If I had an Anatolian you have a dog who is strongly built, strong natured, independent, natural guard, loyal, suspicious, and territorial plus being a bit of an independent thinker. Who is not really tolerant of other dogs.

Spot on Lindsay, and a great post. I dare say responsible breeders would be extremely strict during their vetting process, problems like this occur when people breed who have no business in doing so and do not understand the consequences of not vetting properly.

Everything comes down to capping who breeds, but I guess that will never happen.

Even with years of experience of many breeds there are breeds of dog I wouldn't wish to or feel confident in owning, like you I wish others would be so responsible in understand high maintenance breeds.

> If we are to have big breeds in this country we must stop saying how cute  they are, and start understanding their needs and genetic ability and behavioural traits!! and socialise/train/manage accordingly.

I have to add for anybody reading through this, just becasue a dog is huge/powerful/guarding breed does not automatically make it a monster. I have awfull trouble trying to keep Busters on-going socialisation up becasue most people think huge dog=nasty.
Please people, if you are out walking your dog(s) and see a huge dog, don't automatically avoid it just becasue it's huge, please judge it on it's behaviour. A play-bow from a giant breed means just the same as a play-bow from a tiny breed.

Some breeds do have stronger bite-force, but don't forget that even a smaller dog can crunch up bones - so they're powerfull enough to damage human flesh! Thats the whole point of teaching ANY breed of dog bite-force inhibition.
Please don't think that just becasue a dog is not huge or 'powerfull' that is not capable of casuing horrific injuries - all dogs are. Don't take my word for it, pay attention to the words of a collie owner that bit a childs face so badly he needed 200 stitches and it took more than 1 adult to stop the attack. ALL dogs need thier owner to be responsible, no matter what breed.

Demonising powerfull/huge dogs does not help anything. For these dogs to be the best they can they NEED socialisation (better that than everything being about 'management')- it's hard enough to do this now, without everybody getting the message that large guarding breeds have no place in our country. :(

Replying to myself here to put things into context
Here you can see the damage casued by ONE collie.
Here you can see the damage casued when the womam was attacked by THREE Anatolian Sheperds.
The singal collie caused much more damage.

I think the real problem is not that we have huge, guarding breeds in this country, the problem is ANY dog that is out of control.
Yes, owners of powerful/large dogs do need to be aware of what they have, but far too many people underestimate what any dog is capeable of doing.

If ALL dog owners were responsible and aware of what thier dogs are capable, most attacks could be prevented.

>Here you can see the damage casued by ONE collie.
>Here you can see the damage casued when the womam was attacked by THREE Anatolian Sheperds.

I'm not sure what this demonstrates, the woman herself said she was glad it was not a child they got hold of.
I know which breed I would go for if I was forced to choose one to fight with.

> I'm not sure what this demonstrates, the woman herself said she was glad it was not a child they got hold of.
>

It demonstraits that even a collie can cause massive injury and calling for bans on large breeds will not stop the terrible injuries that can be inflicted by other dogs.

It demonstraits that any dog can be a danger if it is not treated with the respect it deserves. Dogs are animals, not fluffly little robots, they have powerfull mouths full of teeth which any dog will use if it feels the need.

The amount of damage caused by any dog will not be dependant on breed (and subsequnt reported bite-force), but on motive/state of mind ie. any dog with intent on causing massive damage will try it's best to do so.

Demonising specific breeds does damage. It makes those breeds more popular with the dim-wits that are looking to cause trouble, it makes joe-public avoid such dogs - therfore making it hard to properly socialise them and gives responsible owners of such breeds a non-deserved poor reputaion.

I find it a crying shame that on such a knowledgable dog forum there is actually an anti-breed feeling going on here. This is the perfect place to promote responsible ownership, but people have to realise that it's not just owners of large/powerfull/guarding breeds that NEED a responsible owner. Anti-breed notions will do nothing to promote all-round responsible ownership and everything to cause a rift betwen small vs large dog owners - that is not what is needed.
Responsbile dog owners need to unite to try to get through to all the irresposnsible owners.

> The amount of damage caused by any dog will not be dependant on breed (and subsequnt reported bite-force), but on motive/state of mind ie. any dog with intent on causing massive damage will try it's best to do so.

Motive/state of mind yes but I can't see how we can ignore the fact that some breeds are very much larger, more powerful and more inclined to be territorial.

> Motive/state of mind yes but I can't see how we can ignore the fact that some breeds are very much larger, more powerful and more inclined to be territorial.

Completley agree and breed traits should be known, respected and handled accordingly by the owners.

I get VERY annoyed when guarding breeds traits are ignored, as I have one and put in all the effort in the world to ensure he is a well-behaved dog, socialised as much as possible (on-going, not forgotton about after puppyhood), trained to the best of my ability, understood as much as possible. Ownership of such a breed does entail a lot more. Things like checking my garden is secure with no trespassers before I let him out for a wee. I even think of 'poor' potential burglars safety and leave a light on with curtains open at night so anybody can see through the window that I have a huge dog before they break into my house (he wouldn't bark), so thay can avoid injury!!!

On the rare occasion I am away, I have my sister stay to look after the dog at my house. As well as being generally responsible there will be a list of 'extra' responsibilites such as:
Shut dog securely in livingroom/kitchen before answering the door to anyone.
Do not allow anybody other than my dad into the house.
Do not leave dog unatended in the garden, not even for 1 minute.

