Breeding For Aggression

[miss whippy]

I feel that in Australia, we have no place for breeds that have been bred to attack humans or other dogs, unprovoked, especially if intended to cause heavy injury.

OK, so we'll take our enormous population of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and destroy the lot then shall we?

My reasoning about this is similar to the reason behind our country's policy to not allow it's citziens to carry firearms.

Are you saying that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are bred with the intention that they will attack other dogs or humans, unprovoked?

If that is the case, yup, or at least neuter them all.

I don't think you are saying that, and neither was I.

I do have a bit of an issue with the fact that there are the sorts of breeds that do have an instinct intentionally and selectively bred into them to ignore another dog's signs of submission or defeat and with no provocation, attack and fight to the death, with no reservation and no consideration of their own preservation. That owners and breeders freely admit that bar bashing them on the head with a brick or shoving something sharp up their arsehole, there is nothing you can do to make them let go. I'm not saying that every example of the breed is going to do this, but there is a much higher potential for problems with a breed that has been developed to have these characteristics. Instinct is a very hard thing to counteract, even with the best of trainers.

Take for example the Fila Braziliero, which seems to be the possible cause of this debate. If the standard set out by the CAFIB was the standard exclusively being followed, I would not want those dogs in our country. What possible use could we as Australians have for an animal with these characteristics? The FCI standard has a different requirement, as was quoted 'nicer temperament', which may be reasonable enough to feel that safety with these dogs is not such an issue(I don't know, I haven't read the standard). Do we know which is which? If not, surely safety is more important than the ability for people to choose to have a particular breed of dog.

Just thought I'd make sure I was properly informed.

Had a look at www.boldhart.com, staffordshire bull terrier breeder that came up when I googled the breed standard.

standard makes no mention of aggression towards other dogs or humans.

'Generally speaking the Stafford will not be indiscriminately aggressive towards other dogs'

'Always be aware that whilst a Stafford should not be the aggressor he will respond if challenged by another dog'

are comments made about the temperament expected from a staffordshire bull terrier.

much as I expected, given this,

I'm not sure why you thought I was suggesting someone should come and put down your poor little pooch?

[Sandra777]

Uh Miss Whippy In your original statement you say breeds which have been bred to attack humans or dogs.

The SBT originated back in the early 1800's as a fighting dog so it fits the criteria of "which have been".

Is it being bred NOW for the same reason - well not in my house!

If you are going to wipe out entire breeds because of their original purpose I think you need to understand the enormous numbers of breeds which originated to kill other animals or to defend human property from other humans. Pretty sure you'll find your Whippets were originally bred to kill other animals (not dogs of course) so I think perhaps rabbit fanciers would say they were bred to be aggressive towards their favoured animal.

Dogs regardless of breed/size/shape/pure or cross that are NOW being bred to serve that purpose is the one you want to worry about.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Sandra777

[sas]

I feel that in Australia, we have no place for breeds that have been bred to attack humans or other dogs, unprovoked, especially if intended to cause heavy injury.

OK, so we'll take our enormous population of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and destroy the lot then shall we?

If they all had unprovoked attacks on humans/animals then yes....they don't so no.

[sas]

Uh Miss Whippy In your original statement you say breeds which have been bred to attack humans or dogs.

The SBT originated back in the early 1800's as a fighting dog so it fits the criteria of "which have been".

Is it being bred NOW for the same reason - well not in my house!

If you are going to wipe out entire breeds because of their original purpose I think you need to understand the enormous numbers of breeds which originated to kill other animals or to defend human property from other humans. Pretty sure you'll find your Whippets were originally bred to kill other animals (not dogs of course) so I think perhaps rabbit fanciers would say they were bred to be aggressive towards their favoured animal.

Dogs regardless of breed/size/shape/pure or cross that are NOW being bred to serve that purpose is the one you want to worry about.

Great Danes not only were Boar Hunters but also pulled men off horses and were called 'War dogs'. Most are Gentle Giants today.

[Remarkabull]

I have no problem with dogs that 'may' be HA or DA, my problem is how do we control the idiots that will want to own them?

[tarope]

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'.

Might be an idea if you checked your facts first before making this Ignorant statement.

Whats so ignorant about bringing to peoples attention the futile banning of the importation of the GSD based on incorrect fear based assumptions? Ok so the ban actually ENDED in the 70's. And the main fear was that crossed with a Dingo it would create a sheep killing super dog. But it still stands as an example of something I would not like to see in this country again when it comes to jumping to conclusions about dog breeds and agression. Might be an idea if you read the thread again.....

You did say because it was considered an 'aggressive breed' didn't you?

