Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Salukifan]

Not everyone wants a dog from purebred lines - and just because one gets a dog from a breeder registered with the CC in their state, doesn't always mean they are getting a "quality product". I could go out today and impulse buy a registered pedigreed dog/pup (let's say a Rotti, a GSD, or an SBT with main reg papers) without any questioning at all about how I am intending to raise/keep that dog/pup - just hand over my money, take home dog/pup. It really IS that simple.

I would argue because not everyone understands what "purebred" means beyond a set of papers and "showing". They think its all about looks and they are utterly WRONG.

Most families, I would argue, want a pup that will grow up to be a predictable size, shape and temperament.

They don't want a dog that has unpredictable behaviour, an unknown bite threshold, unknown levels of protectiveness, unknown territorial aggression and unknown levels of dog and human aggression. That's what you get with a crossbred pup and some crossbreds are WRONG from the get go.

Allow me to illustrate my point: someone in their wisdom down here bred Maremma/Golden Retriever crosses. That's crossing a highly territorial guarding breed with a high bite threshold and low bite inhibition with a breed with a very low bite threshold BUT very high bite inhibition. Trainers I know have seen several of the pups.

The ones they've seen are highly territorial resource guarders with very low bite thresholds and very low bite inhibition. One of them was displaying such behaviour at age 4 months. The family that owns it did everything right and still has a dog that, in the right conditions, is extremely unpredictable. I'm confident not every pup in the litter is like that but who'd take that chance.

Do the math on crossing a guarding/protection breed with a dog of fighting ancestry and by any estimate, some of those pups will come hard wired for low bite thresholds, low bite inhibition and low triggers to aggression. No amount of training or socialisation can change that hard wiring. No training or socialisation will give you a dog that's going to trigger easily to aggress on dogs and humans and when triggered, will bite hard and display considerable tenacity in doing so. That cannot come as a surprise knowing the parent breeds - the genetic combination has all but guaranteed that combination in some progeny.

And there are people out there doing those crosses every damn day and selling them to people who DEVELOP those tendencies in their dogs. Forget the rhetoric, SIZE DOES MATTER because the larger the dog, the more the damage it can do and the harder it is to stop. Do you think that poor grandmother in Deniliquin would have battled to get a 5 kilo dog off her grandchild?

Dangerous dogs don't come out of nowhere and not every crossbred of the type I've described. will be dangerous - but what a lottery to have a ticket in. Anyone buying such a pup or dog needs the benefit of a rigorous temperament test and few, if any will get one.

People rigorously culled HA out of dogs of fighting ancestry and made damn sure that most guarding and protection breeds weren't hair trigger dogs. Now we've got people combining traits from less than ideal specimens of such breeds and producing potential powder kegs. And who cops the blame? Breeds that were never meant to be combined into such a way.

And to solve it we are given BSL that doesn't deal with the issue AT ALL.

The ONLY way to solve this is to educate, educate, educate AND to penalise the hell out of any owner whose dog displays HA in the community. In the meantime, there are accidents waiting to happen in backyards all over the country with families none the wiser.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[~Anne~]

So in order to find the solution we have to throw out the assumptions or at least research what we think is causing the problem and objectively take a look at whether that is what is really happening - and dont complicate it .

Your assumption is that cross breeding is causing at least a major part of this problem - Here is a good place to go to start objectively researching your theory - NSW stats - link below.

And when looking at those stats think of the influencial factors. For example - are crossbreed dog owners equally represented in statistics of dogs that have attended training. Are crossbreed dogs more likely to be owned by people who do not contain them.

[Salukifan]

So in order to find the solution we have to throw out the assumptions or at least research what we think is causing the problem and objectively take a look at whether that is what is really happening - and dont complicate it .

Your assumption is that cross breeding is causing at least a major part of this problem - Here is a good place to go to start objectively researching your theory - NSW stats - link below.

And when looking at those stats think of the influencial factors. For example - are crossbreed dog owners equally represented in statistics of dogs that have attended training. Are crossbreed dogs more likely to be owned by people who do not contain them.

And also remember that any dog attack stats attributed to breed are inherently unreliable. No scientific research on the issue credits breed descriptions as accurate.

