Canine Aggression On The Rise

[kelpiecuddles]

Page 22 is interesting. I know in theory desexing doesn't change a dogs personality but there is a big difference between the stats for desexed versus undesexed dogs involved in attacks. Of course mnuch of this could be attributed to irresponsible owners as well.

[Plan B]

American Staffordshire Bull Terrier

That's not even a breed?

[sandgrubber]

Do look at the map in the SMH article. Many, perhaps most, councils report no attacks. In Central Darling the rate is over 4 per 1000! The geographical variation is bigger than the breed specific variation.

[tdierikx]

What really needs to be clarified in any stats gathering/presentation is the definition of "attack"...

How many of us here have had an enthusiastically friendly Staffy type rush up for a pat? To those who don't know the dog in question, that can be a frightening experience - and under the current reporting guidelines, can be called an "attack".

In my mind, an "attack" is one where harm has come to the recipient of the dog's attention - ie. an actual bite occurs. I would guess that the average Joe would also read such stats with "bite" as the result of an "attack" - but that may not be totally factual. People startled by an enthusiastically friendly dog can also trip and fall when trying to get out of the dog's way - and that will also classify as an "attack" under the reporting rules.

Mandatory reporting has seen the number of incidents rise - not that there are ACTUALLY more attacks than there were before mandatory reporting was instigated.

T.

[WreckitWhippet]

I have somewhere in my PC the form that councils are required to complete. I believe it's each 1/4 but I've not looked at it for a while.

[corvus]

Page 22 is interesting. I know in theory desexing doesn't change a dogs personality but there is a big difference between the stats for desexed versus undesexed dogs involved in attacks. Of course mnuch of this could be attributed to irresponsible owners as well.

Actually, in theory desexing DOES affect temperament. I can verify there appears to be a significant effect with my own data, much of it that came directly from DOL and members from other online dog-centric groups. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023313002335

[Maddy]

wow staffys attack so many people they get two spots on the list these articles are nothing but the typical media beat up, there is no news in this article just the same garbage that comes out every few months.

Didn't bother to actually read that too well, did you?

Let me explain it for you.. for the second entry for SBT, there's an asterisk against it (you know, one of these -> * ). When we look down at the bottom of the list, the asterisk is explained as..

Crossbreed, type unknown

This means that the fifty one SBTs were identified as crossbred and so not included in presumed purebred numbers.

If you bothered to actually read it properly, you would have noticed that several breeds are listed twice to include crossbreeds- six others, to be exact. Almost half the breeds listed.

[Santo66]

virtually every dog attack involves a pitbull when a fair number of those attributions are to dogs with no pitbull in them AT ALL.

Whilst it's true that probably few dogs involved in attacks labelled as Pitbulls are actually Pitbulls or have Pitbull ancestry, but they are in that breed type.......that is, they are not reporting attacks from GSD's or Standard Poodles claimimg they are Pitbulls........the point I am making is people getting up in arms over a dog labelled a Pitbull which is an Amstaff X or an American Bulldog, the media hype is targeting a certain type of dog which I haven't seen a misrepresentation in that regard whether they are Pitbulls or not, they are of Bull breed origin being the more relative point.

Personally I think the Bull breed supporters have bought a lot of the problems on themselves with too much defence of "that's not a Pitbull"......who cares if they think it's a Pitbull, they are a restricted breed anyway, it's not going to change anything by highlighting that an attacking dog is X breed as all that did was provide the foundation for Victoria to target and seize crossbreeds too. In hindsight it would have been a better scenario to agree that these attacking dogs are Pitbulls and the nice dogs the Bull breed supporters own are not Pitbulls and everyone is happy. This continual defence of Pitbulls which are done and dusted with a likelihood of BSL release at zero is IMHO what is bringing the crossbreeds and anything else Bull breed related into the spotlight??

[Salukifan]

virtually every dog attack involves a pitbull when a fair number of those attributions are to dogs with no pitbull in them AT ALL.