In 1929 an unjust import ban was placed of this wonderful breed because some moron farmers had this crazy idea that GSD's would breed with dingos and produce a super sheep killer. What these morons didn't know was the GSD was a sheep herding breed.

Under this ban came victimization as they were considered vermin and in some states could be shot on sight. GSD owners needed a permit to travel from one town to another, rego was much more and of cause the fear associated with Ignorance which is still alive today.

Bloodlines also suffered and finely in 1972 this ban was lifted

I didn't vote as I don't see the purpose of this thread at all.

Edited June 26, 2011 by tarope

[espinay2]

You did say because it was considered an 'aggressive breed' didn't you?

Yes, I did say it was (past tense) considered (as in thought of as such by the people of the time - whatever the correctness of their thoughts) an 'agressive breed' (as in a breed that showed aggression that was by them considered 'over the norm' - in this case as a 'sheep killer'). I can't see anything in that statement that is incorrect or ignorant. If you can, I would be happy for you to show me where and how.

[GeckoTree]

My vote is nothing, If the breed standards says its fine then I guess that is a part of the breed and should continue as is. If the standard is changed in the future to omit this from the standards and people within the breed follow it, then as is to that yet again.

I couldn't give a crap either way actually.

[Red Fox]

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?

Breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament? Or breeders are actively and openly selecting for correct temperament?

No breed should be watered down to fit someone elses "ideal" IMO.

[Souff]

Sandgrubber, for a moment there I thought you were for real and that some kennel council had allowed such wording in a breed standard.

Please tell me that this is hypothetical.

Such wording has no place in a breed standard.

Humans, through action or inaction, can make any dog aggressive, HA, DA or any other kind of "A".

Breed standard or no.

Souff

[Roxy Lady]

Sandgrubber, for a moment there I thought you were for real and that some kennel council had allowed such wording in a breed standard.

Please tell me that this is hypothetical.

Such wording has no place in a breed standard.

Humans, through action or inaction, can make any dog aggressive, HA, DA or any other kind of "A".

Breed standard or no.

Souff

I took it for a hypothetical 'imaginary' breed and 'breed standard', calling for outright intended 'natural' (ie bred in) aggression .

[bulldogz4eva]

Background: I like the idea of blaming the deed, not the breed. But it gets complicated where breeding programs deliberately bring out traits that I would not like to see in the dog next door.

This relates to Brazil's national dog, the Fila Braziliero . . . a 'landrace' whose historical uses include tracking and 'gripping' runaway slaves, hunting big game, and guarding large estates in a society with extreme income inequality. I'd guess similar considerations apply to other breeds, or some breeder's lines within breeds.

Text is extracted from retrieverman's blog . . . http://retrieverman....ed-for-ojeriza/ . . . see also comparison of the two breed standards at http://www.fila-brasileiro.org/compare_breed_standards.html

Is it ethical to breed for ojeriza?

February 13, 2009 by retrieverman

... In the 1970′s, the Brazilian dog fancy wanted the studbooks closed . . . The original registry for this breed complied but only after creating a schism in the breed that lasts to this day. This led to two separate, warring registries.

The registry that got the breed accepted by the FCI called for dogs with distinctly molosser appearance with bloodhond facial features. They also wanted a nicer temperament in the dogs.

However, the other registry, the CAFIB (Club for the Improvement of the Fila Brasileiro), very strongly argues against making the dogs very heavy and coarse. And most controversially, its founders insist on breeding for what they say is a unique trait to the bred. This trait is called ojeriza.

roughly translates as xenophobia, a deep dislike of strangers. The standard for ojeriza states that the dog should not "allow the judge (a stranger) to touch it. And if it attacks the judge, such a reaction must not be considered a fault, but only a confirmation of its temperament." (Let that sink in for a second.)

Dogs from these lines bond very strongly with their families, and by the time they are 18 months to a year in age, they show very high levels of aggression towards people who are not in their immediate families.

The FCI backed club argues that the dogs were never historically bred this aggressive. The dogs allowed visiting farmers to enter the property. It was only when Brazil developed a high crime rate that people began to breed for a much more protective dog.

The CAFIB won't even register a dog unless it shows ojeriza as an adult. Puppies are not registered. They counter that the FCI dogs are mixed with Great Danes and other "softer" mastiffs. The see their dogs as very close to the working tracking mastiff of Brazil as it always was.

