Dog Suggestions?

[Drifter 851]

  Quote

 

Usual a bad dog is the result of a bad owner.

 

Exactly. Bad/dangerous dogs are all due to how they were raised by their owners. Leash laws are fine for any dog, but laws that say a pit bull or any dog has to be muzzeled is just due to poor knowledge of animals by city law makers.

[Dr Diamond 407]

better to have a muzzle on a potentially dangerous dog than not be allowed to keep them at all.


we have had around 3 or 4 people killed in the uk recently by "dangerous" breeds of dogs. while it is ultimately the owners fault for not training them properly, if they had been "non dangerous" breeds then some people wouldnt have died

[Drifter 851]

  On 1/27/2014 at 6:20 PM, Dr Diamond said:

better to have a muzzle on a potentially dangerous dog than not be allowed to keep them at all.

we have had around 3 or 4 people killed in the uk recently by "dangerous" breeds of dogs. while it is ultimately the owners fault for not training them properly, if they had been "non dangerous" breeds then some people wouldnt have died

 

 

I do not agree one bit with that reasoning. ANY breed of dog can be potentially damgerous if it is mistreated or not trained properly. So saying that a dog should be muzzeled because it is potentially dangerous is simply an overreaction blanket law. Blaming a breed of dog is no different than blaming a young child for being a problem child when in fact the blame lies 100% on the parents for not teaching the child right from wrong or showing them any discipline. Same with dogs, saying a breed of dogs is potentially dangerous is misguided blame. Even what could be considered a "non dangerous" breed could kill someone. It is all about how the animal is raised, it has nothing to do with the breed.

[Commander_Undies 618]

  On 1/27/2014 at 6:36 PM, Drifter said:

I do not agree one bit with that reasoning. ANY breed of dog can be potentially damgerous if it is mistreated or not trained properly. So saying that a dog should be muzzeled because it is potentially dangerous is simply an overreaction blanket law. Blaming a breed of dog is no different than blaming a young child for being a problem child when in fact the blame lies 100% on the parents for not teaching the child right from wrong or showing them any discipline. Same with dogs, saying a breed of dogs is potentially dangerous is misguided blame. Even what could be considered a "non dangerous" breed could kill someone. It is all about how the animal is raised, it has nothing to do with the breed.

I agree 100%.

My pitbulls have never been aggressive. I always wonder if God forbid someone broke into my house, how would they react? Because they are just so gentle. I would hope they would protect us.

[lepercolony 275]

  On 1/26/2014 at 6:50 PM, Drifter said:

Exactly. Bad/dangerous dogs are all due to how they were raised by their owners. Leash laws are fine for any dog, but laws that say a pit bull or any dog has to be muzzeled is just due to poor knowledge of animals by city law makers.

 

i dunno, i can totally see how for owners, absolutely, this is unfair.  but the idea that the laws are there solely out of ignorance doesn't make much sense either.  yes, dangerous dogs are the result of bad owners, but what happens when there are significantly more bad owners of a specific breed than others (unfortunately)?  and what if that breed also just happens to be capable of much more damage (even deaths) than other breeds?  do we just ignore measurable statistics for the sake of fairness?  and do we also suspend common sense? ("common sense" in terms of how i wouldn't let a little kid approach an unknown pit on their own, even if it means hurting the whole breed's feelings.)

 

of course it's not fair when a breed gets singled out, especially when there are so many good exceptions to the rule, but i think pits are a breed that we can all agree are unique in some unfortunate ways that set them apart from others.  i'm just saying we can talk about "fairness" all day long, but surely we can also admit that as a breed, beagles are less likely to maul a small child to death for approaching it "the wrong way" than a pit might be, for a number of reasons.  and that's why the laws are there.

 

TL;DR . . . agree it's unfair, disagree it's unreasonable.

 

[full disclosure:  some of you will remember from the last time this came up, but i'm a bit biased as a pit killed our dog and mauled my grandma.]

[Drifter 851]

That's fine everyone is entitled to their own beliefs & opinions.

 

I do personally feel it is unreasonable though and I would think most dog owners would feel the same way. Because putting a muzzle on a dog is just a bad thing in the eyes of dog owners. It's not fair to the dog and makes the owner feel bad as well. IMO punishing/profiling/constraining/or treating any group of people, breed of dog, or what have you, based solely on the actions of the very small minority that have done something bad is just plain wrong. 

 

Just how I feel about it is all.

[Dr Diamond 407]

  On 1/27/2014 at 9:48 PM, Drifter said:

That's fine everyone is entitled to their own beliefs & opinions.