[Steph M]

Where does the definition of good cause or reason lie though. Who decides a valid reason? I can't imagine a volunteer panel would come to much agreement in some cases and I don't like the idea of handing industry people such a power. There's a fair bit of nastiness and side-taking that seems to go round and that would have to crop up...

What about bitches who get out and get themselves pregnant etc, or a roaming male who drops in? There's only so much you can do and I have a feeling it might just increase numbers of abandoned pregnant bitches by the general public.

[Angeluca]

Thanks Steve, I think it is a great topic too.

I've been reading more specific topics for months and they all seem to go 'off topic' so to speak. I think all these Issues I raised are related and while most other topics seem to focus on an actual event or person, this is completely hypothetical.

I am a studying lawyer and I know my extremes are 1 over the top, 2 unenforceable, and 3 easily taken advantage of by corrupt selfish people even if it was drafted by those knowledgeable to ownership of dogs. I have stated it before I have witnessed show ring corruption.

Basically we would never get something that could actually be good for the history of the purebred dog and the dedicated people who got them here for us because like it was just said there are more crossbreeders out there and politicians need votes therefore the mass of uneducated yet opinionated morons as previously stated would out weigh any fact or reason. We within the dog world could never agree on a draft anyway. Vets suppose to be professionals are out there mixing it up by not being on the same page which you'd think would be to the benefit of the animal. I know a vet nurse 3 yrs ago crossed her English mastiff with her colleague's (vet)great dane because her girl lacked size. this was the third attempt at mating because twice before she absorbed the pups.

Vets are out there saying purebred's are inbred buy cross they are healthier. Don't feed treats, have a litter of puppies it will be good for her, getting breeds wrong, getting diagnoses wrong then getting offended when proven wrong.

They can't even agree even though they basically all do the same 6yr + educational course.

Even the education will fail because people will disagree with the person who delivered it and some may be right too. And some people can simple not be told they are wrong example puppy farmers who believe it's ok to do what they do cause pig farmers do it.

We can't even agree whether there is a need for a crossbred. I believe Mainly it is because those who have them and love them get offended that their existence is being questioned. And I honestly do understand this anyone would have trouble not taking this idea personally, but that is just like all the Bull owners at the moment who under fire from the BSL, the previous GSD ban years ago and so on. I have recently posted in reply to Santos on another thread about my sister's 'bull arab' and how well behaved by nature he is and great with my 5 yr old nephew. But I have said to her

'Muttley is a great dog no doubt but you have used up all your lucky stars in him regarding his breeding, don't breed him and look for a well bred pure next cause you'd honestly be hard pressed finding another good dog out of bad breeding' I think muttly's dad is rebel. Muttley wasn't bred by mike hodgens but is in association to him. Some of you may have read a bit about this person.

personally I have owned crossbreds but to my own flaw as a person I just stop thinking that there is a better dog out there for me. I haven't experience serious sickness in any dog one of my nicest dogs while growing up was a cross. A GSDx Rottie. He was trainable and caring, but so very very timid. Just not what either of those breeds are suppose to be. They are supposed to be confident and Strong willed and strong personality, I knew this at 16 yrs old cause with the exception of about 5 years I had always had a pure GSD or pure Rotty or Pure Doberman. just so happens I now own and Breed golden retrievers that show similar traits as that cross my goldens are softer by nature but not timid. I love the breeds I grew up with and hope to one day own another one but at the moment this is where I am.

[Steve]

Education & trying to get people to understand the reality of dog ownership realistically is what is needed more than laws.

Many think a dog is a disposable item or comes already programmed to fit their life.

Then they can't be bothered when they find out they thought wrong.

The fact is we all have to take responsibility for this - in days gone by the neighbourhood handled it. If someone had a dog that was showing any sign of being a pain it was dealt with by neighbours speaking to the owner and demanding the issue be eliminated - the others who lived in the area had a joint objective and stood as one to ensure their turf was safe and peaceful for all of them. Idiots were quickly educated and if they didn't learn quickly and be responsible themselves chances were the neighbours would do what needed to be done to be safe and avoid problems far greater than what they had at the time. Everyone was allowed to do what they wanted with their dogs and their property as long as it didn't have a negative effect on the rest of the community.

