Posted on 04/21/2006 2:47:52 PM PDT by solosmoke
Dejae Galvin has grown up around pitbull terriers without so much as a scratch. But it was a corgi that bit him, leaving him with a suspected broken nose.
He was attacked by the "friendly" pet corgi at his friend's house as he attempted to pat it.
The last thing the 8-year-old remembers is seeing blood everywhere, being in pain and covering his face to avoid being bitten again.
Ms Galvin said his skin was pulled together with butterfly clips to close holes on each side of his nose. "He looked like he had been in a car accident or something." When she took him back to the doctor he was given strong antibiotics and told if he did not improve he would need to be hospitalised.
Ms Galvin, who has owned pitbulls for 15 years, said her family did not want the corgi to be put down if it was not normally hostile. "I think this particular dog should be tested for being aggressive. "I just want to make sure it doesn't go on to attack other kids if it's proven to be temperamental."
Ms Galvin said the attack was further proof that all dogs, however loving and loyal they might seem, needed to be treated with caution. "My kids were born into a family that had American pitbull terriers all their lives. We've never had any problems with our dogs the whole time but we never leave our children unsupervised with any dogs - not even our own. "Although Dejae has learnt a lesson the hard way, children will be children and dogs will be dogs. "It's the adults who need to take the upper hand and teach both parties how to act responsibly."
Dejae loves his new dog Lexus and sympathises with the owner of the corgi.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypost.co.nz ...
People with idealistic, dogs-are-people-too attitudes like yours are part of the problem, not the solution. I know this is a conservative forum, and it's so interesting how in certain areas, even conservatives fall prey to the "enlightened liberal" phenomenon, as you have with regard to dogs. Dogs are not people. They are dogs. On ranches, they are valuable tools, resources, workmates. THEY ARE NOT PETS. Indeed, to me, people like you are cruel when you own big dogs in the city where they can't run free and have a real job, but have to be stifled in backyards and restrained on leashes all the time and be treated like children instead of with respect and dignity. You think you're the one who's cornered the market on compassion, but you're mistaken. You're the one who lacks it in your selfish quest to have a "pet" no matter the sacrifices the poor damned dog has to make. I caught critters as a child and wanted to keep them as pets, but my mom always made me let them go because it was, in her words, "cruel" to imprison them. She was right.
"Top breeders" (which is actually questionable, for all the garbage they have created out of once-great dogs; to wit, Irish Setters, Cocker Spaniels, German Shepherds) and "known good bloodlines" are different things.
If anything, the prospective owner needs to bone up on this stuff. I can go to a much-maligned "backyard breeder", check to see if they actually have a pedigree (which they should, if they're claiming it's a registered litter), and know what the backgrounds are. Yes, the "top breeder" allegedly should have those "good" bloodlines up front in the ped, and there's an advantage to accessing their knowledge. But to me, just checking the general environment, the 5-gen bloodlines, and the nature of the pup in question is all that's really required.
I really don't want to hear either, that it's great to go to a big breeder, bad to go to someone selling their 1-time litter through the local paper, yet wonderful to get an older dog from the ASPCA. That's total hypocrisy. (Not that you're saying this, but often it's exactly what the view is.) You know SQUAT about a pound dog.
Personally, I've had a wonderful dog from a "farmyard breeder" - definitely purebred GS. I was a kid at the time. Unfortunately, she had an accidental litter of mutts, 1 of which we kept, who was VERY "fear-biter". He attacked my neighbor, and my GS (his mom), while not minding the neighbor at 1st, discovered what he was doing and joined in. We didn't believe she was truly "bad", but he was. Max went to the pound; he was always clearly a cowardly ass. Misty went to a farmer far, far away, found by my farmer aunt. (Misty lived out her life a good dog, as my aunt reported from the farmer.) Basically, she was a good dog who got messed up following an ass dog.
When a teen I got the most excellent dog I ever have known of, from a top handler. She was incorruptible. She had mixed GS lines from both sides of the Atlantic of overall pretty good reputation (but plenty of "who?" dogs in the American, despite having grandpa a top all-breed dog).
My current GS comes from Euro lines by a not-top regular breeder who uses some good lines. She has allergies up the gumpstump from the start, has become food-aggressive, and from the get-go showed some cowardliness - afraid of "ghosts". (Yet she loves people and dogs to death.) She's not what I'd call a top-notch dog and certainly not GS. She's OK.
So my very best GS came from a top handler with some good lines, another pretty good 1 came from "BYB" of unknown (to me; I was a kid and don't know if parents bothered with papers/peds) lines, and my worst - from a moderate breeder of good lines. It's a mixed bag. You don't exactly know what you're going to get, regardless of background. Genetics is still a gamble.
Generally, I'd agree with checking out serious breeders primarily. But I don't see the harm getting a BYB dog if really checking out the person and dog who is involved. Especially if "all" you're looking for is a pet.
Here is what I KNOW having worked with animals for many years, not on a farm, or having pets, or whatever people who haven't really known animals say, but in Veterinary clinics and animal shelters, where all kinds come and go, from the well cared for to the severely abused, and books and articles written by others who dedicate their lives to pets and eat, sleep and breathe them:
I know for a fact that no dog breed is inherently vicious. This is something that any organization dedicated to helping animals would stand by. I am not talking PETA or their ilk. They would like to see all pets eventually nonexistent.
I know that pit bulls DO kill more people most years than any other dog breed. I also know that for the past 10 years or so they have been going up in popularity, and right now are either the most popular or the second most popular dog, by a landslide, and for those years where they weren't as popular, the other most popular strong dog took over the number one spot. They are about 10 percent of the population of ALL dogs, big or small right now, and that is at the least. Yet only 0.000002 percent of their population kills at all, and that is at the most. The percentage for large, strong dogs is the same across the board when it comes to killing people. The numbers for deaths go up and down by breed according to what dog is most popular. And yes, of course, you will have more pit bull deaths than poodles, duh. Please stop comparing them to small dogs or dogs that aren't that strong. That is like comparing them to children's toys, which by the way kill more each year than any dog could dream of.
I know that the vast majority of dogs taken to shelters by their owners for behavioral problems are completely fine pets, and their owners were too stupid or lazy to bother with them. I have had to carry a dead 1 year old dalmation out to the freezer because she wasn't potty trained. I have had people give excuse after excuse of why their dog isn't even leash trained, only for them to tell me they couldn't do what I do. Oh yeah? You can't bring a perfectly fine dog here to be pts because your dumb a$$ can't bother with it?? I can't do what YOU do!!!(That's what I want to say to them, of course I haven't. But I should)
I know that 50 years ago there were still deaths and attacks, just as there are now, but the breed of dog has changed every decade to represent the most popular large breed. I also know that 50 years ago people didn't complain as much about getting bit, because there was no such thing as a lawsuit, and if you got bit, chances are it was your fault. And if it wasn't, then the offending animal was quickly dispatched.
The biggest problem I see with all of this is that people want to go on living their lives without learning from their mistakes. They want a quick solution that doesn't involve getting their hands dirty, or any work at all for that matter. They don't want to learn. They always think it's someone else's problem, even when it is plainly theirs. The world is changing around us to reflect our growing knowledge of everything except pets. It seems to be the last frontier, so to speak.
My solution to this problem is plain and simple. I have never just said "it's not the dog, it's the owner". You can search all my posts, and in all of them dealing with this subject, I have offered that there is something we can do other than banning a breed.
If there are people driving around right now, it's because they went to driving school, took a written test and drove with an instructor. They got a license to drive if they could pass all the tests beyond a certain score. The same can be said for school teachers, mechanics, veterinarians, etc. Why not help animals and people out by making it required to take a course in animal caretaking? We can include it in school so that everyone knows these things. This way, every person will have the education they need to support another living thing the right way. Our dogs are all required to be licensed anyway, so why not get something out of it? If everyone knew as much about pets as say, a reputable breeder, things would go a lot more smoothly. Here are some benefits I can see from this:
1)It would eliminate back yard breeders (no one who knows what happens to most puppies would dare continue, I would hope at least)
2)It would cut down on the number of irresponsible people having pets (If people know how much work it is, and what can happen if you don't care for them the right way, they may be less likely to bother)
3)It would cut down on people who don't have enough money to properly care for pets (there should be a small fee, but large enough to deter people who shouldn't have them in the first place due to money issues)
4)It would cut down on loose pets because if people knew what happened to strays at the shelter behind closed doors, they wouldn't let their pets out at all.
5)It would cut down on attacks on children because people would treat their pets as animals and not toys, and show their children how to act around animals
6)It would cut down on pet overpopulation because once people knew how many health benefits their pets got from being speutered they would all be fixed
7)It would cut down on attacks in general because people would be able to see the warning signs before something happened and take measures to correct the behavior or euthanise the dog, and those people on the streets that encounter strays would know how to act to avoid being attacked in the first place.
But you see that is in a perfect world, where people actually learn things. There are lots and lots of idiot drivers out there that have licenses. It isn't a fail safe, and obviously not the perfect solution. To have that, we would need a world that is willing to actually follow through. But I can see this as a starting point. After all, there are a lot of jerks on the road, but there are a lot less than there would be if there wasn't a system in place to protect the public.
Good post of yours, by the way.
Actually, I had the benefit of both worlds. My dad was a marine, but my grandparents and uncles and cousins all had farms. Actually, the first time I was bitten by a dog at all was on a farm by a cocker spaniel. The second was a rhodesian ridgeback, and the third, a border collie (by far the meanest of the three, not that I am biased. I like them all)
I am absolutely not of the belief that we should treat dogs like people. That is the worst thing you could ever assume about an animal. They have different needs, wants, body language, and agendas.
But there's a problem. No, a farm dog can't go around killing the merchandise. But to say that dog was somehow defective is like saying a child born from a long line of doctors is defective for wanting to be a writer. Of course all dogs have very distinct personalities, and even dogs bred for a certain purpose sometimes just aren't good at it. But to say that the dog is "bad" for not being the right fit is just wrong. Perhaps back in the day I can see someone shooting a dog for this, because no one would want that dog for any other reason, but nowadays, you could find that dog a home with people who don't have a farm, don't need a working dog, don't have other pets but love to play frisbee, or want an active dog, or can spend the time needed to address its issues and work with it.
I have seen some dogs that I personally would have thought hopeless completely turn around with the right environments. Not to say that they can all be helped. I am not of that mentality. Some dogs are not right in the head, but it's such a small percentage, and most often there is a medical reason (being inbred, retarded, oxygen starved when born, etc.)but the ones with issues that aren't medical fall under two categories: one is the dog that had a rough start but still may have a chance with lots of time and patience. The other is the dog that had a rough start in life and just couldn't deal, and is now simply not fit to live with people and should probably be put out of its misery.
And I don't ever remember saying it's ok to have a dog confined. I too believe many of us get pets that end up suffering greatly because we are too selfish to see that their needs are met, both physically and mentally. My dogs have a huge yard that is well protected which they cannot escape, but most of the time they are with me, whether it's in the house, running errands, going fishing, running, or training for agility which they LOVE. And believe me, my dogs get plenty of what they need. I was one of those few people who actually researched the breed long before I ever had one, and I provide everything my dogs could want aside of simply letting them loose.
However, I don't think just because a dog is on a farm working, or doing agility, or hunting that it's happy or fulfilled as far as dogs go. In fact, just because they're constantly working and outdoors doesn't mean that's what they want. And don't think for a second that they like it much when they're left outside in bad weather, or when they catch diseases or get hit by cars on those back roads. The farm life may be great for the dog's owners, who can just set food out for them and work them when they want, or just let them fend for themselves completely, but don't think for a second you are doing the dog any favors with that life. As far as farm dogs go, they seem to live shorter lives than dogs kept indoors, properly fed, and fixed.
Thank you for reading. I too would love to see things changed. Most of the "power" dogs you are referring to are mixes anyway, so if people would just stop breeding for size and aggression, there wouldn't be any bites to report. The real pit bulls are small and people friendly. These new dogs they call pit bulls are mixes, and they are what we see in the news. The real pit bulls are so small (30-60 pounds) that many people mistake them for boston terriers, mutts, etc.
The farm life may be great for the dog's owners, who can just set food out for them and work them when they want, or just let them fend for themselves completely, but don't think for a second you are doing the dog any favors with that life.
You completetly lose me there. Only trash people treat their workmates so shoddily. On the contrary, the cowboys (I'm talking cowdogs on ranches, not farm dogs) loved their dogs, took great pride and derived great joy from them, and the dogs did the same. You really had to see it to believe it, but it was true. There was a relationship between man and dog, in the working cowboy or ranch sense, that was beyond description. The only words that come to mind are joy, verve, and humor, as often the dogs had senses of humor and pulled jokes on people and livestock, fully aware of what they were doing, and loving being part of a laughing, fun work environment. I am certain that those dogs lives, if they were shorter (and you'd be surprised at how old those noble old fellows got and how well loved and cared for they were in thier dotage, because the cowboys who owned them felt indebted to them) were indeed more blessed with joy and happiness than a dog whose world revolves around a nine-to-five owner and a quarter-acre backyard. Don't think for a second otherwise.
Also, regarding shooting errant dogs rather than finding homes for them ... again, dogs aren't people and they aren't on the same level as people. People who insist otherwise think of dogs more as "special" people. Errant cowdogs dogs weren't just "being their natural selves," they were being deliberately disobedient. Period. The cowdogs of which my dad had to dispatch a few for being incorrigible were way too smart and aware of the world around them not to know exactly what they were doing. They weren't following their instincts to kill livestock, they were rebelling against "the boss," and as such, were a liability to the ranch. They were dogs, not people, and thinking that the most morally responsible thing is "finding a loving home" then or now is for city people who think dogs are on the same levels as people, except "special." They aren't, and the reason the ranch dogs had such great lives is, paradoxically, because of that. They were treated with respect, not condescension. They blew it -- they "went for the long walk" and didn't come back. Moral obligation fulfilled.
The thing about dogs is, though, that when they're smart enough to know better and still do the wrong thing, they're thinking that they have the alpha spot. You CAN change that kind of dog. Some dogs are easier to submit than others, and some never challenge their people. But some do, and it doesn't have to mean staring you in the eye or guarding the couch. And I know it's easier for someone on a farm to just shoot a dog like that, but you don't really have to. It isn't the only option. Not to mention, it's a waste when there actually is a way to fix it. If you have had to shoot more than one, chances are it isn't the dog. It isn't being condescending to change the dog. They are amazingly adaptable, and with a little knowledge, I would bet the dog your dad shot would have come around nicely. Then again, maybe it was a right bastard.
I am not trying to go all doe-eyed and say that any dog can be helped, and I certainly don't think of them the same way I do people...(there are quite a few people I know that I could shoot without remorse and the world would be better for it)but that is the point. They ARE dogs, and even if they aren't doing what you want them to, there's always a reason for what they do, and believe me, they think it's a great one.
There are subtle nuances in a dog's body movements, and if you work with them and observe it long enough you start to realize that they're speaking a language as real and useful as ours. Most people don't even know their dog thinks he's the boss. Most dogs that assert their dominance do it without anyone catching on. Those are also some of the same dogs attacking people "unprovoked".
I am all for using dogs to their full capacity, and I don't really care for the ankle-biting waste of dog food little rats I see nowadays, but at the same time, I think it's a little extreme to say that all "pet" dogs are missing out. Some dogs never get the hang of hunting or retrieving, even when it's bred into them. Some dogs actually seem to like doing the opposite of what they were bred to do.
I think also that some dogs would rather just snuggle up to their owners and get pet all day rather than run around tangled up in the brush. Call them wusses, but they're here, and they will always be here as long as people want their kind. I personally don't really mind. Dogs are being replaced in some things now by more modern assistants. Some are still working and I think that is great. But people seem to love just having them around, and lots of dogs seem to like it too, regardless of their ancestor's pride.
But whatever the dog is made for, it should know who the alpha is. If it doesn't it will push things as far as you let it. A lot of the time the solution is easy and quick. Much like a gunshot, but without the mess and death.
I did not say that all "pet" dogs are missing out. I did say that to think that the typical ranch dog has a harder, less joyful life than a city pet dog is bunk and shows a poor understanding of the pure rightness of respecting an animal's dignity, and the relationships between men and dogs in a real working environment.
Now this is just my opinion, but I do believe the only "dignity" being thrown around is ours. Dogs have no shame. They aren't anywhere near human, and giving them dignity isn't helping them either. And just because someone is around dogs a long time doesn't make them anymore an expert than anyone else. I have worked with dogs many years in all sorts of situations, and that doesn't make me an expert. However, if I continue doing what I do now, with all the books I've read and research I've done, some day I may qualify for that title, but no, not right now.
Many farm people I have personally known have been downright ignorant of dogs, yet they've had them all their lives and used them for various things. I don't think they're heartless at all. I think sometimes an animal's problems are beyond what some people are capable of handling, but not all people. They're farmers, not dog behaviorists, so of course I do understand that they have their priorities and limits. I think it's just a clash of generations, personally. Yes, this new generation seems "mushy" to the elders, but we are also the same people that spay and neuter, dress our dogs up in funny clothes (how's that for dignity :D ), and don't shoot them when it gets rough. I think we aren't going to ever agree on this for these very reasons.
And let me clarify. I don't mean to say that farm dogs or city dogs have it better than the other type. I think it's all in how the dog is raised and treated. Having said that, there are good and bad owners in both situations, and that is why people make assumptions about them. One of the greatest thing about dogs is their ability to find comfort in just about any situation, as long as their human is right there with them. I don't know about your situation, but I do know that my city dogs look at me sometimes like I am the greatest thing, and I feel the same about them.
LOL !!!
I got my Pit from a very good breeder. We paid a lot for him but it was well worth it.
http://www.bluediamond1.com/home.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.