Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Santo66]

Yes but how do we track those down without outlawing backyard breeding, A lot of these people who buy the dogs 5 mths later can't remember where from but if they do the persons were renting and probably moved (probably due to complaints). Which is why my idea stared with the outlawing or random breeding, imposing large fines on those breeding illegally and those who buy the dog, giving the option of a smaller fine if they give up the breeder , de sex and socialize the dog.

I was in the thought it shouldn't add any more fees to the current breeder, just require the action of current rules that the registering body already has to be an approved body. Breeders don't need any more fees they just need to be required to comply with current rules (those who do it right already do) of their registering body.

I don't believe it's the God given right for just anyone to breed dogs without a sound understanding of what they are doing and needs to be regulated with a breeders licence. Licencing dogs with council I think is the wrong approach and the owner of the dog needs the licence with the dogs they own recorded against that licence.......dogs only need to be micro chipped IMHO not licenced as they are now and a person is licenced to own dogs. I believe if you want to breed, then you apply to council for a breeders permit for that litter only unless you are an ANKC registered breeder with a prefix. The breeders permit nominates the sire and dam if cross breeds the prospective breeder needs to give reason why the cross breeding is necessary and the purpose of it........ultimately it needs to be made hard, too much messing around to get a permit for people acting on a whim to breed dogs as a deterrent, not a free for all as it is now.

[corvus]

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.

You think? The line is blurry to me. Passive smoking? Smoking while pregnant? Alcohol-related violence is blurry. The actual deed is illegal, but it's not illegal to do all the things that lead to the deed. Crimes related to gambling are similar. It is truly shocking how vulnerable people can be preyed upon until they are in too deep to avoid committing some sort of crime. Yet it's legal for people to be treated that way and then they cop it when they sink. Sometimes it feels like people are allowed to set themselves up for crime and then we penalise them afterwards and expect that to solve a problem? I think that the case of dangerous dogs is similar. A lot of contributing factors are legal, and they are legal because others can do them responsibly is my guess. Should those that can do them responsibly be penalised because some can't? History says probably not. Particularly because some of the contributing factors are unknown, like the dog's genetic potential for doing harm and behavioural likelihood of doing harm. There was a study proposal for exploring ways to screen those, actually, which was recently knocked back by the ARC. So much for that.

People obey laws that make sense to them. They don't always obey laws because it is law, or because it is enforced, or because of what the penalty for disobeying is.

[Salukifan]

People obey laws that make sense to them. They don't always obey laws because it is law, or because it is enforced, or because of what the penalty for disobeying is.

Of course some people don't give a toss about obeying laws under any circumstances.

Speeding, drink driving, dog registration... if it doesn't suit them then what's the harm eh?

Edited August 25, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Santo66]

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.

There are too many people with the opinion that these dogs inflicting serious injury in unprovoked attacks are caused by the owner and the environment which is total bullshit......the owner is at fault for allowing their dog to attack yes, no arguments there, but the dogs themselves are not fit in temperament and character to be part of urban community......these morons do not train these dogs to attack old ladies, joggers or nail kids, the dogs are genetically aggressive and are a handful to manage at best because they instinctively want to bite people or attack other dogs.....aggression and fight has to be born in the dog to begin with for training or environment to bring it out......it's the reason you can't use just any dog in working roles that requires the ability for a dog to attack, defend and protect even in the guardian breeds renowned for those roles around 70% are not genetically capable anymore from result of selective breeding and establishing more suitable candidates for pet environment and community safety. As much as I hate the way the GSD has been watered down in working trait, pet wise and stability in the community the GSD folk do produce some pretty stable environmentally sound examples of the breed.........back in the guard dog era in the early 80's there were some shockers in GSD's and Dobe's bred on fear biters, dogs that would attack anyone they didn't know and were purposely bred for guard dogs, that is you could put them in a yard untrained and they would be frothing at the mouth to kill anyone who approached.....no doubt people here would remember the old guard dog era when every second commercial yard had one and what those dogs were like?

