Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[GreNME]

This is my perception as well. If Dog Breed X is seen as a macho status symbol breed, people who buy Dog Breed X may tend to be macho status symbol types. Those who buy dogs as status symbols are probably less likely to be conscientious dog owners.

This is really the key to it, and it doesn't matter the breed.

Dogs are not only highly capable of learning how to behave from the people and environment they're placed in, they require it in order to know how to act. Dogs not only crave human attention and direction, they need it in order to be right in the head. People-- and not just people looking for a status symbol, but people making impulse buys or trying to impress someone or purchasing for their kids for birthdays & christmas-- will get APBTs and other dogs with the expectation that the dog is immediately going to be a best friend who wants to stick by them through thick and thin... all of the dog cliches that we constantly have reinforced from TV, movies, and books. When that doesn't come immediately and the novelty of a new dog wears off (and responsibilities set in), kids become uninterested or adults start treating the dog like a chore, and all those wonderful expected behaviors don't come right away while the folks wonder if they got a "problem dog" for their purchase.

After a few months people will either turn these dogs in to a rescue or shelter, or they just keep them and do stuff like segregating them from the home or tying them up or keeping them boxed up instead of learning how to work with the dog to get the desired behavior, and before long there are two common outcomes: 1) a dog that doesn't know how to behave and is bitey or destructive, or 2) another dog in the unfortunate list of abandoned and unwanted animals in shelters and rescues. Less common (but still too often) is a dog that breaks out of the home or gets away from the owner, and the owner just doesn't bother following up on it, so the dog starts learning to try to fend for itself and usually to destructive and/or aggressive ends.

Getting rid of specific breeds won't stop these things from happening, and it's these things that are the largest contributors to dog attacks.

 

[Toke]

Interesting pictures GreNME, they got me thinking on how to train dogs for desired aggression level.
Or perhaps more accurately, how to explain "rules of engagement" to the dog.

How does it tell the mail-man or brownie from a burglar when it is home alone?

I had one bad experience as a scout when out distributing phone books.
It involving a german shepherd attached to my hip, it let go as I ran off.
My jacket prevented more than a small puncture, so I just got a tetanus shot, and decided that I were in no position to complain about the dog.

 

[Furcifer]

Here is an opposing view on spay/neuter:
http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/Mandatory_Spay_Neuter.htm
Chris Zink, DVM also has a paper on reasons to delay spay/neuter until the dog is mature.

But, I'm doing what I promised myself not too, getting off on a tangent from the OP.

Given 97% of fatal attacks are caused by unfixed dogs, and that certainly contributes to the Pitbull image, I don't think it's that far removed from the OP. If it is the mods are free to delete this post.

The link doesn't opposes spay and neuter is so much as it opposes forced spay and neuter. It isn't considering the propensity for unfixed animals to attack either.

I don't support forced spay and neuter. I support making it expensive to not do it. If you want to wait until the dog is older, which usually means waiting until the dog is about a year old, or in females after having a litter of pups, that's fine. But pay for it accordingly, and when the dogs old enough or had a litter, have them fixed.

I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure most dogs involved in attacks and bites are well beyond the age recommended for spay and neuter.

 

[bethgsd]

Interesting pictures GreNME, they got me thinking on how to train dogs for desired aggression level.
Or perhaps more accurately, how to explain "rules of engagement" to the dog.

How does it tell the mail-man or brownie from a burglar when it is home alone?

I had one bad experience as a scout when out distributing phone books.
It involving a german shepherd attached to my hip, it let go as I ran off.
My jacket prevented more than a small puncture, so I just got a tetanus shot, and decided that I were in no position to complain about the dog.

The responsible thing for the owner to do is not leave the dog where it will have access to the mailman or brownie when the owner isn't home.

The schutzhund training that I've seen and done, the helper uses body language to engage the dog at the beginning stages.

 

[bethgsd]

Given 97% of fatal attacks are caused by unfixed dogs, and that certainly contributes to the Pitbull image, I don't think it's that far removed from the OP. If it is the mods are free to delete this post.

The link doesn't opposes spay and neuter is so much as it opposes forced spay and neuter. It isn't considering the propensity for unfixed animals to attack either.

I don't support forced spay and neuter. I support making it expensive to not do it. If you want to wait until the dog is older, which usually means waiting until the dog is about a year old, or in females after having a litter of pups, that's fine. But pay for it accordingly, and when the dogs old enough or had a litter, have them fixed.

I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure most dogs involved in attacks and bites are well beyond the age recommended for spay and neuter.

