Toronto Dog Bite Statistics

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

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

---

I guess the fact that the C-BARQ does require testing to complete the questionnaire in regards to food guarding, means I was not Wrong on either count, which means maybe you should re-consider that response.

It wasn't me yapping about something I knew little about.

No. There is no testing in the C-BARQ, unless you expand the definition of "test" to include everything the dog has done in the past week. The C-BARQ protocol wants you to consider the dog's previous past behaviour, not to test it. If you always fed the dog in a place where no one goes near it, the protocol asks you to answer that the behaviour was not observed.

It's like a question asking, "has your child ever been in a fight at school?" That's not a test You aren't asked to put your kid in school to see if he gets in a fight. You're just asked if it has ever happened in the past.

This is why it can't be used to assess new dogs in shelters: you need a known history.

When I talk about aggression being "non-breed specific" I am referring to aggression towards humans. Aggression towards other dogs is influenced by Pack Leader instinct and falls outside my view of aggression.
Also - some people have posted examples of their dogs acting in a protective manner. This also is not aggression in my view. Its being protective.
How often have you seen small dogs (terriers, min.poodles, yorkies etc.) bark and snap at people. How many people on this site have been bitten by smaller dogs. I have. But they get a free pass because of their size. These breeds were not bred to be that way but commonly act aggressive to humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

No. There is no testing in the C-BARQ, unless you expand the definition of "test" to include everything the dog has done in the past week.The C-BARQ protocol wants you to consider the dog's previous past behaviour, not to test it.

---

And therein lies why the C-BARQ results are fallible, they use information obtained as hearsay from the previous owners to establish 'observations' of aggressive behaviour, or leave it blank, rendering the test meaningless.

Knowing that the results will flag a dog for euthanasia if they can't observe them for aggressive behaviour staff, they will set up scenarios in their daily routine to observe and record the actions of the dog....so enough of the semantics Welsh, that is called a test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roper

When I talk about aggression being "non-breed specific" I am referring to aggression towards humans. Aggression towards other dogs is influenced by Pack Leader instinct and falls outside my view of aggression.
Also - some people have posted examples of their dogs acting in a protective manner. This also is not aggression in my view. Its being protective.
How often have you seen small dogs (terriers, min.poodles, yorkies etc.) bark and snap at people. How many people on this site have been bitten by smaller dogs. I have. But they get a free pass because of their size. These breeds were not bred to be that way but commonly act aggressive to humans.

---

I totally agree.

In regards to the Bichon that I own, he easily differentiates people. Strangers such as women and children get a welcome, a sniff and allows himself to be petted. He knows they are non threatening. Adult male visitors on the other hand are treated to growls and snarls until he determines after a while that no danger exists due to body language...etc. He has been like that for 12 years and correcting him as not resolved the issue. Fortunately, due to his size, most men just brush it off until the dog calms down after a few minutes and all is well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

And therein lies why the C-BARQ results are fallible, they use information obtained as hearsay from the previous owners to establish 'observations' of aggressive behaviour, or leave it blank, rendering the test meaningless.

---

The C-BARQ has been tested for external validity.

That's easy to test. Even someone like me can design an experiment to validate something like the C-BARQ ... you think teams of people with PhD's can't? The difference between science and nonsense like Assess-a-Pet is that the first thing scientists do with their tools is to test them. It's been tested, the results are published, and it's accepted by the scientific community as a valuable tool.

Moving on....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roper

When I talk about aggression being "non-breed specific" I am referring to aggression towards humans. Aggression towards other dogs is influenced by Pack Leader instinct and falls outside my view of aggression.
Also - some people have posted examples of their dogs acting in a protective manner. This also is not aggression in my view. Its being protective.

---

Aggressive behaviour is aggressive behaviour regardless of its motivation. If we're to have any kind of clear and impartial understanding of behaviour, the first principle is to call things what they are, without trying to explain them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roper

How often have you seen small dogs (terriers, min.poodles, yorkies etc.) bark and snap at people. How many people on this site have been bitten by smaller dogs. I have. But they get a free pass because of their size. These breeds were not bred to be that way but commonly act aggressive to humans.

---

Dachshunds and Chihuahuas score the worst for aggression towards strangers; those two join Beagles and American Cockers as worst for aggression towards their owners, and Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and JRTs are among the worst for aggression towards other dogs. That's a pretty clear trend. Small dogs do get a free(ish) pass because of their size, but there's a reason for that: they're less likely to cause serious injury. The dogs people are most concerned about are the ones that can knock you down and maul you.

Incidentally, the two other significant outliers for aggression directed against dogs are Akitas (the most aggressive of all) and Pit Bulls (defined as American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier). Both were bred at times for dog-fighting purposes. Surprise!

Edited to add: one of the interesting things in the C-BARQ data I've seen is that Pit Bulls actually score below average for stranger and owner directed aggression ... which suggests that BSL (setting aside its inherent other flaws) simply isn't justified by the science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by impact

I totally agree.

In regards to the Bichon that I own, he easily differentiates people. Strangers such as women and children get a welcome, a sniff and allows himself to be petted. He knows they are non threatening. Adult male visitors on the other hand are treated to growls and snarls until he determines after a while that no danger exists due to body language...etc. He has been like that for 12 years and correcting him as not resolved the issue. Fortunately, due to his size, most men just brush it off until the dog calms down after a few minutes and all is well.

---

My dog is the opposite, every human gets a warm welcome and tail wagging.But in a walk where he is approached by a barking and aggressive Bichon or similar dog look out.I will say with humans he seems to sense who might be a danger and will bark and appear more aggressive if he senses a threat.

Another statistic I would like to see is how many of these dog bites were committed by dogs that are not registered. Those dogs that are not registered would end up either being straight dogs or owned by people of questionable backgrounds I am very certain that the majority of pitbull bites are by pitbull's that are not registered

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. As for the Humane Society, their statements on aggression in dogs are driven by ideology, not science.

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. Serpell has found that there are clear correlations between aggression and breed groups, specifically small breeds (with some exceptions) and herding breeds. These correlations are not controversial among ethologists, i.e., people who study animal behaviour for a living. Herding breeds show a greater tendency towards stranger aggression which is unsurprising given that they were bred in part for a protective function. It is hypothesized that aggression in small breeds, which is thought to be genetic, is a coincidence.

Knowing that breeding makes a tremendous difference in working dogs, it's silly to pretend that dog breeds can't possibly carry behavioural predispositions toward protection.

---

Agreed on the whole milan point but I don't see how German Shepherds get brought into the mix.. It has alot also to do with genetics.. My GSD is from a working line in germany with many schutzhund titles and there are a few in the litter that have "weaker" aggression drives than mine. His father is by far one of the most driven dogs in term of "aggression" when hitting a bite sleeve. While I see your point I feel it should also be mentioned about the genetics and bloodlines.. if you can trace them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miller97

While I see your point I feel it should also be mentioned about the genetics and bloodlines.. if you can trace them.

---

The problem with dogs like the GSD, is that the breeding program has been so poorly done, that physically they are ruined, which unfortunately brings in the whole question of their inherited behavioral stability.

see the thread: http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...-breed-debacle