 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) |
