Canine Aggression On The Rise

[Salukifan]

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?.

Where do I start?

Aggression is NOT a drive. It is the EXPRESSION of a drive .. dominance, prey, food, pack, sexual etc etc

If you think you can't make prey drive out of a couch potato, you clearly have had very little to do with sighthounds :laugh: Similarly, if you think you can't "make" a dog aggressive, check out the seedier side of the security dog training industry.

I have never said that breed doesn't matter - but it's not everything either. There are two reasons for that:

1. The levels of drive within a breed will vary. Not all Border Collies will herd. Not all sighthounds will course. And, most importantly for this thread, not all bull breeds are dog or human aggressive. Do you watch the rescue shows on Animal Planet? Quite a few times they've used an APBT as the "Friendly test dog" for character assessments at the ASPCA.

2. How quickly a dog will trigger into a particular drive can be modified - by socialisation, by training (no police dog does its work simply due to "drive"). That expression can also be controlled.

We have created breeds with various levels of particular drive but anyone with good breed knowledge will tell you that doesn't make them a universal attribute. Furthermore, any trainer will tell you we can modify our dogs behaviour.

THIS is what is wrong with BSL. It assumes that all behaviour can be simply attributed to breed and that there is no way some dogs of a particular breed can be safe (or dangerous for that matter). And there is no research in the world that supports that assumption. Not anywhere.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Runamuk_AST]

Is anyone else smiling about how much further down the list pit bulls are than even kelpies. :p

Not really. Most people are hopeless with identifying breeds and there's plenty of evidence to show such statistics are inherently flawed.

Agree 100% Haredown.

I'm not breed bashing here,just telling it as it is. They're also not taking into consideration that as the Pit Bull is a Prescribed breed in most states of Australia, most of those Pit's are REGISTERED with the Council's/Shire's as Amstaff's, so as soon as there's an attack,it's down on record as another Amstaff attack. This is really hurting our breed!!

Edited July 23, 2013 by Runamuk_AST

[Santo66]

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?.

Where do I start?

Aggression is NOT a drive. It is the EXPRESSION of a drive .. dominance, prey, food, pack, sexual etc etc

If you think you can't make prey drive out of a couch potato, you clearly have had very little to do with sighthounds :laugh: Similarly, if you think you can't "make" a dog aggressive, check out the seedier side of the security dog training industry.

I have never said that breed doesn't matter - but it's not everything either. There are two reasons for that:

1. The levels of drive within a breed will vary. Not all Border Collies will herd. Not all sighthounds will course. And, most importantly for this thread, not all bull breeds are dog or human aggressive. Do you watch the rescue shows on Animal Planet? Quite a few times they've used an APBT as the "Friendly test dog" for character assessments at the ASPCA.

2. How quickly a dog will trigger into a particular drive can be modified - by socialisation, by training (no police dog does its work simply due to "drive"). That expression can also be controlled.

We have created breeds with various levels of particular drive but anyone with good breed knowledge will tell you that doesn't make them a universal attribute. Furthermore, any trainer will tell you we can modify our dogs behaviour.

THIS is what is wrong with BSL. It assumes that all behaviour can be simply attributed to breed and that there is no way some dogs of a particular breed can be safe (or dangerous for that matter). And there is no research in the world that supports that assumption. Not anywhere.

We know with responsible ownership that any breed is a safe breed, no BSL required on that front at all. However, irresponsible ownership of breeds where high level aggression and extreme fighting ability is found in lines of those breeds is what BSL attempts to eradicate. The question that needs to be answered is this: Do you want irresponsible people breeding concoctions of powerful breeds to result in the potential ownership of dogs dangerous in the community, because that's simply what no BSL represents?

It's not all about the seizure of a Staffy X who the ranger thinks is a Pitbull, it's about Bozo the drug dealer importing a Fila to cross it with an over sharp fear biting Rotty to protect his dope patch and selling the surplus pups off to his dopey mates who are less responsible than he is. You can't breed power, aggression and fight out of dogs that don't have the genetics to support that, it's total naïve BS if anyone thinks they can.........certain breeds are used for a reason what ever the role required of the dog is intended to be.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Santo66

[Runamuk_AST]

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?.

Where do I start?

Aggression is NOT a drive. It is the EXPRESSION of a drive .. dominance, prey, food, pack, sexual etc etc

If you think you can't make prey drive out of a couch potato, you clearly have had very little to do with sighthounds :laugh: Similarly, if you think you can't "make" a dog aggressive, check out the seedier side of the security dog training industry.