Not much point in talking about why and how its changed but the reality is that is has changed and government methodology of doing something about it isn't working.Its going to take all of us taking back our rights and doing something about those people who are mucking it up or who are in danger of mucking it up in our neighbourhoods .Im not talking about dobbing them in because we think they havent taken their dogs for enough walks and the rest of the crazy stuff - I mean being pro active about prevention and doing somethings about it - all of us every one of us even if that means writing letters to editors, nagging councils .It means not just sitting around and saying what ticks us off and how its a disaster waiting to happen but taking responsibility for the safety and well being of our communities i small ways before the really bad things are able to happen.

[ann21]

Politicians need votes therefore the mass of uneducated yet opinionated morons as previously stated would out weigh any fact or reason."

We can't even agree whether there is a need for a crossbreed.

You started off by saying "cross breeding is responsible for the majority of dog attacks, we need to do something about it". Many people have come on here to argue against that, and if you took a look at Steve's article you would find statistics against your claim. I may have read this wrong but then you seem to go onto "well, we don't need crossbreeds anyway, so actual danger or not let's ban their breeding and get rid of them." I find this line of thinking dangerous and I do not agree with it. "Need" is a very subjective word: as long as there is demand (for pure and cross breeds), you can argue a "need" for it. Like I said before, if we went along with your thinking who's to stop someone from saying "hey, actually, we don't need purebreds, look at all the dogs in shelter!

As for your comment about "uneducated yet opiniated morons"

A dog that is dangerous should never be mated full stop. I don't see how mating it with a different breed or the same breed would make any difference.

[Salukifan]

A dog that is dangerous should never be mated full stop. I don't see how mating it with a different breed or the same breed would make any difference.

It might make a difference if you bred for lowered reactivity, higher bite thresholds and higher bite inhibiton and you ruthlessly culled any sign of HA.

However, "culling" is a dirty word to animal rights types, even if it doesn't mean the death of any dog. It conjurs up images of seal pup hunts and that is part of the problem.

In the "old days" a pet dog that displayed any sign of aggression off its property to people in the community got a bullet or worse. Nowadays that also is a dreadful suggestion to a lot of people. They find excuses for the aggression (seen plenty of that here) and line the pockets of behaviourists, most of whom know damn well that raising thresholds to aggression doesn't cure it.

Fact is, we've got ignorant dog owners buying dogs from ignorant dog breeders and failing to raise them and contain them as they should. The only cure for ignorance is education. Penalties tend to educate one owner at a time - and we need to do better than that.

[Staffyluv]

A dog that is dangerous should never be mated full stop. I don't see how mating it with a different breed or the same breed would make any difference.

It might make a difference if you bred for lowered reactivity, higher bite thresholds and higher bite inhibiton and you ruthlessly culled any sign of HA.

However, "culling" is a dirty word to animal rights types, even if it doesn't mean the death of any dog. It conjurs up images of seal pup hunts and that is part of the problem.

In the "old days" a pet dog that displayed any sign of aggression off its property to people in the community got a bullet or worse. Nowadays that also is a dreadful suggestion to a lot of people. They find excuses for the aggression (seen plenty of that here) and line the pockets of behaviourists, most of whom know damn well that raising thresholds to aggression doesn't cure it.

Fact is, we've got ignorant dog owners buying dogs from ignorant dog breeders and failing to raise them and contain them as they should. The only cure for ignorance is education. Penalties tend to educate one owner at a time - and we need to do better than that.

This is so true..

If only there was a way to stop those with no idea breeding.

[Crisovar]

What is the point of pushing for everyone to choose a purebred, we don't breed any where near enough to fill the demand and we make it too hard for many to even want to try to get on the list. We have handed the pet market to the cross breeders on a platter.

[Salukifan]

What is the point of pushing for everyone to choose a purebred, we don't breed any where near enough to fill the demand and we make it too hard for many to even want to try to get on the list. We have handed the pet market to the cross breeders on a platter.

it doesn't have to be purebred. It needs to be thoughtfully bred IMO. Not just bred because it has a uterus or testicles or because the pups will make some money.

