Boy 9 Seriously Injured In Dog Attack

[Snoopy21]

And it is quite insulting that you seem to assume that I am a terrible parent who puts her children at risk by having these sorts of dogs in her home. You are insinuating that that is the case for all people who have both children and large dogs, bull breed dogs, mastiffs, cross breed dogs of any description or dogs from 'dodgy' breeders. Unless of course they train dogs for bitework in which case it is ok to have those dogs around their kids.

[moosmum]

Amax, I think your views are coloured by your extensive experience with dogs of a particular "type" and application ie. those suited or potentially suited to protection type work. I don't know that you can extrapolate that to all dogs in all situations.

I don't know if there is research but I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of dogs that growl during play, including tug, where it is not a sign of fear at losing the item but rather a response to the arousal of play.

Actually, I have been fortunate I guess given that playing tug with potential service dogs and raising puppies for that line of work has extended into people asking me for demonstrations and teaching the game of tug with owners of many breeds. Growling on the tug is sign of pressure that exceeds play....play and excitement in prey drive exhibits high pitched yaps and whines which to date I am yet experience anything different from any breed, not that I have played tug with every breed of course, perhaps there are some breeds who growl in pleasure and if that's the case I will stand to be corrected from the people experienced with growly breeds.

Growling in general terms is a precursor to bite aggressively, and although they will all growl eventually dependant on pressure applied and threshold at which a dog switches into defence drive, early growlers on a tug toy with little pressure I have found in the breeds I have tested and taken an interest in the phenomena, have also been the dogs more prone to resource guarding with an aggressive response.

If you watch a dog carefully playing tug; on the initial bite and tug there is no growling, then as the dog tugs harder and the handler tugs harder against the dog, the growling begins......then if the handler releases the pressure where the dog starts to win......the growling stops. The growling is actually the dog switching into defence drive to retain and win the tug, in other words protection mode of the possession is what the growling indicates.

...."Play and excitement in prey drive exhibits high pitched yaps and whines" This may well be true of dogs when prey drive is the dominant factor.

My last dog was working guardian breed. Not the 1st, last or only. She NEVER gave high pitched yaps or whines, even as very young pup. Growls were her way of vocalizing and she would growl on the tug from the word go,or even to get my attention. She was very vocal with the growls in play with dogs and people. There was a distinct difference in tone when the growl was meant as a warning. In that case tho', she rarely growled but would "roar". That was never misunderstood and she never had cause to do any more than that.

Mostly she would work silently with out vocalization, using her body to block, herd or slow the target into compliance.

She was not a resource guarder, never bit another human or animal in her 14 years but but would come growling and grumbling to me to to let me know she couldn't get to her dish for the kitten sitting in it, or to wake me in the night if anything needed my attention.

I don't think generalizations do people or the dogs any favours where behaviour is concerned.

P.S. On truely stable dogs not requiring any socialization... That may be true to an extent. However the flip side can be a dog that reacts with out visible warning "out of the blue" . After seeing "bombproof" dogs, and horses do just that I think I would be very wary of a dog whos owner tells me their dog hasn't been socialized because its "stable" and doesn't need it. A bit of honest reaction I think is both justifiable and normal.

Edited January 28, 2014 by moosmum

[Amax-1]

Sure, there are people who own large strong breeds who shouldn't. That is far different from your blanket statement of:

In my experience people have a pair of dogs like this for one reason and that's intimidation factor which usually comes with allowing the flexing of some muscle being signs in the dog they appreciate, then one day sadly this happens.

The fact is, people do purchase dogs like these mentioned for home protection and intimidation factor and when they have attacked and hospitalised a child, the reason for having these dogs in the first place needs to be considered. We need to be mindful of the market strength of especially BYB Bull breeds purposely bred on aggressive dogs to cater for people who either can't buy traditional protection breeds as the breeders won't sell to them or they won't pay the price for a quality dog and if someone does want a couple of dogs aside from a pet to offer some protection factor, dogs bred BYB on powerful breeds are easily accessible and cheap to attain with many purposely bred on the history of aggressive ancestors.

