Moobli
Well-Known Member
True.
Another fatal dog attack
- Thread starter SilverLinings
- Start date
J&T
Well-Known Member
I don't fully understand why some of them attack though especially the stories of those who were just walking home then the dog spots them runs towards them and attacks?
Also what are we meant to do if we get attacked I've seen some sites say to not give eye contact and to stay very still like a tree but surely some of these dogs are just gonna attack anyway.
Also what are we meant to do if we get attacked I've seen some sites say to not give eye contact and to stay very still like a tree but surely some of these dogs are just gonna attack anyway.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
It's generally a genetic response to stimulation/stress. And dogs are generally motivated by prey - there's a moving, squeaking thing that needs to be made stop, or extinction of stress through the bite (the same way as we might use a stress ball or worry beads, we use our hands, they use their mouths). There's also re-direction, the dog WANTS to have something in its mouth and we generally tend to be the closest thing to hand. Prey drive feeds into competition for resources, another trigger, where the dog feels another dog or a person is going to take its stuff/impede their position.
There's lots of advice out there but it's very hard to say what we would do when it happens to us as we humans will go into fight/flight/freeze. As a generalisation it's better not to move/thrash around too much or make any high pitched noises/anything that imitates prey behaviour. And don't pull back/fight as this will increase the amount of fight in the dog and cause more crushing/tearing injuries. If you look at how a dog deals with prey, they crush and rag until it stops moving. If the prey item is dead/stops moving then there is less subsequent movement in the dog. Same with a ball on a rope, we NEVER ask for it back by pulling it. Opposition reflex.
A dog that is in civil defence, IE it is generally cornered/feels vulnerable/wants to protect itself and make the threat go away, will do short snaps/bite and release immediately using the front half if its mouth as opposed to the crushing prey bite using the whole mouth, which is for extinguishing movement/life.
I was taught as a very young child to stand still, arms by sides, no eye contact. As an adult learning from very experienced dog people, it's also important to exude an air of confidence, rather than nervousness or aggression, like 'really? I wouldn't try that, pal'.
I've seen equipment break/come off a dog in a high state of arousal, we all were prepared for a trip to hospital and a handler I regard as one of the best in the world, stood there and said through his body language, 'come on then, let's dance' and the dog was all 'nope, changed my mind, I'm a good boy, really'.
I can see this in my own oldest dog, if people are in any way edgy around them, he just does whatever he likes and throws his weight around, whereas if you are very businesslike and no-nonsense, he just complies.
However if a dog is in a heightened state/in a frenzy, all of this is academic.
If you are helping someone, again, do NOT try to pull either them or the dog apart when the dog is on them, as this just increases the risk of injury.
DressageCob
Well-Known Member
The thing is, that's how pitbull owners describe their breed too (and call them "pibbles" to make them sound cuter). They insist they are "nanny dogs".
I have said this before but I genuinely don't understand how American Bullies are legal here when they are just pitbulls with a different name. The pitbull is the foundation breed. Then they've added some mastiffs to the bloodline, sometimes some old English bulldogs or staffies, but the base of the breed is the pitbull. Since pitbulls are banned, I don't see why a dog which is heavily based on the pitbull is legal.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Because we only ID pit bulls with a set of measurements not breeding 
SadKen
Well-Known Member
I 100% agree with this, but these people are deliberately breeding for traits that make these dogs more effective killers ie increased muscle, size, aggression - because that’s what the element of society who is buying generally wants them for. They don’t need them to work well with humans, they don’t want a dog which will do what it’s told particularly or one which is good with a family.
Young men involved in nefarious activities want a weapon against other people or their dogs; that, and the cachet such people have, creating admiration for them as role models (!) is what is fuelling much of the bully demand. I can’t think of a time when we have actively bred dogs for a purpose which treats positive attitudes to humans as a minimal secondary or even a *negative* critical factor in selection for breeding, in favour of the ability to intimidate and kill.
That’s why I am quite frightened of those dogs.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
Because we only ID pit bulls with a set of measurements not breeding
This.
At risk of repeating myself.
The 'American Pit Bull Terrier' is banned in the UK. It is not a recognised breed by the Kennel Club, the FCI's representative member in the UK. The FCI being the self-appointed world governing body of all things canine. There is no true breed registry or DNA bank in the UK to measure against/prove what is or isn't one. It's absolute horseshit trying to legislate this way, especially when there is a fundamental lack of understanding about the breeding of pedigree and non-pedigree animals amongst the general public, lawmakers and indeed, so-called animal/dog people themselves.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
I think in reality, the amount of people genuinely breeding for aggression and 'killing machines' is negligible, the amount of dogs in a litter that come out exactly the way you want them is smaller again. Amongst hardcore 'enthusiasts' in many disciplines or walks of life, if a dog isn't showing the desirable attributes, there will be a cull programme in place. I also think proper understanding of genetics, drives etc in these young men and the people who supply them with dogs isn't that strong. A lot of what presents as aggression is just low nerve/fear.
