> who NEEDS a breed to be "wary of strangers" these days? What possible good could it bring?

and it harms the breed as it is used as an excuse for dogs with weak temperaments.

PS.

My first dog was a BSD Groenendael, for me she had a weak temperament, though always got praised as she was fine as long as I was there to bolster her.

She loved my kids, but she could become uncomfortable with too many kids or too much excitement,a nd I was always aware and never allowed her to be out of her comfort zone and alone with children, often sending her upstairs for quiet time.

My current breed although can be bouncy as youngsters, are a lot less reactive in stressful situations, though again they are a dog and never would I leave one alone with young children, who didn't have the maturity to act appropriately around dogs.

I think as it has been said we no longer need, for example, bull baiting dogs Staffies would qualify as "some dogs".

No Jeff that is not at all what I said, I said we longer needed that TRAIT in any dog and breed traits like fighting should be bred out as there is no need for it these days.This is what I said:
Some dogs simply do NOT have a place in modern society, and others could do with a radical change as their original purpose is now irrelevant so should be bred out if it still exists (we don't need dogs fighting with other dogs, with bulls or bears or anything similar -I'm not talking herding or retrieving or similar of course)

By "some dogs" I mainly mean PitBulls and their crosses -they have no place whatsoever in our society in this country as there is no such a thing as a responsible breeder of them, breeding for the right reasons.

The thing is you are talking by attacks on humans but keep going on about dogs being bred with high levels of aggression....what breeds in particular are bred purposely to have a high level of aggression towards people?

It's not a question of high level of aggression towards people, it's a question of dog being bred irresponsibly, of types that have a much greater capacity for causing major damage.

> what breeds in particular are bred purposely to have a high level of aggression towards people?

We're not talking specifically about breeds that are aggressive to people, but breeds that have been bred to fight anything, their own kind, badger or bull have specific traits that mean they pose a greater risk to humans too. Lets consider the following points.....

1. Any breed of dog can be poorly raised, poorly socialised, bred from parents with poor temperaments or simply feeling unwell and snap.

2. Dogs show the traits they have been bred for centuries to exhibit - collies herd up kids or other dogs when there are no sheep. Labs fetch sticks when there are no fallen game birds, sighthounds chase small furries, beagles disappear after scents.

If a dog originally bred for fighting attacks a person they have not only the physical characteristics to do a great deal of harm, they also have the will power and tenacity to continue that attack no matter what personal pain they are in.

Marianne said : "I really don't think gundogs from the 1500s and earlier matter much now. "

Totally agree !

Oh and IMO a dog that has been bred to fight and show aggression is much more likely to attack and do far more damage than a dog that has been bred to keep it's owners lap warm... it's not rocket science is it ?!

This is from a press release a few months ago:

http://www.apbc.org.uk/dangerous_dogs_press_release

most of these dogs appear to not be socialised. If these dogs were kept in a kennel, they were possibly not socialised to the child carefully and responsibly.

That may be the answer to what happened, although we may never know for sure.

Lindsay
x

The topic of what dogs were originally bred for and how they fit into modern society is one that I have had to think a huge amount about personally. I've owned borzois for over 20 years, I've wanted a borzoi since I was a small girl, I've showed them, made champions up, raced them and done lure coursing but mostly they have been my much loved pets. I adore the breed, but I have had to accept that my current boy will be my last.

Borzois are big, strong and fast and have been bred for centuries to have a strong prey drive, originally bred to chase and hold wolves they can see anything smaller than themselves as prey. Of course in recent years dogs are being bred with softer temperaments, which means they integrate more easily into family lives, but the occasional one will show it's true breeding. My current dog would, I think, have faired very well in the Czars time, he is a true hunter. Left to his own devices he would attack and kill any four legged animal he came across including dogs and cats. I keep him muzzled when out and have done a huge amount of work with him over the years. I still don't trust him though and for that reason will never have another borzoi. When I read old books about the Russian hunt kennels I can see that this dog has the 'correct' temperament, but not for me and the world I live in.

The link that Lindsay posted states  "Lack of adequate socialisation is one of the biggest causes of aggression in dogs." No argument there, but a poorly socialised yorkie, labrador or collie is unlikely to kill someone. Poorly socialised pitbulls have killed people.