And neither side of the purebred or crossbred argument has a monopoly on that.

[sandgrubber]

One obvious point of rebuttal that I don't think has been stated yet. Crossbreeds are a huge and highly diverse group. Oodles, SWF''s, and DD's by far outnumber the bull x mastiff cross types that often show themselves dangerous. In my kennel days, i met a few ill-bred, nasty tempered shih-tzu x maltese, but I've yet to see one that deserves the 'dangerous' label. I can't remember ever encountering a nasty oodle.

[Steph M]

We met one at the park, her and her littermate were totally mad. Labradoodles I think. One was running about in circles yapping and biting the air and latching on to her owners jeans and her leash and being hard to handle in general, the other was standing next to the owner (on leash, thankfully) growling and taking snaps at other dogs and people, they started walking and she had her hackles up growling at everyone she passed.

Could be circumstance as well as breeding, but interesting to have 2 such undesirable polar opposites from litter mates who were raised together.

I got chatting to her (from a distance) while she was getting out of her car and we were heading into ours and trying to keep out of her way, next to hers and she said they were both nuts but she had committed to them now. They were 5 and she was saying she hoped they evened out at this age. Eeek.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Steph M

[Staffyluv]

One obvious point of rebuttal that I don't think has been stated yet. Crossbreeds are a huge and highly diverse group. Oodles, SWF''s, and DD's by far outnumber the bull x mastiff cross types that often show themselves dangerous. In my kennel days, i met a few ill-bred, nasty tempered shih-tzu x maltese, but I've yet to see one that deserves the 'dangerous' label. I can't remember ever encountering a nasty oodle.

True but the biggest difference between a shitzypoo and a the noted bull type dogs that are showing up as aggressive is the damage factor..

A bully type will do far more damage than a shitzypoo type in an attack situation. Hence the reason for the hugely popular news items that all bull breed attacks are compared to the story on the working breed dog that attacked the child and damaged her face - this story hardly made a splash in the media to other bull breed attacks.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that HA aggressive dogs have any place in society but the media is very one sided on the reporting of these things.

I don't recall meeting a nastly oodle either - the ones I have met are just crazy dogs (usually in the fun way).

[hankdog]

Had a nasty labradoodle at our park that finally bit someone and was destroyed. You could see it coming for years of mismanagement from the owners though.

Have we really solved the nature vs nurture issue so clearly for dogs when we haven't for people?

Eugenics and breeding police don't seem to be a likely substitute for correct socialization and training, of either people or dogs.

[Crisovar]

I have had nasty "labradoodles" overly freaky "moodles" and assorted other mutts that seriously were bad news in for grooming. Animals being peddled as being the perfect family pet and receiving no training, no socializing and expected to grow into some animated stuffed toy. Any dog of any breed or mix takes time and commitment, No breed or cross has the monopoly on that and any of them can be ruined in the wrong hands.

[corvus]

I don't think people understand the role liberty and autonomy play in this. People are allowed to do a lot of stupid, dangerous things that impact on others, sometimes with devastating results. Drinking, smoking, gambling, etc. Why is it legal when it is so destructive or when the associated health risks are many and varied and well documented? Do we NEED cigarettes? Then let's just outlaw them. They cost our health system billions. That's an extreme example, but points to why this kind of thing is not often done. People have the right to f*** stuff up if that's what they want to do. Change has to come from within, and I don't entirely agree that education is the only answer. After 3 years in animal welfare science one thing is clear to me. Our society does not value or even really care about animals. Any of them. Why don't they? Because they don't know they should? I doubt it. It's in everything we do. When we are cool eating intensively farmed pork that may or may not have been humanely killed before we bought it and ate it, how can anyone expect us as a society to really care if we breed some sick or temperamentally unsound companion animals? The bottom line is it is socially acceptable. It is somehow socially acceptable to dump a 16 year old dog at the pound in winter. We have a culture of doing whatever we bloody feel like at the time. We have a right to be idiots, it seems.

[Dame Aussie]

Good post Corvus. Depressing but true.

