Classified Advert 'walk Your Dog With Freedom'

[Flippy Dog]

Sorry, I don't know how to link, was reading the local free paper and came across a classified advert promoting a Facebook page called Protect Shoalhaven Dogs and appears to be about petitioning local council to put on more rangers to deal with stray dogs and dog attacks etc and makes reference to ...you guessed it breed not deed. I'm not bringing it to attention to create angst between DOL users, just thought some in this region may be interested to read it. The page appears to have only been created a week or so back as a result of a dog owner having her beagle attacked and hearing other people don't walk their dogs for fear of strays. I'm all for responsible dog ownership and being in control of your dog when outside your own property but I'm not into punishing by breed.

Having had my on-lead whippet rushed as a six month old pup at an off leash beach the first time ever I took him near a beach I got a huge fright, thankfully no injuries, no future behaviour changes in Obie, but I am hesitant to walk my dogs because one of my others is frightened of other dogs. I was happy to walk her on lead until a very boisterous friendly big dog broke away from her handler and raced up to Flipp who I jumped in front of like a mad woman worried she would bite the loose dog due to fear while yelling to the other owner that my dog was frightened and her friendly dog might get bitten if she didn't catch it. All good in the end and she was apologetic and understood the reason her friendly dog wasn't okay to rush my scared dog but end result, another dog I dont walk, for others safety. Thankfully I have access to a farm for plenty of ripping and racing in safety.

So, back to the newspaper ad, I thought the petition would be interesting to read but seems very light on detail, here's a bit I've managed to copy and paste, stupid iPads :)

"Dog attacks can result in tragedy for all people and animals involved. By helping support this petition, the Shoalhaven community can get the local council to commit to further action in controlling the issue of stray dogs. Such action can include more available rangers patrolling the shoalhaven region, stricter laws when dogs considered of a dangerous or restricted breed are involved, ensure all owners are adhering to the council approved policies of pet ownership and off leash prohibited area guides, and making sure all domestic animals are in homes both safe, happy, and secure.

Please make the Shoalhaven rural area a safe place for all animals and people.

You can also comment and tell of your experiences with stray dogs on our Facebook page: "

[Stressmagnet]

OWNER not breed.

Unfortunately, the types of dogs that appeal to boghead morons are big powerful dogs. Having owned an AmStaff, and had people snatch their yappy aggressive dogs away in fear - this is something I feel strongly about. Such dogs like a Pitties, amstaffs, presa canarios - all appeal to a certain type of person whose self esteem is established by how big and tough their dog looks. I don't know what the answer is. Somehow make these dogs, their ridiculously spiked collars and YouTube videos of them hanging off tyres, less appealing? How?

Because as long as these idiots get these dogs, and then fail to train them adequately, we will get these knee jerk reactions to the breed.

[Stressmagnet]

Ps. I will ppint out, I had my AmStaff in a pink diamanté collar and I have no penis, hence no interest in perpetuating the myth she was a tough dog. I fell in love with her face, it was only later I realised the prejudice around Her breed,

Edited October 30, 2014 by Stressmagnet

[Taliecat]

Ps. I will ppint out, I had my AmStaff in a pink diamanté collar and I have no penis, hence no interest in perpetuating the myth she was a tough dog. I fell in love with her face, it was only later I realised the prejudice around Her breed,

Completely off topic...but,

I too do not have a penis, and have a big boofy amstaff who (until he outgrew it) had a lovely purple harness and leash set.. everyone would tell me what a nice girl he was. ..

But yes, until idiots stop buying amstaffs and similar dogs there will be a culture of fear with dog owners, but to be perfectly honest the off lead small white fluffies are the reason we only go for walks at 1 am. .

[Stressmagnet]

*red face* sexist generalisation.

Sorry.

On topic (sort of)

My biggest fear IS the off/on lead fluffies. But when I had Georgia (AmStaff) - all everyone saw was the breed, not the polite well behaved dog. She got savaged by an assmonkey who let his amstaff pup loose on her and she went from a confident dog to a fearful dog on lead. I COULD be lazy and say 'breed bad' but it was that pup's idiot owner. Telling me 'all amstaffs play rough'. Fact: bully breeds take dedication and commitment. Maybe more so than 'softer' breeds like say, my Labrador. Doesn't make them bad dogs, does make lazy owners BAD owners.

[melzawelza]

*red face* sexist generalisation.

Sorry.

On topic (sort of)

My biggest fear IS the off/on lead fluffies. But when I had Georgia (AmStaff) - all everyone saw was the breed, not the polite well behaved dog. She got savaged by an assmonkey who let his amstaff pup loose on her and she went from a confident dog to a fearful dog on lead. I COULD be lazy and say 'breed bad' but it was that pup's idiot owner. Telling me 'all amstaffs play rough'. Fact: bully breeds take dedication and commitment. Maybe more so than 'softer' breeds like say, my Labrador. Doesn't make them bad dogs, does make lazy owners BAD owners.

