Guide Dog Killed

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Many depend on the breeder, but one common characteristic is breeding without attempting to select for working ability.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Many depend on the breeder, but one common characteristic is breeding without attempting to select for working ability.

In how many generations would you get a generic pet dog?

[Salukifan]

I'm perfectly real Haredown Whippets.

Get real Lo Pan. Many pet dogs are of breeds bred to perform a function..

Yes that's correct, but that's not what you said before.

Most dogs are bred as pets; the heritage of the breed is another story. My dog was bred as a pet from pet lines, end of discussion

[

So exactly how was your dog bred to be a pet? What characteristics did the breeder select?

And more importantly, how did the breeder change the breed characteristics to make him function better as a pet?

Has his his bite threshold and inhibition been altered from his breed of origin?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Zhou Xuanyao]

You could get one or more in the first litter.

A trend would depend on the particular line and your definition of 'generic pet'.

[Salukifan]

You could get one or more in the first litter.

A trend would depend on the particular line and your definition of 'generic pet'.

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Is that what your dog's breeder was aiming for?? A Cavalier King Charles Spaniel in a different suit?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Then you'd be wrong.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

[Salukifan]

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Then you'd be wrong.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

How helpful.

How about you explain how dog aggression, human aggression low bite inhibition, a low bite threshold, territorial drives or prey drive assist a canine in any way to be a good pet.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Why would I want to do that?

[Salukifan]

Why would I want to do that?

Well, instead of just making dismissive comments about other people's posts, you might actually want to share a few ideas of your own.

That's assuming the intellectual basis for your argument moves beyond simply disagreeing with someone for the hell of it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Why would I want to do that?

Well, instead of just making dismissive comments about other people's posts, you might actually want to share a few ideas of your own.

Assuming the purpose of your argument moves beyond simply disagreeing with someone for the hell of it that is.

Agree with this, you've made a radical assertion but you're not prepared to provide information that supports your argument.

Perhaps you are concerned that acknowledging that there is such a thing as breed characteristics is tantamount to agreeing with BSL. It's not.

[aussielover]

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

Bullcrap. With ANY dog comes great responsibility.

Every breed should be responsibly owned, regardless of power. Maybe then we won't be seeing so many unsocialised, untrained, yappy, aggressive, fearful dogs of all breeds.

I agree every dog should be responsibly owned.

But in the real world, having a large dog does come with more responsibility due to societies expectations.

A big dog, even a labrador would not get away with lunging and barking aggressively at other people or dogs in public, yet plenty of small dogs do this regularly and without consequence (apart from the occasional dirty look). A large dog, especially a "tough" looking dog would likely be reported.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Of course I'm of the opinion that there's a such thing as general breed characteristics. My original contention was with the unequivocally incorrect comment HD made (given the context in which it was made) which I'v quoted in my first post in the discussion.

What radical assertion have I made? It would be my pleasure to do my best to better support the assertion in question, whatever it may be.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lo Pan

[Salukifan]

Of course I'm of the opinion that there's a such thing as general breed characteristics. My original contention was with the unequivocally incorrect comment HD made (given the context in which it was made) which I'v quoted in my first post in the discussion.

What radical assertion have I made? It would be my pleasure to do my best to better support the assertion in question, whatever it may be.

Here's the context in which my comment was made:

You're not seriously suggesting that all dog breeds have the same inate levels of dog aggression are you? Some dogs, bred to live and hunt in packs have been selectively bred for centuries for low levels of dog aggression. SSM's beagles are one such example.

The function a dog was bred to perform MATTERS. The fact that some dog owner have no freakin idea of what drives their dogs have and what they are capable of is terrifying.

How about I make it clearer for you. The breed function of individual dogs of individual breeds matters. Dogs of individual breeds developed for particular functions have particular characteristics and to suggest that none of this matters in determining characteristics such as levels of dog aggression is incorrect. Some dog breeds are far more likely to be dog aggressive than others. That increases the chances that individual dogs of such breeds are more likely to be dog aggressive.

Still want to argue about my statement?

Lets talk about "pet" breeding shall we? How about we look at Labradors. If breeders no longer give a toss about retrieving ability, do they no longer care about soft mouths, about people focus and biddability, about low levels of dog and human aggression? All of those are important in a retrieving dog and tested for. But hey, pets don't have to retrieve so hard mouths, lack of biddability and dog and human aggression are all OK now. And you know what? There are "pet breeders" producing Labradors with those characteristics - and selling them as pets.

How about timid bull breeds - but still with low triggers to react with aggression and damn hard bites. Why would a pet need courage and tenacity? Yep those "pets" are out there too.

Don't tell me original function doesn't matter in a pet. Of course it does. Because the characteristics that made the dog function are usually what buyers are after.

Don't even get me started on some of the disastrous combinations of breed characteristics that intentional crossbreeder "pet" breeders create in some of their "pet" crosses.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[sumosmum]

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

Bullcrap. With ANY dog comes great responsibility.

Every breed should be responsibly owned, regardless of power. Maybe then we won't be seeing so many unsocialised, untrained, yappy, aggressive, fearful dogs of all breeds.