I do have some basic understanding of how gene expression is impacted by environment - something which you seem to have overlooked.)

Environmental factor is too often accounted for dog attacks where the dog involved been of greater genetic environmental stability, the attack wouldn't have happened in the first place. Too many people don't take into consideration the character and temperament of the dogs involved in attacks blaming environmental factor where in fact in many cases the dog in question wasn't of sound enough temperament for the pet market in the hands of inexperienced owners. Too often the owners of attacking dogs claim that the dog has never shown aggression, perhaps not that their experience allowed them to see, but I will guarantee if the dog was assessed by a competent trainer or behaviourist, they would have seen aggressive behaviour in the dog manifesting which the owners have misinterpreted until the dog did attack by then is too late when someone has suffered injury as the result.

You are insinuating that that is the case for all people who have both children and large dogs, bull breed dogs, mastiffs, cross breed dogs of any description or dogs from 'dodgy' breeders

.

Any dogs especially large dogs of a guardian breed history need to be examined for soundness of temperament more so with BYB's and random crossbreeds as the breeders of these dogs are generally making puppies. Breeding for temperament and environmental soundness takes years of breeding experience and knowledge of ancestry as any dedicated breeder will tell you, merely putting together a pair of dogs to create a lucky dip litter is hardly breeding for temperament is it?

P.S. On truely stable dogs not requiring any socialization... That may be true to an extent. However the flip side can be a dog that reacts with out visible warning "out of the blue" . After seeing "bombproof" dogs, and horses do just that I think I would be very wary of a dog whos owner tells me their dog hasn't been socialized because its "stable" and doesn't need it. A bit of honest reaction I think is both justifiable and normal.

Unsocialised dogs facing a new experience can do three things basically. 1:Do nothing. 2:Flee from the unknown in fear. 3:Perceive the unknown as a threat and respond aggressively. IME, the dogs who react "out of the blue" are dogs not so stable in environmental strength that their true character has been masked by heavy socialisation. An unsocialised dog who doesn't react to new experiences either by fight or flight will always be the dog of greater genetic environmental stability. In a breeding program, not socialising dogs is often used to breed on dogs who exhibit genetic soundness over dogs who's apparent stability is the result of training/socialisation.

For a pet dog, socialisation is a must and good practice, but my point in regard to this is good genetically sound dog in character doesn't need socialisation to prevent adverse reaction to new experiences as they simply don't care what's new due to their extreme in self confidence, that is they see nothing as scary or threatening to cause reactivity.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Amax-1

[apocalypsepwnie]

Wow Amax-1, I don't mean to feed the trolls but srsly.

I see here that you've not been handed the title of 'Dog Behaviour God' in life and are desperately trying to earn it. I think you are wasting your time trying to shove your very biased opinions down other people's throats.

All dogs can bite. All dogs can snap one day. Unfortunately some dogs are just capable of more harm due to their size ratio.

Many dog attacks can be put down to the owner's negligence and/or people not being well equipt to be around dogs. That's when the dog suffers for no reason by being PTS.

Just so you know, I grew up with bullbreed dogs. I also own one now. I'd trust my bullbreed with my step kids 100 times over a toy breed. But that's my experience. BLS is bullshit. Enough said. Stop blaming the breed.

I hope this boy and their family are able to recover as best as possible and know this was the individual dog and the circumstances. Again unfortunately the causes of attacks are rarely given because that doesn't make a good news story.

[~Anne~]

I see here that you've not been handed the title of 'Dog Behaviour God' in life and are desperately trying to earn it.

I know I shouldn't say this but apocalypsepwnie - that first statement is a cracker and I love it! :laugh:

Edited January 28, 2014 by ~Anne~

[Amax-1]

Wow Amax-1, I don't mean to feed the trolls but srsly.

