Are some dogs just too dangerous?

[jeninok]

I don't think breeds are comparable at all to races.

The history and co-evolution of dogs and humans is fascinating enough without conflating arbitrary concepts.

[Tsuga]

The history and co-evolution of dogs and humans is fascinating enough without conflating arbitrary concepts.

 

Amen.

[jeninok]

For all those who think education is the answer, how do you think that could work ? ( A ban would have massive problems, so even though that's my preference, I'm interested in education).

 

How do you educate owners of those large, highly muscled dogs so that they are not a threat to people ?

 

Or are we just saying that 'good people' have 'good dogs', 'bad people' have the bad dogs, and oh well, sometimes the bad ones kill ?

Some simple charts used in school, more responsible TV programming that isn't Caesar Milan. The animal rescues could run simple PSA commercials instead of putting eye drops in dogs and making them look sad.

 

We teach kids about stop drop and roll, why not basic manners with canines.

 

Vets could provide basic literature, pamphlets, or contract with a trainer for discounted rates.

 

I also think that consequences should be severe for any dog that bites after a previous warning or incident.

Edited February 8, 2016 by jeninok

[Corraleno]

Also, the statistic that pit bulls accounted for 62% of fatal attacks in the past 10 years and are only 6% of the dog population is also very compelling for me.

 

That figure (62%) came from a report compiled by Merritt Clifton, who based it on media reports that he collected. Many have argued that this data source is inherently biased against pits, because "mauled by a vicious pit bull" is a more compelling story than "mauled by an unknown mixed breed." Also, pretty much any dog with a big blocky head gets identified as a "pit bull" even though the dog may be something entirely different, or may be a mix of several breeds with only a small percentage of pit genes. Furthermore, Clifton's "fatal attack" statistics included secondary causes of death, such as people who were hit by cars while running away from dogs; people who died of heart attacks, strokes, or head injuries caused by being knocked over by a dog; people who died of infections from bites; accidental deaths such as being strangled by a leash; and even a baby who was accidentally smothered when a dog slept on top of her. 

 

The biggest issue, which has not been mentioned in this thread and is rarely mentioned by anti-pit campaigners, is that more than 90% of all fatal dog attacks involve intact males. I would be 100% in favor of requiring all pits to be spayed or neutered unless the owner applies for a breeders license, which would require vetting and training. This would not only solve most of the attack problems, it would also prevent hundreds of thousands of innocent, unwanted dogs from being killed in shelters every year, and it would give animal control and law enforcement personnel the right to remove unneutered pits from people who shouldn't be raising or breeding them. 

 

I'm also in favor of laws against chaining dogs; not only is it cruel, but more than a quarter of all fatal attacks involved dogs who were chained at the time of the attack.

 

Banning an entire breed, when the vast majority of those dogs are good, loyal dogs who never harm anyone, is not only unfair, it's ineffective. The people who would abide by the law are generally not the ones who own and breed the aggressive, poorly trained, intact male dogs who are responsible for 90% of the fatalities. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Corraleno

[Guest]

I can't quote right now but kewb you really don't see why it is offensive to compare concern about aggressive dog breeds to GENOCIDE or institutional racism or slavery? For real you don't know why that gets the old hackles up? That's like the time a (married btw) woman tried to tell me marriage is analgalous to slavery.

[rebcoola]

I am in the owners make the dog camp and agree that usually the owners are just oblivious to the signs their dogs are giving off.  We raised while I was growing up Bouvier some of the biggest toughest dogs on the planet ours were well trained and sweet never aggressive and good with kids.  I personally feel safer around giant dogs because they rarely feel threatened by a person nor feel the need to protect themselves so are quite calm.  Banning certain breeds is a silly way to handle the problem people who are owners for the wrong reasons will simply break the law or find a new breed to abuse.

 

By far the scariest dog I have had to deal with is a neglected 30lb mutt that lives across from my parents it has gone insane due to being left tied outside so much it has learned to get of the tie and ran loose at will for months.  It tried to attack my daughter in our yard when its owners let it out luckily I was nearby and was able to get between them and eventually run the dog off.   We had to call animal control the dog was not put down but they had to fence the yard and pay for a dangerous dog license.

Edited February 8, 2016 by rebcoola

[Spy Car]

My biggest concern is that so few owners (of any breed) actively train their puppies for "Bite Inhibition."

 

IMO "Bite Inhibition" training is the most important single training priority that responsible dog owners should be versed in, and practice, but few dog owners I meet have ever hear the term, or practiced the concepts.

 

Teaching "Bite Inhibition" is something I learned as a boy from a wise-old dog handler when I got my first puppy. I'm not sure if the term "Bite inhibition" was current then, we called it developing a soft-mouth. Since then teaching "Bite Inhibition" has been promoted as the most critical task in puppy rearing (something I concur with 100%) by the leading PR-style dog behaviorist Dr Ian Dunbar.

 

While I'm 100% with Dr Dunbar on the vital importance of "Bite Inhibition" training, I prefer my method to his. Dunbar is a Phd in Animal Behavior, world-famous, star of TED Talks, etc. Me? None f those things, so pick your "expert." :D

 

My method: when you get your puppy, and it has those razor sharp teeth, and it is looking to gnaw on you, sort of let it. Get your hand into the puppy's mouth (early and often). If the puppy bite too hard, don't pull away, but instead genty put hand deeper into mouth. Make it mildly uncomfortable (emphasis on "mildly") for the biter, and ease back the hand to a comfortable position when the sharp biting ceases.

 

If the pup if really going at the hand (biting, and the little teeth hurt) one can in a pinch place ones thumbnail against the roof of the puppies mouth just enough for the pressure to back off the biting (hand staying in mouth).

 

The third way to mitigate hard biting is to gently fold the puppy's (or older dog's) lips under the teeth, placing ones hands on the sides of the dogs open mouth. This way if the puppy is going to bite down, their shap little teeth will be coming down on the tender insides of their own lip flaps. One should go this gently, and never use external force to create pressure or pain of skin against teeth. It is all for the pup to self regulate.

 

Then you get your hands in the puppy's mouth a lot. Like many, many, many times daily. For months on end. Dogs trained this way have incredibly soft mouths and are very unlikely to ever bite a person.

 

A key is to NOT try to eradicate a puppy's natural propensity to bite, this after-all is how puppies play, the idea is to modify the behavior gently and over time. Bite Inhibition training is a process. You want it to me a process. At almost 2 years old I still get my hand regularly into my dog Chester's mouth. He will accept it there as long as I want to keep it inside. I can examine teeth, and even scale teeth with a steel dental pick when I need to.

 

Many trainers tell people to teach any puppy a lesson who puts its teeth on human skin (Come to Jesus moments). This is mysteriously bad advice. One may, through dramic reaction, suppress the behavior, but having a soft mouth hasn't been taught. That is a huge omission. A dog that hasn't had this behavior shaped by bite inhibition might one day snap. Maybe a kid steps on the dog's tail, or some other unpleasant situation overwhelms the dog's (insufficient) training.

