Another fatal dog attack

[Cortez]

You can weaponise many dogs*, but the point is that it apparently takes almost nothing at all for dogs of a particular lineage and specific physical characteristics to be more dangerous than others.

*the worst (almost the only....) bite I ever received was courtesy of a toy poodle.

 

[twiggy2]

Not a nice to say about someone whose posts, to me, simply suggest that they’re worried about their dog’s safety.


So what’s the balance of importance between a dog’s life and a human’s?

In 2015, for example, Battersea alone had to PTS almost 100 pitbull types - according to them, 70% of those would have been rehomeable. Is 70 dead dogs worth it for the sake of saving a single human life?

Yes it is, I am another dog lover but I also think many dogs really dont do well in rescue centres, rescue centres are so over run that they can't give the dogs all the time they need and many dogs will never be homed so regardless of breed etc I believe many dogs in rescue centres should be pts sleep and I believe that often it would be in the dogs best interest to do so.

 

[some show]

I do agree that PTS can be kindest if dogs are in poor medical condition, but I don't think anyone genuine who works in rescue - who work their bums off clearing up other people's mess - could ever be dispassionate enough to send healthy dogs off to be put to sleep. I expect there are still 7-day stray pounds where dogs that aren't picked up by rescues are PTS in some numbers, though.

 

[Red-1]

I do agree that PTS can be kindest if dogs are in poor medical condition, but I don't think anyone genuine who works in rescue - who work their bums off clearing up other people's mess - could ever be dispassionate enough to send healthy dogs off to be put to sleep. I expect there are still 7-day stray pounds where dogs that aren't picked up by rescues are PTS in some numbers, though.

Yes, there are still those. That is how we ended up with Hector. The council keeps them for a short period and then PTS. We found Heck at the side of the road. Called the council who said to bring him in. It was 3 days before Xmas, they said they would PTS before Xmas day. Of course, we couldn't have that, so we logged him with council and Police and he was ours after not being claimed.

I'm not sure what else the council can do, TBH. No one (or very few) would pay lots more council tax to fund dog homes.

 

[ycbm]

Not worth the time, deleted.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

Could there be an environmental element to this?

I live in quite a rural, quiet area and I have never seen any of the dogs we are discussing here. Everyone tends to have labradors, retrievers, spaniels, collies, sight hounds, lurchers or failed hounds from the local hunts.

The houses here tend to have land or have access to land, and everyone walks a lot. Even small cottages will generally have a nice little garden, and there are woods and fields everywhere. Dogs are welcome everywhere, including the pubs, and expected to fit in with every day life - which includes being used to horses as it’s a very equestrian area. The average dog from around here gets a lot of time outside, a lot of time socializing with each other, and encounters a lot of stock, people, horses, children etc.

I have noticed in a lot of these dog attack cases, the dogs are being kept in a much more urban environment. They can’t be getting a lot of space and exercise, even if they are walked. It must be a little bit like horses being kept in a stable 24/7.

Urban dog owners also seem more likely to have a ‘tough-looking’ dog, whereas people in the countryside are more likely to have a spaniel or similar, so perhaps even though all dog breeds might be capable of being involved in attacks, maybe the pit bull, bully, cane corso types are being disproportionately kept in suboptimal environments.

I’m not disagreeing that there is a physical difference between and XL bully and a collie if either of those two dogs did attack, or that there isn’t an issue of dogs whose ancestors were bred to bring bulls down or to fight being more likely to engage in sustained attacks then those who herd or retrieve. Just that maybe this is compounded by environmental and management issues.

It would be interesting to know, in relation to dog attacks, how much space the dogs had, how much they were exercised, how many dogs were kept together. If it could be compared to how rural or semi-rural dogs are kept, and then that is cross referenced with breed preferences, maybe we could understand the most common risk factors as being beyond breed alone.

 

[some show]

Yes, there are still those. That is how we ended up with Hector. The council keeps them for a short period and then PTS. We found Heck at the side of the road. Called the council who said to bring him in. It was 3 days before Xmas, they said they would PTS before Xmas day. Of course, we couldn't have that, so we logged him with council and Police and he was ours after not being claimed.

