Canine Aggression On The Rise

[Sandra777]

You're right a lot of the bull breeds are not suitable for bitework, they tend to take it too far.

There's a very old story of a Stafford in the UK just after WWII. Belonged to a military chap who's friend worked with army dogs. The boys thought it would be clever to see if they could train the Stafford for bite work.

Dog learned to target the sleeve, was quite happy to play tug with the sleeve until the cows came home. One of the trainers put the sleeve on, started the whole drama with yelling and waving a stick, Stafford rushed up, bit the guy on the ankle, returned to his owner and had no more interest in that game. Why go for a sleeve when there's a perfectly good ankle much closer to my height? :laugh:

[mita]

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

[

As this topic is about dogs that've developed aggressiveness to humans ... guess which size emerged as one of the statistically significant factors in that huge Cordoba study, of all sizes from big to small? Small size.

Fits in with their main conclusion of human behaviour being the most important factor in dogs developing such behaviour. And why they stress the importance of training/management. People are more likely to train their larger dogs, in the interests of self protection. But that's less likely with small dogs.

Of course, small dogs are not as capable of causing extent of injury to adults. But the most vulnerable group for dog bites is babies, toddlers & young children. And their faces tend to be on a level with the dogs. While their finer skin, tends to be more severely injured by bites.

(I own small dogs.)

Edited July 24, 2013 by mita

[sandgrubber]

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.

Is this the study you're referring to? Journal of Animal and Veterinary AdvancesYear: 2009 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 7 | Page No.: 1412-1418Factors Linked to Territorial Aggression in DogsJoaquin Perez-Guisado

and

Andres Munoz-Serrano

If so, they found breed highly significant, though bull breeds did not show up as aggressive. I have my doubts about the study as it is based on opportunistic interviews with owners and sample sizes were small for most breeds. If bull breed owners feel under threat from authorities, they aren't likely to tell a stranger who walks up to them on the street. But someone who bought a mastiff as a guard dog might well beat his chest while bragging about how the dog barks at everyone and will attack any stranger who comes into the yard. Or maybe the Spanish tradition is to go for extra large dogs when they want a guard dog, keep the thing outdoors, and don't socialize. Meanwhile they are inclined to treat bull breeds as house pets. Just guessing. Dunno. I don't trust the study approach. I wish they had cross correlated breed and socialization factors. It would be useful to know if dogs considered by their owners as highly aggressive were all kept outdoors 24/7 and never exercised.

Here's their table of highly significant factors affecting aggression.

[dogbesotted]

i suggest that as we have become a less dog inclusive society.. ie keeping dogs confined, often alone or with maybe another dog, largely results in more agression/uncertainty when the dog finds itself in a challenging and different situation.

H

ps. also we have a propensity to regard dogs as either surrogate children or in soem cases as an additional set of testicles with teeth

[juice]

After just coming back from the States we have it really wrong here

Dogs were everywhere, and I mean just that, I didn't see one dog lungeing at another or hauling its owner up the street.

Picnics, playgrounds restaurants, skate park, dogs in huge numbers, relaxed, chilled, and plenty of pits too.

when will we realise that the more we hide them under lock and key and stop them going to places the worse it gets.?

[sandgrubber]

1374708479[/url]' post='6262633']

After just coming back from the States we have it really wrong here

Dogs were everywhere, and I mean just that, I didn't see one dog lungeing at another or hauling its owner up the street.

Picnics, playgrounds restaurants, skate park, dogs in huge numbers, relaxed, chilled, and plenty of pits too.

when will we realise that the more we hide them under lock and key and stop them going to places the worse it gets.?

The US is a BIG place with lots of variation. Many many more pits in most places, it's true. But not everywhere is dog friendly, and the types of dog friendliness differ. Try finding a dog beach in California where you can let your dog off lead. I'm now in Florida in an area dominated by a large university. I'm amazed how seldom I see anybody else walking their dogs, apart from the occasional college student dragging a puppy on a leash. I joined a members only dog park cause I couldn't find a good place to socialize my two with other dogs. On the other hand, if you want to go hunting with dogs, there are lots of opportunities.

