mita

If there was bias about dogs being used for hunting, then why did the RSPCA give any of those pig dogs the benefit of being tested? The research is clear that coming from a 'hunting' or 'fighting' background does not necessarily mean that the dogs will be human aggressive. So there's good reason to give the dogs the benefit of testing. As to the 'avoidance' behaviour, the Shelter Medicine for Vets & Staff manual points to how this is significant in how a dog can behave around children... & all dogs come in contact with children at some times.

The UK Daily Mail online has a fuller account. Seems there's been a lot of criticism since the story first broke on a local TV station. A large proportion is in civil language. But there's also been the usual nutters with death threats & wishes to 'burn in hell' (interesting that the funeral home involved described the lady as liking to read her Bible). Says that one poor vet assistant brought some of those extremists down on his head when it was thought he was the one who did the PTS. He didn't. He said it was legal, but he thinks it was morbid, in that the dog's body was in the open coffin with the owner. His own ethic would be to rehome. Which is what an expert on Guide Dogs is quoted as saying: Guide Dogs UK also made it clear that this case was unacceptable. Oliver Barton, regional director, said: 'We would never condone this. Whatever happens, we would make sure that the dog was happy and cared for' The son was in a hard position. Seems he carried out his mother's wishes to the letter. Another hypothetical son might have compromised by putting a photo of Toffee in the coffin. Our little dog was a pet therapy dog for a boy with a long drawn out terminal illness. He got so close to her. So his mother put a photo of the dog in his coffin with him, when he died. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303841/Blind-woman-s-HEALTHY-guide-dog-killed-buried-alongside-fulfilment-dying-wish.html

I'm asking questions because I don't have any expert knowledge about it. But isn't predatory aggression a distinctly different form of canine aggression? Where the dog's behaviours are actually different from when 'doing' territorial aggression or fear aggression? And aren't there degrees of it .... given how dogs are now so domesticated & socialised? Like, for many dogs, they go for non-prey substitutes ... like chasing moving 'things', like the lawn mower or cars? Or even more benign items, like toys? One thing that's come out of research is that dogs trained & used in prey hunting.... like pig dogs... don't necessarily transfer that to being aggressive with humans. Being aggressive to humans.... including children .... or being so fearful of them that they could act out of fear if cornered.... should be assessed as a separate factor. http://www.aspca.org/Pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-articles/predatory-behavior-in-dogs

And I responded to what you said you heard on the program .... that it was avoidance behaviour mentioned. And I asked a question.... was not having a go at you. I have no need to discomfort other people by doing that. A fair question... to which I don't know the answer. is there a criterion set by the RSPCA that there has to be a degree of comfort around children according to the response to the Doll Test? There certainly appears to be reference to the significance of child avoidance behaviours in the research & practice literature.

Is being reasonably comfortable around children .... as tested .... a criterion set for dogs rehomed by the RSPCA? Given that once out in the general environment dogs will at least at some time encounter children? And that small children & younger primary age children are the main target for dog bites. If so, makes sense to me. Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians & Staff says that avoidance behaviour by a dog in the Doll Test, should be teased out. A tester should shorten the leash preventing the dog from moving away from the 'approaching' doll. It seems that a child- avoiding dog, being 'cornered' by what they're trying to avoid can become aggressive. They point out this fits one major scenario for dogs' biting children. When they are tied up & a child 'gets in their face'. It seems that the RSPCA is knowledgeable about the research & practice literature.

But not all dogs can adapt to being in a new place away from their owners. I know of some who have adapted, but some don't. I think the original owner knows best whether their dog would be happy being re-homed or not. Note. in this case, there was a thorough assessment of the little dog for the purpose of matching with the type of home that would suit. Which went a large way to a successful rehoming. IF there had been no way of getting the little dog to adjust to a new home.... then that elderly lady would know that it could be more merciful for her to be PTS in the event of her death or move to a nursing home. This little dog was given the benefit of testing.... by experienced rescue people & experienced breed owners ... who knew what they were doing, And by a realistic owner who wanted to be the person who had full control of what would be best for her dog .... while she was in full command of her senses & alive. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy. This owner put the future to the test in the present. So the little dog would benefit, either way.

