Can Some Dogs Just Be Mean?

[corvus]

Inez, are you pro BSL or anti BSL?

Really, what does it matter? Are you saying whatever anyone says on any dog-related topic should be viewed as dependent on their stance on BSL? Do you think you can change someone's mind by calling them out? Or are you just hoping to discredit them in everybody's eyes? Where is the benefit in that?

This is really a very basic issue and it seems pretty much everyone is in agreement that inborn temperament affects future behaviour. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it does, but only until the behaviour actually becomes dangerous, and somehow breed does not factor into how it does, yet also claim that purebred dogs are more predictable. There is no cognitive dissonance in accepting both the existence of breed-specific behaviour and rejecting BSL. There is a reason why I don't own any terriers or bully breeds. I'm just not into living with the associated heightened risks. Does this mean I think they should all be banned? Don't be freaking ridiculous. Does it mean the things I want to avoid in terriers and bully breeds can't pop up in the breeds I do have? Don't be freaking ridiculous. We're talking about risk assessments, here. It's all grey areas. Believe it or not, it is possible to acknowledge heightened risks without condemning a breed or breed group.

[Salukifan]

This is really a very basic issue and it seems pretty much everyone is in agreement that inborn temperament affects future behaviour. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it does, but only until the behaviour actually becomes dangerous, and somehow breed does not factor into how it does, yet also claim that purebred dogs are more predictable. There is no cognitive dissonance in accepting both the existence of breed-specific behaviour and rejecting BSL. There is a reason why I don't own any terriers or bully breeds. I'm just not into living with the associated heightened risks. Does this mean I think they should all be banned? Don't be freaking ridiculous. Does it mean the things I want to avoid in terriers and bully breeds can't pop up in the breeds I do have? Don't be freaking ridiculous. We're talking about risk assessments, here. It's all grey areas. Believe it or not, it is possible to acknowledge heightened risks without condemning a breed or breed group.

I am in screaming agreement with you on this Corvus.

Quick, someone alert the media!!

[Wobbly]

Thank for your response Inez.

Understand that BSL is the problem. And people's stance on it matters, because politics will follow public opionin over common sense.

Their illegality makes them a status symbol, acquired to enhance image, the kind of home that won't give the dog the training, socialisation, exercise or management the dog requires.

Their illegality denies registered responsible breeders the ability to work with these dogs, to show these dogs, to produce pups for the betterment of the breed.

Their illegality positively encourages irresponsible breeding. It's possible that there are well bred APBTs in Australia, but I have never met one with a known pedigree here, and I do look out for them. All these ostensible APBTs in Australia are mutts of completely unknown provenance. Few if any have known pedigrees, are these dogs pure or not? Noone can say, most likely not. The messy result of denying registered, responsible breeders the ability to produce well bred dogs.

Contrast with, say the Dobe, a breed that once had a terrible rep here. You never hear of Dobes in the news. These are dogs who's original purpose was personal protection, they are plenty powerful enough to inflict serious damage or kill, yet our communities abound with them, and there are no problems. Dobe breeders take a bow.

It would appear that the Dobe breeders here really do have their stuff sorted, inevitably there will be some fail breeders as mentioned in this thread, but it'd seem that on the whole the odd fail is absorbed with little or no impact, because overall the temperament of Dobes finding their way into pet homes is obviously good. Wow, look at that, from most maligned breed in the country to model pet in just a few decades.

I want that for the Pit Bull.

It's not just Dobes either, Bull Terriers had a terrible rep for a long time, model citizens now. Plenty of breeds out there in the same category, any breed of dogs capable of inflicting serious injury, yet never make the news, these breeders can take a bow. I get angry at breeders for the health problems the conformation ring has encouraged, but temperament wise, on the whole, most lines of most (legal) breeds here are great.

I want that for the Pit bull.

The people that owned those bulldogs that attacked the jogger, would those have passed the vetting process of any of the breeders of dogs here on DOL? I don't think so. They wouldn't have been sold even 1 pup, let alone 3. Those were BYB dogs, no responsible breeder would have sold 3 of these to such incapable fools.

