Greytmate

What possible good reason could there be for somebody crossing a staffy with a pitbull? None. We don't allow people to drive unlicenced or to pollute the environment, we have controls there, and controls should apply to people producing the badly-bred dogs.

Sometimes there will be council restrictions on what times the public can come on to the property as well. Kennel staff usually have a lot of tasks to get through in the time they have, a twenty minute chat with a prospective client may not be possible. And as somebody has said, they may not be the type of person who is good with the public.

Yes.

Just had to address this bit, I don't recall anyone saying that mistreatment or lack of socialisation and training won't affect the dog, it's just that it's reaction will not necessarily be agressive, it might react submissively or with anxiety in certain situations but it wont necessarily become agression. This is what genetics and selective breeding is about, it's not just about deciding whether a dog will react to a certain situation it's about determining (and predicting) how the dog will react to a certain situation. A dog bred to herd sheep upon seeing sheep for the first time can find itself acting out herding behaviours, it may not know what it is doing or where it is herding them but it is reacting to the sheep in a way which it has been genetically predisposed to react. That your dog's ancestors never displayed the fear agression that yours does may simply be due to the lack of the appropriate triggers, which is where environment comes in. However if your dog had a different genetic makeup it's possible his reaction to those same triggers may have been entirely different, perhaps instead of agression you might see him showing excessive obesiance to other dogs, perhaps he might run from other dogs, or he might display a combination of behaviours, all of these are reactions the nature of which is determined by the genetic predisposition of the animal. That is really well-explained Woof. Trust a scientist.

The type of aggression certainly is relevant, because that determines how you train and manage the problem and gives you insight into what is driving the behaviour. What is the behaviour I descibe that isn't unusual for Sibes? A reaction towards certain behaviour displayed by other dogs. COULD is the key word there. Any breed of dog does not mean all dogs, but that developing behaviourial problems after bad experiences is not something that can purely be restricted to a certain breed of dog. Could is such a random word. It WILL apply to those of a certain genetic predisposition, it WILL NOT apply to others that have a different genetic predisposition. And yet we have posters in this thread telling people that you can mistreat their chosen breed, not socialise or train it and it won't affect the dog in any way. How does saying that not play down the importance of socialisation and training? It plays it down yes, so it should. How a dog behaves does not alter the responsibility of the owner to provide adequate socialisation and training. The responsibility is a lot greater if a dog has a genetic predisposition to cause harm to other dogs. Go down to your local dog park. Or obedience club. Or chat to a local trainer... they will all confirm that there are many people out there who through a lack of or inappropriate training, create problems with their dogs. Oh of course, the local dog park, why didn't I think? I was an obedience instructor for fifteen years and I have sold hundreds of dogs to people over the last five years. I have been very active in the dog world, and spoken to literally thousands of Brisbane dogs owners. In some forums I have met 'countless people' with problem dogs. But overall, I have found that most people that have a dog are happy to have that dog and it doesn't cause the type of problem that started this thread. Now why don't you go out there and spend a decade or two living and working with many dogs, or perhaps go and get a degree in animal behaviour or genetics before you expect me to take your opinion on this subject seriously.

It would seem rather obvious wouldn't it with the historical evidence we have. Good to see that science has confirmed this.

Then what is your point about him acting like a husky? Fear aggression is not a trait that commonly presents in the breed, and having met quite a few dogs from his lines including both his parents, it's not present in the dogs I've met either. He doesn't act outside of what could be considered usual in the breed. The label 'fear aggressive' means little, but the behaviour you describe isn't unusual or rare for Huskies. I didn't say ALL dogs who have that experience (and he was attacked on numerous occasions, not just once - had it been just once he might have been ok) but that it is hardly an uncommon problem. Dogs that have negative experiences in their fear stages can be affected by those experiences for life. You said "ANY breed or dog could develop fear aggression if it has a negative experience during it's critical development phase." Any breed or dog would mean all dogs, a negative experience would mean a single negative experience. I disagree with that. Stick by what you said, or retract it. The experiences were triggers, they did not determine how your dog would react. Why? You said yourself that certain breeds are just not going to require much if any socialisation or training. Several posters in this thread have named breeds that just will not display aggression and could be raised and treated like shit and will still grow up to be happy, well adjusted dogs because that's the breed. How on earth does laying the responsibility purely on genetics not remove any responsibilty we have to train and socialise our dogs appropriately? How does that not minimize the importance and responsibility we have as owners to treat our dogs properly and train them? I am not arguing that selection of breed removes repsonsibility. I am disagreeing with any assertion that selection of breed removes any responsibility that we have to raise well adjusted dogs or ensure that we train and raise them properly. There is always a responsibility on owners to socialise and train, and certain genetic combinations can make that responsibility so much easier to handle. You've never met people in real life whose lack of leadership/training/etc is causing problems with their dogs? If these issues can be completely resolved with the right training, does that still mean the problems were genetic? Sure I've met a few people, but not the "countless" people you seem to be meeting. Who hasn't met people with problem dogs? Not all dogs can have problems resolved with training, often different management is necessary too. If you are going to quote me, please read what I am responding to first, as it would have answered all of your questions.