But of course some of these dogs will find their way into the gene pool/family homes because of extremely poor decision making/lack of knowledge.
Quite a few dogs have histrorically had aloofness/standoffishness/neutrality to humans written into their FCI-recognised breed standards, and it's not bull breeds/the types you would think, actually quite floofy dogs, I know of some that have been put to the back of the class for being overly friendly with the judge.
Prancerpoos
Well-Known Member
Sad that anyone ever felt the need to breed or own these huge dogs with a propensity towards killing things. One of my neighbours, woman and over 60, bought a dogue de Bordeaux puppy as a companion for her Labrador. Very cute as a puppy, but it is now 2 years old and it takes all her strength to hold on to it when anyone walks past with a dog. The Labrador is meanwhile happily snuffling around off lead. I couldn’t resisting commenting when I last walked by with my dog, which I had to put on a lead to get past, that maybe next time she could consider getting another Labrador. She agreed.
DressageCob
Well-Known Member
Because we only ID pit bulls with a set of measurements not breeding
Absolutely. It shows how woeful the breed specific legislation is. People get their staffies taken away and investigated because they are white and brindle and a bit overheight but dogs actually known to be based on the APBT are fine because they are often more mastiff sized than pitbull. It’s a silly law.
stangs
Well-Known Member
What do you think every single guard breed - a type that's been around as long as humans have been around - was bred for?
When I was younger, a friend had an Old English Sheepdog that needed two people to walk it. Nothing to do with the breeding. It had just never been socialised, taught to heel, or given enough exercise and was a nightmare to live with as a result.
What you describe has nothing to do with the dog having a 'propensity to kill things'. It's just a stupid choice of breed for someone who doesn't know how to, or can't be bothered to, train and socialise it properly. She'd presumably have the same issues with a collie or a husky.
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
It would be more helpful if each breed organisation/governing body held its own DNA registry to measure against and ran its own health screening service, rather than people having to rely on a commercial enterprise.
For instance I have concrete proof, through blood testing, that my dogs are descendants of the dogs that their pedigree says they are. Rather than 'this dog might have some German Shepherd in it'. It's black and white/clear.
SadKen
Well-Known Member
Guarding. Livestock, people. But not bred to actively attack people, to guard. We needed guard dogs far more until the relatively recent past because of societal lawlessness and wild animals, yet these bully breeds are a new phenomenon in the size and temperament they are now.
Reading these repetitively horrific stories shows that they are not guarding. They are attacking. Because of breeding for size and muscle, they are effective at it. Reasonably frequently, their attacks are on their owners and children. That’s not the purpose of a guardian breed.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
A guard dog was never just a visual deterrent, has to be able to 'do' something if a person or another predator continued to encroach on the resource that the dog is supposed to be guarding.
*We* understand what 'thing' a dog is supposed to be guarding, but as a generalisation, a dog does not, we have just tweaked natural instinct, for good or ill. In the vast, vast majority of cases, even a pet dog who bites is either guarding/protecting a resource or themselves.
The problem with these dogs is that they do not have the strength of nerve or clarity of thought to be able to discriminate what is a true threat or not, either to themselves, their position or their resources. The threshold is very low and their heads are scrambled because of a mishmash of genetics and drives. To paraphrase, 'when the dog is under stress, he looks back for help from his ancestors, and he finds that there is no-one there'.
*We* understand what 'thing' a dog is supposed to be guarding, but as a generalisation, a dog does not, we have just tweaked natural instinct, for good or ill. In the vast, vast majority of cases, even a pet dog who bites is either guarding/protecting a resource or themselves.
The problem with these dogs is that they do not have the strength of nerve or clarity of thought to be able to discriminate what is a true threat or not, either to themselves, their position or their resources. The threshold is very low and their heads are scrambled because of a mishmash of genetics and drives. To paraphrase, 'when the dog is under stress, he looks back for help from his ancestors, and he finds that there is no-one there'.
stangs
Well-Known Member
What CC said. Guard dogs are bred with, to quote your words, 'positive attitudes to humans as a minimal secondary'. The 'ability to intimidate' is a given.
Bully breeds are not a new phenomenon. Their size and 'temperament' has existed within mastiffs for centuries (though, of course, mastiffs are actually supposed to be stand-offish to strangers).
