Posted on 07/28/2006 5:09:06 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
There is a total difference between dogs and guns. Dogs can do things (like maul people) all on their own. Dogs are self directed. Guns are inanimate and require human operation to do anything.
This is one of those issues that really challenges the core philosophies of conservatism and what I hope will be Republicanism. As a Republican, I don't like to see government infringe on personal freedoms, especially somthing as personal as what dog you choose to have as a pet. I think "live and let live" should be the rule of thumb.
But we are caught in limbo. Dogs are on the one hand regarded akin to possessions or property such as guns. In reality, dogs are "people, too!" Their owners are "pet parents" and their dogs are their children. You know them -- they've been around for as long as there have been people and dogs, I imagine.
The old Auntie whose nasty little chihuhua has terrorized the family for years, is acceptable and nobody's damned business. My neighbor whose sweet little spaniel craps where she shouldn't and moseys long enough in the street to stop traffic -- that's acceptable because I know what the spaniel means to my neighbor. I can deal.
The idealistic young couple or "dog whisperer" who like "big babies" and opt for breeds or mixes or whatever the heck you want to call them (Pits and Rottweilers for the time being ... see Presa Canarios soon) that have clear track records of unprovoked serious and often fatal attacks on humans -- well that's not acceptable and it is my business.
There was a story (I'm too lazy to find a link) about a woman who had propped the door open to her house while she was unloading groceries from her car, gets to her kitchen and finds two pitbulls (they'd escaped their fenced yard from a home a few blocks away) in her kitchen. Think, "Prepare to meet thy maker!" I'd have peed my pants. She screamed, somebody got the dogs out, the owner was warned, and that was that. Live and let die.
That's not acceptable, and it is my business.
Something has to be done. The problem, exists, for the same reason it's so hard to resolve: "Dogs are people, too!" Dog owners are "pet parents." Their dogs are their children, and they have rights.
So it's:
-- Breed banning.
-- Breed-based DOGGY PROFILING!! that puts a certain class of dog into a different rule book. Those people (and they are legion) whose idiot dogs are "nobody's business" remain free because it really isn't anybody's business in a live-and-let-live world.
-- More incidents like the one on another thread, where a guy came home to find that somebody had hanged his two pit bulls from the fence. Instinct rebels against live-and-let-die.
I don't even like dogs particularly (I'm a cat person -- cats don't bark), but your Beauregard ... gets me to thinking I could like dogs!
As much as I agree with you that people should not be letting their dogs roam around, and definitely shouldn't make it possible for them to escape the yard, I don't agree that they need to be banned or hung. The dogs in this case hadn't done anything. They were in the yard, with a six foot privacy fence, supposedly safe, and from what I gather, many of the neighbors liked them too. They were well cared for and weren't a nuisance.
Just because an extremely small percentage (0.000001% of four to six million) of a certain breed have attacked people, that doesn't make it acceptable for people to go on a witch hunt. These dogs weren't lawn ornaments. They weren't trophies. They weren't being fought or trained to be vicious. They were his beloved pets. They were only outside for a couple of hours to play with each other, and the owner checked on them periodically. It wasn't like they were always out there, or that they were nuisance barkers or anything. They were just regular dogs doing regular things with a regular owner, and because of the way they looked, they payed the ultimate price. This man really loved his dogs. He wept for a long while after he cut them down before calling the police.
These dogs have history of attacks just like any other breed, and the CDC even admits this is not a breed problem. If a high percentage of attacks are from intact dogs running loose or chained up, that in itself says something. You don't hear about this happening in nice neighborhoods, or from dog trainers or behaviorists for a reason.
Since when is it acceptable to let dogs roam neighborhoods? I don't care what the breed is, whatever the dog, it's a danger not only to other people, especially children, and drivers, not to mention in danger itself. If dogs weren't roaming around, and they were contained, there would be far less unwanted litters, less attacks, less disease, less car accidents, less dog fights, and less animal abuse overall.
There is a certain mindset that ignorant people who have dogs tend to have, and its bad all around. Dogs need to be inside with the family. They need to be speutered. They need to be socialized around all kinds of things. These things need to be done for everyone's safety and quality of life.
