A Cautionary Tale About People Getting Things Very Wrong

[BC Crazy]

As soon as I saw who the thread starter was, I knew it was going to be another Bull Breed bashing thread.

It isnt a bull breed bashing thread, its a stupid owner bashing thread.

Yes to this !!!!

[BC Crazy]

We had two littermates till the age of 17 each, they were awesome dogs so it isn't always a disaster to get littermates.

Very sad story, the dogs always pay.

Gee Aussie3, that's a grand old age. 17 WOW, that's a wonderful inning's.

No it isn't always a disaster raising 2 litter mates but in general, IMHO it is by far more often a disaster than not.

And yes, a very tragically sad story It is ALWAYS is the poor, innocent dogs that pay the ultimate price .

Edited June 8, 2013 by BC Crazy

[Mummamia]

Why are people so sensitive when it comes to bull breeds. If the dog in question is indeed a bull breed, then that's that. I don't care what breed the dog is, if it's a problem dog, or in the hands of an unsuitable owner then ultimately, it's the dog (no matter the breed) who pays the consequences.

Simply put and Well said...

[mita]

As soon as I saw who the thread starter was, I knew it was going to be another Bull Breed bashing thread.

It isnt a bull breed bashing thread, its a stupid owner bashing thread.

Mantis, gillbear is right. And the evidence.... not opinion .... supports it.

There was a study done covering different dog breeds, & the factors connected with a dog's predictability to be aggressive were largely what humans did.... or did not do.... with the dog.

It's good to see the human factors getting emphasis in a thread like this ... in a world, that so frequently believes that a dog's behaviour is totally linked with specific breed.

Human factors that have set up a 'dog attack' incident are never mentioned in media accounts of dog bites/attacks. But the label of some 'breed' always is.

[Kirislin]

As soon as I saw who the thread starter was, I knew it was going to be another Bull Breed bashing thread.

It isnt a bull breed bashing thread, its a stupid owner bashing thread.

Mantis, gillbear is right. And the evidence.... not opinion .... supports it.

There was a study done covering different dog breeds, & the factors connected with a dog's predictability to be aggressive were largely what humans did.... or did not do.... with the dog.

It's good to see the human factors getting emphasis in a thread like this ... in a world, that so frequently believes that a dog's behaviour is totally linked with specific breed.

Human factors that have set up a 'dog attack' incident are never mentioned in media accounts of dog bites/attacks. But the label of some 'breed' always is.

You always put things so well.

[Justrace]

People really give me the shits Those dogs could have had happy lives if only their people had of put the time in for them.

[mita]

And here's the evidence. All sorts of breeds from Pitbulls to Pekes were studied at the University of Cordoba (close to 1000 dogs).

The findings put the trend towards developing aggressive behaviours squarely towards human factors. What the owners do (or not do).

And that starts with the first owner who is the person who breeds & raises the dogs as puppies. Where the evidence again is strong that a puppy must be socialised in the early weeks. And that's also linked to the degree of socialisation of the mother dog.

Then, when a puppy is adopted.... whatever the 'forever' owner does, or does not do.... begins from whatever base it's got:

Dr. Joaquin Perez-Guisado University of Cordoba.

Many dogs are put down or abandoned due to their violent nature, but contrary to popular belief, breed has little to do with a dog's aggressive behaviour compared with all the owner-dependant factors. This is shown in a new study from the University of Córdoba, which included breeds that are considered aggressive by nature, such as the Rottweiler or the Pit Bull. The conclusions, however, are surprising: it is the owners who are primarily responsible for attacks due to dominance or the competitive nature of their pets.

The research team from the University of Córdoba has determined a series of external factors that are inherent to the dogs, in order to understand their aggressiveness, and they have observed that external, modifiable and owner-dependent factors have a greater influence on the animals.

Edited June 8, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

And here's the evidence. All sorts of breeds from Pitbulls to Pekes were studied at the University of Cordoba (close to 1000 dogs).

