Toronto Dog Bite Statistics

Man breed dogs for specific purposes and if protection was one of them the dogs will simply be more aggressive. I do believe early socialization and good training can almost eliminate any aggressive problems.However you cannot take it right out of the dogs DNA.
I did not get the opportunity to socialize my dog which has handicapped him from the chance to be more friendly towards other dogs.

He instinctively knows to protect the home and will protect me with his life,none of this was taught to him its in his DNA.He will also take on any dogs that pose a threat to me.In relation to humans if they pose no threat he has been fine and shown no aggression unless provoked.

The OP is interesting because Toronto now has 5 times the number of dogs since the ban and one would expect a much bigger bite number since there are more dogs.The increase is next to nothing considering the numbers.Also the authorities in Toronto do not classify the dogs as Pitbulls, the owners are asked what their dogs are and their answer is taken as correct.Therefore nobody knows if the incidents of pitbull bites is up or down as they are not identified as pitbulls by owners.

I would be surprised if the data regarding breed population numbers is anywhere near accurate, especially for pitbulls. I would think many pits aren't registered so off the radar if they aren't involved in something that brings in animal control or police.
Last time I went moose hunting in Western Ontario a kid tried to sell me a pitbul puppy at the Longlac gas station. Not that it's illegal to breed pits......:scream:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

First off, Cesar Milan is not a reliable source: he has no professional qualifications and relies on ideas about canine psychology that are 20 years out of date.

---

While I don't fully agree with Cesar, his grasp of 'pack' behaviour is far superior to anyone's else s research. I have owned 3-4 dogs at a time for the past 20 years and most of the success I have had with them, as a pack, was derived from the principles that Cesar teaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I referred to the C-BARQ. This is the largest database of dog behavior yet created, maintained by Dr. James Serpell at the Univ. of Pennsylvania school of veterinary medicine.

---

I think you referenced that Questionnaire once before, seems it was used by kennels to access dogs up for adoption. If I remember correctly is was only accurate about 50% of the time. Especially in regards to the 'food guarding test', something about the stress of the environment skewed the results.

Which makes sense..the dogs environment will have a greater influence on it's aggressive tendencies than it's breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

While I don't fully agree with Cesar, his grasp of 'pack' behaviour is far superior to anyone's else s research. I have owned 3-4 dogs at a time for the past 20 years and most of the success I have had with them, as a pack, was derived from the principles that Cesar teaches.



I think you referenced that Questionnaire once before, seems it was used by kennels to access dogs up for adoption. If I remember correctly is was only accurate about 50% of the time. Especially in regards to the 'food guarding test', something about the stress of the environment skewed the results.

Which makes sense..the dogs environment will have a greater influence on it's aggressive tendencies than it's breeding.

---

.
good point regarding the pack behavior!
if it's the test that come up a few months ago on here, the criteria for "food aggression" in this test (at least for the lower end of the scale) only partially assess the inherent character of the dog and are skewed by environment and a handler who does not challenges the dog (in fear of a bite).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

While I don't fully agree with Cesar, his grasp of 'pack' behaviour is far superior to anyone's else s research.

---

Cesar Milan's nonsense about pack behaviour has been comprehensively debunked by careful observational studies of dog packs. He is disregarded by professional authorities on this subject. His notions of dog behaviour are about as reliable as the Myers-Briggs personality test; that is, they're made up BS, ignored or derided by academic authorities in the field, but pushed widely on a gullible public in the interest of making money.

If you think his ideas are superior to everyone else's research on this subject, I presume you'll be able to tell me all about the latest research, right? Can you even name five contemporary researchers in canine ethology and cognition without hitting Google?

The fact that people are able to train dogs successfully using Cesar Milan's half-baked ideas does not prove his notions of dog behaviour are correct. Practical dog training succeeds in spite of a zillion half-brained "theories" as to why it succeeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I think you referenced that Questionnaire once before, seems it was used by kennels to access dogs up for adoption. If I remember correctly is was only accurate about 50% of the time.

---

Wrong on both counts. And there is no "food guarding test" in the C-BARQ. There are no "tests" at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Cesar Milan's nonsense about pack behaviour has been comprehensively debunked by careful observational studies of dog packs. He is disregarded by professional authorities on this subject.

---

Sorry to go against those experts opinions Welsh...but his theories work in practice..I know this because I have trained more than a few dogs using his basic principles of pack behavior...so they can debunk them all they want...but I know they work...I have 3 perfectly well behaved and adjust dogs sitting right beside me.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...psjfqtx0es.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Wrong on both counts. And there is no "food guarding test" in the C-BARQ. There are no "tests" at all.

---

Maybe you haven't read thru the Questionnaire in some time Welsh.....but the section on Aggression (section 2) is a series of 'tests' to see if you dog acts when interacting with outside influences...maybe with a degree in "ethology" you call them something else, but they are still tests :)

number 17 and 19 are the food guarding test...since they don't like to stick little Sally's arm into danger they use a broom stick with a rubber glove on it..I understand that particular test has less than a 50 % success rate in determining aggressive behavior when conducted in different environments.

Example from the C-BARQ...