 

Any dog can be a dangerous dog. My dog, a Vizsla, while not typically an agressive breed is one of the most "mouthy" of dogs in puppyhood (and notorious for what V owners call "shark attacks". Their little teeth are like razors. But through consistent Bite Inhibition training one can end up with a dog with the softest possible mouth.

 

It means getting ones hand deliberately into the mouth of puppies and young dogs on a consistent basis.

 

Long post. I'll leave this one and go look for a link to Dr Dunbar's method (which I will critique). For any difference of opinion, I'd far rather dog owners use Dunbar's PR method than doing nothing, or (worse yet) by trying to end puppy bites through big or harsh corrections. Theis latter course is very dangerous, and the common "wisdom" in many quarters. Scary!

 

Bill

[JulieA97]

Really, very few owners imagine their beloved pets harming others, but it happens. Even a small dog can do damage. Never trust someone who swears " it's fine, pull her tail or ears--she won't hurt a fly!" I'd not scare my child by telling them to never go near a certain breed( and I dislike pits) but rather teach them the proper way to approach an animal, the hows and whens.

Even a pet cat can maim a kid; it makes me nervous to see pics and videos of babies face to face with a kitten/cat.

My current dog seems likes she doesn't have a mean bone in her body. Sweet, no food aggression, or any hint of aggression. However, she is incredibly strong with really strong jaws. She's not been around young kids. She can carry a chipmunk in her mouth without hurting it, but will play pretty darn rough with her rubber pig toy. I'd never assume she will always be 100% harmless.

I am not a fan of dogs. They make me nervous. However, ds adores dogs. We are working with him on the proper way to approach a dog, ask the owner first, be gentle, etc. He is 4. We have a neighbor however with what seems like a sweet dog. The neighbor keeps telling him things like oh he would never hurt you! You could put your hand in his mouth and he wouldn't hurt you, he has been around lots of young kids. Please don't tell my child its ok to put his hands in a dogs mouth to get a ball from him! That dog is twice his size.

 

Now admittedly I avoid dogs if at all possible. And have refused to go to a playdate at someones house that has 3 pits that roam the house and yard freely with very young children. The owner calls them her babies and thinks they could never do anything wrong so exercises very little control of them. I made up an excuse for why we could not go but it was absolutely the dog issue. We have an old cat. She has never bitten or scratched and generally runs from the room whenever ds enters it. I don't think she would do anything but you just never know so I guard their time together like a hawk. I wish all pet owners would realize that there are no guarantees when it comes to animals, please take appropriate precautions.

[Tsuga]

For all those who think education is the answer, how do you think that could work ? ( A ban would have massive problems, so even though that's my preference, I'm interested in education).

 

How do you educate owners of those large, highly muscled dogs so that they are not a threat to people ?

 

Or are we just saying that 'good people' have 'good dogs', 'bad people' have the bad dogs, and oh well, sometimes the bad ones kill ?

 

I think part of the education involves limiting ownership. You don't have breed bans but you have requirements for owning certain breeds.

[Incognito]

I agree wholeheartedly about training for a "soft mouth".  Our dog we got as a puppy was easy to do, our dog we got when older - well, that is a different scenario.

 

One of our dogs was severely attacked, by a totally unprovoked pit bull.  Well, I'm sure walking at a leisurely pace as a family was provoking, but that was all we did.  

 

It was a feeling of utter helplessness to see a creature that we love as part of our family, who looks to us for guidance and protection, be rag-dolled in front of our eyes.  Our dog did live - but it was an expensive and long road to recovery, involving months of crating and the fear that we might end up having to put our dog down if it had been too negatively affected by the attack (because of our small kids we really couldn't risk edgy behaviour).

 

I've been around aggressive dogs before, and they do communicate loudly with their body language, but this was beyond that.  This was insanity. 

 

ETA:  I don't know what the answer is as far as regulation, but I am definitely pro-more regulation when it comes to breeds over 30 lbs. and I personally can never trust a pitt.

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Incognito

[Tsuga]

 That's like the time a (married btw) woman tried to tell me marriage is analgalous to slavery.

 

I am not a fan of marriage by any means but  :confused1:  :001_huh:  :confused:

[Spy Car]

I'm going to paste the first line of the linked article by Dr Dunbar below. If I ever agreed whole heartedly with another person about anything, it has never been more fervently than my agreement with this:

 

Please read this section extremely carefully. I shall repeat over and over: teaching bite inhibition is the most important aspect of your puppy's entire education.

 

The most important aspect of your puppy's entire education.

 

His article is here:

 

http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/teaching-bite-inhibition

 

A few points I don't agree with. I wish Hornblower were here for the discussion.

 

I don't like his advocating an owner yelling "Ouch!" when a puppy is too rough. As Dunbar himself cautions creating "drama" is a type of reward for a puppy or dog. A big "Ouch'" is drama IMO. It is not necessary, and IMO potentially counterproductive. An owner should be cool. No drama "rewards." In "my method" going deeper or folding over lip flaps shoul be done with total non-chalance (no drama at all).

 

In a similar fashion, turning one back on the puppy for biting is IMO a weakly linked "denial of attention" as punishment for biting as opposed to a puppy feeling slight discomfort from a hand going deeper in its mouth or feeling how its own sharp teeth feel.

 

These are ways I feel the PR-only (PR meaning positive reinforcement) methods go outside of good sense. Withholding affection or withholding attention is not "positive reinforcement" in any case, and less effective than linking cause and effect.

 

Anyway, Dunbar's article is worth reading. You can choose who makes more sense, the world's leading authority or me.

 

Either way, Bite Inhibition training really is the most important aspect of your puppy's entire education. If every puppy was raised with this training it would dramatically alter the the number of dog bites suffered every year. It is an essential part of rearing a puppy. Yet almost unknown by the general public.

 

Bill

[SKL]

I am not comparing dog breeds to human races, but criticizing the thought process that says "I heard that __% of bad acts are done by Xs, therefore Xs as a group need to be restrained, sterilized, banned."  Especially without even confirming what the % figure really represents.  It's unscientific.  It's irrational.

 

I mean, yeah, it's a dog.  So what if fewer pit bulls exist in the future.  But do people realize what "ban them" means?  Take and kill a bunch of kids' beloved pets for no reason other than media sensationalism?  Contrast that with the current policy about exterminating wolves.

 

Pretty much every law that results from outrage and uproar ends up being a bad law.  Hurts the innocent without making a dent in the real problem.

Edited February 8, 2016 by SKL

[Ausmumof3]

I am not comparing dog breeds to human races, but criticizing the thought process that says "I heard that __% of bad acts are done by Xs, therefore Xs as a group need to be restrained, sterilized, banned." Especially without even confirming what the % figure really represents. It's unscientific. It's irrational.

 

I mean, yeah, it's a dog. So what if fewer pit bulls exist in the future. But do people realize what "ban them" means? Take and kill a bunch of kids' beloved pets for no reason other than media sensationalism? Contrast that with the current policy about exterminating wolves.

 

Pretty much every law that results from outrage and uproar ends up being a bad law. Hurts the innocent without making a dent in the real problem.

The process with restricted breeds here has been that they legally have to be neutered. I'm sure for breeders that have spent years perfecting a line it would be devestating but not as devestating as exterminating the family pet.