I have never said that breed doesn't matter - but it's not everything either. There are two reasons for that:

1. The levels of drive within a breed will vary. Not all Border Collies will herd. Not all sighthounds will course. And, most importantly for this thread, not all bull breeds are dog or human aggressive. Do you watch the rescue shows on Animal Planet? Quite a few times they've used an APBT as the "Friendly test dog" for character assessments at the ASPCA.

2. How quickly a dog will trigger into a particular drive can be modified - by socialisation, by training (no police dog does its work simply due to "drive"). That expression can also be controlled.

We have created breeds with various levels of particular drive but anyone with good breed knowledge will tell you that doesn't make them a universal attribute. Furthermore, any trainer will tell you we can modify our dogs behaviour.

THIS is what is wrong with BSL. It assumes that all behaviour can be simply attributed to breed and that there is no way some dogs of a particular breed can be safe (or dangerous for that matter). And there is no research in the world that supports that assumption. Not anywhere.

We know with responsible ownership that any breed is a safe breed, no BSL required on that front at all. However, irresponsible ownership of breeds where high level aggression and extreme fighting ability is found in lines of those breeds is what BSL attempts to eradicate. The question that needs to be answered is this: Do you want irresponsible people breeding concoctions of powerful breeds to result in the potential ownership of dogs dangerous in the community, because that's simply what no BSL represents?

It's not all about the seizure of a Staffy X who the ranger thinks is a Pitbull, it's about Bozo the drug dealer importing a Fila to cross it with an over sharp fear biting Rotty to protect his dope patch and selling the surplus pups off to his dopey mates who are less responsible than he is. You can't breed power, aggression and fight out of dogs that don't have the genetics to support that, it's total naïve BS if anyone thinks they can.........certain breeds are used for a reason what ever the role required of the dog is intended to be.

90% of DA is caused through insecurity.

"Any" breed or "ANY" dog can be described as a "Pit Bull" if that is the "FUNCTION" it is performing.

[mita]

We know with responsible ownership that any breed is a safe breed, no BSL required on that front at all. However, irresponsible ownership of breeds where high level aggression and extreme fighting ability is found in lines of those breeds is what BSL attempts to eradicate. The question that needs to be answered is this: Do you want irresponsible people breeding concoctions of powerful breeds to result in the potential ownership of dogs dangerous in the community, because that's simply what no BSL represents?

Follow your argument to its logical end, & all dogs that have size & muscle strength would be banned. And only small dogs who've had their teeth extracted would remain.

As organizations like both the American & Australian Veterinary Associations point out BSL does not address the factors which actually are implicated in risk factors for dog attacks/bites. Both groups have published evidence-based recommendations for how those factors can be addressed.

In fact, putting resources into BSL just takes attention away from dealing with those real risk factors that aren't breed specific.

Edited July 23, 2013 by mita

[Salukifan]

We know with responsible ownership that any breed is a safe breed, no BSL required on that front at all. However, irresponsible ownership of breeds where high level aggression and extreme fighting ability is found in lines of those breeds is what BSL attempts to eradicate. The question that needs to be answered is this: Do you want irresponsible people breeding concoctions of powerful breeds to result in the potential ownership of dogs dangerous in the community, because that's simply what no BSL represents?

It's not all about the seizure of a Staffy X who the ranger thinks is a Pitbull, it's about Bozo the drug dealer importing a Fila to cross it with an over sharp fear biting Rotty to protect his dope patch and selling the surplus pups off to his dopey mates who are less responsible than he is. You can't breed power, aggression and fight out of dogs that don't have the genetics to support that, it's total naïve BS if anyone thinks they can.........certain breeds are used for a reason what ever the role required of the dog is intended to be.

BSL seeks to eradicate ALL ownership of the breeds in question. That fact that responsible dog owners have dogs of this breed that pose no threat to anyone is irrelevant - and that's why its a crock. The answer to dealing with irresponsible dog owners is to target the owners, NOT their dogs.

[Plan B]

BSL seeks to eradicate ALL ownership of the breeds in question. That fact that responsible dog owners have dogs of this breed that pose no threat to anyone is irrelevant - and that's why its a crock. The answer to dealing with irresponsible dog owners is to target the owners, NOT their dogs.

[Nekhbet]

Where do I start?