If the people with any kind of dogs would just keep them indoors most of the time and only let them outside to potty or for walks, not only would the dogs not have a chance to escape, but they would be automatically rid of many problems just by being around people most of the time. It isn't hard to train a dog if its with you all the time. It just happens on its own for the most part. Dogs that are left alone get into all kinds of trouble and can be dangerous because they don't get the interactions so important in making them well rounded and stable.
It IS AN OWNER PROBLEM. Of all the breeds involved in all attacks documented, the one main pattern seen is that the dog is intact, running loose, or chained up. All of these things can be changed. Dogs can't neuter themselves, keep themselves contained, or get the necessary socialization crucial to their sanity on a chain. It's up to the owners to ensure the dog is alright, and that includes euthanizing a dog that is unsafe. Responsible owners will do what is right for everyone, not just for their piece of mind or for the dog's "pride".
If you see someone with a large, strong dog, and they aren't handling it the right way, there's nothing wrong with giving them some advice. I do all the time. Having two pit bulls of my own, I see where others make mistakes and I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Several people I know have convinced others not to breed their pit bulls and speuter them instead just by politely educating them about the breed's plight. Others have even convinced people to stop fighting their dogs, (talking young people, not criminals that would kill you if you found out) and now a few of them are educating others about it.
Banning a breed that only thirty years ago was our war hero, companion, friend, and source of pride is not the answer, as literally millions of perfectly fine pets would have to be destroyed.
Also, the ban in many places has only made things worse. All the responsible owners move away because they would rather do that than kill their family pet, leaving only criminals who hide their dogs. So now, instead of having a mix of mostly great dogs and a few bad ones, the only pit bulls left in these areas are the potentially dangerous ones. Great plan. Then, of course, a ban doesn't address when another breed, like a husky for example, comes along and kills a child. But a dangerous dog law or any law that is actually ENFORCED, like leash laws, would prevent such things from happening.
Actually, I swore off dogs. Too much maintenance.
I have always liked having a BIG siamese cat as a friend. If you train them right, they are really good. My cat fetches. He also jumps into my arms and lets me rock him like a baby with his feet in the air and he just lies there smiling.
Sometimes he pesters me a bit, but that is OK.
I really wish I had trained him to use a toilet..that is one thing I will do *next* time. Of course, they can't flush because they don't have opposable fingers...but..well, that's another story!
Oh, and the reason I like BIG siamese? You get them neutered so they don't wander, but if something wanders up on them, well, I don't get stuck with vet bills.
It's this attitude that cause a lot of the problems, since dogs are not little furry people. They are ANIMALS. They have instincts, not reason, and cannot be dealt with on a rational bases (for that matter dog owners frequently cannot be dealt with on a rational basis either - for example the woman who attacked that father trying to save his child from further mauling by her pit bull screaming "don't hurt my dog")
Very articlulate post. Well said. I've taken a similar approach in our neighborhood with respect to dogs. I've seen some newbie dog owners letting their dogs run around uncontrolled. It was the kids that did it. They'd be out with the dogs running around. I went up and told them about how dangerous it was for their puppies and for others that don't like or are scared of dogs. A reminder about local leash laws also made the point. Now the dogs are well mannered leash walked pets. There really is a lot of ignorance out there when it comes to proper animal care.
We did all the things that pet Nazis who babble on about being "responsible" pet "parents" say is all wrong. She was an indoor-outdoor cat with free run of the 'hood and was a marvelous gopher hunter. She got dry food and water, and that was that (with the exception of the occasional dish of milk or raw egg, and abalone guts when we were cleaning the abs my brothers brought home after dives -- cats LOVE abalone guts). She never had her teeth cleaned -- NOT ONCE!!! She was NEVER EVER bathed in water (it is cruel to bathe a cat in water unless the cat is sufferering from extenuating circumstances). She was only spayed after many batches of kittens.
She lived to be 19 years old.
In an earlier post, I incompletely wrote that with regard to the problem of certain BREEDS of dogs KILLING PEOPLE, we had three alternatives. I was mistaken -- there is another one that is the worst one, even worse than banning breeds, and I am AGAINST BANNING BREEDS.
I posted earlier that three options are:
-- Breed banning.
-- Breed-based DOGGY PROFILING!! that puts a certain class of dog into a different rule book. Those people (and they are legion) whose idiot dogs are "nobody's business" remain free because it really isn't anybody's business in a live-and-let-live world.