[Ausmumof3]

For all those who think education is the answer, how do you think that could work ? ( A ban would have massive problems, so even though that's my preference, I'm interested in education).

 

How do you educate owners of those large, highly muscled dogs so that they are not a threat to people ?

 

Or are we just saying that 'good people' have 'good dogs', 'bad people' have the bad dogs, and oh well, sometimes the bad ones kill ?

When you register a dog you get given basic literature on responsible dog ownership from the council. So how I could see it working is with certain breeds you are also required to attend a certain number of ownership classes and possibly puppy obedience. The only issue I have with the obedience class thing is that some experienced owners will be paying money and jumping unnecessary hoops but hey if the alternative is a breed ban it's a small price to pay. The obedience classes would have to have some kind of certification attached that the dog has been exposed to a variety of scenarios and responded correctly. If not the owner is required to do follow up work or repeat the classes.

 

This is not going to eliminate the type of person that just doesn't register the dog in the same way firearm laws don't totally prevent illegal ownership and people still sometimes drive unlicensed.

 

It does provide a framework that means people that may be thinking about a spur of the moment purchase or a certain type of dog needs to give it some thought as to whether or not they can really afford the time and money to own it responsibly.

 

It would also be possible to legislate that the dogs need to remain at the place of residence other than training and vet visits but the downside would be this would limit owners options of early socialisation.

[Pawz4me]

I think it implies that the major differences between breeds which have been deliberately bred, and the known large differences in IQ (like, LARGE differences) between breeds, is somehow analogous to the differences between racial groups in humans.

 

I'm not touching the comparing dogs to humans issue, but I would be extremely wary of any statistics about variations in dog IQ by breed.  We don't even (IMO) have good tools for measuring human IQ.  To claim that some dog breeds are smarter than others is ludicrous.  Most dog IQ lists are simply rankings of how easily trainable a breed tends to be and so say a lot more about humans than dogs.  There's an inherent bias in that, as breeds that have been developed to work closely with humans will be more open to direction from them than breeds that have been developed to be independent thinkers.  That certainly doesn't mean the more easily trainable dog is more intelligent!  How does one accurately compare the IQ (whatever that means) of a dog bred to guard livestock versus one bred to hunt vermin or one who has been bred to simply be a companion?  It's like trying to compare the IQ of different species.  IME many of the breeds that get labeled as "dumb" or "stubborn" are the breeds who are meant to work independently from humans and to make their own decisions.  As such they require more of a human trainer.  And since many people lack the skill, talent and/or patience to train dogs like that they label them as dumb or stubborn.

 

 

I've only ever watched one episode of Cesar Millan's dog show, but it was about a pit bull. He flat out told the owner that he didn't have the personality to own a pit bull. The dog needed to someone to be in charge, and the guy couldn't do it. 

 

It's good that you've never wasted more time than that on him.  Avoid at all costs.  His show and the training techniques he advocates have done much harm to dogs, and to the human/dog relationship.

 

That man is overrated. I mean, he uses the long-discredited alpha dog model of canine behavior, for crying out loud!

 

Agreed.

 

For all those who think education is the answer, how do you think that could work ? ( A ban would have massive problems, so even though that's my preference, I'm interested in education).

 

How do you educate owners of those large, highly muscled dogs so that they are not a threat to people ?

 

Or are we just saying that 'good people' have 'good dogs', 'bad people' have the bad dogs, and oh well, sometimes the bad ones kill ?

 

We need more outreach in schools, but sadly here in the U.S. I doubt they have much time to allocate to stuff like that anymore.

 

We need to get people like Cesar Milan off the air and get more veterinary behaviorists and good trainers on the air.

 

Some simple charts used in school, more responsible TV programming that isn't Caesar Milan. The animal rescues could run simple PSA commercials instead of putting eye drops in dogs and making them look sad.

 

We teach kids about stop drop and roll, why not basic manners with canines.

 

Vets could provide basic literature, pamphlets, or contract with a trainer for discounted rates.

 

 

Agreed.

 

My biggest concern is that so few owners (of any breed) actively train their puppies for "Bite Inhibition."

 

IMO "Bite Inhibition" training is the most important single training priority that responsible dog owners should be versed in, and practice, but few dog owners I meet have ever hear the term, or practiced the concepts.

 

I certainly don't disagree that training bite inhibition is important.  But if more breeders were really "good" breeders who kept their puppies with their mother and litter mates longer it wouldn't be so necessary for humans to train that.  Mom would teach it.  And even the best human can't teach a puppy good bite inhibition like its own mother can.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Pawz4me

[ktgrok]

Exactly. That would be like calling a Bloodhound a Fila Brasileiro just because they sometimes have similar face types.

Karelean Bear dogs are so rare I have no idea why they were even mentioned.

 

Although people cross the street to get away from my Dobie/Rottie that is actually a Black and Tan Coonhound Mix.

 

They take steps back and cringe as he is literally throwing himself belly up at their feet, because Rockweilkers (spelling intentional) are dangerous.

 

Yes, that's a good point. When people get bitten they may not have any idea what bit them. Everyone thought my weimaraners were greyhounds. Because they were grey. Sigh. 

 

And they think my border collie is a husky, because he has one blue eye and is fluffy. True story. Every single time we take him out people ask if he is a husky. he is VERY obviously a border collie. 

 

Lots of people might mistake a boxer, bulldog, american bull dog, etc etc as a pit bull. Not to mention the differences between bull terrier versus american staffordshire terrier versus other bully breeds. 

[ktgrok]

What stats don't take into account are the type of owner that are attracted to certain breeds. Some breeds may have a higher number of attacks but partly because they attract the kind of owners that think having a dog that attacks is awesome and will even encourage the behaviour.

 

I don't support an outright ban but regulation that requires dog owners of certain breeds to attend training on dog attacks and the dog to attend obedience classes or something would be OK.

 

The dogs that I seem to notice the most aggression issues with are jack Russell's and the worst dog bite I saw came from a beagle. Unfortunately the beagles owner thought it was awesome to play fight with his dog all the time.

 

I'd be totally okay with this. I'd like to see it based on size rather than breed though. I wouldn't want the drug dealers and gang members to just pick another breed, as happened in the past (shepherd then doberman than rottweiler now pit bull). I don't want them picking some more rare breed that isn't listed in the legislation and doing the same thing to it, you know?

[ktgrok]

 

 

ETA: Owners don't have to train an animal to be vicious in order to get a dangerous animal. Ignoring and not training an animal that has a short fuse or is antisocial is every bit as dangerous. 

 

Yes!!!! Most of the truly scary dogs I've known were not trained to be mean. Probably because I worked first in a suburb of Palm Beach and then in a  more rural/suburban area outside Orlando, not in gang territory (did see some of those in my brief period of working in a more urban environment). But.....the owners totally ignored or argued when warning signs were happening. Like I said, there was a woman who thought growling was "cute" and kissed the dog while it growled, getting bitten in the process. Or the ones that just loved the Akita, and said "he's just a puppy" only to have it maul their child's face. We TOLD her. That dog was 4 months old and just not right. Not because they trained it to be bad, or because they did anything wrong. I am 100 percent sure that dog was born that way. But it was their responsibility to acknowlede the danger and do something about it, and they didn't. Again, that is what happens when people think dogs are cute disney creatures instead of realizing they are animals. I think back in the day, on a farm, a dog that was scary at 4 months old would have been put down. Now, people feel too guilty to do that, and that does everyone a disservice. 

