UR BEBEH HAD A FLAVR.
Posted on 02/07/2010 10:58:45 PM PST by Chet 99
I thought that hairstyle looked familiar. Yep, there it is.
“”not different than any other breed”, give me a break.”
Where’s your proof? I have plenty of sources showing them to be just as stable, just as trainable, just as strong (or weak) as any other. I also have resources stating that the breed is not nearly as important as the care it receives. In addition, I have proof that breed bans are not working in the United States and in the UK.
www.cdc.gov
www.atts.org
www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com
www.chako.org
www.kcdogblog.com
I’m not an apologist. I just realize that attributing supernatural powers to a dog is ridiculous, and a little bit of research shows that almost every single attack can be traced back to the owner’s mistakes. It’s a much more common pattern that shows up with every dog attack, not just the ones involving pit bulls.
When people figure out that dogs are animals and people are people and act accordingly most of these issues will be solved. My parents raised several children- 5 of their own and a few extras that relatives were not able to care for; we had dogs and every other critter you can imagine. Critters were expected to mind and were never ever left alone with small children, there was never an issue.
Hubby and I raised several children with critters, including multiple tough Catahoula cow dogs crossed with Pits to make them tough enough to work wild cattle. We never had an issue and never ever left a young child alone with a critter.
It is not rocket science, and I don’t care what breed your dog is or how nice you think it is; please don’t leave it alone with a small child. Just don’t. It is not a breed issue it is a parenting issue.
There is more than one incident of critters chewing on babies- one was a ferret and another story about a cat. I have heard inner city rats have done this too- not just pit bulls.
The “adults” left the dog with the baby, didn’t hear baby crying and try to figure out why and it is the dog’s fault?
“Spot on! I really get sick and tired of these people who suggest that it’s always the owner’s fault. As if that’s any consolation to someone who just had their child’s face eaten off. These dogs are hard wired to be violent. Perhaps not all. But there’s no doubt they’re much more involved in the fatalities of humans than Labs. I also note a low life element in Pit Bull ownership. This is very true in Texas. We had a case here in San Antonio where two pet Pit Bulls ate an eight month old child. But, no matter, the dogs weren’t responsible!”
If they had time to eat a baby, I’m pretty sure it was because the baby and the dogs were left alone together, which is a big mistake for ANY breed of dog (and cats, and ferrets), and is not only irresponsible dog ownership, but child endangerment.
It’s not always the owner’s fault. Very rarely, dogs will come along that simply aren’t right. However, genetics plays a part in these cases, and it is not a case of the dog “snapping”. There will always be red flags in these situations and it is up to the owner of the dog to act immediately.
If my dog ever exhibited human aggression, I would have her euthanized right after a trip to the vet to make sure it wasn’t due to a physical malady. There are far too many great dogs on death row for me or anyone else to make excuses for the ones that aren’t right. However, most of the dogs involved in these tragedies were acting how they were allowed to act. No one in their right mind would admit their dog was neglected, or that their dog was aggressive and they did nothing about it. That would mean they were liable for the damages.
No, but I do find hyperbole coupled with claims to speak for others an unattractive argument.
UR BEBEH HAD A FLAVR.
Certain traits are an inherent part of a breed, and aggressiveness is ABSOLUTELY one of those traits. It is dangerous wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
Both training and breed selection have big consequences, and neither one can fully make up for bad decisions in the other, IMO.
“how often do you hear about a house cat mauling or killing someone? Now how often do you hear about a pit bull mauling or killing someone? For that matter, how often do you hear about a golden retriever or a border collie mauling or killing someone Mr. “not any different than any other breed”. Typical pit bull apologias.”
Over fifty breeds have taken lives, including dachshunds, chespeake bay retrievers, labradors, saint bernards, west highland white terriers, border collies, collies, weimaraners, pomeranians, and even greyhounds to name a few. There are 13 thousand dog attacks every single day in this country, and only the smallest percentage of them are reported on the news. Reporters go for the stories that make them money. They are not obligated to report all attacks, and they often ignore attacks that don’t involve the current breed to hate.
Last year, 19 people died from non-pit bull-type dog attacks, and all 19 were completely preventable tragedies, as were the pit bull-related fatalities.
I am sure you aren’t aware, but it’s been proven that breed bans don’t work. Denver has had a ban in place for 20 years, and their serious attacks have not declined one little bit. They also have a huge number of illegal pit bulls in the city, which are the same dogs the law was intended to target. All the responsible owners either left with their dogs or had them euthed, leaving only the worst of the worst.
Calgary did not ban pit bulls, but instead opted for responsible ownership laws. They have the highest percentage of licensed animals, and their serious attacks declined by quite a bit.
“Training and owner behavior is certainly a big part of the problem, but so is the breed. Otherwise, Poodles would be used as fighting dogs as often as Pits and Boxers.”
Poodles weren’t designed for anything but water-retrieving. They have a soft bite so they don’t damage what they’re retrieving. They were also never bred to do extreme work like pit bulls were. There was no reason to breed poodles with the type of drive needed for a gripping dog.
Any terrier, most hunting dogs, herding dogs, working dogs, and mastiffs were all bred to have aggressive tendencies. That was how they achieved their purposes, along with working drive. Pit bulls were from terriers and bulldogs combined so that they had both strength and tenacity. They were no different than other dogs used on farms, and before they were fighting each other, they were valuable as a gripping dog for cattle farmers.
During the entire course of their history, never were they bred for human aggression, and dogs can tell the difference, despite what some seem to believe. This is a breed the dog fighters needed to be able to handle in the middle of a fight without the dog redirecting and attacking them. Well-bred and raised dogs will not bite people, but may be dog-aggressive. A well-educated, capable owner will know this and will socialize and train the dog accordingly. Just because a dog has some of those DA tendencies doesn’t mean it can’t obey its owner. There are many breeds that have these tendencies, yet no one seems to mind them. Dachshunds have taken several lives, for example, but most consider them endearing little dogs.
Your statement is a good example of the dangers of relying on the media for truth.
See post 25 here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2219955/posts
LOL!
"Several", in comparison to other breeds? No.
There was a study which showed that Dachshunds are among the most aggressive in general behavior, but their small size mitigates the aggressiveness.
Dachshunds aren't killing people.
I was using them as an example of a small dog that has taken more than one life. Most small breeds that have taken lives have been considered flukes because of their size, and considering dachshunds are pretty small dogs, having taken more than one life is a big deal.
“There was a study which showed that Dachshunds are among the most aggressive in general behavior, but their small size mitigates the aggressiveness.”
Do you perhaps have a link to this study? I would be interested in seeing it. I don’t believe it’s the size of the dog that makes it aggressive. It’s the attitude of the owner towards the small dog that ALLOWS it to be aggressive. I have seen more people with tiny little demons on a leash at the vet’s office than any other size dog, and these people just laugh about it. They don’t attempt to even control the dog, and most of them end up encouraging the behavior by trying to “calm” them down (i.e. rewarding aggression with affection). This is the most common reason people with small dogs have ankle-biters. It is a perfect example of how irresponsible ownership can cause aggression, simply due to lack of rules. The bigger the dog, the more likely a person is to curb such behavior and train the dog (with the exception of those who desire a macho ...extension, which happens to also be the same owners claiming their dog was a loved family pet after it attacked someone). A ten pound dog trying to jump on you is way different than a 90 pound dog doing the same.
That's a nice example of a non-sequitur.
You're only responding to half of my point. When you do that, the result is, as you have demonstrated, wonderfully absurd.
*sigh* I don't believe that either.
Look up "mitigate". It doesn't mean "causes".
A ten pound dog trying to jump on you is way different than a 90 pound dog doing the same.
Precisely.
That's why a large aggressive dog is a much more serious problem than a small aggressive dog is.
My contention stands: The inherent danger of a particular breed can't be entirely overcome by good training, and any breed can be a problem with bad training.
They both matter.
“You’re only responding to half of my point. When you do that, the result is, as you have demonstrated, wonderfully absurd.”
Isn’t it the same to ban millions of dogs for the actions of less than a half of a half of a percent? Places that have banned pit bulls have not seen any decline in serious attacks. If there aren’t pit bulls, what are the irresponsible, uneducated, lazy people going to do? Get another dog and wonder why THAT one isn’t right either.
OR
Implement responsible ownership laws, so that not only do we have a decrease in pit bull attacks, but attacks by all dogs. After all, seeing as how dogs other than pit bulls take lives every single year (over fifty different breeds), wouldn’t it make more sense to prevent them all?
Kindly point out where I have called for this. (Hint: I haven't)
I know what the word mitigate means. Let me rephrase what I said: I don’t believe size has ANYTHING to do with aggressiveness, as this is a behavior which can be controlled in any breed (barring any medical conditions, like rage syndrome for example, and abuse/neglect cases).
“My contention stands: The inherent danger of a particular breed can’t be entirely overcome by good training, and any breed can be a problem with bad training.”
I have never come across a single reputable study that says a well-bred, socialized dog of any breed is a danger. I have never come across a reputable study that counts breed as an indication of inherent danger, either. I have come across multiple studies, some of which are often misunderstood and taken out of context, in which the single most common cause of dog attacks is the irresponsible actions of the owner (chaining, letting the dog loose, letting the dog remain intact, keeping the dog outside most of the time, not socializing, etc.).
Seriously, though. Do you have a link to the dachshund study? I am always willing to learn something new, and am actually quite interested in this since you brought it up.
“Kindly point out where I have called for this. (Hint: I haven’t)”
Have I been rude to you? I don’t remember doing so, and if I have, let me apologize. I was simply wanting to have a polite debate. I enjoy speaking with others about this subject.
Would you at least admit that it would be better to have all dog owners held to the safest standards? What I mean is requiring them to license, vaccinate, socialize, sterilize (except for purebreds being used to better the breed or in conformation) and keep indoors where they belong. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if we were all a bit more responsible? After all, places that have enforced such laws have seen positive effects that cannot be ignored.
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.