I agree that some people can't believe that a dog they've been so close with, could ever find an equally happy home after they'd died. Or even bond with another owner. Bravest & most sensible elderly lady I know of.... was facing failing health. She made a decision. While she was alive & reasonably well so could control the situation, she would find a new home for her beloved 10 yr old p/b tibbie. She wanted the comfort of seeing... & knowing... that her little dog was happy & settled without her. It threw a few people she asked for help, at first. But, as she pointed out.... she was doing something sooner rather than later.... & she'd be in control of who her dog would go to. Lot of people helped .... even a great lady from Cav Rescue Qld, who did an assessment of the tibbie. And whose assessment later on proved to be spot on. Well, that little tib found a brilliant home with Sydney people who already owned 2 tibbies. As soon as she put her paws into that house, she settled and has a wonderful life. Many months later, the elderly lady came to stay, & saw for herself that her dog had made a new life. And didn't worry when she left.

I didn't see the program so don't know if it was said one or more of the dogs from the 'pigging' background were PTS because they failed the test with the doll. If so, according to research studies, if a dog actually shows overt aggressive behaviour to the doll.... like biting ... then statistically it tends to be a dog that already has a pattern of aggressive behaviour towards humans. Also, given that dogs used for pigging are reinforced for aggressive attacks on another animal, the authors of Shelter Medicine made the point that dogs from such backgrounds (like dog fighting, too), should also be tested with other dogs. And they give specific details for doing so. They make the point that it's not invariable that all such dogs will fail the test with other dogs. A number, they point out, are totally reluctant to be aggressive with other dogs, even given their background. The authors also say, from their experience, a significant number of these dogs do not behave aggressively to humans. I would imagine that the RSPCA also tested these dogs with other dogs. The fact that the RSPCA gave these 'pigging' dogs the Doll Test, shows they know the research. It is not a foregone conclusion that dogs used in such a way will be aggressive towards humans. So they've been given the benefit of the doubt of 'facing' a test. And there's clear profiles, from research studies, on which responding behaviours in the Doll Test, signify already existing patterns of aggressive behaviour towards humans. Which appears to be what the RSPCA has then acted on.

There's been research testing the use of a doll to simulate a child, in behavioral assessment of dogs. In the studies, dogs with varying known histories were tested with a doll, so that responses to the test could be checked to see if and how they fitted with the dogs' already known patterns of behaviour. And hence would the test pick up something that was a fixed pattern. Their answer to,' Was the doll test a useful tool in evaluating a dog's propensity?'. can be read: here (Ontario Veterinary Behaviour): http://www.animalbehaviour.ca/ab2/do.php?target=training AND There's far more detailed information on why and how the 'doll' test is carried out, in this page of a book 'Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians & Staff;'. Far more than a brief TV segment. Can be read here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=os-tRPMnPF4C&pg=PA562&lpg=PA562&dq=Purpose+of+the+doll+test+to+simulate+a+child+with+dogs&source=bl&ots=qJxq7qqLgw&sig=vryd3NCQ_mBOlCZ_pFBBcZc4VXs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tTdeUb6iD8norAf2vIDoDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Purpose%20of%20the%20doll%20test%20to%20simulate%20a%20child%20with%20dogs&f=false

Which is what risk assessment is. It's assessment of risk in particular circumstances. But even with the best judgment call possible, based on that, we still can't predict the future with certainty. And something can still go pear-shaped in a rehoming. But 'good risk' assessment should at least decrease that possibility. And, conversely, increase the chances of homes working out.

The vet we've always taken our dogs to, when there's something serious or shows no signs of being self-limiting is Jennifer White at The Gap. She's very experienced & used to be in a practice at Ashgrove. Shows my estimation of her.... I worked at UQ and hugely respected the UQ Vet Clinic. But for tricky or chronic things that needed special individual care & problem-solving .... we'd go to Jennifer White. Still do. Our neighbours who've seen how she deals with our pets, now also drive across two suburbs to take their animals to her. One man owns champion greyhounds. Best of all, she really talks with her clients and listens to their observations. She doesn't have a 'recipe' approach but is a real problem-solver. She'll even answer the phone herself & talk with her clients on the phone. Her surgery is: The Glen Veterinary Surgery, 23 Glen Affric St, The Gap Phone (07) 3300 9444

Working at the pointy end of rescue, you would come across the casualties from the pointy end of breeders' rehoming of dogs that didn't work out for all sorts of reasons. Again, it's a matter of risk reduction. And, even tho' breeders (or anyone else) can't predict the future with accuracy, they can make a call based on estimating degree of risk in a particular situation. In fact, they have a welfare responsibility to do so. Just the same as anyone doing rehoming. .... rescue person, private pet owner. These are individual behaviours and can't be said to represent an entire group. At the other end are breeders like the one of whom a pet adopter said (tongue in cheek), 'I had to go thro' more hoops than when I adopted a child.' But the adopter saw it as positive, reflecting how the breeder valued her dogs. Similar attitude comes from the 'good' rescuers. So your point about the importance of making a risk assessment call before rehoming, is a fair one. But care needs to be taken not to over-generalise to an entire group from worst case examples ( not that I'm saying you're doing this).