Section 2: Aggression

Some dogs display aggressive behavior from time to time. Typical signs of moderate aggression in dogs include barking, growling and baring teeth. More serious aggression generally includes snapping, lunging, biting, or attempting to bite. By writing in the appropriate number from the scale, please indicate your own dog's recent tendency to display aggressive behavior in each of the following contexts:


9. When verbally corrected or punished (scolded, shouted at, etc.) by you or a household member.
10. When approached directly by a n unfamiliar adult while being walked/exercised on a leash.
11. When approached directly by an unfamiliar child while being walked/exercised on a leash.
12. Toward unfamiliar persons approaching the dog while s/he is in your car (at the gas station, for example).
13. When toys, bones or other objects are taken away by a household member.
14. When bathed or groomed by a household member.
15. When an unfamiliar person approaches you or another member of your family at home.
16. When unfamiliar persons approach you or another member of your family away from your home.
17. When approached directly by a household member while s/he is eating.
18. When mailmen or other delivery workers approach your home.
19. When his/her food is taken away by a household member.
20. When strangers walk past your home while your dog is outside or in the yard.
21. When an unfamiliar person tries to touch or pet the dog.
22. When joggers, cyclists, rollerbladers or skateboarders pass your home while your dog is
outside or in the yard.
23. When approached directly by an unfamiliar male dog while being walked/exercised on a leash.
24. When approached directly by an unfamiliar female dog while being walked/exercised on a leash.
25. When stared at directly by a member of the household.
26. Toward unfamiliar dogs visiting your home.
27. Toward cats, squirrels or other animals entering your yard.
28. Toward unfamiliar persons visiting your home

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5556a31de4b0c2b7c9dfd0dd/t/5590be1fe4b0a675d6713233/1435549215582/C-BARQ+Written.pdf

If you've spent any time around dogs, it's pretty common sense evident it's both nature and nurture affecting their behavior;

When I had a rottie puppy and I brought her to a friends farm in BC who had lamas, she instantly started herding them... It was pretty cool she was just a little pint. She and likely quite a few of her recent descendants had never had any real herding experience, and she definitely didn't, but her DNA kicked in... I've seen this type of stuff in other breeds.


But Rotties also have a reputation for being extremely nasty or very positive depending on how you treat them, nurture at work...

"I'd think anyone that has exposure toseveral different dog breeds would be pretty aware that aggression is very breed specific.” Quote Werner Reiche

I do believe early socialization and goodtraining can almost eliminate any aggressive problems.However you cannot takeit right out of the dogs DNA.” Quote Gilroy

.............................

Well said gentlemen.

The 4 JRTs I’ve had have tested YES as below , despite an experienced trainer and full socialization. Not a scientific study but...

10. When approached directly by an unfamiliar adult while being walked/exercised on a leash
11. When approached directly by an unfamiliarchild while being walked/exercised on a leash.
12. Toward unfamiliar persons approachingthe dog while s/he is in your car (at the gas station, for example
14. When bathed or groomed by a house hold member.
15. When an unfamiliar person approachesyou or another member of your family at home.
16. When unfamiliar persons approach you oranother member of your family away from your home
18. When mailmen or other delivery workersapproach your home.
20. When strangers walk past your homewhile your dog is outside or in the yard.
21. When an unfamiliar person tries to touch or pet the dog.
22. When joggers, cyclists, rollerbladersor skateboarders pass your home while your dog is.outside or in the yard.
26. Toward unfamiliar dogs visiting your home.
27. Toward cats, squirrels or other animalsentering your yard .
28. Toward unfamiliar persons visiting your home.


Several ofthe ones not included are only due to me having dealt with it “firmly.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Sorry to go against those experts opinions Welsh...but his theories work in practice..

---

That's impossible to say, because his psychobabble theories can't actually be put into practice. They're just fairy stories he made up to explain why things work. The theories don't lead to the practice here; the practice comes before the nonsense theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Maybe you haven't read thru the Questionnaire in some time Welsh.....but the section on Aggression (section 2) is a series of 'tests' to see if you dog acts when interacting with outside influences...maybe with a degree in "ethology" you call them something else, but they are still tests :)

number 17 and 19 are the food guarding test...since they don't like to stick little Sally's arm into danger they use a broom stick with a rubber glove on it..I

---

No, they don't. That test is not part of any protocol for the C-BARQ.

The hilarious thing about your attempts to argue this point is that you have it precisely backwards.

The test that uses a rubber hand on a dowel to test resource guarding is not the C-BARQ; it is called Assess-a-Pet. This test was not developed by scientists; it was created by a dog trainer and shelter worker.

Assess-a-Pet is used by shelter staff who normally have no knowledge of the animal they are assessing. To test its validity, researchers used dogs with known temperaments and had qualified Assess-a-Pet users who did not know the dogs test them.

Did Assess-a-Pet identify aggressive dogs as aggressive? Did it identify non-aggressive dogs as aggressive?

They found that while Assess-a-Pet was more accurate than a coin toss, it was wrong much of the time, leading to the suggestion that it should no longer be used as its use results in non-aggressive dogs being put down as aggressive.

To give their work statistical validity, the researchers had to start with a known, validated means of assessing the known temperaments of the dogs -- an assessment tool that had previously been demonstrated to be accurate.

That tool was the C-BARQ.

That's right: you're arguing that the C-BARQ is full of it on the basis of an experiment that relied on the accuracy of the C-BARQ.

You can keep arguing, but it's only going to get more embarrassing.
http://thebark.com/content/testing-behavior-tests

Now to devise a handy test for identifying people who predisposed to yap on about subjects they know little about....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

You can keep arguing, but it's only going to get more embarrassing.

Now to devise a handy test for identifying people who predisposed to yap on about subjects they know little about....

---

Always with the slinging of mud eh Welsh, you can't seem to have a discussion without throwing in a few jabs..

So tell us , how they perform test 17 and 19 of the C-BARQ ?

It's done by kennel staff....do you think they put their bare hand into the food dish of an potentially aggressive dog ?

By the way, your link confirms that all these 'Ethology' tools developed by experts still only produce results about equal to flipping a coin...