Thus I think 'breed not deed' is correct. If we wait till an animal attacks someone it's too late, some breeds simply have no place in our society. If the DDA was enforced properly we would no longer have any pitbulls or pb crosses in this country and Elle Lawrenson (for example) would still be alive today.

> a poorly socialised yorkie, labrador or collie is unlikely to kill someone. Poorly socialised pitbulls have killed people.

I have to agree. It is awful that a poor child has lost its life, I don't know what the answer is but I agree that it IS a risk to have a powerful dog with a child as someone else has said they could have the best temperement but *if* they were to attack (for any reason) they would cause an awful lot more damage than a smaller dog with a much smaller jaw with much less power.
My thoughts go out to the family :-(

> Thus I think 'breed not deed' is correct. If we wait till an animal attacks someone it's too late, some breeds simply have no place in our society.

How does one choose which breeds are the ones that are dangerous do we go on what they were bred for, thier size or the fact they have killed people?
It seems impossible to find info regarding dog bite stats for the UK, so if we go on the Clifton report we can classify the breeds that have been responsible for the death of a human. (figs covering a 14 yr period from '82 - '06)
These breeds are:
Akita
Airedale/boxer
Airedale
Basset/GSD mix
Beagle
Border collie
Briard
Bulldog (American
Bulldog (English)                 
Bull mastiff (Presa Canario)
Bull mastiff/German shepherd
Boxer
Boxer mix
Cane Corso
Catahoula
Chow
Chow/husky mix
Dauschund
Doberman
East Highland terrier
Fila Brasiero
German shepherd
German shepherd mix
German shepherd/husky mix
Golden retriever
Great Dane
Great Pyranees
Husky
Jack Russell terrier
Labrador
Malamute
Mastiff
Pit bull terrier 
Pit bull/chow mix
Pit bull/Lab mix
Pit bull/Rott. mix
Pomeranian
Pug/Rottweiler mix
Rottweiler
Rottweiler/GSD mix
Saint Bernard
Wolf hybrid  

If the mauling of a human without causing death, is enough to classify a BREED as dangerous, we can add a few more to that list including the cocker Spaniel & Collie.
According to the latest article on the death of the little girl, the dog that attacked her was an American Bulldog. Accodring to the Clifton report the Am. BUlldog was respnsible for 2 deaths in a 14 year period - just the same as the Boxer.

So what classifies as dog as being a dangerous breed? The fact that a dog from that breed has killed a person, or does that breed need to have killed 2 people, 3 people, 4 people? How many people does a breed have to kill for it be be a dangerous BREED, not a dangeous individual dog that just happens to be a certain breed? I admit the Death toll from Pits & Rotties is staggering, but neither of these breeds were responsable for killing this little girl.

Perhaps we need to take heed of the info that is out there - children are nearly 4 times more liekly to get bitten by a dog and ANY breed of can can be dangerous, especially to a child. Of course the bigger, more powerfull dogs can kill easier than other dogs, but that does not mean that smaller dogs that have not breen 'bred for aggression' are not capable of killing.

> most of these dogs appear to not be socialised. If these dogs were kept in a kennel, they were possibly not socialised to the child carefully and responsibly.
>

Ties right in to the latest article on this tragic case.

"Last night police said the animal, called Game, is likely to be destroyed.
It was kept with another dog in a brick shed in the back yard of the family's council home in Crawley, West Sussex.
The animals were not allowed in the house,....
But it is thought Game dashed in when Zumer's three-year-old sister opened the door on Saturday."

Taken from here

"Last night police said the animal, called Game, is likely to be destroyed.
It was kept with another dog in a brick shed in the back yard of the family's council home in Crawley, West Sussex.
The animals were not allowed in the house

I also read , the owner was a responsible breeder and sold puppies....!!!!!!!!!!

From two dogs locked in a shed outside never being allowed inside  the house!

Not what I would call a responsible breeder/owner.

> I also read , the owner was a responsible breeder and sold puppies....!!!!!!!!!!
>
> From two dogs locked in a shed outside never being allowed inside  the house!

