"It's not the dogs or the dog breed: it's the owners"

78 replies

HazelPlayer · 05/11/2024 23:13

Do you agree?

The person who has said this several times is also thinking of getting either a Rottweiler or a Staffie as a pet around a young child.

OP posts:

EdithStourton · 06/11/2024 21:45

bumblebee1987 · 06/11/2024 00:34

As someone else who has worked with dogs for many many years, I wholeheartedly disagree with this. It's the hill that I will choose to die on.

Breed and genetics play a HUGE part. You cannot train genetics out of a dog. There are many breeds that should NEVER have been domestic pets. You can reduce the risk to an extent by being a responsible owner who understands and meets your dogs needs 100%, but a large number of dogs aren't actually in the right homes or with the right owners. Fortunately for the vast majority of people this doesn't lead to catastrophic outcomes, but in the tragic cases that reach the news, it does. A miniature poodle who is lacking the mental stimulation that they require, is never going to have the same dire consequences as an XL bully would in a similarly unsuitable environment.

Puppies aren't born bad, however, they are born with a genetic predisposition to certain characteristics, to deny this and say that it's all down to the owner, is absurd. If it was all down to the owner and training, then why do we pick specific breeds to be police dogs, service dogs, herding dogs etc? It's because of genetics, hence why we don't just pick any dog for those tasks.

People repeatedly buy unsuitable breeds, that have significant power and genetics that don't lend themselves to being domestic pets, and then claim they are shocked when it all goes wrong.

I adore dogs. I spend my life with dogs, but we are doing them a disservice by repeatedly forcing them to fit a domestic mold, when some of them just don't. None of this is the dogs fault, it is all the fault of people who refuse to acknowledge the genetics and potential that their dog has.

100%
Genetics is a massive deal, and humans have been honing the genetics of different types of dog for millennia.

A mate of mine bred a working gun dog litter. He stressed to everyone who wanted one what hard work they were going to be, quizzed future owners etc. About a year down the line he got a call, telling him he needed to take this one back as she was snappish and aggressive. He'd said he would, so he did.

There is nothing wrong with the dog at all. Since she arrived back with the breeder, she's lived in the house but been trained and worked in line with her genetic drives. She gets on with the other dogs, she lives around livestock with no issues, she's fine with guests in the house, and is turning out to be a great worker. She was just in completely the wrong environment, despite the breeder's best efforts.

People need to really think hard about what sort of dog they can manage, and understand that what is on offer isn't just a generic 'dog' that comes in a variety of costumes, but that even in show lines where the inbred drives have diminished somewhat there will still be a breed bell-curve of behaviour and any puppy is likeliest to be somewhere in the middle.

sprigatito · 06/11/2024 21:46

No, it's claptrap. Some breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. To claim otherwise is fatuous. Shitty owners are a different, though no less egregious, problem.

Balletdreamer · 06/11/2024 22:10

Isn’t this the same argument Americans make about why they should be allowed to have guns? Yes not all people with guns go around shooting people, but letting so many people have them is clearly not working out. Same with these dogs.

Flip

1 2 3 4