Whilst it's true that probably few dogs involved in attacks labelled as Pitbulls are actually Pitbulls or have Pitbull ancestry, but they are in that breed type.......that is, they are not reporting attacks from GSD's or Standard Poodles claimimg they are Pitbulls........the point I am making is people getting up in arms over a dog labelled a Pitbull which is an Amstaff X or an American Bulldog, the media hype is targeting a certain type of dog which I haven't seen a misrepresentation in that regard whether they are Pitbulls or not, they are of Bull breed origin being the more relative point.

Personally I think the Bull breed supporters have bought a lot of the problems on themselves with too much defence of "that's not a Pitbull"......who cares if they think it's a Pitbull, they are a restricted breed anyway, it's not going to change anything by highlighting that an attacking dog is X breed as all that did was provide the foundation for Victoria to target and seize crossbreeds too. In hindsight it would have been a better scenario to agree that these attacking dogs are Pitbulls and the nice dogs the Bull breed supporters own are not Pitbulls and everyone is happy. This continual defence of Pitbulls which are done and dusted with a likelihood of BSL release at zero is IMHO what is bringing the crossbreeds and anything else Bull breed related into the spotlight??

Most of the dogs ARE crossbred.. your point???

What makes a dangerous dog is a LOT more than breed. Even a cursory examination of the background on most of these dogs finds OWNER failure... failure to socialise, failure to train, failure to supervise and failure to control. Don't kid yourself for a minute that a "nice" breed in the wrong hands can't be a danger to the community. And that is why focus on breeds is so dangerous.

The myth that some breeds are "safe" and some are "dangerous" is probably the most dangerous aspect in all of this. Any cursory study of dog attacks on children shows that failure to SUPERVISE is what leads to most bites. Because what doesn't sell papers is that most dog bites are inflicted by the family dog. BSL is knee jerk, poorly researched and totally ineffective legislation and that should be screamingly obvious to anyone reading the bite stats at the start of this thread. If BSL is the answer, then how come bite stats are RISING???

Edited July 22, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[mantis]

virtually every dog attack involves a pitbull when a fair number of those attributions are to dogs with no pitbull in them AT ALL.

Whilst it's true that probably few dogs involved in attacks labelled as Pitbulls are actually Pitbulls or have Pitbull ancestry, but they are in that breed type.......that is, they are not reporting attacks from GSD's or Standard Poodles claimimg they are Pitbulls........the point I am making is people getting up in arms over a dog labelled a Pitbull which is an Amstaff X or an American Bulldog, the media hype is targeting a certain type of dog which I haven't seen a misrepresentation in that regard whether they are Pitbulls or not, they are of Bull breed origin being the more relative point.

Personally I think the Bull breed supporters have bought a lot of the problems on themselves with too much defence of "that's not a Pitbull"......who cares if they think it's a Pitbull, they are a restricted breed anyway, it's not going to change anything by highlighting that an attacking dog is X breed as all that did was provide the foundation for Victoria to target and seize crossbreeds too. In hindsight it would have been a better scenario to agree that these attacking dogs are Pitbulls and the nice dogs the Bull breed supporters own are not Pitbulls and everyone is happy. This continual defence of Pitbulls which are done and dusted with a likelihood of BSL release at zero is IMHO what is bringing the crossbreeds and anything else Bull breed related into the spotlight??

Most of the dogs ARE crossbred.. your point???

What makes a dangerous dog is a LOT more than breed. Even a cursory examination of the background on most of these dogs finds OWNER failure... failure to socialise, failure to train, failure to supervise and failure control. Don't kid yourself for a minute that a "nice" breed in the wrong hands can't be a danger to the community. And that is why focus on breeds is so dangerous.

The myth that some breeds are "safe" and some are "dangerous" is probably the most dangerous aspect in all of this. Any cursory study of dog attacks on children shows that failure to SUPERVISE is what leads to most bites. Because what doesn't sell papers is that most dog bites are inflicted by the family dog. BSL is knee jerk, poorly researched and totally ineffective legislation and that should be screamingly obvious to anyone reading the bite stats at the start of this thread. If BSL is the answer, then how come bite stats are RISING???

Excellent post.

