Cross Breeding And Dog Attacks

[Santo66]

You're assuming that shelter dogs are damaged dogs. That's simply not true as anyone one of the experienced rescuers in the rescue forum will be able to tell you. Shelter dogs are, for the most part, just like all the other dogs in the community. The vast majority go on to be safe, stable, happy citizens.

Haredown Whippet's point that thoughtfully bred dogs are important - whether crossbreed or not.

Why not get a shelter dog? cause why should someone have to be responsible for someone else's f*** up. As it is their kids and their neighborhood is the firing line if something goes wrong because of their history. It takes a dedicated rescue to home a abused/neglected/abandoned dog in the right home and sometimes this isn't getting done. If it does, that home then has to become as dedicated as a breeder (time and money)so that said dog is publicly sound. Some good homes couldn't even manage that, it is a big task and credit needs to go to those who do it. I know most probably don't need this but that is a risk one takes any dog is happy to get out of a cage. Some take weeks or months to show potential problems.

Shelters for the most part are cleaning up the mess left by BYB's, yet shelter people support the BYB in promotion of how good the produce is......it's that good no one wanted them to end up in a shelter in the first place. The shelter scene alone is a testament of too many random breeding's taking place for the wrong reasons. There shouldn't be thousands of dogs without a home which tells me the BYB production needs toning down somewhat?

[Staffyluv]

You're assuming that shelter dogs are damaged dogs. That's simply not true as anyone one of the experienced rescuers in the rescue forum will be able to tell you. Shelter dogs are, for the most part, just like all the other dogs in the community. The vast majority go on to be safe, stable, happy citizens.

Haredown Whippet's point that thoughtfully bred dogs are important - whether crossbreed or not.

Why not get a shelter dog? cause why should someone have to be responsible for someone else's f*** up. As it is their kids and their neighborhood is the firing line if something goes wrong because of their history. It takes a dedicated rescue to home a abused/neglected/abandoned dog in the right home and sometimes this isn't getting done. If it does, that home then has to become as dedicated as a breeder (time and money)so that said dog is publicly sound. Some good homes couldn't even manage that, it is a big task and credit needs to go to those who do it. I know most probably don't need this but that is a risk one takes any dog is happy to get out of a cage. Some take weeks or months to show potential problems.

I have had quite a few 'shelter' dogs here and not one has been aggressive in any way. No food or toy aggression or possessiveness was displayed by any of them.

My own boy is a testament to this - he is a pound mutt (bull breed of unknown origin) and he shares his food, bones, toys, bed and me with every foster that walks in our front door and not once, ever has he ever shown any sign of aggression..

My lad was attacked at obedience training yesterday by a well bred, papered GSD - her owner comments about her 'wonderful' breeding.

My boy, didn't react - he simply run to me and I blocked the GSD from getting near him and her owner and a couple of other caught her, leashed her and she left.

By some of the comments here, being a bull breed of unknown origin, he really should attack everything that walks into our house and should have given the GSD a run for her money. But he didn't and I don't believe he ever would. He has an amazing temperament and because of him, I can continue to foster bull breeds of unknown origin and find them wonderful homes - like the ones that have already been through my home.

Shelter dogs are not broken, they are just discarded by a wasteful society of selfish people who have no idea how to manage a dog that they should never have acquired in the first place..

Every dog deserves a home - but not every home deserves a dog.

[dog_fan]

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders.

The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that

Bad breeding is not the reason for attacks. Poorly bred dogs with dedicated owners who manage them appropriately are not a public safety risk. Neglectful owners and ignorant owners with well-bred dogs are a public safety risk. The important factor is management.

Rubbish, unprovoked aggression is in the breeding, the genetics of the dog, until people accept this, there is not much hope of improvement really

I can take the best bred dog with a great temperament and make it into a fear biter or an aggressive dog simply by managing it poorly and treating it badly.

Breeding is not the cause of dog attacks the causes can be lack of awareness of the species and their needs, lack of proper management, a propensity for dog owners to think they are above the law, a lack of common sense etc.

I watch every single day dog owners walking the streets with dogs who are unleashed, who do not pick up the crap of their dogs, who leave their dogs untethered outside shops, who let their dogs wander and who really have the attitude that their dog is ok.....but in whose eyes are they ok? I live in Victoria where the "draconian laws" are in place which seem to have made no difference to managing dogs well.