Another alternative is to fine owners that have dogs roaming at large. My understanding is that Calgary has one of the highest rates of licensing in North America but doesn't have breed restrictions or spay/neuter clauses. And since there is no one hard and fast age for spay/neuter that makes sense. Larger, slower maturing breeds aren't finished physically developing at one year of age. The veterinary orthopedic surgeon recommended that I keep my youngest intact forever, unless problems arise from that, to prevent muscle loss. And after the dog managed to injure himself in my backyard and I racked up some very large vet bills I would not be amused to be fined on top of that.

Once again, it all comes down to responsible dog ownership.

 

[GreNME]

Interesting pictures GreNME, they got me thinking on how to train dogs for desired aggression level.
Or perhaps more accurately, how to explain "rules of engagement" to the dog.

The answer is absolutely yes. In fact, games like you see in the pictures I posted are some of the best ways to teach rules of engagement to dogs. The big boy you saw there had one trick he loved doing, and it was something we dreaded thinking about him doing to anyone else: hopping up and putting his front feet on my shoulders. If you've ever been tackled by someone weighing between 175 to 200 lbs (80 to 90 kgs), then you'd have an understanding why we wouldn't want a dog of that size doing the same. So we put it on to a command (in this case, "tall") and he never tried to hop up on to anyone else's shoulders but ours, because we were the only people whom he would recognize as giving him the command. We taught him to not paw at people by playing "dog fu" games with him, and keeping the punching as an activity that he engages in specifically when playing with us (or the GSD) and not out in public.

With our German shepherd, we've taught different rules to address different behaviors. The GSD is very forward and pushy when meeting new folks (which can be scary with a tall GSD), so what we did was concentrate on focusing on me when meeting new people, and depending on my behavior he was taught how to react-- when it came to family or friends he was allowed to be more relaxed and gregarious, and when it was strangers or people who we didn't know well he knew to stay at a heel unless told otherwise. My GSD is also very protective of his yard and home (territorial), so we put a praise statement and invitation to grab his favorite toys (outside it's a certain ball, inside it's a stuffie) as a redirect when he doesn't need to be alert-barking (as opposed to angrily yelling "no" or "shut up").

There are other things we've done as well, but those jump out as most pertinent to what you're asking, and they're fairly simple to do with a dog. The same type of thing would be done with bitey dogs but instead of putting focus on a trick or chasing down a ball, you would have the dogs focus their biting on a rope toy or some other object that's not only specifically encouraged for biting on, but actually rewarded when they stick to that object instead of biting other things.

How does it tell the mail-man or brownie from a burglar when it is home alone?

Honestly, they don't. Not the first time, at least. Most dogs will pick up on repeat visitors, so a dog that sees the same mail carrier over and over can get used to them, and rewarding calmer behavior when they see the mail carrier pretty much solves that. However, a stranger is a stranger is a stranger, so teaching a dog what to do when a stranger comes along gives it a point of reference that it will typically use when meeting new strangers.

I had one bad experience as a scout when out distributing phone books.
It involving a german shepherd attached to my hip, it let go as I ran off.
My jacket prevented more than a small puncture, so I just got a tetanus shot, and decided that I were in no position to complain about the dog.

Sounds like a case where the dog saw you as invading its territory and tried to scare you off. If anything it also sounds like the dog had a fair amount of bite inhibition as well-- not to make it sound scary, but if a dog of the size of a German shepherd was meaning to do you permanent damage the likelihood is that it would have done so regardless of the thickness of your jacket. Of course, that doesn't excuse the dog putting its teeth on you, since it's a detail about dog bites that doesn't have a whole lot of nuance in today's society-- a bite is a bite is a bite no matter what.

But yes: dogs learn rules of engagement from people whether we mean them to or not. As such, consciously working with them on learning the rules is always going to produce a dog that has a better grasp on them. The alternative-- essentially neglect or picking up based on negative reinforcement (beatings, yelling, aggression observed by the dog)-- is a dog that no matter what breed it is will very likely bite with little provocation and with less inhibition than others.

 

[Furcifer]

Another alternative is to fine owners that have dogs roaming at large. My understanding is that Calgary has one of the highest rates of licensing in North America but doesn't have breed restrictions or spay/neuter clauses. And since there is no one hard and fast age for spay/neuter that makes sense. Larger, slower maturing breeds aren't finished physically developing at one year of age. The veterinary orthopedic surgeon recommended that I keep my youngest intact forever, unless problems arise from that, to prevent muscle loss. And after the dog managed to injure himself in my backyard and I racked up some very large vet bills I would not be amused to be fined on top of that.

