Dog Attack Ashcroft Today

[inez]

How interesting, you all are here because you love dogs. Yet not a single comment on the link where a chap decided to make sure his dog had a chance of life for a change,instead of the attacking dog.

Considering the neighbour had a similar view of the 'frenzied attack'. Maybe its about time more people like that chap despatched the agressor instead of simply trying to get them to let go and maybe given behavour modification training. Did not look as if the owner of the slain dog believed it was any but the innocent victum so wonder if any behaviour modification has any chance of occurring there if she gets another just like her lost pet.

I expect the owner of the labrador that repeadly tried to kill a neighbour half a block away's toy dog and yes another left to run where it pleased, jumped the fence to finish it off, would have except the engraged owner shot and buried the dammed thing. Think he had returned the lab 4 times asking the owner to please keep him home before the final solution that day was decided as the lab had his dog pinned. No one has told the lab's owner in case of retaliation, he thinks its simply dissappeared. I wonder? How many times this solution is happening?

Just in case you cant figure where the link is. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216806/Mother-watches-horror-American-Bulldog-stabbed-23-times-irate-pet-owner-fight-dog.html

By the date it only happend yesterday.

[inez]

No it happened last year. PUBLISHED: 15:55 GMT, 12 October 2012

Wonder what a follow up might reveal, does her new puppy have the run of the neighbourhood or not?

The owner of the lab didnt, much to the neighbourhoods relief, the owner of the neo moved, that too was much to the neighbourhoods relief.

I do find it interesting that someone here finds it ok to suggest I am not a dog lover because I do not find such creatures lovable at all. Well its a pity that the ones of that type arent in your neighbourhood, where you can love and appreceite them, instead of the people I know, including myself, who dont want them running free to do as they please, would far prefer they stay at home, or dissappear permantly like the neo and the lab.

From the comments in the press clipping, the neighbours there wont be mourning that dogs loss either.

Edited June 7, 2013 by inez

[Salukifan]

How interesting, you all are here because you love dogs.

I find nothing loveable about dogs allowed to menace their communities. My thoughts on their owners are unprintable.

[Sandra777]

I think some people forget that the percentage of dogs - of all breeds - that attack is very, very low. The percentage of dogs -of all breeds- that attack badly such as this one is even lower. Minuscule. The absolute vast majority of all dogs, including bull breeds, never bite or attack anyone or anything.

While we should always be looking into the research for what is proven to make that number even smaller, we shouldn't get caught up in the myth that there is a 'dog bite epidemic' or that people are being mauled by dogs left right and centre. It simply isn't the case. Living with dogs is incredibly safe. Much safer than getting in a car every day.

I agree with this post, I posted earlier in the thread pointing out the exact same thing. If we actually figured out the number of dogs owned in Australia, the number of those who then attack etc, the percentage of attacks would be miniscule.

Horrible stories like the attack on the jogger are a rare occurrence not a common one. Better to gain insight into the "Why and how" of what happened with the attack and leading up to the attack than to have a knee jerk reaction and blaming entire breeds for the shortcomings of 3 specific dogs.

In much the same way that we cannot generalise all Muslims (some of the most peaceful and loving people I have ever met) for the actions of the extremists within their religion, we cannot generalise bull breeds or large breed dogs for the failings of few within their ranks.

Agree in a way - but the bolded bit is again making the assumption that the fault lies with the dog - the fault in virtually all cases lies with the owner.

[BlackJaq]

I think some people forget that the percentage of dogs - of all breeds - that attack is very, very low. The percentage of dogs -of all breeds- that attack badly such as this one is even lower. Minuscule. The absolute vast majority of all dogs, including bull breeds, never bite or attack anyone or anything.

While we should always be looking into the research for what is proven to make that number even smaller, we shouldn't get caught up in the myth that there is a 'dog bite epidemic' or that people are being mauled by dogs left right and centre. It simply isn't the case. Living with dogs is incredibly safe. Much safer than getting in a car every day.

I agree with this post, I posted earlier in the thread pointing out the exact same thing. If we actually figured out the number of dogs owned in Australia, the number of those who then attack etc, the percentage of attacks would be miniscule.