Can't agree. In fact I think it's a cop out for those that own or support the retention of dangerous dogs to say they have no more responsibility than anyone else. There's standard dog owner responsibility, and then there's a few extra and extremely important things you need to do if you own a powerful dogs.

I see the Banyule Council mayor has said they were 3 pit bulls. So those that attacked the media for incorrect reporting of it being a pitbull attack can apologise now, but it may also snow in hell.

Would depend if it is the council saying they are pitbulls, or whether they really are pitbulls. Councils say a lot of dogs are pitbulls, they aren't always right. And this has been the case with some in VCAT.

[frufru]

Didn't post before but wholeheartedly agreed with your comments Haresdown.

Have to say that when I read your comments, Lo pan, I did think "generic dog" I chose my breed for their recognised "breed characteristics" and I wouldn't have it any other way. Reading breed characteristic pages on many breeders websites also gives a pretty strong indication that breed clubs and breeders firmly hold this belief. Why do you think you often find the statement "not for the first time dog owner" or "careful socialisation required" What always gob smacks me about these discussions is that there are posters who think that behaviour does not have an inherited component .

[Issy]

It seems most people agree that it is the owners fault whether they didn't socialise them properly or let them loose somehow?

Wouldn't it be better to give jailtime to these people as well as hefty fines? Wouldn't this reduce the amount of people being irresponsible?

In my humble opinion, I do not believe that getting rid of certain dogs is a solution, especially if some of these are great pets.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I acknowledged your correction of your mistake with which I originally contended in post 179, it's not necessary to repeat it.

Dogs of individual breeds developed for particular functions have particular characteristics and to suggest that none of this matters in determining characteristics such as levels of dog aggression is incorrect. Some dog breeds are far more likely to be dog aggressive than others. That increases the chances that individual dogs of such breeds are more likely to be dog aggressive.

No it doesn't, assessing a temperament is a matter for individual dogs, not breeds. As a collection, it's true that particular traits are stronger or occur more commonly in one breed than in another, but on an individual level, each dog is what it is, no probabilities apply.

Suppose I had 10 lollies in a jar, 7 were blue, 3 were green. Suppose I were to stick my hand in the jar and retrieve 1 lolly at random, my chance of selecting a blue one is 7/10. After having selected the lolly and describing it, it could be said that I have a 1/1 chance of having a lolly with the characteristics particular to it.

As such, whether or not someone else's APBT plays the harmonica while jumping through hoops of fire and juggling has no bearing on my particular dogs particular characteristics, even if selecting a dog from the breed with the aforementioned characteristics is more probable than not.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lo Pan

[ILoveBoundaries]

Would depend if it is the council saying they are pitbulls, or whether they really are pitbulls. Councils say a lot of dogs are pitbulls, they aren't always right. And this has been the case with some in VCAT.

The dogs were 'type' Pitbull, or you are saying that the Burwood RSPCA has not identified them correctly, or lied to the mayor, or can't read the registration papers.

[Salukifan]

I acknowledged your correction of your mistake with which I originally contended in post 179, it's not necessary to repeat it.

Dogs of individual breeds developed for particular functions have particular characteristics and to suggest that none of this matters in determining characteristics such as levels of dog aggression is incorrect. Some dog breeds are far more likely to be dog aggressive than others. That increases the chances that individual dogs of such breeds are more likely to be dog aggressive.

No it doesn't, assessing a temperament is a matter for individual dogs, not breeds. As a collection, it's true that particular traits are stronger or occur more commonly in one breed than in another, but on an individual level, each dog is what it is, no probabilities apply.

There's two conflicting statements right there.

Yes Lo Pan, individual dog temperament can be assessed. But the statement that started this argument was that bull breeds were no more likely to be dog aggressive than other dogs. That's a crock and you know it. Some of them were selectively bred for dog aggression and it still manifests in a considerable number of individual dogs. More so than in many other breeds.

You've just ignoring the entire purpose of selective breeding - to enhance the probability that individuals within that breed will possess the characteristics sought. Temperament is one of those characteristics.

Genetics are not lollies - you can decrease the range of characteristics in any living species by selecting for some and rejecting others over generations.

Yes, individual temperament can vary within a breed. But the degree to which it varies is reduced within a closed gene pool. And that's the whole point of having breeds - so that even with individual temperament testing, you test less dogs within the pool to find what you want. There's a reason sheep farmers aren't testing Labradors for herding ability and the police and guide dogs have narrowed their testing to specific breeds - the rate of success in getting particular temperaments improves with selective breeding.

Are you suggesting that there is no genetic component to temperament. If you aren't I simply cannot follow your logic. As for my 'mistake' - you seem to be the only person having difficulty comprehending me.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[sumosmum]

Would depend if it is the council saying they are pitbulls, or whether they really are pitbulls. Councils say a lot of dogs are pitbulls, they aren't always right. And this has been the case with some in VCAT.

The dogs were 'type' Pitbull, or you are saying that the Burwood RSPCA has not identified them correctly, or lied to the mayor, or can't read the registration papers.

No, I was commenting on what you wrote,

I see the Banyule Council mayor has said they were 3 pit bulls. So those that attacked the media for incorrect reporting of it being a pitbull attack can apologise now, but it may also snow in hell.

The Mayor said they were pitbulls. I didn't know they were registered as pitbulls!