Once again, it all comes down to responsible dog ownership.

The tendency to roam drops by 90% in fixed dogs. Fixed dogs require 25% less calories than the same dog fixed (over the dog's lifetime this can pay for the costs of sterilization). There are significant health concerns avoided by sterilization as well. Again saving money.
Unless you intend to breed, show the dog, or put it in strength competitions, or Dog forbid fight it I can't see a vet telling you to keep the dog intact. It's a significant health risk to the dog just for appearance sake, and the dog doesn't care what it looks like.
Given the statistics I firmly believe in both, high priced "breeder licensing" and additional fines or some sort of multiplier for identified breeds. A second fine for roaming with an unfixed dog would result in a hefty fine and mandatory sterilization. Of the owner.

 

[GreNME]

The tendency to roam drops by 90% in fixed dogs. Fixed dogs require 25% less calories than the same dog fixed (over the dog's lifetime this can pay for the costs of sterilization). There are significant health concerns avoided by sterilization as well. Again saving money.
Unless you intend to breed, show the dog, or put it in strength competitions, or Dog forbid fight it I can't see a vet telling you to keep the dog intact. It's a significant health risk to the dog just for appearance sake, and the dog doesn't care what it looks like.
Given the statistics I firmly believe in both, high priced "breeder licensing" and additional fines or some sort of multiplier for identified breeds. A second fine for roaming with an unfixed dog would result in a hefty fine and mandatory sterilization. Of the owner.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 90% number in terms of roaming, but I can't see how that would be accurate. A strong prey drive mixed with some characteristics in dogs that can be inherited (tenacity, curiosity, activeness) are pretty much going to drive a dog to roam around regardless of their being intact or not. I wouldn't count spaying or neutering as a silver bullet for behavioral tendencies because there really can't be a guarantee on such a process.

What you're describing, though, are mandatory spay-neuter laws, and they tend to be just as ineffective at actually changing the desired behavior-- which is human behavior and not the dogs-- as BSL is at stopping attacks. Instead, what happens is that serious breeders eventually move from areas that institute MSN laws, while non-breeders just choose to not register their dogs with the city (since most already don't license/register their dogs anyway). This happens over and over in every city that's instituted this type of legislation, and the only people it winds up inconveniencing are those who are honestly trying to keep their dogs licensed and being responsible owners anyway. It can also result in municipalities taking it upon themselves to fix a dog, even though the owner has paid their fee for keeping it intact, if the dog happens to get out and the city catches them before the owner does (yes, this has happened more than once, though not to me).

That MSN laws are ineffective are demonstrable by looking at any city that has instituted them that still has irresponsible owners, a stray population that is a problem, and shelters and rescues that are at or over capacity and struggling to keep operational. Meanwhile, you get places like California instituting the most arcane and damaging versions of this, requiring that all dogs be spayed or neutered by 6 months of age, which actually creates health problems for large and giant breeds of dog (like risk of osteosarcoma and heart problems). Ideally, I'd agree that most dog owners would benefit from having their dogs fixed, but only after the dog has finished the maturation process to avoid risking any side effects from essentially removing a part of their endocrine system-- because remember that the gonads aren't just part of the reproductive system, they're also part of the endocrine system, which is why you see caloric and other changes in the first place. The problem with trying to legislate " when they're mature" is that it's different in different dogs: toy and small breeds may take 9 months to a year, while large and giant breeds can take 2 to 3 years (possibly more) depending on the size and the breed. At that point you're still stuck with the problem of intact dogs anyway, which again undercuts the efficacy of MSN laws anyway.

Mind you, I say this as someone who neutered my dog, and he was between 18 and 21 months of age when we did it (though he was about as mature as he'd get physically). I don't object to most people spaying and neutering their animals (in fact I encourage it to most people I speak to on the subject), but I can't in good conscience back MSN laws for two reasons: 1) their demonstrable inefficacy and 2) the types of organizations who are most promoting such legislation (PETA, HSUS) have been notorious in using their legal departments to push for more and more laws that make simply owning pets inconvenient for people, and with the end goal being the elimination of animals as pets completely (regardless of what volunteers or even wage-earner workers might personally feel otherwise)-- "one generation and then out" may now be amended to a longer time frame, but these organizations are certainly still pushing for that extreme goal.

 

[Emet]

<snip>which actually creates health problems for large and giant breeds of dog (like risk of osteosarcoma and heart problems).

Reference, please.
Thanks.

 

[GreNME]

Reference, please.
Thanks.

Aren't you the vet?

Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs - Laura J Sanborn, M.S. (2007)

Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. - mulitple, JAVMA (1991)

The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). - multiple, JAVMA (1987)

Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. - multiple, JAVMA (2001)

The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. - multiple, Journal of Reproduction and Fertility (2001)

That enough references? I assume you can log on to PubMed? If not I can get you the full reports on a few of those (or you can use Google to get them yourself).

Yup, in the last few decades of veterinary medicine research has increasingly been discovering what should have been common sense from a medical perspective: if you cut out the gonads prior to the end of puberty you get abnormal development of the animal.

ETA: because I just remembered a joke my old vet told me, I have to poke fun: are you from UPenn?

 

[Emet]

That was plenty, thanks. Yes, I can log on to PubMed, thanks for asking.

But it's not often that an Associate Professor at a US Veterinary College posts an on-line rebuttal, which covers the vast majority of the studies you posted:

Rebuttal to “Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete”
Lisa M Howe, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACVS Associate Professor, Small Animal Surgery Co-Chief
Surgical Sciences Sect Dept of Vet Small Animal Clinical Sci
College of Vet Med and Biom Sciences Texas A&M Univ College Station

http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf

Please share the UPenn joke- I may not have heard it.
And lest you think otherwise, I have a great deal of respect for many dog trainers--and I know this was a bit of a thread derail. I have agreed with the vast majority of what you said (unless you mentioned dominance aggression)

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not sure where you're getting the 90% number in terms of roaming, but I can't see how that would be accurate.

It isn't. My memory isn't what it used to be.

In a 1997 Study by the University of California Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital-

40% of the 57 dogs in the test group reduced their roaming by 90%, the other 60% reduced their roaming by 50%.

This isn't an exact science. Obviously 100% of the dogs that get fixed and the owner installs a continuous 12 foot fence around the property stopped roaming.

It's isn't a magic bullet, but it works very well.

 

[Furcifer]

What you're describing, though, are mandatory spay-neuter laws, and they tend to be just as ineffective at actually changing the desired behavior-- which is human behavior and not the dogs-- as BSL is at stopping attacks. Instead, what happens is that serious breeders eventually move from areas that institute MSN laws, while non-breeders just choose to not register their dogs with the city (since most already don't license/register their dogs anyway). This happens over and over in every city that's instituted this type of legislation, and the only people it winds up inconveniencing are those who are honestly trying to keep their dogs licensed and being responsible owners anyway.

No, I'm saying hit them in the pocket book. If you want an intact dog you should have the privilege to do so. The price should be based accordingly. If no altered dogs roam more than twice as much, they tax the system more than twice as much. I don't mind paying for animal services in my city but I want to pay it based statistically on my likelihood of using it.

You should know however that not fixing your dog is going to cost you more money in the long run.

I must admit I was a little hesitant to have my male dog fixed, as I guy, until I read the info. It really is better for the dog. But if people want to look at a big muscled dog, and his balls, and his exposed penis (intact dogs display "the lipstick" much more often than altered dogs) go right ahead.

As for the non-licensed dogs, they need to be reported and fined HEAVILY. Non compliance should lead to people being banned from owning dogs and possibly "possession of an unregistered weapon" if it is part of the identified breed.

Oh, I'd use existing business laws to fine people as well. Breeders or people claiming to be one, should have a business license. That would go along way not only in getting rid of the Pibull image, but puppymills and backyard breeders.

 

[GreNME]

That was plenty, thanks. Yes, I can log on to PubMed, thanks for asking.

But it's not often that an Associate Professor at a US Veterinary College posts an on-line rebuttal, which covers the vast majority of the studies you posted:



http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf

I'm not sure how much of a rebuttal that was, as it seemed more a matter of semantics and replying to something I didn't post. I did leave out a few breed-specific studies (mostly to do with Irish wolfhounds or similar breeds) because 1) not all of them are complete and 2) my significant other knows a couple of folks involved in them, but I don't think the rebuttal actually rebuts what I've said about the risks of early spaying/neutering, it's responding to the use of studies in some other essay.

Please share the UPenn joke- I may not have heard it.

Oh, it was nothing major. When moving to the East Coast (from Texas) my vet was giving me suggestions of things to look for when searching for a new vet. One of the things he jokingly said to me was "avoid UPenn vets... if it didn't occur at UPenn then according to them it didn't happen" or something along those lines. His real suggestions were to look for vets who have worked or are working with larger animals and livestock because we have large and giant breed dogs, and to check and see if the vets are aware of the minor differences that could make a big deal when treating sighthounds (certain anesthesia affect them differently, for example). I'm trying to remember the school he went to but I'm drawing a blank at the moment (if I do you can poke fun at his school too ).