:(

Sounds like it was a Muslim family who traditionally dont like dogs. They dont see them as pets, looks like this man saw them as money bags for their pups. Wonder how many people in Sussex have one of his puppies? Totally avoidable situation from human beings that should never be allowed to own a dog in the first place. Idiots and yet the innocent will die/have died. I hope he gets manslaughter and i wish that one of these tabloid stories would put something useful like how to avoid this, educational perhaps. Its not a case of banning breeds its a social welfare issue just like drugs in the majority of cases. Banning a type of drug doesnt work but tackling the issue behind drug abuse and such does.

My point is that when the SBT was mentioned you were quite clear that you had not specifically mentioned them, however your previous post was not as clear, to some, that's all.

"Some dogs simply do NOT have a place in modern society, and others could do with a radical change as their original purpose is now irrelevant so should be bred out if it still exists (we don't need dogs fighting with other dogs, with bulls or bears or anything similar -I'm not talking herding or retrieving or similar of course) "

This may be clear to you, as you penned it, but obviously was not as clear to others- thank you for clarifying.

Jeff.

If a dog originally bred for fighting attacks a person they have not only the physical characteristics to do a great deal of harm, they also have the will power and tenacity to continue that attack no matter what personal pain they are in.

Exactly -this is what I was trying to say  -sometimes it DOES make a big difference that I am writing in a foreign language, I don't always find the right words. :)

Some people on this forum have a dislike for certain breeds, its your opinion to say they have no place in society. If they were bred for something 100's of years ago the tendancy to do so again is greatly reduced unlike the working dogs today. They still have the power and size to do the job but the traits and instinct in alot of these breeds is not there anymore. Some individuals will have a tendency to do something nasty but this is down to other variables. I couldnt see a staffy bull-baiting anymore. My dogs barely even know what the fleshy things on the end of their faces (noses) are for, couldnt hunt if there lives depended on it.

:-)

> Oh sorry Munrogirl if you thought my comments were aimed at you! I did as one of the other posters said and just clicked on the last post. My post was in no way a direct reply to you, it was just my ramblings on the topic :-)

Oh right, OK - me getting confused - happens a lot. :-D Thanks for clarifying.

> sometimes it DOES make a big difference that I am writing in a foreign language

I bet it does. Sometimes I feel like everyone else is SPEAKING a foreign language. :-D

> If they were bred for something 100's of years ago the tendancy to do so again is greatly reduced unlike the working dogs today. They still have the power and size to do the job but the traits and instinct in alot of these breeds is not there anymore

I agree and would like to rectify the bite stats I put up a few posts above this.

The Fila is supposedly bred for intense dislike of strangers, I had wrongly put is as causing death to humans in the stats above - it has been responsible for ONE attack in 14 years (according to the Clifton reprt), but this attack was NOT fatal. So, despite the origional purpse, temperment & size of the breed, it is responsible for less deaths & attacks than the Labrador (26 attacks, 2 fatalities). The GSD (needs a steady temperment for use in police work) is responisble for 68 attacks (7 fatalities).

Allthough I agree there are traits that are not needed in todays world, it seems to me it's not the breed traits that are the problem, or the Fila should be top of the list when infact it's at the bottom. The JRT, responsible for 2 attacks, one of which was fatal.

Can we really blame breed traits & origional purpose for attacks on people?

A lack of common sense, lack of respect of the fact that dogs are dogs and as such any breed can show canine behaviour, is much more of a problem then the dog origional purpose or traits of any breed.

> it IS a risk to have a powerful dog with a child as someone else has said they could have the best temperement but *if* they were to attack (for any reason) they would cause an awful lot more damage than a smaller dog with a much smaller jaw with much less power.

Using the stats from the CLifton report, below are the chances of getting maimed if the following breed was to attack you.

Dalmation    100%
Pug                  100%
Springer Spaniel  100%
GSD          60%
Labrador  75%
Akita      81%
Mastiff    56%

That's just a few. The breed does not dictate the damage that WILL be caused in an attack only the potential for serious damage. Please don't be lulled into a false sense of security. A dog is a dog.

