Aidan3

Which is pretty much all of them (with some exceptions). It would be hard to say they weren't getting enough exercise (although I wouldn't rule that out as a possible factor in the captive wolf problem).

My old Golden caught a water rat recently, then just let it go. He had to free-dive off a steep cliff and into water to catch it. I would say he has pretty good prey drive. He once caught a wallaby, more by chance than anything, the poor wallaby got his leg caught in some fallen branches. Django sniffed around, almost as if he was pretending it wasn't there. I put him on leash before I freed the wallaby (who was not injured thankfully).

There is an opinion that wolves, being closely related to dogs and studied closely both in the wild and in captivity, are a good model to draw on in discussion on social structure. Wolves usually have more than one cub so there is a valid analogy there. Though valid, there are a number of problems with the analogy, so it must be carefully considered and used accurately.

Yes, dogs are social animals and social structures that sometimes resemble those of wolves. However, wolves have plenty of problems, amplified greatly in captivity (when they can't leave). Dogs don't tend to form stable packs when left to their own devices, but sometimes they do, it seems to depend on what suits them best for survival. On average, you would expect most dogs to get along pretty well regardless of who eats first, walks through doors first etc Consistency makes life easier and leads to far less tension and uncertainty, but there are definitely people who follow all the "rules" consistently and still have problems. It's difficult to guarantee anything with dogs unfortunately.

Breed is a factor, individual differences are a factor, ownership is a factor, socialisation is a factor, training is a factor, and there are a whole bunch of other factors. The odds of having a serious problem are fairly low across the entire population of dogs. Most people with littermates will not have a serious problem, even rank novices, but enough problems occur to recommend against it. The odds increase sharply with pups of the same age, again with pups from the same litter, again same sex, with bitches from the same litter being the highest risk.

Ligers are pretty much my favourite animal. They are bred for their skills in magic.

You've got to wonder how seriously they were taking it themselves.

I'm not certain how this rapture business works, so forgive me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't even the most ardent atheist be a "true-believer" if it actually happened, and therefore end up going too? If so, then this is a total scam!

x2, good suggestion.

Link's not working for me. Fixed now.

.

Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them

If you have any references filed away somewhere handy, I'd love to see them

Nosework, it can be as simple as hiding a treat under a towel or hiding dinner around the yard.

There is a lot of data describing how many children get bitten, where it happens, where they get bitten, age, relationship with dog etc but not a lot of data describing the personalities of the dogs involved (breed at most). My observations of dogs with what some describe as "solid nerve" is that they tend to have better impulse control and are better at regulating their own behaviour, so I would have fewer concerns about a bomb-proof dog 1. biting in the first place or 2. mounting a more serious attack. My GSD does not have solid nerve but she is remarkable with children. It's difficult to make any sort of generalisation with temperament, with dogs being a collection of traits (that might be conflicting in different domains) and a product of nature and nurture. My biggest concern is with dogs who have been punished for showing signs of fear, uncertainty or aggression; such as growling, barking, lunging, excitability or attempting to escape. All dogs will naturally make every attempt to avoid an actual bite or physical confrontation, but we so often interpret these attempts as aggression in itself and try to "correct" them. But oh well, I suppose dogs "must" have a consequence for growling or barking... isn't that what they tell us?

Excellent! Bob Bailey told a story about training cats to follow people with a radio transmitter.

Perhaps hearsay to those who don't have the experience of them. So, what, it's okay to just make up facts if you have experience in the matter? Are those with experience exempt from providing sound reasoning that holds up to critical scrutiny? That is exactly how hearsay comes about. If I had a dollar for every time someone said something that is erroneous about dogs that they had heard from someone more experienced with dogs than they are, then I could fund my own research. You don't need experience in something to recognise hearsay. You just need the ability to type something into Google and start nosing around. Results speak, Corvus. Whether you and your solid reliance on scientific proof like it or not, results speak. Results are not hearsay. And I said nothing about making up facts so I don't know why you brought that pearl into your post . There is an awful lot of hearsay in dog training, just saying I think it was a general comment, people with experience can and do say stuff that later proves to be incorrect. History is full of these examples, it happens in science too.

That's exactly what I kept trying to tell her. That it was how you raise them. But for some reason she was adament that some were more prone to attacking or 'turning' than others and that others (labs) had a more gentle nature..... she just wouldn't listen when I said that it is how YOU raise them, not what kind of breed they are. She really gave me the poos. In a sense she is right. It's not entirely nurture and it's not entirely nature. Over-representation of breeds in bite statistics is partly due to breed characteristics (wanted or unwanted) and partly due to the demographic of their owners. Dog owners can do a lot to keep risks down and so can parents of children.

We wouldn't necessarily expect the behaviour to change in the absence of food treats unless some sensible attempt was made to take them out of the picture. It's fair to say the behaviour has changed, but you've got a way to go before you reach your goal and perhaps would benefit from some one on one help in achieving this sooner. Professional help would offer the most efficient solution, and it's the sort of problem that benefits from an efficient solution. It's certainly not abnormal for pups to resource guard, and it's definitely not a dominance issue, but it's very useful to be able to take anything from your dogs and may save their life, or avoid damage to someone else one day.

This someone did! Thank goodness, I thought DOL was losing some of it's flavour! I think JD should probably have a look at the extraordinary influence of the Nuremberg trials on ethics committees, and why it's very difficult to make the sort of errors of judgment that he is implying.

This is a very ripe debate, from either position there are pros and cons that are valid arguments and this is probably reflected in the diversity of policies that universities themselves have formed. I don't think it would be unreasonable to research the psychological effects either, it's clearly one of those jobs that takes a toll on many and if we are to value vets, we should learn more about how we can help them do their job without making unreasonable personal sacrifice.

Good grief. First a comparison between vet students and a Nazi War criminal, now the Nuremberg Defense? It's starting to get pretty tiresome. Someone should have invoked Godwin's Law before now.

It seems like an attractive option but what might some of the negatives be? Be careful what you wish for, this might be the path we head down in this country. I think it would be good to provide an incentive for people to become responsible dog owners (register their dogs, go to obedience classes, spay and neuter).

I wouldn't mention it if I didn't have a good reason and I know I'm not the only one who thinks it, so if he is genuine at least he has the opportunity to set the record straight. He is under no obligation, of course, this is the internet after all.

I can't see where you have been insulted, poodiful1?