Are You Serious Jo Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Saying this is something dogs are capable of is different to saying this is what dogs do because that implies it is normal dog behaviour. I have seen lo pan excuse pitbulls for this sort of behaviour before and it doesn't help understand where the fault lies in these attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) They aren't dogs being dogs, But , they are .., Jo. Dogs can be aggressive..and dogs BITE, and dogs react , and dogs have a 'pack' behaviour AS to the place it happens , and why it happens , and the damage which occurs etc ... that is the very sad part .. It is unacceptable ...and irresponsible ...all of that, for sure . This says it much better than I can I don't think the behaviour is normal but I am not surprised that dogs are capable of it. Combine high levels of dog aggression (probably temperament combined with lack of socialisation), pack behaviour, with a propensity to redirect (which a huge amount of dogs do) and you can explain the reasons for it from a dog behaviour perspective.Saying words like 'vile monsters' takes away all of that knowledge, common sense and perspective and evokes the feelings of them being the kind of thing you fear because of its horrific, supernatural abilities and it might be hiding under the bed waiting for you. It's not helpful and it's ridiculous coming from someone who supposedly understands dogs. Edited October 30, 2012 by persephone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 To a signicant extent the historical working practices of contemporary non working breeds, and of course most specifically non working lines, can mean less than most people might think in evaluating a dogs temperament. Dogs can become unsuitable for working purposes even after a single generation of pet breeding. If breeders aren't on top of it, testing and selecting for temperament then the probability of getting dogs that can fulfil their historical purpose diminishes, so it's not surprising that APBT's bred without temperament as a primary concern can agress toward humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Sounds like you aren't getting what I mean about the semantics of the phrase because yes, I know dogs can be aggressive in this way. What sort of fool do you think I am not to know this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Sounds like you aren't getting what I mean about the semantics of the phrase because yes, I know dogs can be aggressive in this way. What sort of fool do you think I am not to know this? I think it's just people interpreting phrases differently. To me - if we accept that dogs can be aggressive, that this sort of thing can happen for x reason (x reason being to do with dog behaviour) then a comment like 'this is what dogs do' makes sense. I understand that it trivializes and normalizes the behaviour which I don't think is the intent. But if we can all agree that this is not unexplainable 'monster'-like behaviour and in fact is easily explained if you understand dog behaviour, we can logically say that this is what (some) dogs do. If more people recognized that and trained and contained their dogs adequately, these things wouldn't be happening. Edited October 30, 2012 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 But saying they're dogs being dogs is like saying a serial killer is just a person being a person. The excuse is invalid and the crime should be punished accordingly. These dogs were raised ineffectively and they turned into monsters. yes they are still dogs in the same way pringles are still vegetables. They're not good and they should be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Now they are Amstaffs; Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It wouldn't have mattered to me if the phrase this is "what some dogs do that are not normal", because this is aberrant behaviour. It is non adaptive in the context of their wild ancestors and also not acceptable in domesticated dogs. I think it really needs to be stressed that this subgroups of dogs are not behaving in a way that is typical for domestic dogs, especially well raised pits and amstaffs. Otherwise you just fuel the argument for BSL because the public would take that phrase as it's normal big dog behaviour and they are all dangerous. Think about how the public who already fear these dogs would interpret it. We need to educate so that people know what dogs are capable of but also that the extreme aggression we see in these type of attacks are due to the fault of the breeders and owners of these individual dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Sounds like you aren't getting what I mean about the semantics of the phrase because yes, I know dogs can be aggressive in this way. What sort of fool do you think I am not to know this? I think it's just people interpreting phrases differently. To me - if we accept that dogs can be aggressive, that this sort of thing can happen for x reason (x reason being to do with dog behaviour) then a comment like 'this is what dogs do' makes sense. I understand that it trivializes and normalizes the behaviour which I don't think is the intent. But if we can all agree that this is not unexplainable 'monster'-like behaviour and in fact is easily explained if you understand dog behaviour, we can logically say that this is what (some) dogs do. If more people recognized that and trained and contained their dogs adequately, these things wouldn't be happening. *nods* *admits to error in semantics.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But saying they're dogs being dogs is like saying a serial killer is just a person being a person. The excuse is invalid and the crime should be punished accordingly. These dogs were raised ineffectively and they turned into monsters. yes they are still dogs in the same way pringles are still vegetables. They're not good and they should be destroyed. Where has anyone said that they shouldn't be destroyed I 'punished'? Where has anyone said they're excusing the behaviour? You've missed the point completely. And no, they didn't turn into 'monsters', for all the reasons already mentioned as to why that word is inappropriate. They turned into adult unsocialised dog-aggressive dogs that were not trained and effectively managed by their owner so as to not pose a threat to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But saying they're dogs being dogs is like saying a serial killer is just a person being a person. The excuse is invalid and the crime should be punished accordingly. These dogs were raised ineffectively and they turned into monsters. yes they are still dogs in the same way pringles are still vegetables. They're not good and they should be destroyed. Comparing dogs to Humans rarely ever provides a logical conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Bankstown Pound is Renbury, isn't it? Maybe someone there will have a better idea of breed ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It wouldn't have mattered to me if the phrase this is "what some dogs do that are not normal", because this is aberrant behaviour. It is non adaptive in the context of their