[WreckitWhippet]

Yes but how do we track those down without outlawing backyard breeding, A lot of these people who buy the dogs 5 mths later can't remember where from but if they do the persons were renting and probably moved (probably due to complaints). Which is why my idea stared with the outlawing or random breeding, imposing large fines on those breeding illegally and those who buy the dog, giving the option of a smaller fine if they give up the breeder , de sex and socialize the dog.

I was in the thought it shouldn't add any more fees to the current breeder, just require the action of current rules that the registering body already has to be an approved body. Breeders don't need any more fees they just need to be required to comply with current rules (those who do it right already do) of their registering body.

I don't believe it's the God given right for just anyone to breed dogs without a sound understanding of what they are doing and needs to be regulated with a breeders licence. Licencing dogs with council I think is the wrong approach and the owner of the dog needs the licence with the dogs they own recorded against that licence.......dogs only need to be micro chipped IMHO not licenced as they are now and a person is licenced to own dogs. I believe if you want to breed, then you apply to council for a breeders permit for that litter only unless you are an ANKC registered breeder with a prefix. The breeders permit nominates the sire and dam if cross breeds the prospective breeder needs to give reason why the cross breeding is necessary and the purpose of it........ultimately it needs to be made hard, too much messing around to get a permit for people acting on a whim to breed dogs as a deterrent, not a free for all as it is now.

All great in theory, except that chipping has been mandatory in NSW for over ten years and the non compliance is significant.

Who in their right mind would put the right to veto a litter in the hands of a Council :laugh:

[Angeluca]

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.

There are too many people with the opinion that these dogs inflicting serious injury in unprovoked attacks are caused by the owner and the environment which is total bullshit......the owner is at fault for allowing their dog to attack yes, no arguments there, but the dogs themselves are not fit in temperament and character to be part of urban community......these morons do not train these dogs to attack old ladies, joggers or nail kids, the dogs are genetically aggressive and are a handful to manage at best because they instinctively want to bite people or attack other dogs.....aggression and fight has to be born in the dog to begin with for training or environment to bring it out......it's the reason you can't use just any dog in working roles that requires the ability for a dog to attack, defend and protect even in the guardian breeds renowned for those roles around 70% are not genetically capable anymore from result of selective breeding and establishing more suitable candidates for pet environment and community safety. As much as I hate the way the GSD has been watered down in working trait, pet wise and stability in the community the GSD folk do produce some pretty stable environmentally sound examples of the breed.........back in the guard dog era in the early 80's there were some shockers in GSD's and Dobe's bred on fear biters, dogs that would attack anyone they didn't know and were purposely bred for guard dogs, that is you could put them in a yard untrained and they would be frothing at the mouth to kill anyone who approached.....no doubt people here would remember the old guard dog era when every second commercial yard had one and what those dogs were like?

Call me darft but I think I now understand some of your comments on other threads.

Any dog can bite when cornered or having things jammed down their ears. And some people and kids do the play fighting with dogs that teaches the dog to bite but not in a malice way but in play. But most serious attacks especially with multiple dogs are not a warning bite or territorial overpowering or warning (such as a normal guard dog bite and release).

Your saying a Malicious dog in the act of deliberately killing human or dog either has to be genetic or deliberately train to. And regardless of mismanagement by the average owner this is not the training situation.

I can see your point I have seen GSDs behind a fence loosing their minds while I walk past their yard. Have also seen the same dogs loose 4 or 5 doors down look at me and trot off as if I were a tree. Or another instance Bark once or twice before bolting back into their yard then start the aggressive growl (scares the SH*T out of ya) but they don't proceed past the gate threshold until your a distance away then trot back out and go back to what they were doing.

And I've heard of dogs tormented/misstreated by owners or children doing the bite and release. Which i suppose would be the majority of dog bite hospital records (and the ones not reported by media).