I'm not sure what else the council can do, TBH. No one (or very few) would pay lots more council tax to fund dog homes.

Such a lucky boy!

Absolutely, yeah, they have no other choice. I know there are some local authorities where a rescue takes all of their pound dogs after the 7 days, but that's not the case across the board and couldn't be, there are so many strays (and 'strays').

 

[CorvusCorax]

Healthy in the body and healthy in the head are two different things.

 

[some show]

Healthy in the body and healthy in the head are two different things.

True, and some would be obvious from the get-go, but some dogs show undesirable behaviour in kennels that disappears in a relaxed home environment, it would be a shame to write them off just because they've been put in a stressful situation. There would have to be some very clear criteria on what behaviour = instant PTS.

 

[marmalade76]

I don't think the difference between a collie and a bull breed is just physical & historical, with collies, it's like they're programmed to be obedient, they live to please so they're just more likely to do as they're told, they're much easier to control because that's what they want, rules, commands, etc. My dog's focus is always on me.

 

[cauda equina]

There seems to be a disparity between opinions on pts wrt horses and dogs

On all the 'Is it time to pts?' threads about horses whatever the reason pts is being considered the response is always almost entirely supportive
We say pts is 'not a welfare issue'; 'the horse won't know', and so on
Why do we feel more squeamish about putting unwanted difficult and potentially dangerous dogs down?
And I don't include myself in that; if a dog is likely to be a poor candidate for rehoming I'm all in favour of an easy end

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Could there be an environmental element to this?

I live in quite a rural, quiet area and I have never seen any of the dogs we are discussing here. Everyone tends to have labradors, retrievers, spaniels, collies, sight hounds, lurchers or failed hounds from the local hunts.

The houses here tend to have land or have access to land, and everyone walks a lot. Even small cottages will generally have a nice little garden, and there are woods and fields everywhere. Dogs are welcome everywhere, including the pubs, and expected to fit in with every day life - which includes being used to horses as it’s a very equestrian area. The average dog from around here gets a lot of time outside, a lot of time socializing with each other, and encounters a lot of stock, people, horses, children etc.

I have noticed in a lot of these dog attack cases, the dogs are being kept in a much more urban environment. They can’t be getting a lot of space and exercise, even if they are walked. It must be a little bit like horses being kept in a stable 24/7.

Urban dog owners also seem more likely to have a ‘tough-looking’ dog, whereas people in the countryside are more likely to have a spaniel or similar, so perhaps even though all dog breeds might be capable of being involved in attacks, maybe the pit bull, bully, cane corso types are being disproportionately kept in suboptimal environments.

I’m not disagreeing that there is a physical difference between and XL bully and a collie if either of those two dogs did attack, or that there isn’t an issue of dogs whose ancestors were bred to bring bulls down or to fight being more likely to engage in sustained attacks then those who herd or retrieve. Just that maybe this is compounded by environmental and management issues.

It would be interesting to know, in relation to dog attacks, how much space the dogs had, how much they were exercised, how many dogs were kept together. If it could be compared to how rural or semi-rural dogs are kept, and then that is cross referenced with breed preferences, maybe we could understand the most common risk factors as being beyond breed alone.

I've literally said this before. In this very thread, I think. I referred to it as "context" though. Dogs are being kept and/or living in the wrong context. Expecting a LGD to do well in an urban environment, without much exercise and/or stimulation, is not exactly a recipe for success.

Or taking a "fighting" breed/type such as the Pit bull, and expecting it to thrive in certain situations with minimal and/or poor training.

"...maybe the pit bull, bully, cane corso types..."

I don't like this statement. Yes, it's partially my bias showing and personal experience with the Cane Corso, but what is a Pit bull, bully, Cane Corso type? Just a dog that looks a certain way? I don't like labeling or lumping things together like that. I don't refer to my Cane Corso as a bully or pit bull type. I also don't like breed names being tossed around based of of phenotype when we don't know that it's actually that, and it just associates more negative things to a breed. I'm probably not articulating this well enough. Just because something is long in the jowls, powerful, and solid, doesn't mean it's a CC. I'd say mastiff type instead.