 

I didn't mention this before, but my parents had a Havanese that had to be put down. She was just not right, and was aggressive over random objects. She bit my mother down to the bone on her hand, causing a bone infection, of a pen that my mom saw on the floor and went to pick up. Not a dog bone, not a dog toy, a random pen she had dropped. They never knew what would trigger the dog, so even though otherwise she was the sweetest cuddliest thing, they made the painful but correct decision to put her down, as there were friends, grandkids, etc coming in and out of the house. But I'v had people say that it was cruel to put the dog down, you shouldn't do that, dogs deserve to live, blah blah blah. 

 

I don't know how to fix that, how to get people to recognize danger signs and realize that issues can't be ignored, they need to be evaluated and sometimes the best choice is euthanasia. 

[ktgrok]

For all those who think education is the answer, how do you think that could work ? ( A ban would have massive problems, so even though that's my preference, I'm interested in education).

 

How do you educate owners of those large, highly muscled dogs so that they are not a threat to people ?

 

Or are we just saying that 'good people' have 'good dogs', 'bad people' have the bad dogs, and oh well, sometimes the bad ones kill ?

 

Requiring at least one round of obedience training and annual vet visits would help. the training cold include warning signs, etc and a lot about bite threshold and canine body language. And vet visits would mean someone else would be seeing the dog and could warn the owner. 

[Spy Car]

The process with restricted breeds here has been that they legally have to be neutered. I'm sure for breeders that have spent years perfecting a line it would be devestating but not as devestating as exterminating the family pet.

Wishful thinking that taking a quick fix, and one with such damaging heallth consequences, will instantly solve behavior and training problems. Among house dogs raised in loving homes eutering actually tends to increase many fears and anxieties in male dogs (making rhem more prone to attacks), lessens their sociability, and opens the dog to a myriad of health problems.

 

Neutering is not the solution biting in well raised dogs.

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

My biggest concern is that so few owners (of any breed) actively train their puppies for "Bite Inhibition."

 

IMO "Bite Inhibition" training is the most important single training priority that responsible dog owners should be versed in, and practice, but few dog owners I meet have ever hear the term, or practiced the concepts.

 

 

Long post. I'll leave this one and go look for a link to Dr Dunbar's method (which I will critique). For any difference of opinion, I'd far rather dog owners use Dunbar's PR method than doing nothing, or (worse yet) by trying to end puppy bites through big or harsh corrections. Theis latter course is very dangerous, and the common "wisdom" in many quarters. Scary!

 

Bill

 

Yes, a soft mouth makes a difference! Some breeds naturally have a more soft mouth than others...espeically retrievers. But any dog can learn that. And even worse than freaking out of puppy biting is the people that punish a dog for growling. Makes my skin crawl. because if you punish for growling you just taught the damn dog to bite WITHOUT growling first! Way to train away one of your warning signals!!!  I think that is also how we sometimes get those dogs that attack "without warning." They probably gave a number of warning signals no one recognized, but the main one people know was breaten out of them and no longer used. (not that dogs always growl before biting...but it can be a warning and you want that!)

[Bluegoat]

When you start to get into breed specific legislation, the only sensible way to do it is look at dogs that actually attack.  Places that do it that way soon find they have a rather long list, including many that many people think are nice family dogs.

 

Stats on dog attacks and breeds are pretty misleading - many of the dogs identified are not really identified correctly.  Places that want to ban "pit bulls" soon find that most such dogs are not a specific breed and so they end up giving quite a general definition - something like "a dog who looks like this."

 

I would also point out that over time there have always been the one breed that seems to be vilified in the media.  In the past its been Dobermans, Rotties, German Shepherds.  No doubt in the future it will be something else.

 

Many types of dogs have their quirks based on their breed purpose.  retrievers are great at bowling over kids.  Dogs used for rodent control, or some kinds of herding, can be very nippy and can give a serious bite, and they are not at all patient (they often end up on those breed lists.)  Some are small-prey aggressive (boxers, terriers.)

 

Personally I hate the little yap dogs, many seem slightly insane to me, probably because they aren't trained at all in many cases.  Also - one bit me in the face when I was a kid.  Other violent dogs I've known include the beagle that ripped my mom's dog's eye out in the park, and my dad's JRT which I think had some kind of psychosis.

 

I like pit bull type dogs almost invariably - they are funny, patient, tolerant dogs, pretty easy to train, and they let you know when they are unhappy.

 

 

[JFSinIL]

Our sweet Lab was on walkies with hubby when a Pit broke free of his chain and attached - luckily our Lab, not hubby.  Someone called police and thank goodness an officer was close by - took TWO bullets to stop the Pit (who later died at the vet) while Captain needed over $700 worth of stitches. 

 

On another walk, I was right there when a dog lunged for Captain's throat and hung on trying to ravage him....was a chihuahua that had just had puppies so her maternal instinct made her think she had to protect her pups.  Anyway, being a tiny dog she could only get her jaws locked onto Captain's fur and he just stood there, looking confused.

 

A local pet store (where we had to go to get crickets for son's gecko) I stopped letting my son go in after the new owner decided to let his pet dog have freedom to roam the store. A brindle pit bull (pretty dog!). She was, however, a rescued dog that had been the bait for dog fights :-(  so although she seemed sweet as pie i was scared to death she'd snap and attack.  Word got out and folks stopped using that pet store, don't know if the owner ever figured out why?  Closed now (the former owner had also had a dangerous pet, but he kept his mean parrot in a large cage behind the counter with a big sigh warning folks to not get too close.)

 

Scariest pets I ever experienced were my aunt's evil Siamese cats - they would growl and scurry about under the couches, try to swipe at our feet or bite if we got too close - aunt thought is was funny.  My sibs and I were little kids and, Auntie, it was NOT funny.

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by JFSinIL

[Spy Car]

I certainly don't disagree that training bite inhibition is important. But if more breeders were really "good" breeders who kept their puppies with their mother and litter mates longer it wouldn't be so necessary for humans to train that. Mom would teach it. And even the best human can't teach a puppy good bite inhibition like its own mother can.

I agree with this in part. Still, one wants puppies to imprint with humans at a young age, and a pup still needs to learn the differences between humans and dogs. Even after "adoption" by people high degrees of puppy socialization with other safe puppies also helps strengthen dog on dog bite inhibition.

 

But there is no substitute for overlaying human- driven bite inhibition training on top of any dog on dog learning, for dogs that are living in human societies. Best if a pup learns from its mother, litter mates , other safe puppies, an it is all taken to another level by its master.

 

I dno't think people understand just how important this traing is.

 

It is the single most important part of a puppy's education.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

Oh. Good. Grief.

 

Honestly, sometimes the stupid is too great!