Some of these attacks, the little girl in her home, the boy in Perth where the neighbors dog jumped a shared fence, Are Malicious attacks. And a lot of what is getting reported regardless of identification, they have this in common.

[Santo66]

Who in their right mind would put the right to veto a litter in the hands of a Council :laugh:

The council should have the stats on what breed mixtures are causing problems in the community for starters and refusing permits for Bull cross breeds would be a good start.......the Pitbull supporters should hop onto this, instead of defending crap dogs because they have a concoction of Bull breed origin, it's these BYB'er things that are putting the well bred Bull breeds in a bad light........it's not the breed, it's the fools breeding dogs of that breed origin unsuitable for urban existence, in this case the egg comes before the chicken and the breeding of aggressive concoctions needs to be stopped where it begins IMHO. To punish the deed requires an innocent victim, we can't loose sight of that......some poor bugger is nursing injury and emotional scar when a moron with an aggressive dog drops the ball, the aggressive dogs need to be taken away from the morons so when they do drop the ball, the victim gets a serious licking not flesh torn off their bones or worse.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Santo66

[Staffyluv]

Edited because I really can't be bothered anymore.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Staffyluv

[Steve]

Well I think that what is bred , how its bred,how many are bred and who breeds or sells it is a part of it but it isnt the major part of it .

Every time we look at the things we as dog owners deal with on a daily basis and the attacks and reports we hear via the media, someone wants to say its about too many being bred, too many something being bred some call for the stopping of all breeding others call for the stopping of some breeding ,mandatory desexing more laws etc .

Its a social issue and whilst I agree its mostly about education its also about consequences and how the world perceives the problem too.

It seems to be O.K. to let the dog run wild placing itself and the rest of the world at risk as long as when it comes home it has a nice bed to sleep in, as long as it doesn't have fleas .People who visit this forum some of whom have commented in this thread allow their dogs to walk and run without a leash in on leash areas and they will tell us all about how thats O.K. better for the dog and its justified ,their dogs are well trained have great recall blah blah blah - so they believe their dogs are special and everyone watching thinks the same - one dog walking with its owner without a leash and that leads to loads of owners walking without a leash and everyone on the street has to pretend they are not worried when they see a dog approaching off lead and deal with it if the owners are wrong and the dog isnt under control.

The law says you have to walk your dog on a lead and in most places it tells you how long the lead can be , most places dont allow an extendable lead either .This is the only time apart from designated off leash areas where a dog can be outside of your property .

If its off your property and not on a leash you break the law - but we as a society do nothing about it .

if you have a dog you have to have adequate fencing and you dont get let off the hook if someone leaves the gate open or the dog can jump the fence , if there is a hole in the fence or it can go over under or through it - but we will allow them off the hook and agree never mind it can happen no matter how hard you try - crap.

if we see someone with a dog off leash that should be on leash we need to report them take their photo put it on the net to show them breaking the law , we need to report to the council that someone in our street has a dog which we dont believe the fence will contain, we need to have rangers doing house knocks to ensure dogs are contained and that there never is an accident that could have been avoided .

You are responsible for your dog regardless of who bred it or what type of dog it is whether its cranky or soft and sweet .

You need to feed it well, provide for it , help it to not hurt or annoy anyone or anything else, you need to keep it safe ,you need to prevent it from having unwanted litters and the rest of the stuff that dogs would do if they were able to.

We shouldnt need laws to direct minute ridiculous un enforceable conditions all we need is to be responsible for our property.

As Australian we have a right to own dogs but with any right comes a responsibility and Im sick to death of people who own dogs being let off the hook some how because they can blame the breeder or anyone else when they have not been responsible and until we start to focus on that one thing no matter how well we do everything else nothing will change.

If it was just about education people who visit this forum who know the law and still walk their dogs off leash wouldn't exist.