I knew this topic would turn into another Fila debate.Since you discovered them you still have a bee in your bonnet over them.Have you ever met one yet now you are back in the states?They do not exist here in Australia and they are already banned so it is a nonsensical argument.Why dont you petition them in the States to have them banned and see how far you get.You still havent listened to anything I have had to say on the subject and I do have some first hand knowledge of the dogs.What you read in a breed standard and what the dogs are like today might not be the same thing.As society becomes more urbanised and populated those that cant fit in go by the way side.You would be hard pressed to find a Fila with real temperament in the States anymore.You would have to go to South America to places where they have a real need for them.There they are bred for a reason and still used for that reason.They are a special dog and not a crazed man eater.Not unless you f*** with them and that would be your bad.

As I have stated before I could take breeds that are already here and cross them and produce a man killer if I so wanted and I dont.So what are you going to do?Ban every breed of dog over 20 kgs?Put the onus on the owner simple.It really isnt that hard.Once they realise it will be their ass on the line if their dog does something they might think twice about it.Until that happens nothing will change.

[Staranais]

Sandgrubber, for a moment there I thought you were for real and that some kennel council had allowed such wording in a breed standard.

Please tell me that this is hypothetical.

Such wording has no place in a breed standard.

The only one of I know is the Akita standard. I quote:

Temperament:

Alert and responsive, dignified and courageous. Aggressive toward other dogs.

[BJean]

Background: I like the idea of blaming the deed, not the breed. But it gets complicated where breeding programs deliberately bring out traits that I would not like to see in the dog next door.

This relates to Brazil's national dog, the Fila Braziliero . . . a 'landrace' whose historical uses include tracking and 'gripping' runaway slaves, hunting big game, and guarding large estates in a society with extreme income inequality. I'd guess similar considerations apply to other breeds, or some breeder's lines within breeds.

Text is extracted from retrieverman's blog . . . http://retrieverman....ed-for-ojeriza/ . . . see also comparison of the two breed standards at http://www.fila-brasileiro.org/compare_breed_standards.html

Is it ethical to breed for ojeriza?

February 13, 2009 by retrieverman

... In the 1970′s, the Brazilian dog fancy wanted the studbooks closed . . . The original registry for this breed complied but only after creating a schism in the breed that lasts to this day. This led to two separate, warring registries.

The registry that got the breed accepted by the FCI called for dogs with distinctly molosser appearance with bloodhond facial features. They also wanted a nicer temperament in the dogs.

However, the other registry, the CAFIB (Club for the Improvement of the Fila Brasileiro), very strongly argues against making the dogs very heavy and coarse. And most controversially, its founders insist on breeding for what they say is a unique trait to the bred. This trait is called ojeriza.

roughly translates as xenophobia, a deep dislike of strangers. The standard for ojeriza states that the dog should not "allow the judge (a stranger) to touch it. And if it attacks the judge, such a reaction must not be considered a fault, but only a confirmation of its temperament." (Let that sink in for a second.)

Dogs from these lines bond very strongly with their families, and by the time they are 18 months to a year in age, they show very high levels of aggression towards people who are not in their immediate families.

The FCI backed club argues that the dogs were never historically bred this aggressive. The dogs allowed visiting farmers to enter the property. It was only when Brazil developed a high crime rate that people began to breed for a much more protective dog.

The CAFIB won't even register a dog unless it shows ojeriza as an adult. Puppies are not registered. They counter that the FCI dogs are mixed with Great Danes and other "softer" mastiffs. The see their dogs as very close to the working tracking mastiff of Brazil as it always was.

oh ffs

From one thread to another you harp on about the Fila and temperament types.

[BJean]

Background: I like the idea of blaming the deed, not the breed. But it gets complicated where breeding programs deliberately bring out traits that I would not like to see in the dog next door.

This relates to Brazil's national dog, the Fila Braziliero . . . a 'landrace' whose historical uses include tracking and 'gripping' runaway slaves, hunting big game, and guarding large estates in a society with extreme income inequality. I'd guess similar considerations apply to other breeds, or some breeder's lines within breeds.

Text is extracted from retrieverman's blog . . . http://retrieverman....ed-for-ojeriza/ . . . see also comparison of the two breed standards at http://www.fila-brasileiro.org/compare_breed_standards.html

Is it ethical to breed for ojeriza?

February 13, 2009 by retrieverman

... In the 1970′s, the Brazilian dog fancy wanted the studbooks closed . . . The original registry for this breed complied but only after creating a schism in the breed that lasts to this day. This led to two separate, warring registries.

The registry that got the breed accepted by the FCI called for dogs with distinctly molosser appearance with bloodhond facial features. They also wanted a nicer temperament in the dogs.