With the CC or some other breeds (mostly LGD types) they're generally not people pleasers by nature (but can be), so their training is different and they think or experience things differently. I have a Lab and a CC, they're quite different, but somewhat similar (in that they both need basic firm boundaries and consistency in their training). However, I wouldn't suggest that the average Lab owner go out and get a CC. I did research, was around many other CC's, and was rather selective (breeding, temperament testing, etc.) before getting to the point of owning one. I questioned myself at times, "am I ready for this type of dog" and I think the problem is that many people don't do this. It's so easy to just go out and buy one. Here, they aren't cheap, but they doesn't stop people. You also still see them dumped off at shelters.

So I do think that owning certain breeds or types in the wrong environment, can be a recipe for disaster. It might work if you're on point with your training and management of said dog in a less than ideal environment, but few owners consider or do that. Dogs are just another accessory and part of some "look" to some people. They're barely above being just a "thing" vs an animal or an animal capable of deadly force/acts. They think that they can control said thing, but that's a falsehood. They have no idea how to train, manage or deal with such a creature. Brute force goes out the window when the dog is more driven and stronger than you are.

The amount of time and energy I put into my CC far exceeds what I put into my Lab. Not because the CC was more difficult (she's actually lightyears smarter than the Lab and took to training so easily) but because of the amount of responsibility one has with such a powerful dog and you've got to teach them when or where their guarding instinct is appropriate and to what extent. As much as I love the breed, I"d be hard pressed to take on a mature one that was raised poorly or had an unknown background. I'd rather do a humane euthanasia (originally that was a typo that said "human euthanasia" but maybe that fits!). I think that we should be less scared of that. With some dogs, especially some breeds or types, it's really best for everyone to euth vs try to rehab them in some way. Sure it sounds "cold" but it's just what I believe.

I've had, dealt with, and/or been around CC's with a questionable history, and it's stressful, hard, and they take such careful management.

While I love CC's, if I didn't have the right environment, amount of time, or energy, I wouldn't get one. Many people don't think that way though. They see dog. They want dog. They get dog. Doesn't matter if it's a questionably bred Pitty that's going to live in a flat, unsocialized, and hardly exercised

Heck, I met someone with a nice looking GSD who hasn't walked the dog a day in it's life. It stays in a small fenced garden. How do you think that'll go over if/when it gets out vs a well socialized, trained, and exercised dog? They should've gotten a small docile breed. Or a cat. I saw some meme about people thinking they need a dog, but what they really need is a cat, but they just don't know it but sure, let's keep setting our animals up for failure.

 

[Nasicus]

Nice to see that the Bully that attacked the Cockerpoo I mentioned the other day is still being walked with no muzzle on by a small woman who could definitely keep hold of it if it went for another dog. /sarcasm
I spoke to the owner of the attacked dog, who said that not only did the woman have no pet insurance, but she also claimed she was walking it for someone else, and then changed her tune and claimed she'd rehomed it. What a delight.

 

[CorvusCorax]

True, and some would be obvious from the get-go, but some dogs show undesirable behaviour in kennels that disappears in a relaxed home environment, it would be a shame to write them off just because they've been put in a stressful situation. There would have to be some very clear criteria on what behaviour = instant PTS.

And equally, some dogs have issues that are not apparent in kennels but which come out when living in a normal, busy, active household.

 

[skinnydipper]

Interesting discussion.

some dogs show undesirable behaviour in kennels that disappears in a relaxed home environment, it would be a shame to write them off just because they've been put in a stressful situation.

I adopted a dog (a bull terrier) who had had 4 previous homes and was suffering from kennel stress, spinning and emptying her anal glands, and also resource guarding her food when I first brought her home. All resolved. She was everybody's friend, human and canine (and feline )

Does anyone here have a dog who could tip over into aggression if they were rehomed to a normal, busy, active, household?

 

[CorvusCorax]

I'd say most of us *have* dogs living in a normal, busy, active home? We are not the ones sending them to one or appealing for homes for them, from kennels, which was my point.

Can you also appreciate that not everyone would be so adept at yourself as rehabbing some of the numerous bull/bully-type breeds in rescue (which is what we are talking about)?

