mita

It seems you're making a case that e-collars have a use with individual dogs who you find resistant to high standard rewards training. So you'd be able to describe what behaviours interfered with a rewards method being immediately successful. I notice that the Victorian welfare legislation allows for limited use. It's not an outright ban. I've been tracking it down, as it means they might spell out a case for that use. Other states, like SA, have outright ban.

It seems, then, that you can answer my question. Are there dogs that do not respond to high standard rewards training (as in classic conditioning)? What's different about them that needs something which raises cortisol levels & increases muscle tension? Are there any studies that have identified such a group of dogs? If answers exist they'd make a case for e-collars. Which is what I can't presently find.

I've just read them in order to reach some conclusion about e-collars.

I can't find any research that supports the use of e-collars. The comparison studies tend to conclude that rewards training is more successful & doesn't have the adverse physiological responses of e-collars. No one can give me an answer if there's any case for their use with an individual dog who's resistant to high standard rewards training. Or even if there's any such dogs. Without a case being made for their use, I can understand why bans are considered. http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2013/06/the-end-for-shock-collars.html

Thanks for the heads-up, corvus. The researchers compared e-collar training with rewards training. Finding was that those applying rewards training reported significantly more success than those using e-collar. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/8/93 That's the trend across groups, rewards more successful. But there's still the question of individual cases. Genuine question. Would there be individual dogs who appear highly resistant to rewards based training ... but who'd respond to e-collars? Also has anyone looked at pain/punishment responses in dogs? In humans, there's a group of people (& children) who don't have a normal fear response to pain/punishment. They tend to have the worst anti-social behaviours. And are resistant to physical punishment. The advice to modify their behaviour, is to use positive rewards.

I think it might be for the better, too. Best wishes finding just the right housemate... & soon.

This is my opinion only.... not what you should do. But there's too much risk for things turning stressful. The Dachie X has already shown attitude & there's also the age imbalance. Friends & also relatives always had Dachies.... lovely dogs with their family & visitors. But did they have attitude towards other dogs. And this boy is a 'teenager', while yours are into a more mellow age group. I'd be looking for a lower risk match.

I agree with all of this .... except I believe the rules about on-lead & off-lead should stick. Safety is involved. Just like we have a rule to drive on the left-hand side of the road. The consequences for not complying with the road rules, might be more threatening to life and limb. But unleashed dogs in public places also can cause injury to people and their dogs. In extreme cases, dogs being killed. I'm confident with dogs....but I've given up walking our tibbies on the walking/bike tracks here. Too many bad experiences with our shelties & tibbies, from unleashed dogs, even tho' all the signs say dogs must be on leash. Close by is a large off-leash park. The people, with the unleashed dogs on the tracks have made a choice which breaks a council by-law. . No 'out' for them, from me. In contrast, I had many great experiences with other owners of leashed dogs on the walking tracks. Those who asked did I mind, if their dogs & my tibbies could have some gentle socialisation .... saying their dogs were reliable. It was often owners of the bigger dogs... like labradors or even an irish wolfhound. My tibbies are fine with good dogs of all sizes.... even seem to prefer the big ones. These always went well...

I'm wasting my breath answering you. I pointed out that the danger from dogs was situational. And that small dogs, who are on a level with small children's & babies' heads/faces, can inflict serious injury given their finer skin & softer tissues. So it behoves people with small children to exercise caution in situations around all dogs... & that includes small dogs. Of course, the extent to inflict injury or death is increased with size. Like the difference between being run over by a Mazda3 or a Mack truck. Where on earth does 'equality policy' come from? It's a case of caution in situations with babies/small children & dogs. Just like caution re all traffic when crossing the road.

Would anyone wonder that a dog trained to assist in killing pigs...& always kept separate from a small child ... would treat a child just like a small animal ... when left free off the chain? Small children smell differently from adults, make noises that are different from adults. So, even if that dog were safe around adults....small children could be confused with small animals. Yes, the tiny boy stood no chance. When will people learn. The emotional trauma to the mother & grandmother who witnessed this awful thing, is also just dreadful.

