Posted on 11/19/2006 11:23:41 PM PST by Omega Man II
I agree and I don't (how's that for double talk?) There is no easy way to deal with irresponsible owners. In a free society there is enormous foundational responsibility to behave properly. The subversion of the standard provided by scripture to the ”me first - screw you” mentality has changed the application of law to our present nanny state system; children do not act responsibly and need a "nanny". So how to apply the law? Aye, there is the rub; because as satisfying as heavy punitive laws can be, they do not bring back a dead kid. So what is left? Ban the breed.
The more children we have of voting age, the more nanny laws there will be - “.”
Okay, so I see I have 'fessed up to concluding that all cases of lethal dog attacks of humans and other animals are caused by "bad owners." That it's *never* the case that a dog just suddenly follows instincts that are lethal and unprovoked by the circumstances we humans recognize as provoking to dogs.
That's all I need to know. Thanks.
I think you are the one jumping to conclusions.
And, no, dogs are not capable of making "moral" judgments. But they are capable of making judgments, a form of reasoning. When they obey their master's commands, for example, they are not doing so as automatons; they are choosing at some level to comply.
When a dog chases a bird or squirrel across the yard, is a reasoning process of some sorts or merely instinct at work in the dog's actions? Does it matter?
Do you believe that human training can completely control and always override a dog's instincts?
If so, this is another example of jumping to conclusions.
Since you asked, I will explain once more what I would like you to address: please see the case I cited in post #218.
If you believe that all cases of "aggressive" breed attacks are caused by "bad owners," meaning owners who fail to adequately socialize their dogs, etc., then please leave it at that.
That, I think, is the ultimate example of "jumping to conclusions." So let's leave it at that.
Your questions.
Asking questions can never be evidence that one is "jumping to conclusions." In fact, it is quite the opposite.
When there is no way to answer questions in a way that is consistent with one's previous conclusions, so one simply refuses to address those questions, that is "jumping to conclusions."
So it's too bad you won't address these incidents and give your insight.
How should I address them?
Just answer them with your thoughts. Pull out my questions and give me your thoughtful answers. That's all I'm asking.
That said, again, if you truly conclude that a dog never attacks and kills unless he has a "bad" owner, IOW, that a dog never follows an instinct that is counter all the love, care, training and socialization that has been showered on him, that's all I need to know. This is the type of thinking on the part of owners that makes people even more wary of these dogs.
Go to any pitbull thread you want. Tons of links and information. But you aren't interested in learning anything, really. Your mind is made up and your questions really do reflect that. Why do you ask questions when you've assumed the answer?
When you stop beating your wife let me know.
Attack dogs are loved, cared for, "socialized", and trained to attack. I wouldn't necessarily say they have bad owners...
Dogs have instincts. Killing humans is not one of them. If that were the case, your dog would be typing and not you.
All the dogs that ever lived at my house were at least 50% husky. They grow a layer of winter fur, which they shed in summer, and they have good circulation to extremities. Cats are not good at 20 below and a goodly number of dogs people own in Alaska are similarly limited. They need water although will eat snow, and they eat more in winter, but do fine at 50 below and can stay outdoors all the time. Some do not like to come inside since it is too hot for them even at 40 at floor level.
A f#$king Lhasa Apso damn near bit my nose off when I was the same age. Every dog that's ever bit be has been some little ankle-biting yapper-dog. I get along just fine with the bigger breeds everybody is so afraid of.
When you stop thinking you can read my mind, let me know! lol
BTW, you still haven't answered why a dog (any dog) who is a wonderful family pet---not in any way a "trained attack dog"---and a dog who has a longstanding and affectionate relationship with the next door neighbor would one day attack that man.
You may think I've made up my mind what the answer is, but I haven't. As I have said over and over again, I don't know the answer. I have no clue why a dog did that. I'm seriously puzzled by it and genuinely want some insight.
You turning the discussion to "attack dogs" is disingenuous. I have repeatedly said I am talking about the family pet, not a guard dog, an attack dog or any other such situation. Of course trained attack dogs may attack. Duh. By why won't you address the situation where the dog is in no way, shape or form "trained" to attack---yet, one day, he does? Not only attacks, but attacks and kills?
If you can provide some insight to my specific question re the incident posted on this thread about the neighbor mauled by the family pet he had known and been affectionate with, by all means, post back. Otherwise, let's just leave it here. I'll ask someone else.
As unfortunate and unfair as this might be, you speak a lot of sense here. This is especially true as a vicious (no pun intended) cycle makes the situation worse and worse: bad owners make bad dogs who do bad things and get bad reputations, thus attracting even worse owners and it all cycles downward.
It's kind of like banning gang-related jewelry at a school. The jewelry itself is neutral; it's the owners and what the jewelry means to the owners that starts the problems.
The nurse at the ER that treated me said that most of the dog bites that she's ever seen have come from terriers and the little "yappy sh*t" dogs (her term). They could also do a lot of damage in a short amount of time.
I'm good with the big breeds, I just can't stand the little breeds. My rott has a more stable temperment, and is smarter than the Yorkie we had.
I've got a nasty scar on my forearm from playing with my mom's German Shepard.
Without very good cause, a dog will never attack a human with whom it has a "longstanding and affectionate" relationship. Fear, disease, pain, or the combination, *might cause a dog to bite someone it knows and likes, but even then it is highly unlikely.
Dogs are actually very loyal creatures, and stay true to "longstanding and affectionate" relationships. Especially with children.
By the way, Ursa was horrified when she realized she'd drawn blood on my arm (the scar is about the size of a grain of rice). She wouldn't look me in the eye for at least two days, and was very reluctant to come near me.
She slunk around the house, showed belly and refused to roughhouse with me. The way I see it, I get what I deserve when I roughouse with an 80 lb behemoth with a head the size of a canonball. This is her, by the way.
Thank you for your answer. I always thought exactly the same as you stated, but the more cases I review, the more I wonder if it is correct. There are some situations in which no one seems to be able to pinpoint any discernible factor that "caused" the dog to attack---much less to resist attempts to stop the attack and then to go on to kill.
For example, I did read one case where a Dobie killed his owner. It turned out the owner had passed out from drugs or alcohol and the dog had become alarmed and, from what the forensics could tell, became increasingly frantic at trying to wake the owner. The dog eventually bit the owner on the neck and shook him.
That's just what the experts said they could piece together.
However, there are a number of cases that do not seem to have an explanation.
I do agree that you are correct that *generally* a dog will not attack a human with whom it has a longstanding and affectionate relationship. However, some breeds seem closer to the "non-domestic" animals that are "tamed" but, nevertheless, always pose an unpredictable threat to their handlers.
She's 105 lbs, BTW.
I am a owner of a beloved pitbull who is like my daughter she has never snapped or bit anybody. I don't believe what you are saing is true. The owners that make them aggressive should be punished. This is not fair to the pibulls who are not aggressive nor to the owners that are not making them aggressive.
"Any dog that kills cats should be put to sleep."
"And reciprocity for cats that kill mice?
Extra rations of 'Whiskas' cat treats... :-)
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.