LAPSI

Taas toi tappajakoira-aihe... Tosin vaihteeksi petoeläimet-palstalla. Pitit, AB:t, amstaffit, staffit ym "tappajakoirat" eivät oikeasti esim jenkkien pitämissä tilastoissa pääse lähellekään kärkeä kun vertaillaan ihmisiä eniten purreita koirarotuja. Taitaa olla monesti niin, että jos rodultaan tunnistamaton koira puree ihmistä, se luokitellaan helposti taistelukoiraksi.

Pilinjatke kirjoitti:

Taas toi tappajakoira-aihe... Tosin vaihteeksi petoeläimet-palstalla. Pitit, AB:t, amstaffit, staffit ym "tappajakoirat" eivät oikeasti esim jenkkien pitämissä tilastoissa pääse lähellekään kärkeä kun vertaillaan ihmisiä eniten purreita koirarotuja. Taitaa olla monesti niin, että jos rodultaan tunnistamaton koira puree ihmistä, se luokitellaan helposti taistelukoiraksi.

Lue lisää

http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPcanineprimer.htm

***Myth: "Some dogs are genetically predisposed to attack."

While we would love to dispute every angle of that kind of erroneous comment, we don't need to. We can easily disprove the misguided notion that some kind of genetic abnormality is what causes dogs to attack, by simply looking at the actual dogs involved in serious biting incidents.

The Lab/Beagle cross and the purebred Doberman involved in biting incidents 5,000 km and 10 years apart do not share relevant genes, other than those that make them both dogs. The purebred Dalmation that killed another dog and the Golden Retriever that killed a child are not genetically related, either. In fact, even the purebred Rottweiler that killed a child in one province and the purebred Rottweiler that attacked a person in another province share no common ancestors in their pedigrees. In short, the dogs involved in biting incidents are no more closely related than dogs in general.

There is no scientific evidence for a genetic cause for aggression, and there is no evidence that the dogs involved in attacks share relevant genetic information, even if there were.

The largest study of its kind, in which many of the dogs involved dog bite-related fatalities were examined by veterinarians, found that the dogs who'd killed people had no physical, mental or physiological abnormalities. All tests came back normal, including bloodwork and brain examination.

Still need more proof?

As a general estimate, let's say that, out of approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, 50 dogs are involved in serious biting incidents each year. (To clarify, that would be 0.001% of all dogs; leaving 99.999% of Canadian dogs not involved in attacks.) If we look at those 50 dogs, individually, we find they represent a wide range of shapes, sizes, breeds, and original breed purposes. Clearly, there is no one breed or size or original breed purpose involved in serious biting incidents.

In fact, no breed of dog has more than 0.1% of it's members involved in serious attacks. It would be absurd to say that 0.1% of the dogs in any breed are 'merely fulfilling their genetic destiny' by attacking someone or something, and that the 99.9% of all dogs who never attack, are behaving somehow "abnormally" by not behaving aggressively. Most dogs never attack anyone, and that includes the often maligned breeds, too! If any breed were 'genetically predisposed to attack', certainly more than 0.1% of them would!

In regards to the theory that aggression can be either inherited or genetically linked, what unique, relevant genetic information could possibly be shared by:

the Labrador/Rottweiler cross (Sporting/Working Group) that killed one of its owner's children,
the Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier Group) that killed a neighbour's dog,
the purebred Golden Retriever (Sporting Group) that killed its owner's child,
the Border Collie (AKC, Herding Group) that viciously attacked a neighbour's dog,
the purebred Pomerananian (Toy Group) that killed the owner's child,
or the purebred Bullmastiff (Working Group) that killed one of its owner's child's friends?
In fact, the ACTUAL dogs involved in attacks do not share any unique genetic information with each other, besides that which makes them dogs.

We need not look any further than the lack of any supporting evidence for shared genetic pathology in dogs that have actually attacked. They simply aren't any more closely related than the dog population in general.

However, just to completely refute the idea that genetics are involved in attacks, we've broken it down further.

If we group those dogs by breed, we find that even the dogs of the same breed are not genetically related in any meaningful way. They don't share any relevant common ancestors on their pedigrees, and therefore have not inherited some kind of aberrant gene that might explain their inappropriate behaviour.

If they're purebred dogs, we can completely refute the notion that those dogs involved in attacks share some kind of genetic cause for their aggression. By definition, purebred dogs are not crossed with other breeds. To explain a shared genetic cause in dogs from two different breeds, the gene would have to have been inherited from the breeds' shared ancestor, decades (even centuries) earlier, before those individual breeds were even created. No reasonable person would suggest that a gene would lie dormant for centuries in all its descendants, then suddenly cause aggressive behaviours in one individual dog, so many years later. It's preposterous!