The findings put the trend towards developing aggressive behaviours squarely towards human factors. What the owners do (or not do).

And that starts with the first owner who is the person who breeds & raises the dogs as puppies. Where the evidence again is strong that a puppy must be socialised in the early weeks. And that's also linked to the degree of socialisation of the mother dog.

Then, when a puppy is adopted.... whatever the 'forever' owner does, or does not do.... begins from whatever base it's got:

Dr. Joaquin Perez-Guisado University of Cordoba.

Many dogs are put down or abandoned due to their violent nature, but contrary to popular belief, breed has little to do with a dog's aggressive behaviour compared with all the owner-dependant factors. This is shown in a new study from the University of Córdoba, which included breeds that are considered aggressive by nature, such as the Rottweiler or the Pit Bull. The conclusions, however, are surprising: it is the owners who are primarily responsible for attacks due to dominance or the competitive nature of their pets.

The research team from the University of Córdoba has determined a series of external factors that are inherent to the dogs, in order to understand their aggressiveness, and they have observed that external, modifiable and owner-dependent factors have a greater influence on the animals.

Nup Im not buying that - much of it IS genetic and study or not I dont believe that the main impacts are about the owners.

If we all believe that its not about breed or genetics what the hell are we doing knocking ourselves out for defending why would would selectively breed different breeds ?

[mita]

[Nup Im not buying that - much of it IS genetic and study or not I dont believe that the main impacts are about the owners.

Read what's written. Owner variables have 'greater influence'. Not 'no influence'.

I originally put that editorial comment at the bottom. 'Note they said 'greater influence', not 'no influence'.

But decided that was insulting readers' intelligence.

Seems I was wrong.

I've posted elsewhere the factors linked with aggressive behaviour.... according to AVA. And genetics & breed were mentioned.

The above study tested weightings of the variables. Which had 'greater influence'.....when owners and breed were considered

Edited June 8, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

And here's the evidence. All sorts of breeds from Pitbulls to Pekes were studied at the University of Cordoba (close to 1000 dogs).

The findings put the trend towards developing aggressive behaviours squarely towards human factors. What the owners do (or not do).

And that starts with the first owner who is the person who breeds & raises the dogs as puppies. Where the evidence again is strong that a puppy must be socialised in the early weeks. And that's also linked to the degree of socialisation of the mother dog.

Then, when a puppy is adopted.... whatever the 'forever' owner does, or does not do.... begins from whatever base it's got:

Dr. Joaquin Perez-Guisado University of Cordoba.

Many dogs are put down or abandoned due to their violent nature, but contrary to popular belief, breed has little to do with a dog's aggressive behaviour compared with all the owner-dependant factors. This is shown in a new study from the University of Córdoba, which included breeds that are considered aggressive by nature, such as the Rottweiler or the Pit Bull. The conclusions, however, are surprising: it is the owners who are primarily responsible for attacks due to dominance or the competitive nature of their pets.

The research team from the University of Córdoba has determined a series of external factors that are inherent to the dogs, in order to understand their aggressiveness, and they have observed that external, modifiable and owner-dependent factors have a greater influence on the animals.

Note that YOU said " The findings put the trend towards developing aggressive behaviours squarely towards human factors. What the owners do (or not do)"

It also says breed has little to do with a dog's aggressive behaviour compared with all the owner-dependant factors.

So what is it - is it little to do with it or a lot to do with it and define little and lot . How much greater etc .

Link the study dont just quote selected bits out of it and if you have to argue the point try to do so without getting personal and taking swipes.

The facts is that these dogs came from an idiot breeder who probably didn't select for temperament, certainly didnt provide any advice or support in the first place, they went out in pairs to people who had no clue of what was required to manage one of the breed and live with the dogs.

Goddard's research went the other way and points to it being about breeders selecting for good temperaments more than human influence after they go home.