And lest you think otherwise, I have a great deal of respect for many dog trainers--and I know this was a bit of a thread derail. I have agreed with the vast majority of what you said (unless you mentioned dominance aggression)

Dominance aggression is hit-or-miss when it comes to neutering, in my experience. As for the thread derail, I think the topic is pretty much dead as there isn't much else that wouldn't just be a rehash of everything that's been covered. I much prefer discussing things that are actually to the benefit and health of dogs rather than silly "ban the breed" debates anyway.

 

[GreNME]

It isn't. My memory isn't what it used to be.

In a 1997 Study by the University of California Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital-

40% of the 57 dogs in the test group reduced their roaming by 90%, the other 60% reduced their roaming by 50%.

This isn't an exact science. Obviously 100% of the dogs that get fixed and the owner installs a continuous 12 foot fence around the property stopped roaming.

It's isn't a magic bullet, but it works very well.

So, not only is the actual statistic you were talking about half the number, but the study involved only 57 dogs? How many types/breeds of dogs were there? What other factors were considered in the study (since I assume they weren't all simply kept in a controlled environment for the duration)?

Come on, you can do better than that.

No, I'm saying hit them in the pocket book. If you want an intact dog you should have the privilege to do so. The price should be based accordingly. If no altered dogs roam more than twice as much, they tax the system more than twice as much. I don't mind paying for animal services in my city but I want to pay it based statistically on my likelihood of using it.

Except, as I already said, in cities where these laws are in place the only people who are actually paying the price are people who are willing to abide by the laws in the first place. This sort of thing attacks responsible owners and is an expense to responsible owners, but is toothless against irresponsible owners due to the habits of those owners-- if caught, they abandon the dog and deny owning it, they don't register it in the first place, and the dog still doesn't get spayed/neutered.

You should know however that not fixing your dog is going to cost you more money in the long run.

Considering how much I spend on my dog, and the numbers on what Americans currently spend on their pets from the industry, the amount of money isn't significant.

I must admit I was a little hesitant to have my male dog fixed, as I guy, until I read the info. It really is better for the dog. But if people want to look at a big muscled dog, and his balls, and his exposed penis (intact dogs display "the lipstick" much more often than altered dogs) go right ahead.

There's no need to build strawmen here. I've already pointed out valid reasons why MSN laws are ineffective that have nothing to do with machismo. If that's the issue you struggled with then that's all well and good, but I'm not making that argument-- and in case you missed it I've neutered my own dog so I'm not against spaying/neutering, I'm against instituting mandatory laws because they hit the wrong people.

As for the non-licensed dogs, they need to be reported and fined HEAVILY. Non compliance should lead to people being banned from owning dogs and possibly "possession of an unregistered weapon" if it is part of the identified breed.

Oh, I'd use existing business laws to fine people as well. Breeders or people claiming to be one, should have a business license. That would go along way not only in getting rid of the Pibull image, but puppymills and backyard breeders.

You're explaining this as if this isn't already going on with active groups trying to weed out bad owners and puppy mills. The problem is that the HSUS and PETA swoop in, get arcane mandatory laws in place, and then begin "working with" law enforcement to take the animals away from responsible and safe owners along with the mills and/or abusers. This is a huge concern for owners of horse farms and AKC breeders, not the single-family homes with one or two pets, but the rabid AR folks will go after the homes as well if they have enough statutes in place to get a seizure. I can provide examples of exactly this sort of thing happening, but I can only point out individual cases of it happening because the reporting on this is so scarce on the owners' side of things while HSUS and PETA use their media machines to paint these as huge victories against evil animal abusers (and then subsequently moving on to the next target, leaving the municipal or county authorities to try to sort everything out).

I understand what you're saying 3bodyproblem, but the fact is that despite there being plenty of cities out there that have mandatory spay/neuter laws you can't point to a single one and call it success in any way except that the laws got pushed through despite considerable opposition. The stray problems still exist at pretty much the same levels, the shelters are still just as crowded and underfunded, and most strikingly in the cases I can recall the pet registration has actually gone down, not up, meaning less money going to the municipality in revenues. My criticism against MSN is that it's poorly-targeted and attacks the wrong pet owners while failing to actually address the problems it's supposed to help fix (unless "legal pet ownership" is the problem).

 

[Emet]

I'm not sure how much of a rebuttal that was, as it seemed more a matter of semantics and replying to something I didn't post.

Well, I think it sheds light on the misinterpretation of studies and your statement,

...dogs be spayed or neutered by 6 months of age, which actually creates health problems for large and giant breeds of dog (like risk of osteosarcoma and heart problems).

