Weird Story of the Day

[David Baxter PhD]

Level one - growling and air snaps

Is that the canine equivalent of air guitar?

 

[Jazzey]

There is a bite assessment scale that determines how bad of a biter your dog is.

Level one - growling and air snaps
Level two - skin contact, bruising, no breakage of skin
Level three - breaking of the skin, less than 1/2 the depth of the canines, no tearing
Level four - breaking of the skin, deeper than 1/2 the depth of the canines, tearing of the skin
Level five - severe injury, multiple bites, multiple tears
Level six - the bite or attack caused the death of a person or animal

It's pretty much generally accepted by anyone who knows anything about aggression that pretty much a level four or higher is considered non-rehabilitable. A level three or under can usually be worked with and changed around to a certain extent. After level four, anyone with a brain will recommend euthanasia as the prognosis is extremely poor.

He was a level four...

 

[Banned]

There's no doubt you did the right thing, Jazzey.

My first dog had to be put down at 20 months for aggression, so I know the pain, doubt, and confusion all too well. But, the night I euthanized him, I slept better than I had in almost two years because I never had to worry about him attacking another person, child, or me again. It was hard, but I knew it was the right thing. I just didn't know anything about having a dog, picked a really hard breed, didn't know the early warning signs, and things escalated. Thankfully I'm much wiser now

 

[Banned]

Is that the canine equivalent of air guitar?

Er, sure, I suppose it can be. In fact, I'll ask them to update the assessment list to include "If your dog begins playing air guitar at an early age it may be aggressive".

 

[Banned]

I just did a tonne of googling on "naturally aggressive dog breeds". The jury is out. Some websites state that some breeds are naturally aggressive. Others state that it is not true that some breeds are naturally aggressive. So, Dr. Baxter, Eye Stigmata, and myself, well, we're all right .

It is interesting and important to note, however, that the "dangerous breed list" is going to vary by country. Pembroke Welsh Corgis used to be on the dangerous breed list in Italy. They are no longer, but they used to be. They would not even come close in other countries.

At the end of the day, if you have a dog who is giving you warning signs at a young age, do not try to train or rehabilitate the dog yourself, ESPECIALLY using methods frequently seen on TV by some "trainers". Remember that for every minute of footage they show on TV, there is another hour or so of "training" (and I use the term loosely) happening that they are not showing you. You cannot learn to train a dog watching TV anymore than you can become a heart surgeon by watching TV. Consult a certified professional who uses positive reinforcement and work through the problem properly.

Wow, I could type pages on this...I'll stop now though.

 

[Eye Stigmata]

:sigh: Amen...

:thankyou: Turtle

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Nonsense. I'ver also done the research. Saying "the jury is out" is like saying the jury is still out on evolution. It's only "still out" if you ignore the evidence.

The dogs were bred for aggression. They are responsible for a disproportionate number of serious attacks compared to other breeds. That has been demonstrated in one study after another. What's unclear about that?

Psychopaths have certain innate personality traits, too. They are responsible for a disproportionate number of homicides and violent crimes. That has been demonstrated in one study after another. Are you also going to claim the jury is still out on that?

 

[Eye Stigmata]

By stating that, then you are also stating that every single aggressive or violent trait of a psychopath gets passed down from generation to genration, and I don't believe there is 100% evidence to prove that this is true.
So - thus with dogs, yes some dogs were "bred" to be aggressive, but the dogs bred for aggression were also trained and used for aggression purpose on a daily basis...or whatever.
And although some of those "bred lines" still exist today...many of them are not used for aggression purposes.
That's like saying every cattle dog is 100% perfect and automatically "trained" to be a herding dog...but we all know, without activly training these activites, a cattle dog may have no interest in "herding".
See where I'm going with this...
It's not fair to blame an entire breed on aggression when only a handful of dogs have shown aggression, and we don't know their past or how they were brought up.
I know people who are big tough guys and they have pitbulls or rotti's and they want their dog to be a big 'tough' dog and they egg the dog on to be tough. I also know people who are calm, quiet people who have acquired pitbulls or rotti's and the dogs show absolutly no sign of aggression, never have, and probably never will.

So...I think the jury is out on this one.
No one will ever 100% agree on one side, and no one will ever 100% be right. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the facts/evidence are not 100% to either side.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

By stating that, then you are also stating that every single aggressive or violent trait of a psychopath gets passed down from generation to genration, and I don't believe there is 100% evidence to prove that this is true.

I don't believe I said that. Show me where?

yes some dogs were "bred" to be aggressive, but the dogs bred for aggression were also trained and used for aggression purpose on a daily basis...or whatever.

If it were only dogs that were trained and used for aggression that were committing the attacks, you might have a point. But that's clearly not the case. The majority of the attacks in question are family dogs who are kept as pets, not trained as attack dogs.

That's like saying every cattle dog is 100% perfect and automatically "trained" to be a herding dog...but we all know, without activly training these activites, a cattle dog may have no interest in "herding".

