Explaining Dog:Dog Aggression Vs. Dog:Human Aggression

[TrishB]

Hi all,

We've all been up against those who think our dogs are vicious, regardless of how many studies you can quote, or titles you can earn on your dogs. With those types in mind, what is the most convincing arguement that you have to prove the following statement:

"Dog : Dog Aggression has NOTHING to do with Dog : Human Aggression."

The reason I'm asking is because of this. In Toronto this week, we had 2 pitbulls get away from their owner, attack and kill a 13 year old Shih Tzu(literally ripping it apart in front of her). Of course, one of the questions to the police by the reporters was "So this could have been a person or a child...."

This is a horrible situation that could have been avoided. But how do you explain the fundamental difference to the Average Joe?

Of course - our complete sympathies go out to the owner of the Shih Tzu. The two pitbulls were put to sleep at the owners request.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

Of course - our complete sympathies go out to the owner of the Shih Tzu. The two pitbulls were put to sleep at the owners request.

My complete sympathy goes out to the two pit bulls that were sacrificed due to, more than likely, irresponsible breeding and/or ownership. A well-bred American Pit Bull Terrier is one the most awesome fantastic working / companion dogs. APBTs can do agility, tracking, personal protection, therapy work, dog sports (schutzhund, French ring, weight-pulling, carting, flyball, etc.), show conformation, and so forth and so on. The APBT, bred up to the desired standards, has a great temperament and disposition. APBTs are known for loving children and are quite tolerant with them. When an APBT is well bred and properly reared it becomes a fine companion sociable dog. Unfortunately, it's the chosen breed of many irresponsible owners; many of them are from the inner city areas. It is a well known documented fact that many of those pit bulls are used for vicious dog pit fighting. So there goes the breed... down the sewer! Irresponsible human beings have ruined the image of an otherwise fabulous breed

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

Irresponsible human beings have ruined the image of an otherwise fabulous breed

I agree with what you said - but can you also answer the question?

[cryjay]

I do not think that you can prove that dog aggression has nothing to do with dog. Why? Because it has everything to do with the dog. Once the human owner has handled, raised and not trained their dog responsibly, the dog acts accordingly. The dog behaves the way it was trained to behave. If it was not trained to to go after other dogs it wouldn't. If it was trained to ignore other dogs it would. If it has been neglected in ways it will take out it's frustration and pain in the only way it knows how and that is to be aggressive because obviously the dog believes that being sweet isn't working, the dog gets frustrated and needs to vent too. Just like us humans except we have a higher level of communication. When we are feeling neglected, unwanted, emotionally distraught we are going to act out. In some cases worse than others, thus sad cases like domestic violence. Where does domestic violence usually stem back too? The way the human was raised, and taught as a child. the human was taught to take aggression out in other ways than normal. Some badly treated humans just like dogs can overcome their past and make better of themselves, some dogs and humans feel so helpless they take it out in a manner that is not necessary but to the person or dog almost feels like a good relief. They have finally been able to let some emotionally, or physically damaging things out. So yes, it does stem back to whomever the owner of the dog is but can you prove it to people by what I said above? Hopefully, but their have been so many 'bad' owners you could probably only convince a few.
Trish I think this is an interesting topic and I hope you get a lot of replies as I am curious to know what other people think.

Crystal

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

I agree with what you said - but can you also answer the question?

OK. There it goes. I disagree with you. You see, pit bull terriers are usually very high prey driven dogs. If those two packed up pit bulls in question were so aggressive as to attack a small dog and ripped him apart, then it is quite possible that those two particular pit bulls, incited by their high prey drive, could attack children (the smaller the child the higher the chance) seeing them as prey. So there! It could happen

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by cryjay

I do not think that you can prove that dog aggression has nothing to do with dog. Why? Because it has everything to do with the dog. Once the human owner has handled, raised and not trained their dog responsibly, the dog acts accordingly. The dog behaves the way it was trained to behave.

Actually a dog that is trained to fight other dogs in pits is quite tolerant of people and, therefore, non-aggressive towards adult humans, due to the conditioning to accept human handling during the pit fighting. However, a pit bull's inter-dog aggression can be dangerous to children, particularly small children, as I explained already in my above reply.

[FredAl]

I guess the best approach is to make them understand the different manifestations of canine aggression. Hmmmm… explaining it to the Average Joe. I’ll try.

Dogs have different types and levels of aggression. There are dogs that can get along well with bitches but will fight with other males, or bitches that would fight with other bitches but not with dogs (males). There are dogs that will show aggression toward dogs of a different breed but not with dogs that are of the same breed. And I’ve seen Pitbulls that would readily fight with other Pitbulls but won’t mind other breeds. There are dogs that get along well with other dogs but would readily kill other animals of a different species (like cats). There are dams that would lovingly care for their pups but would show their aggression when the pups reach around 3 weeks old (weaning period). There are dogs that would kill smaller animals (prey) but would leave the large ones alone. In contrast, there are dogs that would challenge or try to drive away large animals but have no problems living with the small ones. And then there are the common manifestations of aggression: territorial, dominance, fearful, etc.

There are different genetic, hormonal, conditioned and situational triggers that activate canine aggression. One aggression does not necessarily translate or transfer to another. Dog aggression does not have any correlation to human aggression. The American Pitbull Terrier was developed by “dogmen” (as they like to call themselves) for its gameness and tenacity to fight with another dog.