Well I Googled "Clifton report" as I'd never heard of it but the use of the word "mix" instead of "cross", and breeds not seen here mentioned, made me think it must be American and not British. Is something from across the pond really relevant to us here? We have never had that many deaths here from dog attacks for a start and I feel this needs to be pointed out -this was not UK figures. Anyway, what I found was not the report itself but an article saying it is flawed:
http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2007/11/wheres-clifton-report.html

Can we really blame breed traits & origional purpose for attacks on people?

Without reading through the entire thread again, has anyone done so? The point I was trying to make, and Tigger2 made much better, was that certain types of dog have a much greater capacity for doing serious damage than others. It's no different to the fact that a terrier is more likely to kill a rat than a Labrador, and the Labrador is more likely to carry things around in its mouth than a Cavalier, using some very basic examples. Some breeds will bite harder and go on fighting for longer even if hurt, than others.

> this was not UK

Yep, it was figures from the US, I didn't make that clear, I only said I was struggling to find UK figures, sorry about that.
The Clifton report has been linked to allready in the thread, that's why I used it, but I neglected to include another link, here it is.

I agree certain breeds of dog can cause more damage than others but just because a dog might have higher aggression levels towards other dogs it does not mean they will hurt a human.

I wish it was reported everytime a lab/collie/spaniel bit someone - yes they might not cause as much damage but a bite is a bite whether they release quickly or not and maybe then the general public would start to understand any dog is capable of doing so.

From the sounds of things this latest story is again someone who kept dogs locked away from the house and obviously does not know enough about looking after and training their dogs and now everyone is in uproar because of what happened.

I just wish some people never kept animals.

> Can we really blame breed traits & origional purpose for attacks on people?
>
> Without reading through the entire thread again, has anyone done so?

tigger2 said "Thus I think 'breed not deed' is correct. If we wait till an animal attacks someone it's too late, some breeds simply have no place in our society.  If the DDA was enforced properly we would no longer have any pitbulls or pb crosses in this country and Elle Lawrenson (for example) would still be alive today.

Allthough it has not been directly said that 'breed traits & origional purpose' is to blame, blaming the BREED, not the deed equates to the same thing. It was not an illegal breed responsible for the tragic death of this little girl, it was a legal breed.

> It's no different to the fact that a terrier is more likely to kill a rat than a Labrador, and the Labrador is more likely to carry things around in its mouth than a Cavalier, using some very basic examples.

That is very true and I'm not disagreeing with that, but also any breed of dog can have a high prey-drive regardless of breed, it will be less likely in a breed where those traits have not been bred for, but can still be there. In just the same way that a soft-mouthed, friendly breed can attack with the ferocity & tenacity of breed that has been bred to do so.

Just because 'my' breed is meant to be friendly & non-confontational with other animals, does not mean that I should EXPECT that behaviour especially 100% of the time. He SHOULD ignore a dog that has a go at him, he always has done, but does that mean he always will and I should not watch him? He SHOULD be  a 'gentle giant' and be fantastic with small children, should that mean I can leave him with my friends toddler? Or keep in mind he's a dog and as such is much more likely to attack a child than an adult, so not take the risk?

The POTENTIAL for damage caused should always be taken into account and the LIKELYHOOD of a specific breed attacking should be taken into account, as long as one remembers that ANY breed can attack & cause damage. It's not just big, powerfull or figthing types dogs that have killed people.

I agree certain breeds of dog can cause more damage than others but just because a dog might have higher aggression levels towards other dogs it does not mean they will hurt a human.

Feeling a bit like a broken record here -this isn't what has been said, for the third time or so. It's a question of how MUCH and how serious injuries they will cause IF they ever did.

Just popping in and haven't read all the thread yet, but I recall a baby was killed allegedly by wasn't it a JRT and I'm sure a baby has been either maimed or killed by a pomeranian, or am I dreaming?

Any dog really is dangerous to a tiny human ...

Lindsay
x

Broken record maybe - I was stating a fact, everyone else is repeating the same thing. It is pretty obvious even to someone who has nothing to do with dogs that bigger breeds are going to hurt more than a tiny toy breed if they give you a bite....I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think differently.

The incidents will continue to happen unless certain types of people start walking round with tiny dogs on a lead...and considering they generally want a status dog this isn't going to happen.

I just wish people would stop blaming certain breeds and just realise it is down to the people that own them.