Councils need to do what they are aid to do by rate payers and that is to police their area for breaches of their laws and by-laws and to fine people who are not obeying those laws.

You can laugh all you like but people must be responsible for their property, their dogs and if they are not they need to suffer the consequences which should be hefty fines.

ETA I live in inner city Melbourne known more for hipsters not bogans

Edited August 26, 2013 by dog_fan

[~Anne~]

I think the world is big enough for the mutt and the purebred. I don't particularly want to see a world without either.

Edited August 26, 2013 by ~Anne~

[Steve]

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders.

The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that

No I know we wont stop everyone from breeding for aggression and I know we wont stop people wanting aggressive dogs but I do think we can have a fair shot at making more people responsible.

Lets assume that bad breeding is the problem and people will always end up with cranky dogs.What should people who end up with cranky dogs do with them? Do we just allow them to blame the breeder for breeding this cranky dog and therefore eliminate their responsibility as an owner to manage it and keep the dog , other animals and people safe?

Lets assume that wanting to own cranky dogs is the problem - what should people who own cranky dogs and who have chosen to take them on knowing they will be cranky do with them? Do we just allow them to blame the fact that they wanted a cranky dog and that's what they have so they have no responsibility to manage it and ensure the dog, other animals and people are safe?

We actually do have a strategic plan to make dog owners more responsible, to make councils more accountable and communities move toward cleaning it all up and that's without one more law.

[Steve]

I think the world is big enough for the mutt and the purebred. I don't particularly want to see a world without either.

Yep me too.

[melzawelza]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

[Staffyluv]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

Sadly there will always be people who can't see the forest for the trees and will always blame breed..

Just wanted to say congrats on Team Dog.

[Angeluca]

You're assuming that shelter dogs are damaged dogs. That's simply not true as anyone one of the experienced rescuers in the rescue forum will be able to tell you. Shelter dogs are, for the most part, just like all the other dogs in the community. The vast majority go on to be safe, stable, happy citizens.

Haredown Whippet's point that thoughtfully bred dogs are important - whether crossbreed or not.

Why not get a shelter dog? cause why should someone have to be responsible for someone else's f*** up. As it is their kids and their neighborhood is the firing line if something goes wrong because of their history. It takes a dedicated rescue to home a abused/neglected/abandoned dog in the right home and sometimes this isn't getting done. If it does, that home then has to become as dedicated as a breeder (time and money)so that said dog is publicly sound. Some good homes couldn't even manage that, it is a big task and credit needs to go to those who do it. I know most probably don't need this but that is a risk one takes any dog is happy to get out of a cage. Some take weeks or months to show potential problems.

You are either Skimming my statements or just not reading then I don't think I wrote the word Bogan in this thread yet. But to inform you oxford dictionary meaning

bogan, n. An unfashionable, uncouth, or unsophisticated person, esp. regarded as being of low social status.

Low social status meaning those undesirable to a social environment.

This would go on to be interpreted as those disruptive to a community, lacking of social rules and further lack of any regard to actual laws.

I said Morons which I have stated what my idea of a moron is in a previous post and you can find it as there where quite a few examples

This above statement was to a question 'why not just get a shelter dog' = Answer 'Why should we have to' and see above in bold to state i know most probably don't need that sort of care but it is a chance one takes even if odds are good.

Making stuff up! one of my post actually state this is HYPOTHETICAL, Based on opinions, and both unsubstantiated and substantiated experiences. (This does not call people liars but unless witnessed it is heresay) The purpose of this thread is to get people this dog forums opinions on current dog issues.

we are not writing a proposal.

Whatever you find distasteful is you opinion. If you want clarification of my meaning by all means ask, and dislike it or disagree if you please (point of this topic is to state ones own opinion), But please don't place words within my comments 'bogan and working class' never mentioned in fact socioeconomic status wasn't mentioned.

one of my actual but of cause unsubstantiated experiences was with a home owner (the shar pei breeding) But economic status was left out for the reason of irrelevance.

I have mention in a few comments now my statement was extreme to entice the discussion as I have seen people passionate about these issues and it is usually going of topic to those topics so I started one based on opinion.

[Angeluca]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

Edited August 26, 2013 by Angeluca

[dog_fan]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions.