There have been several cases of rehomed/rescued dogs killing or injuring their new owners, their family members, visitors or passers-by.

 

[cbmcts]

Does anyone here have a dog who could tip over into aggression if they were rehomed to a normal, busy, active, household?

Yes I have one now and previously had quite a few that were not suitable for the average household.
The common factor is that they have all been abused in some form or fashion and are a breed that is not as accepting or forgiving of bad treatment as some other breeds are.

Current dog, while he doesn't show obvious aggression at home or out and about, has been aggressive at the vets so is not totally trustworthy and is not given the opportunity to get into trouble. He is managed carefully - to be fair, possibly because of the type of dog I take on - as all my dogs have been with a combination of training and use of separation when required. My dogs have never been allowed to greet visitors at the door or in the hall, have to be on their beds as people come in and introductions are 'careful' for want of a better word. (FFS, do not put your face down to the dog - that one is for my Dad, on lead if required, let the dog come to you, if they move away let them, no rough housing - Dad again ) and more often than not these days, if it's a one off or occasional visitor, the dogs are not introduced and kept in another room. I don't have so many visitors that it's an issue but if I was to need to have work done on the house for instance, the dogs would have to go into kennels I think. If I can't persuade him to let me look at a sore bit - ears, op site - I pop his muzzle on and get on with it. Some things aren't optional but it's all low drama.

Out of the house is not an issue as he is always on lead unless on secure private land, his general obedience is good so will walk to heel, leave on command, do a watch me etc and I have no issue with not letting randoms interact with him. He is not dog aggressive so there is not a concern about dogs running up to him, annoying as it is but I have had to stop the dozy owners jumping in to his face to 'rescue' their dog a few times but tbh, I just step between them and my dog.

At the vets, we just must make full use of pharmaceutical help...plus muzzle, headcollar, harness and wrestle if need be.

Thinking about it, I deal with pretty much any dog the same way whether in kennels or a home, I don't go looking for trouble, give an escape route from pressure, avoid putting then in situations where they could fail unless there is a dire need such as a vet visit and train the behaviours that I can use to avoid a confrontation. Rather than ask a dog to stop focussing on another dog posturing or barking at them, I'll ask for a watch me or march off with a close heel. If I can see someone looking wary on a tight path, I'll put the dog in a down out of the way and do watch me. Leave and give are taught by doing a swapsie, I can't remember the last time I stuck my hand into a conscious dogs mouth... While doing the initial obedience training, walks are in areas that are open and where I can avoid others if needed. When I have fosters, the first walks aren't to the busy local park where there are lots of loose dogs, kids playing footie and joggers. It's 5 minutes down the road and a fabulous training opportunity but probably not in the first week or two.

We ask a lot of dogs, too much in many cases especially if their previous life is less than stellar. We expect them to slot seamlessly into any situation than we put them into, be able to differentiate between friend and foe, know what are their toys and what is the families prized possession. We let them do things one day but shout when they do it another and expect them to occupy/train themselves when we are busy but complain about the choices they make. We treat them like humans and are surprised when they act like dogs. We get them based on looks alone and very little forethought about what they were actually bred to do and little or no effort is made to remedy that. Is it any wonder that there are a lot of very frustrated dogs out there with ineffectual owners who, frankly aren't coping well at all? Any dog is capable of aggression in the right (wrong?) circumstances. Good owners manage their animals in such a way that they are fulfilled but they are also able to read them and avoid situations escalating to aggression. Most dogs that show aggression having been shouting their unhappiness for a long time before the teeth came out but no one looked properly. It is manageable but it's a big responsibility and it's also ok to say that managing it is not for you.

 

[skinnydipper]

I'd say most of us *have* dogs living in a normal, busy, active home? We are not the ones sending them to one or appealing for homes for them, from kennels, which was my point.

Can you also appreciate that not everyone would be so adept at yourself as rehabbing some of the numerous bull/bully-type breeds in rescue (which is what we are talking about)?

There have been several cases of rehomed/rescued dogs killing or injuring their new owners, their family members, visitors or passers-by.

I think of my house as a normal household where dogs have always lived freely in the house, along with other dogs and in this house, cats too.