> Without reading through the entire thread again, has anyone done so? The point I was trying to make, and Tigger2 made much better, was that certain types of dog have a much greater capacity for doing serious damage than others. It's no different to the fact that a terrier is more likely to kill a rat than a Labrador, and the Labrador is more likely to carry things around in its mouth than a Cavalier, using some very basic examples. Some breeds will bite harder and go on fighting for longer even if hurt, than others.

This is what I was trying to say. Any dog has the potential to bite and caution should always be exercised around children, but if you compared for example a chihuahua attacking a child and a Pitbull attacking a child there is a vast difference.
What does puzzle me is the fact that Pitbulls were never bred for human aggression (or so I believe) yet they come out so high on attacks??

Anti-social unsuitable people are unlikely to have a chi for a status dog. Not that puzzling to see idiots that feel the need for status dogs to protect them (the owners) from other people. Bringing them up incorrectly, probably from bad tempered parents all = accident waiting to happen their choice of dog is a hard one.

But the % of the population of Filas that cause such an attack would be far greater  than the % of population of GSDs/labradors surely?
Angela

>

> Using the stats from the CLifton report, below are the chances of getting maimed if the following breed was to attack you.
>
> Dalmation    100%
> Pug                  100%
> Springer Spaniel  100%
> GSD          60%
> Labrador  75%
> Akita      81%
> Mastiff    56%

PUG?
loved not maimed :)

What does it matter the breed? it killed a child we all know the story.

exactly

And there is a slowly emerging pattern to these fatal dog attacks.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5388/fatal-dog-attacks-why-lessons-are-not-being-learned/
Big breed - owner not present... just two of the indicators.

They dont see them as pets, looks like this man saw them as money bags for their pups.

Don't you think this brings us back to a long discussion from a few weeks ago where it was mentioned that if only pups from registered breeders, selling chipped or tattooed pups that could be traced back to them at any stage of the dogs life,  should only be available to owners, also registered, and allowed to keep dogs with proof of training and socialising and annual vet checks etc. This would help to keep an eye on untrained dogs, fighting or otherwise.
Without this there will always be back street breeders of questionable breeding stock, and owners that have no idea how to handle a dog, especially a large dog.
It won't prevent attacks but it just may make them less frequent.

I don't think wary of strangers is necessarily indicative of cowardice or weak temperament.   I have a Belgian Shep and she is wary of strangers but that's part of the responsibility of owning one the same as providing physical and mental stimulation.   Some breeds have characteristics that mean they aren't suited for many homes and for me that is one of them. 

As for the bull breeds debate - yes I agree with whoever said there is something in the argument that there is a general tendency for them to continue an attack if they do end up in a fight/attack situation - certainly my experience of Staffies is that if they do decide to fight then it's not bluff or to scare the other dog off they are much more likely just to grab it and not let go.    Now I think Staffies are extremely reliable with people and many breeds would be far more likely to bite given the lack of care many staffies put up with but they weren't bred to give just a warning nip and I think the same goes for some other breeds who are larger and perhaps lack the people friendly temperament of the Staffy.

in the sun it stated that it was an american bulldog which was kept in a brick shed with another dog(didn't say what type the other dog was)the 2yr old had let it out.i know you can't trust everything the papers says especially the sun paper

> Oh, I'm sorry, my mind reading skills are clearly not working today.

Your sarcasm appears to be intact. And unnecessary.

> You said that you didn't understand why particular breeds are bred and are now saying they are safe if properly trained.  Can you see why I  am confused?

That is NOT what I said - if that is how you interpreted it, it is not how it was intended. I think that there is no excuse to breed ANY type of dog for aggression, specifically human aggression. The video I wanted I couldn't find - it was a more detailed one on the Fila - which, though in principle I am 'deed not breed' I cannot see ANY excuse for the creation of; a dog bred to be stranger aggressive. I did NOT say I thought the Fila was safe under any circumstances!!