[tdierikx]

Angeluca - I understand that you are putting forward a potential/hypothetical "solution" to a "problem" as you see it... but can you eleborate on WHO is going to enforce your solution, and HOW they are going to be able to do it effectively? Given that the already myriad laws and regulations we have now are not being effectively policed or enforced...

My solution is simple - put people on the ground in those positions tasked with policing the CURRENT laws, and you may actually see a decline in the numbers of people pumping out litters willy nilly for a "quick buck". Just imagine council rangers surfing all those buy and sell websites, then dropping in on the sellers to check the vaccination and microchip status of all the animals on the premises... with lovely fines for each animal that isn't chipped or registered...

I'd like to also see council rangers effectively being on call outside of business hours and on weekends - on a rotating roster of course. Animals don't confine themselves to being lost or in need of help during business hours after all... and why should the general public have to pick up the slack there to get an animal to the nearest pound or shelter?

T.

[Angeluca]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions.

Malicious isn't an emotion.

oxford meaning=

adjective

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm:

he was found guilty of malicious damage

a hotbed of rumour and malicious chit-chat

the transmission of malicious software such as computer viruses

I would class rushing into the home of that little girl malicious.

When someone is malicous they intend to do harm, the human emotion behind it could be interpreted as Nasty, mean, spiteful or unpleasant.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Angeluca

[dog_fan]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions.

Malicious isn't an emotion.

oxford meaning=

adjective

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm:

he was found guilty of malicious damage

a hotbed of rumour and malicious chit-chat

the transmission of malicious software such as computer viruses

I would class rushing into the home of that little girl malicious.

Then you would be wrong.

[sandgrubber]

1377494455[/url]' post='6284748']

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

I agree with the theory behind Team Dog. But dog bite statistics have worsened in Calgary over the last five years or so...perhaps it's just reported attacks...but there's no evidence of sustained decline. Google 'Calgary dog attack' and you'll see that the problem persists. For data see

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Documents/Animal-Services/Animal-statistics/Reports%20of%20Dog%20Aggression%20Over%20Time.pdf

[Angeluca]

Angeluca - I understand that you are putting forward a potential/hypothetical "solution" to a "problem" as you see it... but can you eleborate on WHO is going to enforce your solution, and HOW they are going to be able to do it effectively? Given that the already myriad laws and regulations we have now are not being effectively policed or enforced...

My solution is simple - put people on the ground in those positions tasked with policing the CURRENT laws, and you may actually see a decline in the numbers of people pumping out litters willy nilly for a "quick buck". Just imagine council rangers surfing all those buy and sell websites, then dropping in on the sellers to check the vaccination and microchip status of all the animals on the premises... with lovely fines for each animal that isn't chipped or registered...

I'd like to also see council rangers effectively being on call outside of business hours and on weekends - on a rotating roster of course. Animals don't confine themselves to being lost or in need of help during business hours after all... and why should the general public have to pick up the slack there to get an animal to the nearest pound or shelter?

T.

Yes i agree, but as stated page one or two my opinion on why that isn't happening, And some of the current laws fail on large scales even with enforcement after all they allow farming.

And I agree with 24 hour contact to council ranger, not 2 days a go I had a beautiful looking mastiff in my horse paddock playing with my dogs who were in their pen. this was at 11pm, I have a girl locked on the enclosed veranda and locked in her crate who is in season, which is why is was probably visiting. I told him to pi** off and he growled at me and ran away, I was within my house yard and knowingly safe, and I interpret his growl as 'leave me alone don't chase me'. But the point was he was not where he should be at the wrong time of day.

And why should the public risk approaching a strange dog, the boy in my yard wasn't aggressive but if he didn't leave and acting on his sensors due to girl in season and I cornered him and put a rope on him and tried to shove him in my car to keep my girl safe, what would he have done?

But if you ring some councils during office hours with a strange dog on the property they say' try and catch it'. which would mean close proximity cause most normal people don't have a lunge bar or whatever they are called they are unable to come out until later this afternoon or until tomorrow cause our range is not on duty today.

The government failure just keeps on going.

[Angeluca]

Why is there a six page thread on this just putting forward lots of opinions with no actual data to back them up, when we already have a successful model of animal management in existence that dramatically reduces dog attacks in the community? Hint - the system does not focus on breeds, or breeding.