All this is for Buster, a dog that is non-reactive & sociable, NO history of biting or even threatening anybody, but it's always inmy mind he is a Mastiff, a guarding breed.
I put in massive effort because of his breed. I do get that bit. I do see why breed traits need consideration and ownership tailored to those traits.

It just worries me that so many people have no inclination that even non-guarding/powefull/large breeds can be a real danger if they are not owned responsibly. The judge calling for a ban on this breed and talk of bigger dogs having a stronger bite and 'if we allow big dogs in this country' seems to shift the focus off irresponsible ownership onto 'big dog' ownership (if you see what I mean?).

Being a responsible owner means you should be aware of what your dog is like, what it is capable of, both from a breed POV and a canine POV.

>if you have a breed which can exert a huge bite pressure and needs to be highly socialised, you flaming well look after that dog as if your life depended on it

Excellent post Lindsay, I agree 100%.

I have to add for anybody reading through this, just becasue a dog is huge/powerful/guarding breed does not automatically make it a monster. I have awfull trouble trying to keep Busters on-going socialisation up becasue most people think huge dog=nasty.

I agree with this completely Mastifflover, and if I saw you with Buster I would be very happy for my dog to be sociable and friendly with yours :) People should be able to tell from his body language and your attitude as well, if he was not friendly etc so it's a shame you find that most people are keeping away...  :( 

Please people, if you are out walking your dog(s) and see a huge dog, don't automatically avoid it just becasue it's huge, please judge it on it's behaviour. A play-bow from a giant breed means just the same as a play-bow from a tiny breed.

Absolutely! I hope I don't sound as if I would avoid a large dog just because it is a large dog. That would be illogical, as Spock would say.

Some breeds do have stronger bite-force, but don't forget that even a smaller dog can crunch up bones - so they're powerfull enough to damage human flesh! Thats the whole point of teaching ANY breed of dog bite-force inhibition.

Bite inhibition is incredibly important for all dogs, even tiny ones :) I believe a small dog, a Pomeranian, has killed a baby before now. Any dog can kill, this is true. However I am concerned about dog-dog issues as well as dog-human and in  my view, re. this particular attack, what with the history, environment, situation, etc it was a good chance that these dogs would attack. The only thing that might have stopped this would have been intensive socialisation to other dogs (rather than to each other, which is often where people who do not understand behaviour tend to make the mistake, which is what Jean Donaldson refers to) or possibly excellent training for control. Newspaper reports are not always correct, but even with the gist being right, there was IMO a strong likelihood of a dog-dog attack at least from these dogs in that situation. I find it terribly terribly sad that in fact the death of the dog and the bites on the owner were almost certainly completely preventable  :(

Demonising powerfull/huge dogs does not help anything. For these dogs to be the best they can they NEED socialisation (better that than everything being about 'management')- it's hard enough to do this now, without everybody getting the message that large guarding breeds have no place in our country. 

Agree the larger/giant breeds need socialisation and I don't think they should be demonised because that would be very wrong. I do think, honestly, that people need to be far more aware of their breed characteristics and treat their dogs accordingly. That means have them as part of the family, socialise, train, give them some sort of a job just as with any other dog. The problems come when breed characteristics are not taken into account (same with any dog - say a terrier whose owner wants it to live with guineapigs, or a lurcher owner expecting it to live next to a flock of sheep, or a GSP owner expecting it not to hunt her peacocks, or an Anatolian expected to be happy having total strangers, canine and human, on "its" land...). It's not about demonising, IMO it's about being realistic and loving and understanding one's chosen breed. Having a dog like an Anatolian means ensuring the safety of other dogs and owners at all times, even when you are away.

JMO though and i don't necessarily expect others to agree. I wish I could put over what i mean in a better way. I certainly don't mean to upset anyone but I do think that honest discussion and education is the way forward.

Lindsay
xx

Mastifflover,

I agree with you in principle but the reality is that if I see a bull breed or Akita etc.. out when walking my dog, I avoid. The reason is that the dogs concerned are more than likely to be intact males, there is a reasonable chance the owner is dodgy/has not bothered to properly socialize their dog. Additionally, I have witnessed a number of very unpleasant dog on dog attacks in my area, and heard of many more, and the culprit has always been one of the above.

I feel for the responsible owners of these dogs and if I get to know the person and dog involved I may allow my dog interaction with them. For the most part though it is simply not worth the risk to me or my dog and that is a view born of experience not prejudice.

With regard to the Anatolians, aside from the details of this particular case, I wonder if it is an example of what Bradshaw says. We are keeping dogs bred for rather specific functions in relatively unsuitable environments and should not be surprised if, given the right(wrong) trigger, that the 'abilities' they are genetically primed with burst forth. I do think that is what happened in this case. The dogs are meant to be independent thinkers and, given the opportunity, it sounds as though they just did what Anatolians were made to do.

The owner may be a top breeder but that does not mean she made any more effort to socialize and train her dogs, than the average status dog owner. Dogs may be taught to behave in the show ring but that is not proof that they have been socialized and proofed to myriad situations that might expose what they are capable of doing.

I just wanted to add that we all have a sense of how very hard Mastifflover has worked with her boy and she is a shining example of what should be done. The bulk of the owners on this forum are the same. But out in dogdom, both show and non- show there are many who don't bother, they have other priorities.