I see here that you've not been handed the title of 'Dog Behaviour God' in life and are desperately trying to earn it. I think you are wasting your time trying to shove your very biased opinions down other people's throats.

All dogs can bite. All dogs can snap one day. Unfortunately some dogs are just capable of more harm due to their size ratio.

Many dog attacks can be put down to the owner's negligence and/or people not being well equipt to be around dogs. That's when the dog suffers for no reason by being PTS.

Just so you know, I grew up with bullbreed dogs. I also own one now. I'd trust my bullbreed with my step kids 100 times over a toy breed. But that's my experience. BLS is bullshit. Enough said. Stop blaming the breed.

I hope this boy and their family are able to recover as best as possible and know this was the individual dog and the circumstances. Again unfortunately the causes of attacks are rarely given because that doesn't make a good news story.

I haven't blamed breed at all, not sure where you got that idea from other than defence reaction because you own one. What I have said quite clearly is they way some of these breeds and crossbreeds are bred loosely speaking by people who lack the knowledge to be breeding dogs in the first place.

There is no question that the owner of a dog is responsible for it's actions, that's a given, but my point in this is the ownership of a dog who is not possessed with sharpness, fear and reactive aggression takes a lot less vigilance for inexperienced owners to prevent situations as occurred in this attack. The fact is that all dogs don't bite and attack people mismanaged or not. There are plenty of massively irresponsible owners out there who grossly mismanage their dogs who don't bite people because they essentially own a good environmentally stable dog in the first place.

[Salukifan]

There are plenty of massively irresponsible owners out there who grossly mismanage their dogs who don't bite people because they essentially own a good environmentally stable dog in the first place.

OMG - for once I am in complete agreement with you on that. Levels of reactivity, bite thresholds and bite inhibition MATTER. So does the overall size of the dog in terms of the damage it can do. But size is not the only determinant of a dog's level of threat - genes DO matter to a degree.

And, most importantly with powerful dogs with low triggers to react and low bite inhibition so does socialisation. As Karen Delise, any dog is only as dangerous as it's owner allows it to be. This dog would have been totally safe if it had been secured away from the child.

And as for bull/guarding breed mixes?? Cross dogs bred for low bite inhibition and low triggers to react but with no HA with a guarding breed with a high bite threshold but more prone to HA and do the math on that lottery. Add breeders who give no consideration to such factors and then owners with no idea about any of this and who fail to socialise and manage and all I can say is thank God most such dogs are decent animals.

But when they ain't....

Edited January 28, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Amax-1]

There are plenty of massively irresponsible owners out there who grossly mismanage their dogs who don't bite people because they essentially own a good environmentally stable dog in the first place.

OMG - for once I am in complete agreement with you on that. Levels of reactivity, bite thresholds and bite inhibition MATTER. So does the overall size of the dog in terms of the damage it can do.

Absolutely it does matter in the family pet market and IMHO needs to be taken into consideration and addressed as part of a dog attack enquiry. The best of owners can drop the ball for second and if they own a dog on a hair spring trigger to react in aggressive attack, these horrific incidents will sadly continue. I applaud the breeders out there who work on temperament and stability in the pet dog market. When I think of some of the GSD's bred 20 years ago and what is bred today in terms of improvements in environmental strength and soundness of temperament is a testament of how good breeding practices produces good dogs.

[Snoopy21]

When talking about the interplay of environment and genetics I am talking about epigenetics NOT about the immediate environment. You can't say "bred bad will bite" or "bred well safe dog" because within either category there are genetic extremes and the experiences a dog has can change its dna (turn genes on or off). On top of that there is training, socialisation and management. Then bring in the immediate environmental factors and look at the situation knowing ALL the factors involved. Then you can come to me and tell me that a dog's breed is what caused an attack.