[Aidan3]

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

[sandgrubber]

1374709756[/url]' post='6262642']

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Evidence? Who needs evidence? Aggression is a subject that causes lots of anxiety, and lots of us love to talk about it.

If you want some numbers, these are kinda interesting.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Documents/Animal-Services/Animal-statistics/Reports%20of%20Dog%20Aggression%20Over%20Time.pdf

Edited July 25, 2013 by sandgrubber

[mita]

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know.

Edited July 25, 2013 by mita

[Aidan3]

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know.

WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out.

[tdierikx]

There's not only mandatory reporting - but the definition of "attack" itself has been expanded to include behaviours that don't include biting.

Like I pointed out before, an enthusiastically friendly Staffy type rushing over to someone in the hope of a pat could be construed and reported as an "attack" if the person the dog is running towards is frightened by the behaviour. An "attack" doesn't have to involve injury to be reported as an attack either.

T.

[melzawelza]

There's not only mandatory reporting - but the definition of "attack" itself has been expanded to include behaviours that don't include biting.

Like I pointed out before, an enthusiastically friendly Staffy type rushing over to someone in the hope of a pat could be construed and reported as an "attack" if the person the dog is running towards is frightened by the behaviour. An "attack" doesn't have to involve injury to be reported as an attack either.

T.

Yep. This is the definition of an 'attack' in NSW from Section 16 of the Companion Animals Act.

16 Offences where dog attacks person or animal

(1) If a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal:

(a) the owner of the dog, or

(b) if the owner is not present at the time of the offence and another person who is of or above the age of 16 years is in charge of the dog at that time—that other person,

is guilty of an offence.

Then keep in mind that any dog that has attacked can be declared dangerous...

[mita]

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know.

WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out.

But I'd like to know what those ratcheted up processes are. In the past, there was a recording system thro' hospital data/records. The definition of a dog bite for reporting in stats, was one that required hospital treatment.

Has a mandatory system extended that to GPs, ambulance centres etc? If so, those bites below the level of hospital treatment will now be counted.

If stats come from medical treatment sources, then in-home bites would more likely be picked up. And most bites, especially of children, happen in their homes.

Or is the data collected only via reports by the public to animal management? If so, there's now the definition of 'rushing' as an 'attack'.

And would in-home bites be picked up?

Those stats only tell us anything of use, if we know who's reporting what to whom & how.

Edited July 25, 2013 by mita

[Aidan3]

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know.

WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out.

But I'd like to know what those ratcheted up processes are. In the past, there was a recording system thro' hospital data/records. The definition of a dog bite for reporting in stats, was one that required hospital treatment.

Has a mandatory system extended that to GPs, ambulance centres etc? If so, those bites below the level of hospital treatment will now be counted.

If stats come from medical treatment sources, then in-home bites would more likely be picked up. And most bites, especially of children, happen in their homes.

Or is the data collected only via reports by the public to animal management? If so, there's now the definition of 'rushing' as an 'attack'.

And would in-home bites be picked up?

Those stats only tell us anything of use, if we know who's reporting what to whom & how.

Yes, indeed. I hate it when we're told something is true, but are then left to find our own evidence to support the other's claim!

[mita]

[

Yes, indeed. I hate it when we're told something is true, but are then left to find our own evidence to support the other's claim!

Couldn't agree more!

[melzawelza]

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know.

WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out.

But I'd like to know what those ratcheted up processes are. In the past, there was a recording system thro' hospital data/records. The definition of a dog bite for reporting in stats, was one that required hospital treatment.

Has a mandatory system extended that to GPs, ambulance centres etc? If so, those bites below the level of hospital treatment will now be counted.

If stats come from medical treatment sources, then in-home bites would more likely be picked up. And most bites, especially of children, happen in their homes.

Or is the data collected only via reports by the public to animal management? If so, there's now the definition of 'rushing' as an 'attack'.

And would in-home bites be picked up?

Those stats only tell us anything of use, if we know who's reporting what to whom & how.

Mita, the mandatory reporting is only for local Councils.