In original pit fighting, one person is inside the pit to serve as a “referee” who handles the dogs to ensure “fairness” and whatever. If a Pitbull bites the referee, the dog is disqualified and cannot fight in the pit again. These dogs, even with mortal wounds, will not mind the physical manipulations of the referee but would focus on aggressively fighting with the other dog in the pit. Because of this ruling, the original “dogmen, culled or bred out human-aggressive tendencies while maintaining their dogs’ gameness and tenacity for the pit.

As a result of selective breeding for this trait, the well-bred Pitbulls became reliable gentle family companions that do not possess human-aggressive tendencies.

But because of its popularity, unscrupulous breeders churned out dogs without regard to preserving this wonderful trait. Some even bred lines for markets requiring tough, human-aggressive Pitbulls. But I think this issue is for another thread.

[FredAl]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

OK. There it goes. I disagree with you. You see, pit bull terriers are usually very high prey driven dogs. If those two packed up pit bulls in question were so aggressive as to attack a small dog and ripped him apart, then it is quite possible that those two particular pit bulls, incited by their high prey drive, could attack children (the smaller the child the higher the chance) seeing them as prey. So there! It could happen

Yes, I agree with German's statement. Prey drive can be triggered by a small child running away from the high prey dog. This is the reason why we have to socialize our dogs early with young children so they do not perceive children as prey.

[Karlan]

I happened to read this thread after having met a fabulous Pitt today, a four yr old male intact, at a party. There were about 20 adults and some children between the ages of 4 weeks and 4 years.
The Pitt behaved exceptionally, interacted among everyone and was gentle with ALL the children. Including the 4 week old. The father had put the infant down (for a nap) on the floor in the master bedroom with a blanket and pillows all around it and left. The Pitt got into the room, saw the baby, smelled it and licked it and left. He (the Pitt) also played amongst all the children and adults and behaved like a role model for all dogs.
The owners told me that he is sketchy around cats and isn't too fond of other male dogs, but only establishes his dominance with out adverse consequence.
I couldn't have been more impressed with him.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

OK. There it goes. I disagree with you. You see, pit bull terriers are usually very high prey driven dogs. If those two packed up pit bulls in question were so aggressive as to attack a small dog and ripped him apart, then it is quite possible that those two particular pit bulls, incited by their high prey drive, could attack children (the smaller the child the higher the chance) seeing them as prey. So there! It could happen

German - maybe you need to read what I wrote. I made no statement other than that I agreed with you. So you disagree with me agreeing with you? I simply asked you for your opinion to the question posed. I fail to see why that deserves a reactionary "There it goes. I disagree with you."

The example given was why I was asking the question - not the question itself if you would please re-read it instead of being so intent on starting an arguement, you'd see that there's no arguement required. This is a request for an opinion.

The general public opinion tends to be that dog : dog aggression EQUALS dog : human aggression. Do you agree with that or not? If not - then please explain it - which is the topic of this thread.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by FredAl

Prey drive can be triggered by a small child running away from the high prey dog. This is the reason why we have to socialize our dogs early with young children so they do not perceive children as prey.

And I completely agree with you!

My point is that the drive is Prey driven - not dog : human aggression driven. Which is something different. Dog : Dog aggression is yet a third difference.

Maybe we need to define each and then state how they either do, or don't have an impact on each other.

There are other threads explaining Prey Drive (so I would suggest a search of the archives so that we don't have to rehash it here).

So define:

Dog : Dog Aggression
Dog : Human Aggression
How are they related or not related?
How they may relate to prey drive?

[lblax]

Originally Posted by TrishB

The general public opinion tends to be that dog : dog aggression EQUALS dog : human aggression. Do you agree with that or not? If not - then please explain it - which is the topic of this thread.

i dont think the general public believes that at all, and i thought german already explained it.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by lblax

i dont think the general public believes that at all, and i thought german already explained it.

German explained that if the dog on dog attack was prey driven, that the same prey drive MAY also cause a dog to human attack. Which I agree with.

But there are many owners here with dog aggressive dogs that don't have high prey drive. Just as not all aggression is related to prey drive. Some have been trained as such, some have weak nerve, some haven't been socialized at all, etc.

Again, it's not that I don't agree - it's that I don't think we've covered all of the sources of aggression yet, nor have we explained that one aggression doesn't mean there's a default to exhibit another.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

German - maybe you need to read what I wrote. I made no statement other than that I agreed with you. So you disagree with me agreeing with you?

TrishB stated: ""Dog : Dog Aggression has NOTHING to do with Dog : Human Aggression."

The reason I'm asking is because of this. In Toronto this week, we had 2 pitbulls get away from their owner, attack and kill a 13 year old Shih Tzu(literally ripping it apart in front of her). Of course, one of the questions to the police by the reporters was "So this could have been a person or a child....

This is a horrible situation that could have been avoided. But how do you explain the fundamental difference to the Average Joe?"

In your above inquiry you implied that dog aggression has nothing to do with human aggression and so you want to hear opinions to explain it to the "average Joe."

Originally Posted by TrishB

The general public opinion tends to be that dog : dog aggression EQUALS dog : human aggression. Do you agree with that or not? If not - then please explain it - which is the topic of this thread.

I have given my opinions on the issue, and after reading FredAl's eloquent reply what more do you want? FredAl said it all!

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by lblax

i dont think the general public believes that at all, and i thought german already explained it.

Thank you sir. I thought so myself!