Are you trying to claim that "herd dogs" do not have instincts about herding? Or more generally that there are not genetically-based personalities to different breeds of dogs?

See where I'm going with this...

Yes. Nowhere fast.

It's not fair to blame an entire breed on aggression when only a handful of dogs have shown aggression, and we don't know their past or how they were brought up.

In fatal injuries, we often do know a lot about their past and we are not talking about animals used as guard dogs here - we are talking about family pets.

I know people who are big tough guys and they have pitbulls or rotti's and they want their dog to be a big 'tough' dog and they egg the dog on to be tough. I also know people who are calm, quiet people who have acquired pitbulls or rotti's and the dogs show absolutly no sign of aggression, never have, and probably never will.

You hope. And the owners hope. And that may be true for any specific pet. That doesn't alter the fact that if you own one of the listed breeds you are more likely to be involved in a violent act than if you own a Golden Lab or Retriever. That's not opinion. That's a statistic.

No one will ever 100% agree on one side, and no one will ever 100% be right. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the facts/evidence are not 100% to either side.

That's pretty much what the anti-evolutionists (aka creationists) say. Of course, you're entitled to an opinion. It would be nice if it were based on evidence but if you insist on reverting to faith when the evidence clearly proves you to be wrong, good luck on getting anyone to take that opinion seriously.

 

[Banned]

And this is why I love my profession...so much controversy, everyone is right, and everyone's an expert , except those of us who have been actively working in the profession for most of our lives.

Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

(As an FYI for anyone reading this thread - I've been professionally training dogs for over ten years, I've been a breeder of a breed who could be deemed to be naturally aggressive, but horrors - never had an issue with my puppies!, I've been a judge with two highly reputable organizations for nine years, I've competed and titled my dogs in agility, flyball, obedience, scent hurdle, herding, and tracking, I'm a groomer, and I evaluate and test potential therapy dogs for two different organizations. Its probably safe to say I know a little bit about dogs ).

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Again, please show me where I or anyone else has claimed that ALL members of any given breed are going to attack or kill anyone.

That still does not alter the fact that among all known breeds of dogs the listed breeds are a significantly higher risk (1) for seriously aggressive acts and (2) for sudden attacks with little or no warning than breeds not on that list.

I may not be an expert about dogs but I do know research and statistics.

 

[Banned]

Again, please show me where I or anyone else has claimed that ALL members of any given breed are going to attack or kill anyone.

I never said that you claimed that. Nobody has said that because it's ridiculous.

That still does not alter the fact that among all known breeds of dogs the listed breeds are a significantly higher risk (1) for seriously aggressive acts and (2) for sudden attacks with little or no warning than breeds not on that list.

That may be true. My original point in this thread was about stereotyping specific breeds, because more often than not, the breed is not the issue but rather the type of people who acquire the breed of dog, and then train it to be aggressive. The same dog, in other hands, may be a completely different dog. Yes, genetics play a small role, but we know its not the entire role. And yes, I know numerous herding and working dogs who don't have a herding or working bone in their body. Some are even from championship herding lines.

I may not be an expert about dogs but I do know research and statistics.

I don't doubt that for a second, but there is also a bigger picture. Keep in mind that less than 25% of actual dog bites are reported. Which ones do you think get reported? Certainly not the man who's neighbour's Chihuahua bit him. Certainly not the person who owns the Shih Tzu. Certainly not the mother of the son who has a Labrador Retriever. It's "unprovoked" attacks on strangers, usually by bully breeds, that are most frequently reported. There are a large, large number of bites that do not get reported, so the statistics we are left to work with are only but a very small sampling of the big picture. THAT'S why we have breed stereotypes. The statistics are seriously skewed against the bully breeds.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

We're not talking about ALL bites. Dogs bite for a variety of reasons, as do cats and other animals, and it's not always an act of aggression.

We're talking about - and the studies I've cited are bout - seriously aggressive acts which cause significant injury or death. And we're talking about statistical risk associated with specific breeds.

Pointing out one or more exceptions from among dogs you have seen or known does not change that risk.

If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?

 

[Banned]

If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?

I would ask alot more questions, such as, what is the family's activity level like? Are you ok with lots of hair? Where do you plan on acquiring your dog? What is your feeding, grooming, and health care budget?

Temperament is important, obviously, especially with young children, but lots of things affect temperament.

A Golden from a bad breeder is going to give you far more grief than a pitbull from a shelter or reputable breeder where they breed for temperament and health and have had their temperament assessed prior to the dog ever being placed in a home. Over 75% of Goldens are going to be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life, and over 60% of them will die from it. Those are pretty gloomy health statistics, and I'm not going to get into a debate about what causes cancer, but we know that genetics does play a factor in that. Poor breeding? I'll say.

My previous dog, Jessie, was horrifically attacked by a Golden, and had puncture wounds down his back, through an inch of fur. On the other hand, his Team Relay partner in agility was always a pitbull named Erik.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

I would ask alot more questions, such as, what is the family's activity level like? Are you ok with lots of hair? Where do you plan on acquiring your dog? What is your feeding, grooming, and health care budget?