Excellent posts Lindsay and being the owner of a Komondor I completely agree :)

Being a responsible owner means you should be aware of what your dog is like, what it is capable of, both from a breed POV and a canine POV.

Absolutely, so important and if every owner of any breed of dog understood and took precautions as most of us here on CD do the dog world would be a wonderful place, with happy well socialised dogs everywhere.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure we have all noticed the majority of dog owners are complete idiots, don't understand their breed at all from  a terrier to a Great Dane, own powerful breeds who pull them over who have no training and allow their dogs to run wild and understand zilch about dog behaviour.  I see it all the time.

We have to start realising as I've said previously with regards to breeding we are a minority, the majority of dog owners today know little about dogs.

The judges comment although rash and totally unfair is probably based on the worry of large, powerful and higher maintenance dogs being owned by more and more idiots.

Good breeders will be very careful in their vetting process, however good breeders are a minority which is leaving a world of disaster for all breeds in the wrong hands.

If anything, I generally find top show dogs can be less socialised than your average pet in some situations. Yes they are used to seeing lots of other breeds and walking round rings on lead, but most top show people have barely heard of things like the Good Citizen scheme, even after several years of finding the classes at Crufts I still get asked what it is about when I have been in that class. And I know the bigger breeders I know would never bother with pet obedience classes or general puppy classes - they might go to ringcraft until the puppy is 6 months old, but that's about it.

>The owner may be a top breeder but that does not mean she made any more effort to socialize and train her dogs, than the average status dog owner. Dogs may be taught to behave in the show ring but that is not proof that they have been socialized and proofed to myriad situations that might expose what they are capable of doing.

Excellent posts Mastifflover :-)

> Absolutely! I hope I don't sound as if I would avoid a large dog just because it is a large dog

No, not atall Lindasay :)

I undertand what you said and agree. I just worry about people taking things out of context and worry that readers with alleady poor views of large dogs would take your post as some of of clarification that all big dogs are a problem, just becasue they are big - even though I know that is not what you were saying atall.

> I agree with you in principle but the reality is that if I see a bull breed or Akita etc.. out when walking my dog, I avoid. The reason is that the dogs concerned are more than likely to be intact males, there is a reasonable chance the owner is dodgy/has not bothered to properly socialize their dog. Additionally, I have witnessed a number of very unpleasant dog on dog attacks in my area, and heard of many more, and the culprit has always been one of the above.
>

same here sadly.  I like the larger breeds a lot, particulary mastiffs but my own dogs safety comes first.  My exception is I make an utter beeline every time I see a pup of that type being walked and make damn sure that my dog and I have a good interaction with it and encourage all the other dog owners to let their dogs socialise with the youngsters too.  local dog walkers have made a tremendous difference to the temperaments of a lot of our local large breed dogs by being very friendly when the pups are first on the scene and offering gentle advice on training/classes locally

I wanted to add that a pitbull is not a big dog nor is a stafford. But, as a&e dog bite analyses show, the bite of a fighting breed is very different to that of many other dog bites seen in hospital, They hold on and they tear whilst holding on and they have a relative bite force designed to produce maximum damage, so very deep puncture wounds and wide lacerations too. In truth, faced with the choice of an unknown pitbull or a mastiff I'd opt for your breed mastifflover, that is a judgement on ownership and the percentage chance of the owner not having socialized the dog, or indeed, having abused it. I'd figure your breed is rarely seen in the inner city and would be too much like hard work for the average status owner. So I don't think it is a comment on size of dog, but on what we know the dog has been developed for combined with assumptions we make about the owner.

Again, it is sad and I do feel bad when I just turn and walk in the opposite direction but dogs have been killed and badly injured around here and it has laways been by a bull breed owned by a bad/ignorant owner.

For a few months I saw a couple of young women get dragged around the park daily by their intact Akita boy. Then magically the dog and they just disappeared. I wonder why?

>I generally find top show dogs can be less socialised than your average pet in some situations. Yes they are used to seeing lots of other breeds and walking round rings on lead, but most top show people have barely heard of things like the Good Citizen scheme,

I often think that ringcraft is more useful to the average pet owner than many training classes! A dog that can mix with other breeds of all shapes, sizes, colours and coats, and doesn't object to being handled by strangers, is much more helpful in a vet surgery and reception than one that might be good at obeying instructions at its socialisation class but freaks out when having its ears examined!

And also ringcraft ensures that the puppy will meet adult dogs - many of whom will be used to puppies and will know how to behave around them and how to teach them manners.  At many puppy classes they are just that - puppies only with not an adult dog in sight to teach them how to behave and provide effective socialisation.

Ah, but a good pet socialising / obedience class, particularly one that follows the Good Citizen scheme, should include getting the dog used to be touched and checked all over, including eyes, ears, teeth, feet. At least mine always has!

No, not atall Lindasay

I undertand what you said and agree. I just worry about people taking things out of context and worry that readers with alleady poor views of large dogs would take your post as some of of clarification that all big dogs are a problem, just becasue they are big - even though I know that is not what you were saying atall.

Thank you Mastifflover :)

I have lot of respect for you, and would hate to have upset you with anything I said. Be totally assured that I am in no way suggesting that we should not have big dogs in our world - what a boring world it would be - only that we need to understand them, in a nutshell!