[mita]

Note that YOU said " The findings put the trend towards developing aggressive behaviours squarely towards human factors. What the owners do (or not do)"

It also says breed has little to do with a dog's aggressive behaviour compared with all the owner-dependant factors.

So what is it - is it little to do with it or a lot to do with it and define little and lot . How much greater etc .

Link the study dont just quote selected bits out of it and if you have to argue the point try to do so without getting personal and taking swipes.

The facts is that these dogs came from an idiot breeder who probably didn't select for temperament, certainly didnt provide any advice or support in the first place, they went out in pairs to people who had no clue of what was required to manage one of the breed and live with the dogs.

Goddard's research went the other way and points to it being about breeders selecting for good temperaments more than human influence after they go home.

I chose my language carefully.... I said the study showed when breed label alone was considered with owner behaviour .... then the influence was squarely towards owner behaviour. The word 'towards' shows weighting.... a trend.

Which is compatible with the conclusion that breed label alone does not predict that an individual dog would develop into a propensity for aggression against humans. But that owner behaviour has greater significance than breed label alone.

The researcher mentioned other variables can be present .... like neurological state..

BUT their study looked at breed label alone and owner behaviours in relation to the development of aggressive behaviours against humans. Using a large enough cohort of dogs.... so that the statistical trends could be measured. And they were.... towards the stronger influence of owner behaviours than a breed label.

They did not look at individual dogs.... of whatever breed.... & factors like heritable temperament or neurological conditions.

All of which explains why both the Australian & American Veterinary Assocations do not accept breed label.... alone....as a predictor for the development of aggressive behaviours in dogs. But point to a mix of interacting factors.

End of story. Evidence posted to support OP's (& others) case that significant owner influence needs to be factored in. Which includes the owners who breed/raise puppies & those who acquire them.

Edited June 8, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

Most people already know its not a breed feature alone and thats why we are all against BSL but it is impacted a lot by selection for good temperament and the ability of the human to understand the requirements of the breed. There isn't any point in having a Maremma and a beagle and not understanding that each is different and requires different expectations and different considerations.

You can have a human influence which is the same with each of them and no matter what you still get different results. You need different fencing and you need different training methods. In selecting stud stock animals the breeder has to take some things in some breeds more into consideration than they would if it were a different breed, they have to place them in different homes, they have to act as a support back up for the owners and the owners have to understand the purpose of the breed and how to manage it.

Now you can interpret that to mean it is about the human but a human can have great success with a breed that's more sorted to their capabilities or their lifestyle. Ive met dogs which have been neglected and beaten to within an inch of their lives by humans and they are still placid and eager to please and Ive also met some who have been treated with care and respect and you cant trust em.

Some humans can live with and deal with any dog or any breed others cant - some studies will say the human influence is most important others wont but it has to start with the genetics, selection and heritable traits first because it is this which dictates how the human must behave and deliver what the dog needs to be managed. If you are studying training and good manners its a human thing but thats not all you need to consider.

[Jed]

What a frightful situation. Poor doggies. It is not always litter mates who do this. I have a friend with an 18 month and 12 month old girl, and the 12 month old is trying to establish supremacy - same deal - lots of fights and bloodshed, and don't put your hand near them. We hope we can work it out.

As a breeder, I believe the inherent temperament is bred into the dog, but it is how the breeder and subsequent owner raises and treats the dog which determines the outcome.

Example - one of my lines of cockers is smart and sharp. They are also food driven, and if not stopped can be very food aggressive. Evey dog is the same.

One lady owner couldn't walk into the kitchen if her lovely cocker was having his tea in there because he would snarl, bark and growl to warn her off. If she had continued, he would have bitten her I am sure.

I talk to puppy owners about this and make sure they are on the job from when they get the dog. Some of them think it is quite funny, but being bitten when the dog is eating is not fun.

When they train the dogs, they have no problem; when they don't, they can't get near the dog when it is eating either. Otherwise, the dogs are sweet, friendly, - everything they should be.