(my bolding)
But anyone interested enough can read the link and draw their own conclusions.

...check and see if the vets are aware of the minor differences that could make a big deal when treating sighthounds (certain anesthesia affect them differently, for example)

You do know that every vet was taught about barbiturate anesthesia in regards to sighthounds, mostly Greyhounds. In practical terms, that is the only anesthetic that required a different dose-- and due to availability and other issues, many vets have moved onward and upward to safer, better anesthetics. The "sighthound sensitivity" has been blown way out of proportion, and now has made its way to other breeds that have no specific anesthetic sensitivities. As one veterinary anesthesiologist responded on VIN: "well, of course breed X is sensitive to anesthesia--if they weren't, it wouldn't work."

Dominance aggression is hit-or-miss when it comes to neutering, in my experience.

You do know that the dominance theory of canine behavior has been largely discredited, eh?
link

I much prefer discussing things that are actually to the benefit and health of dogs rather than silly "ban the breed" debates anyway.

I'll take it even further and state that they're worse than silly--as I believe we would both agree, not only do they solve nothing, they create a whole set of new problems.

As to UPenn jokes, there are a million. Since I practiced for over 20 years in Georgia, I'm used to them and have probably heard most of them. But aside from the fact that I graduated with "a mortgage without a house to go with it", and have worked with colleagues from many vet schools, I actually believe I received a very good education. (My heart will always belong to Penn State {aka JoePa U}, though)

 

[GlennB]

No mind-reading necessary. The CDC has no report identifying by breed (but Merrit Clifton used CDC incidents and guessed), so look very closely and you'll find that I'm quite accurate with the sources the HSUS is using for their inflated, overblown, and dishonest numbers.

Inflated, overblown and dishonest?

How could that come about? I can take a shot at it ....

1) The authors had an axe to grind and substituted PBs and Rots for the real culprits, or plain invented stories.
2) The media had an axe to grind and did the same.
3) The media refrained from publishing fatal attack stories involving Springer spaniels, standard poodles and the rest.

I'm going to suggest 2) is vanishingly unlikely.

How to check this out? Well the wiki page here details dog attack human fatalities 2005-2009, including links to the original media reports. The page itself summarises by breed, owner/stranger, on/off property, chained/unchained and so on.

Looking through a few dozen of the reports I find the attack summaries to be accurate and that the number and breakdown of the attacks fairly represents the other reports/studies that you describe as dishonest.

So where does this leave us? With the media not reporting fatal attacks by certain breeds or these authors ignoring such reports. So, go find them.

If they're there, and given the vast numbers of retrievers, collies, spaniels and the rest owned in the USA this is going to put the real figures for fatal dog attacks through the roof. Oh ... unless of course these other breeds are inherently less dangerous. Even then we'll find plenty of such reports as there are so many of these dogs ...

Because you're using a store as your source for this bogus recommendation!

Greyhound rescue and rehoming sites are also able to sell you specialised greyhound collars. So what? It doesn't make the organisation "a store". Note that the application to rehome a PB at that site asks whether the applicant could contribute to shipping costs if unable to collect. Some "store"

Meanwhile I presume your own advice about needing a break stick (in the absence of specialised PB handling skills) to detach an attacking PB from its target was wrong all along? Interesting logic you've got going there.

 

[GreNME]

Inflated, overblown and dishonest?

How could that come about? I can take a shot at it ....

1) The authors had an axe to grind and substituted PBs and Rots for the real culprits, or plain invented stories.
2) The media had an axe to grind and did the same.
3) The media refrained from publishing fatal attack stories involving Springer spaniels, standard poodles and the rest.

I'm going to suggest 2) is vanishingly unlikely.

I'm going to suggest you're trying to divert away from what you know was correct about what I said. Post your HSUS source for the stats you mentioned, GlennB, and let's look at where they got their numbers.

How to check this out? Well the wiki page here details dog attack human fatalities 2005-2009, including links to the original media reports. The page itself summarises by breed, owner/stranger, on/off property, chained/unchained and so on.

Looking through a few dozen of the reports I find the attack summaries to be accurate and that the number and breakdown of the attacks fairly represents the other reports/studies that you describe as dishonest.

So where does this leave us? With the media not reporting fatal attacks by certain breeds or these authors ignoring such reports. So, go find them.

Ha ha, yeah, because if it shows up on the paper or the teevee then it must be 100% true, huh?

