Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Nekhbet]

When I have a foster dog, I do my utmost to make sure they go to the right family - sadly, sometimes and it has happened to me once, a family will make all the right moves and say all the right words and you think you have done the right thing by allowing them to adopt.

You can't control the world but you can do your best in an educated manner. I'm talking about those that have a blatant arrogance or disregard. I see working or specialty breeds advertised as family pets ready to go to the first person who adopts them. I get a steady stream of rescue dogs - anxiety, shyness, fear, snapping, reactivity etc. Why are these dogs adopted out in this condition? I thought the point of rescue was to ensure the dog gets a decent second chance in life, not to become a pinball or end back up in rescue because they are still problem dogs. We are being conditioned, nay berated in some instances to take dogs that are of poor temperaments because we're 'saving a life'. Hence, we perpetuate the idea that shoddy temperaments are in some way acceptable, so we keep taking them. People also feel sorry for a bad temperament pup so they buy and keep it.

Dog bites are on the rise because we're becoming more permissive and less realistic. Bad dogs used to go straight to the vet, now we keep them going for whatever reason. I remember the days where the dog got scare and a smack if it tried to lay teeth on people, now we shove toys in their mouths and allow it as pups so they can learn bite inhibition themselves :laugh: Of course it's always the dogs fault these days too when they behave like dogs around us and we have skirted or avoided issues totally. For all our supposed laws, science and education we've regressed immensely in this country. One day we will wake up but like a lot of things, it will be when decent dogs are a distant memory and we look back thinking, shit we made a big mistake.

[mita]

The reasons why the dog who killed Ayen Chol have nothing to do with malice or even genetics and everything to do with an unsocialised dog who was in a state of high arousal and a great deal of pain.

That tragedy can be laid squarely at the feet of its owners and their lack of care, lack of management and criminal lack of compassion.

The coroner's report is publically available if you'd like to find out what did happen.

Another spot on post. Aphra, you're hitting some very right buttons!

In each situation, the factors which lead to serious dog bites/attacks, can be seen.... often sticking out a mile. Shows how remediable many of these situations would've been, if humans had stepped up to the basics of what prevents dog bites/attacks. No wonder the research from the University of Cordoba concluded that the human contribution, all along the line of dog raising. management & control, pipped breed factors as the stand-out. No.... that's not saying that type of dog is not relevant.. but it's what humans do with dogs.

[Staffyluv]

When I have a foster dog, I do my utmost to make sure they go to the right family - sadly, sometimes and it has happened to me once, a family will make all the right moves and say all the right words and you think you have done the right thing by allowing them to adopt.

You can't control the world but you can do your best in an educated manner. I'm talking about those that have a blatant arrogance or disregard. I see working or specialty breeds advertised as family pets ready to go to the first person who adopts them. I get a steady stream of rescue dogs - anxiety, shyness, fear, snapping, reactivity etc. Why are these dogs adopted out in this condition? I thought the point of rescue was to ensure the dog gets a decent second chance in life, not to become a pinball or end back up in rescue because they are still problem dogs. We are being conditioned, nay berated in some instances to take dogs that are of poor temperaments because we're 'saving a life'. Hence, we perpetuate the idea that shoddy temperaments are in some way acceptable, so we keep taking them. People also feel sorry for a bad temperament pup so they buy and keep it.

Dog bites are on the rise because we're becoming more permissive and less realistic. Bad dogs used to go straight to the vet, now we keep them going for whatever reason. I remember the days where the dog got scare and a smack if it tried to lay teeth on people, now we shove toys in their mouths and allow it as pups so they can learn bite inhibition themselves :laugh: Of course it's always the dogs fault these days too when they behave like dogs around us and we have skirted or avoided issues totally. For all our supposed laws, science and education we've regressed immensely in this country. One day we will wake up but like a lot of things, it will be when decent dogs are a distant memory and we look back thinking, shit we made a big mistake.

Nek, a long time ago, I thought we 'could save them all', but that was my heart ruling my head.. There are some in rescue (although I don't really see it here on DOL) that still maintain we should save every dog and I don't agree with this attitude at all.

I know we can't, my head tells me that there are some dogs in pounds that would be better off not being rescued. As a dog lover, this breaks my heart - more often than not it isn't the dogs fault it is the way it is (it is from bad breeding, bad upbringing, no training or socialisation etc)..

I do feel sorry for dogs that don't make it - I can't help the way I feel but logically I understand why they shouldn't make it..

[moosmum]

How to simplify this?

IMO, and borne out on Dol forums.