Aggression is NOT a drive. It is the EXPRESSION of a drive .. dominance, prey, food, pack, sexual etc etc

If you think you can't make prey drive out of a couch potato, you clearly have had very little to do with sighthounds :laugh: Similarly, if you think you can't "make" a dog aggressive, check out the seedier side of the security dog training industry.

I have never said that breed doesn't matter - but it's not everything either. There are two reasons for that:

1. The levels of drive within a breed will vary. Not all Border Collies will herd. Not all sighthounds will course. And, most importantly for this thread, not all bull breeds are dog or human aggressive. Do you watch the rescue shows on Animal Planet? Quite a few times they've used an APBT as the "Friendly test dog" for character assessments at the ASPCA.

2. How quickly a dog will trigger into a particular drive can be modified - by socialisation, by training (no police dog does its work simply due to "drive"). That expression can also be controlled.

We have created breeds with various levels of particular drive but anyone with good breed knowledge will tell you that doesn't make them a universal attribute. Furthermore, any trainer will tell you we can modify our dogs behaviour.

Very valid points here.

Do we want to know why dog aggression is on the rise? Because we've lost the plot.

- we're brainwashed against equipment and corrections - If I want to fix a dog properly I'm apparently a cruel person. Uh huh.

- dogs are accessories or furry children

- the attitude of everything being the dogs fault is overly pervasive and expectations are too high - dogs apparently come pretrained and know everything

- no one trains or socialises their damn dog properly anymore

- more and more decent trainers are leaving, closing up shop or have hands tied by laws

- people keep breeding and rescuing dogs with shit temperaments. There's no quality control for a lot of the dog population, those that would either be euthed or shot are alive and kicking, causing havoc.

Sorry but overall in Australia we have no idea what we're doing. We're creating the problem ourselves and blaming the dogs for it. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Aidan3]

Is dog aggression on the rise? I'd be very surprised if that were true.

[Nekhbet]

Is dog aggression on the rise? I'd be very surprised if that were true.

let's call it the colloquialism of aggression ... aggressive response, lack of impulse control etc.

[Santo66]

We know with responsible ownership that any breed is a safe breed, no BSL required on that front at all. However, irresponsible ownership of breeds where high level aggression and extreme fighting ability is found in lines of those breeds is what BSL attempts to eradicate. The question that needs to be answered is this: Do you want irresponsible people breeding concoctions of powerful breeds to result in the potential ownership of dogs dangerous in the community, because that's simply what no BSL represents?

Follow your argument to its logical end, & all dogs that have size & muscle strength would be banned. And only small dogs who've had their teeth extracted would remain.

As organizations like both the American & Australian Veterinary Associations point out BSL does not address the factors which actually are implicated in risk factors for dog attacks/bites. Both groups have published evidence-based recommendations for how those factors can be addressed.

In fact, putting resources into BSL just takes attention away from dealing with those real risk factors that aren't breed specific.

The one's banned by BSL are breeds with fighting background, it's nothing to do with size per se

The answer to dealing with irresponsible dog owners is to target the owners, NOT their dogs

People are aware of the consequence of murder, but there are still murders taking place........so ramping up the punishment for irresponsible dog owners will do what exactly? In law nothing is done until the deed happens.......someone is a recipient of the deed an innocent person who need not suffer such an ordeal?

Pitbulls have been a restricted breed since 1992......I would say more that people who have them or dogs resembling them are irresponsible purchases........same goes for people registering Pitbulls as Amstaffs and crossbreeds to avoid the council restrictions is hardly responsible ownership is it?

dogs are accessories or furry children

I wonder if the bloke who owned the 3 Johnson Bulldogs who attacked the jogger just wanted some furry children?

Edited July 23, 2013 by Santo66

[melzawelza]

The answer to dealing with irresponsible dog owners is to target the owners, NOT their dogs

People are aware of the consequence of murder, but there are still murders taking place........so ramping up the punishment for irresponsible dog owners will do what exactly?

It will more than quarter dog bites on a pro-rata basis in 25 years

(However the solution is much more than just punishment - it's heavy education and assisting owners to comply first, then punishing if they still fail to meet their obligations)

ETA: that is a link rather than just underlined. Click it!

Edited July 24, 2013 by melzawelza

[Nekhbet]

I wonder if the bloke who owned the 3 Johnson Bulldogs who attacked the jogger just wanted some furry children

I wonder if he wanted 3 big, muscled status symbols.