Horrible stories like the attack on the jogger are a rare occurrence not a common one. Better to gain insight into the "Why and how" of what happened with the attack and leading up to the attack than to have a knee jerk reaction and blaming entire breeds for the shortcomings of 3 specific dogs.

In much the same way that we cannot generalise all Muslims (some of the most peaceful and loving people I have ever met) for the actions of the extremists within their religion, we cannot generalise bull breeds or large breed dogs for the failings of few within their ranks.

Agree in a way - but the bolded bit is again making the assumption that the fault lies with the dog - the fault in virtually all cases lies with the owner.

Would like to agree there. No matter what any dog's temperament, it is always up to the owner to control and manage that dog, regardless of breed, size, religion or sexual orientation :p

Even if we did all agreed that bull breeds were vicious, the ship on banning them has sailed. There are sh*tloads of them in this country and no law will make the dickheads who pop the poor tempered ones out like hotbuns change their ways. Much better to adopt a model that is proven to improve bite stats in general, rather than trying to legislate a particular breed out of being, especially when many, many breeds are involved in severe attacks every year.

[Sandra777]

I think some people forget that the percentage of dogs - of all breeds - that attack is very, very low. The percentage of dogs -of all breeds- that attack badly such as this one is even lower. Minuscule. The absolute vast majority of all dogs, including bull breeds, never bite or attack anyone or anything.

While we should always be looking into the research for what is proven to make that number even smaller, we shouldn't get caught up in the myth that there is a 'dog bite epidemic' or that people are being mauled by dogs left right and centre. It simply isn't the case. Living with dogs is incredibly safe. Much safer than getting in a car every day.

I agree with this post, I posted earlier in the thread pointing out the exact same thing. If we actually figured out the number of dogs owned in Australia, the number of those who then attack etc, the percentage of attacks would be miniscule.

Horrible stories like the attack on the jogger are a rare occurrence not a common one. Better to gain insight into the "Why and how" of what happened with the attack and leading up to the attack than to have a knee jerk reaction and blaming entire breeds for the shortcomings of 3 specific dogs.

In much the same way that we cannot generalise all Muslims (some of the most peaceful and loving people I have ever met) for the actions of the extremists within their religion, we cannot generalise bull breeds or large breed dogs for the failings of few within their ranks.

Agree in a way - but the bolded bit is again making the assumption that the fault lies with the dog - the fault in virtually all cases lies with the owner.

Would like to agree there. No matter what any dog's temperament, it is always up to the owner to control and manage that dog, regardless of breed, size, religion or sexual orientation :p

Even if we did all agreed that bull breeds were vicious, the ship on banning them has sailed. There are sh*tloads of them in this country and no law will make the dickheads who pop the poor tempered ones out like hotbuns change their ways. Much better to adopt a model that is proven to improve bite stats in general, rather than trying to legislate a particular breed out of being, especially when many, many breeds are involved in severe attacks every year.

I would dispute this - from what I have seen I strongly believe that the majority are CROSS breds, very few actual purebred (as in prove-able purebred) dogs would be involved. Is this because crossbreds are more numerous or because the type of person who is likely to not give the dog the correct environment is more likely to acquire a cheap crossbred mutt rather than pay even BYB prices for a pure bred????

[Santo66]

the fault in virtually all cases lies with the owner

Of course the fault lays with the owner, that's an absolute given, but due the fact that the world is not always a perfect place where all dog owners are responsible people, when dog owners do fault, breed type then comes into the situation what is more or less likely to attack innocent people.

I would dispute this - from what I have seen I strongly believe that the majority are CROSS breds, very few actual purebred (as in prove-able purebred) dogs would be involved. Is this because crossbreds are more numerous or because the type of person who is likely to not give the dog the correct environment is more likely to acquire a cheap crossbred mutt rather than pay even BYB prices for a pure bred????

Yes, I agree, most are crossbreeds or poorly bred unpapered dogs I am certain of that. Irresponisble owners won't generally pay out for a breed quality dog, that's very true. People who pay out upwards of $1000 for a dog tend to take better care of them and provide the right environment for their dogs needs than the donkeys who buy a cheap mutt from BYB breeders who are as dopy as they are??

