I couldn't agree more.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.
I'd like to see more that separates single and multiple bites rather than injury severity as the latter has a high chance element. One of the articles I didn't bother posting was a study of fatal dog attacks in NZ, one of the fatalities was from a single bite near the foot which had hit an artery, the lady bled to death without ever getting up from her chair!
I would also agree that dog and human signals get misunderstood but I'm less sure where the paradigm would come from. I think people, and I'd include myself totally, who live with dogs build what they see as language quite individually, and then there are 'experts' who get paid to tell people what things mean. I remember hearing someone describe how dogs tilt their head and suggest it was to bear the neck as an act of submission but ratting dogs tilt their heads constantly while listening to scratching. I'd always thought it was to get the 'binocular' (don't know the word for auditory equivalent), 3d effect across the vertical and horizontal plane - but that was just a guess on my part, what I know is that if I scratch the underside of a table my dogs tilt their heads!
It would take a lot for me to hand over trust regarding reading canine behaviour, and I would hazard a guess that I'm hardly alone in that.
Insurance for dogs has been in the news recently.
It looks like it's very much at the 'muddled thinking' stage.
This bit surprised me:
I wonder how many of those are more than nips.More than 100 people a week are now treated in hospital after dog attacks, a figure that has nearly doubled over the past 10 years.
I don't think much in the way of progress can be made until some effort goes into distinguishing the two - even the slightest scratch has many folk off to hospital for a tetanus jab.
What might be interesting though is the premiums and how closely they are tied to breeds. Insurers are experienced bookmakers.
My first thought is who exactly is going to enforce this. It smells of just another piece of useless legislation that will be a tax on the law abiding and ignored by a significant percentage of those whom it is supposed to target.
skb
Liked these comments:
The only dangerous dogs are Labour ministers and they need to be put down.The only "dogs" that need muzzling are the flea ridden mongrels in government
I'm not sure they would look to enforce it globally, I think it would be used as a means to an end with particular groups who currently 'display' dogs that are seen as threatening. Sadly I also happen to think this would follow the norm with targeted groups being those of low income etc etc rather than by notices of savage dogs screwed to posh people's gates! perhaps I'm just too cynical.Originally Posted by skbuncks
I still think the premiums would be interesting though, although that info is probably already out there.
I think you may be right. When it comes down to putting food on the table or paying through the nose for insurance people aren't going to be left with many choices (somehow pay, abandon the dog or ignore the law).
I can just see the Daily Wail running two articles in the same issue, one about some poor child mauled by a dog and another about how tax payers money is being wasted by police forces enforcing the new laws when they should be out catching real criminals.
skb
I have often wondered how the Daily Wail et al would have responded to the Mc.Cann's story had they sported the odd tattoo, sunburn lines and been overweight. I figure the hyperbole over dogs will always sort of follow the same rules in that who gets the full brunt and who is seen as blameless depends who they are rather than what happened, both for the canines and humans involved.I can just see the Daily Wail running two articles in the same issue, one about some poor child mauled by a dog and another about how tax payers money is being wasted by police forces enforcing the new laws when they should be out catching real criminals.
Re: Dangerous Dogs
I have two dogs.:
A terrifyingly intelligent geriatric Toy poodle X terrier with a nasty disposition and 5 year old Pit Bull,thick as a brick, but affectionate..
I got the Pit Bull from Animal Welfare after my German Shepherd died (from cancer,aged 13).
I got the Pit Bull for company and protection. (he's very protective) I'm an older man (over 60) in poor health living alone in an area where home invasions are common. I'm hoping Shadow will be a deterrent. If not and some one breaks into my house,that person will lose an appendage, hopefully his favourite. I took legal advice from a barrister friend before getting the dog and have taken what seems to be a small calculated risk.
Is there such a thing as ' a dangerous breed ' of dog ? No ; ALL dogs are potentially dangerous,it's only a matter of degree, A dog is simply a responsive animal, a scavenger and opportunistic predator. Any dog can be made vicious and some breeds (such as the Pit Bull) do seem to be more aggressive as a deliberate breed trait.
I consider it a matter of actuarial risk. If Mimi, my Toy Poodle has a senior moment, she might give you a nasty nip on the ankle with her 4 remaining teeth, perhaps drawing blood. If Shadow has a bad moment, he will try to rip out your throat and could easily kill a child.
There have been some attacks in Australia over the last year by Pit Bulls and Rotweillers. BUT the last recorded human death by either breed in Australia was in 1986. The last human death from a dog I can think of was when some moron's pet Dingo cross killed a 2 year old child with whom it had been left alone. It is an offense in this State to have a Dingo or Dingo cross in one's possession.
TRIVIA: A Dingo is a dog the same way as say wolf, a coyote or a fox is a dog,and just as dangerous.
Here you refer both to your choice of dog and his behaviour in terms of hie usefulness as a potential weapon:
I have no ultimate moral objection to the use of working dogs and a dog kept, even in part, for aggression is a working dog, however I believe that as a society if we condone keeping and selecting dogs for weapons we will effect the nature of those dogs and increase the risk of serious dog attacks. The notion that temperament and behaviour in dogs has no connection to genetics is to me implausible.
This to my mind is just nonsensical, perhaps that is because we don't appear to share the same meaning of danger and risk, for me danger and risk are concepts that are wholly dependant on the degree to which they are present, ie the likelihood of harm and the severity of harm therefore it 'only' being a matter of degree has no nullifying effect on labelling a thing dangerous, it is the degree that makes it so anyway.Is there such a thing as ' a dangerous breed ' of dog ? No ; ALL dogs are potentially dangerous,it's only a matter of degree, A dog is simply a responsive animal, a scavenger and opportunistic predator. Any dog can be made vicious and some breeds (such as the Pit Bull) do seem to be more aggressive as a deliberate breed trait.