[Salukifan]

When talking about the interplay of environment and genetics I am talking about epigenetics NOT about the immediate environment. You can't say "bred bad will bite" or "bred well safe dog" because within either category there are genetic extremes and the experiences a dog has can change its dna (turn genes on or off). On top of that there is training, socialisation and management. Then bring in the immediate environmental factors and look at the situation knowing ALL the factors involved. Then you can come to me and tell me that a dog's breed is what caused an attack.

No one is saying that breed alone is what makes dogs dangerous. And you most definitely cannot say that any dog of a particular breed will be dangerous OR safe (hence the lunacy of BSL).

But if you're going to say that a breed bred specifically to aggress towards unknown humans (and there are such breeds) will be statistically more likely to bite than one bred to display no aggression towards humans be they known or unknown then I'd say that is a total no brainer.

And when, with no thought to a dog's function, levels of triggering to aggression, HA, bite inhibtiion and bite threshold, you MIX breeds then I'd say you are increasing the chances of issues.

[Snoopy21]

I know that. I was exaggerating to make my point. As I said earlier - there are just not enough details in the story for anyone to judge. But Amax immediately blamed 'these sort of dogs' and 'their muscle-flexing owners' and it is that insinuation that I disagree with.

I would also agree that there are some breeds that are more likely to be aggressive towards humans. But there are also a lot of dogs that are more likely to be aggressive because of their upbringing and environment. The two things work together and focussing on one at the exclusion of the other is foolish.

[Salukifan]

I know that. I was exaggerating to make my point. As I said earlier - there are just not enough details in the story for anyone to judge. But Amax immediately blamed 'these sort of dogs' and 'their muscle-flexing owners' and it is that insinuation that I disagree with.

I would also agree that there are some breeds that are more likely to be aggressive towards humans. But there are also a lot of dogs that are more likely to be aggressive because of their upbringing and environment. The two things work together and focussing on one at the exclusion of the other is foolish.

The trick, which NEVER happens in these situations, is to keep an open mind and ask questions about everything.

[Simply Grand]

I would also agree that there are some breeds that are more likely to be aggressive towards humans. But there are also a lot of dogs that are more likely to be aggressive because of their upbringing and environment. The two things work together and focussing on one at the exclusion of the other is foolish.

+1

[Amax-1]

I know that. I was exaggerating to make my point. As I said earlier - there are just not enough details in the story for anyone to judge. But Amax immediately blamed 'these sort of dogs' and 'their muscle-flexing owners' and it is that insinuation that I disagree with.

I would also agree that there are some breeds that are more likely to be aggressive towards humans. But there are also a lot of dogs that are more likely to be aggressive because of their upbringing and environment. The two things work together and focussing on one at the exclusion of the other is foolish.

These type of dogs in the attack are extremely common to the muscle flexing fraternity. I have been to countless attendances at premises with such dogs and rarely these days are traditional guardian breeds seen. Once upon a time it was GSD's, Rotties and Dobes, but of late it's been Bull breed mixtures bred on aggressive dogs in large volumes that are easily accessible at minimal cost.

It's actually complete nonsense that any dog can be made aggressive if it's not already there genetically. When assessing dogs for suitability in working roles where aggression is a necessity, most GSD's and Rotties fail, that is they are not aggressive enough to be trained for the job. Poor raising and allowing dogs to show aggression creates the problem, but the dog needs to be a dog low on threshold to aggression in the first place for this to work out. The muscle flexing fraternity would be lucky to train a dog to sit on command, so they can't adapt a quality dog of stable temperament to bite someone on command as we can in professional training, so they select a dog with a predisposition for aggression from the BYB's who purposely breed for it is what happens unfortunately.

If I had the opportunity to investigate this dog attack, instead of euthanising these dogs and closing the case as they do, I would investigate who bred these dogs and take a look at what they are up to. If the breeders of these dogs were purposely breeding for aggression or mindlessly putting breed mixtures of powerful origins together, it's the breeders IMHO who need to take a share of the responsibility for what they are creating and selling into the pet dog market.