There are dogs I wouldn't choose to adopt, that includes XL bullies.


I quoted this post and shared my experience.

True, and some would be obvious from the get-go, but some dogs show undesirable behaviour in kennels that disappears in a relaxed home environment, it would be a shame to write them off just because they've been put in a stressful situation. There would have to be some very clear criteria on what behaviour = instant PTS.

 

[AmyMay]

Deleted

 

[some show]

And equally, some dogs have issues that are not apparent in kennels but which come out when living in a normal, busy, active household.

Absolutely agree - and in that case a decent rescue takes the dog back and either rehomes to someone without the triggers of the first household or PTS if it's irredeemable aggressive behaviour.

 

[Goldenstar]

I would never consider rehoming one of these bully type dogs it’s extremely sad and I really don’t understand parents of small children that do it just does not seem worth the risk.

 

[CorvusCorax]

SD I can't quote on phone as it messes about and jumps all over the place...I am happy that you've been able to improve the lives of your dogs and that you're able to help others with theirs, but it's not the point...this discussion isn't really about us and our individual dogs? If everyone was good at rehabbing dogs then there would be no...fatal dog attacks.

 

[splashgirl45]

I just don’t like the look of bully breeds but also don’t like the poodle crosses as I don’t like the feel of their coats, therefore I only have the type of dog that appeals to me. While many bully breeds may be perfectly amiable , they are not for me. I’m glad there are some people who can manage them and give them a good quality of life and keep other dogs and people safe..

 

[marmalade76]

I just don’t like the look of bully breeds but also don’t like the poodle crosses as I don’t like the feel of their coats, therefore I only have the type of dog that appeals to me. While many bully breeds may be perfectly amiable , they are not for me. I’m glad there are some people who can manage them and give them a good quality of life and keep other dogs and people safe..

I'll admit I'm not keen on the poodle crosses, the look of the coat doesn't appeal and all that money spent on dog groomers! No ta.

 

[Dexter]

Yes I have one now and previously had quite a few that were not suitable for the average household.
The common factor is that they have all been abused in some form or fashion and are a breed that is not as accepting or forgiving of bad treatment as some other breeds are.

Current dog, while he doesn't show obvious aggression at home or out and about, has been aggressive at the vets so is not totally trustworthy and is not given the opportunity to get into trouble. He is managed carefully - to be fair, possibly because of the type of dog I take on - as all my dogs have been with a combination of training and use of separation when required. My dogs have never been allowed to greet visitors at the door or in the hall, have to be on their beds as people come in and introductions are 'careful' for want of a better word. (FFS, do not put your face down to the dog - that one is for my Dad, on lead if required, let the dog come to you, if they move away let them, no rough housing - Dad again ) and more often than not these days, if it's a one off or occasional visitor, the dogs are not introduced and kept in another room. I don't have so many visitors that it's an issue but if I was to need to have work done on the house for instance, the dogs would have to go into kennels I think. If I can't persuade him to let me look at a sore bit - ears, op site - I pop his muzzle on and get on with it. Some things aren't optional but it's all low drama.

Out of the house is not an issue as he is always on lead unless on secure private land, his general obedience is good so will walk to heel, leave on command, do a watch me etc and I have no issue with not letting randoms interact with him. He is not dog aggressive so there is not a concern about dogs running up to him, annoying as it is but I have had to stop the dozy owners jumping in to his face to 'rescue' their dog a few times but tbh, I just step between them and my dog.

At the vets, we just must make full use of pharmaceutical help...plus muzzle, headcollar, harness and wrestle if need be.

Thinking about it, I deal with pretty much any dog the same way whether in kennels or a home, I don't go looking for trouble, give an escape route from pressure, avoid putting then in situations where they could fail unless there is a dire need such as a vet visit and train the behaviours that I can use to avoid a confrontation. Rather than ask a dog to stop focussing on another dog posturing or barking at them, I'll ask for a watch me or march off with a close heel. If I can see someone looking wary on a tight path, I'll put the dog in a down out of the way and do watch me. Leave and give are taught by doing a swapsie, I can't remember the last time I stuck my hand into a conscious dogs mouth... While doing the initial obedience training, walks are in areas that are open and where I can avoid others if needed. When I have fosters, the first walks aren't to the busy local park where there are lots of loose dogs, kids playing footie and joggers. It's 5 minutes down the road and a fabulous training opportunity but probably not in the first week or two.

