How to explain something

Hi guys

Got a client, her dog locked onto the loose skin of neighbour's 5 month pup. All sorted now, happened on dog's own driveway, owner of pup had been disregarding due warnings.

But to the point: the local mother's mafia (them that heard the squeeling and whom happened to be out having a chin wag in the cul de sac so whom came running to 'help'), a couple of them are giving my client the usual BS about you want to watch him with your kids next, bla bla bla'.

Now, i have told her everyone says that, its a load of crap, dog to dog and dog to kid agression are two different aggressions, as the dog picks up on differing signals from the different species that are trigger points. And i said that although you can have a dog with both problems, one does not necessarily lead to the other.
As they are different psychologies.

Then i got to thinking - actually, that above, whilst it sounds knowledgeable, and gives me expertise, it is still a load of old waffle when it comes down to it.
It is no more or less or different to the approach jan fennell or cesar milan would take by utilising what are really only just self reinforcing statements, yet dont actually explain the whys and wherefores.

Now, you know i am correct, i know i am correct, but just how would you explain WHY this is correct?
And what studies or research, if any, would you use to back it up?

It would depend on the motivation behind the aggression towards the pup.

Would it not be easier to simply explain that dogs and children need to be educated and trained to be safe?
At the vets` today I heard a mother tell her small child `That counter`s been touched by people with sick animals so don`t put your hands near your mouth until we`ve washed them properly`. With that sort of thinking, I doubt logic will really get through.

hmmm I dont really get why you feel the need to have different explinations
Dogs know other dogs, they treat them differently than other species, a dog could be really sweet and soft with all other dogs yet kill all small fuzzies

Kruse - what signals do you think the puppy was giving out?

i know what the motivations were, they have been explained. do you mean that the best way, i your opinion, to explain why aggression to dogs is different to, and therefore not an inevitable lead up to, aggression toward the kids that live in his home (or any kids for that matter), is the actual reasons that he attacked this pup?

if that is so (as in i understood you correctly),
what if, say, as a rhetorical argument, one of the mother's mafia then turned around and said how do you know then that his nervousness around other dogs and territoriality around other dogs wont transfer onto kids in time? other than my stock self reinforcing answer of just saying aggression to dogs isnt the same as aggression to kids?

what is to stop mother mafia from saying, why is that so?
what is your proof/evidence other than just saying so?

invading charlie's space, too boisterous for charlie.

i know all this, you know all this. this has already been acknowledged and presented as a 'given fact'

But WHY do you think this is a given fact?
Other than just knowing so, as you are experienced and knowledgeable, just a i am.
What would you do if one of these mothers just points out to that that is *just* a statement by you, i will choose to not take this as fact until you actually explain to me WHY this is a fact? ie, you can back it up?

And to be honest, good on her if she did do this.
As arent we all always saying people should learn to think a bit more, be a bit more discriminating about everything they hear and are told, otherwise people like CM and JF can convince people of all sorts of erroneous and unreliable and unpleasant things validated thru the weight of their own background of working experience and manner of convincing expertise.

Really interesting question.

I've had direct experience with 3 dog aggressive dogs. One, that I had known from a pup was completely bomb-proof around people and even when he was most wound up by another dog, if a human hand got in the way he would immediately stop.

The other two were rescues with no known background. In their cases they didn't so readily differentiate between people and dogs; if something agititated them, they would bite a human.

So is it nature, nurture or a combination of both which decides how a dog will react? Is it bite inhibition taught from a young age which prevents a dog-aggressive dog from biting a human?

Or possibly an understanding (whether taught or inherent) that humans are not a threat?

Is it the same as human men differentiating between other men, women and children? Most men would retaliate against a perceived threat from another man, but would take evasive action if the incident involved a child. Is that reaction all taught behaviour or inherent?

I think I'd ask this mother mafia how they decide whether a human is trustworthy around their children...have they ever left their children with a man who has had a fight with another man - if so, how do they know that man wouldn't be violent to their children?

Of course we don't always get it right with people and so we might not always get it right with dogs. But one big difference between humans and dogs is that dogs don't practice the deceipt/duplicitiy so often found in humans (or is that another point for debate - do dogs ever practice deceipt)?

Yes, you are understanding me correctly. I would have experience to back it up.

A dog that is aggressive to dogs through lack of socialisation or bad experience can still be perfectly okay with dogs that it lives with or knows. If it is fear-based.

Like I say the motivation behind the aggression would be my explanation.

Dogs that are aggressive towards dogs can be aggressive towards people. If it were fearful of dogs and people. Even then, the dog could be fine with the people he lives with and trusts.