 

My sis in law had a docile, loving, pit. Biggest dog baby ever. But she was super smart training her, and an uber responsible owner. When Dolly died of cancer - had to be put down due to pain and suffering - she was going to get another but found out their homeowner's insurance would go up $3000.00 if they did. This is not uncommon around here.

 

The worst attack we have had in this area was from a chow kept by some drug addicts. Frankly, these were the kind of people who would have been able to turn dachshunds into assassin squads.

 

I say this as the owner of a loveable, goofy, but unfortunately fairly stupid cocker spaniel.....most dog owners I meet do not know a darn thing about dogs, dog behavior, dog socialization, much less the specifics of the breeds they own. That is a dangerous situation.

 

These are dogs, canines, animals with instincts some of which are not desirable traits and need to be handled wisely not hamsters. I wish more people would simply get hamsters and leave dog ownership to serious people.

 

I am a big fan of strictly enforced, strong leash laws. Fences and leashes make for happy neighbors.

 

Locally though, the cattle dogs scare me the most. They are ferociously crazy about their duties and the farmers/ranchers have not properly socialized them to play nicely with other humans.

 

 

It wouldn't be difficult to turn dachshunds into assassin dogs - they can be fairly aggressive, they are strong dogs despite being small, and a high prey drive.  All of which makes sense since their job is to go down holes and kill rather dangerous animals.

[kewb]

I can't quote right now but kewb you really don't see why it is offensive to compare concern about aggressive dog breeds to GENOCIDE or institutional racism or slavery? For real you don't know why that gets the old hackles up? That's like the time a (married btw) woman tried to tell me marriage is analgalous to slavery.

I think I now see the issue. I am not comparing race to breeds of animals. I am comparing prejudice to prejudice. Hating a breed of dog or calling it too dangerous based on the behavior of some dogs in that breed is no different to me than hating a group of people for the behavior of some of those in the group.

 

Concern about an aggressive dog is valid. Brewd specific legislation is not the answer. The genocide of all those banned dogs and all the unwanted animals in the shelters and on the streets is offensive. The easy genocide of races of people starts with being told that those people are subhuman/animals.

 

 

Even if I was comparing race to breed I truly do not see what is offensive. All living things on this planet matter. The fact that humans have hunted the black rhino to extinction is offensive. The way some humans treat the animals they are supposed to be stewards of is offensive. The way some people batter their spouses and no one helps them is offensive. The way gencocide happens over and over again is offensive.

 

I can see the argument for marriage = slavery. I don't agree with it but I can see it. Marriage stems from a time when woman were considered property. If the institution had not evolved from those times it would still be legal slavery.

 

Upon further reflection I really don't understand why it gets the old hackles up. Prejudice is prejudice. How we humans deal with it defines us as better people or animals.

[Spy Car]

Yes, a soft mouth makes a difference! Some breeds naturally have a more soft mouth than others...espeically retrievers. But any dog can learn that. And even worse than freaking out of puppy biting is the people that punish a dog for growling. Makes my skin crawl. because if you punish for growling you just taught the damn dog to bite WITHOUT growling first! Way to train away one of your warning signals!!! I think that is also how we sometimes get those dogs that attack "without warning." They probably gave a number of warning signals no one recognized, but the main one people know was breaten out of them and no longer used. (not that dogs always growl before biting...but it can be a warning and you want that!)

Right. It is two sides of the same coin, in trying to harshly punish behaviors (as a way to stop them) when those behaviors should be shaped and (in the case of growling) be understood as a warning sign. A dog growling is a signal something is wrong. What is wrong is what need to worke on, as opposed to suppressing the warning sign.

 

Any dog can be trained to have a soft mouth. The sad irony is that you mention retrievers, who should be predisposed towards soft mouths. Yet in bird hunting circles most owners have not gotten the memo about how to raise a pup using bite inhibition methods (or how to nurture the allied skill of a natural retrieve) and instead they listen to the most backward training "experts" who neglect the critical window, and then turn to a very forceful/painful practice they call "force fetch" to do through pain and violence what is so easy to accomplish with gentle methods. Makes me livid!

 

These retriever type often speak in terms of " breaking" dogs. They swear up and down every retrieve need to be force fetched, or how else will it retrieve and have a soft mouth?

 

Dog problems are almost always people problems.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

I think it implies that the major differences between breeds which have been deliberately bred, and the known large differences in IQ (like, LARGE differences) between breeds, is somehow analogous to the differences between racial groups in humans.

 

I know that in my studies, I see that when you train humans the same, that when they have the same advantages, real advantages, as long as they do not know that they are in an oppressed group, you can train most children the same. The incidence of disability, learning delays, etc. are not significantly different among racial groups. In fact we are amazingly similar. We can't deny the effect of the environment and institutional racism and a heritage of violence in some communities, be they Asian, African, or European, but ultimately when you look at kids who are raised in affluent families they behave amazingly similarly until they realize what is going on in the world around them (like, when black kids from the middle class hit middle school...).

 

This is not what I understand to be true of dogs. There are biological differences that make it impossible to treat different breeds the same. Like, the differences between Neanderthals and humans or something.

 

I think ideas of differences between racial groups are differences of perception based on extremely superficial characteristics, whereas ideas of differences in dog breeds are based on intentionally bred issues.

 

Though, I might not have a good understanding of different dog breeds. Maybe there are no statistically significant differences between different breeds when you control for differences in ownership and the social treatment of the dogs.

I think what can be a parallel is that people's attitudes to breeds, or perception of breeds, isn't necessarily all that accurate, and that statistics can be subject to similar problems.

 

For example - the pit pull isn't a breed.  There are a number of breeds and cross breeds that are regularly called pit-bulls - American pit bulls, Staffordshire Terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers, and many bull-dog breeds.  Plus crosses.

 

And people are much more likely to label a dog they perceive as aggressive as being a pit bull.

 

So - when we see "half of all dog bites are from pit bulls but they make up only 6% of dogs, what does that really mean.

 

So in this sense I think it can be similar to people who try and make some statistical arguments that some human groups are inherently more "whatever".  It's just fraught with problems.

[Lanny]

I mentioned this thread to my wife awhile ago. She agrees with me that from our experience, with 2 Dalmatians, we are very wary of Dalmatians and would prefer not to be close to them...   I believe, strongly, that one should avoid contact with strange dogs, of any breed. Do not try to pet them. If they come up to you, let them smell your fist. Don't have your hand open, as if you were going to pet them, where your fingers are exposed.  Dogs smell fear. If one is afraid, they sense that weakness.  Some Rottweilers, like ours, are very sweet and friendly. If you are on our side of the fence, with our permission, he will be very friendly.  He is very protective of our property, when people go by or come to our gate. That is his job. His job is to love us and protect us.  

[Lizzie in Ma]

I love dogs.  I particularly love large dogs.  I have been attacked by a dog and have the scars to prove it.  it was an unprovoked attack, the dog came out of nowhere to attack my dog and ended up biting my arm when I was knocked to the ground.

 

 I work in liability.  I have seen dog bite cases from every breed, large and small, provoked and unprovoked.  In my opinion, most of the incidents could have been avoided if people were more aware of how dogs behave. 

