 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 17 Apr 10 - 03:42 PM Here is the tragic story of yet another horrific killing of a smal child by a dangerous breed of dog. The Story It will be no surprise to all here that nobody expected it as he was always such a goood dog, and was always so good with te kids and well looked after etc etc blah blah blah. They're Just Fucking Dangerous! It's that simple! How many more of these deaths do we have to hear about before people stop being such utter dicks about it. Recently a 3 year old had her Jaw torn off. And every year there are several stories about deaths and horrific injuries. Yet if you go to Youtube and type in Staffy, you will see endless videos of peoples children and dogs playfighting in the garden, underscored by comment along the lines of "see ... what's the problem" 9 time out of ten, when a kid finds a gun, nothing bad happens. 9 times out of 10, when a child is left unattended, they are not kidnapped. But do leave children unattended in public, or to leave them in a room with a loaded gun are obviously stupid thing s to do. Yet people will go out of their way to prove that dangerous dogs can be left alone with kids. I hasten to point out that in the two cases I mentioned, they weren't even on their own, but surrounded by others in a "safe" environment. I hate idiots with dogs and the only solution to my mind is to ensure that muzzle and lead laws are enforced with tough penalties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Smokey. Date: 17 Apr 10 - 03:53 PM Yes, and they should perhaps even muzzle and lead some of the dogs too. Dogs usually just do what comes naturally - unfortunately they are often owned by morons, or at best, wishful thinkers. Indeed, sometimes they appear to outshine their owners in terms of intellect. Kids should never be left alone with any dog regardless of its track record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM Well it's a cult [yes cult] thing, where these lame brains buy a fighting dog, to show how hard they are. It also expresses their [lack of] personality. Bring back the dog licence, it was abandoned years ago as being too expensive to collect, because it was so low [7/6d old money]. So the obvious answer is to increase the cost of a licence, until it at least covers the cost of administering it, dog wardens et al. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Smokey. Date: 17 Apr 10 - 04:17 PM Aye, we had a dalmation - couldn't afford the colour licence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:05 PM Dog license? Surely. Dog owner license... even better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM And keep them out of fast-food places, too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Leadfingers Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM Lox - Mastiff is NOT a Dangerous dog unless it is Inbred and /or has a dangerous owner ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:31 PM I think every dog out in public should be on a leash, certain breeds at least muzzled (and licensed and inspected for double fencing, etc.) and everyone who claims to have a service dog or boa constrictor or whatever should ahve appropriate paperwork and the animal should be tagged as such. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:32 PM There are only dangerous owners! Dangerous owners are either ignorant of dogs or teach the dogs to be like themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:43 PM SHITE. There was a case of either one or two, can't remember now, Border Collies, killing a baby in it's pram. There is no such thing as a 'safe' dog. They need to ne licensed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:49 PM I'm so tired of having to defend my smart, sweet, and lovable pit bull (American Staffordshire Terrier) against this kind of smear campaign. My vet told me when I adopted this dog (it was mutual, she was injured and stray and liked me so she stayed here after we met, and I thought she was a great dog) that 70% of the dog bites reported in the U.S. come from Labrador Retrievers. But you don't hear about when someone's black lab bites the neighbor kid, do you? I was bitten by a neighbor's dog when I was a small child. It was a cocker spaniel. Dogs can bite. And if you leave your dog where people can come into contact with them when you're not around, any dog COULD bite under provocation or feeling like they need to protect their house or yard. There are a lot of stupid owners. There are also a lot of owners who mean well but don't have a clue as to how to control their animals. I have a neighbor who went from having an anti-social dog (you couldn't pet this dog when he was out for a walk, and if you stopped to talk, you had to keep your distance) to having a timid little abused pit/akita mix rescue dog. She also needs work now, or she'll be just as pathetic and unpleasant as the last one. But I think he's clueless. I not only have a fence around the yard where the dogs live, I have Invisible Fence in place so they can't go all the way up to the chain link fence. The kids next door can't stick an arm through to pet a dog and accidentally get knocked over or an arm broken if they get knocked into. (The dogs love those kids!) Or have fingers injured when reaching through with food. My dogs don't bite, but they get pretty excited about food, and sometimes the pit bruises your fingers when she takes a biscuit. Both dogs catch food very well, for a reason. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:10 PM "Lox - Mastiff is NOT a Dangerous dog unless it is Inbred and /or has a dangerous owner ! " With the exception of the ones in the recent incidents ... ... which means that sometimes they are. I agree with Licenses, but I believe they need to mean something. Dogs need to be registered, and licenses need to be produceable, containing information about the dogs heritage/breed etc. Like a drivers licence, those who abuse their responsibilities could face sanctions, just as those without licenses should face sanctions if in possession of a dog. There's no point, to drag a metaphor back to reality, in shutting the door after the child has been torn to pieces ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM "There are only dangerous owners!" This is the comment i read on all the pro staffy youtube vids. In every case where children have been mauled recently, the family have been "shocked" by the "unforseeable" behaviour of their loved, affectionate, soft little cuddlykins. I am not talking about youth who use digs as weapons, I'm talking about families, with pets who kill their kids. Families with children should certainly be subject to tighter regulation, not least concerning what breeds they are permitted to own. Sorry if you've got one and you don't want to face the truth, but the cost is just too high. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:19 PM It is one thing to be bitten by a dog who bites and lets go..not sure if lab retrievers do or do not. It is another to be bitten by a dog who can not let go and keeps on with it. Until baby's face is ripped off, as happens fairly often down here. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:24 PM 1. There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication. 2. Bad owners do indeed make bad dogs, and good owners make good dogs, no matter the breed. 3. Any dog will regard a new baby as a subordinate member of the pack, until the pack leader (owner) makes it clear that this is not the case. 4. Any dog can be trained to accept that all humans, large or small, are higher in the pecking order. 5. A properly trained Rotweiler or Pit Bull, is no more intrinsically dangerous than a Collie, Peke, or Chihuahua. BUT does this mean that all properly trained dogs are completely safe?...........NO, IT DOES NOT!, and anybody who says it does is an idiot. NO dog can be trusted absolutely, especially where small children are concerned. Try an experiment. Poke your perfectly trained dog in the eye when he least expects it, but make sure you have plenty of bandages handy. When your over enthusiastic child does so accidentally, while trying to play with the animal, the response will be even more violent, since Rover knows he is dealing with a weaker opponent. The bottom line is that in the right circumstances, all dogs will react in self defence, and a good dog is the more dangerous because his reaction is unexpected, and more damage will result. IMNSHO, ALL dogs should be licenced and micro-chipped, and neutered except when they are being bred by licensed breeders. Even then, they should all be kept on a leash and soft muzzled in public places, except for fenced areas designated as exercise facilities for dogs, the provision of which should be funded, along with dog wardens, using the licence money. Children and adults will still be bitten, even killed, by dogs, but at least the numbers will be reduced to a minimum. I have owned several dogs, none of which ever bit anybody, but none were ever left alone with my kids. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM In what way does licensing make a dog less dangerous? In the US licensing has been required for many years - although there are many people who flout the law - but I don't see that it makes anyone safer. As far as I know, it is simply a 'revenue enhancer'. I adopt my dogs through the humane society, and since they are all older dogs - my notion being that puppies have no problem getting placement - any or all of the dogs I have adopted could have developed bad habits down the line. I have had no problems with any of them- and there have been three dogs in recent years, and more in years past. My latest one, that I got almost five years ago, came with the notation that she was not to be adopted into a home with small children. It turns out she is fine with small children - IF I monitor the action. Too many chattering children, crowding around, each trying to pet her, make her nervous, and I can see that she might bite. As the owner I see to it that the children are made aware of it so that they back off. And then the dog calms right down and goes back to tailwagging. She loves people. Any incident of a dog attacking a child is tragic but it is essential, in my opinion, to teach each and every child to respect the space of every dog and to be aware of the animal's feelings. In other words, children too bear a share of blame when things go wrong. Even more to blame are the adults. I think that blanket condemnation of a dog, whether on the basis of breed or size, is an over-reaction. Dogs give us something unique in this world and I, for one, would not even consider giving them up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Leadfingers Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:05 PM I ALWAYS wonder , when I read about a "Gentle" dog biting a child , what the child did to the dog ! As Don said , poke a dog in the eye and see what happens ! When I was a toddler my parents had a wire haired mongrel who we were NOT allowed to 'play' with except under Supervision ! As a result , we NEVER got into the Ear Tweaking , Tail Pulling , Eye Poking thing that SOME children seem to get into ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:09 PM Yes, what the the child do to the dog? If a mastiff accidentally STEPPED on an 18 mo old, the child would be hurt mg--it is a myth that 'pit bull's can't let go. They can. If they want to. I am VERY dog friendly, but NO DOG should be left unsupervised with a child...esp an 18 mo old child My dogs are vaccinated, micro chipped and neutered. A lead is a good thing but a muzzle can be a bit of overkill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:13 PM PS--some children should be on leads too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: katlaughing Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:35 PM 3. Any dog will regard a new baby as a subordinate member of the pack, until the pack leader (owner) makes it clear that this is not the case. 4. Any dog can be trained to accept that all humans, large or small, are higher in the pecking order. Exactly! Children, esp. small, creeping children appear to be prey to any dog; that's why an owner must be firm AND know HOW to control, set the pecking order, etc. My grandson pushes the limits with our 14 yr old McNab border collie because he is used to playing with his "grrrrlllzz" three boxers and the nanny who is a pit bull (I hear ya, SRS!) He now knows the the old McNab will give him a warning nip if he doesn't pay attention. It was quite a surprise for him. They are never left unsupervised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM And, just as all humans are not 'same' neither are dogs. Even those of the same breed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:47 PM "they should perhaps even muzzle and lead some of the dogs" ... not to forget their owners.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:54 PM Thank you Fooles. Another PS--Would you turn a child loose in a paddock with a Shetland Pony or 'minature horse'? I've seen Mastiffs larger than ponies. Dog owners/people can't help it if some dog owners and SOME PARENTS are stupid. Brains don't come with pregnancy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:54 PM ""In what way does licensing make a dog less dangerous? In the US licensing has been required for many years - although there are many people who flout the law - but I don't see that it makes anyone safer. As far as I know, it is simply a 'revenue enhancer'."" Ebbie, I live in the UK, where dogs are not licensed. Of course a licence won't make them safer, but it would provide funding for exercise areas where dogs could be safely let off the leash to run free for a whaile, and also funding for dog wardens to deal with the huge number of dogs which are turned out to roam by careless owners. The combination of Licence and micro-chip, would enable wardens to find owners, and advise or report for prosecution, depending on the circumstances. As things stand, an owner can say "Not my Dog!", and without hard evidence, he is untouchable. So, no. Not just a revenue enhancer. ""Any incident of a dog attacking a child is tragic but it is essential, in my opinion, to teach each and every child to respect the space of every dog and to be aware of the animal's feelings. In other words, children too bear a share of blame when things go wrong. Even more to blame are the adults. I think that blanket condemnation of a dog, whether on the basis of breed or size, is an over-reaction. Dogs give us something unique in this world and I, for one, would not even consider giving them up."" In my opinion Ebbie, you have been extremely fortunate. Older dogs are notoriously less tolerant, both of children, and puppies. Comes the day when a child stumbles, and falls on the dog, will you be swift enough, I wonder, to react before the dog's reflexes kick in, and he snaps. I sincerely hope that you never find out the answer to that question. What part of my original post suggested to you, a blanket (or any other) condemnation of dogs? I don't condemn, I recognise the nature of the animal, as one must in order to live safely with it. And I certainly said not one word about anyone giving up his/her dog. Nor would I ever do so. When you have a well trained happy dog, you have a friend who gives utterly unconditional love to you, asking only to be cared for in return. I just caution owners to remember this. That unconditional devotion is to you as pack leader. It may not, and often does not, extend to the other pack members, especially in the absence of the leader. Nature of the animal. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:06 PM "to teach each and every child to respect the space of every dog and to be aware of the animal's feelings. In other words, children too bear a share of blame when things go wrong" So the 18 month old and the 3 year old who were attacked whilst in the same room as an adult at the time should have a) taken more responsibility, and b) been given a tutorial which they should have digested, understood and incorporated into their general behaviour? Otherwise its their fault? ... um ... Do you have anything intelligent to add to a thread about attacks on small chldren? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:07 PM ""A lead is a good thing but a muzzle can be a bit of overkill."" I would have thought so too, until about three years ago, when I saw a toy poodle remove half a finger from a three year old outside a shop. A split second, a bark, a yell from the child, mum looked up from where she was putting her purse into her handbag. Too late! The kiddie was under control with mum holding a set of reins. Pity the dog wasn't. It ain't size, it's temper, that determines the degree of harm, and in that case had the dog been muzzled, it wouldn't have mattered that he was walking ten paces ahead of his owner, with no lead. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:12 PM Not entirely fair Lox. It is necessary to give a child the same warnings about animals as you would about fires and hot kettles. I don't think for one moment Ebbie was suggesting that we blame children for being bitten. My point is, and always was, that stringent precautions, allied with effective training should be the rule. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:14 PM I must stress and repeat that the two most recent attacks did not occur when the child and the dog were alone together. In both cases there were adults on hand. The first child only survived because the owner killed the dog with a kitchen knife rather than watch it rip any other bits of her head off. Are childrens injury's easier to bear when the attack has been supervised? Licenses don't work in the US and they didn't work in the UK only because they aren't/weren't enforced. A simple campaign of registration and policing would be easy in this day and age. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:24 PM Don T, I was directing my dissenting comments to Lox, not to you. But I would respond to your scenario, "Comes the day when a child stumbles, and falls on the dog, will you be swift enough, I wonder, to react before the dog's reflexes kick in, and he snaps. I sincerely hope that you never find out the answer to that question." thus: I live alone with my dog, there are no children here. On the street I am by the side of my dog when children seek to pet her. Yes, I would say that my reflexes and my understanding are 'swift' enough to react. As for being fortunate in my choice of older dogs to adopt, I would agree. However, it is my belief that a dog picks up on the owner/handler's approach to life, to danger, to joy. I have seen this over and over again: Owners of dogs that are suspicious and aggressive and fearful almost invariably are the same way themselves. I have learnt to be wary of people who have uncontrollable dogs. Lox, of course I don't mean that a child is responsible in the sense that you postulate, only that a child who has been taught caution and respect of an animal from the time s/he is sentient will be far less likely to ever be attacked. I have no way of knowing what transpired in this most recent case - nor do you. The child may have been a totally innocent bystander and one who paid the ultimate price for someone else's previous mistreatment of the dog. We don't know. In any case it is tragic. Just as it is tragic when a child is killed or maimed in a car accident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:25 PM "Not entirely fair Lox. It is necessary to give a child the same warnings about animals as you would about fires and hot kettles." This is true, but my comments are fair on the basis of what is reasonable to expect an 18 month old or a three year old child to understand, internalize and comply with consistently. Anyone who has had kids knows that lessons are learned slowly over a long time, that kids concentration shifts its focus in the blink of an eye and that they are ever curious to discover and learn not to mention pushing boundaries. Besides which, Kettles and Pots and Pans are made safe when there are children around. For your comparison to be fair, dogs would also need to be made safe when there are kids around. How that is achieved humanely and effectively would be a more useful topic for this thread. Personally I think that they shouldn't be in childrens homes. Guns locked in cabinets have been known to be taken out by kids, so dogs which are curious excitable creatures would be less easy to keep safe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:25 PM Oh, I wanted to add that my dogs have all been micro-chipped and they all wore current license tags. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:44 PM I can't agree that they should not be in children's homes. We have probably all seen adults who are afraid of dogs because they never had a dog to love when they were young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:52 PM Micro chipping will NOT stop a dog from biting..but yes, it will ID theowner. My grandson was bitten on the cheek (well, more of a slash, really) in the same room as the dogs owner and his mother. Grandson had been poking the dog, pulling ears,tail, etc...(Border Collie). He was told to stop by his mother....and the dog was giving 'warning signals'. Owner put the dog outside. Later, let the dog back in..and the FIRST thing grandson did was pull an ear...dog whipped around and caught his cheek with a canine tooth. They came over here after leaving the hospital, and I said well, O, what did you do to the dog? I pulled his ear. And did you learn anything? Yes ma'm. Don't tease dogs. I think he was 2 at the time? He was also 'trying' to be afraid of his own dog....his mum and I put a quick stop to that! It's just all in the Situation, the kid, the dog.... My thought is still...gee, a mastiff in the same room with an 18 month old? Both loose? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Rapparee Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:11 PM The Michael Vick pit bulls were to be put down -- PETA and HSUS both said that being trained to fight all 28 or so could never ever be trusted. Then my friend Rebecca stepped in. She got herself appointed "special guardian" of the dogs by the Court. The dogs were assessed by professionals, not by "animal lovers". One -- one -- had to be put down. Others took different paths: four or five were enlisted as police K-9 officers; most of the others found quiet, childless, caring homes and are doing quite well; a very few are living out their lives in the specialized kennels to which they were taken -- they are so traumatized they trust no one except the kennel attendants. NONE of these dogs attacked anyone when they were taken out of the hell-hole in which they were kept and haven't attacked anyone since. BUT! The dogs are under control and are trusting the people they live with. In a sense, you can say that they have PTSD and can't get therapy. Oh, yeah -- you pull my ears or stick your finger in my eye and I might bite you too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:14 PM Yup, kick me when I'm sleeping...I do bite! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Beer Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM Dogs are not the problem. It's their owners. Beer (adrien) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:16 PM I know that NOTHING anyone says is going to convince Lox or anyone else that it is a HUMAN problem, so I'm out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Rapparee Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:25 PM Me too, Sorch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:45 PM Well, I gotta admit that my dog Ralph sounds vicious at times. He and my stepson's dog Harry go ballistic every time somebody drives up, and they're even worse when a dog or a cat or a deer goes by. But when you open the door, Ralph and Harry are your best friends. These dogs are Shih-Tzus, so nobody takes them very seriously. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:09 AM I couldn't fathom raising my kids without the dogs they have known, the same as I grew up with a favourite dog. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:51 AM I grew up with dogs, and I enjoy having dogs again now. I am not getting more cats because I'm tired of the cat hair and litter boxes, but also because my dogs get too excited when they see cats. I agree, Lox' statements like "Sorry if you've got one and you don't want to face the truth, but the cost is just too high" indicate that he isn't going to accept any of the rational answers provided here. Let's just hope that he doesn't continue to be part of the problem--if you see a dog you percieve as dangerous and act afraid of it, you're going to confuse the dog at the very least (or hurt it's feelings!) and you might set up a dangerous situation by your own behavior. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:59 AM For some reason a post I made under a consistent guest identity was deleted (or coincidentally vanished). Don, your postings here are wholly at variance with views I have heard you repeatedly express in person - typified by your repeated statements that Bonnie my blonde Great Dane bitch (RIP) had, "like every other blonde [Great Dane] the temperament of an angel". Which actually represents your views? That all dogs are dangerous, or that all blonde Great Danes have the temperament of an angel? More generally, the human/dog symbiosis is of such long standing that in general it does not need interfering with. Nothing in the world is 100% safe, but if the only way to placate the nanny state is to be crual to dogs I would rather they became extinct. I like most dogs better than I like many people - and anything that can barely tolerate cats can't be all bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:53 AM Problem is that each argument presented falls under scrutiny. So Dogs retaliate when provoked ... ... what about babies pulled out of cots? It happened last year to the child of a pub landlord. In the cases above the dogs were well treated - so it isn't always about abuysed dogs. In the cases above, there were adults present - so it isn't always about supervision. In other cases, it has happened to babies who could no more go and poke a dog in the eye than a doll could - so it isn't always about provocation. What is the common factor? There is always an element of risk because dogs are dangerous. In the situation above with the 2 year old "learni8ng his lesson", what about the adults learning the lesson that small children and dogs who bite should be kept a safe distance apart at all times. So yes dangerous Dogs are a human problem. Yes stupid adults should take responsibility for them. They should take responsibility and accept that their dog is a risk to kids. Who do you think you are saying that everyone else including children should take responsibility for being attacked by your dog! If the dog wasn't there there wouldn't be an issue. Numerous small children are killed by dogs and the response here is to say "yeah well what did they do" Is that what you'd say when a human kills another human? Your honour, I shot him because he poked me in the eye. Poor doggy!... The reason you are quitting this discussion is because you have yet to provide a good reason. All you have done is assert your opinion. Now why not test it and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. It is currently looking totally unsupportable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM "Is that what you'd say when a human kills another human? Your honour, I shot him because he poked me in the eye. Poor doggy!..." Before anyone takes this comparison seriously, lets remember that the dogs in question were considered family members, and the children were attacked in their own homes. So lets extend the comparison. Your honour, I killed my baby son/brother because he was climbing all over me and poking me in the eye. A human with that approach would have to be a total psychopath. Any human who gave my daughter a "warning nip" would be playing with fire if I saw it. I wouldn't just send him outside, I would exclude him from ever having anything to do with me and my family ever again. I would then inform the police. If a family member scarred my daughters cheek in retaliation for her affection, excitement, overenthusiasm or even naughtiness, I would also call the police and warn them never to darken my door again. So why do these dogs get special treatment? Why run the risk of it happening again? This is where humans/owners need to start taking responsibility and owning up to the risks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:37 AM Much as Jeremy Clarkson provokes as much controvery as the subjects he writes about he does often make sense - From This article in the Times No, really. Because one dog once ate one child, some hopeless little twerp from the department of dogs had to think of something sincere to say on the steps of the coroner's court. Inevitably, they will have argued that the current law is "not fit for purpose", whatever that means, and that "steps must be taken to ensure this never happens again". The steps being considered mean that every dog owner in the land will have to fit their pet with a microchip so that its whereabouts can be determined from dog-spotting spy-in-the-sky drones, and that before being allowed to take delivery of a puppy, people will have to sit an exam similar to the driving theory test. The cost could reach £60, and on top of this you will need compulsory third-party insurance in case your spaniel eats the milkman. So to ensure that someone in the north called Mick doesn't shove his pit bull into a primary school playground to calm it down, I will now have to computerise my labradoodle and answer a lot of damn fool questions about when my dog should be on a lead. Cheers DeG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:31 AM As usual, Clarkson is amusing, but at no point actually addresses the issue. The same article also suggests that tightening up airport security is a waste of time and will change nothing, and that we should just accept that sometimes men with beards go a bit crazy. Apart from the fact that he implies that air travellers are only at risk from caricatured men with beards, he addresses none of the points raised. Bear in mind that he is an entertainer - whose current fame depends on pretending to be a caricature, and having two sidekicks whose job it is to laugh at him. Consequently he is allowed to do and say just about anything - but anyone taking him seriously needs to start on the meds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:42 AM ""Which actually represents your views? That all dogs are dangerous, or that all blonde Great Danes have the temperament of an angel?"" Do you get off on reversing what I say, in order to be able to rubbish it? Nowhere have I said, nor do I believe, that all dogs are dangerous. What I actually said was {""BUT does this mean that all properly trained dogs are completely safe?...........NO, IT DOES NOT!, and anybody who says it does is an idiot. NO dog can be trusted absolutely, especially where small children are concerned.""}, which is not the same thing at all. I then gave an example of a scenario in which almost every dog, no matter how placid, might react with a bite Your Bonnie was one of the sweetest natured small horses I ever met, and there is no doubt that it would take some very special circumstance to make her angry enough to snap. Just as well, since, when on hind legs she could overtop my six feet one inch height, which she always did by way of greeting. That does not equate to stating that she could absolutely be guaranteed never to bite a human being, though I believe I'm right in saying she never did. Your profession is all about the meaning of statements, and it does you small credit to deliberately misinterpret with a view to pot stirring. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:40 AM Question: Lox, what is your solution? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Bill D Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM "70% of the dog bites reported in the U.S. come from Labrador Retrievers. But you don't hear about when someone's black lab bites the neighbor kid, do you? " There are good reasons why certain dogs are chosen for guard duty, herding sheep, hunting...etc. While ANY breed of dog can be made mean and nervous and dangerous by mistreatment, and any breed of dog can be trained to be relatively safe and well-behaved with decent & loving care, there ARE tendencies which are well documented. I was a paperboy for several years, and have been snapped at by teeny little yappy dogs and big dogs just pretending to be tough, and know that one must use care around any dog one doesn't know. The problem is, most of the stories of really vicious dog attacks seem to involve just a few breeds, and many of those stories include lines like "...my Fido never did anything like that before! He plays with my kids and was raised in a happy home." There 'seems' to be some inbred factor in certain breeds that causes more extreme results when the dog does get upset, or defensive, or feels threatened...whatever. I have never read about careful research which might explain why the statistics are what they are, but it ought to be done if it hasn't already. Until then, I know I would be extra careful around certain breeds of dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:04 PM I think the point he makes about viewpoints becoming scewed is quite valid, Lox, but maybe I need to take my meds. Or maybe just more meds as I seem to be taking enough to not turn a reasonable argument into perosnal abuse... :D (eG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:16 PM I think Sorcha's response to her grandchild was perfectly rational: "don't tease or provoke animals: they're not stuffed toys and will react". Adults also need to be conscious of the fact that animals are not stuffed toys or rational beings either however, and may behave in an unexpected instinctive fashion with other 'little animals'. The answer lies neither in demonising 'devil dogs' nor blaming 'idiotic' owners. Dogs can be sometimes dangerous and people can be careless too, but the ultimate responsibility in any situation that goes wrong, must always lie with the parents and/or owners, and not with the child and/or animal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Bill D Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM Well, it was not hard to find some statistics, if not scientific research into causes: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in 2000 a study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979-1998. The study found reports of 238 people killed by dogs over the 24-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 76, or about 32 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities or about 18 percent of the study-identified fatalities. In aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 50% of the fatalities identified over the 20-year period covered by the study, and for 67% of the DBRF reported in the final two years studied (1997–1998), concluding: "It is extremely unlikely that they [pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers] accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."