A lot of things are the same whether good or bad - "in the lines" - and it is up to breeder and owner the manage that.

Some people should not have the breeds they have (and I don't mean bull breeds), but unfortunately, they don't know their limitations, so the the breeder does not assess them correctly, there is a disaster in the making.

Savage chihuahuas

Maltese which snarl and snap

Cockers who are food agressive

And so the list continues.

People like the ones described by the op probably shouldn't own a dog at all.

[Alkhe]

What a terrible but all too common story. I always get nervous (and to be honest, a bit angry) when people are sold litter mates. In the last year, I know 3 people who have bought two dogs from a litter, and every time I've just cringed and expected something bad to happen. All have been from BYBs, and all are oodles of some description, and in all cases the owners had intended to buy just the one pup. In one case, the owner was talked into taking two, and I'm not sure what led to the other people ending up leaving with two dogs.

None of these people have had problems with aggression or anything like that, but as much as all of the owners love their dogs, you can just tell that getting two together was a decision they regret. Training, socialising, just LIVING with one pup is challenging enough, and it is more than twice as hard to raise two well adjusted pups at the same time. Even one of the owners who is trying to hard to train her pups well, she's a single woman, and it's nigh on impossible to properly take two pups to puppy school and give them adequate attention etc.

I know that doesn't mean that NOBODY should be able to buy littermates, but god, I wish people did more homework! And actually thought about the ongoing consequences - two baby puppies are adorable, but one adolescent dog can be a handful, let alone TWO.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Alkhe

[~Anne~]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with buying littler mates. I don't think the theory of issues with litter mates is based on anything substantial.

What a sad scenario for the family in this situation. Unless the sole remaining dog undergoes some training, there is a good chance it will end up dead before its time too. All because of the idiocy and selfishness of humans.

[Alkhe]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with buying littler mates. I don't think the theory of issues with litter mates is based on anything substantial.

What a sad scenario for the family in this situation. Unless the sole remaining dog undergoes some training, there is a good chance it will end up dead before its time too. All because of the idiocy and selfishness of humans.

My own issue isn't with two dogs being littermates, just with getting two pups at the same time, really. A lot of people don't understand how much work it's going to be, and aren't prepared or able to handle it properly. It just so happens that when people get two pups at the same time, they're often from the same litter. That's what i've seen, anyway.

[Steve]

if there is no substance in it then a lot of people have got it wrong - type in litter mate syndrome to google and I dont think its fair to say there is no substance to it - however some studies show that different breeds do this easier than others.Based on my experience I wont ever sell a pair of beagles together and I wouldnt do so for Maremmas which go to pet homes.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Steve

[Dame Aussie]

I tend to agree with Anne, think it depends on how dedicated and prepared the owners are, if I had the time required, I am confident I could raise two well behaved pups together. I don't have the time though which is why it isn't happening :laugh:

That's from my experience and other people I've known, we got our current dogs only a few months apart and raised them together as pups and we have no issues.

The people in the OP sound like they probably would have had problems with just the one dog anyway.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Aussie3

[Dame Aussie]

We had two littermates till the age of 17 each, they were awesome dogs so it isn't always a disaster to get littermates.

Very sad story, the dogs always pay.

Gee Aussie3, that's a grand old age. 17 WOW, that's a wonderful inning's.

I know! The boy went first and the girl went only a few months after him. They were little characters :)

They had a big birthday party for their 16th :laugh:

[Salukifan]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with buying littler mates. I don't think the theory of issues with litter mates is based on anything substantial.

What a sad scenario for the family in this situation. Unless the sole remaining dog undergoes some training, there is a good chance it will end up dead before its time too. All because of the idiocy and selfishness of humans.

There's a hell of a lot of anecdotal evidence that would suggest otherwise. Perhaps one of each gender might be better but I'd neither buy nor recommend a person buy litter mates.

I recall quite a major dust up at my dog club some years ago between two litte rmates - and they weren't even owned by the same family.