Yes, ditto. Enjoyed reading that.
Well after that excellent post you've certainly got my attention!Originally Posted by MischiefMonkey
This is another example of where skepticism can be applied - in the sense of skepticism as the pursuit of knowledge through critical inquiry rather than being activist and attacking/opposing things of little consequence.
I'd love to see us tackling more 'normal' issues than ghosts/paranormal type stuff and applying skepticism to real issues that affect us day in, day out.
.
Fascinating read, but is this also theory driven? Dogs do clearly show negative and aggressive signals to each other as well, so it can't all be calming (mother nature and apple pie) behaviour. Also, even fluid pack structures have a hierarchy - even if a changing one - so the notion of dominance/submissiveness must also be communicated.
If the notion of a pack is correct, then 'leadership' is present to a greater or lesser extent, calming behaviour at inapproproate times could also be non-coperation, perhaps even disrespect for the 'leader' - how exactly would one know?
Seconded.
I have a friend who wont let his Border Collie sit in a higher position in the room than him nor even put his paw on his knee . He says it's something to do with pack dominance and it sounds like bull to me. Would that have come from this Cesar Milan?
Mischief, I agree those posts were very interesting. If I follow on to pick out the points I disagree with it's not because there is no agreement. It's funny how you mention the issue surrounding backfires once Cesar Milan has come to town, I experienced something very similar first hand regarding a famous horse trainer, Monty Roberts. he came to do a display on horse breaking in Leicestershire, he used a number of carefully selected horses in the first place and even with that advantage as a reputable breaking yard we ended up with the repair work after the fact. Never the less some of what he says is old and well used horse knowledge.
I will admit without reservation that my background with animals and dogs is not academic. I don't know how much that ought to nullify my argument, where it does I'll accept it but would also like to know why. I'm especially interested in this because horse training is an oral tradition and has been a massive part of my life. As I left the industry it was changing dramatically from young grooms trained first as volunteers from about 14 to college courses and qualifications. On the ground these changes (albeit I only saw their dawn) did not seem to bring improvement, far from it. If someone were to ask where they could see first hand the nagsman's trade I'd point them to Amber Films http://www.amber-online.com/sections.../the-catalogue not Monty Roberts or their local college. I know how to make a horse that doesn't eat eat, how to calm a horse in panic, how to fix a horse in fear, how to catch the uncatchable and touch the untouchable. The learning of these things was perhaps the greatest pleasure in my life aside from my kid so while I'm willing to give up the sense of experiential and orally taught knowledge I would need to fully understand why - actually, in honesty I'm less sure I could give it up. A few years ago I drove past a horse that had been hit by a car on the road, I knew the vets so stopped to help, in a similar situation I would do the same and still probably use the same skills in the same way. I don't know, but I'm willing to listen and see where it leads.
One thing that gives me reservation is an inconsistency. You say you believe in 'Deed not breed' and yet you remark on the prey drive of greyhounds and commented on the problems spaniels had in the past. On the greyhound front I partly agree but would caveat that an excellent rehoming charity can and do test dogs, there are many greyhounds that live with cats. Still, as I am not in the 'Deed not breed' camp I personally would probably not risk it. How do you balance your view that it is deed over breed while demonstrate knowledge of breed differences in temperament?
My second point is about dominance, again this is not something I've read about but something I've watched (perhaps wrongly?). The existence of hierarchy in group animals seems to me relatively well documented to the point it would require exceptional evidence rather than a flaw in a single study to refute it. I accept you're probably not trying to refute it lock stock and barrel but I would be interested to understand better what your views are. To declare where I'm coming from on the subject, I think that dominance is something many animals are much more comfortable with than people, there has always been the 'rear guard' those individuals I've known which appear to have no wish to do anything other than ingratiate and enjoy the protection of stronger group members, and a few who are in human terms more ambitious! I would agree that a dog pack structure can be very fluid, but I'm not sure that is always the case, I remember well (she was my dog) a yard boss who remained unchallenged for over a decade - not a single serious battle, she took whatever bed or toy/food/hunting from any other dog that she wished. When she died the old boy at the yard predicted chaos in the dog group because she was a autocratic boss (he said 'they won't grow a brain fast enough), two dogs wound up dead in the following months, both accidents but accidents that occurred during behaviour the old boss would not have withstood. That's the only time I've seen such a solid and unmoving front position, so I would expect fluidity is as, if not more common. I also remember something similar in a programme about wolf leadership styles - ie the variety and the effect it had on how the other pack members developed.