[Santo66]

What makes a dangerous dog is a LOT more than breed. Even a cursory examination of the background on most of these dogs finds OWNER failure... failure to socialise, failure to train, failure to supervise and failure control. Don't kid yourself for a minute that a "nice" breed in the wrong hands can't be a danger to the community. And that is why focus on breeds is so dangerous.

The myth that some breeds are "safe" and some are "dangerous" is probably the most dangerous aspect in all of this. Any cursory study of dog attacks on children shows that failure to SUPERVISE is what leads to most bites. Because what doesn't sell papers is that most dog bites are inflicted by the family dog. BSL is knee jerk, poorly researched and totally ineffective legislation and that should be screamingly obvious to anyone reading the bite stats at the start of this thread. If BSL is the answer, then how come bite stats are RISING???

Can't see any bite stats from restricted breeds other than Pitbulls, so a bit hard to say that bite stats wouldn't be higher again with no BSL when your irresponsible owner has Fila or Dogo as they please.

All breeds can present danger I agree, but some breeds don't have the genetic make up to present the level of danger that other breeds have, that is, try and train a Labrador in front line civil defence then try a GSD or Belgian Malinois and tell me there is no difference in a dog's fighting capabilities from genetic (breed) foundation? Try and rehabilitate a Bull breed with serious dog aggression, a dog that has poor handler focus, and a high pain threshold, then try the same with a Rottweiler of similar dog aggression level and tell me the training result will be the same?

Tell a Greyhound racer to switch breeds to Cocker Spaniels as breed doesn't matter, train em right they can still win.........need we go on?? Of course with responsible ownership a tiger in the backyard is safe no question on that, but when the tiger or aggressive dog gets out is when the problem begins and the breed having genetic predisposition to aggression and fight in the individual dog is a great factor in the outcome.

[Salukifan]

What makes a dangerous dog is a LOT more than breed. Even a cursory examination of the background on most of these dogs finds OWNER failure... failure to socialise, failure to train, failure to supervise and failure control. Don't kid yourself for a minute that a "nice" breed in the wrong hands can't be a danger to the community. And that is why focus on breeds is so dangerous.

The myth that some breeds are "safe" and some are "dangerous" is probably the most dangerous aspect in all of this. Any cursory study of dog attacks on children shows that failure to SUPERVISE is what leads to most bites. Because what doesn't sell papers is that most dog bites are inflicted by the family dog. BSL is knee jerk, poorly researched and totally ineffective legislation and that should be screamingly obvious to anyone reading the bite stats at the start of this thread. If BSL is the answer, then how come bite stats are RISING???

Can't see any bite stats from restricted breeds other than Pitbulls, so a bit hard to say that bite stats wouldn't be higher again with no BSL when your irresponsible owner has Fila or Dogo as they please.

All breeds can present danger I agree, but some breeds don't have the genetic make up to present the level of danger that other breeds have, that is, try and train a Labrador in front line civil defence then try a GSD or Belgian Malinois and tell me there is no difference in a dog's fighting capabilities from genetic (breed) foundation? Try and rehabilitate a Bull breed with serious dog aggression, a dog that has poor handler focus, and a high pain threshold, then try the same with a Rottweiler of similar dog aggression level and tell me the training result will be the same?

Tell a Greyhound racer to switch breeds to Cocker Spaniels as breed doesn't matter, train em right they can still win.........need we go on?? Of course with responsible ownership a tiger in the backyard is safe no question on that, but when the tiger or aggressive dog gets out is when the problem begins and the breed having genetic predisposition to aggression and fight in the individual dog is a great factor in the outcome.

Probably because the other restricted breeds have virtually no representation in this country.

Your argument above suggests that I should look to the breeds you name with "fighting capabililities" to be at the top of the bite stats and yet... shock, horror .. they aren't there!!

And then you've made the rather ridiculous suggestion that a small gundog can win a race against a large sighthound.. OF COURSE breed matters in terms of conformation and drives - but it's not as simple as "some breeds are safe and some are dangerous" which is the basis of BSL.

I'm sorry, but you are making absolutely no sense at all. You're rattling on about serious dog aggression in bull breeds when anyone can tell you that it is rare to find both serious DA and HA in the same dog. What's your point other than you dislike bull breeds and want them eradicated??