 

Everyone thinks small dogs are adorable.  I hate them.  I think they are often unpredictable because people treat them like babies and not dogs and therefore the dog thinks it is in charge.  My sister has a Jack rat.  My Mom babysits it during the day and she adores it.  Well, guess what?  Now it "protects" (her words) my mom from my dad, from me, it came after me when I went to hug her the other day.  She will not listen when I tell her the behavior is unacceptable and someone is going to get hurt.  It has been banned from the office for biting someone's face.  However, the dog very, very, clearly, warned in body language and growling that it did not want to play and the stupid woman who got bit literally stuck her face in the dogs face, ignoring the dogs crystal clear warning not to.  One behavior can and should be trained out of the dog, the other was a case of no common sense whatsoever on the part of the co-worker.

 

I have also worked at a dog shelter in Japan.  The worst unprovoked attack I ever witnessed was by an Akita.  She just reached out and tore the hand of the director wide open.  Previous to the incident, they had a wonderful relationship and the dog was really blooming under her attention.  Her mistake?  The dog hated the Japanese, who had abused it and that day, the director had gone out in a kimono.  Mistaken identity.  Preventable?  maybe.  But not a dog I'd have around under any circumstances.  I brought home a beagle from that shelter for my Mom.  She was the dearest friend  she ever had and they were inseparable her entire life.   I would have and did, trust anyone or anything with that dog.  Except the Easter ham, which she stole, but that's another story. ;)

 

I have an Aussie.  She is 13 now, arthritic and very gimpy.  Her entire life there was nothing in the world that would make her hurt anyone, she is the dearest, sweetest, most loyal creature and I adore her.  BUT, she is very nervous now, around other dogs and small children because she is in pain.  I do not let her move from my side when we have young children over and if the parents won't respect and make the kids stay away from the dog, I put her in my room.  She might snap if they come to close in fear of being hurt.  Would it be her fault?  No.  Will I allow it to happen knowing I could prevent it?  Hell No.

When I walk her I can't tell you how many times people walking another dog think they are entitled to do whatever they want.  I stop and have her heel and politely wait for them to go by and tell them that she doesn't like other dogs and to please not come over to her.  They almost ALWAYS say, oh it's fine, she/he just wants to say hi and let the dog approach!!!!  They completely ignore me when tell them she is NOT good with other dogs.   It makes me furious.

 

We had two dogs when our oldest began to toddle.  The older dog was pretty gimpy and in pain and began to growl and snap at the baby.  It was only a matter of time before things got ugly and we had her put down.  Easy decision?  No.  Right decision?  I believe that it was.

 

I don't think there is an easy answer to any of this.  In my opinion, it's a damn shame people can be so bloody stupid.  For me, a first incident would be the last, however awful it would be to contemplate.

 

[Bluegoat]

The not petting strange dogs thing - yes.  I don't know how many people I have seen try and pet dogs after the owner said - no, don't pet my dog.

 

I think I big part of education is probably going to be ending people treating their dogs like people.  This seems to manifest itself in many different ways, from people not trining dogs well because they are scared to be firm, to thinking they have human thinking processes, to believing they have some moral oblligation to spend a gilillion dollars on them at the vets and can never get them put down.

 

Even things like FB memes about how it is cruel for a dog to be outside, because dogs should be inside like people, "if you are cold, so is your dog."  What?  Actually, no, me being outside is really nothing like my dog with a big winter coat being outside, and many working dogs live outside.  Leaving dogs out can be cruel, but it isn't necessarily, and some prefer it.  But the idea of working animals - including cats for goodness sake - is now by many considered cruel.  Organizations like the SPCA won't let you take a cat for a real rodent control job.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Bluegoat

[ktgrok]

 

These retriever type often speak in terms of " breaking" dogs. They swear up and down every retrieve need to be force fetched, or how else will it retrieve and have a soft mouth?

 

Dog problems are almost always people problems.

 

Bill

 

I can't even....ugh. People put a lot of freaking work over many many generations to get dogs with soft mouths and a good retrieve instinct. They don't need to be forced! Generations of dog breeders are probably turning over in their graves. 

 

One of my weims caught a bird out of the air, and brought it to me. Didn't hurt a feather on the bird, just carried it softly. Nor force methods used to teach this. Just instinct and years of breeding. 

[Dmmetler]

I think in some cases it's that owners don't realize that with an animal as domesticated as a dog, you get what you pay for.

 

I know a Jack Russell who is honestly a dangerous dog. And the reason why she's a dangerous dog is that her owners don't seem to realize that a dog bred to hunt foxes and to be extremely intelligent and tenacious and high energy doesn't belong with two people who are rarely home during the day. She's an adorable dog, a smart dog, and has attacked other people's pets and threatened to attack people, including children, with no provocation other than being nearby. She's a dangerous dog-and is exactly what the breed standard calls for. What she needed was owners who would spend a lot of effort on obedience and socialization, get her involved in agility or some other activity to bleed off that energy, and most of all, just spend time with her.

 

I know another person who is actively involved in terrier rescue, and at any given time usually has several dogs. Her dogs, even those coming from poor situations (and most are) are much less dangerous-because they get that time and energy bled off, she actively works on obedience training, and, most importantly, she realizes that they ARE dogs and is attuned to their signs and signals, so she's not going to open the door to sign for a package with a dog who is highly territorial and will see that driver as a threat to be driven off.

 

I wish I could give the first terrier to the 2nd person-because as it stands, eventually she's going to do some significant damage to someone, and end up killed for, what is ultimately, a case of humans not reading the breed standard and buying based on appearance.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I think I now see the issue. I am not comparing race to breeds of animals. I am comparing prejudice to prejudice. Hating a breed of dog or calling it too dangerous based on the behavior of some dogs in that breed is no different to me than hating a group of people for the behavior of some of those in the group.

 

Concern about an aggressive dog is valid. Brewd specific legislation is not the answer. The genocide of all those banned dogs and all the unwanted animals in the shelters and on the streets is offensive. The easy genocide of races of people starts with being told that those people are subhuman/animals.

 

 

Even if I was comparing race to breed I truly do not see what is offensive. All living things on this planet matter. The fact that humans have hunted the black rhino to extinction is offensive. The way some humans treat the animals they are supposed to be stewards of is offensive. The way some people batter their spouses and no one helps them is offensive. The way gencocide happens over and over again is offensive.

 

I can see the argument for marriage = slavery. I don't agree with it but I can see it. Marriage stems from a time when woman were considered property. If the institution had not evolved from those times it would still be legal slavery.

 

Upon further reflection I really don't understand why it gets the old hackles up. Prejudice is prejudice. How we humans deal with it defines us as better people or animals.

From you post , I am guessing that you must be a total vegan who does not eat or use any animal products. That is fine if you are. I have had plenty of good friends who are vegans. If you are not a vegan, then you beliefs are not in sync with eating meat or using animal products IMHO.

 

I also again do not think it is a valid comparison to compare wanting to do something about aggressive dog breeds to racism or genocide of humans. Also, I am not sure what needs to be done about aggressive breeds such as pit bulls but I think at the very least mandatory neutering, strong lease laws and fencing laws, and severe penalties if your dog attacks someone may be in order. I also see nothing wrong home associations, co-ops and condos, and landlords banning certain breeds. I also think insurance companies should be free to charge more if a homeowner chooses to own such a breed.