[tdierikx]

But it's so much easier to just make up new laws... never mind that they can't or won't be enforced... the pollies can say that they are "doing something" about the "problem"...

... only issue there is that no-one can truly agree as to what the "problem" is... *sigh*

One sided media reporting is not helping. Every dog attack reported must be a "pitbull" or some sort of cross thereof... or it just doesn't get widespread media attention. Someone has an agenda here... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a pitbull... *sigh*

People love statistics... but when reporting statistics, there needs to be some qualifying data to sustain the findings. For example - the number of SBT/cross dogs responsible for attacks requiring medical attention only states a number of bites presented to the medical profession to fix... what it doesn't show is the number of that breed cross actually out there in society - which would more than likely show that as a percentage of that number, the actual bite stats for that breed mix may actually be quite small.

I am not suggesting that any dog that shows unprovoked aggression needs any excuses made for it - completely the opposite in fact... there is no place for ANY dog that shows unprovoked aggression in our society... but I'd be pretty silly to equate media reporting of "the problem" to actual fact.

I personally don't give a rat's about what breed or mix an aggressive dog is - large or small, pure or mixed - those INDIVIDUAL dogs should be removed from the gene pool.

T.

[Steve]

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders.

The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

[~Anne~]

Dogs being aggressive is not a new or growing phenomena in my opinion. Why the hysterics though? The media.

There will ALWAYS be dogs that bite. They're an animal. You can't reason with a dog, you can only control it and not everyone is good at controlling their dog.

[Steve]

Maybe you are right Anne but its not the media that makes it impossible for many of us to be able to walk our dogs without fear of dogs coming from no where and giving us grief. I can remember as a kid going to sell raffle tickets and a big dog taking myself and my friend on - she was the school champion runner and I beat her that day to make it to safety before the dog had me and I also remember one girl in my year who went over someone else's fence to get a ball and was attacked and scarred for life but these things were rare or at least I perceived them as rare . In most suburbs people have a hard time form other people's dogs - you only have to look at the number of people who come here who have had a bad experience or who carry a big stick or dont walk their dogs at all .

All people who own dogs should be responsible for them and do what ever is required to control them - sure some will still bite etc but owners are responsible for lowering the risks not people who dont own them or governments.

[Leah82]

If cross breeding creates aggressive dogs then explain Cocker rage?

At the end of the day you cannot stop irresponsible people from having babies so how do you propose stopping irresponsible people from breeding their dogs. After all there would be very large percentage of dogs all around Australia (purebred or not) that aren't even registered with the local council.

As far as cross breeding goes, the purebred dogs of today were bred for a purpose, most of these dogs are now simply companion animals and have nothing to do with what their ancestors were created to do.

Cross breeding has a purpose in creating dogs that are suitable to our current lifestyle. Yes, a lot of cross breeds are breed for convenience or by accident by that doesn't mean you should rule it out all together.

It's been said before but what we need is more education. Where are the government media campaigns that promote responsible pet ownership and how to create a well balanced dog?

[mita]

Having rehomed a few hundred dogs over the last few years, 99% of which were crossbreeds, I'd argue with your assumption that crossbreed dogs are ipso facto more inclined to be unstable or unsafe. The vast majority of dogs, both purebred and crossbred are safe members of the community. The more punitive, restrictive, difficult and social unacceptable we try to make dog breeding, the more we hand control over breeding into the hands of the large scale, commercial breeders and those care-for-nothing, random breeders who aren't interested in anything but a quick buck.

Aphra, IMO you're spot on. The stats would support your comment. And the worst case scenario you describe, is already happening.

[Steve]

Having rehomed a few hundred dogs over the last few years, 99% of which were crossbreeds, I'd argue with your assumption that crossbreed dogs are ipso facto more inclined to be unstable or unsafe. The vast majority of dogs, both purebred and crossbred are safe members of the community. The more punitive, restrictive, difficult and social unacceptable we try to make dog breeding, the more we hand control over breeding into the hands of the large scale, commercial breeders and those care-for-nothing, random breeders who aren't interested in anything but a quick buck.

