Monday, March 15, 2010

Luna and Isa

Got to go hunting for the rest but very proud of Luna in Norway and her and Diablo made lovely kids
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Isa and Luna
Photobucket

Monday, March 8, 2010

In these times it might be worth a mention

Have thought about what is being proposed and being pushed through government and we also have the SDU (Special Dogs Unit) in play now for these status dogs so I'm going to do the research but in the mean time this was a very good article written by David Levy and still stands as making very valid points some 8 years later.


                                        It’s time to protect the public                                             

The early summer months have seen a sudden upsurge in reports in the media of dog attacks, especially on children. Following the very serious attack on 5 year-old Leah Preston by two reported cross-breeds in Wolverhampton nearly every newspaper, television and radio station began reporting further incidents involving a wide variety of breeds. In virtually every case, the articles dwelt on the “breed” involved and implied that the Dangerous Dogs Act was insufficient to protect the public …………. I agree!
The problem with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, despite the hard won amendment in 1997, continues to be the emphasis placed on the idea that a dog is dangerous because of its breed rather than its behaviour. It may not be palatable to some people, and certainly not the politicians like Kenneth Baker who rushed to introduce his conscience salving nonsense, that the breeds that have actually killed people in the UK over the past 50 years include a West Highland White Terrier, Golden Retriever and “Jack Russell”.
The popular press might have you believe that those breeds should therefore be banned and condemn the many thousands of healthy and well-adjusted examples of each of these breeds that live contentedly with children, the elderly and the lonely bringing comfort and companionship.
The reaction to any incident where a child is badly mauled seems set in stone. Kill the dogs involved, cremate them as quickly as possible and call for a ban on the “breed” involved. What is learned from such actions? The answer is “absolutely nothing”. The benefit for the public is zero. The kudos for all the politicians and newspaper editors is substantial. After all, they are “protecting the public” ……… I do not agree!
Scientific evidence from around the world conclusively demonstrates that factors such as the criminal or social background of the owner is far more significant than the type of dog involved. Of course the newspapers will frequently cite the Pitbull, Rottweilers or other powerful dog but this is increasingly being proven, after the event, to be something else entirely. Why is this? Simply that the general public’s knowledge of “breeds” is substantially based on what they read in the newspapers. If the papers have been full of stories about German Shepherds then the public will report anything from a Rough Collie to a Briard/Dobermann cross as a “German Shepherd”.
In 1993 or so, the National Dog Wardens Association printed a list in their newsletter of what the public described and what they found when they attended to collect a stray or deal with a “dangerous” dog incident. I always loved the description of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as “it had a head like a coal scuttle”. Perhaps more telling, given the media furore over them at the time was when the public described a “Pitbull” and the wardens on attending found “almost any breed under the sun”.
It is unfortunately true that a certain “type” of person can be attracted to the bull breeds. The cycle is obvious. The media inadvertently glorifies the worst aspects of a breed’s history. The inconsiderate or delinquent thug decides to get a dog that will enhance his image and then goes on to intentionally train the animal to be extra aggressive, perhaps cross breeding to combine the very worst examples of aggression and power. Rumour says that some dogs are even treated with hallucinogenic drugs to increase their maladjustment.
Of course not every attack can be tracked back to criminal ownership. Equally dangerous is the stupidity of selling pups produced from selectively bred working guard dogs to the general public as pets. Whilst accepting that nurture is at least as influential as nature in such cases, never the less dogs intentionally bred through several generations for their nervousness, aggression and excitability are likely to carry at least some of those characteristics into their progeny.
Other factors that are now believed to significantly affect behaviour in the adult dog include experience between 5 and 8 weeks of age and in particular, the age at which they “suffer” removal from the nest. Another factor is the life conditions of the dog, the training, type and extent of exercise and perhaps diet.
Occasionally articles are published in scientific or medical journals relating the statistics of dog bites to particular breeds or groups of dogs. The usual “culprits” are identified and the article, complete with carefully selected references and quotations from previous articles and research appears to demonstrate the point the author set out to make. Inevitably, just a little questioning will highlight inconsistencies and demonstrate the inadequacy of the research. I am grateful to Dr Archie Bryden (who also produced several early challenges to the common misconceptions relating to Toxicara) for reviewing such articles and challenging the science.
For example, a report in the British Medical Journal in the mid ‘90s listed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as being by far the dog most likely to cause injury to children. It transpired that
1.   the research was carried out solely with respect to children attending a single hospital in the West Midlands (where there is a significant prevalence of the breed and numerous crosses),
2.   the identification was solely on the say so of the child or parents
3.   no consideration had been given to the circumstances of the incident, the background of owners or the severity of the attack. In fact not a single other factor had been considered at all by the author other than the breed of dog involved.
When challenged on these grounds, the BMA withdrew “support” from the article and published a disclaimer.
Fortunately the scientists are beginning to research the situation properly where circumstances allow. An article published in Australia in early May 2002 included the following:
The Australian Veterinary Association, staging its annual conference in Adelaide this week, has been told that determination to enforce tough legislation was needed to address the problem of dangerous dogs and banning specific breeds was not the answer.
AVA spokesperson and animal behaviour consultant, Dr Kersti Seksel, said all breeds of dogs have the potential to be aggressive.
"What is important in addressing the problem of dangerous dogs in our society is to look at the deed and not the breed," Dr Seksel said.
"What this means is ensuring that laws are tough enough to discourage people from turning their pets into dangerous animals either deliberately or through their ignorance about dogs' behaviour.
The same enlightened attitude is being demonstrated all over the world. In Austria, Spain and the UK we have seen similar views being expressed by veterinary bodies.
In America, Dr Cornelia Wagner, one of the most respected professors in animal research and genetics in the U.S.A wrote:
Whether or not certain dog breeds are more dangerous than others has been the subject of considerable discussion among ethnologists and veterinarians, especially with regard to the usefulness of breed-specific legislation to protect a community's citizens from dog attacks/bites. Such legislation is based on the assumption that there are genetic differences among breeds with regard to their dangerousness/aggressiveness. However, most veterinarians and ethnologists oppose breed-specific legislation, arguing that the genetic make-up of an individual animal is only one of many components that may enhance its aggressiveness.
She also quoted Dr. Dorit Feddersen-Petersen of Christian Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany:
The classification of dog breeds with respect to their relative danger to humans makes no sense, as both, the complex ancedent conditions in which aggressive behaviour occurs, and its ramifying consequences in the individual dog's ecological and social environment are not considered
Here is another quote, this time from the Australian Veterinarian Association’s manual of policies:
Behaviour in adult animals may be influenced by genetic predisposition, early socialisation and owner attitudes and behaviour. Desexing, obedience training and hormonal treatment may assist in modifying aggressive behaviour.
 