It's not the breed at fault, it's the people breeding these type of dogs whether or not they are purposely sourced for aggression or innocently purchased for family pets, non the less if they are high maintenance in control and management to prevent attacks, dogs like this are not suitable for mainstream community living.

[moosmum]

P.S. On truely stable dogs not requiring any socialization... That may be true to an extent. However the flip side can be a dog that reacts with out visible warning "out of the blue" . After seeing "bombproof" dogs, and horses do just that I think I would be very wary of a dog whos owner tells me their dog hasn't been socialized because its "stable" and doesn't need it. A bit of honest reaction I think is both justifiable and normal.

Unsocialised dogs facing a new experience can do three things basically. 1:Do nothing. 2:Flee from the unknown in fear. 3:Perceive the unknown as a threat and respond aggressively. IME, the dogs who react "out of the blue" are dogs not so stable in environmental strength that their true character has been masked by heavy socialisation. An unsocialised dog who doesn't react to new experiences either by fight or flight will always be the dog of greater genetic environmental stability. In a breeding program, not socialising dogs is often used to breed on dogs who exhibit genetic soundness over dogs who's apparent stability is the result of training/socialisation.

For a pet dog, socialisation is a must and good practice, but my point in regard to this is good genetically sound dog in character doesn't need socialisation to prevent adverse reaction to new experiences as they simply don't care what's new due to their extreme in self confidence, that is they see nothing as scary or threatening to cause reactivity.

Maybe I have an over literal mind. :laugh: The do nothing nothing option bothers me. I would expect SOME reaction in recognition of some thing new at least.

[Amax-1]

P.S. On truely stable dogs not requiring any socialization... That may be true to an extent. However the flip side can be a dog that reacts with out visible warning "out of the blue" . After seeing "bombproof" dogs, and horses do just that I think I would be very wary of a dog whos owner tells me their dog hasn't been socialized because its "stable" and doesn't need it. A bit of honest reaction I think is both justifiable and normal.

Unsocialised dogs facing a new experience can do three things basically. 1:Do nothing. 2:Flee from the unknown in fear. 3:Perceive the unknown as a threat and respond aggressively. IME, the dogs who react "out of the blue" are dogs not so stable in environmental strength that their true character has been masked by heavy socialisation. An unsocialised dog who doesn't react to new experiences either by fight or flight will always be the dog of greater genetic environmental stability. In a breeding program, not socialising dogs is often used to breed on dogs who exhibit genetic soundness over dogs who's apparent stability is the result of training/socialisation.

For a pet dog, socialisation is a must and good practice, but my point in regard to this is good genetically sound dog in character doesn't need socialisation to prevent adverse reaction to new experiences as they simply don't care what's new due to their extreme in self confidence, that is they see nothing as scary or threatening to cause reactivity.

Maybe I have an over literal mind. :laugh: The do nothing nothing option bothers me. I would expect SOME reaction in recognition of some thing new at least.

I am talking neither run away or act aggressively in response to something new, depending on what it is, the dog may investigate it, look at it or sometimes ignore it after a glance but ideally it amounts to neither flight or fight response.

[sandgrubber]

When talking about the interplay of environment and genetics I am talking about epigenetics NOT about the immediate environment. You can't say "bred bad will bite" or "bred well safe dog" because within either category there are genetic extremes and the experiences a dog has can change its dna (turn genes on or off). On top of that there is training, socialisation and management. Then bring in the immediate environmental factors and look at the situation knowing ALL the factors involved. Then you can come to me and tell me that a dog's breed is what caused an attack.

Epigenetics, though it has found wide popular audience, is one of those fields where there are more questions than answers. Science has shown inheritance of genes that are switched on or off by the environment in a few cases only, mostly with rodents. There is NO evidence that dog behavioral genes can be switched on or off by environmental factors.