Aphra, IMO you're spot on. The stats would support your comment. And the worst case scenario you describe, is already happening.

Agreed

[~Anne~]

Maybe you are right Anne but its not the media that makes it impossible for many of us to be able to walk our dogs without fear of dogs coming from no where and giving us grief. I can remember as a kid going to sell raffle tickets and a big dog taking myself and my friend on - she was the school champion runner and I beat her that day to make it to safety before the dog had me and I also remember one girl in my year who went over someone else's fence to get a ball and was attacked and scarred for life but these things were rare or at least I perceived them as rare . In most suburbs people have a hard time form other people's dogs - you only have to look at the number of people who come here who have had a bad experience or who carry a big stick or dont walk their dogs at all .

All people who own dogs should be responsible for them and do what ever is required to control them - sure some will still bite etc but owners are responsible for lowering the risks not people who dont own them or governments.

Can't be too rare because I also recall having to escape dogs and a friend whose neighbour's dog injured her brother when he jumped the fence to retrieve something. I was bailed up once by a dog and thankfully his owner came out before I was attacked. I knew Snoopy next door was of to be messed with and I never grabbed at him or touched him particularly when he was on his chain. When old Red the dog from across the road escaped the yard everyone knew to call Bill to let him know and not come out and try to round him up.

I agree that it is an owners responsibility first and foremost and Ill argue that it is the media who has made you scared to walk your dog. The media and DOL has done it for me. I never knew there were so many aggressive dogs out there, sick dogs and poorly bred dogs until I came on to DOL and started reading about it in the papers and hearing it on the news.

[Aphra]

You're not helping your argument by just making stuff up, such as your fictitious scenario.

Yes but how do we track those down without outlawing backyard breeding, A lot of these people who buy the dogs 5 mths later can't remember where from but if they do the persons were renting and probably moved (probably due to complaints). Which is why my idea stared with the outlawing or random breeding, imposing large fines on those breeding illegally and those who buy the dog, giving the option of a smaller fine if they give up the breeder , de sex and socialize the dog.

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

Bad breeding is not the reason for attacks. Poorly bred dogs with dedicated owners who manage them appropriately are not a public safety risk. Neglectful owners and ignorant owners with well-bred dogs are a public safety risk. The important factor is management.

I find the class aspect of your argument really distasteful. I'm not entirely sure what you think of as a "bogan", but being working class or poor or a renter, doesn't make someone a bad dog owner. I'm sure we could do more and better public education around managing dogs appropriately, but not by finger wagging and calling people irresponsible.

The reason cross breed dogs are more heavily represented in bite statistics is because there are more of them. Purebred dogs make up a minor percentage of the entire dog population.

And having handled hundreds of dogs over the last decade of all kinds of breeds, sizes and temperament, often under highly stressful situations - the only one I was really sure was interested in biting me was a labrador. That says nothing about the population of labs at all of course. As I've said before - the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Santo66]

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders.

The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that

Bad breeding is not the reason for attacks. Poorly bred dogs with dedicated owners who manage them appropriately are not a public safety risk. Neglectful owners and ignorant owners with well-bred dogs are a public safety risk. The important factor is management.

Rubbish, unprovoked aggression is in the breeding, the genetics of the dog, until people accept this, there is not much hope of improvement really

Edited August 26, 2013 by Santo66

[Aphra]

You're assuming that shelter dogs are damaged dogs. That's simply not true as anyone one of the experienced rescuers in the rescue forum will be able to tell you. Shelter dogs are, for the most part, just like all the other dogs in the community. The vast majority go on to be safe, stable, happy citizens.

Haredown Whippet's point that thoughtfully bred dogs are important - whether crossbreed or not.

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.