[Salukifan]

Corvus:

The bottom line is it is socially acceptable. It is somehow socially acceptable to dump a 16 year old dog at the pound in winter. We have a culture of doing whatever we bloody feel like at the time. We have a right to be idiots, it seems.

Not where community safety is concerned. Some folk just think they do. Or, more to the point, they don't think - about any aspect of dog ownership.

Liberty and autonomy in our society only stretch so far as not doing harm to others. If your actions harm others, if your failure to raise and contain a safe dog harms others then you can expect to be penalised. The problem is that penalties don't save lives.

I agree about not really caring about animals. Even more serious from the dog safety perspective is the failure to understand them. Seems to me that too many people have some kind of Disney point of view about dogs. Then there are those who think it's "cool" to own a powerful, aggressive dog. Its that kind of attitude that makes people want wolf hybrids - thank God we don't have those here.

The frustrating thing about so many dog attacks is that they are so PREVENTABLE with half an ounce of education or foresight. That, to me, is the greatest tragedy of all - human ignorance kills.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Angeluca]

Politicians need votes therefore the mass of uneducated yet opinionated morons as previously stated would out weigh any fact or reason."

We can't even agree whether there is a need for a crossbreed.

You started off by saying "cross breeding is responsible for the majority of dog attacks, we need to do something about it". Many people have come on here to argue against that, and if you took a look at Steve's article you would find statistics against your claim. I may have read this wrong but then you seem to go onto "well, we don't need crossbreeds anyway, so actual danger or not let's ban their breeding and get rid of them." I find this line of thinking dangerous and I do not agree with it. "Need" is a very subjective word: as long as there is demand (for pure and cross breeds), you can argue a "need" for it. Like I said before, if we went along with your thinking who's to stop someone from saying "hey, actually, we don't need purebreds, look at all the dogs in shelter!

As for your comment about "uneducated yet opiniated morons"

A dog that is dangerous should never be mated full stop. I don't see how mating it with a different breed or the same breed would make any difference.

Yes i said crossbreeding is responsible for most dog attacks

My definition of cross bred is no proof of parentage so that would also include the 'un-papered pure'.

how many dogs on that list as pure provided proof? and as stated how many on that list were accurately identified?

The genetic reason for attacks is bad breeding how do you stop that, my already admitted extreme idea 'stop the breeding.

Most cross bred dogs shouldn't be bred either due to lack of knowledge of owner or incompatible breeds. So why not stop those ones being bred regardless???

Never said anything about getting rid of the dogs in existence even stated a rescue should be the ones to raise any badly/illegally bred dogs and home them appropriately.

Also said those who do cross breed (for a good reason) have the right to home any puppies but obviously responsibly.

It isn't really a matter of why shouldn't there be BYB crossbreds, its a matter of we can't actually stop them.

Why not have purebreds?, they are historically defined for the most part by good breeders and as stated still now being developed by good breeders at the expense of their free time and finances it's called dedication and if the research went in before buying a dog these are the only ones who would sell dogs.

Why not get a shelter dog? cause why should someone have to be responsible for someone else's f*** up. As it is their kids and their neighborhood is the firing line if something goes wrong because of their history. It takes a dedicated rescue to home a abused/neglected/abandoned dog in the right home and sometimes this isn't getting done. If it does, that home then has to become as dedicated as a breeder (time and money)so that said dog is publicly sound. Some good homes couldn't even manage that, it is a big task and credit needs to go to those who do it. I know most probably don't need this but that is a risk one takes any dog is happy to get out of a cage. Some take weeks or months to show potential problems.

As for the moron comment it's defined by -

people who think puppy farms are ok cause pig farms are ok.

Activists like PETA who just do things just to be annoying and disruptive.

Bogans who think mean dogs fill out their anatomy.

people who think just cause it isn't illegal they should have a go and make a buck.

People like hoons/bikies who think the law isn't for them.

Puppy farmers in general.

Breeders who knowingly breed poorly bred dogs (ok this one is going to get peoples back up but it is meant by a person for example breeds a 2 yr old dog with HD cause it's pretty)

this list can go on and on....

Hopes this clarifies my opinion, but I also said it was meant to be extreme and totally hypothetical to start the ideas rolling.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Angeluca