-- More incidents like the one on another thread, where a guy came home to find that somebody had hanged his two pit bulls from the fence. Instinct rebels against live-and-let-die.
The fourth option, the one that is apparently preferred by "reponsible pet parents" who prattle on about how it's an owner problem, not a breed-specific problem and who deny, deny, deny, deny, that Pit Bulls and Rottweilers and other BREEDS pose a far larger danger than any other dog on the block and therefore ALL dogs/owners must be treated equally, goes thus:
-- Hugely invasive and draconian leash laws and regulations that very heavily infringe on the rights of people who own dogs and cats that are at WORST minor annoyances untethered. I grew up in a town with ZERO leash laws, as I daresay plenty of us did as kids, and not a soul I knew was ever seriously bitten by a dog, let alone sent to the hospital or killed by one, nor was anyone I knew ever even threatened by any dog that could do that kind of damage.
There is NO WAY JOSE that people like my old Aunties with the nasty chihuahuas and the runaway-poodles and the ridiculously ill-behaved yap-dogs should even remotely be held to the same regulatory standards as the dick-head with the viscious lethal pit bull or Rottweiler. NO WAY, and pretending that that the person who loves and adores their somewhat errant Spaniel or Irish Setter even remotely puts their neighbors at risk of their lives and limbs on the same level as the dickhead with the pit bull or Rottweiler, is completely inane and irrational.
I repeat: The best way to handle this problem of a small group of specific breeds posing unacceptable risk of danger to the public is to engage in DOGGY PROFILING!!! (How unfair and politically incorrect! Dogs are "people, too," you know!!! Again, an example, Occupied GA, of how right you are in observing that the "pets are people too" mentality is the cause of a lot of problems). Most dogs even at their WORST are minor annoyances, and I am willing to put up with a lot of crap from such dogs, literally and figuratively, because I know how much those pets mean to the people who own them.
We -- all of us -- should always opt for the path of more freedom rather than infringement on individual rights, and people have the right to have annoying dogs -- but they don't have the right to unregulated ownerships of dogs of a breed that has, again and again and again and again and again ... killed or maimed people and their pets. "Yadda yadda yadda" is what I say to the pinheads who will whine ad nauseum, "But any dog can kill people." There is such a thing as being able to differentiate rationally. The occasional little yap dog that kills a human infant in a jealous rage is bizarre. The Rottweiler or pit bull that kills or critically injures a human ADULT is not bizarre -- it's all too common, and every one of us knows it, though many continue to deny that they know it.
To maintain the most freedoms for the most dog owners without resorting to breed banning or horribly heavy-handed "universal" rules for ALL dog owners, we must be breed specific and regulate a very few, very dangerous breeds or breed types (pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios come to mind) and leave the vast majority of dogs and dog owners alone. "Repsonsible" pet owner advocates who crave control-by-regulation over EVERY ASPECT of EVERY DOG ON THE PLANET give me a pain. It isn't neccesary, it isn't responsible, it makes for too much government infringement on indivudal rights, and way too many MISERABLE dogs. It is control-freak crap. For proof that it is an illusion that all dogs must be on leashes, etc. etc. etc, all you have to do is go back to life in America 35, 45 years ago, when I was a kid -- BEFORE pet ownership had become so feminized with the "Dogs are people, too!" mentality. Back in the good ol' days, when Dogs were DOGS!
This is terrible. And not the first case. We had a similar case not far from us.
"I grew up in a town with ZERO leash laws, as I daresay plenty of us did as kids, and not a soul I knew was ever seriously bitten by a dog, let alone sent to the hospital or killed by one, nor was anyone I knew ever even threatened by any dog that could do that kind of damage. "
Dogs have been maiming and killing people as long as people have had dogs. It just wasn't in the news like it is now. In fact, according to the CDC, as long as there has been record of dog attacks, no matter what breed came into popularity, whether it be shelties or rotties, the number of deaths from dogs has remained the same every year.
The difference is that back in the day when a dog attacked someone, it was either immediately shot, or the person getting bit got a talking to because they did something stupid to, or around the dog. In today's touchy-feely society, no one is responsible for their own actions anymore. Now, dogs are blamed when a two year old somehow manages to walk, undetected, two whole blocks and let himself into someone else's yard.