Targeting a specific breed is not appropriate. The main problems relate to irresponsible ownership and lack of education 
Yet governments, local and national, continue to act like sheep and merely follow the old, failing policy of “ban the breed”. The Kennel Club’s Domino Campaign has been prominent in making the dog owning public aware of the risks inherent in the political clamour to introduce ever more restrictions on dog ownership.
The law introduced in the UK in 1991 was quickly followed by a muzzling order affecting nearly 40 breeds in Eire. In 1992 came the critically important decision in Bavaria to also ban several breeds. With a fragmented opposition from Bull Terrier owners and only 2 Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the area there was little that could be done to prevent their inclusion. 9 years later, it was the Bavarian “model” that was taken up by the German Federal Government and no amount of opposition could make them consider the fact that there had never been a single SBT attack reported in the entire country. Other countries are now trying to follow the German lead and other breeds are gradually being introduced to the “list”.
Just in 2002 so far we have already had to deal with attempts to ban various breeds, including some perhaps unexpected examples such as Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Maremma Sheepdogs, Akitas, Dogue de Bordeaux and various Mastiffs as well as the “usual” Bull breeds in Austria, Brazil, Canada, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Victoria (Aust). In America, several cities and states have introduced laws banning or restricting American Pitbull Terriers. They then go on to explain that by “Pitbull Terrier” they also include 3 different breeds, the Amstaff (American Staffordshire Terrier), Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier!
I believe that we can learn to prevent most of the severe attacks. This is also the expressed view of veterinary and animal welfare organisations across the World and including The Kennel Club, NCDL and BVA. What we desperately need is for some rules to be created for the investigation of serious dog bite incidents that will enable us to understand the causes of attacks and begin to educate the “breeders”, owners and the general public to prevent escalation in an increasingly crowded world.
In my opinion this includes containing the dogs involved rather than immediately killing them if at all possible. In most cases, the dogs are actually captured alive and can easily be caged and made safe without killing them immediately. I am not pleading for their lives – I agree that this “crime” should carry the death penalty for these dogs – but not immediately!
·        Allow the animal behaviourists to test the animals involved.  
·        Check their system for drugs.
·        Check their responses to various stimuli and check for attack training.
Surely a post-mortem is an absolute must in such cases. We need to know what really causes dogs to attack people and we cannot do that by just killing them.
As I wrote to The Daily Mail in response to the almost entirely inaccurate and ill conceived comments by Lynda Lee Potter
Clearly the greatest victim of the attack in Wolverhampton is a 5 year-old girl potentially disfigured and certainly traumatised by a vicious attack. If we are to prevent repeated recurrences of such incidents we have two choices. We can either ban ALL dogs (ignoring the many scientifically proven health, social and educational benefits of such pet ownership to the lonely, elderly and children) or we can instigate informed research to determine just how the misbehaviour of humans leads to such attacks and legislate to prevent such actions.
 
Leah Preston deserves to grow up knowing that her pain has at least resulted in changes that will prevent her own children from suffering similar traumas.
 

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Luna's Kids

Hector with his pig toy
Photobucket
Photobucket

And Isa with Luna
Photobucket