I don't own a bull breed and I have no desire to. But I'm not going to let my breed preferences condemn to death a great many dogs that never hurt anyone. No half way sensible dog lover would.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[mita]

Yes, lists like that aren't terribly useful for drawing conclusions that might lead to improved community safety from dog bites.

First, the numbers aren't calibrated with numbers of that 'breed' in the community.

Second, the breed labelling itself is 'rubbery'.

Not wanting to drive a gap between purebreds & those that are not. But it'd be interesting if a list could break-down the breeds into those with documented papers & those not. There's be some reason to hypothesize that purebreds might be less represented. Might not be.... but it'd be a fair call to test.

Third, other factors associated with dog biting/attacks are not listed there. And the evidence is that they are what counts. There's an excellent listing of those & how they all interact.... in a paper on dog bite/attack safety from the AVA.

I'm also wondering if the rise in canine aggression being recorded is also associated with more dogs in the community & also with more systems having been set up to record bites/attacks? That's not downplaying the problem, of course.

Edited July 22, 2013 by mita

[MonElite]

Ive scanned through the pdf file and notived that labradoodle and cavoodle are now purebreds.

When did this happen?:laugh:

Makes me think that the "purebred" list is not a pure as it should be

[mita]

Worth repeating. AVA on what's associated with dog bites/attacks. From their AVA paper which presented evidence-based ideas to deal with the problem. It didn't include banning breeds:

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.1

Dog bite incidents generally occur either in domestic settings where the animal is known to

the victim, or by dogs at large (refer to the definition on page 33) unknown to the victim.

While dogs at large are responsible for a minority of dog bites2, they attract disproportionate

media and political interest. They are the public face of the dog bite problem, and most

legislation is designed to control this part of the problem.

However, most bites occurred in the dog’s own home and involve victims bitten by their own

dog (Kizer 1979 cited in Overall and Love 2001). In Australia, 73% to 81% of attacks occur in

the domestic environment (Ashby K 1996 quoted in Ozanne-Smith et al 2001, Thompson

[mantis]

What makes a dangerous dog is a LOT more than breed. Even a cursory examination of the background on most of these dogs finds OWNER failure... failure to socialise, failure to train, failure to supervise and failure control. Don't kid yourself for a minute that a "nice" breed in the wrong hands can't be a danger to the community. And that is why focus on breeds is so dangerous.

The myth that some breeds are "safe" and some are "dangerous" is probably the most dangerous aspect in all of this. Any cursory study of dog attacks on children shows that failure to SUPERVISE is what leads to most bites. Because what doesn't sell papers is that most dog bites are inflicted by the family dog. BSL is knee jerk, poorly researched and totally ineffective legislation and that should be screamingly obvious to anyone reading the bite stats at the start of this thread. If BSL is the answer, then how come bite stats are RISING???

Can't see any bite stats from restricted breeds other than Pitbulls, so a bit hard to say that bite stats wouldn't be higher again with no BSL when your irresponsible owner has Fila or Dogo as they please.

All breeds can present danger I agree, but some breeds don't have the genetic make up to present the level of danger that other breeds have, that is, try and train a Labrador in front line civil defence then try a GSD or Belgian Malinois and tell me there is no difference in a dog's fighting capabilities from genetic (breed) foundation? Try and rehabilitate a Bull breed with serious dog aggression, a dog that has poor handler focus, and a high pain threshold, then try the same with a Rottweiler of similar dog aggression level and tell me the training result will be the same?

Tell a Greyhound racer to switch breeds to Cocker Spaniels as breed doesn't matter, train em right they can still win.........need we go on?? Of course with responsible ownership a tiger in the backyard is safe no question on that, but when the tiger or aggressive dog gets out is when the problem begins and the breed having genetic predisposition to aggression and fight in the individual dog is a great factor in the outcome.

Going down the "strawman" route, Comparing a tiger to a dog, well done.

[tdierikx]

There's pure or pedigreed (bred only for "pet" market), and then there's responsibly bred pure and pedigreed... and guaranteed that many, if not most of the "pure" dogs involved in the bite statistics haven't been sourced from the latter group.

