A family argument - Page 2

Owners do have to educate themselves on the breed. Consult dog sites and you will be advised to consider the purpose for what the dog was bred for - dogs were bred for specific behavior characteristics, unlike cats who tend to be bred for body type, hair color, fur length, etc.
Certain dogs have a high prey drive, others a tendency to herd, others to fetch (try to tire out a Lab playing that game). The Dog Whisperer does a great job of getting the owners to realize that, and also that a dog, no matter how big or small, how cutsey or ungainly, is still a dog between the ears; that they thrive best with a pack-leader, not a pamperer. My favorite scenes are where he analyzes the dog on leash with the owner - if the dog is walking ahead, or sniffing and doing dog stuff, the owner isn't respected as the pack leader and is actually the "pet" being owned by the dog

What a lovely story!

Since cats do not live in packs, like dogs, (except for lions who live in prides, but in this case, you have one dominant male with his pride of females) you will never be viewed as the "leader" through the cats eyes. They either except you or they don't and there is nothing you can really do to change that However, with dogs, you can train them, show them that you are the pack leader or dominant one.

Sadly, today there is news of a 5 year old girl killed by a pitbull in the UK. The dog was owned by her uncle and he had already been warned about its vicious behaviour. It will do nothing to advance the cause of certain breeds seen as dangerous, though as said, it is almost always the owners' fault in hte end for not recognising the needs and temperaments of their dogs and training them accordingly.

I am completely against the banning of any individual dog breed, for reasons already mentioned over and over. I totally agree it is the media hype that has these dogs viewed as negatively as they are. You NEVER hear about it when small or medium sized dogs attack, and ALWAYS hear about it when a large "mean" dog attacks. I read once that Golden Retrievers are the most likely to bite, and much more likely to "turn" (suddenly bite/attack in an otherwise normal situation) but they are still viewed as ideal family dogs. That is because they are. Just like German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Boxers etc. can be. I knew of a neighbourhood dog put down (bull mastiff) for attacking an 8 year old. All over the news...so tragic, this poor boy, etc etc. What wasnt on the news? That the boy had thrown numerous BRICKS at the dog, who was chained up, and taunted him for some time before the attack. Little boy gambled, the dog snapped the chain, went for his enemy. I personally dont blame the dog AT ALL. Yes, It is TERRIBLE, AWFUL, what happened to the boy, but honestly, if *I* were chained up and taking brick after brick after brick, and then I got loose, *I* certainly wouldnt do nothing. People need to be held much more accountable and responsible for their pets. I would think youd lessen the number of attack dogs a lot more by fining people $50,000 for keeping them, vs. trying to ban breed after breed after breed. (People will just train smaller breeds as vicious attack dogs if larger breeds are not available)

Do you mean charging people $50,000 to own one of these dogs or fining them if their dog got loose and caused an injury. Charging a fee this high to own such a dog is in itself a ban. I agree that people MUST be responsible with their pets, I have stated this over many times in my thread about exotic cats, but charging people a ridiculous high fee to own a certain animal or forcing them to get very high liability insurance, is a way many states "ban" ownership without passing a specific ban law. They say sure, you can own these animals, but you must pay this fee and you must have this insurance. No one could afford such ridiculous fees except someone who is very wealthy. Just because you can afford these fees, does not make you a responsible owner. In fact, many times just the opposite is true. Many wealthy people own such animals as a "status symbol" and have no clue as to proper animal care.

I have so many things to say I dont even know where to start. This is a very passionate topic of mine.

First off, im sorry you are the 'black sheep' of your family, I know how it feels! My family thinks im crazy for keeping my pets in the house, they think im crazy because I took my Collie pup to the vet because of an injured leg and they think im even crazier because I spent a huge amount of money on my mothers dog because of a head injury. They think I am a stuck up because I want to send my baby boy to a private school because I dont want him waisting away in one of these public schools. But I dont mind

But back to the topic on hand, I think that statement is really unfair. Yes, there are people who have big huge dogs as a power status, who train them to be mean and even fight them, but that isnt the norm. Alot of people think it is because one bad story will ruin everything, and the media over exaggerates and make it seem like its always happening (APBT attacks etc.)

Also, people are very misinformed about breeds. Pit bulls were bred to fight. Fight other DOGS. They were bred to be dog agressive but never human agressive. A human agressive pit bull was not accepted, because the handler needed to be able to get to the dog if it was injured, or seperate them in a fight.

APBT's are choice in bad neighborhoods because they are so tough looking. But I believe they can all be big sweeties on the inside. My father owned a female pit bull for I dont know how many years. She was huge, chocolate and white white huge green eyes and cropped ears. I would play 'horsie' with her as a little kid (never putting full weight) and she would wiggle so hard she'd knock me off and then jump on me and slobber my face. She lived with my teeny tiny Shih Tzu, and they played like crazies. She was the absolute best dog ever, and the only thing she ever did wrong was take a huge piece of steak of the kitchen table.

But because of the prejudice, the people in our neighborhood went as far as calling Animal Control and saying she was terrorizing the children, and running loose. We almost got a huge fine, but luckily no one step forward to back up that horrible lie.

I just wanted to comment on the whole jaw thing. I believe this is the biggest myth ever to hit the pit bull breed. They are NOT super dog. They are not freaks of nature. They do not have an ultra powerful 'locking' jaw. Pit bulls CAN sometimes do more damage, but its not because of their 'locking' jaw or their 'vicious' nature, but simply because they are terriers and they have TENACITY. They are stubborn things when they put their mind to it, and that attitude in an agressive dog can result in disaster.

As for BSL, I think that would be one of our biggest mistakes. The way I see it, if we ban Pits, Rotties, Mastiffs, Dobies, Staffies etc, we are having our rights taken away. After all these breeds are done being banned, people will move onto Presa Canarios, Filas, Neos, Goldens, Labs, etc. It will get to a point where we wont be able to own any breed of dog... Then the thugs will start to train attack cats LOL

BSL isnt the answer. I mean didnt Ontario ban Pits? Now they put up a proposal on wanting to ban LABRADORS. The guy said 'They would ban any dangerous breed' There is no dangerous breed!!!

The jaw power per square inch is higher in a Bully breed by design of the jaw...

GSD doberman great dane is 4500-9000 lbs per inch

bully ie pits is 9000-18000

NOT locking jaw just more power in the jaw...

And here's another side of the animal control laws story: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

What about when a mixed-breed dog attacks someone?

It seems to me in a lot of cases that this is not the first time these dogs have attacked. There is usually some kind of warning sign. I think we need to crack down on the owner's of aggressive dogs rather than banning specific breeds.