We ask a lot of dogs, too much in many cases especially if their previous life is less than stellar. We expect them to slot seamlessly into any situation than we put them into, be able to differentiate between friend and foe, know what are their toys and what is the families prized possession. We let them do things one day but shout when they do it another and expect them to occupy/train themselves when we are busy but complain about the choices they make. We treat them like humans and are surprised when they act like dogs. We get them based on looks alone and very little forethought about what they were actually bred to do and little or no effort is made to remedy that. Is it any wonder that there are a lot of very frustrated dogs out there with ineffectual owners who, frankly aren't coping well at all? Any dog is capable of aggression in the right (wrong?) circumstances. Good owners manage their animals in such a way that they are fulfilled but they are also able to read them and avoid situations escalating to aggression. Most dogs that show aggression having been shouting their unhappiness for a long time before the teeth came out but no one looked properly. It is manageable but it's a big responsibility and it's also ok to say that managing it is not for you.

That sounds awful! I've got 2 dogs. No issues with anyone inside or outside of the house. No issues with other dogs. I can take them anywhere with no matter. I also can't remember the last time I put my hand in their mouth but there would be no problem if I did. They are both excellent with kids, never left alone with them, but don't and won't react if a child pulls their tail, etc by accident. I could happily rough house with them with no risk, although I don't, I do regularly stick my face in theirs with no issue. Their only issue is they both steal food if given a chance, but that's par for the course for lurchers.

Why are we breeding these dogs that need so much training and input and need handling with kid gloves? Most people want an easy-going, friendly dog that fits in with their lives and can easily be trained to be a well behaved dog. I don't think anyone wants an out-of-control dog, and absolutely no one in their right mind wants a dog that kills someone. So why are they buying these dogs that are totally unsuitable? I don't remember it being like that when I was growing up in the 70s, so whats changed and how do we change it back?

If keeping dogs involved the lengths you go to I wouldn't do it.

 

[marmalade76]

Yes I have one now and previously had quite a few that were not suitable for the average household.
The common factor is that they have all been abused in some form or fashion and are a breed that is not as accepting or forgiving of bad treatment as some other breeds are.

Current dog, while he doesn't show obvious aggression at home or out and about, has been aggressive at the vets so is not totally trustworthy and is not given the opportunity to get into trouble. He is managed carefully - to be fair, possibly because of the type of dog I take on - as all my dogs have been with a combination of training and use of separation when required. My dogs have never been allowed to greet visitors at the door or in the hall, have to be on their beds as people come in and introductions are 'careful' for want of a better word. (FFS, do not put your face down to the dog - that one is for my Dad, on lead if required, let the dog come to you, if they move away let them, no rough housing - Dad again ) and more often than not these days, if it's a one off or occasional visitor, the dogs are not introduced and kept in another room. I don't have so many visitors that it's an issue but if I was to need to have work done on the house for instance, the dogs would have to go into kennels I think. If I can't persuade him to let me look at a sore bit - ears, op site - I pop his muzzle on and get on with it. Some things aren't optional but it's all low drama.

Out of the house is not an issue as he is always on lead unless on secure private land, his general obedience is good so will walk to heel, leave on command, do a watch me etc and I have no issue with not letting randoms interact with him. He is not dog aggressive so there is not a concern about dogs running up to him, annoying as it is but I have had to stop the dozy owners jumping in to his face to 'rescue' their dog a few times but tbh, I just step between them and my dog.

At the vets, we just must make full use of pharmaceutical help...plus muzzle, headcollar, harness and wrestle if need be.