From the Sydney Morning Herald Sept 12 2012. Seems Privacy Commissioner & the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have both said private use of drones needs to be debated: Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim said he was “particularly worried that this equipment can be easily purchased and used by individuals in their private capacity — the Privacy Act doesn't cover the actions of individuals in those circumstances. “For this reason and because of the potentially intrusive nature of the technology, I think that there needs to be public debate about the use of this technology and whether current regulations are sufficient to deal with any misuse.” Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said in an April ABC interview that some privacy issues around drones “really haven't been looked at a lot yet”, and while privacy falls outside CASA's area of responsibility “there'll probably need to be some debate at some point about that”.

That's an over-generalisation that's plain wrong. In the 3 breeds we've had a lot to do with, there's a realistic view among the majority of registered breeders about health and functioning issues. It's reflected in activities like having an international working party on health .... with representatives from participating countries (including Australia). In another, the breed club was headed by a registered breeder who was also an experienced science educator. In yet another, in a breed where deafness was a risk, the state breed club cooperated with UQ & researchers in human hearing problems to investigate means of trying to reduce risk .... & to deal with it. DOL forum posts often contain laments from registered breeders re unrealistic public expectations & perceptions about producing dogs that will remain 'perfect' throughout life. They're right that there can be magical thinking that there's God-like control over every ailment, known & unknown. God-like control doesn't exist for human medical care. Any owner who believes that buying from a registered breeder is the sole variable that 'should guarantee a healthy dog' needs a short, sharp course in science. What can be done, is to try to reduce risk .... but there's no such thing as 'no risk at all'. And frankly, the majority of registered breeders I've come across, have had the intelligence to know that difference.

Be careful of smartmouths with the Abba connection. My tibbie, Annie, was imported from Sweden ... with the name P'zazz Golden Annie. She's been nicknamed 'Abba Face'. :)

.... And every bit of actual scientific evidence on how best to to raise companion dogs, would lead me straight to a breeder who operates exactly as you do.

Hahaha! Seems lillypilly couldn't wait for me to have sorted all of the fosters here before getting the BT pups pic up... enjoy the double up peeps... lol! T. They're such heavenly creatures ... Maybe their 'angel' claws & teeth will go easy on you. :)

Another vote for plain yoghurt. His tummy healthy 'flora' needed replacing. So I'm not surprised you saw a difference in a short time.

Puck suits him perfectly. That's exactly what Shakespeare's Puck was like... a spirit full of jokes & mischief. "I am that merry wanderer of the night.' Here's an actor (dancer, in this case) playing Puck. See the resemblance to your boy? V. handsome pair. :) http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-ballet-presents-a-midsummer-night-s-dream

I heard that 3 'Angel' puppies, all shining white, fell out of heaven. Did they land at your place, lillypilly?

Tell those folk, if you can ever get them to speak to you again :) , that there's scientific evidence that registered breeders of purebreds are more likely to prevent the dumping of dogs. They tend to socialize their dogs well (& so prevent 'dumpable' behaviours developing) & they tend to have good control over numbers of litters. Supporting 'good' registered breeders is as valuable in promoting dog welfare as is supporting those who rescue and adopt homeless dogs. They're not in opposition .... they're dealing with two different ends of the homeless dog problem. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to keep two ideas in the head at the same time. Tell those folk that, too.

What a lovely way of putting it!

They've just given their intelligence quotient out of their own mouths. 'I hate dog breeders' is a generalisation which covers a huge range of diverse people doing different things that affect dog welfare differently. . It's also based on their emotions not on any reasoning, with evidence. So you're dead right when you say they can't be reasoned with in any way. This is what extremism looks like.

Sometimes the sign does all the work. :) Friends moved into a house in one of the posh suburbs. They ordered a few new items of furniture. But they were puzzled by deliverymen phoning before they came & asking was it OK to come to the front door. Mystery was solved when they found at the footpath end of the long driveway, a sign that said, 'Beware of the Dog'. It had been put up by the previous owners... & our friends simply hadn't noticed it. But all the deliverymen had! They didn't own a dog, but they decided to leave it there as it acted as a deterrent. At night it was lit up by the driveway solar lighting.

And rightly so. The Brisbane place has/had only one sign on the gate , not the two that's on the Victorian one. But it's interesting how that double signage really hits a person in the eye up front.