Rage syndrome is frequently referred to but is actually relatively rare, although it does
very occasinally occur but when it occurs it is considered to be likely to be a sub-epileptic condition whereby the dog will just bite ferociously at
anything within it’s range at the time.
Where the aggression is focused on a specific target, and in that sense functional, it is unlikely to be of neurological origin.
What is very much more common, (particularly in some Golden retrievers, some cocker spaniels and some springers) is an extreme form of agenda-conflict aggression (a.k.a status/dominance aggression). I.e. the dog will violently and disproportionately retaliate against anything, however mild, that it doesn’t like, or objects to, at that point in time.
As it is entirely the dog’s choice it may choose to allow that same thing at other times, or it may not and it is this apparent inconsistency that confused people.
However the outlook is much the same as rage syndrome, and the prognosis equally poor,
in so much as these dogs become enraged if thwarted, even over very benign everyday things: being touched, someone walking past/near them, being spoken to, etc.
As the triggers are often everyday things, and the aggression can be severe, unpredictable and with little or no warning, it is very difficult to take effective safety precautions or to implement effective behavioural modification as these dogs are not behaving rationally, and so are not inclined to respond to rational programmes.
If left without clear boundaries to their behaviour, i.e the problem isn't addressed to try to avoid conflict, they invariably escalate their aggressive bullying with impunity. However if countered on their lack of boundaries, however benignly, they become enraged and highly aggressive so there is little opportunity or available options to effectively change the behaviour.
The biggest cause of death in dogs under a year of age is due to behavioural problems, and those problems are most frequently extreme aggression that is unresponsive to behavioural modification because the risk factors with regard to personal safety and legal liability are such that euthanasia, sooner or later, is the only effective and safe end to the aggression.
These dogs are not re-homable. Unless the original owner is doing something terribly wrong why would the dog behave differently elsewhere? Especially by the time this has become an established behaviour?
The law now also makes re-homing organisations more responsible for the consequences if they re-home a dog that goes on to cause injury, whereas before they used to just have the new owners sign a disclaimer so they are not keen to take them on, with good reason.
There was some research done on the effect on the behaviour of cocker spaniels of the permissiveness of their owners as they grew up and the conclusion was basically that a less permissive upbringing moderated this aggressive behaviour but did not eliminate or “cure” it.
Trying to re-home a dog as a teenager/young adult, rather than a relatively impressionable puppy, who had already developed and experienced success with this behaviour is a different matter.
In my opinion euthanasia is not cruel. The euthanasia itself is just an injection, no different to an anaesthetic, except the dog doesn’t wake up after. The dog, unlike a person, does not have any more concept of this outcome than it does the outcome of an anaesthetic.
How can a dead dog suffer?
However a live dog can inflict injury and suffer from frustration, social exclusion, overly rough physical restraint or punishment, harsh handling, aversion tactics etc, employed in failed attempts to resolve the behaviour and protect people from injury, after which the dog is likely to be euthanasied anyway, maybe after someone has suffered increasingly serious injuries and/or after the owners have possibly also been prosecuted, if the dog bites someone outside the family.
With regard to the dog inflicting injuries to people outside the family damages of thousands of pounds can be sought as compensation and any third party insurance could be invalidated if there was a known history of aggresion, particularly if the insurance company had not been made aware, and if they had been made aware they would probalbly have imposed an exclusion for aggression.
Yes I would certainly have the dog checked by a vet, but this is not an uncommon age for this sort of behavioural problem to become increasingly apparent and we do not have anything like a full behavioural history to go on here, but this does not sound to me like a story that is likely to have a happy ending.
Particularly in view of the lack of behavioural history it could also be worth having a qualified behaviourist individually assess this dog before making a final decision.