Thinking about it, I deal with pretty much any dog the same way whether in kennels or a home, I don't go looking for trouble, give an escape route from pressure, avoid putting then in situations where they could fail unless there is a dire need such as a vet visit and train the behaviours that I can use to avoid a confrontation. Rather than ask a dog to stop focussing on another dog posturing or barking at them, I'll ask for a watch me or march off with a close heel. If I can see someone looking wary on a tight path, I'll put the dog in a down out of the way and do watch me. Leave and give are taught by doing a swapsie, I can't remember the last time I stuck my hand into a conscious dogs mouth... While doing the initial obedience training, walks are in areas that are open and where I can avoid others if needed. When I have fosters, the first walks aren't to the busy local park where there are lots of loose dogs, kids playing footie and joggers. It's 5 minutes down the road and a fabulous training opportunity but probably not in the first week or two.

We ask a lot of dogs, too much in many cases especially if their previous life is less than stellar. We expect them to slot seamlessly into any situation than we put them into, be able to differentiate between friend and foe, know what are their toys and what is the families prized possession. We let them do things one day but shout when they do it another and expect them to occupy/train themselves when we are busy but complain about the choices they make. We treat them like humans and are surprised when they act like dogs. We get them based on looks alone and very little forethought about what they were actually bred to do and little or no effort is made to remedy that. Is it any wonder that there are a lot of very frustrated dogs out there with ineffectual owners who, frankly aren't coping well at all? Any dog is capable of aggression in the right (wrong?) circumstances. Good owners manage their animals in such a way that they are fulfilled but they are also able to read them and avoid situations escalating to aggression. Most dogs that show aggression having been shouting their unhappiness for a long time before the teeth came out but no one looked properly. It is manageable but it's a big responsibility and it's also ok to say that managing it is not for you.

What sort of dog do you have?

 

[cbmcts]

That sounds awful! I've got 2 dogs. No issues with anyone inside or outside of the house. No issues with other dogs. I can take them anywhere with no matter. I also can't remember the last time I put my hand in their mouth but there would be no problem if I did. They are both excellent with kids, never left alone with them, but don't and won't react if a child pulls their tail, etc by accident. I could happily rough house with them with no risk, although I don't, I do regularly stick my face in theirs with no issue. Their only issue is they both steal food if given a chance, but that's par for the course for lurchers.

Why are we breeding these dogs that need so much training and input and need handling with kid gloves? Most people want an easy-going, friendly dog that fits in with their lives and can easily be trained to be a well behaved dog. I don't think anyone wants an out-of-control dog, and absolutely no one in their right mind wants a dog that kills someone. So why are they buying these dogs that are totally unsuitable? I don't remember it being like that when I was growing up in the 70s, so whats changed and how do we change it back?

If keeping dogs involved the lengths you go to I wouldn't do it.

Would you stick your face into a dogs on your first meeting? Grab their jowls and wobble them? Sit a small child on them for a photo? I've seen all of these done more than once.

I have one just like yours, no bother, can do anything with him but he came from a private rehome due to his owners emigrating so minimal trauma or disruption in his life. He does get some wary looks out and about as a staffX but he's as easy and trustworthy as any dog can be. A dog like him took me more than a year to find though despite having great references, lots of well connected people looking on my behalf and being prepared to travel anywhere to get one. I should probably mention that my big dog is deaf and probably brain damaged which is why he is on lead in public as I'm not confident I can train a reliable recall off lead. The way I manage my dogs is second nature to me now and I'm ridiculously proud (sad I know) that no dog of mine has ever managed to bite anybody while I've been handling them.

What's changed is that people buy the first dog that they see and like the look of with minimal if any thought about the provenance, genetics, health and whether the dog is suitable for their lifestyle. There are also a lot more dogs than there were in the 70s and they are treated very differently now. Our family dogs when I was a kid were much loved and cared for well but they weren't spoilt. They were well exercised, properly trained, were house dogs but weren't expected to be anything but dogs. Nobody expected to be able to take them everywhere but also they wouldn't be shut in crates for whole days for instance. There's also so many conflicting theories in training and the expectation from many that there is some kind of magic bullet that can fix all issues if you just throw enough money (not time or consistency though!) at it. I also feel that dogs with poor temperament/health - often linked IMO - weren't kept or bred from so the genetic pool was better. Also society has changed with different attitudes to responsibility and a level of entitlement that there wasn't 50 years ago but I don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle now. Whether it's a small fluffy or a large bullbreed/mastiff/ devil dog du jour, if the training and management is poor, there are going to be problems. Any dog can do serious damage. Obviously, with the bigger breeds the damage that can be done is greater and that is a level of risk that needs careful consideration before owning one. It also needs self awareness that certain dogs, no matter how much you luuurrrrvvve them are not suitable for you and if you now have a dog that you're struggling to manage, that you, the original owner should be fixing the issue one way or another rather than passing the problem on.