[3] Another study, with similar statistics, concludes: ""Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price." So...it would be interesting to KNOW what is responsible...DNA, perhaps... for such statistics, but it would still appear to be prudent to be especially careful around certain breeds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Maryrrf Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:21 PM "I know I would be extra careful around certain breeds of dogs" I agree with Bill. Any dog will bite under the right circumstances -It is my understanding that close to 70% of all FATAL dog attacks are by Pit Bulls and Rotweillers. They may or may not have more of a tendency to bite - but they are so powerful that when they do, it's bad news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM Good point Maryrrf. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication." Make up your mind. DeG - anyone who has a Labradoodle has to be barking mad. Lox - we know you hate dogs. I am sure you ahve been banging on about it for ages. But there is a history of symbiosis of dog with man that goes back thousands of years. Most people like most dogs - and most dogs like most people. Most (indeed almost all) dogs are not dangerous to most (indeed almost all) people most (indeed almost all) of the time. Personally, I can't stand the aptly named Shit-sues - a dangerous foul smell at both ends, said ends being distinguishable only be the fact that one has teeth and eye disease. But I don't want to condemn all the sad little inbreds to wearing nappies and being unable to open thier mouths. There are however breeds that have been specifically bred for hundreds of years for aggression and to maximise their abilities to capitalise on that aggression. For those alas the only answer (for the next few hundred years until that innate aggression has been bred out - as it largely has in Great Danes which as well as being boarhounds were once warhounds and manwork dogs - is muzzling, and licences to breed. The problem with Labradors is showring driven. A high tail carriage became fashionable first in black labradors and then in other labradors. A specialist lab showring judge once told me that 40 years ago if you stood at the tail end of a line of labs standing inthe showring you would never see an arsehole - but now you see them all. Watch any dog resisting threat or itself threatening. Its hackles go up and so does its tail. This is to make itself look larger and a more substantial opponent. Breeding for the high tail carriage selected for dogs that tended to be aggressive. I don't know if the problem has now been solved in Pointers (to those from other places than England, that is what you call "English Pointers") but when people were trying about 25 years ago to re-create the lost strain of all-black pointers there was a similar temperament problem in mostly-black pointers - not afaik becuase of any association between colour and temperament but simply because breeders forgot to consider temperament. The main problem however is people. A few years ago a woman in the USA was badly savaged by a pair of mastiff-type dogs that were rather rare. If I remember correctly they were Dogo Canario. Immediately after the breed was identified the few show breeders who had been preserving the breed became wholly inundated with potential purchasers. People wanted dangerous dogs. The Japanese Tosa in action Dogo Canario merely threatening American Pit Bull in training |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:55 PM ""More generally, the human/dog symbiosis is of such long standing that in general it does not need interfering with. Nothing in the world is 100% safe, but if the only way to placate the nanny state is to be crual to dogs I would rather they became extinct."" In this, we are totally in accord, and I think that to remove dogs entirely from contact with children, would be detrimental to the welfare of both. Babies and toddlers IMO should have only tightly controlled contact with animals of any species. By this I mean that both animal and child need to be under a degree of restraint which allows for instant separation if necessary. In answer, Lox, to your comments about children too small to have provoked attack being dragged from pram or cot, I can only suggest that these animals, barring the one in a thousand which is psychotic, have simply not been trained to defer to all humans in the pack structure. No wolf ever attacks another higher in the pecking order except when challenging the alpha animal for leadership, so a properly trained dog won't behave as the ones you mention have done. It's not about being soft, or favouring dogs over humans, but about settling pack status. Owning a dog is a privilege, and I would like eventually to see compulsory training with the dog, as a condition of obtaining a licence. That would prevent the mismatching of dog and owner. Yeah! I know. Nanny State. But it has to be better than doing away with domestic dogs, and remember, children get nasty bites from rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and pet rats too. Do we really want to keep them away from all animal contact?......I wouldn't have thought so. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:03 PM ""Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication." Make up your mind."" SIGH!!!!! Context Richard. The posts above had singled out some breeds as dangerous and some as safe. My response was that, dependent on the effectiveness of training, no breed was intrinsically less dangerous than another. Perhaps I should have said "more or less dangerous", but I assumed that the context would take care of that. So here goes for another try. All breeds represent the same degree of risk, higher or lower, according to how well they are taught to socialise with humans, particularly small humans. Does that suffice? Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:08 PM Here's sommat I don't get. If a dog kills an innocent person, why does the dog owner not spend time in prison for at least the crime of manslaughter? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Bill D Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM There are so many sites devoted to praising & defending Pit Bulls that it is hard to sort thru possible 'neutral' opinions. People are quite vociferous about their favorite pets. What is clear to me is that 'almost' all defenders and a large number of those who campaign against Pit Bull & Rottweilers abandon clear & logical arguments in favor of first person accounts and lists of examples to support their own subjective opinions. (Why, you'd think it was about race, religion or politics or something!) The truth is almost always somewhere in between the extreme opinions, and all that is really clear is that care must be taken in dealing with all animals....and more so with 'some' animals. Breeding for specific characteristics IS a common practice, and this applies to behavior as well as physical characteristics. When a breed is described as "well suited for children's companions", there is the obvious suggestion that other breeds are less well suited. I am quite aware that many, many Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and others can be friendly, happy family pets and never cause a problem, but to ignore the statistics about the % of problems that include those breeds would be to ignore reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:39 PM a lot of damn fool questions about when my dog should be on a lead. No damn fool questions involved. A dog in public should be on a lead AT ALL TIMES. The old rule that your right to swing your arm ends where the other fellow's nose begins. When Dogs - or for that matter any animals - start having more "rights"[sic] than humans ( animals HAVE no "rights", but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated humanely)) we're all in very, very deep shit. Anyone who equates the life of an animal with the life of a human being is an idiot, and a dangerous one at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:42 PM "Here's sommat I don't get. If a dog kills an innocent person, why does the dog owner not spend time in prison for at least the crime of manslaughter?" gnu In the US, gnu, it most certainly does happen. Not long ago the owner of two dogs that killed a woman in San Francisco was first convicted of murder on the basis that she knew her dogs might kill. On appeal the charge was reduced to manslaughter; the defense argued that she could have known they might cause injury but that she had no way of knowing they would kill. She served more than two years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM Greg F.... yes. Common law and common sense. Ebbie... two years.... well, I suppose that may send a message. A message that dearly needs to be sent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:33 PM SRS, I have had dogs ever since I was a small boy, and my chosen breed is Labrador Retriever. I have never seen or heard of a Lab biting anyone. We have a TV program called JUDGE JOE BROWN and many of his cases involve dog bites. On his wall is a chart with many breeds of dog from the most vicious biters to the least. The Pit Bull is number one and the Lab isn't even on the chart. My Brother had a Pit Bull, my Grandson has one, my Grand daughter has a Pit Bull mix, none of them have ever shown any tendency to bite. Speaking in absolutes is chancy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM In further elucidation of the pit bull, Juneau, Alaska, has its own icon, and a waterfront statue to boot. A pit bull named Patsy Ann lived for 13 years - from 1929 to 1943- in downtown Juneau (which was basically the whole town then). Although profoundly deaf she was somehow able to 'hear' approaching ships long before any were visible and always met each ship at the dock. She even knew which dock an approaching ship would take; on at least one occasion the paperwork said the ship would tie up at one specific point. Patsy Ann gave one look at the assemblage and trotted on past to the correct point. She had no owner- a doctor had left her behind when she was still a pup and after that she belonged to everyone. Most of the time she slept at the longshoremen's hall and she had a regular routine all over town for her meals. One year the city of Juneau passed a licensing law decreeing that all dogs should be tagged. Citizens passed the hat and bought her a license; they even bought a collar for the license to be fastened to. That was the only year she was licensed- there was a tacit agreement that she was exempt. Friendly and confiding to all, her popular title was 'The Mayor of Juneau, Alaska'. She played with children; I have a friend who remembers being with a group of kids who were playing house with her 7 blocks up the hill when suddenly Patsy Ann left them and galloped down the hill and headed for the docks. Sure enough, about 20 minutes later a ship hove into view. When she died in 1943, citizens of the town gathered at the dock and ceremonially lowered her in a covered box into the waters of the Gastineau Channel she had overseen for so long. Today, her larger-than-life-size bronze statue stands guard on the dock where she watches forever for the next ship. Long live Patsy Ann! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM I think the post eater has been at it again. Don - which is it? "No breed is more or less dangerous than another", or "all blonde Great Danes have the temperament of an angel" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: kendall Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM Whenever I went to visit my Brother, his Pit Bull female would wiggle all over and scream like a Banshee until I made of her with petting and hugging.She was a sweetheart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Rowan Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:47 PM What is clear to me is that 'almost' all defenders and a large number of those who campaign against Pit Bull & Rottweilers abandon clear & logical arguments in favor of first person accounts and lists of examples to support their own subjective opinions. (Why, you'd think it was about race, religion or politics or something!) To some, it may well be all of them. Several years ago the NSW govt decided that pit bulls (favoured by many as dogs for hunting both pigs and kangaroos, usually in packs where the dogs ran the target animal down and mauled it until the owner dispatched it with a firearm) needed to be specially registered. A friend of mine had access to the details of applicants for registration and discovered that something like 90% of the applicants came from one particular part of Sydney's suburbs rather than being more widespread over the whole state. The generally rednecked attributes of that part of Sydney was regarded as at least "associative" in the statistical sense,; some cynics regarded it as "causative". Personally, although I had good experiences with a cocker spaniel when a child, I resisted having companion animals of any sort, even though other stats indicate I'd live longer if I kept them. My missus and I were given a fox terrier-chihuahua cross shortly after we arrived in our current neck of the woods and I was emphatic about keeping it outside when Daughter #1 was an infant; I'd long known about pack status. It became a liability when we were staying in sheep country and was sent to Melbourne to become a lapdog with the inlaws. Nowadays I keep dogs and cats off the property as I much prefer macropods and the smaller marsupials (all of which are and must remain "Wild" animals) around me, all of which are in fear of carnivores. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:41 AM "Question: Lox, what is your solution? " Answer: Ebbie, read the thread and you will see that I have made initial suggestions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:03 AM Richard, I haven't said anything about hating Dogs. What pisses me off, as i thought (despite my confused ranting) I had made pretty obvious, is the whole denial thing that goes on around the risks involved in owning a dangerous dog. There's a wilful ignorant community of dangerous dog owners - as in owners of dangerous dogs - in Britain who seem to make it their lifes aim to take risks in the name of proving that there aren't any. And they aren't all young chavs. Many are otherwise apparently sensible grown up middle aged prodfessional types with educated accents. One such woman, who lives 3 doors down from me, is always saying of her dog "he's fine" yet everytime I se him out of my window, he is growling at some passer by and being forcibly restrained. He Isn't Fine! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:16 AM You don't need to say it Lox. Is my memory at fault? I think you have been over all this ground before, several times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,kendall Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:26 AM Hunting Kangaroos with Pit Bulls may seen cruel, but what about hunting Foxes with hounds? Is the Roo any deader than the Fox? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:41 AM what about hunting Foxes with hounds? I think you may be a bit late with that comment, Kendall. I agree that it is no worse than hunting kangaroos but there has been legislation preventing the activity in the UK for some years now. I am not saying it does not go on but if it does - it is illegal. Don't know about anywhere else in the world. Cheers DeG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:47 AM DeG - the Old Etonian party has promised, if elected, to repeal the legislation dealing with hunting with dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Dave Hanson Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:54 AM I used to be a postman and every postman was familiar with these two sentences, ' it's alright, he doesn't bite ' and ' well he's never done that before ' Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: kendall Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:56 AM One of my Brothers used to walk every day, and he always carries a golf club. An old woman asked what the club was for and he said "Dogs". She said "That's cruel"! he said, "Not if they stay on their fucking property." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM I don't see that anyone has mentioned what has come to be called "Springer Rage" but is known also as Rage Syndrome and "Sudden Onset Aggression." It was originally diagnosed in English Cockers amny years ago but the English Springer seem to have gotten the worst of it lately. From a doggie site, here's some info: "Rage Syndrome" is in fact an epileptic seizure in the emotional lobe of the dogs brain. Like other forms of epilepsy (motor, or behavioral) the dog behaves normally 98% of the time. It is the 2% that is the problem. This can happen in any breed of dog. This condition is common enough in Springer Spaniels to be commonly referred to as "Springer Rage". Springers have more of a genetic predisposition toward this condition for some reason than other breeds. Again, I must stress that this is extremely rare and therefore just because you have a Springer Spaniel you should never assume that this condition will automatically be an issue. Like other forms of epilepsy this condition can be treated with Phenobarbital which has the effect of lessening the seizures in the brain. The obvious problem in the case of "Rage Syndrome" is that even one occurrence is one too many, and therefore dogs diagnosed with this condition are generally put down. Because the stakes are so high it is recommended that at least two opinions are sought before a diagnosis is made. The best professional opinion you can obtain is a Neurologist. Your Veterinarian can give you his or her opinion, as well as a referral. This condition is also being studied in humans. Almost every condition that can be found in the brain of a dog can be found in a human being. These tests may some day explain some criminal behavior in humans. The symptoms of this condition are: * Unexplainable aggression that comes out of nowhere. * Aggression that seems unrelated to dominance. * A marked change in the dogs eyes, snarling and growling, lunging. * The dog seems to abandon the behavior as suddenly as it came on. * The dog seems not to recall the previous aggressive behavior. * Unpredictable timing of the aggression. ********************************************************************************************** Rage Syndrome has also been diagnosed in several other breeds: American Cocker Spaniel Bernese Mountain Dog Chesapeake Bay Retriever Doberman Pinscher English Bull Terrier German Shepherd Golden Retriever Pyrenean Mountain Dog St. Bernard Note that many of the breeds including the Springer are very popular and not known for aggression......Golden Retriever??? This problem is spreading and has also been reported as a possibility in several mixed breed attacks. Not all aggression is related to this as the causes can be otherwise genetic or many times a normal canine reaction to some situation. We too often try to own and train and act toward dogs as if they are humans instead of US learning the behaviors of the dog. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Jack Campin Date: 19 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM Meanwhile here's a woman who tried for a Darwin Award at a generational remove: Pitbulls attack and castrate unattended baby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:59 PM "You don't need to say it Lox." Well you need to back that statement up with the evidence you base it on if you're going to go round presenting it as clear or in any way apparent. Of course if you ask I'll tell you the answer. Making unfounded assertions about my likes/dislikes online would be like the BNP making unfounded assertions about your like/dislikes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: romanyman Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:20 PM Oh and there is no such thing as an american bulldog, they are a simple pit bull cross, so named and bred to get round yet another stupid soft uk law that only reacts once something has happened. Ban the bloody lot, dont fine the owners jail em, ifn i walked down the road with a loaded gun i guess they would not just take it off me now would they? and yes i love doge, sadly too many people use them as weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:10 PM We have a rather dubious crowd in a rented house about 6 houses away from me. The truck in the yard bears the logo of a strip club and, well, you know. A VERY large man there has a pit. Next door, in another "transient house, there is a pit that is never on a leash while the owners are on the front stoop. On the parallel street, 100 yards from me, there is another odd bunch that have a large Rotty which confronted me in my back yard last summer. My garage was open and I grabbed an axe, crouched down and called it to come to me... it didn`t, but I am serious when I say I `would have`. When I go for a walk, I carry my cane and a large VERY sharp jack knife. And, I walk MY end of a dead end street and don't go anywhere near those other houses. When my 83 year old mother walks in her own driveway, I walk with her. As far as I am concerned, there is no need for anyone to have a large `guard dog` in this neighbourhood. And there is certainly no excuse for not leashing or tethering them. Good doggie do-gooders be damned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Deckman Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:16 PM I get SO TIRED of hearing ... "there are NO dangerous dogs, only bad owners!" That's an argument that leads to NO solutions. Yes, I was torn up by two Dobermans (sp?) when I was ten ... spent two weeks in the hospital. It seems to me that "Stilly River Sage" is doing the responsible thing, trying to protect the public AND her dog. That's as good as it gets. Some years ago, my next door neighbor's German Shepard attacked my brother as he stepped out of his truck at my house. This was one week after that dog killed my cat. My brother shot the dog, called the cops and had a ciggarett. They checked him out for gun license, warrents, shook his hand and thanked him ... end of story. In my improving neighborhood, we now have lots of walking families, kids, baby strollers, dogs on leashes ... even some level headed teenagers. It's becomming downright pleasant. Yet when I work in my shop, close to the street, I always have a legal gun close by. bob(deckman)nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Donuel Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:29 PM Be as short sighted as you will. I knew a family that had thier toddler killed by a pit bull. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:55 PM Well, romanyman, according to this page the American Bulldog DOES exist (yes,they look a lot like 'pit bulls' aka Staffordshire Terriers but in fact belong to the Mastiff grouping, NOT terriers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Art Thieme Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:04 PM There is a good case for checking out the dog after it does some terrible thing to decide what is best for all concerned. Then, if the dog is incorrigable, kill it. It's that simple. ALSO, if a dog goes after a kid, and the parents of the kid takes their gun and kills the dog right there, on the spot, in the heat of the moment, there ought to be no action taken against the parents. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Art Thieme Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM Deckman, I think our posts crossed in the mail. Sorry for duplicating your posting. Also, I listened to your CD twice again this week. Since I got it from you, I really have enjoyed it numerous times, Bob, congratulations. There are some important variants of songs there. Really wonderful stuff. Hope you are well, Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:10 PM "American Bulldog" is not a KCC recognised breed in the UK. I'd be pretty surprised if it was recognised by the American Kennel Club. Lots of fruit loops invent breeds of dog. Like Labradoodle - which is a mongrel, as is a lurcher. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mousethief Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM Labradoodle is not a breed, it's a cross. Responsible breeders do not breed labradoodles with one another. It defeats the purpose of the cross. The idea that all dogs are equally dangerous is fatuous self-deception. Dog breeds were bred for certain qualities (running constantly, for certain breeds of sheep dogs; sitting still for long periods of time for duck dogs, to give two examples), and some combinations of qualities make dogs more or less dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 19 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM `qualities`... like weighing a ton and being as stunned as me arse. Only good for killing sommat. Ya want a dog for a pet... get a dog for a pet. Ya don`t need a killer dog. NOBODY needs one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,kendall Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:14 PM I've known one Golden retriever that was bad. It would go out of his way to pick fights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:57 PM I totally agree about Labradooles, Peek A Poos, Cock A Poos, What IS it with POOS? Yea, they all poo. Get a bird. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: kendall Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:30 AM One of my Sons in law has two Chihuahuas and I'll be damned if I can understand why anyone would want one of those yapping, snapping, shivering abominations! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 20 Apr 10 - 08:49 AM ME EITHER! And talk about biters! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:35 AM ""Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication.""" I repeat, this was an expression of the fact that whatever the breed of dog, the risk of attack, under certain specific conditions is identical. With appropriate training, no one breed is more, or less likely to attack. This does not equate to saying all dogs are dangerous, because the risk is in fact low. Are you getting some perverse pleasure out of chopping logic, because I'm totally unimpressed? My wife is not a dangerous woman, but if you grabbed hold of her without warning, you would be relieved of the necessity for birth control, and lucky to survive. She was grabbed by a drunk some years ago. She was wearing high heels, and he got forty three stitches from knee to ankle. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:23 PM On the one hand - "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication." On the other hand "All blonde great danes have the temperaments of angels" (not an exact quote). You cannot see that these are inconsistent? Poor you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:48 PM ""On the one hand - "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication." On the other hand "All blonde great danes have the temperaments of angels" (not an exact quote). You cannot see that these are inconsistent? Poor you."" _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ""Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication."" This is entirely true, and if you understand what it means, which you patently do not, you can use the dog's own nature to reduce the chances of attack to a very low level. This can be done with dogs of any breed. Big dogs with owners who either are not strong enough, or can't be bothered, to control them, along with dogs deliberately trained to attack, are a problem, but that is entirely due to ineffective or inappropriate training, which is the reason for the disproportionate level of attacks by Pits and Rotties, and their strength is the cause of the exceptional severity of injury. But it is not an intrinsic characteristic of any one breed. ""On the other hand "All blonde great danes have the temperaments of angels" (not an exact quote)."" Glad you admitted that. In point of fact though, a total misquote. 1. I said Bonnie was an angel, and she was, at least, on every occasion when I saw her. 2. I said good temperament seemed to be a charactistic of Great Danes, and that it was a good thing given their size. 3. I never once mentioned blonde Great Danes. If you wish to quote me, at least do so honestly. ""You cannot see that these are inconsistent? Poor you."" You cannot see the consistency?..........POOR YOU! Who pissed on your picnic today? You choose to see something that isn't there, fine! Whatever! Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM But it is not an intrinsic characteristic of any one breed. So you claim. What is your proof? The CDC statistics would seem to state otherwise. Between you and the CDC, I know who I'd bet on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:10 PM ""So you claim. What is your proof? The CDC statistics would seem to state otherwise. Between you and the CDC, I know who I'd bet on."" Have a wee look at what I've been say in this thread, because I'm getting tired of re-hashing it for those who can't be bothered to read whole posts. The CDC statistics give the numbers of attacks, and the number of fatalities sorted by breed, and there are a disproportionate number by large, strong jawed, animals such as Pitbulls, Rotweilers, and Doberman Pinschers. What their statistics do not show, is the numbers deliberately trained to attack by thugs who own them as a status symbol, or the numbers whose owners give them virtually no training at all, either through inability, or indifference. But, if properly trained, those CDC figures would change dramatically in the dogs' favour, and those breeds need to be carefully matched with good owners. However, as I have said, there will always be a small risk of attack under certain circumstances, and that risk will apply equally to Jack Russells, Pekes, and toy poodles. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:38 PM Again I ask, where's your evidence that that risk "will apply equally"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:30 PM Don, the discussion in point was precisely about the difference in temperament between the different colours of Great Danes. The harlequins can indeed sometimes be moody, with the dogs becoming very intolerant of other dogs after puberty. You are demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the central thread topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Rowan Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:55 PM Big dogs with owners who either are not strong enough, or can't be bothered, to control them, along with dogs deliberately trained to attack, are a problem And there are those owners who are weak and try to hide their weakness behind their dog's "size". I once had to deal with such an owner who set their Alsation/German Shepherd onto me; I was trying to carry out my duties at the time. Neither the owner nor the dog persisted in the attack after my (quite direct and effectively vigorous response; both became rather amenable to my presence. Cheers, Rowan BTW, will the thread bear another 100? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,kendall Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:12 AM Our dog is a coward. They don't call them Yellow Labs for nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Wesley S Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:53 PM Should any of you dog lovers be interested - PBS has started showing a program called "Through the eyes of a dog". It's about an organization the trains dogs to assist special needs kids and adults. It was shot here in Georgia. One of the trainers featured is my niece's husband Chris. These dogs are trained to do amazing things. And the care they take to match the right dog with the right client is inspirational. It really is a show worth watching. And I'd say that even if it didn't feature a family member. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:34 AM Wesley, A good point well made and a superb perspective setter and mind opener. Thanks for your contribution. And it leads me to ask an important question. Wy don't dogs that have been bred as fighters dogs ever get used to help the blind? Is it because their breeding was succesful? Which brings us nicely back to the matter of some dogs being more dangerous than others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:47 AM You won't see a Pit Bull assisting a blind person anymore than you will see a Labrador Retriever in the dog fighting ring. Neither qualifies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:50 AM It seems to me that (apart from some religious nutters) we accept that the behaviour of humans is part nature and part nurture, and that it would be sensible to infer the same about dogs. Consequently, while I still believe (as I said in my post that was deleted for no obvious reason) that the vast majority of dogs are safe with the vast majority of humans the vast majority of the time it seems to me irrational to say that all breeds are equally safe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 22 Apr 10 - 10:07 AM If you think 'pit bulls' can't be service dogs, you'd best do some research. To make it easy, start here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 22 Apr 10 - 10:11 AM In Denver, the manager of the Denver Animal Control denied to license a disabled Gulf War Veteran's APBT, this dog has served as his service animal in his two previous residences in California and Arizona. He was told to get rid of his dog or move out of Denver Also in Denver another disabled person wanted to visit her sister and attend some UKC events with her APBT, this same Animal Control Person told her that he would not give her the necessary permit for her service dog, so she could not go to visit her sister. In the last case in Aurora, another veteran had his pit bull mix seized by animal control as a banned breed, despite his pleas that it was his service dog. The dog was finally released after he paid fines and sent the dog out of the city of Aurora. Now he has to depend on friends to help him, he goes to visit his dog, but can't afford to move. Both the veterans have written prescriptions for their service dogs from their VA doctors. http://www.examiner.com/x-41147-Bull-Terrier-Examiner~y2010m3d13-Bully-Breed-Service-Dogs-Removed-From-Owners-Suits-Filed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Maryrrf Date: 22 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM I have a friend who owned two pit bulls. Both were rescued as tiny pups(her daughter is a vet - owners dropped sick puppies off and then never picked them up, so she took them home and raised them.) One was never able to be socialized, either with people or with dogs, and was so volatile he couldn't be trusted with anybody outside the family, nor could he be allowed to be with the other dogs they owned. The other is friendly, well adjusted, loves people and plays well with the other pets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM will the thread bear another 100? Who are the threadbare 100 and why are they so poor? We must do something about it! :D (eG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:21 PM And thank you Richard. Just like humans, every case should be judged on it's OWN.....not a blanket statement that ALL _____ (fill in your breed of choice) dogs are just nasty, bad, vicious,evil things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:48 PM Interesting site. It contained no examples of Pit-bull Dog-guides for the blind. So we continue not to hear about them. The dogs featured were good for giving blood and sniffing out drugs, with the exception of one who allegedly turns lights on and off and retrieves things that have been dropped - according to its affectionate and loyal owner. It is also worth noting that the site was not neutral, being all about giving goood press to pit bulls. A more useful site would have been one that provided some kind of research or government statement regarding pitbulls as service dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:11 PM I think you mistake my view Sorcha. I think that the statistically more dangerous breeds should be more controlled and that a case can be made for controlling general public ownership of attack-type dogs. THe UK's Act is not well assembled but that does not (as RomanyMan points out) undermine its objectives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:26 PM Well, Lox...the point made was that there are NO 'service dogs' that are 'pit bulls'......said nothing about blind. Sorry Richard. I think we DO agree on that point, the problem is the definition of 'dangerous breeds'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:23 AM "Well, Lox...the point made was that there are NO 'service dogs' that are 'pit bulls'......said nothing about blind." You mean this point? ... "Wy don't dogs that have been bred as fighters dogs ever get used to help the blind?" Or this one ... "You won't see a Pit Bull assisting a blind person anymore than you will see a Labrador Retriever in the dog fighting ring." Hmm ... So who cn it have been that referred to "sevice dogs" ..... ? Ah yes ... it was you: "If you think 'pit bulls' can't be service dogs, you'd best do some research." ... you were saying? ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 31 May 10 - 05:55 AM Oh look - another one. "I don't understand it - fluffy was always so loving and blah blah blah ..." poor iggle fwuffy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: VirginiaTam Date: 31 May 10 - 08:40 AM Yes to animals being treated individually and not based on their breed A friend has adopted her son's American Mastiff / Boxer (they think) mix. Her son got the dog appx 2 years old from an acquaintance who didn't want him any longer. I suspect both young men just wanted a big tough looking dog. But this animal has the sweetest disposition. He is also terrified of other dogs, hides behind his current owner. Though he was very good with my friend's ageing female springer spaniel. The springer was his boss and he was quite upset when she passed away a few months ago. As soon as someone says a sharp word to him, his hind legs start to shake, drops his head and makes the big, "I am so sorry" eyes. He eats things he shouldn't like items of clothing and shoes which gets him into trouble. He loves people and may lick them to death if they show him any kind of positive attention. He loves rough and tumble play, which may be safe enough with a 25 year old man but not with children. We suspect his original owner must have been trying to train his gentle loving personality to be a killer. This may account for the timidity with other dogs and shaky leg thing when he is disciplined. He really is a lovely lovely dog. For all that... he is a big dog and is easily frightened which means he is likely to be unpredictable. So he is watched very carefully around children and strangers and always walked on a lead. An account not long ago locally, of a 7 year old girl kneeling down to pet a Jack Russell being walked on a path. Her parent did not stop her, nor did the owner of the dog which attacked her. The dog owner claims the parent should have controlled the child as the dog was on a lead and under control. The parent claims the child did not behave in a threatening manner to the dog. The thing is, children do need to be instructed how to behave around all dogs, especially strange dogs and they should never be left alone with them. Even a trusted family pet should be monitored for the safety of both child and animal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 May 10 - 06:18 PM Lox, you can find anything when you're looking for it. Whether it adds up in the end, that's another matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 May 10 - 06:34 PM I'd like to see a dog owning licence, analogous to a driving licence. To get one you'd have to pass a test designed to show whether you were a safe person to allow to have a dog. And if at a later stage it became clear you weren't, you'd lose the licence, and be barred from owning a dog. And a dog licence as well, with similar requirements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 31 May 10 - 06:46 PM McGrath... Bang on! Far beyond time to wake the sods up. I have felt this way for years as I have seen FRIENDS that were incapable of judging and training and seen one of their dogs attack an 83 year old woman and cripple her. AFTER the dog attacked their 86 year old aunt and mess her up a bit. To wit... Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu - PM Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:05 PM Dog license? Surely. Dog owner license... even better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Janie Date: 31 May 10 - 09:02 PM I'm a "dog person." I got nipped by a little terrier mix (10-12 lbs) the other day who was tied up to a news rack immediately beside the entrance to a local coffee shop. I had extended my hand, which was grasping my car keys, to the little dog, and one of the keys slipped and rapped the dog on the head. It startled the dog. Now, I am a dog person, and I usually have the sense to not directly approach a dog unless the owner is present and indicates it is ok to do so, no matter if the dog is wagging and looking quite approachable. I allowed the small size, "cuteness" and wagging rear-end of the dog to rob me of my normal good sense about dogs. Even so, a dog so easily provoked should never have been tied up outside that shop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 May 10 - 11:55 PM My dogs were both in the house visiting this evening, and ended up rolling on the floor in a scratch and tickle episode with my ex. They've convinced him that dogs are great pets (I'd had cats for years, but dogs can be so much more in the here and now with you, if that makes any sense). But I know that these animals, out of the range of my influence, could be entirely different. Years ago I used to walk my dog to the corner store and tie him outside while I went in. I wouldn't do it today, for the reasons Janie gives, plus I'd be afraid of theft. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: LadyJean Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:13 AM I was working in my garden last week, when I turned around and found myself face to face with a pit bull. I spoke to the dog, something in the line of "Hey pups, what are you doing here?" He wagged his tail and looked friendly. I headed for the front of the house. I don't know where he went. My sister owned an incredibly stupid rottweiller. When the dog bit, he BIT. My sister likes to wrestle with large dogs. She tried that with Mongo, and he left a huge bruise on her leg, that was just playing. Mongo didn't like men. Every now and then he'd take a chunk out of one. My sister would pay their doctor bills, assuring Mongo's continued existance. In the midst of all this my sister's partner's daughter became a mother, giving birth the night she was supposed to graduate from high school. I came out a month later for the combined graduation/new baby party, and somehow found myself doing the 3:00 a.m. diaper change and bladder refill. Each night I was carefully supervised by the rottweiller. He never harmed the baby. He took a chunk out of a lawyer. But he never harmed the baby. Mongo finally died from drinking Chicago river water. No great loss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: VirginiaTam Date: 01 Jun 10 - 02:06 PM owner of dangerous dog received four month sentence Reportedly dog did not appear to have been used in dog fights... In our local paper there are loads of complaints that that playground swings are damaged by the dogs as owners use them to strengthen the jaws of the dogs. Those swing seats are going to smell of children. If this little boy was asleep when he was attacked as the BBC radio report said, perhaps that dog attacked because he associated smell of child to swings he may have been trained to attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: deepdoc1 Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:16 PM I'm a dog person. I have a 14 yo German Shepherd named Sam. His temperament is similar to Joe's Shite Zoo's (grin) in that he will bark frenziedly at the window at any threat real or imagined, but once in the door he's your good buddy. I remember when he was much younger watching Sam with my granddaughter, bottle in one hand, other arm across Sam's back (her head reached to about his back level), being properly escorted about the 'castle'. And yet, no matter how much I love my dog, he's still a dog. When confronted by a situation which seems to require a response, he will invariably respond as a dog, without reflection or reason, within the general confines of his personality. Sam never leaves the front door without being on a leash due to a penchant for chasing anything that moves, regardless of size difference. He has never bitten anything but his dinner. I never take him for a walk without carrying a stout cane due to the ability of otherwise sane people (I may be too charitable) to rationalize that it's ok to let their dogs off the leash while out on the trail. So far I've been fortunate not to have had to harshly deal with bad-mannered dogs, but have had words with ignorant owners. So anyway, as I wander around to my point eventually, this thread got me wondering what is the actual toll taken by dogs. A casual Google found DogsBite.org Releases 3-Year Fatality Study: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities January 2006 to December 2008 - 88 deaths in three years from dog attacks. Lest someone fly into a rage that I might think 88 deaths is acceptable, I don't. In a fit of perspective, I discovered that 716 bicyclists died on US roads in 2008 (698 in 2007, 1,003 in 1975) and that even when chained a dog can kill or maim. From Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2006), dogs didn't make the list. Turns out that cribs kill kids. Pools and spas kill kids. Falls, scissors, outlets, ice, kid's drugs, plastic bags, and way too many other everyday items kill kids. When I see that 20 - 30 kids are killed by dogs in a three year period, I think we dog owners are one of the least threats to the continuation of our species. I refuse to lump myself and the vast majority of responsible, attentive, caring dog owners in with the scurrilous bastards that create situations in which dogs can wreak a terrible havoc. Every case of a dog attack on a child (or anyone else) evokes extreme emotion, but I do not want to give that emotion undue power; I will continue to at least try to evaluate a situation and respond appropriately, and do what needs to be done. If an owner is criminally negligent or abusive, I would absolutely favor jail time, just as I would favor jail for a drunk driver. I believe that most of the dogs involved in attacks could be rescued and rehabilitated by the right people, but the rat bastard owners probably can't. If you own a dog, treat it right, exercise due diligence, and enjoy your good buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:26 PM A dog owner's licence would also be a way of protecting dogs against the wrong kind of owners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:35 PM Gun licences ensure that only the wrong sort have guns. Difference? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mg Date: 02 Jun 10 - 12:27 PM Some incident in Portland recently where a pit bull attacked two people, one with serious injuries, and went after a police officer, if I read it correctly. Fortunately the dog was shot before doing further damage. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:24 PM Licences as described by McGrath and Gnu among others are the solution. Often the police in the UK will catch crimiinals when their onboard car computer notices an irregularity in a car. It begins with stopping the peson to ensure they have insurance, a licence etc. Most honest law abiding people do. Most crims don't. I suspect the same would be true of people with dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:36 PM Richard... ??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mousethief Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:33 PM If a pit bull attacks someone, put the owner down. Problem solved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: ranger1 Date: 02 Jun 10 - 11:24 PM I've restrained myself from posting to this thread up until now. I work as a park ranger in an area where leashes are required, yet somehow people still think it's ok to let their dogs run loose. Of the three occasions where I have been menaced or bitten by unleashed dogs, two have been labradors and the third wasa golden retriever. I've never had a problem with any of the so-called dangerous breeds, it's the "safe" breeds that have been the problems. Any dog can and will bite under certain circumstances and cause major damage while doing it. I trust pitbulls more than I do retrievers at this point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Jun 10 - 02:33 AM When I am out walking my dogs I occasionally meet people who are afraid of pit bulls. Their responses always hurt my dog's feelings. She looks so sad when people aren't as thrilled to see her as she is to see them! (Mine are always on leashes.) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:58 PM Went back to this thread as an incident just happened about 30 miles north of Columbus in Delaware, Ohio. Read about it here The owner needs to do some serious time for this one. The Cane Corso Mastiff is a very powerful animal and I can't imagine a pack of 6 of them runnong loose. My only hope would be that they would retreat at the smell of human feces as I am sure I would shit myself if a half dozen of poorly trained and socialized Cane Corso Mastiffs strolled up to me! This can be a wonderful dog but here is a perfect example of what an owner can do by failing to fulfill his responsibility. The Cane Corso is a massively powerful dog. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:36 PM They are beautiful dogs but I don't think most people have a clue as to how strong they are, esp. in a pack. That man is lucky to have survived. I hope he recovers fully and I hope the dogs are found good homes with strict training. The owner does not deserve to have them and, yes, he should do some serious time/restitution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM No amnesty for a dog that has injured someone on public property. I say put them down. A young man on the bus this morning informed us all that he had MRSA from an infected dog bite and the dog had essentially attacked him. I walk at night and am afraid more of the dogs let loose by crazy owners than I am of the bears walking the streets. I have no sympathy, no compassion at all. One infringement and they should be put to sleep. No second chances. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: olddude Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM I am with you Spaw, I could handle multiple assailants of the human kind pretty well but ... dogs of that size ... ahhh NO ... I would be a milk bone for sure ... the guy needs jail time ... period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM Dangerous owners should be jailed. No excuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Slag Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:38 PM Ok, if Silas looks in on this thread he'll probably call me a liar BUT wehn I was 3 we went to some kind of gathering at a home in the country and the owner "Pop" Jeffries had several large dogs, large to me. I was scared and said so and my Dad told me not to be afraid, they were friendly dogs. Well I was standing right by dad's leg and that friendly dog bit me. I sure let out a cry and my father hadn't even seen the attack! Just that quick. Any dog can be dangerous. They are animals. Now on the other side of the coin I had a little pound dog, Sarsaparilla, and she was a lover. When my daughter was born I wasn't sure of how accepting she'd be. I didn't let them meet until my daughter was crawling and then I didn't let them near right away but made the intro slowly. "Sass" loved my daughter. She's let her pull her hair and get away with any kind of mistreatment a baby can dish out. I NEVER left them alone. Sass was an "outside doggie" and that was all to that. She was little, smart and loving and I made sure there would never be any other way I would remember her. This kinda reminds me of that other thread about being responsible with children and, are certain risks worth it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:45 AM There was a program on my local NPR station recently, and they were talking about "dangerous" dogs. They interviewed the author of the book about the pit bulls rescued from Michael Vick's compound. He said that dogs that are dangerous telegraph long before they attack, but most owners don't realize or apparently care. People need to pay attention when dogs aren't socialized correctly. If the dog charges the gate or fence, snarling, snapping, that dog is dangerous. When I switched companies last year, my new insurance company sent an inspector to check out the house, but their main reason to come out is because I have a pit bull. If these dogs see someone in the yard or a neighbor's yard who doesn't belong there, they have a special bark that transmits to any listener the "what are you doing over there?" bark. If someone they don't know comes up to the gate, they stay a few feet back and bark, to alert me to the presence. They don't charge the gate and snarl. The difference is a dog who announces the problem and a dog that takes it really personally and is ready to attack if only they can get out. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:17 AM It is a shame that because of some irresponsible owners all of these dogs get such a bad press. For every 'bad' one that gets into the paper resulting in a ferocious attack on a child or passer by there is a lovely one with a great nature but unfortunately people tend to be on their guard slightly such as in circumstances for example when an owner with pit-bull or a similar kind of dog boards a bus full of people. But then I am sure an owner would know his or her dog well enough to know that he can do that with no worries and I have not yet seen a situation like that arise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM Save your sympathy for the human victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM Save your ire for something you understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: olddude Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:41 AM for me there are no bad dogs, none .. only bad humans who don't know responsibility. My 4 dogs are treated like kids ... spoiled rotten. I grew up with dogs ... yes you can have a dog that is disturbed, usually from in breeding ... and sadly the only thing one can do is put the animal down ... I would not and will not own a dog that was dangerous ... it just isn't safe and things like this occur. It is very sad for the person who gets his or her life destroyed ... and unfair also to the animals that deserve a better owner who knows how to train and can recognize a problem before it gets to this stage. Everyone loses especially the one being mauled. my opinion for what it is worth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Wesley S Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM One of the countrys near Atlanta just had a vote this week about wheather they would limit the number of pit bulls in the county. In other words - no NEW pit bulls would be allowed. All of the current ones would stay. It was voted down. The very next day day a young girl ran into the street to escape a pit bull that was charging her. She was hit by a car and killed. It must have been the car that killed her..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM ANd exactly what would a pit bull be doing on a bus? Oh, yes..a companion dog. Well, said dog should have a special I.D. collar, should be muzzeled and of course on a leash. I do not believe for a minute that all owners are in total control of their dogs. For one thing, many are mentally ill. Poeple where I live can claim that companion animal thing and not have to show papers or anything..tend to be a lot of college scraggly looking students that bring their animals on public buses. LAny animal on public transportation, other than seeing eye dogs, should be muzzled and owner should have to present papers and of course it should be on a leash..but what about the many people with allergies and phobias? A pit bull or other breeds considered dangerous should never ever be licensed as a companion dog to be taken out in public. There are other breeds that can do the job. I have nothing against pit bulls and I know they can be very sweet and well trained and it i9s the owner etc...too many nutty owners then is the problem and too many babies with their faces ripped off. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM My first dog was a pit bull, from a kennel at Ft. Riley, KS where my father was posted. I was about 4, this was 1927. A great dog in every way. In a small nearby town, where my daughter lived, an older lady comes to an outdoor snack and icecream place. She orders two cones, for her and her pit bull. The dog sits quietly and licks the cone held for it. I reiterate, there are only dangerous owners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Oct 10 - 01:59 PM There are..but there are also dogs that can do more damage than others if they have the opportunity and lack of good ownership. lmg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 07 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM . "I reiterate, there are only dangerous owners." Yeah - except when "nice" dogs in "nice" families suddenly go berserk for no apparent reason and tear childrens heads off. Then there are dangerous dogs. Funny how exceptions never disprove the rule though eh ... . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Slag Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:54 PM There is a segment, a large segment of the population that has the attitude that they are somehow "special". The rules that apply to other people don't apply to them. Their kids are special too. They would NEVER do THAT! No, not their little dears. And their dogs? No, that must be your other neighbor's dog that continuously barks when they are gone, It's the other neighbors' dogs that crap all over your lawn and dig up your flowers. After all, my dog would never do that. And bite? My dog would NEVER bite. He's a good dog. That's why there are so many dog bite stories. Anybody you know? I'm a dog lover. They are wonderful pets and a help to mankind. I don't know how far along the path to civilization we would be without them. The do have their own society and their own rules and when it comes down to survival they obey that fundamental law, not me! I'll go down fighting. If you are in their society, the pack, you are OK. If you are alpha you're the boss but you aren't totally expemt if you push too far. You can make a dog mean and enhance what ever tendencies it may bring to the situation or you can treat it fairly and lovingly but you must be consistent in all things in the doggie's world. If you are not and you display weakness it will fill the niche with it's power. You HAVE to be a responsible dog owner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Oct 10 - 06:25 PM You have to know that a dog is a dog and not a human, not a baby, not a lchild, not a friend. It is a dog, wonderful in its own right, but people are going off the deep end sometimes. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 07 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM Save your ire for something you understand. Bite me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:57 PM Not my dogs. They're well socialized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:59 AM Every dog is one step removed from a wolf. Every dog. And everyone who understands dogs - really understands dogs - knows that, and never allows themselves to forget it in their dealings with dogs. Unfortunately, far too many people don't understand dogs. IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Oct 10 - 05:00 AM And I'm a life-long dog-lover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Rafflesbear Date: 08 Oct 10 - 05:29 AM "for me there are no bad dogs, none" "yes you can have a dog that is disturbed, usually from in breeding and sadly the only thing one can do is put the animal down" any hint of a contradiction here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Slag Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:13 AM No because after he puts it down there are "no .." Come on kids, say it with me "There are NO [more] BAD DOGS!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:26 AM I would not choose to have a dog like that because I know I wouldn't be confident enough to handle it so it just wouldn't enter my mind to have one or any dog if I didn't have the time and dedication. When you have a dog that becomes part of the family it can be wonderful but to always be on tenterhooks all the time can't be a pleasure, especially when there are small children around. There have been a few cases in the UK where a dangerous breed of dog has been left alone with a toddler with tragic consequences. The owners did that. The dogs and small children were left in a bad situation resulting in the dog being put down, the child killed and the adult crying over what has happened and they swore it was such a lovely animal. I think with small children it is a bad idea anyway because of their shrill voices that a pit bull can pick up on or not being able to pat softly yet. Regarding the situation with the pitbull and owner coming on the bus, the driver could have had a say when they boarded the bus the situation was within his control to say yes or no. It was crowded with people together with mum's and babies in prams he only had his say so that the dog was good. Perhaps there should be notices on bus-stops saying that dangerous dogs can not be allowed on without muzzles or at all. It did cross my mind what could happen if someone else got on the bus with a dog. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mayomick Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:40 AM Surely you should take care with all types of dogs - supervise them, never let children alone with them , take all sensible precautions ,but isn't there an edge of paranoia about the so-called dangerous breeds ? Dogs and humans have a very special relationship with each other going right back to hunter gatherer times . All dogs- even wild ones like foxes and dingoes - were bred at some time from wolves by humans. Please before you ban humans from owning dogs , ban them from owning any type of macho motor car . How many children have died in accidents involving such cars over the last year? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: mg Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM I think there is not sufficient paranoia around dangerous breeds..note the word breeds..some notions are hardwired into their brains. Certain dogs are going to fetch and some are going to herd everything in sight, and some are going to go out in the snow and bring people brandy and some are going to jump overboard into icy water and rescue drownding men and some are going to attack small children and rip their faces off. That tendency will always be there and will not show up in hundreds of dogs with good training, loving owners etc...but it is still there. One baby minus a face is too much for me. And time after time where I live there are stories and it is always one breed. If you hear about dog bites in other breeds it will be to the legs or arms, which are traumatic enough, but some go for the face. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 11 Oct 10 - 02:57 PM http://www.myfoxorl Hope this is not al duplicate..8 months pregnant attacked by two pitbulls as she walked around the block. $1000 fine for idiot owners. I want dogs put to sleep, a dog patrol officer to roam the city looking for more attack dogs..not old cocker spaniels just walking around...and I want owners in jail. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: melodeonboy Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:22 PM It appears to me that there are certain dangerous breeds of human around as well! Coming from a farming background, I've had substantial contact with a large number and wide variety of dogs in many different situations. I can honestly say that I've never once been bitten or attacked by a dog. I have, however, been threatened on many occasions by humans, and, in some cases, physically attacked. If you want real danger, try Rochester High Street (or any one of a hundred others) on a Saturday night. And not a dog in sight! I'm not trying to excuse dangerous dogs (or their owners!); just trying to get things in perspective! And let's not get started on how many people (including hundreds of children) are killed every year in Britain by idiots in cars (as Mayomick mentioned above). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:00 PM Considering the great gap in educating humans about dog behaviour, it's remarkable to me that there isn't more dog-torn flesh and related mayhem. Now, um, I'm probably about to make a few enemies here--but here's my question: When did it become reasonable to expect that life shall be 100% safe? That's what I'm reading in more than a couple of posts. Yes, of course it's a tragedy when people are maimed or killed by a pet or by any dog. But what's this expectation to remove all risk from life? Maybe the world in which many of us live has become so cushy & protected that we forget: life is basically brutal. Society aims to mitigate this, yet for some, mitigation isn't enough and absolute guarantees are expected. Doesn't make sense to me. I do agree that criminal [in]action deserves suitable incarceration, e.g. regarding assault/killing by dog. And I would love to see mandatory education of all dog owners, which I supposed people meant when they say licensing, though I doubt it guarantees anything. Those who want a dog without passing the test will find some needy and willing dupe to pass it for them, for suitable payment of course. And/or yet another official piece of paper will become available from forgers, also for a fee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:51 AM Life can't be 100% safe, but you can't let dogs loose in packs around people because they will probably be 100% unsafe to persons or other animals. Especially certain breeds. Especially since certain breeds are preferred by the criminal element and sometimes abandoned or improperly fenced...so the odds in certain situations are way skewed. And we are guaranteed, or assured or whatever by the constitution of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with life being first. Dog attacks are the opposite of life and liberty. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 12 Oct 10 - 11:07 AM Why is it time to wake up dangerous dogs? I've always heard you should let sleeping dogs lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 12 Oct 10 - 03:15 PM mg, no one here advocated loose packs of dogs, unless I've misunderstood or inadvertently skipped a posting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 12 Oct 10 - 03:20 PM Just a quick reflection on this idea that "there are only dangerous owners". So let me get it straight, There are dangerous owners, dangerous people, dangerous Lions, dangerous bears, but no dangerous dogs. How come dogs are so different? They aren't. Its a nonsense argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 12 Oct 10 - 03:21 PM I think it was in the original post, which I kept reposting because it didn't take..but 2 dogs..don't know how many make a pack..attacked a woman 8 months pregnant on her own street. Pit bulls. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 12 Oct 10 - 03:44 PM Lox, I suggest that if you care to know even more about it than what you know already, you can invest some serious time volunteering with rehab specialists at your local dog shelter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: gnu Date: 12 Oct 10 - 04:07 PM Crowhugger... "But what's this expectation to remove all risk from life?" That's just silly. A little common sense... there ARE dangerous dogs and people who want to own same should be licensed. It REALLY is that simple. And, those who wish to own such animals should have no objection to being licensed. If they do, they shouldn't even be allowed to own a toy dog. Yes, that sounds silly too but if they are that brain dead then they can't be trusted with any pet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Sorcha Date: 12 Oct 10 - 04:46 PM And most of you don't know a damn thing about dogs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 12 Oct 10 - 05:12 PM So if I went to a dog shelter I would discover that Dogs are unique and the only animal on earth of which there are no dangerous varieties? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:31 PM Well Lox, I can't speculate as to what one might get out of it. That's usually guided largely by what intention one brings to an experience. But you might learn something you don't already know. gnu, I get it that authorities being able to look at a tag or microchip to determine ownership of delinquent dogs is a good thing, and that lack of such ID as grounds to confiscate the animal is a good thing. I'm still going to say: Be careful about expecting licensing to make you/everyone safe from any or all aggressive/cranky/provoked dogs, because I do expect you'll be disappointed. Licensing and educating drivers hasn't made driving totally safe, food facility inspections don't guarantee all food is safe. Dogs are licensed in most municipalities here in Ontario, and ding-bat owners still don't adequately meet the needs of their animals (basically wolf-descendants) or breeds (w-d's with traits that have been deliberately selected). I still hold that society offers no right to absolute safety, we can only expect such safety as demanded by the loudest screamers or that can be cost-justified by governments, or that we can accomplish for ourselves through education and avoidance and plain old good luck. and, gnu, I'm not saying it would be bad to be 100% safe, though the price to be paid and whether it's worth it sounds like a whole other thread. I just feel personally that it's not realistic, not with food inspections, not with cars, not with dogs. Also I was trying to say that I felt some of that desire for total safety in some of the posts I've read; I'm not sure now exactly whose gave me that impression, and sadly just this minute I don't have time to go through to check. I've spent all this afternoon's time allotment reading newest posts and writing this one. Clear as mud? Anyway gotta go prepare for a rehearsal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM Crowhugger said that even with licensing, the occasional dog will be dangerous. I agree but I would go further. In the US licensing a dog has nothing whatever to with making a dog less dangerous or with educating its owner. Is it - would it - be different in the UK ? Is it different in Canada? In the US, the only way it makes a dog less dangerous is that a licensed dog is on a schedule to have a rabies vaccine every three years. Since rabies is almost non-existent in the UK, I don't suppose that is the kind of safety you have in mind. As for educating a person so that he or she is a more responsible owner that subject - trust me- never comes up. It is like bearing a baby and taking it home- no one questions whether you will be a good parent. I too have a knee-jerk bias against pit bulls- but I recognize that my reaction is non-reasoning. I have known many a sweet pit bull. But because my bias is there, I would probably never own one myself. I do believe, however, that most of us take much more note of an attack by a pitbull than by a collie or a Terrier or a chihuahua, all of which can be biters. A generation or two ago, the angst was all about German Shepherd dogs. Which is just about my favorite breed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Lox Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM "I do believe, however, that most of us take much more note of an attack by a pitbull than by a collie or a Terrier or a chihuahua, all of which can be biters." Funny that isn't it. Don't suppose it has anything at all to do with people, mainly children who have been killed by pitbulls, rottweilers etc, while terriers and chihuahuas don't have quite as prolific a kill ratio. It must be a coincidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html There was a Seattle story about 2 dogs that attacked a 70 year old man. The officials could not decide whether the dogs needed to be euthanized. How stupid can people be? Never mind..there is the pefect example. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:00 PM One problem in some shelters is that half the animals apparently are pit bull mixes. So people picking randomly from a shelter would have a 50% chance of getting a pit bull mix. HOpefully they are all neutered..I think they have to be in shelters, don't they? I think it should be very very expensive and difficult to adopt one..owner would should have to provide all sorts of proof of training, insurance, fencing etc....and I personally would not let them be adopted at all. There are plenty of other dogs. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:07 PM In the wilds of Alaska I don't suppose there are many pitbulls- there are however many huskies, many of them tied to their shelters in large operations. There can be 40 or more huskies in one yard. In times past there were frequent attacks by huskies and not a few killings, mostly of children. I'm sure there are still some each year. Does that mean that huskies should be banned? No. Nowadays, breeders and trainers pride themselves on socializing their animals, which reduces the incidence and likelihood of attacks. Incidentally, in the towns and cities of Alaska there seem to be a great many pitbulls. I suspect it has something to do with themacho attitude some recent emigres from the lower 48 bring with them up north. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:23 PM Best way to make a dog less dangerous is to put a bullet into its brain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:22 PM LOL, Greg F, that approach would also work for rapists and bullies and car thieves too, not to mention...well I'll quit that line while I'm ahead... On a more pro-active approach: How wonderful it would be if every person would focus on not just the headline-grabbers but the milder occurrences of dominance and territoriality. That is where the deadly problems begin. Report the less extreme occurrences! Complain to the owners about them! We all know what I'm talking about, we've all let it go by the wayside rather than cause a confrontation. The jumping up! The circling! The incessant barking! Tell the owner/walker that it's NOT okay! I can't believe how many dog owners said it was okay for my dog to give a jumpy hello because their dog did. NO NO NO! I looked them straight in the eye and asked, how is this ok? They found it very startling and I hope it gave them pause to reconsider. BTW I found the solution to my dog's jumping--I hadn't noticed that her "dominees" were rewarding her with affection, a kind petting for her trouble. Unfreakinbelievable. Removing the reward let her to find other, more acceptable ways to get affection. Yes, it was time for me to wake up, but much, much earlier in making of dominance and aggression. Ummm, pardon my little rant; I do feel that these milder events are the headwater of the river called dog aggression. If all of society would be less tolerant of the milder mis-behaviours, the opportunities to escalate would be far fewer, and people could learn a lot sooner when they have jumped in over their heads. Not a total solution, but an important facet of the issue. Jumping off my soapbox now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:25 PM Once the "rights"[sic] of animals start to take precedence over those of humans society is in really, really deep shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:58 PM Greg, I feel you've raised a very important discussion for society to have, and maybe dogs are one way to get the subject to the forefront. But maybe it's another thread too. And my viewpoint is different--I believe the human species is doomed if we continue to assume we are entitled to more protections than all other species. To me the matter you raise isn't only about dogs but all creatures. Perhaps closer to the topic at hand, yet sort of related to Greg's issue: Dogs were created to serve humans so (to the chagrin of many, I'm sure) I agree with not maintaining a breed whose purpose no longer exists. Which is not the same as killing them because of what they are, just not perpetuating them, allowing them to die off. But I also think that since society created them, until the decision is made to discontinue, they need to be shown how to behave in our world, and our world needs to understand enough about them to maintain whatever level of safety society chooses is enough. So I'd have to say I don't agree with breeding pit bulls because I don't agree with dog fighting as a so-called sport. But on balance I think one save more human lives if one spent their time supporting women's shelters than by running around dissing pit bulls or any other whipping-boy breed. Ex-partners do a lot more damage to society than dogs. Also another thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Oct 10 - 05:05 PM I was reading some article that talked about enforcing the dog laws and how they are different in Calgary, say, than NYC, which has serious dog problems. Maybe it was the link I posted. Anyway, there are huge psychic costs of dogs running loose and I would not return any of the "dangerous" breeeds to owners period. Or any animals that had formed packs. And I for one would euthanize them unless dog people wanted to build and fund special kennels where they would live out their lives. Anyway, children, the elderly, repair people, walkers, joggers..none of us are really safe or comfortable. I walk at night on a dark road with bears, drunk drivers and sometimes wildish dogs. It is a transportation issue. We can't walk, take public transportaiton where there are crazy dogs and owners. And there are a lot of drug users who like certain breeds. A lot of socially maladjusted people who do. It is a complex interaction of person and animal and we are thinking of them too much like family and too little like dangerous, feral animals, which we are all deprived of our basic needs. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:22 PM ""Don, I quote "There are no breeds which are less dangerous. Every dog is a wolf with a veneer of domestication.""" Yes Don, there are breeds which are less dangerous. Let us assume for a second that the likelihood of attack is the same. The amount of damage that the dog can inflict with the same level of aggression is very different. I would rather fight off six pugs furious with me than one Pit Bull even mildly annoyed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:14 PM In jurisdictions where dogs run loose, I have to wonder: what in bloody heck are the law-makers and/or enforcers doing? What in heck are the voters doing instead of organizing lobbies to deal with the issue? If they're totally working and raising kids, minding parents etc, fine: Complain. But if they're lazing about watching the boob tube every day after work? Gotta get up off the couch and go be part of the solution. mg suggests the issue of problem dogs should be dealt with only by "dog people." I feel it's very important in all these discussions to remember that humanity created wolf-variants to serve humanity. We did it to help with fishing, herding, hunting, vermin removal, war, guarding livestock and people, towing, climbing and companionship, to name a few reasons. Blaming what we created for being exactly what we created seems a very special kind of arrogance. Taking full responsibility as a whole society makes a lot more sense to me. For sure, society urgently needs much higher levels of dog-owner education. It scares me that all those people who rewarded my dog for her jumpy greetings probably believed they were very good dog owners. I say they weren't. Jurisdictions need to create a definition of good dog owner, with the requirements set high. Wayyy high. I'd love to see "dog-endurer" education too. One possible first lesson: Learn how attractive we are to a dog when we're moving quickly and making high-pitched sounds, i.e. running away screaming. Especially kids, but it makes us all look dee-eelicious! We also might want to know how, especially to a wound-up dog, having fear or doubt or anger will likely be seen by dog as cause to take an even more powerful position. Besides being told this, we need the opportunity to practise different behaviours & emotions in the company of well socialized & trained dogs and skilled teacher-trainers, so we'll really understand the different effects we can have. We need to think it's worth the time to gain this knowledge and experience, so we can deal better with a problem situation. I don't think this type of approach will happen, but a society that would make it happen is taking responsibility for having created dogs. Oh, here's a great example of bad dog-owner education which turned them into and unhappy dog-endurer: I saw a dog-owner bring to the off-leash park not just her dog but also her 5-year-old child and the child's friend of the same age. The friend was afraid of dogs! The dog-owner left in a huff following a thorough screaming at the owner of a herding dog who had knocked down the fearful child who'd been running and squealing with fear; the other child was having a fine time with several dogs. (It was during the adult's screaming session that she announced the friend's fear to all within a mile.) Perhaps the adult learned that baby-sitting and off-leash herders don't always mix well. Or perhaps she learned that the off-leash park contains dangerous dogs. For 5-year-old kids, both are probably true. All in all, (back now to the larger issue) the most cost-beneficial action is for EVERYONE WHO SEES IT to speak up when we see those lower-level signs of dominance and territoriality. You'll know what those are if you trust your instincts: If it made you uncomfortable, please, speak up, say it made your uncomfortable. Make it hard for dog owners to ignore the matter. Aww phooey, I got all long-winded again, didn't I? Well I'm gonna click 'submit message' anyhow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Oct 10 - 10:00 PM Good point. I do not allow dogs to jump on me. For that matter, I do not allow cats to sit on me. I don't hate animals. I respect them and I don't want them to suffer. I want there to be boundaries, which we are losing all the time. Today there was a big, gentle seeming, dog wandering around the grocery store. He was not bothering anyone, except for those with allergies and fear perhaps. Should he be forbidden to be in the store? Yes, unless you want to post an animal control officer in every store for every possible occurance. The next animal might not be gentle and might not like to see the first dog. In the laundromat this weekend there was one annoying yappy dog..then another dog came in and they started to go for each other. There are generally two year olds in a laundromat..should they be in thew ay of a dog fight? And God help us in the next disaster because they are trying to bring dogs to shelters inthe next disaster. Not just dogs..animals. If they want to have a separate shelter, where there are only adults, OK. Let them get bitten and asphyxiated by the smell. Do not allow them to take over shelters that ahve nonwilling people or children. I can guarantee they won't be in cages or on leashes. They won't all be dogs. There will be snakes and monkeys and iguanas and a horrible mess that should only be endured by those who insist on this. It will be dangerous and it will be unsanitary but I would not say don't allow it..just keep it really separate and keep the transportation to this shelter by their own steam. They should not be able to bring pets on public transportation when people are fleeing a disaster. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:15 PM Here in Canada only certified service dogs are allowed in food stores, restaurants etc., and never unleashed. Where are you geographically, generally I mean? Maybe a lot of people in your jurisdiction need to get of the couch and deal with the issue. Here it's a public health matter, simple as that. What you describe in shelters sounds like a bad movie, but when legislators make it so, that's what you get. Does your area have fewer people voting and fewer people politically active between elections? Anyway with such a great increase in allergies in the last couple of decades, if your scenario is correct it seems more than a little dumb to add medical (i.e. asthma) emergencies to a disaster by not segregating critters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:24 PM If I found a dog "wandering around the store" I would expect the manager or any employee to promptly escort the dog out of the building. I live in Alaska where no dogs, other than identified service dogs, are allowed anywhere close to food. The same thing is true in the Pacific Northwest where a number of Catters live. Does no one speak up? And if you don't, aren't you part of the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:29 PM I live in Washington State USA. Especially in Olympia, Washington..home of Evergreen College and some out of the ordinary students..they want to bring their dogs on the buses. There are no papers, no special tags on dogs. All a person has to do here apparently is say this is a companion animal. The bus driver described some of the animals people have claimed. These were big dogs and lots of them and a holiday crowd on the bus. The bus driver said he was helpless. I was dumbfounded that a person just could say it was a companion animal and get any animal almost on a public, overcrowded bus. There are a lot of walking mentally ill people..combine that with sometimes not a perfect match of animal, no laws about what goes, and you have public chaos. The thing about animals being brought to shelters came about after Katrina, where many people could not take animals to shelters and refused rescue themselves. As long as they let their children be rescued, I guess that is their choice. As long as shelters are set aside for people with animals, I am fine with it. But no children there because it would be a dangerous place most likely. So a person hopefully would children over pets, but some would not. Also the thought of boa constrictors etc. on buses trying to escape a tsunami etc. is not appealing to me. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:15 AM Frankly, that sounds awfully alarmist to me. But if I felt strongly about it, I'd start a movement. The first thing I'd do is go to City Assembly meetings, present them with a well-reasoned document pointing out my observations and the inherent dangers and ask to speak on the subject. At the very least I'd get people talking. In Juneau I've seen a young man with a largish dog board local busses saying she was a service dog. He was from out of town and for all I am sure of, he may have been correct- for instance, she may have been trained to sense an upcoming seizure. But that is not the impression I got from talking with him. I see no earthly reason why a city couldn't pass an ordinance requiring all service dogs to have an official and visible tag or banner blanket. What is a 'companion' dog, by the way? As far as I'm concerned, that is what a dog is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:26 AM mg, I think I'll leave the discussion of snakes etc for another thread. But tell us, what is WA's definition of "companion animal?" Here in Ontario and I think throughout Canada, special privileges are granted only to "service" dogs (I've no knowledge as to other animals). It doesn't take much to lose such privileges. These dogs might be certified to assist those with vision or hearing impairments, needing mobility support or a bloodsugar alarm for example if one with mental impairments may forget to take insulin, that sort of thing. AFAIK the "service" designation here is always for medical reasons, not purely social ones. "I get lonely eating out alone" would not get one's dog approved to go into restaurants. The only stores around here where I routinely see dogs accompanying shoppers are pet supply stores. The dogs must be leashed+licensed+vaccinated, and of course accompanied by a human to be welcomed. Are you saying that in WA dogs are allowed to roam free including on private property? Or only in some cities? FYI Ontario does have a breed law (against pit bulls and dogs that look like pit bulls!!) but I'm not sure it'll survive a constitutional challenge given that stats on "safe" breed bites are abysmal and the law's poor provision for ensuring the targeted dog is actually of a "dangerous breed." I have to wonder if the questionable wording was intentional or simply too much wordsmithing by committee. Will it save any kids being killed? Not at the level of enforcement I've seen, meaning lots without the required muzzle even in some off-leash zones. mg, what are your thoughts about joining an association that's working to improve the dog laws in your area? Of course I mean "improve" in a way you agree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:28 AM LOL Ebbie I see we asked similar things of mg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:54 AM I believe the human species is doomed if we continue to assume we are entitled to more protections than all other species... My point was and is that humans shouldn't be entitled to less or fewer protections. "Companion Animlal" is defined differently in different areas in the U.S.; and its a false distinction that elevates the "worth" of some animals over others - and in many cases elevates their "worth" over that of humans. In sume jurisdictions livestock are defined as "companion animals" situationally - wch should be really interesting next time some are taken to slaughter- presumably the owner of the livestock and the owner of the abbatoir could be proscecuted for "aggravated animal cruelty". While shooting "wild" animals - deer, elk, moose, rabbits, squirrels, (some) birds, muskrats, bears, raccoons, etc. etc. is perfectly all right and a "sport"? This is an entirely idiotic system, and it is getting WAY out of control... If its an animal fer chrissakes, its an animal & its past time to let go of the anthropormorphism & hypocricy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:35 AM Animals on public transit: Toronto, ON allows it and I haven't personally seen problems with it. There probably are issues from time to time, but no deaths or disasters I'm aware of. So far people behave with respect. I don't know if it's allowed at rush hour--for example bicycles are not, only at the less busy times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM Oops that should say "dogs" on public transit, not animals. Seems to be pretty much a cattle drive at rush hour! BTW those dogs on TTC have to be leashed, license, vaccinated and under the direct control of the person who brought them. That last is a provision in many municipal by-laws around here. Just having a leash for show doesn't work. If the dog is still misbehaving you can be fined. Though money for enforcement during a recession? Not likely in most places, though TTC in particular has increased security in general so dog behaviour, if it's a problem, will get caught in that net of cameras and plainclothes security staff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:20 PM What Mary is talking about are "service animals" not "companion animals". And here is some real idiocy in the works. See info below, emphasis mine. These can be ANY animal- there have been cases where public transport has been required to allow pigs, donkeys & miniature horses on board. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. "Service Animals" also include "Emotional Support Animals" AND the person with the horse/monkey/pig/lion/whatever CANNOT be required to prove that the animal in question is, in fact, a "service animal" - one has to take their word for it. This is idiocy run amok. WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A JOKE --------- ADA Business BRIEF: Service Animals U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses and organizations that serve the public must allow service animals into all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. This federal law applies to all businesses open to the public, including restaurants, hotels, taxis and shuttles, public transportation, grocery and department stores, hospitals and medical offices, theaters, health clubs, parks, and zoos. * Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or require any proof that the animal is a service animal. * Businesses that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises. * Allergies and fear of animals are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals. * Violators of the ADA can be required to pay money damages and penalties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Ebbie Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:54 PM Greg F, the article you posted does not refer to the charges you made "These can be ANY animal- there have been cases where public transport has been required to allow pigs, donkeys & miniature horses on board. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. "Service Animals" also include "Emotional Support Animals" "AND the person with the horse/monkey/pig/lion/whatever CANNOT be required to prove that the animal in question is, in fact, a "service animal" - one has to take their word for it." Where does one find the bizarre but factual information? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM There's these things called Google and AltaVista and Dogpile and quite a few others, Ebbie. And there's more detailed information at the ADA & Justice Dept. Websites, among other places. Let me know how you make out- my dinner's on the table. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM also, re: the first of your questions, this sentance, in plain English, from the U.S. Justice Dept. seems pretty conclusive, doesn't it: Quote: "but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or require any proof that the animal is a service animal." Ta for now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM OK, Ebbie- here's one story of dozens. You can find plenty more about other species & incidents for yourself. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30155540/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:31 PM 200 Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:48 PM Greg F, I see the emotion in your post, dare I say negative emotion, so I "get" that you feel strongly about this "seeing-eye horse." What I don't see is your description of what's actually wrong about it. The article at the URL you gave reports no incidents with this horse, it does the job that's needed, and meets the cultural needs of the client. It's about the same size as a Standard Poodle might be--I say that based on the article's statement that the miniature horse is 2.5 ft tall; while they don't specify whether total height or at the withers, according to the photo I'll guess they're saying total height unless the client is verrry tall. Yes, it's unusual and unexpected, but I wouldn't have expected those to be reasons to outlaw it. If you would clarify for me what you find wrong with a miniature horse in this role. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM "This Horse" is only one instance of many, and I have no problem with him (or her) personally - unless, of course, I have to share a bus with him, or he trods on my foot. Or share a restaurant with a "emotional support" monkey/pig/full sized horse/crocodile/rat, etc. The problem is not the concept, but the implementation; I see nothing wrong with so-called "service animals" if indeed they ARE service animals- but their humans should be required to show proof that they are same. ALSO, there is nothing in the legislatin as written to prevent a store owner from having to take a person's word that the African elephant they are bringing into his establishment is a "service elephant". Next tiome a cop pulls you over and asks for your license & registration just tell him that oh, yess, you have 'em - & see if he takes your word for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:14 AM Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Doc John Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:56 PM ...it's not the dog, it's the owner...responsible owners...blah blah...dogs who foul up the churchyard must come from the council estate, where those sort of people live...blah blah. How often have I heard this crap. My cat was torn to pieces by a dog who had escaped from its responsible owner, a non council estate headmaster. We put up some notices in the village with a photo of this well known cat and a warning to other cat owners that this dog was on the loose. Two damn bully boy cops arrived to take down the notices (how brave!) and threaten me with arrest. What if a child had witnessed the attack; what if a child had been attacked. The police didn't want to know. ...it's not the gun, it's the owner...responsible owners; I'm one of those so why can't I own a gun. They do less damage than dogs. So do drugs. Tearing cats to pieces is only a small part of the story. And apart from attacking, killing, injuring and mutilating humans (much of which goes unreported), think what else they do: spread filth, disease (including blindness), cause road traffic accidents, destroy livestock, noise pollution. Shoot the lot; no wonder I can't get a firearms certificate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Greg F. Date: 17 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM Hey, Doc - where was this cat of yours when when it was torn to pieces? Was it running loose, spreading filth, disease, and murderiong innofensive small furries? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM You crop up, MG, ranting about sex and provocative dress, and animals, and the list goes on and on. Should you seek help about your phobias? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,mg Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM You will never know the answer because that is the last post of yours that I will ever read. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Slag Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:12 PM I believe, in California, a dog is considered property and a cat is not. That is to say, the owner of a dog is responsible for any damages his pet may cause. A cat belongs to whoever's property is is on at the time. If a cat shreds your car's upholstery, too bad. You should have taken better care of YOUR cat, while it was yours. The other side to this is that you may trap a cat and take it to the pound. If it is tagged or chipped it may be returned to the "owner", if not... Oh, and good luck getting Animal Control to respond to your complaints in most places. It is relatively easy to train a single dog. You're it's pack and that's it. If you have two dogs the task can be ten times more difficult because the two little buggers have more in common with each other than you and TWO MAKES a PACK, baby! I've done both. With the two one was always a mischief maker and the leader of the revolution! How to handle it? Divide and conquer and refresher lessons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:37 AM There is a saying in the UK that dogs have owners and cats have staff. By the way I have had a razor sharp swipe from a cat my family had when I was younger and I still have a faint scar from the attack now. But I expect I deserved it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:54 AM Perhaps the wrong thread (as usual Willie) to relate that I have just (yesterday) brought home a rescued greyhound. Only two months ago, he was out of trap 3. A couple of months with a rescue centre, neutered, wormed and de fleaed.. He is now part of our family. I used to have dogs years ago, but my responsible adult appears to be allergic to most breeds, though short haired dogs such as greyhounds are not an issue. Dangerous? Well, he is a sighthound so no letting him off without a muzzle, not for humans but in terms of chasing small furry creatures, (rabbits, cats, small dogs.) Not rocket science, just accepting the breeding instinct and the fact that as a racer, he was used to a muzzle, (probably feels naked outside without it.) We have half an acre of rear gardens, lots of footpaths locally and a large house. (After yesterday, we no longer have use of an aga due to a huge ruddy dog laying in the way...) The psychology of dogs is not rocket science. gentle but firm to ensure they do not see themselves as top dog and they won't bite someone till they see you do it first. Granted, greyhounds are of the watch dog variety. They watch a burglar take everything and wonder if the burglar might just give them a biscuit before they leave. Saves standing up to get it himself apparently. I used to have a mongrel bitch who was a bitch in other ways. She needed a responsible owner and had one, so no harm done. had I been an irresponsible owner, the dog would have been perceived as a problem. Proof that owners not dogs need training (vetted even) first. You wouldn't accept a child being fostered by feral scum, so why should society allow them to foster a living breathing pet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:14 AM That is great a great thing to do, good luck with the rescued greyhound. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: Crowhugger Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:26 PM Wrong thread? Not considering that you've chosen to make safe your dog's danger to small furry or feathered creatures...you woke up to that need early in your dog ownership life. Perfect fit. There's a greyhound rescuer I see often at one of the local off-leash parks. One of my pack can almost keep up with them and she has a wonderful time trying! They (the greyhounds) tire more quickly than she, which occurrence is when she catches up and overtakes them, though not for long, just till she tuckers out too. Then they all regroup and do it again. And again... Well now it's my posting that's unrelated to the thread topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ... From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM I've had a number of dogs wander through my life: Collies, Cocker Spaniels, German Shepherds, Labs, Sooners (they are mutts who'd sooner piss on the floor than go outside). Only had one that ever growled in a threatening manner--was a dog in north Alberta. He made the mistake of growling at one of my children. (The child wasn't bothering the dog.) Anyway, I went to the cupboard, took out the .22, got some ammo from another cupboard, got the bolt from yet another cupboard--maybe drawer--and called the dog for a trip to the dump. A neighbour asked where I was going. "The dump." She said, "My dad would love to have a small dog." "She's yours, but if I see her wandering loose around here she's meat." I understand the dog had a good life thereafter. I had one dog bite me and I killed it. With certain exceptions I would do that to any dog that bit me or threatened my kids. Maybe this post ain't PC, but it's the way it is in my little piece of the universe. |
