10y old killed by dog

[otolith]

Relevant;

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bree...

[eldar]

otolith said:

Relevant;

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bree...

The research paper that article is based on.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk063...

[eldar]

Another child fatality. Breed of dog unspecified.

Boy, three, dies after suspected dog attack - police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-6...

[NMNeil]

eldar said:

Another child fatality. Breed of dog unspecified.

Boy, three, dies after suspected dog attack - police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-6...

And not a single cry from a politician with, "Something must be done to prevent this happening in future", because it's an immediate vote loser.

[oddman]

eldar said:

The research paper that article is based on.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk063...

That's fascinating. My immediate thought was couldn't be reliable if based on owner survey ie. would owners under report negative characteristics (eg dachshunds' yapping)? I wonder whether, although the survey is massive, there are enough representatives of breeds to distinguish them. It's completely counter intuitive because if you work with dogs it's pretty obvious that spaniels are different to labradors.

It's clear that physical traits are heritable (hardly surprising as years of selective breeding for these) but of all the behavioural traits, genetics only plays a significant part in 'human sociability'. Even then the breed differences aren't significant. The ranking of breeds by independence vs biddability tend to go to type.

It demonstrates what most of PH dog threads boil down to - behaviour is down to owner/environment not breed.

[V8covin]

oddman said:

It demonstrates what most of PH dog threads boil down to - behaviour is down to owner/environment not breed.

That may wel be true but there's no getting away from the fact a Yorkie is unlikely to rip your face of but a Staffy or Rottweiler might

[oddman]

V8covin said:

That may well be true but there's no getting away from the fact a Yorkie is unlikely to rip your face of but a Staffy or Rottweiler might

The only strong correlate reported between genetics/breed and owner report was size (the big circles in the bottom row). This was used as a control to validate the other characteristics reported

I also wonder how many owners of the type of breeds involved in attacks spend time on citizen survey projects.

[bmwmike]

oddman said:

V8covin said:

That may well be true but there's no getting away from the fact a Yorkie is unlikely to rip your face of but a Staffy or Rottweiler might

The only strong correlate reported between genetics/breed and owner report was size (the big circles in the bottom row). This was used as a control to validate the other characteristics reported

I also wonder how many owners of the type of breeds involved in attacks spend time on citizen survey projects.

Yep. At the end of the day though, does it matter when the threat is real - big dog can do significant damage, little dog can get booted away easily enough.

[oddman]

bmwmike said:

oddman said:

V8covin said:

That may well be true but there's no getting away from the fact a Yorkie is unlikely to rip your face of but a Staffy or Rottweiler might

The only strong correlate reported between genetics/breed and owner report was size (the big circles in the bottom row). This was used as a control to validate the other characteristics reported

I also wonder how many owners of the type of breeds involved in attacks spend time on citizen survey projects.

Yep. At the end of the day though, does it matter when the threat is real - big dog can do significant damage, little dog can get booted away easily enough.

A Rottweiler size Yorkie would be truly terrifying

[Murph7355]

oddman said:

....
It's clear that physical traits are heritable (hardly surprising as years of selective breeding for these) but of all the behavioural traits, genetics only plays a significant part in 'human sociability'. ...

Surely that's quite a significant aspect when it comes to dogs getting bitey? "How comfortable a dog is around humans, especially if unfamiliar with them".

[Randy Winkman]

bmwmike said:

oddman said:

V8covin said:

That may well be true but there's no getting away from the fact a Yorkie is unlikely to rip your face of but a Staffy or Rottweiler might

The only strong correlate reported between genetics/breed and owner report was size (the big circles in the bottom row). This was used as a control to validate the other characteristics reported

I also wonder how many owners of the type of breeds involved in attacks spend time on citizen survey projects.

Yep. At the end of the day though, does it matter when the threat is real - big dog can do significant damage, little dog can get booted away easily enough.

This is the way I look at it. What chance do you (or a child) stand if it all goes wrong?

[NDA]

I would have thought that centuries of breeding plays a part. If a dog has been bred to fight, for example, this might have a slight bearing on its inherent nature. A bit like some dogs like going down holes, they're not trained to do it, it's in their DNA.