Pitbulls have been a restricted breed since 1992......I would say more that people who have them or dogs resembling them are irresponsible purchases........same goes for people registering Pitbulls as Amstaffs and crossbreeds to avoid the council restrictions is hardly responsible ownership is it?

I see it publicly stated, oh hide your dogs by calling them something else. Genius. It's why councils like COGG are going around to all the dog registered and checking visually - no pedigree papers, call it a purple people eater for all they care you're in trouble.

What I hate though is the crying about seizure. Plenty of legal avenues to own a bull breed, the fact they flout the law and put the DOG in that horrible predicament - what can I say. Idiots at their best.

[mita]

[

The one's banned by BSL are breeds with fighting background, it's nothing to do with size per se

Dog breeds with a 'fighting background', still have the same developmental process as any other dog. What do you believe that the 'fighting background' will 'give' that dog which will inherently & invariably make them a danger for biting/attacking people?

Is it the physical features? If that's it.... then physical features do not determine behaviour. Is it genetic heritage? If you think that, then the science is that genes are not sole determinants ... they can require environmental factors to switch them on.

And dogs, within the same breed or even in the same bloodline, are not clones .... there will be differences. Which explains why even some dogs that have been used in actual dog-fighting have been rehabilitated, with relative ease, to live trustworthy, alongside humans. Have you seen the follow-up of 'fighting dogs' rescued from that US sports bloke? One even works in pet therapy.

Much of the science points to human behaviour in what people provide for dogs....& do with them. Look at the results from the University of Cordoba. Those researchers' conclusions came out in support of really strong training/management of dogs. .. all dogs, including the smallest . So the recommendations for helping the community to be safer... from all respected groups like the Vet Associations... have not not supported BSL, but recommended other measures that hone in on human behaviours.

Nekhbet's post 48 spells out well, what all this means in everyday life.

Edited July 24, 2013 by mita

[mita]

BTW Here's the breeds in the University of Cordoba study. They looked at what was the most significant in aggression developing in dogs...internal factors relating to dogs or external factors where human behaviour modified the dogs' behaviours. And it was human behaviours that came out as the key. They acknowledged exceptions when there was some internal medical/physiological problem.

The Spanish researchers studied 711 dogs (354 males and 357 females) of which 594 were purebreds and 117 were mixed breeds over a year old. Among the breeds studied were Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, German Shepherds, Boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermanns, and also apparently more docile breeds such as Dalmatians, Irish Setters, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Miniature poodles, Chihuahuas, Pekingeses, and French Bulldogs.

Edited July 24, 2013 by mita

[Salukifan]

Santo:

People are aware of the consequence of murder, but there are still murders taking place........so ramping up the punishment for irresponsible dog owners will do what exactly? In law nothing is done until the deed happens.......someone is a recipient of the deed an innocent person who need not suffer such an ordeal?

Pitbulls have been a restricted breed since

1992......I would say more that people who have them or dogs resembling them are irresponsible purchases........same goes for people registering Pitbulls as Amstaffs and crossbreeds to avoid the council restrictions is hardly responsible ownership is it?

People are aware of the consequences of speeding and drink driving - and yet they do it. Do we punish responsible drivers by banning cars? Of course we don't. We penalise those who do the wrong thing.. So why are we penalising responsible dog owners when its pretty bloody obvious what kind of dog ownership creates dangerous dogs?

There is a model for reducing dangerous dogs in society, its the Calgary model and it works when BSL has been proven to fail in this regard. If you're really interested in community safety Santo, I'm puzzled as to why you don't hitch your wagon to a solution that works.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[mita]

Interesting that people driving irresponsibly should come up. I recall reading a US study that looked at factors about the owners of dogs that'd been involved in serious dog attacks. One thing that popped out... was that those owners tended to rack up more than average number of traffic offences. Showing their own poor impulse control, poor sense of consequences... No wonder they'd been highly unlikely to impose control training/management on their dogs ... nor have a sense of consequences for not doing that.

BTW Other owner characteristics that came out.... were not registering their dogs & being more likely (but not necessarily) to have criminal offences in their background.

I've got a vague memory that the French authorities have some restrictions on what dogs people with criminal records can own.

Edited July 24, 2013 by mita

[Santo66]

I wonder if the bloke who owned the 3 Johnson Bulldogs who attacked the jogger just wanted some furry children

I wonder if he wanted 3 big, muscled status symbols.