 

I do personally feel it is unreasonable though and I would think most dog owners would feel the same way. Because putting a muzzle on a dog is just a bad thing in the eyes of dog owners. It's not fair to the dog and makes the owner feel bad as well. IMO punishing/profiling/constraining/or treating any group of people, breed of dog, or what have you, based solely on the actions of the very small minority that have done something bad is just plain wrong. 

 

Just how I feel about it is all.

thats fair enough, but unforunately you have to pander to the lowest common denominator. there will always be some utter filth of a human who will kick ten shades of shit out of  their *insert sterotyped as dangerous breed here*, and it will end up biting someone. if muzzle wearing stops a kid getting bit by a large powerful dog then it is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Drifter 851]

Here in the states there is no muzzle law on any breed of dog. There are leash laws, which I agree with because then that puts you as the responsible party for your animal as it should be, but there are no muzzle laws here and we do not have an over abundance of attacks here. I just don't agree with pander to the lowest common denominator because it makes no sense to do so to me.

[JBR-Kiwi 286]

What about Staffordshire Bull Terrier?

 

If you train them properly and make sure everyone in the family knows how to treat it properly with love and respect then they can become an amazingly loyal companion for the whole family.

 

Again there have been a few issues in the media with them, but the majority of the time its a dog that has been brought up by irresponsible owners, and trained to fight/be aggressive. My dads staffie, Pip, is an amazing dog that we got from a rescue centre, and she is the most lovable pet that I have had. She enjoys nothing more then human contact and frequently tries to come for a cuddle and just sit by you, but she would also defend any of the family or the house with her life, in order to keep us safe. Her bark is very boomy which would is a great deterrent, and im sure the sight of 30kg of pure muscle flying at the scum that tried to break into my dads garage made them shit their pants a couple of years ago.

 

Would highly recommend one

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

  On 1/27/2014 at 6:36 PM, Drifter said:

I do not agree one bit with that reasoning. ANY breed of dog can be potentially damgerous if it is mistreated or not trained properly. So saying that a dog should be muzzeled because it is potentially dangerous is simply an overreaction blanket law. Blaming a breed of dog is no different than blaming a young child for being a

problem child when in fact the blame lies 100% on the parents for not teaching the child right from wrong or showing them any discipline. Same with dogs, saying a breed of dogs is potentially dangerous is misguided blame. Even what could be considered a "non dangerous" breed could kill someone. It is all about how the animal is raised, it has nothing to do with the breed.

 

 

While I agree with what you are saying a big part of the problem with breeds like pit bulls is the type of owners that want a pit  bull because it is an aggressive breed.  So a lot of people feel that people will be safer if you muzzle them all because a number of those owners a poor owners. There aren't too many people out there that get a beagle and train it to be aggressive.

 

I see badly trained dogs every day walking ours. Not necessarily aggressive but the dogs a out of control so people put control laws into effect because owners are too stupid to take care of their animals properly.

[deterioration 443]

The opinions below do not reflect dogs that are bread for fighting, not been trained, been mistreated, abandoned, beaten, malnourished, etc… They might have an ax to grind with humanity and will most likely bite the shit out of you with no provocation.

 

The Pit bulls being dangerous discussion infuriates me so I set out on a quest to discover why it is people get bit by dogs in general. I've consistently found it's because they're uneducated about how dogs behave, how dogs react to certain stimuli and are simply scared of dogs! They won’t admit it but it’s perfectly clear by their actions, uninformed monologues and the results. Harboring an ignorant irrational fear is a large part of why people are bitten by dogs period. Not just Pits.

 

It raises a question for me. If you live in an area with venomous arachnids, venomous reptiles, snapping turtles in your swimming hole, bears, mountain lions, etc… do you not educate yourselves, friends, kids on the dangers and safety precautions to ensure survival? I’ll answer it myself: YES! So why are people not doing this with dogs!? Demon Pits from outer space spewed from hell by the devil himself with a blood lust for a humans unsuspecting innocence do not exist. In your head they might but don’t project the flawed operations of your mind onto dogs and pass them onto others.

 

I’ll support my findings and opinion by letting you all know I’ve had or been around dogs since birth. I love dogs and am currently helping my Mom raise a Guiding Eyes for the Blind puppy. By going to the classes with her and the puppy I’ve had many Ahh HA! moments when they've explained behaviors I’ve witnessed but never recognized or had names for. It’s important information humans should take the initiative to learn about and pass on to others. Media and people need to stop with the dangerous breed play on fears propaganda and start educating people. Please!

[lepercolony 275]

  On 1/23/2014 at 3:17 AM, crippled_viper said:

You don't have the right cat then. My cats have dog personalities but are still cats. I love both dogs and cats which I have both. So watch what you say mister......lol

 

Matt . . . just saw this, probably true.  i don't hate cats, my allergy does.

 

 

so since this thread doesn't seem to be about Dangle's dog problem anymore (updates?), just thought i'd post something i saw that should make some folks happy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/breed-specific-legislation_n_4738583.html?utm_hp_ref=pit-bulls

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Nanny dogs, meet the nanny state. Now keep apart, you two.

 

Six states are considering bills that would put an end to laws restricting dog ownership by breed. Called "breed-specific legislation" -- or BSL -- these laws most often target pit bull type dogs (which are said to have been called "nanny dogs"), often forcing people to choose between their pets and their homes. And most Americans think they're bad laws. Bad laws!

 

Opposition to BSL comes from sources as diverse as the American Bar Association, animal rescue groups, the Center for Disease Control and even President Barack Obama, who said in August that the laws are largely ineffective while doing nothing to improve public safety, and are often a "waste of public resources."

In addition, a recent poll conducted on behalf of the rescue group Best Friends Animal Society found that a big majority in the United States don't want the government deciding which breeds of dogs we may and may not keep as pets:

A new national survey commissioned by Best Friends Animal Society reveals that 84 percent of those polled believe that local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person’s right to own whatever breed of dog they choose.

This survey, conducted by Luntz Global, is consistent with a growing trend by many state and local governments that have repealed breed discriminatory provisions and enacted behavior-based, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. Of the 850 polled, 59 percent were dog owners. Only four percent of those polled believed the federal government should dictate what breed of dog a person could own, while six percent supported state government restrictions and 11 percent local government limits.

Seventeen states have already passed laws that stop localities from discriminating against dogs by breed. The six now considering similar prohibitions are Maryland, Vermont, South Dakota, Missouri, Utah and Washington state.

 

"Today was a good day for dogs," Ledy VanKavage, an attorney with Best Friends, told HuffPost just after the South Dakota Senate's Local Government Committee met to consider its bill about a week ago. "We have 17 states that outlaw it now. We think every state should have it."

 

VanKavage said that states are becoming more amenable to passing these prohibitions for a combination of reasons. "People view dogs as members of their family. And more and more cities are getting sued. If a city tried to take my dog simply because of its breed, I'd lawyer up in a minute," she said. "In America, responsible dog owners should be able to have whatever breed of dog they choose."

 

Plus, VanKavage added, "The scientific studies show it doesn't work."

 

Indeed. In December, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a study looking at the factors at play in fatal dog attacks. Studying 256 dog bite fatalities from 2000-2009, the contributing factors were found to include the failure of an able-bodied person to intervene in the attack and the dog being abused by its owner. Breed was not deemed to be a significant contributing factor; the researchers found, moreover, that breed could not even be reliably determined in most of the cases.

 

Best Friends also emphasizes the cost of enforcing anti-pit bull bans; the group commissioned an economist to put together a tool that calculates the costs by city. And here's a sample calculation: In Baltimore, there's an estimated 151,105 dogs, of which 10,918 are assumed pit bull type dogs. The costs associated with enforcing laws against pit bull ownership would be $992,606 per year.

 

Kristen Auerbach, spokesperson for the Fairfax County Animal Shelter in Northern Virginia, says that lifting restrictions against pit bull ownership would have significantly waggy other benefits, as well.

 

Even though her jurisdiction doesn't have breed restrictions, "people have heard the stories about beloved family dogs being taken from their owners in places where there are full bans on pit bulls. That is every dog owner's worst nightmare," she said. "People don't want to risk it."

 

Getting rid of these laws would not just let people adopt without fear of their animals being taken away, she said, but would also help counter negative stereotypes.

 

"BSL not only impacts people in Maryland, but contributes to the overall perception of pit bulls as different, which inevitably works its way into the public conscience and effects adoptions, shelter policies, and even other public policy," she said.

 

Auerbach cautions that even if these anti-BSL laws are passed, that isn't the end of these problems, since many landlords won't rent to people with pit bulls. One of several anti-BSL bills now under consideration in Maryland would actually address this point: HB 422 is aimed not only at stopping localities from classifying dogs as "dangerous" by breed, but would also apply to landlords and condo associations.

 

But even if these bills weren't a panacea, their passages would mark a significant step forward, said VanKavage. "If we could get just one or two this year I'd be happy," she said.

 

There's reason for optimism: Tami Santelli, Maryland state director for the Humane Society of the United States, tells HuffPost she thinks her state is likely to pass pro-pit bull legislation this session.

 

And on Tuesday, the South Dakota Senate passed its bill, which now moves over to the House.

 

i might be biased but i can still recognize this is a step towards fairness, and will hopefully combat the stigma about the breed for the better.

[Docwagon 856]

Pet ownership is a huge responsibility.  If ALL you are looking for is break in protection and added security, get an alarm system.