Most rescues have always PTS or refused to take in obviously aggressive dogs but don't tend to shout about it because of backlash publicly. Some rescues don't and I personally don't agree with that despite knowing how hard a decision it is make for a rescue. Think about it, those in rescue do it because they love dogs, not because they want to have to kill them.

 

[cbmcts]

What sort of dog do you have?

Rottweiler

 

[marmalade76]

Would you stick your face into a dogs on your first meeting? Grab their jowls and wobble them? Sit a small child on them for a photo? I've seen all of these done more than once.

I have one just like yours, no bother, can do anything with him but he came from a private rehome due to his owners emigrating so minimal trauma or disruption in his life. He does get some wary looks out and about as a staffX but he's as easy and trustworthy as any dog can be. A dog like him took me more than a year to find though despite having great references, lots of well connected people looking on my behalf and being prepared to travel anywhere to get one. I should probably mention that my big dog is deaf and probably brain damaged which is why he is on lead in public as I'm not confident I can train a reliable recall off lead. The way I manage my dogs is second nature to me now and I'm ridiculously proud (sad I know) that no dog of mine has ever managed to bite anybody while I've been handling them.

What's changed is that people buy the first dog that they see and like the look of with minimal if any thought about the provenance, genetics, health and whether the dog is suitable for their lifestyle. There are also a lot more dogs than there were in the 70s and they are treated very differently now. Our family dogs when I was a kid were much loved and cared for well but they weren't spoilt. They were well exercised, properly trained, were house dogs but weren't expected to be anything but dogs. Nobody expected to be able to take them everywhere but also they wouldn't be shut in crates for whole days for instance. There's also so many conflicting theories in training and the expectation from many that there is some kind of magic bullet that can fix all issues if you just throw enough money (not time or consistency though!) at it. I also feel that dogs with poor temperament/health - often linked IMO - weren't kept or bred from so the genetic pool was better. Also society has changed with different attitudes to responsibility and a level of entitlement that there wasn't 50 years ago but I don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle now. Whether it's a small fluffy or a large bullbreed/mastiff/ devil dog du jour, if the training and management is poor, there are going to be problems. Any dog can do serious damage. Obviously, with the bigger breeds the damage that can be done is greater and that is a level of risk that needs careful consideration before owning one. It also needs self awareness that certain dogs, no matter how much you luuurrrrvvve them are not suitable for you and if you now have a dog that you're struggling to manage, that you, the original owner should be fixing the issue one way or another rather than passing the problem on.

Most rescues have always PTS or refused to take in obviously aggressive dogs but don't tend to shout about it because of backlash publicly. Some rescues don't and I personally don't agree with that despite knowing how hard a decision it is make for a rescue. Think about it, those in rescue do it because they love dogs, not because they want to have to kill them.

A bit like with children, dogs were disciplined in ways that are now frowned upon and actually treated like dogs yet we didn't have the problems we seem to have now. I remember folks who would kick their dogs out of the house for the day, a bit like you'd do with cats, to roam around unsupervised yet there seemed to be a lot less trouble with dogs than there is now.

 

[conniegirl]

I would never consider rehoming one of these bully type dogs it’s extremely sad and I really don’t understand parents of small children that do it just does not seem worth the risk.

Small children and a dog of anybreed with an uncertain history is a disaster waiting to happen, more likely with some types than with others though.

When we lose Daisy we will not be replacing her until Ellie is much older. I do not have time for a puppy so a rehomed older dog is the only option.

Unless i know the dogs full history and know and trust the previous owner (close friend) then an adult dog is out of the question until Ellie is at least 8 and even then it will likely be a small breed known for a good friendly nature.