Lindsay
xx

I have a combined puppy/beginner class so the pups get to mix with all breeds and ages from day one. We also teach the owners how to groom/examine the dog (this is required under The KC Good Citizen Scheme as someone else pointed out earlier).

>We also teach the owners how to groom/examine the dog

Which is fine as far as it goes; what about strangers?

Also in mixed age beginners classes some of the adult dogs may well not have the social skills one wishes in adults you introduce puppies to, ones they will learn from and have positive interaction with, adults at Ring-craft are more likely to be very well socialised with other dogs and or be part of multidog households.

It's changed a bit from when I did it, but I believe that the higher GC levels require a stranger to go over the dog. I'm not for a minute saying that show dogs are badly socialised, just that they can be differently socialised from 'just' pet dogs. I think both types of socialisation are important, which is why my dogs all do GC training and pet obedience puppy classes as well as ringcraft and dog show stuff. :-)

'...what about strangers?'. The pups/beginners are introduced to strangers as often as I think appropriate throughout a course as many owners will bring a partner/teenager along. I explain and demonstrate how they should greet someone else's dog and also, very importantly, how the owner should manage the meeting.

Brainless, the owners are there to learn how to teach manners and basic obedience with other dogs around. Meeting the other dogs under control is only one aspect of it and if the adult dogs do not have good social skills they do not go anywhere near the other dogs. I would show them how to manage their dog and, in addition, offer to work with them away from the class until the dog has learned these skills. No puppy is ever at risk of meeting an anti-social dog in my class, or a dog who would give it a negative experience, I wouldn't let that happen. I have 11 years experience of running my own club and have been training dogs for more than 30 years. I would suggest that dogs who go to ringcraft are no more socialised than your average pet dog as many are only taught to hold a pretty pose in a specific situation. It does not mean they are friendly with other dogs, any more than the average pet dog. I have seen many show dogs that scare the **** out of me - and that's at Crufts!!  Also, being part of a multi-dog household does not mean that dog is sociable with other dogs outside the home and that is the mistake people make. They think because their pup already lives with another dog, they do not need to bother socialising him with other dogs. Big mistake!

I have found where I live that pups will have more positive interactions at ring craft than at pet obedience class, where the first class is full of mainly inexperienced owners with older dogs with issues and untrained pups.

The experienced owners and handlers will be in the advanced classes, whereas at ringcraft a large proportion of the owners will be experienced and the adults they bring well socialised, having a brush up on showmanship or brought simply for the weekly social occasion.

A lot of the time is social time, where the Obedience class is all about work, so owners and dogs tend to be more relaxed in between their turn at being gone over.

I look at the two types of classes as being complementary, but definitely think Ringcraft better for sheer socialisation and meeting a much more varied range of dogs.

>I look at the two types of classes as being complementary, but definitely think Ringcraft better for sheer socialisation and meeting a much more varied range of dogs.

I agree totally.

"I have found where I live that pups will have more positive interactions at ring craft than at pet obedience class, where the first class is full of mainly inexperienced owners with older dogs with issues and untrained pups."

Not strictly true as all owners of new pups, whether experienced handlers or not, will start in the puppy class. For example, I have in my current puppy class a lady who has trained 2 Obedience Champions (one of which she bred herself) and another lady who has appeared at Crufts in the Northern Obedience team. Both very experienced handlers and both mixing with joe public handlers! It also depends upon the trainer as any class is only as good as it's trainer. Dogs with 'issues' are not allowed to compromise my class, as I explained earlier, but obviously I cannot speak for all other trainers. I would just add that the only time one of my dogs has been attacked has been when I have attended an exemption show (as they were then) in aid of SBT rescue and one of the 'show' dogs launched itself at my dog and it took 3 adults to prise this dog off mine.

"The experienced owners and handlers will be in the advanced classes, whereas at ringcraft a large proportion of the owners will be experienced and the adults they bring well socialised, having a brush up on showmanship or brought simply for the weekly social occasion."

Those ringcraft handlers with adult dogs will not be in the puppy classes so how does ringcraft have an advantage over a normal obedience class then? A lot of my handlers end up coming to club for years because they enjoy the social element. As they become more confident/proficient they relax and have a laugh with each other. We hold weekly walks, have Christmas meals, guest speakers etc

"A lot of the time is social time, where the Obedience class is all about work, so owners and dogs tend to be more relaxed in between their turn at being gone over."

Dogs at my class do receive socialisation and, just as importantly, they also learn to obey their handlers in the presence of other dogs. The handlers are shown how to teach their dogs what is required in a positive way so that when their dog is off the lead, they still obey as they have always enjoyed their training and they have a bond with their handler. I have been to ringcraft clubs and a lot of the dogs look bored to tears (ditto at breed shows unfortunately). I showed my Border Collie for a brief period but stopped because it was very apparent that handlers/judges wanted them to be stuffed toys in the ring, not a lively alert dog who looked like he could work all day. Mine was probably the best trained dog in the ring but I would get dirty looks because he so obviously had a brain!

"I look at the two types of classes as being complementary, but definitely think Ringcraft better for sheer socialisation and meeting a much more varied range of dogs."

It is true that you will meet a wider range of dogs at ringcraft but I would choose a good obedience class over ringcraft any day as it equips the handler/dog with the skills they will need in every day life, not just in a showring.

To clarify; I think good 'conventional' training classes will teach the novice owner a lot, but I think good ringcraft classeswill teach the novice dog more.