Double post.

BTW. As evidence that most dogs of all sizes are pretty peaceful living next to humans. Brisbane medical researchers give these figures: The annual incidence of dog bites requiring emergency department treatment is 12.9 per 10 000 persons, with rate rising to children aged 5-9 (particularly boys) having an incidence of 60.7 per 10 000 persons aged 5-9 years. Face, neck and head bites are more frequent in children.1 If 12.9 per 10,000 persons was the annual rate for human-aggression caused injuries turning up at hospital emergencies, we'd be living in an amazingly peaceful society. Even the highest rate with children is still relatively low. But it's still a serious problem to address.... & try to prevent. Especially with children.

If those factors were 'secondary', then every big dog would 'kill' or seriously attack. The evidence is that most don't. Go look at the scientific studies. Studies looking into aggressive behaviours in dogs of all sizes & breeds & mixed breeds at the University of Cordoba found that human factors in what people did or did not do, in managing and training their dogs, was the key factor. Their conclusion was that people need to socialize & train their dogs. But they acknowledged some could have issues like neurological problems. One factor that came out as more linked with development of aggression... was small size. Yes, small size. Because owners didn't see the necessity to train them & also because they are more likely to be pampered & spoiled. Yet small size dogs can do serious harm to the statistically most vulnerable age bracket.... babies, toddlers & young children. Because the child's face is on a level with the dog & their finer skin is very easily injured. Anyone watching Bondi Vet last Saturday, saw a small chihuahua do over Dr Chris & draw blood. Everyone in the segment thought it was funny. But it wasn't. If that'd been a toddler's face... rather than a male adult hand.... If you have young children in that vulnerable age bracket, then you're rightly cautious in taking care when unleashed dogs are around Except it should be all dogs. Especially if there's no history of their being well socialised with children. The latest report seems to say that was the case with this dog. It was not used to being free around a child. It had always been contained on a chain. So what's possible when left off the chain around a child?

yes. Why? So we can excuse the dog and blame the parents for not supervising the toddler? I am almost 70. I have a 2yo grandson. This story is horrific. It's not a case of 'excusing' the dog. It's a case of investigating contributory causes ... like if & how that dog was trained. There's also usually some warning signs (but not 100%) in the history of dogs that seriously attack. Pet owners need to have some basic knowledge about dog behaviour to recognize what could be a ticking bomb. Add that to the fact that this poor, dear little toddler was in the age group most vulnerable for dog attacks & bites. Police have a checklist to work thro' when investigating fatal car accidents. Investigators need to have a similar checklist for fatal or serious dog attacks .... with items based on what's known to be possible contributory factors. Information from that needs to be fed back into Dog Safety programs. Just as feedback from the car accidents is translated into Road Safety preventative measures. But... as you say, the story is horrific. The mother & grandmother must be so traumatized.

Rosetta, I'm glad you posted this quote from RSPCA Qld. Whenever asked about dog fighting, they've said much the same thing. Both they & the police in Qld have strong suspicions about the presence of dog fighting rings in the state. And they add how hard it is to gather evidence & prosecute .... given that they must find the organised fighting in progress. Otherwise, it's not a crime to 'own' a dog. Also it'd not be an activity which requires a specific location with specific equipment. Making it not particularly visible ... especially in less urban settings. From News.com, June 13, 2013: But RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty says his investigators and police know there are dog fighting rings in Queensland and other states. "However, we just have no concrete evidence to prove that," Mr Beatty says. Mr Beatty says the RSPCA has mounted cases against suspected fighting ring operators in the past, but they've been thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Investigators need to gather video evidence or catch those taking part in the act red-handed, he says. The article refers to a named Brisbane pet owner who claims he tackled a person in the act of stealing his Dalmatian. He said the person admitted taking the dog to serve as 'bait' for fighting -dog training. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/pet-lovers-unite-to-stop-fighting-rings/story-e6frfku9-1226667547626 This pet owner has started a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/qlddogtheft

The pups look so shining healthy in all those latest pics. A real credit to your care. That last pic is adorable. Nutmeg will make a perfect Brighton Princess. :)

I loved that third photo. I'm guessing it's at Aunty Margaret's, the foster-carer. Not only is Candy snug & recovering in her crate, but she's surrounded by a bunch of peaceful 4 -legged friends in the living room with their humans. It should be a poster-pic for foster-caring.... & for why pet owners can get such well-socialised dogs thro' rescues.