As I said - not able to search for the videos I want, but: I am well aware of what is a properly trained working dog and what isn't. Unfortunately certain breeds, if trained as in the Presa clip but done incorrectly (as by criminal elements) are VERY dangerous. The video was put up to demonstrate the power of the dog and therefore the risk it could pose in the wrong hands - if correctly trained, as in the clip, that is another matter - but that's not what criminals want "attack" dogs for. But just because I didn't write a detailed description to illustrate my point under each video did not mean I was unaware of the content.

ALL breeds should be bred to be human friendly in this day and age. The only ones needing that sort of drive are the ones used for specialist jobs by say police\ security services. And I can't see the role of the Presa as a companion/pet, though they weren't, as the Fila, bred for direct stranger aggression. That was the point I was trying to make. What I don't want is to see breeds being banned because they are large or because they are molosser breeds. But I would like to see breed standards (of those that haven't been)  reviewed - so that companion dogs bred are taken from the human friendly ones.

> To munrogirl, cavaliers were bred as companions. :-)

Thanks - it was stuff like this on the AKC site that confuses me:

"Though used successfully for shooting small game, the Cavalier's true purpose has always been that of companion."

I thought they had been used as gundogs too.

> who NEEDS a breed to be "wary of strangers" these days? What possible good could it bring?

> and it harms the breed as it is used as an excuse for dogs with weak temperaments.

Spot on - got what I was trying to say much better there. :-)

> "Last night police said the animal, called Game, is likely to be destroyed.
> It was kept with another dog in a brick shed in the back yard of the family's council home in Crawley, West Sussex.
> The animals were not allowed in the house,....
> But it is thought Game dashed in when Zumer's three-year-old sister opened the door on Saturday."

The environment always seems to be the common factor. Yes there are breeds more likely to behave that way than others. But then they are also the sort of breeds that seem to be more likely to be kept in sheds and not socialised. So how much is it circumstance and how much is it breed?

The point I was really trying to make is that we should be breeding AWAY from the dog temperament/attribute that will make dogs more likely to attack rather than banning the specific breed (with the exception of the Fila springing instantly to mind).

And I think this may well be where I leave this topic. Off for some chill pills. ;-)

I think that is an interesting question.   Should we breed away from traits that "may" make a breed more likely to attack or nip people or dogs - such as protective of property, wary of strangers, aggressive with other dogs, high prey drive, herding drive etc - or should we just discourage people from owning breeds with those traits without being fully aware of the consequences.   

Should a terrier that attacks a pet guinea pig be said to have poor temperament - or a breed that was originally expected to guard sheep who bites a burgular? 

> And there is a slowly emerging pattern to these fatal dog attacks.
>
> [url=http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5388/fatal-dog-attacks-why-lessons-are-not-being-learned/" rel=nofollow]http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/5388/fatal-dog-attacks-why-lessons-are-not-being-learned/[/url]

> Big breed - owner not present... just two of the indicators.

The JRT & Staffy that killed baby Jaden Mack were not big breeds, thier owner was asleep, so can classed as being not present.

Can i just say that all dogs were bred 100's of years ago for a purpose, to assist there owners with either herding sheep, guarding or colecting game.  It is us as humans that have domesticated these animals and bought them into our homes to be with our families!!  and taken them away from the purpose for what they were bred for.  So who is actually at fault here?? Human or dog??

I saw an interview with the child's father tonight on the local news. They are clearly devastated, saying it was a tragic accident. The dog was actually owned by an uncle it seems but kept on the premises.

I understand American Bulldogs are a recent breed here as far as I know, not yet a recognised breed - it makes me wonder how much we really know about them. Perhaps they do very well in their native country, where people often have a lot more space, but are not ideally suited to live in the UK in suburbia, kept kennelled in small gardens and under-socialised.

While kenneling in that manner is not what all of us choose... many of our established and trusted breeds can be kept like that with no great issue. Some can't - but with a new-ish breed who knows? It's a shame that if it turns out the AB is not a dog that does well outside, or simply doesn't do well in the UK's very different social structure.... human life has now paid for that knowledge.

> Can i just say that all dogs were bred 100's of years ago for a purpose, to assist there owners with either herding sheep, guarding or colecting game.  It is us as humans that have domesticated these animals and bought them into our homes to be with our families!!  and taken them away from the purpose for what they were bred for.  So who is actually at fault here?? Human or dog??

I would rarely say the dog is at fault