XL bullies are, however, not guard dogs. They're not guarding because they're not supposed to guard; nothing in their breeding has prepared them to identify what a threat is. They're supposed to be friendly to strangers; what scats describes is what a bully should be like. The fact that they are being sold by idiots and criminals to idiots and criminals is nothing to do with the breed itself.
planete
Well-Known Member
Attack dogs were used in the Roman army and probably still exist in some special units. Definitely bred to target human beings. I am afraid you can breed that kind of aggression in dogs. A dog with a very high prey drive will also go on ragging a freshly killed animal, I have seen it. Temperament tests would be the only way to counter such breeding if suspected. I believe this already happens in some countries (Germany?)
SadKen
Well-Known Member
I don’t disagree with CC or with Stangs on the point about XL bullies, which is what I was talking about - poorly bred animals effective at killing which are not selected for temperament (regardless of how you interpret that, it’s true).
Perhaps I wasn’t clear but I have always understood dogs to have been bred for the relationship *with their handlers* above all again regardless of breed. That’s why I referenced these dogs attacking their owners. I don’t mean that dogs have all been bred to have a positive attitude to *all* humans - 2 of my GSD have been standoffish with other humans but not with us, I see that as fine for breed standard. Is it really true that we have previously selected guardian and other large breeds for breeding based primarily on physical traits (that make them better killers) with their attitude to their own handlers a minimal secondary consideration?
I just can’t imagine people in the past breeding big powerful animals that could kill them and their families without putting temperament towards handlers top of the list, given the lack of healthcare and police to come and stop an attack. Perhaps that’s naive but we didn’t hear about lots of dog attacks like this (I mean in recent history) despite the fact that dogs and idiots have been around forever. For me, these dogs are different because they are bred based on physical characteristics first and foremost, which enable them to kill effectively. Temperament (attitude to handler, lack of nerve, not knowing what should be guarded etc) isn’t a consideration, or is a very minor one. Which as I say, I think is quite a new thing.
Just my 2 cents. My primary interest is not having my large breeds tarred with this brush and being obliged in law to have muzzles, permanent leads, have licenses etc.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear but I have always understood dogs to have been bred for the relationship *with their handlers* above all again regardless of breed. That’s why I referenced these dogs attacking their owners. I don’t mean that dogs have all been bred to have a positive attitude to *all* humans - 2 of my GSD have been standoffish with other humans but not with us, I see that as fine for breed standard. Is it really true that we have previously selected guardian and other large breeds for breeding based primarily on physical traits (that make them better killers) with their attitude to their own handlers a minimal secondary consideration?
I just can’t imagine people in the past breeding big powerful animals that could kill them and their families without putting temperament towards handlers top of the list, given the lack of healthcare and police to come and stop an attack. Perhaps that’s naive but we didn’t hear about lots of dog attacks like this (I mean in recent history) despite the fact that dogs and idiots have been around forever. For me, these dogs are different because they are bred based on physical characteristics first and foremost, which enable them to kill effectively. Temperament (attitude to handler, lack of nerve, not knowing what should be guarded etc) isn’t a consideration, or is a very minor one. Which as I say, I think is quite a new thing.
Just my 2 cents. My primary interest is not having my large breeds tarred with this brush and being obliged in law to have muzzles, permanent leads, have licenses etc.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
'Tactical' dogs being used by some police forces or armies will be sent in to bite whoever they can see without asking any questions and many forces won't train an out, they'll get the dog off with a break stick and stick a toy in its mouth as quick as they can, as believe it or not, some people will actively look up/research release commands and use them. Hardcore ultras used to tape magazines to their arms and legs under their jackets and trousers back in the day for the same reasons. The prolific joyriders in a certain city used to know the police dogs by name.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
The livestock guardian types were historically pretty much bred to be independent/spend weeks and months working remotely/not coming into much contact with people.
The problem with temperament is that a lot of people do not know what they are looking at. And back in the day, if the dog had a poor temperament/had anything that made it incompatible with whatever job it was doing, it would not last very long.
And marry to that, the fact that people now want dogs because of what they look like, not because of what job they are capable of doing. Breeding for looks and everything else goes out the window.
some show
Well-Known Member
Greyhounds have been bred to be docile and handle-able and you'd better believe any that weren't probably didn't last long, but I think mine - when I first adopted him at 3 years old - could've attacked a baby given half the chance. He has a very high prey drive (even more so back then, not just for animals but also carrier bags, shadows, flags, stones that looks vaguely like cats, you name it!), was a totally unsocialised racer that lived only in kennels/an allotment so had never even seen children/other breeds of dog before, and crying babies sound a lot like any other small helpless animal when it comes down to it.
