Dangerous Dogs

[chaggle]

I think my dog might be some sort of terrier (I'm not too sure). He sleeps in the same bed as our cat (which I disapprove of a bit). He also attacks beer delivery men - which I disapprove of even more.

[MischiefMonkey]

I think my dog might be some sort of terrier (I'm not too sure). He sleeps in the same bed as our cat (which I disapprove of a bit). He also attacks beer delivery men - which I disapprove of even more.

I'd threaten to set the evil Cesar Milan on my lot if they interfered with my wine delivery


Actually it isn't very funny, sorry. There are a few things you can try to stop that - mostly getting him to see noisy, threatening, beer delivery man as something good. I can suggest some reading that might help if you want Hansel - dog in my avatar - used to bark incessantly at anyone visiting the house or even just walking by (he was a undersocialised, fearful 7 month old little boy when we got him) and now after a lot of work, he is still reserved with male visitors (though improving), but loves female and child visitors and obeys the 'enough' command when barking at the door (as trained).


A bit off topic, sorry. But shows that even in a seriously fearful dog, a behaviour modification program can make a huge difference. While Han is barely 5kg wet though the same techniques work on big dogs. I can provide plenty of annecdotal evidene mostly pertaining to GSDs and a formally very unpleasent, dog agressive Standard Poodle. Scientific studies are a bit thin on the ground but there is increasing evidence which shows how much nurture/environment - thus the owner - has an impact on dog behaviour.

Part of the evidence are the rehabilitated fighting Pitbulls formally owned by Michael Vick, an American Football Player. Almost all have gone into successful foster and perminant homes.

I'd say this goes to support the arguement for responsible ownership and goes against breed specific legislation.

[Floppit]

Polo, not necessarily.

It is the Pit Bull type that comes under the DDA not the American Pitbull Terrier itself (it is obviously included as a Pitbull Type). You could buy/adopt a Staff Cross puppy and it could grow up to meet enough of the criteria for being a Pit Bull Type. You don't realise and fail to register, neuter, insure, microchip and tattoo your pup (not illegal for anything not covered in the DDA) and as you've brought it up well you often let it go off lead in public and don't even own a muzzle. You have now broken the law and your lovely family dog who has never caused fear to anyone is PTS.

Banning breeds or types does not work.

------------

Floppit, I'm just saying that in the wrong circumstance any dog can kill, Toy or Pit. Not comparing the actual attacks nor the dogs. Just that Toys have killed.

Yes, it is easier for an adult to deal with a Yorkie than a Rott. But then you are in the territory of size. Do we set a weight limit? Do we keep the 25kg APT but get rid of the 30kg Lab? What if a puppy grows to exceed the weight limit? How do we decide what to ban and how do we draft that legislation?

As for 'flipping out' being less common in Yorkies than Rotts, any stats to back up that claim? My impression is the total opposite. Struggling to find good stats, but a study in the USA (University of Pensilvania) showed Dachshunds as the most agressive!!

Fighting dogs are bred to be aggressive to other dogs, not humans. Most Terrier breeds are bred to be very aggressive to rats but there isn't the automatic assumption that they will therefore be aggressive to humans.

Fighting APTs and Staffs are bred to be a 'game' dog in that they won't back down from a fight. So may have to be physically pulled out of a fight by their handler. Any fighting dog that bites it's handler is going to be dispatched pretty quickly so it in their interests to breed a dog that is non-aggressive to humans. In the Staff that may have helped produced a dog that would end up being one of very few specifically recommended as suitable with children.

But that is fighting dogs. The 'family' Pit from a responsible breeder will have been bred for temperament - as the Horizon program you mentioned showed, it is very few generations (8 IIRC) of selective breeding that can turn a wild fox into a domesticated creature. I don't think it is a leap to extrapolate that to already domesticated breeds. Look at Cocker Spaniels - they used to have quite a reputation 'rage syndrome' but responsible breeders eradicated it from their lines. It still occurs because of the irresponsible breeders but seems less common. (Yes - it was the cute Cocker Spaniel that was my childhood pet.)

I would say it is the irresponsible breeding and ownership of all dogs that needs to be controlled, not what dogs look like.

I've just done a long reply to this and my comp blue screened - so this one will be shorter and less referenced. If you want references ask.

Regarding references on dog bite stats. I have never found any that distinguish between an unlucky nip and a full on attack. What I would say though is that you had to scour the world to find a fatal toy dog attack and a life changing injury, both on newborns - you would have had no such struggle had you been looking for pit bull fatalities. Size is only part of the issue, when size is coupled with selective breeding for aggression the issue is compounded in a way not represented by your response.