We have to report the attack to the DLG through the Companion Animals Register within 72 hours of it being reported to Council. You have to fill in many sections relating to whether the dog was leashed, supervised, or provoked, and put in the level of injury. The attack is linked to the dog's microchip. The reported requirements include anything as defined as an attack by th Act so all the harassing/chasing etc incidents with no injury.

Breed is automatically entered from the microchip but for lots of attacks the attacking dog is never found so the breed is then whatever the victim perceived the dog to be. It's why the breed listing on the stats should always be taken with a grain of salt.

[mita]

[Mita, the mandatory reporting is only for local Councils.

We have to report the attack to the DLG through the Companion Animals Register within 72 hours of it being reported to Council. You have to fill in many sections relating to whether the dog was leashed, supervised, or provoked, and put in the level of injury. The attack is linked to the dog's microchip. The reported requirements include anything as defined as an attack by th Act so all the harassing/chasing etc incidents with no injury.

Breed is automatically entered from the microchip but for lots of attacks the attacking dog is never found so the breed is then whatever the victim perceived the dog to be. It's why the breed listing on the stats should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Thanks, Mel. So what's been counted is reports from members of the public to Council.... & it's not necessarily being injured. And includes harrassing/chasing/ rushing. So that's counting fear as well as injury.

Not that I'm saying you have to do it.... but there'd be a different picture of dog bites in the community, if reporting came thro' medical treatment sources. That would only pick up actual injury.

Because in-home bites, of all levels, would be picked up... & they're the most common, especially of children. Owners would likely never report their own dog to council (under a serious level)... & would make their own arrangements about getting the injury treated & what to do about the dog.

Pity both systems don't exist because both sets of information are useful for doing something about problems.

Edited July 25, 2013 by mita

[melzawelza]

[Mita, the mandatory reporting is only for local Councils.

We have to report the attack to the DLG through the Companion Animals Register within 72 hours of it being reported to Council. You have to fill in many sections relating to whether the dog was leashed, supervised, or provoked, and put in the level of injury. The attack is linked to the dog's microchip. The reported requirements include anything as defined as an attack by th Act so all the harassing/chasing etc incidents with no injury.

Breed is automatically entered from the microchip but for lots of attacks the attacking dog is never found so the breed is then whatever the victim perceived the dog to be. It's why the breed listing on the stats should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Thanks, Mel. So what's been counted is reports from members of the public to Council.... & it's not necessarily being injured. And includes harrassing/chasing/ rushing. So that's counting fear as well as injury.

Not that I'm saying you have to do it.... but there'd be a different picture of dog bites in the community, if reporting came thro' medical treatment sources. That would only pick up actual injury.

Because in-home bites, of all levels, would be picked up... & they're the most common, especially of children. Owners would likely never report their own dog to council (under a serious level)... & would make their own arrangements about getting the injury treated & what to do about the dog.

Pity both systems don't exist because both sets of information are useful for doing something about problems.

Agree totally!

The system is better than the other states in that it's at least mandatory from one source and the information is all collated by the Gov, but as you said it misses out all the in-home bites by the family dog (the majority of dog bites) and the numbers you read in the report include all incidents, including incidents where the dog does not make any contact with the victim.

The other place is falls down is that there is no mandatory obligation for doctors/hospitals or the Police to report dog attacks to the Council in which the incident occurred. Sometimes the police are called following a dog attack rather than the Council and while most of the time they're great at passing the information on to the local Council there have been instances where they haven't.

Edited July 25, 2013 by melzawelza

[tdierikx]

So, really, the system of reporting is a bit "broken" at best, yes?

And then we are to rely on the stats produced as some sort of "proof" of what?

I remember when I did a Statistics course, and the main tenet was that you need to gather the data in such a way as to "prove" your theory... it didn't have to be actual fact, just be able to be presented as such due to the nature of the data gathering process.

I've taken ALL "statistical data" with a very large pinch of salt since then. It will only ever prove what the gatherer intended it to prove.

T.

[Aidan3]

I've taken ALL "statistical data" with a very large pinch of salt since then. It will only ever prove what the gatherer intended it to prove.

I would emphatically disagree with this assertion, but it is true that if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. If the data collection is biased or flawed, so will be any conclusions or inferences drawn from it.