[apocalypsepwnie]

Wow Amax-1, I don't mean to feed the trolls but srsly.I see here that you've not been handed the title of 'Dog Behaviour God' in life and are desperately trying to earn it. I think you are wasting your time trying to shove your very biased opinions down other people's throats.All dogs can bite. All dogs can snap one day. Unfortunately some dogs are just capable of more harm due to their size ratio. Many dog attacks can be put down to the owner's negligence and/or people not being well equipt to be around dogs. That's when the dog suffers for no reason by being PTS. Just so you know, I grew up with bullbreed dogs. I also own one now. I'd trust my bullbreed with my step kids 100 times over a toy breed. But that's my experience. BLS is bullshit. Enough said. Stop blaming the breed.I hope this boy and their family are able to recover as best as possible and know this was the individual dog and the circumstances. Again unfortunately the causes of attacks are rarely given because that doesn't make a good news story.

I haven't blamed breed at all, not sure where you got that idea from other than defence reaction because you own one. What I have said quite clearly is they way some of these breeds and crossbreeds are bred loosely speaking by people who lack the knowledge to be breeding dogs in the first place.There is no question that the owner of a dog is responsible for it's actions, that's a given, but my point in this is the ownership of a dog who is not possessed with sharpness, fear and reactive aggression takes a lot less vigilance for inexperienced owners to prevent situations as occurred in this attack. The fact is that all dogs don't bite and attack people mismanaged or not. There are plenty of massively irresponsible owners out there who grossly mismanage their dogs who don't bite people because they essentially own a good environmentally stable dog in the first place.

It is not defence because I own one. What a stupid assumption. It makes my blood boil when anyone assumes anything about a particular breed in regards to how vicious it can be.

To say that not all dogs will bite despite being mismanaged or not is extremely ignorant. The dogs who have attacked/bitten me and people I know are all breeds that 'don't usually do that'.

[Salukifan]

It is not defence because I own one. What a stupid assumption. It makes my blood boil when anyone assumes anything about a particular breed in regards to how vicious it can be.

To say that not all dogs will bite despite being mismanaged or not is extremely ignorant. The dogs who have attacked/bitten me and people I know are all breeds that 'don't usually do that'.

And yet, many don't. It's undeniable. They will show all kinds of avoidance behaviours and warning behaviours including "air bites".

Furthermore, how easily a dog can be triggered to bite, how hard it will bite and the likelihood of a bite turning into a sustained attack will have a genetic component.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Amax-1]

It is not defence because I own one. What a stupid assumption. It makes my blood boil when anyone assumes anything about a particular breed in regards to how vicious it can be.

To say that not all dogs will bite despite being mismanaged or not is extremely ignorant. The dogs who have attacked/bitten me and people I know are all breeds that 'don't usually do that'.

No one has assumed anything about a particular breed as the dogs referred to are for the most part crossbreeds of unknown ancestry and Bull breed origin and what Bull breed origin specifically who knows? These dogs are not a breed but a conglomerate mix of anything medium to large in size with a predisposition of aggression which demonstrates a dog "type" not a specific breed.

All dogs mismanaged will NOT bite by default as most will flee under pressure in preference to attack. Where traditional guardian breeds fail the most in bitework training is a lack of fight drive, that is they will bite in prey drive but won't sustain pressure from the opponent, some with a minor stick hit will release and back off, some will release and back off if the decoy yells and screams.....these dogs CANNOT be trained to sustain an attack as the genetic component to do so is missing.

These dogs in attack who can fight through aversion with high pain threshold, hits on the body etc and won't release which results in a mauling is genetically motivated and has nothing to do with environment. If your perception was true, it would mean for a service dog application, one could merely use any dog of reasonable size with the right environment and training and produce a front line protection dog?. Even using the right breeds who traditionally excel in these roles, only a third of the individual dogs of these breeds have the genetic components necessary for training in these roles.

If you can't train all GSD's to attack and bite people for example, how you can train or expect any dog of any breed to is beyond me