'Bully Breed' is such a huge blanket term, you can't make a massive generalisation by saying that all dogs that could come under that umbrella take dedication and commitment. All dogs are individuals, especially within a 'type' rather than an actual pedigreed breed.

Heaps of 'bully breeds' are easy as anything. I've got one. She's lazy and doesn't need much exercise, she loves everyone, she's great with other dogs, and she's well behaved. Sure some of that was training but I got her as a 10 month old rescue and she always had a lovely temperament, all she had to do was learn manners. She hasn't taken any more dedication or commitment than any other dog would. And she isn't an anomaly.

As for the petition and the group - I'd just ignore it. As soon as they started mentioning things about 'dangerous breeds' it wasn't worth any time or consideration. Part of the reason why there aren't enough ranger resources to be patrolling adequately for off leash dogs is that rangers time (which is extremely limited in most Councils) is being taken up trying declare and restrict dogs that had not and would not every cause a problem.

[Stressmagnet]

Granted ALL bullies don't take work. But a lot of them do. Like any dog, they need exercise and training and a committed owner. I think it's more important with bullies because a) media hysteria. They have to be BETTER behaved than your average dog and b) they can be single minded with a high prey drive. As are other breeds, but again, bullies are strong athletic dogs.

I stand firm on my stance that bullies are NOT for a first time dog owner or for a lazy one.

Not the breed, but the owner.

[melzawelza]

Granted ALL bullies don't take work. But a lot of them do. Like any dog, they need exercise and training and a committed owner. I think it's more important with bullies because a) media hysteria. They have to be BETTER behaved than your average dog and b) they can be single minded with a high prey drive. As are other breeds, but again, bullies are strong athletic dogs.

I stand firm on my stance that bullies are NOT for a first time dog owner or for a lazy one.

Not the breed, but the owner.

So, what is a 'Bully'?

[Stressmagnet]

A bully is a blanket term for any bulldog breed. It IS a generalisation though.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Stressmagnet

[Little Gifts]

The general public thinks their beloved dog (insert any breed or cross breed here) will automatically be fine with all other dogs simply because it is a dog and should understand other dogs, talk the same language, act the same, etc. They have little understanding of the important part puppy socialisation plays and they have even less understanding of those important developmental stages when fears can be imprinted. Some take their puppies to puppy school to show off how cute they are and some (if they can find time in their busy lives) go to further training so they can walk on a leash, sit and maybe do a cute trick or two. If their dog ends up with behavioural issues or poor recall they find something to blame it on. They rarely look at themselves as owners and identify how little time they really spend knowing and engaging with their dog (and becoming alpha), meeting its stimulation needs and ensuring the safety of their dog and other dogs out in public by not doing stupid things with it.

Us humans are the worst thing that can happen to a dog. Instead of identifying the breed of dogs involved in an attack perhaps we should start identifying the 'breed' of owner?

[Stressmagnet]

Us humans are the worst thing that can happen to a dog. Instead of identifying the breed of dogs involved in an attack perhaps we should start identifying the 'breed' of owner?

Well said.

[melzawelza]

A bully is a blanket term for any bulldog breed. It IS a generalisation though.

Ok, 'bulldog breed' is fairly subjective as lots of people will include Boxers and Mastiffs in that group too. How many breeds are we talking here that you're including under this banner? Are we including cross breeds? What about dogs in pounds that look a bit blockheady - those too? All of these dogs - numerous different pedigree breeds, cross breeds, and dogs with no idea of heritage but look a bit like a 'bulldog breed' - that group as a whole are not for first time owners and require extra work compared to all other dogs?

I'm really not intending to attack you here at all, but just trying to highlight how generalising an entire group or 'type' of dogs is really unhelpful, incorrect, and detrimental to the dogs. You've obviously got the right attitude re: knowing that it's about an owner, not a dog's breed, but you are singling out a whole arbitrary umbrella of dogs as 'different' than other dogs, and requiring different care... this sort of wording is actually part of what fuels BSL, and well meaning advocates often had their words quoted back to them in legislation.

Animal Farm Foundation have a good graphic about this (none of the quotes from the 'advocates' have any fact or science behind them, and were well meaning but extremely harmful)

[Stressmagnet]

Thank you for the graphic - informative as to how words get twisted.

I am not responsible for how my words get misinterpreted but I will agree that I should choose my words with care.

So.

I classify as 'bully', any dog with bulldog, bull mastiff or Staffordshire in its lineage; or as this website states:

Put very simply almost all dog breeds that fall into the classifications of bulldogs or mastiffs are bully breeds. In addition several brachycephalic (flat or pushed in face) dogs and other extremely large dogs, such as Great Danes, are classified as bully breeds. Once again, this has more to do with either the original purpose for which the dog was bred or the lineage of the breed, than it has to do with size, temperament or reputation.