Next is the issue of original breed purpose as causational. In fact, whether the attack was against a person or another animal, every single breed of dog has been guilty of serious biting incidents of one kind or another. When a Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier group) attacks another dog, it is for the same reason that a German Shepherd Dog (Herding Group), Rottweiler (Working Group), or an American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC, Terrier Group) might attack another dog.

The overwhelming majority of dogs who attack other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting. That is important enough to repeat: Most of the dogs ACTUALLY involved in unprovoked attacks on other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting! This thoroughly disproves the notion that breeds originally bred for fighting are somehow destined to attack other dogs.

(Even in the face of these facts, we still find people who truly believe that some breeds are inherently aggressive towards other dogs. Thankfully, those who PROPERLY socialize their dogs...instead of believing such outdated myths, and failing to PROPERLY socialize them with other dogs...are rewarded with dogs who are as well-socialized as any dog from any other breed. No honest person can deny that thousands of well-socialized 'pit bulls' and other so-called "fighting" breeds enjoy thousands of dog parks around the world, everyday, without incident.)

Regarding taking 'pit bulls' to dog parks, Animal Planet's Steve Dale says, "...the majority of ‘pit bulls’ can make peace and not war with other dogs, if they are well socialized..." ...as can any breed of dog.

Suzanne Clothier, author of "If A Dog's Prayers Were Answered Bones Would Rain from the Sky: Deepening Our Relationships with Dogs" (Warner Books, New York, NY, 2002), says "Some dog parks not only don't welcome them ('pit bulls') — they're not even allowed — and that's wrong. You have a dog who can be an ambassador for all 'pit bulls'."

Obviously, the breed's original purpose is not relevant when a Wheaton attacks another dog or a Toy Poodle or a Border Collie or even a Rottweiler. But it's somehow magically relevant if the dog aggression is caused by a 'pit bull'. Even so, 99% of dogs, even 'pit bulls', are NEVER involved in dog fights.

This thoroughly disproves the idea that a breed's original purpose is the main cause for the expression of aggressive behaviours. If it were, most dogs from those breeds would be involved in attacks, and ONLY those dogs would be involved in attacks. The real-world incidents demonstrate a wide range of sizes, shapes, and original breed purposes involved in every manner of unprovoked aggression. There is no breed commonality in serious dog bite statistics.

When looking at the actual dogs involved in serious aggression incidents, and how they absolutely DO NOT share any unique genetic information, we prove the theory that a dog can "inherit" some kind of propensity to attack is completely unfounded, implausible, and unscientific.

Biting Incidents: (The Statistics)

There are no accurate national dog bite statistics in Canada.
Most agencies agree that the majority of dog bites go unreported.
U.S. dog bite statistics are mostly based on a small telephone survey.
There is, on average, one dog-related fatality per year in Canada.
Every recent dog-related fatality in Canada involved dogs and victims residing within the same home.
Those individual dogs that are involved in serious biting incidents represent tiny fractions of those breeds in Canada.
Each year in the United States, 100 times as many people die as a result of a fall in the bathtub than are killed by dogs.
Compared to Cattle and Horses: According to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics study of injuries suffered in the workplace, there were nearly 18 times as many cattle-related fatalities and 13 times as many equine-related fatalities as there were dog-related fatalities from 1992-1997. Four-fifths, or 114 of the 141 cattle-related job fatalities were caused by the animal attacking the worker, whereas nearly all the dog-related fatalities were the result of a worker's vehicle going out of control after hitting or swerving to avoid hitting a dog. Unlike cattle, there wasn't a single account of a dog attack causing the death of a worker during the study period.
Biting Incidents: (The Facts)

Poor training and lack of proper supervision are involved in virtually every case of unprovoked dog aggression in Canada.
Most dog bite victims are bitten by dogs they know (usually their own dogs), while on or near the dog owner's property.
Most dog bite victims are (unsupervised) children.
Most unprovoked biting incidents occur while the dog is inadequately supervised.
Most unprovoked dog bites involve a dog with a known history of inappropriate aggression.
There is no scientific correlation between a dog's breed or size and its propensity to bite.
Dogs of all shapes, sizes, and reproductive status are involved in serious dog attacks. In the U.S., small (Toy) breeds have killed infants, while larger dogs have killed children and a few adults. It should never be implied that small dogs are not a danger. They simply aren't a significant danger to adults. Children, the most common dog bite victims, are still potentially at risk of serious injury from even the smallest of dogs.
Leash laws and muzzle orders do not apply to private property, where most bites occur. Leash laws and muzzle orders ONLY apply to dogs being walked by their owners in public, which is already the safest scenario for encountering dogs.
Prophylactic Muzzling