He absolutely came to understand that small people are people and is really gentle with little kids now (i'd still never leave him unattended with one obviously), but you can really see how an unsocialised dog with prey drive - of any breed - in the hands of an idiot can be dangerous, particularly to children. It just takes the right stimulus to set them off.
He absolutely came to understand that small people are people and is really gentle with little kids now (i'd still never leave him unattended with one obviously), but you can really see how an unsocialised dog with prey drive - of any breed - in the hands of an idiot can be dangerous, particularly to children. It just takes the right stimulus to set them off.
stangs
Well-Known Member
I don't think there's a single XL bully out there that's been bred to kill. To bite and show aggressive traits, maybe, but not to kill. I think the fact that many of the attacks by an XL bully are towards an owner just goes to show that the motivations are frustration, and poor management, not that the dog has been bred to be aggressive to people.
You're right that the physical characteristics being selected for make the dogs more dangerous by nature of strength alone, but they're not alone in that. I've stolen the below quote from Wikipedia:
You could switch 'Great Dane' for 'XL bully' and it'd sound perfectly normal. And yet no one's talking about Great Danes needing legislation because of their appearance, because they're not being bought by the wrong homes.
The increase in attacks and deaths recently, I blame 100% on the pandemic - an increase in dodgy breeders as a result of the money being made, and lonely, bored folk who'd never owned a dog but thought that now was the time for it.
It's interesting that you yourself have GSDs though. GSDs aren't being tarred with this brush; they're the foundation of the brush. Generations of people have been afraid of them. Standoffishness to strangers is all fine and dandy until you're said stranger, and you have to trust that Joe Public knows how to hold his dog. Go on any "most aggressive breeds" webpage or YT video, and the GSD will always be rated top 5.
CorvusCorax
'It's only a laugh, no harm done'
And this is why I can never truly say 'why does anyone want a dog like that', because a lot of people would think that about GSD owners.
And the reason there are so many crappy ones about is because of bad/inadvisable breeding and poor decision making/management/training.
The grandfather of one of our dogs was a working police dog who could throw very sharp temperaments. Unfortunately he sired the top show/stud dog of his day (who was a bit shy) and during the 70s and 80s I'd say he was behind thousands of GSDs. Ours was PTS, as he was becoming a liability. He was a beautiful looking dog, but not predictable around anyone except my mother and I, my father couldn't even get near my pram.
IrishMilo
Well-Known Member
I witnessed a Lab jump up at an elderly man last summer completely unprovoked and he had to be rushed to hospital as - not to be too graphic - he needed his muscle stitching back in. I'm not bashing Labs - I've got one myself - but for every 'Well a Lab/Golden/Spaniel wouldn't have done that...' story, I guarantee you'll find someone who has one to tell.
I'm not saying it's nothing to do with breed - I fully acknowledge that breeds each have their own traits, but tarring all big dogs with the same brush is not helpful. Dogue de Bs aren't known for having aggressive traits. In your story it just sounds like a strong dog which is entirely different to having a dangerous one out to kill.
SadKen
Well-Known Member
Yep I’ve previously said that GSD were the dog of choice for the idiot in the 80s and am very well aware that they have had a reputation ever since. I am also conscious that it’s deed not breed, but there is a reason that there is a flood of attacks and deaths associated with these particular dogs and it can’t just be pinned on fashionable idiocy, because that’s always been there. Imo it’s because those traits which are being bred for enable easier killing even though that isn’t the intention (breeding is for size and muscle, which make death a more likely outcome of an attack). Temperament isnt a concern for selecting breeding xl dogs.
GSD were bred to work with the handler. They have numerous traits that I found appealing (trainability, herding etc) beyond appearance, whereas the Bully XL is meant to appear intimidating; they don’t have a role beyond guard.
Yes, GSD have been poorly bred (and how!) and owned by idiots when they were fashionable, resulting in that reputation. But they weren’t bred for traits that ultimately made them more capable killers; a GSD that ignores its handler was a negative when breeding from the start, but is largely irrelevant in the world of an XL. Hence why we didn’t see a huge spate of deaths in a short time when GSD were the idiot’s dog of choice, but we do now. I don’t deny GSD have killed; they have, but even the bad breeding wasn’t specifically designed to get a bigger, more aggressive, muscular dog that then has more capability to kill or seriously injure. A guardian breed would always do that job better.