Regarding the influence of breeding - you talk about the changes that breeding a pit bull as a pet can bring about. Firstly those APBs imported to the UK are not from reputable dealers, they are from people fully willing to break UK law. Secondly, while some changes occurred quickly in the domestication of the silver fox it took many more generations for those changes to become reliable (less mixed aggression litters) and when that happened, notably, the appearance also changed, something not known for being wanted in the pedigree world of dog breeding. personally speaking I don't TRUST the pedigree breeders as a group able to self govern, I trust even less those whose first pick to breed is a fighting breed.

You also talk about dachshunds, a very good example. The breeding of dachshunds represents the despotic, self orientated, cruel and folly driven nature of the pedigree world. Dachshunds are bred to have long backs which are prone to injury, even to breaking. If an animal is created by us to live a life often in pain we cannot expect it to do so without complaint! There are so many examples, deaf dalmatians, brain squashed springers, pekes that can't breath, bulldogs that cannot give birth - I could go on and on. It's not all about legislation, I hope one day the culture changes so that owning such a dog becomes as unacceptable as wearing a fur coat - unless of course it has been rescued. I have no experience of toy dogs, I feel sorry for them but have no attraction to them and no wish to keep them. The same goes for breeding dogs as weapons, whether it's the person who buys a GS and then rushes out with pride for his 'My dog can reach the gate in 10 seconds - can you?' plaque or the testosterone driven lad rushing to get his brass studded harness to show off his APB.

Last of all, I think you are wrong to assume that fighting dogs which attack people would be quickly dispatched. Firstly, fighting dogs are often kept in kennels separate from people. Secondly, if a dog wins fights it has value and to sell rather than kill is a viable option, thirdly, while I have never known anyone who fights dogs I have known full time terrier men and while I would describe them as hard men in terms of punishment, battle scars both K9 and human are prestigious, they are part and parcel of the image even in that watered down world.

I have watched APBs disappear and recently re-appear on our streets and they are not staff X boxers! The law does need refining but in the mean time had it been enforced as it is at least 2 children I can think of would still be alive now - and that's just the ones off the top of my head.

[Graham Lappin]

Forgive me for the observation but given how many of the posters here have canine-related avatars, can you really claim an unbiased skeptical view?

[bindeweede]

Mischief, you mentioned "the evil Cesar Milan". When I had SKY I watched many of his programmes. I have to say I was impressed with his success with badly behaved dogs. Do you mind if I ask why you say he is "evil"? Of course, I expect only the successful treatments were broadcast, a bit like psychics I suppose.

I ask only as someone who has never had a dog as a pet, but who sometimes thinks would like one. Greyhound?

Oh dear, I think I have misunderstood again. Bum.

[Floppit]

Forgive me for the observation but given how many of the posters here have canine-related avatars, can you really claim an unbiased skeptical view?

I'm certainly not unbiased. I think bias that's declared is ok, it leaves a reader to decide what the likely impacts of it are. I posted earlier on that I wouldn't own a powerful fighting breed, or one that I wasn't confident to physically overpower, and later I was clear that I have no interest in highly bred toy dogs (including the large ones bred for physical amusement). Mind you, I'd be genuinely interested in how a skeptic ought to deal with personal experience. I don't have much experience training dogs, none training dogs to do umpteen tricks, or dance, or herd sheep, beyond what's needed for a relatively disciplined house with up to 4 dogs and a baby I don't much bother - TBH, getting that is enough.

Where I feel I learned what I use to keep the peace with multiple dogs was having grown up playing with street dogs and time spent on yards that bred ratting terriers. Being with large number of dogs running loose all day every day, and having to know and control them enough to avoid accidents (chasing horses, chewing hats, nips, stopping scraps, that sort of stuff) and having owned 3 ex working/hunting dogs, one died years ago, 2 current. Also I have a reciprocal arrangement where by on long work days and holidays I have my friends two retired greyhounds (hence the up to 4 dogs comment), there have been 3 greyhounds she's had, the one now died was bred in Ireland and therefore likely hunted it's own food for months as that remains a popular greyhound training method there.

There is an element of appeal to authority, and perhaps that is out of place, it's not academic, there are no bits of paper to make the grade. When I took on my lurcher experience was assessed through discussion by a dog warden and lurcher/greyhound rescue charity owner. I think generally that's the way it is, if what comes out doesn't match what's been said to have been put in then a reader is right to simply back off. This is something so not new for me, I worked with horses for years and people weigh each other up quite quickly, there's no problem with inexperience unless the inexperienced is trying to fake it. If I was here drawing out a dog training programme as someone rather uninterested in more than the basics I think it would show. If I started to outline a horse training programme I think it would also be clear I was on my home turf so to speak. I've betted my neck on knowing a nagsman from a fool - I still have a neck!

