Posted on 02/01/2007 7:04:48 AM PST by pkajj
Oh, but Labs NEVER do anything bad!
(psych)
Fedex drivers are afraid of alligators, too, I have all my stuff shipped UPS.
I wish I'd grabbed a golf club out of my bag before I went after that dog. I think one good whack with a 3 or 4 iron would have given that dog something else to worry about.
Yup, I realize that you were just getting at the application of the law. I just found myself wondering why you have cause to believe that the general application of the law will cause needless harm to innocent dogs.
My PB mix stays on a leash when we are out also. He's such a sweetheart, but I don't believe I could predict his behavior in every possible scenario, so I do the responsible thing and keep him on a leash. He has a big dog yard at home, but he spends a good bit of time indoors.
I know he is protective of my MIL and myself and I do not always anticipate what he considers a threat - for instance, I'd have never guessed he'd feel the top of the artificial christmas tree was a threat :-) Anyway, since I know he can behave agressively if he feels he needs to protect us, it is my responsibility to manage him accordingly.
He doesn't have much tolerance for agression from other dogs, other than that he is the perfect pet. He understand MIL is not too steady on her feet and always clears out of her path. If she has him on the leash he walks with baby steps so as not to tug on her. He treats cats, babies, toddlers, rabbits and birds with tolerance and care. He is happy of heart and affectionate to all things he does not believe are about to hurt his pack. In other words, he's a better companion than many people I kno.
ping.
Inbreeding definitely is bad. Even if you are trying to "distill" good traits, animals and humans have too many mutations as is. Inbreeding only exacerbates this.
Inbreeding is done all the time. Obviously, in the great scheme of things it has hardly made any negative impact. You can get crap from outcrosses too.
Neither is inherently bad. It is when it is used IN SPITE of KNOWING (very) bad traits exist that inbreeding is bad.
Because people's perceptions are hokey, and also, some people are naturally afraid of every single dog. Throwing them in the gas chamber because some hyper-sensitive idiot thinks the dog was threatening is ridiculous. You should know as it is that even VISUAL testimonies are often faulty in criminal courts. Much less "feelings".
Incest is illegal for more than only cultural/social reasons.
Wow, talk about reading something into something. But, thanks for the info, didn't realize we had the gas chamber for dogs.
No it's not. It's just an "eewwww" factor and that's what colors our perception of more scientific inbreeding generally.
What was I reading into what something? People have false perceptions. People also have inordinate fears. There's no denying that.
You didn't know about gassing and other methods of extermination?
Under the state's Health and Safety Code, a dog is considered dangerous when it causes bodily injury to a person in an unprovoked attack and causes a person to believe that it will attack and cause bodily injury.
How do you get from this law that people are now going to go out and have every dog put down that they spot? The law has apparently been on the books at the state level for some time now. Do you have information that dogs are being needlessly put down due to a combination of this law and people's irrational fears of dogs?
I've already posted about this "attack" on the other thread and won't repeat it here.
But I will point out again some observations.
This incident has already merited two threads on FR.
In the month of January there were 4 fatal attacks by dogs.
One by a "pit bull" that rated two threads.
One by another breed. It was posted because I pointed it out to a Freeper
who owns the breed and he had the integrity to post it for discussion.
And two deaths in separate incidents by another different breed that
to the best of my knowledge have not been posted by anyone on FR.
Does this strike anybody as a little bit odd?
Are articles about dog attacks and the resultant injuries and human fatalities
only important if we can attach the slang term "pit bull" to them?
Thanks for the ping.
I already stated to you I do realize apparently you have to have BOTH an unprovoked attack AND "causes person to believe it WILL attack...."
I'm just stating if that last phrase becomes a sole requirement, it would be very dangerous, because of all the bad perceptions people have.
That's "she", kanawa! ;-)
The pit-bull thing has a lot of hysteria behind it. Although I DO believe that (real) pit-bull types are generally more dangerous than any other type of dog. However, it seems some people had real fears of this type and wanted to fan the flames by even making articles about it where other dogs might miss out on the publicity (happens every time - almost always, an article in a paper is about a "pit bull" attack - even if you can see a pix where the dog looks nothing like a PBT).
But you have to admit, this was some exciting story. Glad the man made it!
Have a good weekend.
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.