No breed is immune to poorly bred BYB or puppymill dogs however, and certainly these can have some terrible issues, both health and temperament wise. Consider that the ONLY source of Pit Bulls in Autralia is BYBs, breeding with no care, no responsiblity, no regulation, and making corresspondingly poor decisions in placing pups. Is it really any wonder we have problems? It seems to me that in the current situation the situation we are now seeing - mauling after mauling - is the inevitable result of BSL.

[persephone]

This is really a very basic issue and it seems pretty much everyone is in agreement that inborn temperament affects future behaviour. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it does, but only until the behaviour actually becomes dangerous, and somehow breed does not factor into how it does, yet also claim that purebred dogs are more predictable. There is no cognitive dissonance in accepting both the existence of breed-specific behaviour and rejecting BSL. There is a reason why I don't own any terriers or bully breeds. I'm just not into living with the associated heightened risks. Does this mean I think they should all be banned? Don't be freaking ridiculous. Does it mean the things I want to avoid in terriers and bully breeds can't pop up in the breeds I do have? Don't be freaking ridiculous. We're talking about risk assessments, here. It's all grey areas. Believe it or not, it is possible to acknowledge heightened risks without condemning a breed or breed group.

I am in screaming agreement with you on this Corvus.

Quick, someone alert the media!!

yep!

[persephone]

inez- I hope you heal quickly .. though , from experience , that doesn't always happen. Worrying about DVT is also not pleasant .

Take care.

[Wobbly]

And yes I am pushing Inez to make a point, to push him or her to concede BSL is the problem, not the solution. Because public opinion will shape political decisions. Inez, now and in her/his former incarnation as M-Sass, is probably the most vocifererously anti Pit Bull campaigner I have ever encountered. To me, he/she represents the problem we currently have - the call for reactionary BSL regulations that will serve to make the problem worse.

[Salukifan]

And yes I am pushing Inez to make a point, to push him or her to concede BSL is the problem, not the solution.

Personally I think it's neither. Ignorance and lack of responsibility by owners and some breeders are the problems. Education and penalty enforcement for those doing the wrong things are the solutions.

While ever BSL is the focus, neither the problem nor the solutions THAT WORK can be focussed on.

And those who wish to see BSL repealed need to acknowledge the very genuine fears that some breeds arouse in the public rather than heaping shite on those who are afraid.

I am anti BSL but sick to death of powerful, dog aggressive dogs owned by morons creating issues for people in the community, me included. And when their owners refuse to acknowledge the issue, it's made worse.

God knows how anyone who's been attacked by a dog or had a loved one attacked can hold any view other than restricting such dogs in the community.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Wobbly]

Yet it is the problem, all the resources dedicated to reducing the risks of attack are being piled into the BSL dead end. How many millions are being spent on prosecuting family pets of unknown ancestry, not on developing the required education programs and penalty enforcements.

I see the fear, I am endeavouring to explain solutions.

[Santo66]

Contrast with, say the Dobe, a breed that once had a terrible rep here. You never hear of Dobes in the news. These are dogs who's original purpose was personal protection, they are plenty powerful enough to inflict serious damage or kill, yet our communities abound with them, and there are no problems. Dobe breeders take a bow.

I don't see that removing working drives from a breed is the answer either.......a well bred working Dobe was not a dangerous animal, neither is a well bred GSD, Rotty, Malinois or any other breed capable of protection training....when the Dobe and GSD alike had a bad rep some years ago was the result of aggression drives capped with weak nerve, in the lead up to killing off working drive altogther as they did with the Dobe and many of GSD bloodlines, these breeds of bad rep were again caused by breeding the wrong dogs creating an abundance of fear biters......more reason that the breeders of dogs need to be accountable for what they produce IMHO.

[Salukifan]

Yet it is the problem, all the resources dedicated to reducing the risks of attack are being piled into the BSL dead end. How many millions are being spent on prosecuting family pets of unknown ancestry, not on developing the required education programs and penalty enforcements.

I see the fear, I am endeavouring to explain solutions.