I'm trying to put myself in other shoes, to be the reader where the writer is saying 'I know believe this and that from life and I cannot evidence the reference.' Maybe also I want to learn more about how skeptical knowledge and life experience interplay. Last of all, I teach my daughter around dogs and probably will to ride one day so I could have no better motivation to get it right and at present despite all my skeptical leanings I would still bet on the older, oral learning, I would still teach the disciplines I learned and the understanding the underpins it.
As a dreadful attempt to offer some reference!
There's a piccy of me with my current bitch who came runner up in the cross breed veteran class at the great Greyhound Gathering - just before than fancy dress section (and yes that is meant to be tongue in cheek!)
http://www.retiredgreyhounds.co.uk/GGG-2009-Gallery/
These are the people I worked for with horses - as long as some trust is invested (that's a personal choice) it gives the best I can offer in terms of standards, it wasn't a poxxy yard of wannabes:
http://www.daniellefarnsworth.co.uk/
Danielle was a little girl while I worked there but has grown up into a fine jockey, it was her father who was my boss although if Munchkin enters the hobby/trade it will be Danni who's her boss and I would still choose no other - there's no greater respect or praise I could give, horses are dangerous so only the very best knowledge will do.
So if you have the patience, perhaps this is a good topic to watch skeptical thought roll out into the real rather than unreal world. It is probably the only topic where I'll get to experience what it feels like to resist it!
Last edited by Floppit; 16th January 2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason: Bad grammer - probably more dits to come!
A recent review of the evidence base in this subject by Udell & Wynne, suggests that don't know best describes our current understanding.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2251326/
From the article you gave Pebble this is very inline with my thinking:
Emph added.Dog Profiling Revisited
If, then, there is a genetic component to some aspects of behavior that have a clear impact on human–dog interaction, can bans targeting “bad dog” breeds such as pit bulls, or profiling based on genes in general, be justified by maintaining the position that behavior is a product of genetic tendencies as well? Evidence suggests that the answer is no. Although bites and deaths attributed to pit bulls are up in recent years (Sacks, Sinclair, Gilcrist, Golab, & Lockwood, 2000), other breeds have been number one for aggression against humans at other times. German shepherds and St. Bernards were estimated to be responsible for the majority of deadly dog attacks, not including police dogs, from 1975 through 1980 (Pinckney & Kennedy, 1982). In the 1970s, Dobermans were on the top of the list (Randall Lockwood of the ASPCA, as cited in Gladwell, 2006), and between 1993 and 1998 Rottweilers were the most dangerous dog breed (Sacks et al., 2000). However, these estimates are imperfect because they do not take into account the baseline populations of each breed in the U.S. at any given time, and identifying an individual as a specific breed is not always clear cut. Therefore, breeds that have a larger population may be involved in more attacks than less popular breeds but proportionally may be less aggressive; and aggressive dogs that do not fall clearly into a breed category are often labeled as a breed that is already deemed aggressive, thereby inflating the numbers for that breed. However, even in times where one breed may show proportionally higher levels of aggressive behavior, there is evidence that this is not solely due to an inherited “bad dog” gene. In fact, the type of owner, not the breed of the dog, is the best predictor for dog attacks (Gladwell, 2006; Siebert, 2004). In a quarter of fatal dog attacks, the owners previously had been arrested for illegal fighting, and many aggressive dogs are ones that have been abused, starved, or deprived of medical attention. In addition, some owners seek out breeds that have a reputation as “bad dogs” and then shape the aggressive behaviors that later seal their fate. According to Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the ASPCA, “A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog. It is usually a perfect storm of bad human–canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation” (cited in Gladwell, 2006, p. 26).
Almost all the dogs that held the dreaded title for attacks are those associated with the use of dogs as weapons, whether that be sport or protection. I accept that the baselines just aren't present to give the figures meaning in terms of individual likelihood of a breed member attacking, but surely it would beggar belief to see the correlation as one of pure coincidence? I also agree re type of owner but surely the type of breeder would play a part too, especially if they are breeding to sell to the kind of owner that gets arrested for illegal dog fighting, that seems largely un-discussed.
It also doesn't discuss much re dominance. I was thinking about this today, especially the whole dog sitting higher than owner faffle. I find it hard to imagine having a house dog that I didn't allow on the sofa or expect to get itself off the sofa without dispute should I want it's warm spot, nor can I consciously remember teaching dogs that, I just expect it and they just do it. In the same way I expect to be able to take food from my dogs, hell, there are times for their own good I need to take something from them, again I can't remember any battle just that I have always believed it is mine to take in the first place. Watching Cesar Milan is something I find interesting but feel that the media control makes it hard to truly evaluate, it's never made me start wanting to role my dogs rather than dump them in the kitchen for misdeeds, something which works well for us!