(http://alldogswelcome.com/bully-breeds.html)

I have have not said they are more aggressive; nor have I said they are 'gladiators' and 'have a high pain tolerance.'

I have said I think they require committed owners and I would agree to some extent that they need special handling. Why? Because innate to the breed is a strong desire to please their owners. My amstaff was the most people focussed dog I've ever owned or had the pleasure to meet. In the wrong hands; in cruel hands; in impatient hands and in lazy hands - that wonderful trait can be used against them.

I am not responsible for the history of bear baiting; pig hunting and dog fighting that some of these breeds have in their past - nor am I responsible for the idiots who wish to encourage traits of bravery, courage and tenacity to make what could be a great family dog into a money maker.

I repeat. I love these breeds. Would I suggest them to a novice owner? No. A novice owner who might not understand that these dogs look for leadership and guidance and consistency and are not to be left outside 9 hours or more a day, away from the human companionship they crave, because they are at work and reckon the 2-3 hours they spend when they get home is enough.

I don't think you and I are on different sides here. You may think I am because I advocate responsible ownership of these dogs so they don't get dumped in the pounds (have you seen the predominance of staffy and staffy crosses in the shelters?). They get dumped because they are strong athletic and powerful dogs who their owners can't handle because they bought for their looks and couldn't be bothered understanding what the breed NEEDS.

Again, owner NOT breed, but not all breeds are alike. Not every Labrador is a loveable goofball. Not every cocker spaniel is a soft eyed smuggler. Not every bully is an aggressive dog - but breed traits cannot be ignored, surely? Or why do folks buy pure bred dogs?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Stressmagnet

[Little Gifts]

Part of the problem is also just how many dogs are out there who are sbt's, amstaffs, pit bulls or crosses of those breeds. Of course there is going to be a higher representation in attacks when there is a high rate of ownership.

I own an sbt and a shar pei. They are both a similar height and weight but totally different body shapes. If I looked at my sbt I'd say she is a far more powerful dog, all muscle and grunt while my pei is very lean/fine looking. With her droopy lips and squishy face the pei looks about as deadly as a stuffed toy. Both dogs have very similar (and rough) play styles and neither has ever won a tug of war over the other. Sadly I can also state they are equally matched in a fight, with the pei showing a smidge more endurance than the sbt but exactly the same strength and instinct of what to do.

Shar pei were originally bred as fighting or guard dogs and their extra skin helps protect vital body parts during an attack. So you could say it is a breed trait to be defensive/aggressive if they were so inclined or provoked, just like 'bull' breeds. But there are just not that many of them around (compared to 'bull' breeds) and I guess they wouldn't be considered a tough looking dog so the type of person who owns them will be a little different. You'd probably get laughed at by your mates if you said you got bitten by one of those rolly dogs off the toilet paper ads.

Historically, when less 'bull' breeds were being owned there were other breeds of dogs considered the most dangerous. When I was a kid it was Alsations (as GSD's were known then) and later it was rottweilers and Doberman (which were often trained and used as guard dogs rather than pets). In the future there will probably be some other breed of dog (or cross breed) that comes under fire simply because high ownership is also reflecting in high attack rates. Maybe it will be SWFs!

All the fear mongering about breed is senseless and good dogs are suffering for it. People need to take responsibility for the containment and behaviour of their own dogs around kids, people and other dogs/animals regardless of what colour or size it is.

[Diana R]

On the breed risk vs breed management thing, I don't think anyone (at least anyone with a bit of education and experience in area) agrees that all breeds are 'created equal' and therefore are suitable to every owner. Perhaps the wording is sometimes a little off, but the focus of 'deed not breed' is more the outcomes (risk?) of the dog-owner combination.

If we expect and enforce that ALL owners contain their dogs, ensure that their dogs are under effective control in public etc. (regardless of what that owner needs to do in order to achieve that outcome), variation a DOG'S requirements becomes the owner's responsibility and the conversation moves away from breed.

It probably helps to think of bite risk like traditional risk management. That is, likelihood vs consequence. Owner behaviour in raising, training and managing their dog is 100% related to the likelihood of a bite, and highly related to the consequence of that bite (through bite inhibition training, management of the dogs arousal levels in higher risl situations etc.). The size, strength and personality of a dog have an influence on consequence too, but if the dog is managed properly (and in accordance with the outcomes we as other dog owners should expect them too), the likelihood of a bite is so low as to pose neglible risk regardless of the theoretical consequence.

[mita]

[

But yes, until idiots stop buying amstaffs and similar dogs there will be a culture of fear with dog owners,

On the positive side, I got an email from a friend who's owned a p/b pet Amstaff for years & was thinking of getting another. I'd sent her the Mature Dogs for adoption on the Breeders' pages. She'd looked up the application form which one breeder asked interested people to fill in. She was full of admiration at its thoroughness in checking out prospective owners.... sent me a copy!

BTW her Amstaff, who's now 10 years old, has been one of the finest, most sensible, and loyal dogs I know.