Sounds about right. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. One factor about dog attacks which comes out in research, is that there's been some history in most cases. Horrible injuries to the dad.... but he saved the child from even worse. Children are far, far more vulnerable to injury in dog attacks. That dad's a hero.

Good on you, nawnim. You did the right thing. You would have left a tiny seed in that young woman's mind, that someone noticed a potential problem & had the gumption to mention it. You've got life experience ... with the wisdom that comes with it. So don't let any of the younger (or older!) people scare you.

I wish those folks were in Q'ld. There's been a few lovely little dogs of just the kind you've described who've come into AWL recently. They were rehomed quickly ... Hope you can locate the right little dog for them. Such a perfect match for both the dog & the people.

Lawyer friend of our family walked past a house, with gate open & owners & their dog in the yard. Dog flew out of the yard onto the footpath... & bit him, a sharp nip. Full view of owners. He said, 'Your dog bit me!'. They ignored him & went into their house followed by the dog. With that, a couple came over from the opposite house & said to him. 'We saw that dog rush out at you. It's always doing that at people walking past. Someone should go to a lawyer & sue those owners who don't care.' 'Actually,' he said, 'I am a lawyer.' The couple got all excited, 'Well, now that dog will get its come-uppence. He's bit a lawyer!

Written into the Q'ld law about the implementation of animal welfare law, are steps for appeal by people affected by decisions made by the RSPCA Q'ld. First is appeal to the Director-General of the Government Dpt which oversees that law (via relevant Minister). If the complainant is not satisfied, then the next level is to QCAT (Q'ld Civil & Administrative Tribunal). QCAT may review a wide range of administrative decisions - & includes animal care and regulation.

My position, as a pet owner, who adopts purebred dogs. I don't suffer from the delusion that breeders have God-like powers, over every single ailment that may have some genetic origin. And the connection between genes & the expression of some ailment isn't always simple. Environmental factors can be needed to trigger them. Or a particular problem may be thought to have a genetic origin but it's not clear.... nor is it clear which gene or combination of genes is involved. So my position would be to take case by case. And not to require standards of prediction that don't even exist in human medicine. Which means I accept (& by Gad, I'd better) there will always be some risk, in both dogs & humans, of ailments being later expressed that would not have been predictable. So, in most cases, I wouldn't expect money back from a breeder, nor would I ask. If the breeder turns into God.... I would then. :) Or if I wanted no risk at all, I'd adopt a stuffed toy dog. :) In the meantime, I deal with registered breeders that I know, by reputation, to do the best that's humanly possible. In the case of ailments that are known to occur in the breed.... & maybe tests exist.... it's another matter. This is my position only.... & I'm not telling the OP what to do, nor anyone else.

Very sensible, balanced, evidence-based post, SG. With a positive ending note for Chris, that it's a good time to get the behavioral assistance for the AmStaff. The pup is still young.... & has the benefit of plasticity in learning.

The drug companies sure hold the money bags, a great deal, for what research is funded. And they aim that towards what they see as commercially viablel goals. I wish the public funding of research could sustain the huge costs that are required from beginning to end of projects. Like, I think, the Human Genome Project was. Pity that the public funding from developed countries can't be combined to work on classes of antibiotics to deal with the superbugs. Which will then modify to become resistant ... & so the chain goes on. In the meantime, I welcome whatever research manages to come thro', like the one in the OP.