I know that when new members arrive on forums I sort of do the same thing, except that I'm one of the least educated so at a distinct disadvantage.

Bindeweede - I am SO biased, I love greyhounds and lurchers and there's plenty to adopt. PM me if you're really ever looking, between my best mate and I we've rehomed 4 of them from 3 different rescue charities - all have worked out really well.

[Tony Williams]

First, the bias issue: there was always a dog in our household when I was a kid and I still like them, but I've never owned one as an adult because with two working people out all day it wouldn't have been fair on the dog.

Illegal breeding for aggression and fighting power reinforced by training for aggression is clearly the main problem here. I posted early on this thread that banning dogs by breeds was flawed due to the ease of cross-breeding, but there surely ought to be a way of distinguishing dangerous dogs from others. Maybe some sort of aggressivness test?

A complementary or alternative approach might be to target owners and ban those guilty of violent crimes, or previously found to have kept dangerous dogs, from owning dogs ever again.

As an aside, I have always hated the distorted animals created by selective breeding and preferred dogs which bear some resemblance to the wild animals, so I'm strongly behind the current trend to end the most extreme examples of this - and think they should go further.

[Floppit]

Maybe some sort of aggressivness test?

These exist and are routine for many charities rehoming dogs but who would do them on such a large scale as to test the nation's dogs? In my house all food is mine, even food given to the dogs remains mine - if I need to retrieve it for some reason it's no bother, if I need to retrieve something from inside a dog's mouth it's no bother. Maybe just advertising that food aggression can warn of bigger problems would curtail some of the more genuine accidents (disregarding the numb nuts who think it's cool to have godzilla on a string whenever food's present!).

Re dog's as weapons, I'm glad it's not actually me that has to solve the problem. I would agree that where someone has committed violent crimes banning them from dog ownership might work, but on the other hand there are lots of people who had a fairly 'rough' youth but settle down later in life, also plenty as yet not convicted but stood firmly in the waiting line! I would love to see a world where dogs could not be legally used as weapons, but that would mean dealing with the 'Guard Dog' culture too. I have no objection where people are trained, ie the armed forces and police, but I can count signs (literally nailed to the gate!) of the desire for dogs to be seen as a weapon just walking down my street. As long as inexperienced people want dogs to attack and genuinely believe such dogs will never attack them the problem will likely only morph from one breed of choice to the next.

Honestly, I think culturally we are moving so quickly away from having a need for animal sense or any understanding even of what they are that I feel it almost pointless looking for good answers. From dog jogging suits and frilly ballerina outfits to pit bulls trained to bite on park swings it's a testament to the good natured side of dogs that we aren't overwhelmed by almost daily critical attacks. The PFMA (pet food makers) reckon there are 8 million dogs in the UK, the vast majority will reside in living rooms and with families every single day, that in mind, and for all our human ineptness, the dogs must be behaving fairly well.

http://www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-p...n-figures-.htm

[Tony Williams]

These exist and are routine for many charities rehoming dogs but who would do them on such a large scale as to test the nation's dogs?

I wasn't thinking of checking all of them - just those where there is some reason to suspect a threat (from them or their owners).

Reintroducing dog licences with a meaningful fee (ISTR it was 7/6 when I were but a lad, which was derisory - 37.5p in new money) might help pay for a monitoring process.

[chaggle]

I wasn't thinking of checking all of them - just those where there is some reason to suspect a threat (from them or their owners).

Reintroducing dog licences with a meaningful fee (ISTR it was 7/6 when I were but a lad, which was derisory - 37.5p in new money) might help pay for a monitoring process.

Yes. Here all dogs have to be chipped and registered by law - not that everybody complies of course. This combined with a decent registration fee would be a good start. It's easy to check the chip - just a 'wand' held near the neck.

[Floppit]

Edit re Tony (I must have missed my Will Robinson!):
It was only a half hearted criticism but that does make more sense. I think dog licensing would be a good thing of for no other reason than getting dogs chipped.

I wonder though if the answer isn't more cultural than legal? There's a whole chunk of it I'd like to see go the way of the fur trade but again I wonder if there's enough sense left in the general population to ever make that a reality. I can't find the reference now but I think it was Liverpool that had a pit bull amnesty which was very successful (I'm guessing that dogs handed in during a dangerous dogs amnesty weren't on the whole beloved pets!).