[oddman]

Murph7355 said:

oddman said:

....
It's clear that physical traits are heritable (hardly surprising as years of selective breeding for these) but of all the behavioural traits, genetics only plays a significant part in 'human sociability'. ...

Surely that's quite a significant aspect when it comes to dogs getting bitey? "How comfortable a dog is around humans, especially if unfamiliar with them".

Genetics - 50% of variability - breed no - the infographic shows this. The broad message is there as much variation in behaviour within breeds of dog as there are between breeds. I find this hard to believe when there are clear differences between the breeds I'm familiar with.

I think although it is a massive and detailed survey, the owners are self selecting (good citizen scientists) and the dangerous behavours may not be common in dogs owned by people conscientious enough to do detailed surveys.

[bmwmike]

Randy Winkman said:

bmwmike said:

oddman said:

V8covin said:

That may well be true but there's no getting away from the fact a Yorkie is unlikely to rip your face of but a Staffy or Rottweiler might

The only strong correlate reported between genetics/breed and owner report was size (the big circles in the bottom row). This was used as a control to validate the other characteristics reported

I also wonder how many owners of the type of breeds involved in attacks spend time on citizen survey projects.

Yep. At the end of the day though, does it matter when the threat is real - big dog can do significant damage, little dog can get booted away easily enough.

This is the way I look at it. What chance do you (or a child) stand if it all goes wrong?

For a large fugly staff or bulldog type thing, not a chance. The owner won't either if they switch despite claiming otherwise. We went through a wierd spell one year where my daughter (then 5/6 age) seemed to get chased and floored by dogs - maybe 3 or 4 times that year, one of which was particularly scary but no harm done thankfully. The owners will generally try to claim they are playing or that you should never run if a dog gives chase. fk off. I'd have them all on leads in public places.

[V8covin]

bmwmike said:

For a large fugly staff or bulldog type thing, not a chance. The owner won't either if they switch despite claiming otherwise. We went through a wierd spell one year where my daughter (then 5/6 age) seemed to get chased and floored by dogs - maybe 3 or 4 times that year, one of which was particularly scary but no harm done thankfully. The owners will generally try to claim they are playing or that you should never run if a dog gives chase. fk off. I'd have them all on leads in public places.

Aren't most attacks in or around the home ?

[RB Will]

bmwmike said:

The owners will generally try to claim they are playing or that you should never run if a dog gives chase. fk off. I'd have them all on leads in public places.

Most parents probably wouldn't agree with you but yeah keeping your kids on leads in public would stop them being chased, so fair enough

[bmwmike]

V8covin said:

bmwmike said:

For a large fugly staff or bulldog type thing, not a chance. The owner won't either if they switch despite claiming otherwise. We went through a wierd spell one year where my daughter (then 5/6 age) seemed to get chased and floored by dogs - maybe 3 or 4 times that year, one of which was particularly scary but no harm done thankfully. The owners will generally try to claim they are playing or that you should never run if a dog gives chase. fk off. I'd have them all on leads in public places.

Aren't most attacks in or around the home ?

Dunno. Doesn't change my opinion either way.

RB Will said:

Most parents probably wouldn't agree with you but yeah keeping your kids on leads in public would stop them being chased, so fair enough

[CharlieCrocodile]

Dog reported to be a Tibetan Mastiff with previous attacks noted.

[Randy Winkman]

CharlieCrocodile said:

Dog reported to be a Tibetan Mastiff with previous attacks noted.

I'd rather fight a West Highland Terrier than a Tibetan Mastiff.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

NDA said:

I would have thought that centuries of breeding plays a part. If a dog has been bred to fight, for example, this might have a slight bearing on its inherent nature. A bit like some dogs like going down holes, they're not trained to do it, it's in their DNA.

Don't say that. The mantra is "no bad dogs, just bad owners". Your theory means some dogs are just s, regardless of their owners. Of course, it's often true that dogs that have ishness bred into them over generations are the very dogs that are bought by people that haven't got the brains to own a tin of tuna, let alone a dog.