Re bad handling, a triggered GSD is likely far more survivable than a triggered bully, based on the reports of dog attacks historically. Yes, that depends on the attack and the victim, I’m just going off the dog attacks noted over time. I’m not defending my breed particularly, I’m simply stating that bullies are more equipped to kill due to the traits being selected for breeding. They may also be more likely to attack given the breed history and idiots breeding them.
I don’t think XL bully have been bred to kill either, it’s just that the characteristics which are being selected for aesthetic reasons happen to produce a better killer when the trigger is pulled.
GSD were bred to work with the handler. They have numerous traits that I found appealing (trainability, herding etc) beyond appearance, whereas the Bully XL is meant to appear intimidating; they don’t have a role beyond guard.
Yes, GSD have been poorly bred (and how!) and owned by idiots when they were fashionable, resulting in that reputation. But they weren’t bred for traits that ultimately made them more capable killers; a GSD that ignores its handler was a negative when breeding from the start, but is largely irrelevant in the world of an XL. Hence why we didn’t see a huge spate of deaths in a short time when GSD were the idiot’s dog of choice, but we do now. I don’t deny GSD have killed; they have, but even the bad breeding wasn’t specifically designed to get a bigger, more aggressive, muscular dog that then has more capability to kill or seriously injure. A guardian breed would always do that job better.
Re bad handling, a triggered GSD is likely far more survivable than a triggered bully, based on the reports of dog attacks historically. Yes, that depends on the attack and the victim, I’m just going off the dog attacks noted over time. I’m not defending my breed particularly, I’m simply stating that bullies are more equipped to kill due to the traits being selected for breeding. They may also be more likely to attack given the breed history and idiots breeding them.
I don’t think XL bully have been bred to kill either, it’s just that the characteristics which are being selected for aesthetic reasons happen to produce a better killer when the trigger is pulled.
KittenInTheTree
Well-Known Member
Go back far enough through the Labrador's family tree and you'll find the old household guardian dogs of the Roman era. They weren't especially nice animals.
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
Well if you go back even further dogs were wolves and we were monkeys
But things have moved on since then, at least one would hope so
But things have moved on since then, at least one would hope so
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
In my - admittedly - small experience of the XL bullies, it's a lethal combination of badly bred, poor temperament, under socialised and untrained dogs owned by people who would be better off with a stuffed toy. Most of those that I see are not owned by the yobbo type, they are owned by well meaning but ineffectual people who haven't a scooby. So many of them seem to be incredibly nervous too which I personally find more worrying then a bolshy pushy dog. It's bad enough when that type of person has a scatty doodle running amok in the local park but at least once they finally catch it, they can hold it... Lots of them also have Rotts, Mastiffs and other large breeds that they insist on walking on harnesses cos half checks and headcollars are cruel - really a lot of the time they are scared of their own dog when it kicks up a fuss about wearing anything that spoils it's fun - so they are 6 ft behind their dog at all times acting as ballast on a lead rather than controlling it. You can't train a dog when in that position! Around here anyway, a large breed, especially if it's a bit unruly is not really welcome at most training classes - the fluffy dog owners make them feel very unwelcome and understandably enough in public, most other dog walkers swerve them.
Really society has 2 options, we can go down the road of breed specific legislation and we all know how well that hasn't worked in the past or society can raise it's standards and insist on a certain level of behaviour in public from all dogs and their owners. You would need to take a carrot and stick approach with incentives such as facilities available but only for dogs trained to a certain provable standard and real help and support for owners who are a bit clueless but well meaning. Making them the lepers of society is not helpful but I would happily support hefty fines and their enforcement for antisocial behaviour, whatever the breed. Any dog running riot in public, even a small one, should be unacceptable. Wouldn't be a quick or easy solution but 'in my view, it's a viable long term one.
Really society has 2 options, we can go down the road of breed specific legislation and we all know how well that hasn't worked in the past or society can raise it's standards and insist on a certain level of behaviour in public from all dogs and their owners. You would need to take a carrot and stick approach with incentives such as facilities available but only for dogs trained to a certain provable standard and real help and support for owners who are a bit clueless but well meaning. Making them the lepers of society is not helpful but I would happily support hefty fines and their enforcement for antisocial behaviour, whatever the breed. Any dog running riot in public, even a small one, should be unacceptable. Wouldn't be a quick or easy solution but 'in my view, it's a viable long term one.
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
Another
Police shoot dog in Derby after man is seriously hurt
Firearms officers killed the "out of control" dog after deciding it posed a risk to the public.
www.bbc.co.uk
P3LH
Well-Known Member
makemine_adouble
Mainly the pems - his lordship sleeps so much that most of him would look like a lion pelt rug.