That was a really informative article and has made me want to see what else is out there. Thanks!
This looks interesting but I haven't had chance to read it yet - abstract looks good!
Pediatrics 2006;117;e374-e379
Johannes Mayr, Katalin Kiss and Michael E. Höllwarth
Johannes Schalamon, Herwig Ainoedhofer, Georg Singer, Thomas Petnehazy,
Analysis of Dog Bites in Children Who Are Younger Than 17 Years
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...int/117/3/e374
Ok I have now read the above article. A couple of things interest me. First of all it doesn't appear as a reference in the NIH article although it would appear highly relevant to the topic here and I think the Journal is reputable. No doubt Pebble could add something to whether US Paediatrics is a reasonable source.
The above article does a brief review of literature re breeds and attacks and comments(Table 4 page 378). Table 3 offers a risk indices for the dogs involved in the attacks studied for the article and again GSs and Dobermans head the league, but after that the distribution is more mixed. I did notice that after the 3 guard breeds on their table (I'm counting Spitz as a guard type but accept some may dispute that) the two most frequent culprits are examples of physical extremes in pedigree breeding, the dachshund and pekingese, although using a single study to draw any firm conclusions seems unwise due to the small number (341 attacks).In all studies that were based on dog population, German shepherd and Doberman are the breeds that are most likely to be involved in dog-bite accidents.
I would still agree that it doesn't take into account unregistered and illegally held dogs, however, as far as I'm aware neither Dobermans nor GSs are in any way outlawed in the US and therefore I find it unlikely that this effect would be enough to explain them heading attack league tables so consistently across studies.
Additionally, figure 1 shows the most popular breed (or not breed!) to be the cross breed, when balanced against dog population it comes out as 1 attack shy of 6 times less likely to be the culprit than a GS and 3 times less likely than a pekingese. The very fact that cross breeds come so far down the list would suggest (rather than confirm!) to me our history of highly selective inbreeding plays a substantial part in the number of dog attacks.
Perhaps I am falling victim to confirmation bias but at present evidence seems only to support my initial stance that breed is relevant and interplays with the character of those doing the purchasing, those breeding and the purpose for which a dog is bred, sold and bought. I would and have never suggested that there is such a thing as 'safe breeds' but as risk is a numbers game rather than one of possibility, while all dogs have the potential, it appears to me those more likely to realise that potential do fall into particular groups. Also the above report covered a variety of injuries with only 6% of the patients studied having multiple injuries (as severity can be accidental but repeated attack is not I figure this to be as good as it gets re a marker for a full on attack rather than a single bite). I would have been interested to see the severity of attack cross referenced with breed type, my hunch is that the breed differences would be enhanced by this.
Behaviourally, the above article highlights play as a clear leader in the setting of dog attacks (although 26% had unknown causes). I would be interested to learn more about play between children and dogs, it seems a very broad category, which could easily include accidental bites (ie kid and dog catching the same ball at the same time) to very real power battles over objects.
The report suggests that legislation concentrates on the training of dogs, dog owners and physical control over dogs in public places. I think this is quite an interesting stance - I like it but wonder if it would ever be really doable.
Despite all the above, I think it's a shame that the media concentrates so heavily on breed, how to handle dogs is vital, perhaps more so with those bred with aggression in mind, but as a subject it barely seems to get a look in.
And more.... stop me if this is getting boring!
Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Kaye, Alison E. M.D.; Belz, Jessica M. M.D.; Kirschner, Richard E. M.D.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery:
August 2009 - Volume 124 - Issue 2 - pp 551-558
(Only have abstract for this one)
(Emph added)More than 30 different offending breeds were documented in the medical records. The most common breeds included pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent), and mixed breeds of the two aforementioned breeds (6 percent).
http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsur...iew_of.28.aspx
Fatal Attacks:
Dog Bite-Related Fatalities: A 15-Year Review of Kentucky Medical Examiner Cases
Shields, Lisa B. E. MD; Bernstein, Mark L. DDS; Hunsaker, John C. III MD, JD; Stewart, Donna M. MD
The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology:
September 2009 - Volume 30 - Issue 3 - pp 223-230
http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicm...view_of.2.aspxPit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds constitute the majority of canines implicated in these fatalities.
Apologies - again only an abstract.
Both of these are very recent and therefore not represented in previous Lit Reviews cited here.
Last edited by Floppit; 17th January 2010 at 10:00 AM.
This is probably the most informative and educational thread we've had in a long time.