>>The experienced owners and handlers will be in the advanced classes, whereas at ringcraft a large proportion of the owners will be experienced and the adults they bring well socialised, having a brush up on showmanship or brought simply for the weekly social occasion."

>Those ringcraft handlers with adult dogs will not be in the puppy classes so how does ringcraft have an advantage over a normal obedience class then?

Because at ringcraft classes the baby puppies are in the same class as the adult experienced dogs. The adult dogs are in the same class as the baby puppies. They all take turns in the same way as they do in a class at a show.

At 'conventional' training classes the beginners are all together (like a reception class at a primary school) and the more experienced are in different classes. They're not all in together as they are at ringcraft.

Can you explain what the ringcraft class will teach that an obedience class does not? Does a ringcraft class teach:-

Recall?
Retrieve?
Walking to heel off the lead and at slow/normal/fast pace with right/left/about and left about turns as well as being able to stop the dog in a sit/stand/down whilst doing this heelwork? And without extra commands?
Stays both in and out of sight, in the stand/sit/down position?
Sendaway?
The dog being to stand/sit/down in any random order (DC) whilst the handler is at least 15 paces away?
An emergency stop?
The dog to walk backwards?
Simple tricks so the dog enjoys his learning?

These are just some of the things I teach and I have never seen them taught at a ringcraft club.

So many excellent points raised all round.

Comes down to "Judge the deed not the breed" reading between the lines of opinions.

As for the training classes thats another good debate, a good class wouldn't allow dogs over the age of 6 months, preferably 20 weeks, in with pups. I try very hard to have dogs of similar ages and stages together. Interesting that people think ringcraft teaches pups more social skills, is that purely due to age or anything else? I restrict numbers to 8 for pup group. For KCGCS 8 is limit but 6 is better, more time to help everyone, good pass rates etc alll good for business. Is that what people want? What do you want from your puppy group? Are rules needed later and the first timers it's purely social with a little sprinking of training?

Marisa you sound like you teach a lot of same stuff as me but I teahc trick training as well to ehlp obedience and show owners how the tricks are actually commands just a with spin on them. Have to agree with you never seen an emergency stop taught at ringcraft or send aways or distance commands, maybe just the classes I visited although most of the ringcraft dogs I see don't have basic good manners in at all, or better still are nervous of strangers!!

>Does a ringcraft class teach:-

>Recall?
>Retrieve?
>Walking to heel off the lead and at slow/normal/fast pace with right/left/about and left about turns as well as being able to stop the dog in >a sit/stand/down whilst doing this heelwork? And without extra commands?
>Stays both in and out of sight, in the stand/sit/down position?
>Sendaway?
>The dog being to stand/sit/down in any random order (DC) whilst the handler is at least 15 paces away?
>An emergency stop?
>The dog to walk backwards?

No, of course not; because those things aren't required in the ring - and many of those things aren't required in 'real life' either! Many of those aren't taught in GC classes either. You're teaching competitive obedience, not GC. not comparing like with like - does your class teach how to herd sheep, or to balance on the handler's shoulders, or to jump through burning hoops? I've seen dogs that have been taught all those things, but not in ringcraft, obedience, GC or agility classes. Who was it on here who made the distinction between 'obedience' dogs and 'obedient' dogs?

As I said before, ringcraft concentrates on teaching the dog - obedience or GC training classes concentrate on teaching the owner how to teach the dog.

Excellent post Lindsay.  I agree with everything you say and wish I could have expressed myself so well. It is absolutely terrifying to imagine the situation this poor lady and her dog found themselves . These dogs should not be in the hands of dilettante owners. 

> "Judge the deed not the breed"

I have never liked that principle.   It would not be acceptable to wait for something to happen before doing anything preventative in any other area of safety, the work place, utilities, the road etc.

> It would not be acceptable to wait for something to happen before doing anything preventative in any other area of safety, the work place, utilities, the road etc.

EXACTLY!!!!

If one should consider breed over the fact the aniaml is a dog, then I should not need to be carefull about keeping my garden secure and doors shut to prevent my dog escaping, after all his breed are not roamers and shouldn't be inclinded to stray off my property.......

A couple of years ago while walking Buster, I spotted young boy in front of us, on his way home from school. 2 loose dogs ran at him, he froze to the spot in fear with the dogs running around him and jumping up to snap at his face. I shouted at them and headed ran towards him, the dogs ran off. The little boy was physically fine, allthough shaken up. I'm sure the dogs would have got more wound up and attacked him if they had not beed interupted. Does the breed/type of these dogs matter? Does it matter how small or large the dogs mouths were? Multuple bites to a childs face are nasty from any dog. What breed/type would act like this?

I personally think from a safety POV that dogs should be treated as dogs, ie, at the very least ALL dogs should not be allowed to roam, should be kept under control in public and supervised while around children & other animals. Look how many people would not have been bitten/attacked by ANY breed, if basic things like this were adhered to with ALL dogs.

ETA, Just for clarification,  I agree with 'deed not breed' and think safety should be considered with ANY breed. ALL dogs pose a potential risk, so no matter how small one thinks the risk thier dog poses, the dog should be owned responsibly.

> Does the breed/type of these dogs matter? Does it matter how small or large the dogs mouths were?

I would say yes, the size, strength and determination will affect the level of damage likely to be caused.  This just seems logical to me.
I also think some breeds would be far more difficult to deter by simply shouting at them.

ETA, I AGRRE with 'deed not breed' and think safety should eb considered with ANY breed. ALL dogs pose a potential risk, so no matter how small one thinks the risk thier dog poses, the dog should be owned responsibly.

Amen to that, sadly, all to often, thats not the case.

I usually get shot down in flames for saying this, but I haven't changed my mind, it's got to a point now that I feel anyone who wants to own a dog should be licensed,anyone who has a history of violence should be barred from owning an animal, and people should have to prove they have a knowledge of the breed they want and are capable of owning it safely and responsibly. I know that's not a popular or practical point of view, but I'm sick to the back teeth of breeds being ruined in the hands of complete wazzocks, who shouldn't own a pot plant let alone a living breathing animal that has the potential to do damage.

I'll put my soap box away now and duck.  

> I also think some breeds would be far more difficult to deter by simply shouting at them.

They scapered from me becasue I've had several run-ins with them myself. After being ambused by them repeatedly and having them gang up on Buster, I got fed up of making my dog ignore them when they tried to bully him, so I resorted to allowing Buster to run towards them whenever they came near us, once they could see Buster was free to move they were worried and stopped pestering us. They have come to learn if they ignore me shouting at them, Buster will run towards them. (They never ran from me & hubby shouting at them together, with hubby giving one of them a kick - they attacked his ankles, they just don't want to mess with Buster when they can see he is not being made to sit still!!)

But really that is not the point is it. The child could not stop the dogs, he was on his own in a field. The dogs should not have been trying to attack him in the first place, even if any adult could have walked past and made them scarper.

> I would say yes, the size, strength and determination will affect the level of damage likely to be caused

Potentialy yes, but not actually. As demonstrated in the pics up put up earlier, a singal collie caused far more damage than the 3 anatolians, despite not being as large, as powerfull or pre-desposed by breed to behave in such a way.

The 2 dogs that were harrasing the boy were JRTs, physically capable of causing devastating injuries to a childs face - just as ANY breed of dog is capable of. If a dog is not pre-disposed by breed to attack people, it does not mean that if it does attack it will cause minimal damage, afterall, it's allready behaving in a 'unpredictable' manner (if you go by bred only and discount the fact that all dogs are capable of displaying any canine behaviour) so how can you possibly predict how tenacious it will be????

> As demonstrated in the pics up put up earlier, a singal collie caused far more damage than the 3 anatolians, despite not being as large,

I am not sure it did as they were not like for like. 
The grown woman may have been far less damaged by the collies as she would probably have found them easier to fight off and the child may have been completely mangled by the analolians.   The woman in the attack commented on that possibility herself.
I agree all dogs should be adequately controlled but as not every owner will do so, either because they are incapable or it is not what they wish to to, the logical step is to limit what they can get hold of much as we no longer allow every numpty to keep a lion in a flat on Kensington High Street.

> The grown woman may have been far less damaged by the collies as she would probably have found them easier to fight off and the child may have been completely mangled by the analolians.  

It was only ONE collie that attacked the little boy, it took several adults to pull the collie off, the collie was not going to stop attacking. The woman was on her own with 3 anatolians, nobody hellped her, the dogs stopped the attack thierselfs.
A child in the same position as that woman may not have been injured atall, the woman sustained her injures after hitting the dogs that were attacking her dogs, there is no mention of any wound from the initial attack on her when one dog grabbed & held her arm. Please don't think I'm trying to justify the dogs behaviour atall, but if a child was faced with 3 giant dogs, one of the dogs grabbed the childs arm, the child is not likely to push that dog off and go and hit the other 2 dogs.

Just becasue a woman that faced 3 anatolians said she didn't know what would happen if she had a child with her, does not mean that it's OK for 2 loose JRTs to be harrasing a small boy. Just becasue these JRTS ran from me (or, more to the point, ran from Buster), does not mean that if they werenot interupted they would not have put the boy in hospital.

> there is no mention of any wound from the initial attack on her when one dog grabbed & held her arm.

We may not know what injury occured at that point but they did attack the woman first so were not just dog aggresive.
If it takes several adults to pull a collie off, although that does seem odd, one small adult might struggle but surely it would not be too heavy for two, I wonder how many it would take to pull an anatolian away.

> does not mean that it's OK for 2 loose JRTs to be harrasing a small boy.

Of course not, no animal should be out of control but I know which out of control animal I would rather have to deal with.

> Of course not, no animal should be out of control but I know which out of control animal I would rather have to deal with.

I see what you mean, but the fact is that nobody should have to choose what sort of dog to be attacked by, and on top of that, you cannot predict the actual damage that will be caused when a specific breed attacks, one can only go on the potentail damage that it is capable of causing. Eg. one bite from a bull breed or molloser, delievered with maximum force will obviouly cause more damage than one bite from a collie at maximum force. But we do not know how hard a dog will bite if it attacks somebody and we do not know how long it will sustain the attack. Eg, a sustained, full-force attack from a collie can cause far more damage than a couple of minimum-force bites from a bullbreed/mollosor.
There are breeds pre-desposed to carrying out sustained attacks, but equally, breeds not predisposed to doing so can and have done. Therefore, being attacked by a breed other than a bull breed or mollossor can and have been fatal/serious. The 'probability' of being attacked/seriously injured in an attack from specific breeds may be greater than that with other breeds, but that does not mean other breeds are not capable of being as dangerous.

The baseline of responsible onwership for any dog is far too low for far too many people. When incidents happen invloving larger/powefull breeds concentration is shifted towards the breed of dog, rather than ownership.
If everybody understands that any dog has the potential to cause injury and harm to people & other animals, we might be getting closer to getting somewhere.

Of course there are breed traits that would pre-dispose certain breeds to act in certain ways, but one can not take that for granted above the fact that dogs are dogs when considering the saefty of others.

My breed should not be dog agressive, be good around children, should be good with other animals, not display prey drive, not attack people. However, he is a DOG, so the repsonsible thing would be to treat him as a dog. It would be fool hardy to stick my pet rabbit in front of him and expect - just becasue of his breed - him not to harm it. It would be fool hardy to pay no extra attention when he is around children, allthough his breed dictates he should be fantastic with kids- he is a dog. It would be fool hardy to allow him to roam - his breed dicates that he shouldn't be going around attacknig people, but he is a dog. If he were to actually attack anybody, his breed dictates he should only hold, not carry out a sustaind violent attack. Does this mean that I should not be carefull with him, he is highly unlikely to attack a person & cause injury (by breed), or sould I be carefull becasue he is a dog?

Just becasue a breed is pre-diposed to act in a certain way, does not mean that is the only way it will act. Children have been killed by staffies - a staffy should be great with children. People have been killed by pitbulls - pitbulls should be great with people, people who favour BSL will argue that the tenacity of such breeds is predictable. OK, so where is the breed disposition involved in the baby that was killed by a pom, or the baby that was killed by a lab puppy - not breed traits - canine traits. People - adults - have been killed/maimed by many different breeds of dog (including mongrels), where the breed would not be pre disposed to behave in such a way - but thay are dogs.

I perfectly undertand that extra precautions should be taken when dealing with certain breed traits, but that is exactly what they should be - extra - on top of general responsible ownership.
The Anatolians should NOT have been loose, reagrdless of breed, a loose pack of dogs are a potential danger.

people should have to prove they have a knowledge of the breed they want and are capable of owning it safely and responsibly. I know that's not a popular or practical point of view, but I'm sick to the back teeth of breeds being ruined in the hands of complete wazzocks

I don't know why anyone would shoot you down in flames for saying those things, totally agree particularly with your last point, this is exactly what responsible breeders do though, as it is I can say I easily turn away 80% of people interested in my pups, you have to match pup with lifestyle, experience and knowledge.

If I had a breed which was powerful with strong guarding traits you can bet your life that 80% would go up to 95% the trouble begins and ends in who is breeding and everything leads on from there on in.

A dog is only ever a product of the breeder and that breeders knowledge and then leading on to the right choice of owner.

All breeds are safe in the right hands. :-)

> I usually get shot down in flames for saying this, but I haven't changed my mind, it's got to a point now that I feel anyone who wants to own a dog should be licensed,anyone who has a history of violence should be barred from owning an animal, and people should have to prove they have a knowledge of the breed they want and are capable of owning it safely and responsibly. I know that's not a popular or practical point of view, but I'm sick to the back teeth of breeds being ruined in the hands of complete wazzocks, who shouldn't own a pot plant let alone a living breathing animal that has the potential to do damage.

I heartily agree with you and would be more than happy to take tests if such a thing existed - I did look into it not long ago for Spain as there is a responsible dog owner type test there for larger dogs (and all but one of mine are on the dangerous list over there).

We license people for driving and have further licensing for driving specialist vehicles because of the increased risks involved so I don't see why we can't do the same for dogs - yes, it would be a PITA to police and yes, people would not bother but if the majority of people did it (and the majority of dog owners I still think are the responsible kind) then it could work as the minority would be easier to identify.  Just my opinion, of course :-)

I wrote: Does a ringcraft class teach:-

>Recall?
>Retrieve?
>Walking to heel off the lead and at slow/normal/fast pace with right/left/about and left about turns as well as being able to stop the dog in >a sit/stand/down whilst doing this heelwork? And without extra commands?
>Stays both in and out of sight, in the stand/sit/down position?
>Sendaway?
>The dog being to stand/sit/down in any random order (DC) whilst the handler is at least 15 paces away?
>An emergency stop?
>The dog to walk backwards?

Jeangenie wrote: No, of course not; because those things aren't required in the ring - and many of those things aren't required in 'real life' either! Many of those aren't taught in GC classes either. You're teaching competitive obedience, not GC.

You obviously don't know the Good Cits very well. If you read the Good Cits requirements you will see that there is an emergency stop (Stop the Dog) in the Gold: a Recall at Gold, Silver and Bronze level; Sendaway to the dog's bed in the Gold; heelwork off the lead in the Gold (and also heelwork in the Bronze and Silver); stays - incl out of sight - at all 3 levels. Need I go on??

I teach these exercises because they are also useful in real life, contrary to what you say. For example - the emergency stop is an obvious life saver and if people could get their dogs to 'freeze/pause' there might be fewer dogs running off after other dogs/joggers/deer/towards a busy road etc but the owners need to be vigilant and spot the distraction/danger before their dog does. It goes without saying that every dog needs a recall - if a dog slips out a front door/the handler drops the lead/the dog sees something he wants to approach etc they need to be able to get the dog back quickly and safely. The retrieve is a fantastic way of keep a dog fit both mentally and physically. Again, if more dogs had an outlet for their chase/herd/retrieve instinct we would have much happier dogs. Companion dogs for the disabled help their owners out using this skill (pick up laundry, place it in the machine, fetch my purse, bring me the phone, pick up the post etc). Again, all dogs would benefit from being able to walk nicely to heel and to react when their owners change direction or pace. If I was walking through a busy market (or Crufts lol) with my dog it would be great if he stayed near my leg and could weave through the crowds with me. I might need to speed up/slow down at points and he should match his pace to mine accordingly. I can use the sendaway to send my dog to bed or to find a lost toy in the garden (which I can see but the dog can't). I can use the walk back when the dog walks into the kitchen just as I am mopping the floor, if he backs out it save all those muddy footprints. Similarly, if I walk into a room, then change my mind and turn round, it is easier to get the dog who is following me to back up rather then come in, turn round and then walk out of the room again. The DC can be used to correct a dog who has changed position in stays (though I personally would return to the dog and set him up again), it can also be used to get him to lie on his bed and settle when he woud rather sit up, and so on. So please don't insult me by saying that I am teaching purely competitive obedience - I don't think pet owners would keep returning course after course if they felt they were being taught a specialist dog sport which is the canine equivalent of dressage. I am teaching skills for life.

We license people for driving and have further licensing for driving specialist vehicles because of the increased risks involved so I don't see why we can't do the same for dogs

Exactly !

It's usually the part where I mention that nobody with a violent history should be allowed an animal, that get's people rattled, I think it's perfectly reasonable.

>The retrieve is a fantastic way of keep a dog fit both mentally and physically.

Many dogs have zero interest in retrieving, and live long happy healthy lives never doing it.

>Again, all dogs would benefit from being able to walk nicely to heel and to react when their owners change direction or pace.

Like the moving on a loose lead at different paces as taught at ringcraft, you mean?

>I can use the walk back when the dog walks into the kitchen just as I am mopping the floor, if he backs out it save all those muddy footprints.

He can turn around and go away - he needn't walk backwards.

>Similarly, if I walk into a room, then change my mind and turn round, it is easier to get the dog who is following me to back up rather then come in, turn round and then walk out of the room again.

Just send out in front of you - again no need to walk backwards.

>The DC can be used to correct a dog who has changed position in stays (though I personally would return to the dog and set him up again), it can also be used to get him to lie on his bed and settle when he woud rather sit up, and so on.

Why can't he move when he's on his bed? That's control-freaky!

The only thing you describe that you teach that I'll agree is essential is the recall - everything else is optional-extra window-dressing. Sorry.

>I am teaching skills for life.

So does ringcraft; moving on a loose lead in and out amongst dogs of all different sizes and ages; allowing total strangers to handle them all over; waiting quietly without fuss ... those are all essential life skills too.

> It's usually the part where I mention that nobody with a violent history should be allowed an animal, that get's people rattled, I think it's perfectly reasonable.

It is.  I dare say there are instances where violence towards people does not mean violence towards animals (say, if the violence was as a result of bullying or abuse suffered themselves) but generally, I agree with you on that as well.

Getting back to the point where we said Ringcraft is really most useful is 'socialisation' a large part of your time at ringcraft you will be standing around or sitting waiting your turn.

This teaches both you and the dog to 'settle' calmly and interact with your neighbours in a relaxed way.

At Obedience classes you are mostly actively encouraging dogs not to interact/interfere with each other, and the dog and handler are busy trying to learn all your teaching them.

At ringcraft there is much more 'relaxed' time for simply getting along with each other.

Vets and behaviourists have recognised that a large proportion of problems with dogs is due to their lack of canine social skills, and this is why we now have Puppy socialisation classes.  The problem here is they are all puppies without the influence of adult canines,a nd in the real world the pup will meet mostly adult dogs which it has to know how to behave with.

Most of your practising of standing and moving your dog is done individually (less distracting and full attention on each team).  The dogs will of course be moved together at times too, and matches simulate the actual competition side.

I have a lot of friends in competitive obedience and helped out my friend at her classes.  I have a breed that is not into retrieving, though great at scent work, and will bring back anything interesting, but are completely turned off by any repetitive exercises.  Also I am far too lazy to commit to higher levels/accuracy of training and for me a dog that will recall, like down, leave, off, wait and settle when told are about all I need for every day life (in practise I never need a sit) along with redirecting (sending out/on) and slowing down 'steady'.

What I do want most from my dogs is for them to mix happily with other dogs and people, and ringcraft gives ample opportunity for lots of people to interact with my dogs (not just those training) and their dogs, which is continued at shows. 

So Ringcraft is great for Socialisation and Obedeince class to learn commands.  As I said complementary.

Used to enjoy walking and mixing with lots of other dogs, but now no longer do so much as so many owners are so paranoid if they see more than one dog off lead (largely due to the rise of poorly bred and badly owned staffords attacking peoples dogs).  It is no fun and pretty impractical to walk four to six dogs off lead if you need to keep putting them back on every time you spot a timid person walking their dog. 

So I largely stick to on lead walking often late at night, as I am not prepared to do separate walks, as what walking time I have I want them all to have maximum use of. 

They are still almost excessively sociable thanks to ringcraft and shows.  Granted our Inka can be a bit verbally blustery and bossy, but settles very quickly once everyone else has been introduced, and I suspect is largely due to them all being on lead at the time.