(my bold) This difference defines what is or isn't dangerous to my understanding of the word in it's useful context.I consider it a matter of actuarial risk. If Mimi, my Toy Poodle has a senior moment, she might give you a nasty nip on the ankle with her 4 remaining teeth, perhaps drawing blood. If Shadow has a bad moment, he will try to rip out your throat and could easily kill a child.
To add to the anecdotal stuff. My old yard boss got a collie/lab from the RSPCA, he (the collie) had been kept in a block of flats until he became adult at which point he was taken to the RSPCA. The dog arrived at the yard and from day one attempted to herd everything that moved, he stalked, he lay in wait, he nipped lightly at the horses hocks - he maintained this behaviour despite all attempts to dissuade him throughout a decade and a half. Perhaps anecdote should not inform debate, however I believe that the above is something most readers who have seen a collie running free will recognise and surely when an anecdote is so recognisable it has some bearing?
So the fact that your "protection" might kill a child is merely an actuarial risk to you! Idiots with attitudes like yours are the reason we have the Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK.
Either that or media hype.
No only implausible, it's been proven to be wrong. There was a TV programme recently about a long-running Russian project to change the characteristics of the Arctic Fox (IIRC) by selective breeding. They selected for lack of aggression and in very few generations produced animals which were as friendly as dogs and, interestingly, showed other dog-like traits like floppy ears, variegated coat colour and wagging tails. They also bred a different bunch for aggression and ended up with homicidal maniacs. As a cross-check, they swapped puppies between docile and aggressive mothers at birth, but genetics decided the puppies' behaviour as they grew, not their mothers' behaviour.
On an anecdotal note, I was never bitten (other than a minor nip) in all my childhood years when we had dogs in our family, and I have always liked dogs and got on well them. But twice in the past decade (as a gentleman of mature years, shall we say) I have been attacked and bitten hard enough to puncture the skin in several places and draw blood - through thick trousers.
On one occasion I was walking down our lane when a small dog of indeterminate but vaguely terrier-like breed came running down the road towards me, barking. I took no notice until the animal launched itself straight at me and sank its teeth into my knee. I eventually found the owner, a very apologetic and mystified neighour who said that the dog had never done anything like this before; but it was a "rescue dog" which had previously been mistreated. Maybe I resembled a former owner, I don't know, but that animal surely took an instant dislike to me.
On the other occasion, I was walking along another country lane through a hamlet of a few houses and a farm. There were always a few barking dogs there, but on this occasion I didn't hear a thing and had no idea a dog was near - until I felt a pain in my leg. I turned around and there was a collie-type dog, glaring at me. There followed a strange dance as the dog tried to get behind me to have another go while I was trying to kick it over the nearest hedge - but it was too agile for me to connect. It didn't stop its attempts to attack me (all in silence, as far as I can recall) until I started banging on doors, when it slunk off to a safe distance. Naturally no-one knew anything about the dog...the bite was quite severe, I had a massive bruise for some time after as well as several deep puncture marks.
OK, let me rephrase my post - "... are the reason we need the Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK."Either that or media hype.
I believe I gave a link to the programme in post reply 42!No only implausible, it's been proven to be wrong. There was a TV programme recently about a long-running Russian project to change the characteristics of the Arctic Fox (IIRC) by selective breeding. They selected for lack of aggression and in very few generations produced animals which were as friendly as dogs and, interestingly, showed other dog-like traits like floppy ears, variegated coat colour and wagging tails. They also bred a different bunch for aggression and ended up with homicidal maniacs. As a cross-check, they swapped puppies between docile and aggressive mothers at birth, but genetics decided the puppies' behaviour as they grew, not their mothers' behaviour.As the discussion went on it seemed while there's plenty of second rate evidence there's little first rate measurement to support breed-risk associations, at least as I understood the way things went in discussion. However, it would be disingenuous of me to say anything other than I find the notion of 'no dangerous breeds' utterly implausible where there is a strong history of selection for aggression. For me it would require compelling evidence that such a link did not exist to overcome not just the less than perfect empirical evidence but a lifetime around dogs - hence the collie example, it is maybe my flaw but I would be giving false lip service to say I don't see clear behavioural breed traits.
I worked briefly for a very odd family in Shropshire, it was a large farm and one of the collies was rather old with only one remaining tooth. It was the years before mobile phones and my groom's caravan had no phone so I had to walk up to the pay phone just outside the yard. For almost EVERY phone call I made I received a single puncture wound to the back of my thigh or my backside, never did the dog follow through with a more serious attack but it always left a bruise and a small hole. I was up to date with my tet jab so made sure I was wearing my ripped jeans (ripped by the dog) and if I needed to make a phone call badly enough I got bitten for it. The owners, my employers found it hilarious and as a teenage groom I didn't have the front to fight over it. I can still picture the bloody thing!On the other occasion, I was walking along another country lane through a hamlet of a few houses and a farm. There were always a few barking dogs there, but on this occasion I didn't hear a thing and had no idea a dog was near - until I felt a pain in my leg. I turned around and there was a collie-type dog, glaring at me. There followed a strange dance as the dog tried to get behind me to have another go while I was trying to kick it over the nearest hedge - but it was too agile for me to connect. It didn't stop its attempts to attack me (all in silence, as far as I can recall) until I started banging on doors, when it slunk off to a safe distance. Naturally no-one knew anything about the dog...the bite was quite severe, I had a massive bruise for some time after as well as several deep puncture marks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks