posted
MySpace is quickly becoming a UL hothouse, at least on the bulletin board posts I've been getting. What about this one?
SUBJ: Pit Bulls Are People Too! Body: ok, well, they're dogs, not people....but you get my point...
This is about a California legislation being passed to exterminate pit bulls. If it passes in California, it could be on it's way to other states. THE WILL EUTHANIZE ALL PIT BULLS IN THE STATE IF THIS LAW IS PASSED! Someone has to try to make a difference...what if it were your pet? It would be great if Myspace could be used for something good other than getting dates. Please pass the word along and post this so as many people can see this as possible.
-------------------- The book says, "We might be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." - Magnolia Posts: 252 | From: East Greenwich, RI, what! | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, many cities have already banned pit bulls and euthanized them due to mass hysteria and misinformation. Even dogs that appear to be any sort of short, stocky, potentially aggressive breed have been labeled "pit bulls", banned, and/or euthanized. Miami, Denver, Toledo, Ontario, and many cities in Kansas have already implemented this. In some places laws were implemented and then repealed, but innocent dogs were killed anyway.
So, no, the banning and euthanization of pit bulls is not an urban legend. But I don't know if there is currently any anti-breed bill on the California legislature. Probably; I know there was a much-publicized mauling in San Francisco a while back (although I don't think it was a "pit bull").
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
So, no, the banning and euthanization of pit bulls is not an urban legend. But I don't know if there is currently any anti-breed bill on the California legislature. Probably; I know there was a much-publicized mauling in San Francisco a while back (although I don't think it was a "pit bull").
There was one mauling death last year where a 12 year old was left alone with two pit bulls who were known to be aggressive towards humans. There was another, possibly more publicized, mauling a few years back where a couple had two Presa Canarios in her apartment and they attacked her neighbor. One of them was put to sleep.
So far all I've come up with for pit bulls being "banned" is some articles from 2005 that refer to legislation which would allow municipalities to ban certain breeds of dogs. Another piece of legislation required all pit bulls in San Francisco to be sterilized, but I think it may have been overturned. I'm fairly certain there has not been a recent push to destroy all pit bulls in the state, as that would probably be fairly big news and I've heard nothing.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is probably this law: SB 861 which was signed into law in October of 2005. The law permits local governments to enact "dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances." In other words, a local government can pass an ordinance requiring all pit bulls to be spayed or neutered, For that matter, the government can also require sterilization of rottweilers or dachshunds or English sheepdogs if they want. There is a lot of language about how the law is intended to prohibit indiscriminate backyard breeding. It also go out of its way to declare that (as an analyst said) "the fact that no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or vicious."
The City of San Francisco wanted some way to mandate sterilization of specific breeds after a study found that 60% of of vicious dog hearing involved pit bulls and 70% of dogs in local shelters were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
Completely unrelated--Senator Speier who introduced the bill is a survivor of the Jonestown massacre.
-------------------- The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if shelter levels are indicative, then 70% of the dog population can be considered "pit bulls" (I really wonder how many of those "pit mixes" have any Staffordshire in them at all). If 70% are pits, and they comprise 60% of vicious dog hearings, then they are underrepresented in that area.
-------------------- "Accompanied by the ghosts of dolphins, the ghost of a ship sailed on..." Terry Pratchett Posts: 660 | From: Gainesville, FL | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by geminilee: Well, if shelter levels are indicative, then ...
That's a very big if. It's not hard for me to imagine that a disproportionate number of shelter dogs are pit bulls. They can appeal to young men trying to be macho, among other folks. These same young men may not have the skills or intelligence to train any dog, never mind a big, powerful one, and they may eventually get tired of the dogs at a higher rate than more intelligent owners. Or, they get married, and their wives make them get rid of the dog because (by then) it's unmanagable, child-unfriendly, and intimidating.
-------------------- When I had to climb under my desk the other day to fix a power cord, I realized that I kind of like it under there. Posts: 73 | From: Durham, NC | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pit bulls are also frequently the victims of backyard breeding, which results in many unwanted puppies.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after being attacked by a rottveiler while doing my morning jog I really think that pitbulls and the like are not people. Human beings are people - that is exactly what I think. Pitbulls and the like are weapons. And, really:
a) You need a license to own one b) If your off-leash dog attacked someone, you should at very least serve time as if you inflicted those wounds by indifference c) In case you told your dog to attack someone, you should be charged with attempted murder
Specifically, about pitbulls: if you think they are noble, you can get something as noble and less dangerous much easier than that. IMO, if you go for something like that you really state that you want a weapon, not a pet.
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always wondered about the dogs that were specifically breed for their aggressiveness, like German Shepards, Rotweilers, Pit Bulls etc.
These breeds were specifically developed for their quickness to attack. And, their ability to do substantial damage.
Dog lovers like to say that with "proper breeding" these traits are removed or minimized. But face it, somebody that is out to buy a Pit Bull is not looking for a friendly dog. Any breeder that is consistently making "nice" Pit Bulls is soon going to be out of business.
Besides, is a generation of two of "proper breeding" enough to overcome the many preceding generations in which aggressiveness was a desirable trait?
I think that laws restricting the availability of breeds that were originally developed for their aggressiveness are reasonable. Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cervus: So, no, the banning and euthanization of pit bulls is not an urban legend. But I don't know if there is currently any anti-breed bill on the California legislature. Probably; I know there was a much-publicized mauling in San Francisco a while back (although I don't think it was a "pit bull").
The dogs involved were two Presa Canario, or Canary Island Mastiffs.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: I've always wondered about the dogs that were specifically breed for their aggressiveness, like German Shepards, Rotweilers, Pit Bulls etc.
These breeds were specifically developed for their quickness to attack. And, their ability to do substantial damage.
Dog lovers like to say that with "proper breeding" these traits are removed or minimized. But face it, somebody that is out to buy a Pit Bull is not looking for a friendly dog. Any breeder that is consistently making "nice" Pit Bulls is soon going to be out of business.
Besides, is a generation of two of "proper breeding" enough to overcome the many preceding generations in which aggressiveness was a desirable trait?
I think that laws restricting the availability of breeds that were originally developed for their aggressiveness are reasonable.
Wow. The ignorance of some people is simply astounding. May I suggest you actually do some research before you expound on things about which you know nothing?
Firstly, you mention three breeds, then claim they were developed for their aggression and willingness to attack. Not true. GSDs and Rotties were developed as herding dogs, (hence the word "shepherd" in the name). Now, it is true that herding dogs may be required to defend a flock, but not always. That's why people bred livestock guardian dogs like Kuvaz or Great Pyrs. Herding dogs are required to be careful and exercise restraint with stock, and to be quite intelligent about when and what kind of force is needed. Hence, they often make steller working dogs period (as seeing eye dogs, assistance dogs, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, etc.). It is true that people have gotten their hands on these large, powerful breeds and have done them a disservice. But that has little to do with the breed itself, and alot to do with the rearing of the individual dog, and, perhaps certain strains. Look, most AKC registered GSDs and Rotties I know are excellent dogs, and are no more likely to attack than your typical Golden or Husky.
APBTs or Am Staffs were bred as catch dogs and general work dogs. They were required to fulfill many functions, such as ratting, bull catching, some general livestock duties, farm guards, and child watchers. They were, for many years, considered to be one of the best family dogs you could own. Hence their status as the mascot dog for the US during WWI. Again, bad trainers developed bad lines, which led to bad things. Not the entire breed, not every representative of the breed.
If a dog is bred for exceptional aggression, the line should end. But not every line in these breeds was bred for that trait. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most registered lines were bred to carefully control or eliminate those factors.
Now, I'd be the first to agree that those that import and sell schutzhund-line GSDs, Dobies, Rotties, or Belgians should be regulated carefully. Not because the dogs are overtly aggressive, but because they might have high work drive, that can lead to problems if not controlled or excercised correctly.
Then again, I'd be happy if dog guardianship were far more regulated for all breeds. But to single out a few is just silly.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Ryda-Wong: Oh, I see. GSD's have been used for hundreds of years as guard dogs because of their friendly disposition.
A dog breed that was originally developed as a "farm guard" is basically an attack dog. It has been breed to attack anything that doesn't belong. That anything could be a wolf, or a bear, or a fox or a person.
Face it, many modern breeds were created when the world was not a nice place. Where bears really did wonder up to your front door and part of the reason for having a dog was to discourage the bears from doing that (or to keep the wolves from your chickens).
Those traits are is still present in many dog breeds. But bears no longer wonder up to your front door, now it is just the neighbor out for a jog.
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: For Ryda-Wong: Oh, I see. GSD's have been used for hundreds of years as guard dogs because of their friendly disposition.
A dog breed that was originally developed as a "farm guard" is basically an attack dog. It has been breed to attack anything that doesn't belong. That anything could be a wolf, or a bear, or a fox or a person.
Face it, many modern breeds were created when the world was not a nice place. Where bears really did wonder up to your front door and part of the reason for having a dog was to discourage the bears from doing that (or to keep the wolves from your chickens).
Those traits are is still present in many dog breeds. But bears no longer wonder up to your front door, now it is just the neighbor out for a jog.
Firstly, they weren't used in a schutzhund/attack capacity until world war I. Not really hundreds of years, there. Secondly, only select lines of GSDs were bred to do protection/schutzhund/police work. Thirdly, part of the reasons breeds like that were selected was because they were generally friendly with humans and very biddable. When you train a dog for protection/schutzhund/police duties, you don't train them to view the human as "dangerous enemy." You train them on the attack command as a game, like retrieving, etc. Breeds like GSDs and rotties are useful because they are large and powerful (so they can jump and do the agility portions), because they are bidable (so they can be trained easily), because they are typically friendly towards humans and other animals (so they don't attack without command), and because their herding style allowed for 'gripping,' (so it's easier to teach them a hard bite).
And as for farm guards, most were bred to give alarm, not to attack off-hand, to give the owner time to get out there with a gun. Livestock guardian breeds, like the Kuvaz and GP, were bred to attack off-hand, and are far more powerful than a pit or a rottie. Wonder why those aren't on the "kill-'em" list.
What is leading to problems with dogs is lack of proper breeding, proper training, proper socialization, and proper supervision. All of these are human faults and not breed faults. This is why breed bans don't and never will work.
Frankly, jimmie101, you sound quite uninformed on this topic, just like the majority of the public. Not a surprise, and not a shame, but I wish folks like you would keep from spreading uninformed opinions. All it does is increase the problem.
BTW: If you don't think that bears, mountain lions, and the like don't come to your front door anymore, I invite you to visit Boulder, a dense town of more than 100K people and the home of the University of Colorado. We have bears, lions, coyotes, moose, and deer amoungst the population all the time, even in down-town and urban areas.
quote:
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogs have been bred (or at least selected) by humans for at least 17,000 years and perhaps as long as 150,000 (according to Wiki). That predates writing, agriculture and religion in human development. It is even possible that dogs were "domesticated" by humans before humans had developed language.
During all but the last 100 years or so, the ability and willingness to attack has been an important trait. Superceded perhaps only by the trait of accepting humans and livestock as their "pack".
True, a guard dog will raise a ruckus first, bare its canines, fluff its fur, "rattle its saber" if you will, and try to bluff its way through an encounter. But for many millennia dogs were bred to go further if need be. Any dog that wouldn't go further would quickly be "anti-selected" in the next breeding cycle.
Sorry, but you are the one who is misinformed. The AKC approach to breeding (and definition of breeds) has only applied to a significant percentage of dogs in the last 50 years or so. Hardly enough time to undo tens of millennia of previous breeding efforts.
Ryda-wong, if you lived in Colorado one hundred years ago your dog would have been expected to raise a ruckus when a mountain lion wondered up to the sheep pen. And, if the ruckus didn't work, it would have been expected to attack. A dog does not really differentiate species, only pack-member from non-pack-member. So it would have been expected to attack a mountain lion, a stray dog or human if a member of its "pack" was threatened. That is the millenia long reality of domesticated dogs. Not the decades old perception that "domesticated" means docile.
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: During all but the last 100 years or so, the ability and willingness to attack has been an important trait. Superceded perhaps only by the trait of accepting humans and livestock as their "pack".
In what? In retrievers? in sighthounds? in lapdogs? Uh, nope.
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: But for many millennia dogs were bred to go further if need be. Any dog that wouldn't go further would quickly be "anti-selected" in the next breeding cycle.
No, certain strains of certain breeds needed for certain purposes would be culled. Not all strains of one breed, or all breeds.
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: Sorry, but you are the one who is misinformed. The AKC approach to breeding (and definition of breeds) has only applied to a significant percentage of dogs in the last 50 years or so. Hardly enough time to undo tens of millennia of previous breeding efforts.
Again, incorrect. Pedigrees on generations of salukis have been kept by desert nomads for centuries, right along with their beloved Arabian horses. It's still hell and a half to try to get a saluki from them. Practices standardizing the pedigrees of various breeds has been going on for a few hundred years now, as long as many of the breeds have been in development, and it affected most purebred dogs in existance to a great degree. (and remember, we are talking about purebreds here, of establish breeds, when we are discussing breed banning.) Plenty of time to effect instinct and ability.
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: A dog does not really differentiate species, only pack-member from non-pack-member..
Again absolute BS. You've never worked stock dogs, right?
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were to purchase an APBT, it would be because they are loyal, beautiful, energetic dogs. It would also be partly because their appearance is likely to ward off attackers. However I would not train it or raise it to be anything but well socialized and friendly, and I would seek out a breeder who had selected for gentleness. I would only be relying on the dog's appearance to protect me, not its actual personality.
I wonder if the people who characterize these dogs as "weapons" or who think all large dogs have been bred to attack have ever spent time around large dogs. I've been acquainted with a number of pit bulls and none of them were anything but happy, friendly, excited dogs. Several of them were even rescues, meaning they had been adopted and their puppyhood was unknown- they could have been failed fighting dogs or the victims of backyard breeding. They were the most loyal and grateful dogs I've seen.
My brother has two dogs that both have some amount of German Shepherd ancestry- they are both scary looking at times, but extremely friendly and gentle, so much so that they can be trusted to play with babies.
I just don't understand this wanton condemnation of entire breeds of dogs. ANY dog can be raised to be vicious.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm with Thistles on this one. I've known quite a few large dogs (remembering that the plural of anecdote is, of course, not data) Some were mean, and in my experience shared the characteristics mentioned in Sue Bee's link. (good link, Sue Bee) The larger proportion were gentle giants, one example being a rottweiler that would take a biscuit from your hand and then wash your face with slobbery kisses.
*relurk*
-------------------- We are all equal, be it before the eyes of God, or for our own sake. We are all worthy of the same fundamental rights, freedoms, and, protections. Mindless hatred is unjustifiable. -Squoval Posts: 320 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryda, I'd guess the reason the two livestock guardian breeds you mention aren't listed as dangerous is because they are both very fluffy and cute. Also, they are rare and expensive enough that the thugs most likely to own a very dangerous dog are less likely to get one.
jimmy, truly, your sttement about not knowing different species is mind-boggling. Terriers were bred to kill rodents, herders to keep the sheep in the pen, etc. I've seen farm dogs change their herding style to bring in a horse, move the sheep to another pasture and then get cows into the chute, without any guidance from their people. A dog's ability to know the difference between species is part of what makes dogs so useful to humans.
I personally have a dog who loves all people, hates all dogs except our other dog, and cheerfully ignores our cat. Our other dog loves all dogs, cats and people, and can adjust her bounciness according to a toddler's stability.
Posts: 2115 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: If I were to purchase an APBT, it would be because they are loyal, beautiful, energetic dogs. It would also be partly because their appearance is likely to ward off attackers. However I would not train it or raise it to be anything but well socialized and friendly, and I would seek out a breeder who had selected for gentleness. I would only be relying on the dog's appearance to protect me, not its actual personality.
I wonder if the people who characterize these dogs as "weapons" or who think all large dogs have been bred to attack have ever spent time around large dogs. I've been acquainted with a number of pit bulls and none of them were anything but happy, friendly, excited dogs. Several of them were even rescues, meaning they had been adopted and their puppyhood was unknown- they could have been failed fighting dogs or the victims of backyard breeding. They were the most loyal and grateful dogs I've seen.
My brother has two dogs that both have some amount of German Shepherd ancestry- they are both scary looking at times, but extremely friendly and gentle, so much so that they can be trusted to play with babies.
I just don't understand this wanton condemnation of entire breeds of dogs. ANY dog can be raised to be vicious.
100% agreement here. I grew up in a household with multiple Dobermans, and the biggest problem we ever had with ones we'd raised was that they had trouble understanding when they'd outgrown being lap puppies. Even our most protective male was Mr. Friendly, once properly introduced to someone new. We did have one (adopted as an adult) who, while fine with humans, proved more aggressive toward cats than my parents would accept, so they rehomed him with friends who didn't have cats (good arrangement for the dog and both households of humans).
I spent a lot of time going to dog shows as a kid, and found that the bigger dogs *tend* to be rather calmer than the little guys. I've only once run into a personality problem with a large dog that wasn't the product of bad upbringing (I do realize it can happen, since I had one dog who suddenly became aggressive toward humans. She was put to sleep, since we couldn't trust her to not go after neighbor kids after she launched herself through the front window of the house to try it. This was allegedly a Shepherd/Airedale cross).
I've been known to surprise owners of Rottweilers and similar "dangerous" breeds by cruising over to the dog to make friends (I do know how to do so safely, and what body language means I should back off).
IME, the breed I've seen the most general attitude problems with, with competent owners/handlers, would be Dachshunds.
Posts: 486 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't foret that Dachshunds were bred to hunt Badgers. *please let me right in this and it not be a UL. I'm almost positive, but if I'm wrong please be nice.*
On the OP, I think that these laws are knee-jerk reactions of the "What about the children" kind. Myopic at best and mostly CYA. Looks like politicians are "protecting" us without working to stop animal cruelty or bad owners.
-------------------- We frettered around like farm animals, looking around for formulas and father figures. -Twilight Zone Posts: 425 | From: Lynchburg, VA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Dachshunds were bred to hunt badgers. As an owner of both dachshunds, and a rottie, I've seen more attitude, and aggression from my dachshunds then I have ever seen from my rottie. This is partly due to my dachshunds being rescued kennel dogs who weren't socialized when young. My rottie on the other hand, is laid back, and gentle. I have had her since she was 9 weeks old, and she has been well socialized and trained. As someone else mentioned, any dog can be a problem in the hands of an irresponsible owner. I guess it's hard to see my Rottie as a "weapon" as she goes "belly up" when a 7 pound dachshund snaps at her.
Posts: 212 | From: South Dakota | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the "little dogs having more attitude" statement. My mother's poddle is a snappy, bity, loud mouthed little bastard of a dog (I love him but he is) but her pitbull/lab mix, who could bend Kong chews with her jaws, was a total creampuff who never showed the slightest agression toward people. A dogs behavior is all in the up bringing.
-------------------- Let your TV bleed- Tom Petty Posts: 329 | From: Wiesbaden, Germany | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: The following paragraph is a very broad generalization based on my own experience with dogs and some stuff I've read:
Absent specific training to be aggressive, a large dog can afford to be more laid-back than a small dog, precisely because he's bigger. A larger dog's size, in and of itself, can discourage aggression against the dog. Small dogs don't have that going for them, so they're more likely to show aggressive behavior to discourage aggression against them.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
On Saturday, April 22, 2006, at approximately 9 a.m., police responded to the Bloor Street West/Monkton Avenue area for a woman being attacked by dogs.
It is alleged that:
- a 28-year-old woman was injured in a dog attack at a residence in the area,
She was taken to hospital and treated for serious injuries to her arm and legs. She may require reconstructive surgery.
It is further alleged that:
- police encountered an aggressive Pit Bull that was loose in the area,
- the Pit Bull was destroyed by police,
- a second Pit Bull was located at an address on Monkton Avenue,
- that dog has been seized by Toronto Animal Control.
The matter is now under investigation by officers from 22 Division.
Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 416-808-2200, or Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416-222-TIPS (8477), or online at www.222tips.com.
Constable Kristine Bacharach, Public Information, for Staff Sergeant Glenn Dewling, 22 Division
quote:jimmy, truly, your sttement about not knowing different species is mind-boggling. Terriers were bred to kill rodents, herders to keep the sheep in the pen, ...
Re-read my post, I said that they will accept non-dogs as part of their "pack", not that they cannot differentiate species. Dogs consider their owner as a "pack-mate", and usually the dog considers the owner as the dominant "dog" in the pack. (That is why many dogs meet their owners by flopping onto their backs, the same behavior they use to show subservience to the dominant animal in a wild pack.)
Ryda Reread my posts. It is still true that only in the last 50 years have a significant number of dogs been breed to AKC (or other) standards. The long breeding of salukis does not change that statement. How many dogs were their in 1900? How many were breed to any kind of standard? How many Salukis' were there? The number of salukis is hardly significant compared to the number of dogs in the world.
Sorry, but a few thousand dogs breed to exacting standards doesn't really affect the breeding of what, hundreds of millions of dog world wide.
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rotties are so sweet. I still miss Brutus sometimes (our former housemate's late Rott.)
The failure to differentiate between species doesn't really make sense to me. My dog can tell the difference between a human, another dog, a cat, and a snake. She can also differentiate between humans of different sizes and genders. Apparently she's exceptional?
-------------------- Too broke to pay attention Posts: 452 | From: Omaha, NE | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
jimmy, you did say dogs can't differentiate species. You said:
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: A dog does not really differentiate species, only pack-member from non-pack-member. So it would have been expected to attack a mountain lion, a stray dog or human if a member of its "pack" was threatened.
And that is thoroughly incorrect. Even wild dog mothers will teach their puppies which species are good prey, which are predators, etc. Sure, dogs can tell pack-member from non, and what status each member has in the pack. But they can also tell people from cats from strange dogs from birds from acceptable visitors.
This has been true for over 100 years, herding dogs were expected not to eat Uncle Joe or bite the sheep as long as there have been herding dogs, chase the cats but not the chickens, etc. Herding dogs were never expected to go after bears, there have been different tasks for different types of dogs far longer than there has been an AKC. Most dogs in America were bred for utility for most of this country's history. You want your farm dog to bark an alert and wait for a human with a gun to dispatch the predator. That way you don't lose a good trained dog.
Posts: 2115 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Debbie from Arizona
"age is a matter of the mind, if you don't mind, it don't matter"
posted
Hello, I am new to this board. And I wasn't really wasn't going to join until I saw jimmys reply about small dogs. I recall speaking to a lady I know who is an office manager at a local veterinarians office and she told me the little dogs are by far the worst behaved. They bark at everyone, they are noisy, they growl and bare their teeth. And it's NOT because they are small. It's because their owners think its adorable they try to act like big dogs and won't train them or reprimand them. I also used to work in a chiropractors office. I did a little survey of my own. We got a lot of mail carriers and I ask them which dogs are the worst. They all told me the small dogs are the worse. I ask them if they have ever been accosted by a pit bull. Each told me no. But one told me he was bitten by a labrador and a mixed breed dog.
-------------------- "I've learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our dispositions and not on our circumstances" (Martha Washington) Posts: 7 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Debbie from Arizona
"age is a matter of the mind, if you don't mind, it don't matter"
posted
jimmy, I have done a lot of research on pitbulls over the years. Yes I own the breed too. I currently own four. I also have a foster pit bull. Here is her story. A new neighbor moved in across the street about two months ago. He owned a female pit bull and a VERY noisy and aggressive black lab. The pit bull had a litter of pups about 10 weeks old from the lab. Anyway, being a dog lover and just dying to get close to the pups. I would come up to the fence and try to give the dogs biscuits. But the lab would come up and attack the fence every time, bark at me and just act very aggressive. Like he wanted to kill me. (And don't say its because of the pups.) The momma dog would stand back and wag her tail at me. If she or any of her pups would even try to approach the fence the lab would take the pups in his mouth and shake them. The momma dog got bitten on the face. About two weeks later I saw the momma dog a little ways down the street in the middle. We live on a very busy street and it's dangerous. She had dug under the fence. I called her and she came to me tail wagging like she had known me all her life. I then put her back in her yard. No sooner had I gotten home she was in the middle of the street again. I then decided to take her home so she would be safe and wait until her owner got home. She was excellent with my other four dogs, my cat and my 7 year old son. Later that day when her owner returned from his job as an Xray tech at the hospital I took her home. He told me he found her as a stray a year and a half ago. She was emaciated. He then told me his new landlord stated no pitbulls on the rental agreement and he needed to find her a new home. I ask him if I could help find her a good home where she won't end up in the wrong hands with a person who will mistreat her, or train her to be mean. He took her back but she kept digging under the fence. Finally, one day, She was at my gate waiting to be let in lol! She is at my house and to this day she hasn't tried to leave. I must say, she is the best behaved dog I have met. She hasn't soiled in my house once. She is very quiet and obedient. (We guessed she must have gotten some obedience training at one point in her life.) She just seems so darn appreciative and glad to be inside instead of outside with a bully picking on her. The neighbor has since gotten rid of all the pups and the lab continues to bark non-stop day and night. If I walk by the fence he still acts aggressive. Like he wants to kill me. It makes no sense the owner had to get rid of the quiet, well behaved friendly dog but was allowed to keep the noisy, aggressive one. I feel so bad for this poor, sweet innocent little darling. She is a victim of media hype. She is currently laying at me feet. (Anyone want a great dog???)
-------------------- "I've learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our dispositions and not on our circumstances" (Martha Washington) Posts: 7 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Debbie from Arizona
"age is a matter of the mind, if you don't mind, it don't matter"
posted
You really think we would own these dogs if what the media said was true? Think about it.
-------------------- "I've learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our dispositions and not on our circumstances" (Martha Washington) Posts: 7 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Debbie from Arizona
"age is a matter of the mind, if you don't mind, it don't matter"
-------------------- "I've learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our dispositions and not on our circumstances" (Martha Washington) Posts: 7 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