wild ancestors and also not acceptable in domesticated dogs. I think it really needs to be stressed that this subgroups of dogs are not behaving in a way that is typical for domestic dogs, especially well raised pits and amstaffs. Otherwise you just fuel the argument for BSL because the public would take that phrase as it's normal big dog behaviour and they are all dangerous. Think about how the public who already fear these dogs would interpret it. We need to educate so that people know what dogs are capable of but also that the extreme aggression we see in these type of attacks are due to the fault of the breeders and owners of these individual dogs. I agree :) I think we're on the same page with this one. I do think that saying 'just dogs' actually trivializes what happened and should be avoided. But I understand that that wasn't the intent of the person saying it, and I understand why they said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But saying they're dogs being dogs is like saying a serial killer is just a person being a person. The excuse is invalid and the crime should be punished accordingly. These dogs were raised ineffectively and they turned into monsters. yes they are still dogs in the same way pringles are still vegetables. They're not good and they should be destroyed. A serial killer IS just a person......I don't get where people are going with this? Dogs can behave badly, people can behave badly, it does not make them a supernatural being. Noone is excusing what the dogs did, just saying that, whether you like it or not, it IS a part of canine behaviour, some dogs are aggressive and will attack people and other dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) But saying they're dogs being dogs is like saying a serial killer is just a person being a person. The excuse is invalid and the crime should be punished accordingly. These dogs were raised ineffectively and they turned into monsters. yes they are still dogs in the same way pringles are still vegetables. They're not good and they should be destroyed. Comparing dogs to Humans rarely ever provides a logical conclusion. I could compare them to trees, it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is, once something starts displaying behaviour that is rare/uncommon in its lineage/species/breed whatever, it no longer represents the familiar and becomes the trash of its animal group. It becomes so changed from how it was bred/meant to be that it's no longer reflecting of its breed and is therefore not "just acting like a dog". I consider dogs of any breed that brutally attack or kill a person to be the trash/monsters of the dog world. I may not be politically correct but there's too many good dogs out there not getting a chance to represent their breeds whilst these dogs ruin the name. I hope the owner gets the book thrown at him majorly. Edited October 31, 2012 by mixeduppup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I could compare them to trees, it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is, once something starts displaying behaviour that is rare/uncommon in its lineage/species/breed whatever, it no longer represents the familiar and becomes the trash of its animal group. It becomes so changed from how it was bred/meant to be that it's no longer reflecting of its breed and is therefore not "just acting like a dog". I consider dogs of any breed that brutally attack or kill a person to be the trash/monsters of the dog world. I may not be politically correct but here's too many good dogs out there not getting a chance to represent their breeds whilst these dogs ruin the name. I hope the owner gets the book thrown at him majorly. I don't think it has anything to do with being politically correct. I think it has everything to do with accurately assessing a situation/behaviour, without using sensational terms that only serve to create more hysteria. Edited October 31, 2012 by Plan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I could compare them to trees, it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is, once something starts displaying behaviour that is rare/uncommon in its lineage/species/breed whatever, it no longer represents the familiar and becomes the trash of its animal group. It becomes so changed from how it was bred/meant to be that it's no longer reflecting of its breed and is therefore not "just acting like a dog". I consider dogs of any breed that brutally attack or kill a person to be the trash/monsters of the dog world. I may not be politically correct but here's too many good dogs out there not getting a chance to represent their breeds whilst these dogs ruin the name. I hope the owner gets the book thrown at him majorly. I don't think it has anything to do with being politically correct. I think it has everything to do with accurately assessing a situation/behaviour, without using sensational terms that only serve to create more hysteria. People should be mad, people should be livid. These dogs are dangerous and should be treated/acknowledged as such. People should be so angry that someone didn't take the time to properly raise and manage these dogs and in turn they viciously attacked a young man. These dogs are doing the breed no favours and that's what I'm furious about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 People should be mad, people should be livid. These dogs are dangerous and should be treated/acknowledged as such. People should be so angry that someone didn't take the time to properly raise and manage these dogs and in turn they viciously attacked a young man. These dogs are doing the breed no favours and that's what I'm furious about. I agree about being furious with the owners. Being furious with the dogs and labelling them 'vile monsters' does nothing and only promotes the idea that these dogs allowed themselves to be this way when, in fact, the owner has allowed them to be this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 People should be mad, people should be livid. These dogs are dangerous and should be treated/acknowledged as such. People should be so angry that someone didn't take the time to properly raise and manage these dogs and in turn they viciously attacked a young man. These dogs are doing the breed no favours and that's what I'm furious about. I agree about being furious with the owners. Being furious with the dogs and labelling them 'vile monsters' does nothing and only promotes the idea that these dogs allowed themselves to be this way when, in fact, the owner has allowed them to be this way. Who knows, perhaps the dogs were bred to be aggressive and then not managed properly, maybe they were genetically predisposed. Either way what they have done has made them monsters in the dog world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Who knows, perhaps the dogs were bred to be aggressive and then not managed properly, maybe they were genetically predisposed. Either way what they have done has made them monsters in the dog world. And still would have had no choice or say in the matter. That doesn't make them monsters, to me. That makes them victims of monsters. 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