Prophylactic muzzling (muzzle requirements directed at all dogs, even those that have not shown any signs of aggression, under the specious guise of preventing dog bites) is never recommended. Muzzles should only be used when absolutely necessary and only on a temporary basis. It borders on abuse to require a dog to be muzzled at all times, especially when the dog is completely innocent. In fact, dogs feel vulnerable and anxious when muzzled, making them likely to develop aberrant behaviours that never would have existed if they weren't regularly muzzled. But don't take our word for it...

“Muzzling…can produce or exacerbate fear-induced aggression... Dogs that know they can not protect themselves because they have a muzzle on, and know they can't leave the situation because they are on lead can become quite unpredictable.”

- www.doggiedoor.com

Prophylactic muzzling requirements completely miss the boat, in terms of their purported goal of reducing dog bites. They only target dogs being walked by their owners in public, where very few bites actually occur anyway. The vast majority of dog bites occur on private property, where muzzle orders are not in effect. Any municipality that has passed prophylactic muzzle laws has clearly not rationally considered not only the advice of actual dog experts, but actual statistical evidence for the factors that lead to most dog bites...an unsupervised dog on the owner's property, usually left alone with an unsupervised child.

A supervised dog in a public place (whether on-leash or off, and DEFINITELY unmuzzled!) is actually the SAFEST scenario for encountering dogs.

Breed Bans

No reputable agencies support breed bans.
Dog bites are not an issue of 'public safety'.
Breed determination is subjective. A dog's breed can not be proven, even through DNA. Therefore, the determination of breed is the subjective opinion of the observer.
There is no course of study for breed differentiation.
Few individuals are expert enough to determine breed. For instance, a veterinary license only certifies the individual is expert at diagnosing and treating illness, and performing surgery. Unless veterinarians acquire extensive experience outside their practices, their license alone does not certify them as especially knowledgeable in canine behaviour, training, genetics, or breed differentiation.
Breed bans assume every member of a breed poses an identical risk, and completely negates the overwhelming influence of the owner's training.
Breed bans assume individuals are guilty, with no opportunity to prove their innocence.
Breed generalizations are equivalent to national generalizations: They rarely hold true at an individual level.
Studies show that breed bans do not reduce the number or severity of dog bites.
The dog breeds and mixes that bite most often in Canada have not been banned or restricted anywhere.
Serious dog bites continue to occur in cities that have banned specific breeds. The dogs involved are simply not one of the banned breeds.
Canine Behaviour and Training

There is an old saying in dog training: "You get the dog you deserve." In its simplicity, that statement sums up everything we need to know in order to understand why some people develop one 'model canine citizen' after another, while others fail. Dogs are what we make of them. Their social drive and natural predilection to avoid physical confrontation is almost identical to that of humans. Good dog owners use this knowledge to ensure the same level of conduct for their dogs as they might for their young children. Nuisance or criminal behaviour is simply not permitted.

Dogs have the mental capacity of a 2 - 3 year old child.
Dogs should never be expected to train themselves.
To properly socialize a dog, it must have regular off-leash training and interaction with others.
Municipalities are actually creating more inadequately socialized dogs by strictly enforcing leash laws and limiting access to areas where dogs can be properly socialized.
Dogs that are always physically restrained (whether by leash, tether, or fence line) never learn how to control their own behaviour, and must always be strictly supervised, as a consequence.
Dogs that are strictly restrained are likely to develop inappropriate, even aggressive behaviours.
Not dealing with the initial signs of inappropriate behaviour has the same result as actively encouraging inappropriate behaviours.
All dogs can be properly trained, but not all dogs respond to a single training technique. This fact places the responsibility on the dog's owner to find a training method that motivates his or her individual dog.
It is unnatural for dogs to harm one another. Properly socialized dogs use every possible method to avoid physical confrontation. Biting is a last resort for properly raised dogs.
Dogs should never be turned into weapons.
If you are a member of the media, and have any further questions or comments about dogs, canine behaviour, dog training, or aggression; please don't hesitate to contact us at: [email protected] We are always happy to provide facts, dispel myths, and promote responsible dog ownership.