Rigorous (ruthless?) selection and a uniform style of raising has given us a breed that is extremely unlikely to react aggressively to being handled. At the other end of the spectrum we would have a pet breeder, who determined to breed from the particular dog, will excuse any and all behaviour as environmental in origin. It is hard to reconcile that ruthless culling is going to give us a population of better dogs than many small scale breeders are ever able to. But unless we start thinking outside our comfort zone, purebreeds don't have an especially bright future..

Are you saying that Siberians are genetically programmed to be fear aggressive? Not at all. Your dog does not have identical genetics to every other Siberian. It has a combination of its ancestors genes only. Nothing to do with other Siberians. You dog is not the only dog that has been attacked by other dogs during a critical phase. Yet your dog is fear aggressive, and not all dogs would behave aggressively as a consequence of being attacked. The difference is the genes you dog has. I disagree that pugs or whippets do not require socialisation or training, or that it is less important with certain breeds. ALL breeds need training and socialisation. ANY breed or dog could develop fear aggression if it has a negative experience during it's critical development phase. I have seen my fair share of timid snappy whippets. Who are you disagreeing with? I didn't say that pugs and whippets or any breed requires no socialisation. Not all dogs will develop fear aggression from a single negative experience. Some dogs do not have a genetic tendancy for that to happen. I never said environment was strictly more important than genetics. I just struggle to see how genetics can be responsible for the majority of behaviourial problems we see in our dogs. And that is why this discussion is going in circles. Your struggle to see facts. You can either accept the words of people that have had years of experience with many dogs and understand genetic tendencies. Or you can sit there saying, I don't see it, so I don't believe it. That is total garbage. Yes, but only in forums where people with problem dogs were likely to be present. When I look at the hundreds of greyhounds I have rehomed, and the very small percentage with any problems, and the absolute bare minimum of handling, training, socialisation and mental stimulation these dogs have been raised with, I get a different picture. When I look at patterns of bad behaviour over a breed, I get an understanding of how different lines contain different genetic behavioural tendancies. Overall, most people I know are very happy with their dogs, without going to much effort to make that happen. Their lives with their dogs are nothing like yours, they do not need to go to as much effort to get an acceptable result.

It depends on how tightly you define 'breed'. One vet I know puts a dog's parents names as the 'breed' on certificates. While breeds as we know them ideally should have uniform temperaments, it is actual lines that carry desirable or undesirable traits. If the particular breeder isn't very careful, their own examples of the breed will deteriorate. You haven't given a valid argument for environment playing more of a role than genetics in behaviour. It might suggest that the owners did not have a realistic idea of what 'family' dog means. It also suggests that you might come across more problem dog owners than the average person would, which usually happens if you are out there getting help with your own dog.

I choose to disagree with you there Greytmate. The aim of the socialisation and training for different breeds may not be identical but the same effort is required. People who think Whippets are timid dogs (and that's a lot of folk) need to meet Howard my boy. He's outgoing, confident and friendly with strange people and dogs. The fact that I socialised the pants of him as a bub and keep that up is not a coincidence in my eyes. He was a confident pup but I chose to build on that, not take it for granted. If you want any chance of recalling a sighthound that has to be constantly practiced also. I've seen way too many dogs who people have failed to do work on because they believed that breed characteristics would prevail. The "naturally obedient" dog is the greatest myth of all. The same effort isn't always required to have a dog behaving acceptably. I am not talking about behaving optimally, but just not the type of problems that end up on the evening news. A timid whippet isn't going to sever somebody's arm.