T.

[staffydave]

ha ha hardys angel i love how friendly and helpful you are , keyboard warrior. To answer your question no i didnt read it very well at all because there was no value in reading it. Calm down you dont have to attack someone for no reason.

Edited July 22, 2013 by staffydave

[Santo66]

What makes a dangerous dog is a LOT more than breed. Even a cursory examination of the background on most of these dogs finds OWNER failure... failure to socialise, failure to train, failure to supervise and failure control. Don't kid yourself for a minute that a "nice" breed in the wrong hands can't be a danger to the community. And that is why focus on breeds is so dangerous.

The myth that some breeds are "safe" and some are "dangerous" is probably the most dangerous aspect in all of this. Any cursory study of dog attacks on children shows that failure to SUPERVISE is what leads to most bites. Because what doesn't sell papers is that most dog bites are inflicted by the family dog. BSL is knee jerk, poorly researched and totally ineffective legislation and that should be screamingly obvious to anyone reading the bite stats at the start of this thread. If BSL is the answer, then how come bite stats are RISING???

Can't see any bite stats from restricted breeds other than Pitbulls, so a bit hard to say that bite stats wouldn't be higher again with no BSL when your irresponsible owner has Fila or Dogo as they please.

All breeds can present danger I agree, but some breeds don't have the genetic make up to present the level of danger that other breeds have, that is, try and train a Labrador in front line civil defence then try a GSD or Belgian Malinois and tell me there is no difference in a dog's fighting capabilities from genetic (breed) foundation? Try and rehabilitate a Bull breed with serious dog aggression, a dog that has poor handler focus, and a high pain threshold, then try the same with a Rottweiler of similar dog aggression level and tell me the training result will be the same?

Tell a Greyhound racer to switch breeds to Cocker Spaniels as breed doesn't matter, train em right they can still win.........need we go on?? Of course with responsible ownership a tiger in the backyard is safe no question on that, but when the tiger or aggressive dog gets out is when the problem begins and the breed having genetic predisposition to aggression and fight in the individual dog is a great factor in the outcome.

Probably because the other restricted breeds have virtually no representation in this country.

Your argument above suggests that I should look to the breeds you name with "fighting capabililities" to be at the top of the bite stats and yet... shock, horror .. they aren't there!!

And then you've made the rather ridiculous suggestion that a small gundog can win a race against a large sighthound.. OF COURSE breed matters in terms of conformation and drives - but it's not as simple as "some breeds are safe and some are dangerous" which is the basis of BSL.

I'm sorry, but you are making absolutely no sense at all. You're rattling on about serious dog aggression in bull breeds when anyone can tell you that it is rare to find both serious DA and HA in the same dog. What's your point other than you dislike bull breeds and want them eradicated??

I don't own a bull breed and I have no desire to. But I'm not going to let my breed preferences condemn to death a great many dogs that never hurt anyone. No half way sensible dog lover would.

Aggression is a drive either defensive or active. We can all agree that a working Border Collie will have prey drive, yet we ignore that another breed has driven aggression. You can't make prey drive out of a couch potato likewise you can't make aggression drive out of a dog or breed that doesn't have any in their genetic structure. Aggression is no more man made than prey drive, scent drive or any other drive that dog or breed may be genetically wired to include in it's make up.

Aggression is used in dogs for working roles on a daily basis worldwide and the people who use such a dog don't use just any old dog or breed and there is a reason for that which is simply, they are not all made equal. The faster the anti BSL crusaders acknowledge the fact

instead of arguing that aggression stems from environment and any other factor that can take the heat off breed and genetics which is all BS, the faster they may be able to overturn BSL perhaps?.

[Maddy]

ha ha hardys angel i love how friendly and helpful you are , keyboard warrior. To answer your question no i didnt read it very well at all because there was no value in reading it. Calm down you dont have to attack someone for no reason.

If you can't be bothered reading things properly, perhaps you ought to refrain from commenting?

Also, do you not think it's a tad hypocritical to whinge about being attacked and then.. attack someone?