If they're there, and given the vast numbers of retrievers, collies, spaniels and the rest owned in the USA this is going to put the real figures for fatal dog attacks through the roof. Oh ... unless of course these other breeds are inherently less dangerous. Even then we'll find plenty of such reports as there are so many of these dogs ...

Here we go with the inherent BS again. If yo0u can prove it all you have to do is bring the evidence.

Greyhound rescue and rehoming sites are also able to sell you specialised greyhound collars. So what? It doesn't make the organisation "a store". Note that the application to rehome a PB at that site asks whether the applicant could contribute to shipping costs if unable to collect. Some "store"

You're appealing to authority and yet the only basis for such authority is that they're a website that "recommends" them. I've already been quite clear in that the vast majority of owners in real life have no use for them, that you will not find these at breed gatherings (a far better authority than a website), and I've told you where you can go to verify this for yourself completely independent of me. That you're refusing and insisting that everyone jump to the same conclusion you have is really your problem, not mine.

Oh, and I'd love to see one of these "specialised greyhound collars" you mention. Without even seeing I'm going to predict you'll post a martingale collar or a gentle lead harness, both of which aren't even special to sighthounds let alone greyhounds. But your ignorance is becoming increasingly amusing at this point, so I'm curious as to what a "specialised greyhound collar" looks like according to you.

Meanwhile I presume your own advice about needing a break stick (in the absence of specialised PB handling skills) to detach an attacking PB from its target was wrong all along? Interesting logic you've got going there.

Now you're just outright lying. Quote me where I said anyone needs "specialised PB handling skills" or anything of the like. That you keep making up these blatant falsehoods shows how ramped up on confirmation bias and active imagination when it comes to trying to prove something you can't.

 

[GreNME]

Well, I think it sheds light on the misinterpretation of studies and your statement, (my bolding)
But anyone interested enough can read the link and draw their own conclusions.

She's saying that some other essay out there inflated the numbers in the studies I mention. So, yeah, I guess anyone can read and draw their own conclusions, but that doesn't change that you seem to be responding with an argument against some essay that I've never referenced and am not relying on. The references I gave demonstrate greater risks, and even though one of them was evaluating other factors they mentioned greater risk of infectious disease in the early spayed/neutered dogs.

You do know that every vet was taught about barbiturate anesthesia in regards to sighthounds, mostly Greyhounds. In practical terms, that is the only anesthetic that required a different dose-- and due to availability and other issues, many vets have moved onward and upward to safer, better anesthetics. The "sighthound sensitivity" has been blown way out of proportion, and now has made its way to other breeds that have no specific anesthetic sensitivities. As one veterinary anesthesiologist responded on VIN: "well, of course breed X is sensitive to anesthesia--if they weren't, it wouldn't work."

All due respect, but much like the response essay you linked you're diverting. It's not about sensitivity, it's about not giving too much to a deerhound because they're deceptively large (but slight in body), which can result in a dead deerhound in the worst case and a dog that spends a day and a half in a daze in other cases. Most importantly, though, is when we have to have bloodwork done on our sighthounds, because the bloodwork isn't going to look like a Labrador's or a Chow's (lower white blood cell count, for example). This isn't necessarily a huge deal with vets that are mostly seeing Labs and terriers and maybe a few herding breeds, but for those of us with less-common breeds having a vet who knows going into it the differences makes the difference as to whether I'll spend my money with them or find someone else who is better suited. The vets I've had the best experience have plenty of time with various livestock as well as household pets, because when dealing with giant breeds they're already used to approaching health issues in a different manner than with Fluffy the Scottish terrier.

You do know that the dominance theory of canine behavior has been largely discredited, eh?
link

Um, okay? I don't recall mentioning any kind of support for such a thing. You're the one who mentioned "dominance aggression," which I responded as not putting much validity into. The only behavior I could qualify as "dominance" is territorial behavior or the simple hierarchies that dogs exhibit when collected into packs, none of it playing a significant role in the training or learning processes of a dog (outside of learning boundaries and mimicking another dog's behavior), so I don't subscribe to the Cesar Millan school of dominance behavior in dogs (who is the most known for playing that fiddle). Neutering may or may not effect territorial behavior, and there's no guarantee to it; neutering or spaying doesn't tend to change "pack"-- put in quotes because it's not "packs" due to some instinctual need by dogs-- dynamics very much either.

As to UPenn jokes, there are a million. Since I practiced for over 20 years in Georgia, I'm used to them and have probably heard most of them. But aside from the fact that I graduated with "a mortgage without a house to go with it", and have worked with colleagues from many vet schools, I actually believe I received a very good education. (My heart will always belong to Penn State {aka JoePa U}, though)

I meant no offense and if you were insulted by what I said I apologize.