However, the other registry, the CAFIB (Club for the Improvement of the Fila Brasileiro), very strongly argues against making the dogs very heavy and coarse. And most controversially, its founders insist on breeding for what they say is a unique trait to the bred. This trait is called ojeriza.

roughly translates as xenophobia, a deep dislike of strangers. The standard for ojeriza states that the dog should not "allow the judge (a stranger) to touch it. And if it attacks the judge, such a reaction must not be considered a fault, but only a confirmation of its temperament." (Let that sink in for a second.)

Dogs from these lines bond very strongly with their families, and by the time they are 18 months to a year in age, they show very high levels of aggression towards people who are not in their immediate families.

The FCI backed club argues that the dogs were never historically bred this aggressive. The dogs allowed visiting farmers to enter the property. It was only when Brazil developed a high crime rate that people began to breed for a much more protective dog.

The CAFIB won't even register a dog unless it shows ojeriza as an adult. Puppies are not registered. They counter that the FCI dogs are mixed with Great Danes and other "softer" mastiffs. The see their dogs as very close to the working tracking mastiff of Brazil as it always was.

I knew this topic would turn into another Fila debate.Since you discovered them you still have a bee in your bonnet over them.Have you ever met one yet now you are back in the states?They do not exist here in Australia and they are already banned so it is a nonsensical argument.Why dont you petition them in the States to have them banned and see how far you get.You still havent listened to anything I have had to say on the subject and I do have some first hand knowledge of the dogs.What you read in a breed standard and what the dogs are like today might not be the same thing.As society becomes more urbanised and populated those that cant fit in go by the way side.You would be hard pressed to find a Fila with real temperament in the States anymore.You would have to go to South America to places where they have a real need for them.There they are bred for a reason and still used for that reason.They are a special dog and not a crazed man eater.Not unless you f*** with them and that would be your bad.

As I have stated before I could take breeds that are already here and cross them and produce a man killer if I so wanted and I dont.So what are you going to do?Ban every breed of dog over 20 kgs?Put the onus on the owner simple.It really isnt that hard.Once they realise it will be their ass on the line if their dog does something they might think twice about it.Until that happens nothing will change.

It's just goes on and on lol

Edited June 26, 2011 by lilli

[BJean]

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?

Breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament? Or breeders are actively and openly selecting for correct temperament?

No breed should be watered down to fit someone elses "ideal" IMO.

That is beyond the scope of the OP.

[BJean]

Sandgrubber, for a moment there I thought you were for real and that some kennel council had allowed such wording in a breed standard.

Please tell me that this is hypothetical.

Such wording has no place in a breed standard.

Humans, through action or inaction, can make any dog aggressive, HA, DA or any other kind of "A".

Breed standard or no.

Souff

Consider the breed standard is translated to English.

[BJean]

The breed standard is crudely written.

To English it says, displays of aggression must be seen.

It is no different, to a breeder of a guardian breed, being bred for workto say:

"expect dog to hold its ground", "recognise a threat", "act on that threat" etc

Unfortunately Sandgrubber, a labrador breeder, has been struck with awe about what another

gun dog person, 'retriever man'

has to say about a primitive guardian breed.

Worth noting, that both Sandgrubber and her source, favour the FCI 'softer' Fila.

Yet it is physically not as sound or robust.

HA is not a basic trait like eye colour or tail set.

For HA to be displayed, a combination of temperament traits must come to the fore.

To say that the CAFIB calls for breeding HA, is a lack of understanding and knowledge about what constitutes a dependable guardian in this context.

FWIW Sandgrubber has been engaged with on this topic many times before.

imo I am usually more polite

Edited June 26, 2011 by lilli

[RottnBullies]

FWIW Sandgrubber has been engaged with on this topic many times before.

imo I am usually more polite

It's just goes on and on lol

I know

Is It too much to ask OP to actually meet a few of these dogs before they Insist On condemning It OVER and OVER and OVER again!

Seems very unfair and wrong to write of a breed without even having some experience with It

[bulldogz4eva]

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?

Breeders are actively and openly selecting for aggressive temperament? Or breeders are actively and openly selecting for correct temperament?

No breed should be watered down to fit someone elses "ideal" IMO.

I wholeheartedly agree.Unfortunately too many people want a dog for its looks they dont want a real temperament.Take the Neapolitan Mastiff.It is one of the best guard dogs around and people like the prehistoric look but thats mainly it.They want a dog that has that intimidating size and look about it but dont want a dog with temperament so they water them down or breed from dogs with no temperament at all.Most couldnt handle the real temperament of a Neo and unfortuantely that will make them redundant and the show set will make sure of that.In the last 5 or so years you only have to look at the trend of bigger is better dont worry about temperament.