Pitbulls have been a restricted breed since 1992......I would say more that people who have them or dogs resembling them are irresponsible purchases........same goes for people registering Pitbulls as Amstaffs and crossbreeds to avoid the council restrictions is hardly responsible ownership is it?

I see it publicly stated, oh hide your dogs by calling them something else. Genius. It's why councils like COGG are going around to all the dog registered and checking visually - no pedigree papers, call it a purple people eater for all they care you're in trouble.

What I hate though is the crying about seizure. Plenty of legal avenues to own a bull breed, the fact they flout the law and put the DOG in that horrible predicament - what can I say. Idiots at their best.

I am wondering in the Bulldog attack if they had undergone some backyard bite work training as all 3 targeted the joggers arms, the old wind them up in defence drive and give them a bite routine could easily result in such an attack??...........3 Johnson's I can't see purchased for a reason that didn't include protection of some sort??

I have seen the other side of the tough dog syndrome too often unfortunately with the people who want out of control aggression from dogs and seek out dogs who genetically display it along with people who breed for it and sadly when the well trainable breeds in deterrent and protection are not tough enough in these people's eyes they go one better with Pitbull, Bulldog, Mastiff type breedings which don't lend themselves easily to safe protective training that can be achieved with a GSD or Malinois in comparison........I can't train these strong and aggressive Bull breed concoctions to gain control of them easily as I can with established guardian breeds and the owners of them have got no chance with control of a dog that's either all or nothing.........quite scary in fact

I feel for these people who's "nice" dogs are seized as supposed restricted breeds, but they are at risk of seizure and have been for many years, my view is strong in the decision to get a Bull breed, get a proper one......there are plenty of well bred beautiful Bull breeds out there with papers to avoid the BSL trap, it's not that hard with a little forethought.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Santo66

[trinabean]

Santo:

People are aware of the consequence of murder, but there are still murders taking place........so ramping up the punishment for irresponsible dog owners will do what exactly? In law nothing is done until the deed happens.......someone is a recipient of the deed an innocent person who need not suffer such an ordeal?

Pitbulls have been a restricted breed since

1992......I would say more that people who have them or dogs resembling them are irresponsible purchases........same goes for people registering Pitbulls as Amstaffs and crossbreeds to avoid the council restrictions is hardly responsible ownership is it?

People are aware of the consequences of speeding and drink driving - and yet they do it. Do we punish responsible drivers by banning cars? Of course we don't. We penalise those who do the wrong thing.. So why are we penalising responsible dog owners when its pretty bloody obvious what kind of dog ownership creates dangerous dogs?

There is a model for reducing dangerous dogs in society, its the Calgary model and it works when BSL has been proven to fail in this regard. If you're really interested in community safety Santo, I'm puzzled as to why you don't hitch your wagon to a solution that works.

Indeed.

[Nekhbet]

I am wondering in the Bulldog attack if they had undergone some backyard bite work training as all 3 targeted the joggers arms, the old wind them up in defence drive and give them a bite routine could easily result in such an attack??...........3 Johnson's I can't see purchased for a reason that didn't include protection of some sort??

I have seen the other side of the tough dog syndrome too often unfortunately with the people who want out of control aggression from dogs and seek out dogs who genetically display it along with people who breed for it and sadly when the well trainable breeds in deterrent and protection are not tough enough in these people's eyes they go one better with Pitbull, Bulldog, Mastiff type breedings which don't lend themselves easily to safe protective training that can be achieved with a GSD or Malinois in comparison........I can't train these strong and aggressive Bull breed concoctions to gain control of them easily as I can with established guardian breeds and the owners of them have got no chance with control of a dog that's either all or nothing.........quite scary in fact

3 up themselves ambulls could easily turn into a mauling... dog pack, one dog encourages another and it all turns to poop.

You're right a lot of the bull breeds are not suitable for bitework, they tend to take it too far. I've dealt with a BY trained drug guard dog, it was absolutely mental and unstoppable (Aussie bulldog from lines that shows aggression anyway) People seem to miss the fact that protection and aggression are not one and the same thing, hence they just buy big tough angry dogs and poke them with a stick until they finally snap and can't be controlled anymore. I've seen fear aggressive dogs pushed to become protection dogs too, absolutely unstoppable.

Once again, like I said, too many shit temperaments around that need to be culled from the gene pool. Be it overly aggressive or too weak nerve/overly reactive.