Nobody is this entire thread has denied that loose dogs, particularly large unsocialised ones are a serious problem. What people are saying is that breed is not the issue, it is lack of responsible management, adequate containment and appropriate socialization on the part of the owner.

Aggression attributed to a lack of socialisation is the fault of the dog's nerve strength to discriminate threat.......a good genetically stable dog doesn't need socialisation to lessen the chance of attack......a good genetically stable dog can determine a threat and non threat instinctively and are unphased by new experiences in a passive environment. Not to say that socialisation isn't a good practice, it's a very good practice to counter the possibilty of aquiring a dog not so strong in nerve strength with breeding of weak nerved dogs appearing to be sadly on the increase. I have heard breeders say that the dog they bred shows aggression because of a lack of socialisation and blames the owner perhaps things would have been different if the breeder wasn't producing spooky pups and bred from decent parentage

Edited June 7, 2013 by Santo66

[sandgrubber]

Does the fault also lie with the owner who pts's the dog because they cannot modify the dog's behaviour sufficiently to make it an animal they can live with?Temperament defects occur in all breeds. But it is much more common for some breeds to be euth'd for behavioral reasons than others. I think we need to blame breeders as much as owners...and support subsidized Spey/neuter programs.

[Santo66]

Does the fault also lie with the owner who pts's the dog because they cannot modify the dog's behaviour sufficiently to make it an animal they can live with?Temperament defects occur in all breeds. But it is much more common for some breeds to be euth'd for behavioral reasons than others. I think we need to blame breeders as much as owners...and support subsidized Spey/neuter programs.

I am of very strong belief that breeders be it registered breeders or BYB's need to be scrutinised and held accountable for their reproductions. I am really tired of the fact the breeding of dogs is a complete free for all, breed what you want when you want, personally, I would like to see it as an offence to breed dogs without a licence with the introduction of a BSL....."breeder specific legislation"

[BlackJaq]

Well, cross breeds usually have some dominant breed or mix of breeds that you can pinpoint by looking at them. I did not mean only pure breds attack but rather that you cannot pin it on any one type, breed, or mix of dogs. Obviously pure breds from registered breeders would be the least likely to be out and about on their own as most people will look after their $1000 couch ornament better than a $50 backyard ornament and most breeders take some care in selecting suitable homes

[Salukifan]

Does the fault also lie with the owner who pts's the dog because they cannot modify the dog's behaviour sufficiently to make it an animal they can live with?Temperament defects occur in all breeds. But it is much more common for some breeds to be euth'd for behavioral reasons than others. I think we need to blame breeders as much as owners...and support subsidized Spey/neuter programs.

I am of very strong belief that breeders be it registered breeders or BYB's need to be scrutinised and held accountable for their reproductions. I am really tired of the fact the breeding of dogs is a complete free for all, breed what you want when you want, personally, I would like to see it as an offence to breed dogs without a licence with the introduction of a BSL....."breeder specific legislation"

It is not, and has never been a "free for all" for registered breeders.

[tdierikx]

Well, cross breeds usually have some dominant breed or mix of breeds that you can pinpoint by looking at them.

DNA testing will say different...

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/library/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/

Check out how many were way off the mark when the only identifier was a visual scan...

T.

[*kirty*]

While I agree that it can be hard to pick breed mixes based on visual ID, I don't believe the DNA tests either, I don't think they are reliable at all.

[tdierikx]

Those tests that have a broader range of breed markers already established will give better results than those with fewer - that's for sure...

T.

[inez]

While I agree that it can be hard to pick breed mixes based on visual ID, I don't believe the DNA tests either, I don't think they are reliable at all.

There was quite a stir when the results came back for a german coolie. I remember rotti was one of the breeds identified in it,

[BlackJaq]

Well, cross breeds usually have some dominant breed or mix of breeds that you can pinpoint by looking at them.

DNA testing will say different...

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/library/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/

Check out how many were way off the mark when the only identifier was a visual scan...

T.

I fail to see how it matters? They are not of uniform size, shape, colour or anything else, apart from the fact they are all dogs. I think the DNA tests are ridiculous btw, since pure bred breedings have not been in fashion for most breeds for more than a few hundred years, of course they will have a gazillion traces of breed xyz in them. What does that prove? And what does it prove in regards to the topic?

