggressive. The biggest worry is the undesirable type of people who get their hands on any aggressive breed, would be almost impossible to monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqui835 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This. Have very high penalties for anyone whose dog injures another pet/human - not just these breeds. Playing devils advocate here - in what situation? Suppose the dog was protecting a flock of sheep and a neighbourhood dog out on a walk with its owner entered the paddock to chase the sheep and was injured by it. I guess what I mean is fine people for creating dangerous situations. If you live in the city, and you create a dog that is dangerous, then you should be held accountable for what happens. But for example, there is at least a decent chance that my dog would attack someone who came onto my property without me knowing about it - you can never know for sure of course, but I would never say to a stranger, oh you'll be fine going onto my property without me being there. I do not consider this dangerous, trespassers are breaking the law and disrespecting others - when you do this expect consequences. But, I take my dog everywhere with me, and say I had him at a cafe and he attacked a waitstaff person, or someone else's dog, well that's unreasonable and dangerous and I would expect to face consequences. If you own a hunting dog who will kill other animals on sight, then obviously you need to avoid creating dangerous situations but if you do that, and say just use your dog for the mouse plague, well, that's like having a gun and just using it for hunting roos. For me it's just about the owner taking responsibility for the animals they choose to own and making sure they don't infringe on the right of others to enjoy life. If you're not hurting anyone, I have no problem with what you choose to own, and will never support any legislation that demanded otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 There is a big difference in being bred for aggression and having the protective instinct. Tibetan Terriers in their native country were very good watch dogs and you approached their home with caution, they still to this day are wary of strangers, but are not aggressive. The biggest worry is the undesirable type of people who get their hands on any aggressive breed, would be almost impossible to monitor. hmmm, and this isn't happening now? Not talking about the protective instinct bred in to certain breeds but the basic natural self preservation all animals have evolved with. Big leap here but just suppose someone took the Tibetan Terrier and used it's natural wariness of strangers and crossed it with a breed which is more aggressive (thinking one of the true guarding breeds here so perhaps BOLD is better than aggressive), added a dabble of something which is a bit nervy so it becomes unpredictable and created a dog which looked like a Tibetan Terrier (to the uneducated eye of course) which was wary of strangers, aggressive and unpredictable? Then we would have a situation where "Tibetan Terriers" are seen as aggressive and dangerous even though you and I know they're not really TT's nor are they typical of what the TT is. This is a off the track of what the topic was about so sorry! The Brazilian Fila comes to mind as a breed intended to be naturally protective and unapproachable by strangers but I don't believe the breed is MEANT to be aggressive in the sense that it will go off looking for someone to bite, my understanding is they have the mastiff style temperament which is you invade their space or threaten their people and you pay the price. Yes, you breed this poorly or cross it with a more reactive breed and there is a major issue, but this is really no different to what is already happening with crossing the Neo & DDB with ""pitbulls" (not) to create a large guardian dog with a reactive temperament - these are the crosses that scare the hell out of me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andisa Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) I won't be answering this one - to me it is too loaded and the old saying of "careful what you wish for " springs to mind... Too many variables which could see the demise of half the dog breeds - not just a small select few. Edited June 24, 2011 by Andisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatrinaM Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Sandra777, do you have a lot of experiance with these crosses that scare the hell out of you or is it just what you think they may be like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) This. Have very high penalties for anyone whose dog injures another pet/human - not just these breeds. Playing devils advocate here - in what situation? Suppose the dog was protecting a flock of sheep and a neighbourhood dog out on a walk with its owner entered the paddock to chase the sheep and was injured by it. The neighbours dog could be shot (dead) in these same circumstances, so being injured while "trespassing" is probably the lesser of two evils. I have no time for people who believe no dog should ever under any provocation be allowed to defend itself or it's "pack", dogs are dogs not little furry pacifists - even the so called "nice" breeds have the same instincts for self preservation. That is exactly right and where the danger is in banning 'agressive dogs' or 'agressive breeds' - First you have to define agression. Take that same dog and put it in a suburban situation where it lives with the family rabbit and cat. The neighbours terrier digs under the fence to get to the rabbit and is injured or killed. Is the dog 'agressive'? In the situation I describe above being injured is certainly the 'lesser of two evils' for the insitgator. Ban 'dog agression' though and the dog doing the guarding is suddenly not just doing its job, but is a 'monster' as it attacked another dog. Most aggression tends to happen in two main places - in the family home/property or when the dog is roaming loose and unsupervised. The second situation may be more clear cut as there is a clear human 'duty of care' factor when it comes to containment and dogs roaming. Dogs injuring another dog or human on their own property however becomes quite murky as there are so many factors and triggers and situations. Is it HA to attack a burglar breaking into your house at night? What about the ambulance driver trying to get into the house to attend an emergency call? Is it HA for a dog to guard your children from unwanted strangers? What about the unfamiliar out of town uncle that is visiting and swoops to pick up your child and give them a bear hug? Is the dog that is cornered by the child and snaps at it HA after it has been chased all over the yard for 'pat the nice doggy' despite its warnings that it is not happy? (you know - the dog that 'just attacked out of the blue for no reason') Would it make a difference if this dog was a GSD, a JRT a Border Collie or a Staffy? Edited to add - this thread here brings a good case in point: Is this dog HA? It is afterall a breed that is according to its standard a 'fearless and bold' working terrier? Edited June 25, 2011 by espinay2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 This topic also brings to mind the ban on importation to Australia of GSD's in the 70's etc because it was considered an 'aggressive breed'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 There are breeds that were developed to provide protection in certain circumstances. Those circumstances, where we need a dog that will act like a specialised weapon and aggressively protect, are rare in this country. They do exist for some farmers and other specialised occupations though. Maybe there should be permits similar to gun permits that farmers and others can apply for. It isn't reasonable in our community to own one of these weapons for personal protection, and they need to be kept out of the hands of anti-social or aggressive people. I think we need special laws for people that breed with individual dogs with temperament or other serious flaws. Same as we have for manufacturers that produce dangerous products and release them on to the market. A standard calling for unprovoked aggression is not required or desirable for a pet dog in Australia. Are there breeds here that have this in their standard? Over the history of dogs, many breeds and types have become popular or become extinct in certain locations. There is no obligation for the Australian community to accept the presence of dangerously aggressive dogs or to keep a healthy sized-gene pool, just because a breed once had a reason to exist once in some other type of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That is exactly right and where the danger is in banning 'agressive dogs' or 'agressive breeds' - First you have to define agression. Take that same dog and put it in a suburban situation where it lives with the family rabbit and cat. The neighbours terrier digs under the fence to get to the rabbit and is injured or killed. Is the dog 'agressive'? Exactly. How are we going to define which standard encourage HA or DA when we decide which breeds to ban or legislate against? Not many (if any) standards come right out and say "this breed should be aggressive to humans" or "this breed should want to kill other dogs". So do we just ban anything with "protective" or "defensive" or "game" in the standard? We'll lose a lot of dog breeds that way. I'd lose my belgian, for a start. What proportion of dog attacks are perpetrated by dogs that come from registered breeders, anyway? BYB don't follow the standard, pretty much by definition, so legislating dogs based on the standard isn't necessarily going to affect attacks by BYB-bred dogs. 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