The point I was getting at is that in many dog breeds, particularly the large and giant breeds, early spaying or neutering increases health risks. This has been observed and has been verified in studies. There are currently some studies in giant breeds to measure more specific things, like the growth plates and how they close in dogs fixed at different ages, what the hormone levels are in large breeds compared to intact dogs of the same type, and at least in the Irish wolfhound community there are a few attempts to isolate and identify the contributors to the fatal diseases in them. Early spaying/neutering is one thing that has constantly come up as a concern over the last few decades, and in some breeds there are greater concerns about this (particularly the "taller" breeds like the giant sighthound and mastiff breeds). We know historically that creating human eunuchs resulted in abnormal development in those castrated at a young age, and we know the medical conditions most attributed to eunuchs due to castration. Someone with even a passing understanding of medical biology can make some pretty decent guesses as to what would happen to a girl's development if given a hysterectomy at the age of 10. While I've seen others (not you) dismiss those comparisons as not valid because dogs and humans are different species, medical science has used dogs before and currently uses rats and mice and other species when performing medical research. The only biological difference in adolescence is the duration (shorter) in most other mammals. What I'm talking about isn't exactly fringe science, it's fairly common biology. The assumed benefits of spaying/neutering should always be weighed against the risks of removing a chunk of the endocrine system, and the risks demonstrably go down after reaching full adulthood. Different breeds of dog reach adulthood at different rates. This is a significant set of factors that gets completely ignored by mandatory spay neuter laws, and it does so at the detriment of the health of pets.

 

[Furcifer]

So, not only is the actual statistic you were talking about half the number, but the study involved only 57 dogs? How many types/breeds of dogs were there? What other factors were considered in the study (since I assume they weren't all simply kept in a controlled environment for the duration)?

Come on, you can do better than that.

Didn't you just sat you knew how to do fractions? Male dogs roam because testosterone makes them. Removing the hormone removes that drive. Given this study and basic physiology there's a distinct correlation, if you dispute it the onus is on you to support your position.

Except, as I already said, in cities where these laws are in place the only people who are actually paying the price are people who are willing to abide by the laws in the first place. This sort of thing attacks responsible owners and is an expense to responsible owners, but is toothless against irresponsible owners due to the habits of those owners-- if caught, they abandon the dog and deny owning it, they don't register it in the first place, and the dog still doesn't get spayed/neutered.

If you are working from the premise that people don't follow the law you make a case for banning dogs. This is just defeatist. It's not Anarchy out here, laws work.

There's no need to build strawmen here. I've already pointed out valid reasons why MSN laws are ineffective that have nothing to do with machismo. If that's the issue you struggled with then that's all well and good, but I'm not making that argument-- and in case you missed it I've neutered my own dog so I'm not against spaying/neutering, I'm against instituting mandatory laws because they hit the wrong people.

Strawman? I didn't bring up mandatory sterilization laws you did. That statement wasn't directed at you. It was intended to be a sarcastic response to the uninformed wanting to keep their dog intact.

You're explaining this as if this isn't already going on with active groups trying to weed out bad owners and puppy mills. The problem is that the HSUS and PETA swoop in, get arcane mandatory laws in place, and then begin "working with" law enforcement to take the animals away from responsible and safe owners along with the mills and/or abusers. This is a huge concern for owners of horse farms and AKC breeders, not the single-family homes with one or two pets, but the rabid AR folks will go after the homes as well if they have enough statutes in place to get a seizure. I can provide examples of exactly this sort of thing happening, but I can only point out individual cases of it happening because the reporting on this is so scarce on the owners' side of things while HSUS and PETA use their media machines to paint these as huge victories against evil animal abusers (and then subsequently moving on to the next target, leaving the municipal or county authorities to try to sort everything out).

I understand what you're saying 3bodyproblem, but the fact is that despite there being plenty of cities out there that have mandatory spay/neuter laws you can't point to a single one and call it success in any way except that the laws got pushed through despite considerable opposition. The stray problems still exist at pretty much the same levels, the shelters are still just as crowded and underfunded, and most strikingly in the cases I can recall the pet registration has actually gone down, not up, meaning less money going to the municipality in revenues. My criticism against MSN is that it's poorly-targeted and attacks the wrong pet owners while failing to actually address the problems it's supposed to help fix (unless "legal pet ownership" is the problem).

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. I never mentioned mandatory sterilization laws except possibly in response to egregious offenders. I'm saying the ones who we know put the biggest burden on the system pay for the system accordingly.