Human beings are subject to natural law.

When we create a sub group,ie ANKC, we create a "population". That population is also subject to natural law.

Our constitution and rules set out the behaviour of that population.

You are NOT dealing with rational individuals. The behaviour of the group is dictated by those rules and WILL reflect them. To the population, those rules ARE natural law. Members are defined by them.

The K.Cs made a very sensible decision to be a registry ONLY. To work towards a specific goal and that was their charter.

The problems came about when the the K.Cs made rulings that step out side of that charter.

1st in ruling that no member can breed a dog that will be ineligible for registration.

2nd in ruling that no member breed primarily for profit.

There may be more, but these are the 2 obvious ones.

When you rule out side of your charter, its no longer a self sufficient population. The charter alone is not what sustains the population any more. The directive influence is changed. It now has effect on, and is influenced by, outside forces.In this case, negatively since they are both negative rulings.

What is happening in the "Dog world" could be a text book example for teachers of constitutional law.

Its no longer enough to foster a community relationship with dogs, well bred.You have introduced an antagonist to be kept out.- In this case, whats outside of the registry. The environment.

So what sets pedigree dogs apart from their environment? The Unfamiliar,Diverse,the unknown, chance?.

Now you have to struggle to define yourself against whats outside, in order to keep it out. The definition will continue to narrow.

The 2nd ruling is an example of that.The more stress on the population,the more they will struggle against their antagonist.

There will be an equal and opposite reaction from the out side.The familiar here becomes the unfamiliar there.

Dogs natural environment is their human community. Take them out and put them in K.Cs " preserve" and they lose relevence and familiarity in their "natural" environment.

According to natural law, The K.Cs are attacking their foundation. Its seen as undesirable. If we foster an appreciation of dogs with out judgement,THEN people can appreciate the benefits of breeding BETTER dogs.They have to learn to appreciate dogs before they can learn to appreciate a pedigree.

The K.Cs rulings mean that none are worthy of nurture out side of the K.Cs charter. When people come here for advise,we see the results. If dogs are not ANKC registered, their owners are scorned and rarely given the knowledge they seek. We are attacking our roots.

Cut flowers are beautiful, but don't last long.

The 2nd ruling, against profit as a motive for breeding. In todays world, to make a profit you must cater to demand. This ruling ensures that the demands of the people will only be met by accident, not design.The demands are met only within ANKC. ANKC demands give us predictability,yes. But when we aknowledge demands from with out as well, thats what brings reliability.

According to natural (ANKC) law,Its no longer a requirement that dogs can meet the demands of their environment.Only that they are predictable and "known".

Commercial breeders are the new species on the block,guaranteed to meet the demands of their environment, the community. What ever thats become.

Within ANKC, diversity of opinion results in split lines,because diversity is not supported otherwise.Diversity is "out side".

This does not support research and development as I understand it.

Check it out. I think its repairable. For now.

I think if this argument is born out, it has far reaching implications for humanity itself. If we can't remember natural law to save our 1st true companion species,what mistakes have we made for humanity itself? The relationship between man and dog could provide a constant reminder that as a species, we will alway be subject to natural law.

Edited for clarity.

Edited September 3, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

I don't understand what these rulings bring to pedigree dogs?

Without these rulings, A pedigree dog represents breeding with fore thought, purpose and knowledge. Using knowledge, planning and history to breed better dogs.

Pedigree dogs could represent a community of people dedicated to maximize the potential of the species. Your membership would come to represent this.

It would be pretty hard for people to find fault with that ideal.Communities could respect and support this for a common goal

With them,the ideal is corrupted and stands for closed populations,predictability and purity above all other considerations,including those of your market.

The pedigree becomes proof of this and assumes more importance than the dog it represents. You are no longer selling "better dogs". You are selling a representation of "purity" and closed lines.A pedigree.

IMO These ruling are the source of the elitist label and no efforts to overcome that can be effective while those rules are in place.

The battle against your environment is unneeded, and ultimately changes and destroys the environmen. No one can win.

I see no reason why the K.Cs should be any more than the registry they set out to be.The addition of those rules demands more with out direction.

I hope this is being looked into. I can find only support for this argument, and lots of it.

Edited October 7, 2013 by moosmum

[Lasareina]

my head hurts

[moosmum]

Constitutional Law mimics natural law.

Happy to explain if you tell me what you are having problems with.

If Pedigree dogs are struggling in their environment, Breeders blame the environment,and fight against it. Its the only one they have. You can't separate yourself from your environment.You depend on it.