Now you're quibbling and avoiding the issue.

Temperament is important, obviously, especially with young children, but lots of things affect temperament.

The #1 determinant of temperament in dogs, cats, horses, gerbils, humans, or any other species is genetics.

A Golden from a bad breeder is going to give you far more grief than a pitbull from a shelter or reputable breeder where they breed for temperament and health and have had their temperament assessed prior to the dog ever being placed in a home. Over 75% of Goldens are going to be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life, and over 60% of them will die from it. Those are pretty gloomy health statistics, and I'm not going to get into a debate about what causes cancer, but we know that genetics does play a factor in that. Poor breeding? I'll say.

And what exactly does that have to do with the issue of aggression? Of course, there are gentic links to certain health risks. You acknowledge that but then deny a genetic link to aggression? I'd call that selective listening.

My previous dog, Jessie, was horrifically attacked by a Golden, and had puncture wounds down his back, through an inch of fur. On the other hand, his Team Relay partner in agility was always a pitbull named Erik.

As I said earlier, citing examples of pitbulls who don't attack or dogs from other breeds that do attack does not alter the risk or statstics in the slightest.

And you haven't answered my question at all, so let me repeat it:

If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?

 

[Banned]

And you haven't answered my question at all, so let me repeat it:

If I had young children, or lived in a neighborhood with children, and I were looking for a family dog that would be a low risk for aggression against those children, which would you recommend: a Golden Retriever or a pitbull?

Neither. I'd say to get a Pug because you can't see past the bigger picture and this is not a black-or-white question, yet you want a black-or-white response.

The fact of the matter is, we could let this thread go on for 500 pages, and still be in the same place we are now. That's why BSL is such a hot issue - no one can agree, everyone is from a different camp, and everyone is convinced they are right. It's exactly what is going on here.

 

[Banned]

Now you're quibbling and avoiding the issue.

The #1 determinant of temperament in dogs, cats, horses, gerbils, humans, or any other species is genetics.

I strongly disagree, but then, based on this thread, it looks like we will disagree on alot of things surrounding this issue. Additionally, genetics create instinct, and we know we can train past instinct.

And what exactly does that have to do with the issue of aggression? Of course, there are gentic links to certain health risks. You acknowledge that but then deny a genetic link to aggression? I'd call that selective listening.

Not at all. Have you ever not been feeling well and been cranky? Snapped when you shouldn't have? Said something you shouldn't have? Dogs get cranky too when they're not feeling well, except they are far more limited in how they respond. Give a dog a nice pat where he's got a large tumour growing under the skin and sure he might bite you. Grab a dog's ear when it's sore and he might bite you. Grab his paw when he has a hot spot and he might bite you. There are so many variables that influence a bite, it's not JUST inbred aggression.

What about dogs who have had the growl punished out of them? Those are many of the "unprovoked" attacks? The dog learned he wasn't allowed to growl? What does a growl say? It says that he's really uncomfortable, and if something doesn't change, he's going to escalate to a bite. But he wasn't allowed to give you that communication, so he went straight to the bite.

As I said earlier, citing examples of pitbulls who don't attack or dogs from other breeds that do attack does not alter the risk or statstics in the slightest.

It does. You and I both know that statistics can be skewed and interpreted any way we want them to.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

You are avoiding the question by throwing up smokescreens. That speaks volumes.

Yes, there are a variety of opinions on this issue. But opinions based on faith or limited personal experience or bias about a specific breed don't mean a whole lot unless they're also based on evidence.

And part of the reason I make an issue of this is because this same problem pervades a lot of the crap you see in books, magazines, on television, and on the net about homeopathy, chiropracty, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and the like. Frankly, I don't want to hear about testimonials or anectdotal evidence because that isn't worth a red cent. I want to hear about real evidence.

 

[Banned]

You are avoiding the question by throwing up smokescreens. That speaks volumes.

I'm not avoiding the question at all. Where have I not answered your question? And what volumes does it speak?

Fine. Get a Staffy (Pitbull). They truly are great family pets and wonderful companions. But bring me along when you shop for it so I know you're getting a good one (I'd say the same thing if you decided to get a Golden).

Yes, there are a variety of opinions on this issue. But opinions based on faith or limited personal experience or bias about a specific breed don't mean a whole lot unless they're also based on evidence.

My opinion isn't based on faith. My opinion is based on over ten years of professional experience. It is based on information from top researchers, veterinarians, and behaviourists that is shared with me at the many annual conferences I go to. It is based on careful analysis of the statistics that are available. Many of the studies done have also been flawed, or inconclusive.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Fine. Get a Staffy (Pitbull). They truly are great family pets and wonderful companions

Remind me never to buy a dog from you.

Many of the studies done have also been flawed, or inconclusive.

OK. Start with the studies I cited earlier. They lead to some pretty clear and specific conclusions. Show me the flaws.