From where I sit there seems to be bugger all resources being devoted to the issue at all. Why is it that nearly every dog that features in a serious attack seems to be known to Council. Killer dogs don't come out of nowhere.

I wish someone would profile the histories of dangerous dogs. Seems to me that the same profile of dog and owner plays out time and again and bugger all is being done to stop these situations repeating themselves.

[inez]

Yet it is the problem, all the resources dedicated to reducing the risks of attack are being piled into the BSL dead end. How many millions are being spent on prosecuting family pets of unknown ancestry, not on developing the required education programs and penalty enforcements.

I see the fear, I am endeavouring to explain solutions.

From where I sit there seems to be bugger all resources being devoted to the issue at all. Why is it that nearly every dog that features in a serious attack seems to be known to Council. Killer dogs don't come out of nowhere.

I wish someone would profile the histories of dangerous dogs. Seems to me that the same profile of dog and owner plays out time and again and bugger all is being done to stop these situations repeating themselves.

Yes Pathetic isnt it. They spend more on their lunches.

[Wobbly]

I don't see that removing working drives from a breed is the answer either.......a well bred working Dobe was not a dangerous animal, neither is a well bred GSD, Rotty, Malinois or any other breed capable of protection training....when the Dobe and GSD alike had a bad rep some years ago was the result of aggression drives capped with weak nerve, in the lead up to killing off working drive altogther as they did with the Dobe and many of GSD bloodlines, these breeds of bad rep were again caused by breeding the wrong dogs creating an abundance of fear biters......more reason that the breeders of dogs need to be accountable for what they produce IMHO.

O absolutely I agree, but working lines and pet lines should be separate, and with responsible breeders in both fields only givng pups to approriate homes. There are some fantastic German Sheperds available, have a look at Shade Whitesel on you tube. :D I am not sure about Dobes, but I bet if you looked there are awesome working lines, that should only ever go to working homes. Only responsible breeders homing responsibly can do this. I want those kinds of breeders for Pits.

Yet it is the problem, all the resources dedicated to reducing the risks of attack are being piled into the BSL dead end. How many millions are being spent on prosecuting family pets of unknown ancestry, not on developing the required education programs and penalty enforcements.

I see the fear, I am endeavouring to explain solutions.

From where I sit there seems to be bugger all resources being devoted to the issue at all. Why is it that nearly every dog that features in a serious attack seems to be known to Council. Killer dogs don't come out of nowhere.

I wish someone would profile the histories of dangerous dogs. Seems to me that the same profile of dog and owner plays out time and again and bugger all is being done to stop these situations repeating themselves.

Masses of court costs, netting loads of heartache - I dunno I see lots resources being piled in there.

Edit for clarity, I mean the current crop of Victorian BSL cases.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Wobbly

[mita]

The Australian Veterinary Association in 2012 issued a brilliant paper called 'Dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'.

Sets out all the research about dogs & how various countries have responded.

Among all the many points.... it says that dogs usually have behavioural signs well before they cause serious injury.

Also points out the relationship with types of owners, victims & places where dog attacks tend to happen.

They mount a good argument why breed specific legislation is not going to ensure public safety. They set out all the measures that they think... will. And provide information that should help pet owners acquire & manage dogs with low risk of causing any problems.

However.... I can't see very many of these excellent proactive ideas being rolled out. In the vacuum, authorities & some members of the public just keep circling around the 'breed' thing.

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

Oh... & even tho' the evidence is clear that puppies bred & raised in more home-style settings will end to go on to be of less risk of aggression.... 2 states are busily legislating that large scale puppy 'factories' can go ahead.

Edited June 1, 2013 by mita

[Wobbly]

Yeah I was so happy when that AVA paper came out. :D Even though none of the recommendations have been adopted, I hope it makes inroads on public opinion, which will drive political will.

[mita]

Double post.

Edited June 1, 2013 by mita

[mita]

Yeah I was so happy when that AVA paper came out. :D Even though none of the recommendations have been adopted, I hope it makes inroads on public opinion, which will drive political will.

Yes, good to see. But it's not likely to contribute much to public opinion.... when most of the public haven't laid eyes on it.

[Wobbly]

Yeh, it's hard to sensationalise the sensible approach enough for mass media to take any notice. XD

[mantis]

What do people honestly expect when the breeding of dogs is a free for all, breed what you like, when you like to whatever you like and the community suffers the consequences of poorly bred dogs with character deficiencies and flaws.......what do people think will be the result in a breeding system that has no accountability for what is being produced?

A car manufacturer produces a car with a faulty brake system and authorities force a national recall where the manufacturer is responsible to rectify the problem and can be held accountable for public saftey. A breeder whether that be a BYB or registered breeder, can mismatch two dogs to produce fear biters or traits of uncapped aggression and that's ok..........IMHO it's not ok at all, these breeders of crap dogs need to be held accountable.

The Rotty for example who attacked the child's face........what sort of a Rotty is this thing, who bred the damn dog with what in the parentage.....the dog was so short in nerve, so displaced in suspicion that it needed to attack a child assumed as a threat, or was the dog scared of the child and attacked out of fear......whatever the case........that dog was a crap Rotty at all levels......I doubt the Rotty had been trained to attack kids in a working role, the dog was clearly of poor breeding, but as we speak, the breeder of that dog could be preserving the poor trait quality in the next litter for the next accident to happen with the next unstable dog they produce excellent isn't it

The sad thing is that people in the "tough breeds" actually do purposely breed these types of dangerous dogs.......even in working circles, they can often promote and breed dogs of unstable character and condemn dogs of stable character as not having enough "civil drive" because they don't know how to select or train a dog of balanced temperament and character for the working roles they breed for. The same applies with many of these Bull breed concoctions, purposely breeding powerful dogs with high levels of social aggression as pets come protection dogs......it's these dogs getting out when the owner drops the ball that ends up in scenarios like the recent jogger attack.

It's time breeders of dangerous dogs are held accountable.....stopping at the owner isn't good enough to lessen the chance of further attacks.....breed crap dogs of unstable character and it's involved in an unprovoked attack look out is how IMHO it needs to be.

Dear dog, the ignorance & hatred of some people is upsetting, especially on a dog lovers forum.

[inez]

The Australian Veterinary Association in 2012 issued a brilliant paper called 'Dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'.

Sets out all the research about dogs & how various countries have responded.

Among all the many points.... it says that dogs usually have behavioural signs well before they cause serious injury.

Also points out the relationship with types of owners, victims & places where dog attacks tend to happen.

They mount a good argument why breed specific legislation is not going to ensure public safety. They set out all the measures that they think... will. And provide information that should help pet owners acquire & manage dogs with low risk of causing any problems.

However.... I can't see very many of these excellent proactive ideas being rolled out. In the vacuum, authorities & some members of the public just keep circling around the 'breed' thing.

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

Oh... & even tho' the evidence is clear that puppies bred & raised in more home-style settings will end to go on to be of less risk of aggression.... 2 states are busily legislating that large scale puppy 'factories' can go ahead.

What I dont understand who are the actual people "busily legislating" yet ignoring the very research that they should be taking on board?

Most of the legislation seems more like it was written by peta than barely anything taken from the AVA recomendations for example.

Edited June 1, 2013 by inez

[mita]

We're talking about risk assessments, here. It's all grey areas. Believe it or not, it is possible to acknowledge heightened risks without condemning a breed or breed group.

Your little gem hidden away in this thread, corvus. And what goes into a mix of factors which will either heighten or reduce risk... is well known from research.

Only pity is, not many people .... or indeed, the authorities when making laws .... seem to have read it.

From the AVA 2012 paper. Remember.... it's the mix. Not one factor totally on its own. Which is why going after breed alone, is useless:

While genetics are an important factor, the impact of the environment and learning are

critical to the behaviour of a dog. The tendency of a dog to bite is dependent on at least five

interacting factors:

 heredity (genes, breed)

 early experience

 socialisation and training

 health (physical and psychological) and

 victim behaviour (Beaver 2001, Seksel 2002, Snyder 2005).

Other factors include the sex and age of the animal, along with a range of other social and environmental factors.

Edited June 1, 2013 by mita