 

 

As for euthanasia of unwanted pets in shelters, I believe that some times it is necessary:( Our environment can only handle so many unwanted pets and letting them roam free is not the answer either.  I believe prevention via neutering is much better.

[Bluegoat]

I can't even....ugh. People put a lot of freaking work over many many generations to get dogs with soft mouths and a good retrieve instinct. They don't need to be forced! Generations of dog breeders are probably turning over in their graves. 

 

One of my weims caught a bird out of the air, and brought it to me. Didn't hurt a feather on the bird, just carried it softly. Nor force methods used to teach this. Just instinct and years of breeding. 

 

There was a period when my husband had a subscription to a retriever magazine.  As far as I could see, the majority of the people writing - and reading based on the letters - really wanted dogs that behaved like machines.  Perfectly predictable, you tell them "do this" and they do it, no brain power involved at all.  The idea that the dogs instincts might actually be things to make use of wasn't a big feature.

[MommaOfalotta]

I can't even....ugh. People put a lot of freaking work over many many generations to get dogs with soft mouths and a good retrieve instinct. They don't need to be forced! Generations of dog breeders are probably turning over in their graves. 

 

One of my weims caught a bird out of the air, and brought it to me. Didn't hurt a feather on the bird, just carried it softly. Nor force methods used to teach this. Just instinct and years of breeding. 

 

This.

 

Also.. I'm sure I'm going to say something wrong here.. but when it comes to the soft mouth with my current dog.. we have never had to train her. She knows. If it was an area she struggled with then yes, she would need worked with. She is gentle with us in everything she does. Even tug of war.. she pulls harder with dh than anyone but as soon as my 3YO walks up to play with her she tugs so gently. It's adorable how quickly she goes from normal strength to babying when need be. She is very gentle and has a maternal type attitude to young ones.

 

Hopefully this doesn't make me a "bad owner" but we have barely had to "train" her with anything. We worked with her on housebreaking for maybe 1-2 days and then she never had another incident. She's a little excited on the leash-which is what I'm working with her on now. But she's never been one to jump on people (like my other dogs) or get too excited when guests come over. I open the door she stays about 10 ft away. She will not come greet anyone until I tell her it's okay. If I know someone doesn't like dogs (most of our company, it seems) I tell her "Nya, go to bed" and she goes. She will sit there for the duration of their visit and not bother anyone. Everyone always tells me "Wow, how have you trained your dog to do that?" I can't take one ounce of credit. I just tell her and she listens. If company calls for her to come over she will often look at me like "Can I go, mom?" :laugh:

 

She just has such a good nature. This is why I do not and will not ever support a ban on a specific breed. She is registered as a pit mix.

[FaithManor]

Bill, we taught bite inhibition, maybe not quite your way, but definitely with Lewis as a little puppy. It took a lot of patience. Thankfully our teen boys wanted him so badly, they were willing to "play with a purpose" with him A LOT so it wasn't entirely up to dh and I. Training, training, training...no different from having a one year old toddler in your home.

 

And that is what a lot of people don't get. "Oh look at the puppies! Aren't they so cute? Let's get a puppy." The thought process often doesn't go any further than that, and the only training the owners think they need to give the puppy is housebreaking.

 

I find that most dog owners don't care a fig about training their puppies beyond making sure it learns not to pee on the rug.

 

Thus, my advice. Most people just need to get hamsters, not dogs.

[Spy Car]

I can't even....ugh. People put a lot of freaking work over many many generations to get dogs with soft mouths and a good retrieve instinct. They don't need to be forced! Generations of dog breeders are probably turning over in their graves.

 

One of my weims caught a bird out of the air, and brought it to me. Didn't hurt a feather on the bird, just carried it softly. Nor force methods used to teach this. Just instinct and years of breeding.

If you want to make your blood boil go to a retriever oriented website and read what the "good ol' boys" advocate as training techniques. Your head would explode. Those few who dare question the wisdom of "force fetch" are treated like dangerous subversives.

 

Even so-called dog "experts" can be very backwards in their training methods, because they just don't understand animal behaviors (and often need to compensated for powerlessness in their own lives by dominating a dog). Sad.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill, we taught bite inhibition, maybe not quite your way, but definitely with Lewis as a little puppy. It took a lot of patience. Thankfully our teen boys wanted him so badly, they were willing to "play with a purpose" with him A LOT so it wasn't entirely up to dh and I. Training, training, training...no different from having a one year old toddler in your home.

 

And that is what a lot of people don't get. "Oh look at the puppies! Aren't they so cute? Let's get a puppy." The thought process often doesn't go any further than that, and the only training the owners think they need to give the puppy is housebreaking.

 

I find that most dog owners don't care a fig about training their puppies beyond making sure it learns not to pee on the rug.

 

Thus, my advice. Most people just need to get hamsters, not dogs.

Good job. And spot on that most people's first (and often last) thought with a puppy is how to keep it from piddling inside. This is at the heart of why there are so many issues with dogs.

 

Puppyhood shapes all future behaviors. One can, with patietience and consistency, remediate behavioral problems to a degree. But it is never the same as giving a pup an excellent start.

 

Bill

[Lanny]

I haven't seen our Rottweiler bathe any of our cats, with love like this, but he does not bother them.  If this works, you will be able to view the video on Facebook by putting this  link into your web browser:  https://www.facebook.com/GenialGuru/videos/1554312728223203/

[jeninok]

I can't even....ugh. People put a lot of freaking work over many many generations to get dogs with soft mouths and a good retrieve instinct. They don't need to be forced! Generations of dog breeders are probably turning over in their graves.

 

One of my weims caught a bird out of the air, and brought it to me. Didn't hurt a feather on the bird, just carried it softly. Nor force methods used to teach this. Just instinct and years of breeding.

We have a one year old lab who is the most gentle creature I've ever met. I kept expecting him to feel better and become a typical young lab "bull in a China Shop" but he is just extraordinarily gentle and polite. We are working on getting his CGC so he can visit nursing homes or the VA hospital because his temperament is just perfect.

 

He has gotten two of my chickens, once when he first showed up as a sickly stray and we were just trying to find his people and once very recently.

 

Both times I expected a dead bird, as chickens are fragile.

Nope!! As soon as he dropped the bird it was up and running. That retriever mouth is amazing.

 

My ACD/Husky is a complicated creature, but with proper supervision she is a wonderful dog.

I do shudder thinking that someone inexperienced with traumatized dogs or those two breed's quirks could have found her. She was a terrified mess when we brought her home, it took weeks to get her in the house and months before my husband could pet her without her cowering in a ball and peeing everywhere. She could have seriously hurt someone out of sheer panic.

I walk her on a heavy duty harness clipped to a collar with a double clip leash so that I have secure back up in case she gets triggered. I will kick your small dog on your flexi lead if it charges us, and I will bodily block your small child or even rude adults who won't listen in order to stop her from making a mad decision.