This is very interesting because about 30 years ago, pit bulls were extremely popular, but if you look back at statistics then, there were hardly any deaths from them at all. Not until they started becoming popular with criminals. Which brings me to my next point.
You don't hear about dog attacks in nice neighborhoods. Not from veterinarians, trainers, behaviorists, or well-educated, financially stable people. It seems there is a pattern with the "bad" dogs. They are mostly intact, chained, or running loose. The five million or so pit bulls you don't hear about on the news are likely in homes where they are well cared for and socialized.
"NO WAY, and pretending that that the person who loves and adores their somewhat errant Spaniel or Irish Setter even remotely puts their neighbors at risk of their lives and limbs on the same level as the dickhead with the pit bull or Rottweiler, is completely inane and irrational. "
I don't think you know how many spaniels and labs actually bite people on a daily basis. And yes, to the point of being hospitalized. You don't realize that if a city reports it's number one worst biter is the lab, that it's because there must have been enough REPORTED bites to count and outnumber any other breed. And everyone knows that the only reason to report a dog bite if it isn't from a pit bull, is because it's pretty serious. Yet, time and time again, when researching this, I come across city after city with all kinds of breeds other than pit bulls at the top of the list. Not to say that there aren't cities out there that DO have pits as the number one biters, I know there are, but not as many as you would think, and it always seems to be in areas with poverty and crime. (This is not my opinion, it can be proven.)
I get mail every day about dog attacks in all areas of the world that are reported, and believe me, pits and rotties are not the majority. They cause more damage than a spaniel when they do attack simply because of their size, not their aggression or genetics. In fact, the American Temperament Test Society ranks pit bulls very highly, actually above the average, when it comes to temperament. In tests on unprovoked aggression, the pit bull breeds consistently scored higher than many popular breeds thought to be friendly, including daschunds and miniature poodles, and basically tied with golden retrievers.
"we must be breed specific and regulate a very few, very dangerous breeds or breed types (pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios come to mind) and leave the vast majority of dogs and dog owners alone."
This kind of crap is exactly why some poor kid in Canada died from a husky. The pit bull ban they had in place did nothing to protect people from ANY OTHER BREED of dog. And when a stray labrador starts attacking an entire running team on a school campus because its owner thinks it needs to be able to roam, a ban did nothing then either.
Here's some facts I bet you weren't aware of:
So far this year, and this is just what I found very quickly, it isn't the whole list, but here are the dogs that weren't pit bulls, that have claimed lives:
LabX in Australia killed a child
Old English Sheepdog killed an old woman
Border collie and pack of mixes killed a man
Malamutes killed a child
Mastiff killed a woman
Great Dane killed a woman
Rottweiler chained in garage killed child
Great Pyranees and lab killed old woman
Labx killed man in Canada
Husky mixes killed child in Canada
Husky killed another child in Canada
Wolf hybrid killed owner
Your solution, just as some cities have found, would have done nothing for these people. Responsible dog owners don't only have labs. We have all breeds. It is up to us to watch our children, to learn about what we have, and to use common sense to avoid tragedy. A dog chained to anything for long will become frustrated. So will a mating pair of ANY kind of dog, so will a dog never socialized and made to run loose. Of all the stories above, and in all the stories I have read about pit bulls, there was always one of three things in common: chained dog, intact dog, or loose dog.
I personally would like to see leash laws in every city. And spay and neuter laws. In fact, it would really be great if, like driving a car, we all had to go through some kind of course in school that teaches us about being safe around pets. A very high percentage of attacks are by dogs that belong to the person they bite. Even if people aren't going to have pets, it could end up saving their lives to know a little about how to handle stray dogs, and what to do if a dog seems aggressive towards you. It would also eliminate all the old wives tales about how to handle dogs, both on the street and in the home. I cannot see any bad coming of this, and it might serve to save lives. And it would be much better than taking rights away from responsible dog owners that happen to have a breed that is feared.
More news:
It turns out, not only was the dog NOT a pit bull, but the woman died from cardiac arrythmia, not from the attack. There were bite marks, but none were fatal. This woman had been quoted saying how scared she was of the dog. It's really sad that she got so worked up over a dog she thought was a pit bull, and then died basically from the fright of the attack. I hope sensing her fear wasn't what made the dog aggressive toward her.
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.