 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dangerous Dogs ... Time to wake up ...
|
|
|
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. |
|
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,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: 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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: Crowhugger Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:14 AM 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: 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: catspaw49 Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:31 PM 200 Spaw |
|
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: 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 - 06:03 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:28 AM LOL Ebbie I see we asked similar things of mg. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:22 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