Ok - you can all blame Chaggle from here on in!
With reference to training background and treatment of dogs I found this:
The management and behavioural history of 100 dogs reported for biting a person
Edmond N. O'Sullivana, , , Boyd R. Jonesb, Kathleen O'Sullivanc and Alison J. Hanlonb
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
Volume 114, Issues 1-2, November 2008, Pages 149-158
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9585627693b9afAbstract
This paper analyses behavioural and management history data provided by 100 owners of dogs that had bitten a person. The data was obtained by telephone interview of volunteer dog owners. Two sub-sets of data were created using 21 dogs having no history of perceived aggressive behaviour prior to the reported bite incident and 79 that had a record of aggression. Statistically significant predictors of aggressive behaviour included owners reprimanding the dog by physical and verbal means, owners allowing the dog to initiate play and to win tug-of-war games. Management predictors during the 2 months leading up to a bite incident included allowing the dogs onto household furniture and feeding the dog directly from the family table. Behavioural predictors included not being trusted with children, not responding to basic commands, variable obedience to different people and variable degrees of obedience depending on the location. Additional behavioural predictors included displays of problem behaviours such as destructiveness and barking only when family members were present, displays of fearful reactions in specific circumstances and excessive displays of specific behaviours. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between a number of these predictors and aggressive behaviour. Other findings included owner tolerance of significant degrees of aggressive behaviour, inadequate or ineffective obedience training, biting of adult household members and the possible influence of ad libitum feeding on the behaviour of the dog.
I'm not sure I like the method used at all and can only get an abstract. I consider dominance a very relevant issue but would fall short of the emphasis it appears to be given above, I give my dogs treats from the table, allow them on the sofa etc but it has clear limits (getting off the sofa without complaint, obtrusive/polite begging only, reliable 'leave' command) as discussed previously. I don't think the above is a strong article, perhaps not fair to say that with just an abstract to go on though.
The problem with reviews is that unless a standardised method of mining the available information is used, the authors bias will influence the papers chosen.
The Pediatrics paper has many faults that could justify exclusion.
It is retrospective
Population bias is exclusive (only those who presented to hospital)
There is no clear end point being evaluated
There is no intervention being tested
Statistical approach is pretty useless.
What it ends up showing is that most bites are fairly minor, that most people bitten end up with few if any longterm complication.
The data in respect of breed propensity to bite is not subject to statistical analysis, the numbers involved suggest that the German shepard does have a greater propensity to bite, but without this as an aprioi assumption, one could not validate this from this retrospective study.
The paper does suggest how such a study might be constructed - as you rightly observe, defining 'guard dog' breeds and testing in advance whether these were more likely to be involved in biting incidents would make sense.
Most of the studies seem to a greater or lesser extent to have similar issues, including the ones in the paper you first cited.The Pediatrics paper has many faults that could justify exclusion.
It is retrospective
Population bias is exclusive (only those who presented to hospital)
There is no clear end point being evaluated
There is no intervention being tested
Statistical approach is pretty useless.
I partly accept that these 'issues' should perhaps exclude it but out of interest - if you were getting a dog and had small child would you dismiss them completely? Or would they to some extent inform your evaluation of risk?
What struck me was the consensus (albeit largely without analysis) across studies, while the rigour may not be enough to consider the information as scientific consensus - do you think it is likely or even plausible such consensus as there is would exist by chance alone?
The reason I'm asking is that I've tended towards giving more or less respect to articles rather than all or none, I'm not suggesting that's what you're doing just trying to portray why I'm interested in the extent you still consider papers that fall somewhat short in rigour.
What level of credance you give depends on the rigour of the study design and what elese is out there. In an area such as this one is, as you have correctly pointed out, we are likely to be dealing with poor quality studies. This is important when it comes to making assertions, from what I have seen to date, there is a great deal of ignorance in respect of fundamental questions.
On balance the notion that there is a genetic predisposition in respect of affiliation for human company and propensity to agression seems very reasonable (Level of evidence B). It seems illogical to claim that pack behaviour has been breed out, so holding a position that the dog respects seems sensible (Level of evidence C). Finally, I fully agree with Mischief that we may easily misintepret the signals dogs give to us and that we are giving to them, and that this tends toward conflict (Level of evidence B).
(I have guessed at the levels of evidence without looking through the trials in detail, included as a potential way of grading the certainty which one can rely on being right; C: opinion, anecdote, expert opinion B: some studies that lack rigour, no more than one high quality study supporting any given point)
I think some of the money spent policing uninformed policies in respect of 'dangerous dogs' would be much more sensibly invested in studying these issues.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks