Posted on 12/20/2006 8:54:01 PM PST by paulat
>In this particular case, the puppy in question, because of its age, is innocent. <
Puppies do not attack people, regardless of breed. They also need to be taught that play biting and chewing on people is forbidden. A pup of that age doesn't have fully developed bite inhibition yet.
Because FR used to have a nutso poster named "ferret".. and believe you me... he had knawled off the weird end of the Christmas tree (and probable smoked it).
I worked a number of years (college age) for a vet. There was NO worse dog to see than a pit IMHO... They often had to be taken out of the car by a rabies pole because the owner was too afraid of them to even bring them in. I often was given the privilage of having to bath and groom them, but doc was good to give them a sedative first.
The only other breed that came close to them in mannerism was a mistreated Chow (usually they had to have maggots under their fur to make them as disagreeable)...
I was bitten numerous times by all varieties of dogs.. yes, a cocker was often testy and would bite ya, but usually just a nip to warn ya. A pit was out for blood.
BTW... I had a neighbor with a dog that would try to bite from behind. My wife always took the kids (and baby) for walks and it would leave the yard to try his luck. She always carried a stick for such instances. She told me, I visited them and told them that if their dog bit my wife/kids, that they would never see it again. I meant it, they moved.
IMHO, it is ok for a dog to defend it's terrortory, as long as it's yard is that such area. If your dog does not stay in it area, and is dangerous, that all bets are off. I will not equate human life with any damn dog at any time. Call me names if it makes you feel better. This "wipe" will do what needs done.
I used to have a cat that attacked people...LOL I had to cage her when visitors came over.
>>>Usually they were just put to sleep because they were past being able to rehabilitate. Thats why I blame owners and not just pit owners for the way their pet turns out. When you force an animal to become mean , you never know who it will turn on. These people wouldn't understand that someday it would have been them that got chewed to shreds.<<<<
Any dog that can even be "made" to be mean should be put down.
>>>Once he went that far he shouldn't have been given away he should have been put down before he moved on to people<<<
Total lack of understanding of dogs...LOL that's like saying "oh my God! who knows when that bird dog will start retrieving humans"...LOL
>>No bad dogs. Just bad owners.<<
Bull...both exist.
>>So it isn't just "nuture" -- it's "nature" as well.<<
yep, it's the breeding more than anything, and most "pitbull breeders" shouldn't even own a dog of any kind. With dogs you can't put in whats not there already and so bad begets bad coupled with stupid people doing the breeding. Used to be nobody knew what a pit was and the breed was only known to the few who knew them best and only bred the best.
>>Sorry, just got here. Ferrets don't have the strength in their jaws or the strong teeth necessary to gnaw thru bone.<<
I've heard they have a biting pressure of 2,000 psi.
Dogs that have bit my kids; dachshund, Akita and some wolf mix. I used to raise pitbulls/bulldogs and never had a single one that was human aggressive, now with that being said I would never trust ANY dog thats not mine. ANY dog that shows human aggression should be put down esp bulldogs because when they do attack there's a higher chance for more serious injury and death. I have one that almost 13 same as my oldest boy, best dog ever. Can't blame folks for wanting them banned though, lots of bad apples these days.
I guess we'll be putting down a lot of dogs--like ALL of them.<<<<
Not all, but a lot more.
Well, you make my very point. Dogs bred for animal aggression were not bred for human aggression, does it matter what kind of animal it attacks? You've got to think back to the days when they needed animals/dogs to do that work yet not be human aggresive. The ones who were human aggressive in the hunt were culled. You bring up mixed breeds which certainly can't be confused with purebred dogs because theres no telling whats in the ancestery. You make my point on another comment, that bird dog owners understand their charges better, the same goes for any "working dog" including pitbulls. A bird dog mix is no more a bird dog than a pitbull mix. I've been around thousands of bulldogs (pitbulls) and have seen for myself the genetic link of human aggression vs animal aggression. I owned dogs that would roll on their belly for a human yet fire up seeing another dog. Bottom line is the bulldog breed is miss-used by 99.9% of those who have them. Bulldogs really should not exist anymore because a real ones are fighting dogs and the fighting of dogs is illegal. The "pitbull" of today is really no such thing.
There is a ban in place.
It has been taken to court.
We have been waiting for the judge's decision since March.
Latest news is that the government wants to introduce new evidence
and there will be a hearing to decide if that will be allowed.
The optimists among us see this as an indication that
the government thinks it is in danger of losing the case.
I'm hoping it will be decided soon.
9 months of hoping, praying and uncertainty has been stressful.
The world's first face transplant was compliments of a lab in England.
Labs, along with 25 other breeds, are on the CDC's list of dogs that have killed people. Even chespeake bay retrievers, even daschunds, even saint bernards. It's very interesting that the CDC won't even publish more statistics because they themselves have found that the study was flawed from the start.
First off, the phrase "pit bull type" can be used for practically any dog that even remotely resembles a pit bull, including 13 pure bred dogs that aren't even related to them. Yet, all other breeds, including labs and retrievers, have been noted by their breed in detail. They could have lumped the spitz type dogs together and they would have had a killer on their hands, but for some reason, the only group singled out was pit bull type.
Perhaps this is because the CDC got their death statistics from the news, which has time and time again proven extremely unreliable at dog breed identification. If anyone would bother to read the entire report, they would realize that the CDC doesn't do it anymore because every decade or so, there's a breed that comes along that the media simply dominates, and regardless of whether they really are the monster of the time, the media makes it that way. If the CDC only has the media to use for their studies, it's no wonder they have stopped doing them.
I have known more people than I can count who have been seriously attacked by dogs other than pit bulls, but somehow, these stories never end up on the news. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the news is not a non-profit agency bent on educating and informing the public, but a for-profit, biased company with no ethics.
Years ago the same thing happened to Rottweilers, Dobies, Chows, and German Shepherds. They were the only dogs in the news, the only ones attacking people, the only ones killing. We all know that wasn't true. It's just that the media loves to find a monster and make money off it.
And as for the "Google and find thousands of pit bull attacks", I spent the good part of a day doing just that, and what did I find when I actually read the stories?
1)Many of the "pit bulls" weren't actually pit bulls
2)Many, many of the stories were of the same incident, just with different writers and slightly different details
3)Every last article had a pattern and it wasn't the breed of dog. It was a chained dog, dog running loose, intact dog or breeding pair of dogs, every single time.
Unfortunately, the people who have spent years studying the breed, working with them, and seeing their reputation decline have less clout than an agency made up of people with journalism degrees. Not veterinarians, animal behaviorists, not even animal control, but writers, are given our attention and trust. Writers whose job it is to report on tragedy. Not to report unbiased facts. That isn't interesting, and it doesn't sell.
I used to hate the breed. I had a friend with four of them, and after arguing with him over and over again about how unpredictable and dangerous they were, I decided to research the breed and prove to him that his dogs were not fit for being pets. Four years later, after researching the breed, working in animal shelters and vet clinics, and being around countless pit bulls, I must say I am glad that I decided to try and stop my friend from getting killed by his dogs.
In doing so, I have learned the facts about the breed. They are not unpredictable or aggressive. They are not vicious killers. There are so many facts against these statements that I could post twenty pages and not get through it all. The main idea is, if you really aren't sure about pit bulls, or even if you are, why not do some actual research? Not the msm, not google, but research. Read some books, some studies, go and see some of these dogs, talk to animal behaviorists, read study after study that disproves the media's allegations. The worst thing that will happen is that you still don't like these dogs. But at least you will be educated about them. I did, and now I must say my opinion on these animals has taken a turn.
I have two right now, one of which has her Canine Good Citizen, the other will as soon as she is old enough. They are inside with me, all day, never chained, never in the yard, up to date on shots, friendly, active, caring, outgoing, and playful. They are such good representatives of the breed that they have already changed several people's minds about it and even got me a job training dogs.
I'm not saying you or anyone else will end up wanting to go out and get a dog, but the least you could do is know the facts. There's a lot of misinformation out there courtesy of the media and idiots who make claims and exaggerations. You don't have to believe it.
Was it the ferret, or was it the six week old puppy? Does it matter? Who do you blame? The teething animal, or the idiot parents who should have known better, drugs or not?
How many times do you read a story about a kid getting hurt by a dog and actually think about the parents? Where are they? What the hell were they thinking? Should they have been interviewed a little more?
This story reeks. Something isn't right, and it isn't the dog or the mustelid.
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.