Yep. Let's not all align ourselves with the lowest common denominator. Let us do the best we can do, and if that makes us better than those that don't do their best, that is their problem not ours. The problem that is this topic, may be seen to belong to all dog owners. We have to reject that, and if that causes problems for bad owners and bad breeders, I don't care. The problem could have been avoided, and most easily avoided if the dog had never been bred at all. I don't advocate cross breeding dogs, I don't advocate owning bull breed crosses, the list goes on. The reputation of all dogs is being damaged by those ignorant people that breed or obtain dogs. I am happy to help educate them, but I will never stand by them or align myself with them.

Because if you didn't put importance on those things you would be seen as a negligent dog owner. It is also an argument used by some people against breed specific legislation, so there is an ulterior motive. But those of us who have closely observed and documented the behaviour of dozens of dogs, can see that the genetic factors are the really important thing. Huski, you constantly use your own dogs as examples. Your husky acts like a husky and your beagle acts like a beagle. They are a product of their genetics, they are very influenced by your own mood and body language and possible experience has taught them that it is beneficial to react in a certain way to certain threats and challenges, because it has worked before. You are to be applauded for the effort you put into training them, but if you had chosen a whippet or a pug instead of a husky, you would not have to do the same socialisation and training, and you would not see the same sort of aggression. That may not be fair that some dog owners don't have to put as much effort in as others to have their dog behaving in a way that is acceptable, but it is true. Those who are seeking to overturn legislation on the false basis that environment plays a bigger part than genetics are doomed to fail.

Is not a word. But it is a scientific fact that a dog's temperament is mostly genetic... I didn't know that there was much of a question about it. Most vets/breeders/researchers agree on this. No it may not be in all lines of a particular breed, but temperament is mostly determined by that of the dogs in it's pedigree. Whether that be shy, aggressive, friendly etc. It mostly is. But there are a large number people that do not see that, and do not understand what the differences are.

I thought fostering was about having the dog in your home, assessing it and helping it to become more rehomable. Not locking it by itself in an unused building. Up to you Brooke, you either want to keep your dog or you want to foster children. I wouldn't rehome a dog that has displayed aggression towards people, however I would get a behaviourist for advice on whether the dog can be properly managed before putting the dog to sleep.

I would call the police and report the kids, and then I would notify the housing commission in writing, and put in a very strong complaint. As soon as possible. This neighbour has completely ignored your request, they don't care about you or your pets' safety. They have shown you what they think by their lack of action. The threat of being evicted might motivate them to control their kids, as it will be a direct cost and inconvenience to them. I have zero tolerance for kids throwing knives. You need to force the issue before anyone is hurt.

Good on you for taking puppy raising so seriously. Training the family will be harder, but you will get there if you negatively reinforce any unwanted behaviour from them.

You need to do the diary to help that dog. The council have to have evidence before they act. Put a complaint about the mess and smell in writing to the head of the health or environmental department at the council.

That is pretty shocking if it is true. Sounds like a shark attack not a dog attack.

Anyone taking on 23 animals needs to be aware that if they are suddenly made homeless (and only they might know the chances of that) then the animals cannot stay with them. We don't know the full story here, but perhaps it was the removal of the cats that was thought necessary before the lady herself could be helped. No information seems to be available on anything other than the condition of the cats and the car, and that was disgusting and something had to be done. Steve, are the pacers registered with the RSPCA QLD as a rescue? Could those cats be needing foster care right now? The RSPCA QLD is cooperative with other groups.

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog. No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth. Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog. This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it.

I take Goldie and CocoNut to the park at Nth Booval a few times a week. I don't like the park at Raceview, its a bit too large an area to suit my dogs, it is muddy and there are some dogs that go there that are not very friendly.

I agree with this. You do need to keep an eye on those canine teeth to make sure they are not creating sores or holes, and some dogs may need manual teeth cleaning to supplement bones if the teeth are in really bad position.

They have all their puppy vaccs and their one year booster, and that will cover them for their racing life. There have been very few parvo outbreaks in greyhound kennels over the years, compulsory vaccination gives herd immunity.

Depends what state you are in.