Ultimately I can't come up with much in the way of plausible answers.

[Graham Lappin]

I'm certainly not unbiased. I think bias that's declared is ok....

1) I agree. It's a big thing these days to declare any conflict of interests when presenting scientific data.

2) One more post in the countdown to 1K

[chaggle]

One more post in the countdown to 1K

Bet I get there before you

[MischiefMonkey]

Mischief, you mentioned "the evil Cesar Milan". When I had SKY I watched many of his programmes. I have to say I was impressed with his success with badly behaved dogs. Do you mind if I ask why you say he is "evil"? Of course, I expect only the successful treatments were broadcast, a bit like psychics I suppose.

I ask only as someone who has never had a dog as a pet, but who sometimes thinks would like one. Greyhound?

Oh dear, I think I have misunderstood again. Bum.

I have often thought about starting a thread on Cesar Milan but didn't think there would be the interest, so I'll keep my reply here reasonably brief and sadly lacking in references but will start a new one with more detailed information if there is an appetite for a discussion on theories of dog behaviour and behaviour modification.

So, in brief....

Cesar Milan's methods are based on 'Dominance' theory - that dogs regard us as pack members and we should strive to be the pack leader/Alpha. However, this theory was based on a study of a captive, artificial, non-related wolf pack. Subsequent observation have shown that the study of this pack is not applicable to wild wolf packs (which are family units), feral dog packs (where hierachy is fluid) or multidog households (again fluid hierachy). Additionally dogs know we are not dogs. Nor are dogs wolves. The conclusions of the study are flawed and the theory of dominance and rank reduction is utterly baseless. Subsequently, reward based training has been shown to be far more effective as have behavioural modification programs based on resolving the cause of agression/unwanted behaviour rather than the symptom.

Calling Cesar 'evil' is a bit of a naughty habit in the same way as I always refer to the twat Shaun Ellis as the twat Shaun Ellis. Some of Cesar's advice is plain common sense (walk your dogs!!), some benign nonsense (eating before the dog), some good advice for the wrong reason (Calm Assertive 'Energy' - though anything with the word energy sets of my 'woo' alarm unless talking physics or chemistry) but his 'corrections' and the evil 'Alpha Roll' cause harm. Dogs very, very rarely 'Alpha Roll'. More often a dog will offer up an appeasement gesture by rolling on it's back.

If you watch an episode of the Dog Whisperer with the sound off and armed with a knowledge of dog body language - Turid Rudgass is excellent here - you will see scared, fearful dogs 'shutting down'. Cesar's methods supress the symptom (agression) but do not address the cause (generally fear or resource guarding - itself a fear of losing the resource) which can lead to worse problems especially when people ignore the 'don't try this at home' disclaimers. Annecdotaly trainers and rescues I have been involved with could give you many examples of dogs escallating agression after Cesar Milan style 'corrections'. Alpha rolled for growling (growling is communication not agression), they air snap (again communication not agression) punished for this they escalate to biting. Punished for this they escalate to serious biting. Aggression begets aggression.

Where there is a better (if less television friendly) way, supported by good evidence, than Cesar's Way, and where Cesar's Way can cause damage, we should take the method with the evidence and least harm. And that is evidence based behaviour modification.


----------------


Greyhounds are generally a fantastic dog. They tend to have a high prey drive so unless cat tested, only adopt if catless and be aware of the selective hearing when it comes to recall (harness and long line will sort this until training does). I've done transport runs for Greyhound rescues and hand on heart, they are the easiest dog to transport. They might not have the loyalty of a GSD but watching a happy Grey running or roaching (rolling on it's back) is a joy. Some make funny happy noises that can't help but make you chuckle.



------------------

Bias - yes, I own dogs. None of the breeds under discussion for the purposses of the DDA nor any that are suggested to be added to the 'banned' list. Though I do own a 'game' breed - a Glen of Imaal Terrier. I am a firm believer in 'Deed not Breed' as any breed can be dangerous in the wrong hands and an excemplary family pet in the right ones. Idiot owner - a Pom kills. Idiot owner a Pitbull Type kills.

I would support Tony Williams' posts - especially a test. Which would be in keeping with suggestion out today/yesterday from Patrick Bateson - any dog with a complaint upheld against them needing to be muzzled in public rather than specific breeds. Bateson also addresses the issues with interbreeding and the KC which is really another thread/discussion.

-----------------

I'll respond to more posts when the co-codomol (which is just about kicking in) wears off. A lot of very interesting points have been raised and I can't do them justice tonight.

[bindeweede]

Mischief, thanks for your very interesting post.