I don't believe this - Page 2

Bee - yeah but I can't claim any credit for it, I nicked it from Les Pauling. Maybe he thought it up or maybe he got it from someone else

 

Sure, unprovoked aggression can have a medical base, and certainly aggression gets dealt with by the vets 'cos where else is there to go with it ?  But this study does not care to deal with whether or how the cases cited were unprovoked, or whether this is a behavioural / poor handling & training thing; it treats them on exactly the same level as (I was going to say a broken leg or a slipping patella, but those are not isolated as causes of being lame or unble to walk either.)

I 'm. With you Hund complete and utter nonsense
Back to a question I asked a while back;
Who researches the researchers?
When is research truly credible?
Seems more often than not any given subject leans in the direction of the one putting up most of the funding

O'Neill has - almost always in association with others - produced some fairly good papers on dog health in the past for the RVC. In this case, the study was funded from our Kennel Club's Charitable Trust. And while both O'Neill and the KC deny that the money means they ever influence the outcome of such studies, I can't help but get the impression here that he was at pains not to 'conclude' anything that would directly fly in the face of the KC's current position on the GSD in the UK.

The sub-text is that we are dubbed a 'Category 3 breed'; and despite, as far as I can see, fulfilling, as a breed, the requirements for being upgraded to Category 2, we seem to be in the Catch 22 position that we cannot satisfy the KC we are doing everything they want until there is not another cow-hocked or hinged backed dog in the country. Notwithstanding that the breeders cannot much influence two thirds of UK GSDs since they remain unregistered, as pointed out in my earlier post.