The behaviour of the population can be modified through constitutional changes.

Edited October 7, 2013 by moosmum

[Lasareina]

haha i think I have been away from school too long without doing anything strenuous with my brain :p i think I have a general grasp of what you are saying, but the terms are unfamiliar to me and I also lack the underpinning knowledge about the rules and regulations involved with the registries... trying to comprehend it is requiring too much concentration for my poor atrophied brain haha

[moosmum]

I don't think you will be on your own there. :)

It would take some getting your head around, but if you have the idea its a start. I have an advantage in a very good understanding of natural science/law.

IMO What I see backs it up very clearly.And its scarey.

Edited October 11, 2013 by moosmum

[sandgrubber]

I don't think you will be on your own there. :)

It would take some getting your head around, but if you have the idea its a start. I have an advantage in a very good understanding of natural science/law.

IMO What I see backs it up very clearly.And its scarey.

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing.

Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology?

[moosmum]

I don't think you will be on your own there. :)

It would take some getting your head around, but if you have the idea its a start. I have an advantage in a very good understanding of natural science/law.

IMO What I see backs it up very clearly.And its scarey.

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing.

Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology?

Thank you sandgrubber,

You might have to consider me abnormal :laugh: I don't, but lets say I have a severe form of ADHD possibly bordering on Autism. I avoid any major problems because I do have a very good grasp of natural science and use that to understand people and my environment. It works very well for me.

I don't have a PhD in anything, So its difficult for me to find the right words.Its very frustrating because I understand what I'm trying to say perfectly. I guess I see the world differently and its hard to show people what I see.

I'm talking about Natural Law all the way. Biology, cause and effect all that. Being human and having so much control over our environment IMHO doesn't negate the effects of natural law on humans as a species. I understand humans by seeing them as a species of animal.

What works at the molecular level, with genes etc, is mirrored all the way up. This ties a whole heap of areas together, biology, law, psychology, anthropology. The list goes on almost endlessly once you know how to look.

When I look at the rules set out for writing a successful constitution,I understand them because I can apply natural law to understand how they work. It helps that I found an explanation that used natural law to explain their relevence.

Because of this, when I've said "constitutional law" I'm thinking biological or natural Law as it applies to a successful constitution. Not the standard meaning, of Law in a Legal sense.

I'm not alone in my reasoning. If you want a science based explanation, Maybe you will understand Hendrick Gommer ( A biological theory of Natural Law:Natural Law revisited).

As far as I am aware scientificaly speaking, this is a theory only, but one that hasn't been disproved and is able to be applied very broadly, gaining a lot of interest.

In my world, its fact, because I live by similar theories very successfully. I apply Natural Laws to most areas of my life. What works on a cellular level seems to work right up the food chain,once you learn to look.I haven't read it myself, just some reviews. Enough to know there seems to be the explanation and the "how to" people need to change the course of pedigree dogs.

A rough example for the non- scientific DOLers : The American Constitution specificaly gives the right to bear arms. This is a positive ruling.It favours those who choose to own guns by its active support.Results will be unpredictable, but will act on the American population to encourage gun ownership over time. Those who disagree have no support from the constitution.

Because guns are so easily obtainable, people will abuse the right, but getting rid of them is unconstitutional. In that culture, if you feel vulnerable to guns how do you defend yourself? You might get a gun. The more often that happens, more people feel vulnerable and the more pressure there is to get a gun. You have an effect on your environment.

If this isn't corrected soon enough, it may reach a point where so many people feel a need own guns they acheive dominance within their population. There is no chance to repeal that part of the charter. The right becomes a "drive" within that population. With out a gun, they are vulnerable. It all comes down to cause and effect of natural Laws.

As I see it, the K.Cs have ruled against every thing out side their charter. Thats their environment. That there are problems isn't a mystery. The end result is. Will the K.Cs destroy their environment? Will it destroy them? They destroy themselves? Looks to me like a lot of each is happening.

I don't expect it will be easy to get people to see this. The K.Cs are not a supportive environment for people who understand the concept.

Hendrick Gommer can explain for the scientists among Dol. I don't have the background to explain simply what an academic has written a thesis on. To me, Its only natural and gives you a whole lot of tools to success.

Edited October 15, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

I don't think you will be on your own there. :)

It would take some getting your head around, but if you have the idea its a start. I have an advantage in a very good understanding of natural science/law.

IMO What I see backs it up very clearly.And its scarey.

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing.

Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology?

The short answer is Biological Law :laugh:

Edited October 16, 2013 by moosmum