Team Dog - the Solution

for your question on why is there 6 pages of opinions, cause that is what the thread is for not one of us are in a position (that we admit to) to enact any ideas. Lots of people have an idea on why some things are the way they are. It's not just attacks it is all dog issues from attacks to irresponsible breeding eg puppy farms and BYBs, current laws, new proposals and the failure in both and so on

I can't list them all in topic heading as there is not enough room so I put the 2 most serious and put AND not causing.

I stated in my opening topic that I think crossbreeds cause most the attacks.

Your link does look like a great solution to the attack problem, but not the bad breeding practices and the genetic component which regardless of if it is a minority reason, Some genetics does cause a higher risk then others and that crossed with bad ownership = human death. Most dog attacks don't result in serious injury let alone death this would be the example of majority environmental component.

Most dogs would never set out to Kill a human, these ones that maliciously do regardless of breeding style are badly bred on the genetic component, to ignore that is a failure to those who have died and a failure to those who will be killed.

In my opinion....

Dogs do nothing maliciously, they are not human and do not have human emotions.

Malicious isn't an emotion.

oxford meaning=

adjective

characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm:

he was found guilty of malicious damage

a hotbed of rumour and malicious chit-chat

the transmission of malicious software such as computer viruses

I would class rushing into the home of that little girl malicious.

Then you would be wrong.

How? and what is my thinking a dog running into a strange house and killing a child

the dog didn't run into the house for a cookie!

or the meaning of Malicious?

Edited August 26, 2013 by Angeluca

[Aphra]

The reasons why the dog who killed Ayen Chol have nothing to do with malice or even genetics and everything to do with an unsocialised dog who was in a state of high arousal and a great deal of pain.

That tragedy can be laid squarely at the feet of its owners and their lack of care, lack of management and criminal lack of compassion.

The coroner's report is publically available if you'd like to find out what did happen.

[corvus]

Check definitions of "malice". The implication is a deed done with evil intent, mean-spirited, spiteful.

I am surprised to see people persisting in the belief that other people disobey laws because they are not enforced and getting compliance would be as simple as enforcing the law. There is nothing to suggest it is necessarily that simple. Check this interesting book out: http://www.psych.nyu.edu/tyler/lab/Chapters_1-4.pdf

Honestly, I am fine approaching strange dogs and taking responsibility for them until someone else can. I see that as my civic duty. I have reunited many lost dogs with their owners or left them at the vet where they have had their microchip details retrieved. I've shared a campsite 4 hours from the nearest medical help in a non-English-speaking country with a rabid fox. I'm not that worried about dealing with a wandering dog. The vast majority of them are friendly, accurately representing the dog population as a whole in this country, as it happens

[Angeluca]

The reasons why the dog who killed Ayen Chol have nothing to do with malice or even genetics and everything to do with an unsocialised dog who was in a state of high arousal and a great deal of pain.

That tragedy can be laid squarely at the feet of its owners and their lack of care, lack of management and criminal lack of compassion.

The coroner's report is publically available if you'd like to find out what did happen.

I read that inquest and not anywhere does it say 'aroulsal or subsequent pain in the animal' it does however stereo type the breed as rapidly aggressive and without warning in section 33 Dr Dunnett's statement.

34 states no external wounds to the dog, dog has calluses sprayed with insect repellant by Dr Crosser

38 qquote'this breed according to documents tendered(20), and the evidence of the veterinarian, Dr Dunnett, had a propensity to attack and that there were no specific indicators of the likely onset of an attack.' end quote

It also concluded that the owners deliberately mislead council at insisting their previously deseased GSD was still alive,they lied about knowing the breed of dog when owner's cousin bred the dog who also denied knowing the breed even though there were informed by Dr Michael Beattie attended the property to vacinat 2 litters of american pit bulls one of which the dog in question was born, he informed owner at this time they were pit bulls . The vet also attended annually to vacinate the dog and other Pit bulls by his identification at this property.

It states that the dogs were not contained to the regulations of the restricted breed and it was not enforced as council were not aware of the breed.

It conclude that the owner and breeder full knowledge of the law and had absolute disregard for the law.

86 - 93 find that the owner's failure to comply with particulars including containment contributing factors

94 Finds the knowing bred and supplied a restricted breed and the unauthorized breeding contributing to death

95 finds that if the breeder would have complied to the neutered the breeding pair, the dog would never had been produced, attack would not have occured and the death could have been prevented.

Can you explain where you got your information from?