She is totally fine with 99% of people but there have been three that she randomly hates, until I know for sure you aren't in that group she isn't safe.

 

 

She is adorable and soft and not very big, people don't listen when I warn them. It is so so frustrating.

 

ETA:Picture included for reference. This is the face of a dog who will never be off leash in public, who can't be trusted with new people until she has time to meet you and I can gauge her reaction, and who's prey drive combined with ACD style mouthy herding makes her giant PITA sometimes.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by jeninok

[ktgrok]

If you want to make your blood boil go to a retriever oriented website and read what the "good ol' boys" advocate as training techniques. Your head would explode. Those few who dare question the wisdom of "force fetch" are treated like dangerous subversives.

 

Even so-called dog "experts" can be very backwards in their training methods, because they just don't understand animal behaviors (and often need to compensated for powerlessness in their own lives by dominating a dog). Sad.

 

Bill

 

I find in my limited experience that you get a LOT of bad trainers/owners drawn to retrievers and some other breeds because the breed is so forgiving they can get away with it. Try that crap on some other breeds and they'd be bleeding, or at the very least completely unsuccessful. 

 

I credit my training abilities in great part to my first weimaraner. Traditional force based methods just didn't work, so I had to become a better trainer. (I also think you and I are pretty much on the same page with training....reward based for most things, but not always.)

[FaithManor]

If you want to make your blood boil go to a retriever oriented website and read what the "good ol' boys" advocate as training techniques. Your head would explode. Those few who dare question the wisdom of "force fetch" are treated like dangerous subversives.

 

Even so-called dog "experts" can be very backwards in their training methods, because they just don't understand animal behaviors (and often need to compensated for powerlessness in their own lives by dominating a dog). Sad.

 

Bill

Bill,

 

This kind of thing is also found in horse ownership and training. It makes my head burst into flames when I see what some people think passes for horse training. Many owners know NOTHING about horse behavior, horse thought, horse culture, nothing...not one damn thing. They just man handle and dominate the animal until they can wrestle a bit into it's mouth and a saddle onto it's back, beat it until it decides to obey, and call it "broken". I meet so many horses that I consider dangerous due to inappropriate training methods or lack of training all together, but yet the owners throw their kids on the backs of those creatures, and some of them end up in the 4-H show ring which really makes my face twitch! So many close calls. I swear there are guardian angels sweating bullets during some of those shows. Stupid horse owners.

 

Anyway, that was a digression, LOL!

[jeninok]

This.

 

Also.. I'm sure I'm going to say something wrong here.. but when it comes to the soft mouth with my current dog.. we have never had to train her. She knows. If it was an area she struggled with then yes, she would need worked with. She is gentle with us in everything she does.

I have had two dogs like this, one currently who literally arrived at our doorstep last year and one who I got when I was 18 and lived to be 14.

 

They are truly special creatures!

[jeninok]

If you want to make your blood boil go to a retriever oriented website and read what the "good ol' boys" advocate as training techniques. Your head would explode. Those few who dare question the wisdom of "force fetch" are treated like dangerous subversives.

 

Even so-called dog "experts" can be very backwards in their training methods, because they just don't understand animal behaviors (and often need to compensated for powerlessness in their own lives by dominating a dog). Sad.

 

Bill

These are the same folks who advocate tying a dead chicken to the dog to stop it from killing them and shooting the dog if that doesynt work.

 

It is the same mindset that is behind the horribly glossy Sit Means Sit franchises that basically torture dogs into basic obedience and compliance.

 

Caesar Milan doesn't help either.

 

Sigh.

[MommaOfalotta]

OT.. kind of.. but I'm surprised to see so many people that don't like Caesar. lol

 

Dh and I just started watching his shows a few weeks ago and we were instantly hooked.

 

Every time he works his magic on a dog dh and I are always like "AHHHHH How does he do it!? He's a wizard!" :lol:

[ktgrok]

OT.. kind of.. but I'm surprised to see so many people that don't like Caesar. lol

 

Dh and I just started watching his shows a few weeks ago and we were instantly hooked.

 

Every time he works his magic on a dog dh and I are always like "AHHHHH How does he do it!? He's a wizard!" :lol:

 

he's something, but it's a word I can't use in this forum. 

 

He sometimes works because he has very good timing. That's the only good thing I can say. 

 

He uses outdated methods, and he calls dogs dominant who are displaying textbook submissive signals. Dogs who are obviously fear biters he calls dominant and alpha. He's an idiot. He's a groomer who looks good on television and has zero knowledge of learning theory, true dog behavior, etc. I have so much more I could say. 

 

But mainly, know that when it says "don't do this at home" on the tv they MEAN it. Don't. If you google you can find veterinarians, vet tech society, veterinary behavior societies, and humane societies with statements talking about how awful his methods are. He traumatizes dogs in the name of leadership. 

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

This kind of thing is also found in horse ownership and training. It makes my head burst into flames when I see what some people think passes for horse training. Many owners know NOTHING about horse behavior, horse thought, horse culture, nothing...not one damn thing. They just man handle and dominate the animal until they can wrestle a bit into it's mouth and a saddle onto it's back, beat it until it decides to obey, and call it "broken". I meet so many horses that I consider dangerous due to inappropriate training methods or lack of training all together, but yet the owners throw their kids on the backs of those creatures, and some of them end up in the 4-H show ring which really makes my face twitch! So many close calls. I swear there are guardian angels sweating bullets during some of those shows. Stupid horse owners.

 

Anyway, that was a digression, LOL!

 

In an earlier lifetime I spent a lot of time in equestrian circles and helped condition some of the finest horses in Los Angeles. I helped prepare many young horses to be ridden. It was all very gentle. A few times (with larger warmbloods) I was their first rider. Nice and easy. Never "broke" a horse. These horses often went on to elite competitions. Very highly trained. 

 

But yeah, there are still plenty of people who believe in "breaking" horses and using the same sort of stupid and cruel means with equines that they do with canines.

 

They same sorts of training that is stupid with dogs is stupid with horses. Better to understand animal behavior and work with it than to try to dominate the animal.

 

You're so right!

 

Bill

Edited February 8, 2016 by Spy Car

[itsheresomewhere]

he's something, but it's a word I can't use in this forum. 

 

He sometimes works because he has very good timing. That's the only good thing I can say. 

 

He uses outdated methods, and he calls dogs dominant who are displaying textbook submissive signals. Dogs who are obviously fear biters he calls dominant and alpha. He's an idiot. He's a groomer who looks good on television and has zero knowledge of learning theory, true dog behavior, etc. I have so much more I could say. 

 

But mainly, know that when it says "don't do this at home" on the tv they MEAN it. Don't. If you google you can find veterinarians, vet tech society, veterinary behavior societies, and humane societies with statements talking about how awful his methods are. He traumatizes dogs in the name of leadership. 

I bet we use the same word. 

 

The worst dog I have ever known personally was a maltese.  That dog was nasty but it was his owners fault.  They thought everything he did was so cute including biting people.  The new dog they got after he passed away is sadly heading down the same road.   But the worst attack I know came from a cat.  The owners took in a feral cat and tried to domesticate him.  That cat is pure evil.