[sandgrubber]

Does the fault also lie with the owner who pts's the dog because they cannot modify the dog's behaviour sufficiently to make it an animal they can live with?Temperament defects occur in all breeds. But it is much more common for some breeds to be euth'd for behavioral reasons than others. I think we need to blame breeders as much as owners...and support subsidized Spey/neuter programs.

I am of very strong belief that breeders be it registered breeders or BYB's need to be scrutinised and held accountable for their reproductions. I am really tired of the fact the breeding of dogs is a complete free for all, breed what you want when you want, personally, I would like to see it as an offence to breed dogs without a licence with the introduction of a BSL....."breeder specific legislation"

It is not, and has never been a "free for all" for registered breeders.

Registered/show breeders face amazingly few restrictions with relation to temperament. I would have no problem registering a Labrador that is gun shy, hates water, and is dog aggressive. Such a dog could even be titled, provided that the DA can be curbed in the ring. However a cosmetic fault, such as light eye colour (which. btw, gives the dog better night vision) seriously affects results of competition in the ring.

[Santo66]

Does the fault also lie with the owner who pts's the dog because they cannot modify the dog's behaviour sufficiently to make it an animal they can live with?Temperament defects occur in all breeds. But it is much more common for some breeds to be euth'd for behavioral reasons than others. I think we need to blame breeders as much as owners...and support subsidized Spey/neuter programs.

I am of very strong belief that breeders be it registered breeders or BYB's need to be scrutinised and held accountable for their reproductions. I am really tired of the fact the breeding of dogs is a complete free for all, breed what you want when you want, personally, I would like to see it as an offence to breed dogs without a licence with the introduction of a BSL....."breeder specific legislation"

It is not, and has never been a "free for all" for registered breeders.

Registered/show breeders face amazingly few restrictions with relation to temperament. I would have no problem registering a Labrador that is gun shy, hates water, and is dog aggressive. Such a dog could even be titled, provided that the DA can be curbed in the ring. However a cosmetic fault, such as light eye colour (which. btw, gives the dog better night vision) seriously affects results of competition in the ring.

Sadly some show breeders are worse offenders at messing up temperament for the sake of the potential ribbon. Funny the amount of Golden Retreivers of late with severe fear of thunder and fireworks........years ago a gun dog was bullet proof to such a noise........not anymore, so who is breeding gun shy gun dogs??

[tdierikx]

Well, cross breeds usually have some dominant breed or mix of breeds that you can pinpoint by looking at them.

DNA testing will say different...

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/library/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/

Check out how many were way off the mark when the only identifier was a visual scan...

T.

I fail to see how it matters? They are not of uniform size, shape, colour or anything else, apart from the fact they are all dogs. I think the DNA tests are ridiculous btw, since pure bred breedings have not been in fashion for most breeds for more than a few hundred years, of course they will have a gazillion traces of breed xyz in them. What does that prove? And what does it prove in regards to the topic?

What it proves is that one can't necassarily pick the dominant breed strains in a crossbred dog by visual inspection.

T.

[melzawelza]

Well, cross breeds usually have some dominant breed or mix of breeds that you can pinpoint by looking at them.

DNA testing will say different...

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/library/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/

Check out how many were way off the mark when the only identifier was a visual scan...

T.

I fail to see how it matters? They are not of uniform size, shape, colour or anything else, apart from the fact they are all dogs. I think the DNA tests are ridiculous btw, since pure bred breedings have not been in fashion for most breeds for more than a few hundred years, of course they will have a gazillion traces of breed xyz in them. What does that prove? And what does it prove in regards to the topic?

What it proves is that one can't necassarily pick the dominant breed strains in a crossbred dog by visual inspection.

T.

Yep.

The images on Pages 18 - 20 show this very clearly (the whole document is interesting if you have the time to read it).

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/The%20Relevance%20of%20Breed%20in%20Selecting%20a%20Companion%20Dog.pdf

I also found this quite interesting:

Swedish study found no link between modern breeds and their traditional work