Beware of Dog

[Deleted]

Yep, this is sorta *my* issue that I always argue with people about. Let me elaborate on this.

Many dog breeds, if not properly trained or trained improperly, will become vicious and unsafe to people. I believe that when this happens, it's the owner's fault, not the dog's.
What about you? What do you think?

Also, to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak...

If anyone ever watches Animal Planet, you've probably seen that show Miami Animal Police. Well, as I've learned by watching that show (which I don't really like but watch out of boredom), in Miami-Dade county, where the show is set, pitbulls are illegal and euthanized if found and confiscated by the Humane Society.
While I don't agree at all with this fundamentally, logically I can see that it has to be done. Dogfighting is so bad there that it's come to this - even if the dogs don't act agressive, there's no way to tell what they'll do when faced with certain things, mostly other dogs.
What are your views on this?

I'm very interested to hear the opinions of others on the Forum. I'm not here to flame anyone ('cause it's not allowed and it's not nice ^_~) - if your opinion differs from mine, I'll argue with you. So this might become a debate.

Anyway, if anyone wants to participate, feel free!

[Smiley]

I think that people should definitely take responsibility for their dogs, as they are their property, and therefore anything that involves their dog should be taken care of. Sadly, not all people abide by this. My cousin's dog, Elle, was bit by a rotweiler at a kennel, and although my uncle started sending letters and trying to contact them, they kept turning a deaf ear. He's a lawyer and even threatened to sue, and they said that my uncle should have been more responsible with training Elle! I thought that was totally uncalled for, because Elle was one of the sweetest dogs I've ever known. They eventually had to put her to sleep.

Dogs definitely have a lot of emotional stress in our society, which leads to fights and violence. There are a lot of strays who end up looking out for themselves, and a lot of dogs who are beaten daily. One of our previous dogs, who we saved from an animal shelter, had an imprint or something near her rear end, and looked as though it were caused by a wooden spoon. People who mistreat dogs are often to blame for their behavior, and yet, it's the dogs who are punished for someone else's ignorance.

One of my dogs is half pitbull, and is very loving and friendly. I don't see why they are illegal there... ;_;

[Deleted]

In my opinion, the owner should only be held responsible if the dog isn't on their property, tied to a post or in a kennel or something. No one else should be on their property in the first place, right?

And if the person is too young to understand about unfamiliar dogs, then who wasn't watching them? Obviously the child didn't have proper supervision, and therefor it is not the dog's or the dog owner's fault.

[william]

I think that it is the breeder's fault, not the dog's, because my grandparents once had a pedigree spaniel, but it was in-bred and had to be put down. Also pitbull terriers (or something like that) are banned in this country so you cannot keep them.

[Deleted]

I think it's completely the owner's responsibility. Everyone thinks that, ALL pitbulls, and other breeds, in general, are dangerous, which is completely wrong. Pitbulls and such only have the POTENTIAL to be lethal. Owners buy them either to look cool, or for a guard dog. The mistake is they take no time to train it, and the pitbull ends out being a vicous brute with a set of dangerous teeth to help.

You should either train a dangerous dog to be a proper guard dog, or train them to be an obediant, regular, non-vicous dog.

In fact, my brothers friend was going paper duty a couple years back, and, just out of nowhere, a pitbull from one of the homes just leaped up and sunk hit teeth into under his arm luckily, he came to our house, down the street, and, our friend, our neighbor, was also a nurse, so, that helped.

Instead of letting the dog be put down, my brothers friend allowed him to live, and, the circumstances were, (not from him) That the do had to stay in the house at all times.

Also, me and my mom were walking my Husky and HIS mom, down the street, where, out of nowhere, a Rottie charged at us. He nipped my dog, and, then, went back for another charge. Fortunately, we weren't far from home, and we were able to get to our fortunately GATED yard.

My point is, it's not the dog's fault at all. It's the owners, for just letting their dog turn into a ferocious beast with no care or WANTING it to be that way.

Unfortunately, once a dog is like that, there's not much hope for it, so I can't see what can be done. And it's all the owner's fault.

[Squirrelgirl]

I don't think it's fair that the dog has to suffer so, since it really all has to do with how the owner has treated it. If you have a bad owner, you usually get a bad dog, it's like children, really. Dogs are affected by their surroundings, and that determines how they will end up. If a dog grows up in a surrounding with little food, gets beat, and there are just a lot of negative attitudes, then that dog will probably turn out mean and vicious. But if a dog grows up in a loving environment that provides for all it needs and is trained on what it should do, and what it should not, then it will grow up to be a good dog normally. Unfortunately, sometimes it also has to do with blood. If a dog parents were mean, then sometimes the dog will turn out mean too. It's just becomes and inherited trait, and that's sorta sad.

As for pitbulls all being bad, that's nonsense. My cousin and his wife have a pitbull and it's a really sweet dog. I think they're going to give it to their friend since they're having a baby, though.

[Deleted]

I completely agree with all of this - I think that dog owners should train their dogs responsibly. Pit bulls actually have the potential to be very sweet, gentle dogs... I've met a few that are some of the nicest dogs I've ever seen.

If the dog becomes vicious, it's the owner's fault, because if the dog's not trained properly, then it becoems vicious and then, sadly, there's really no hope for it after that, I don't think.

I really wish that there was a law that stupid people couldn't own dogs. If you're going to get a dog, you accept the responsibility to feed it, care for it, and TRAIN it so it won't become a menace! Sheesh, how hard is that to figure out?

[teghan62]

Oh my. I feel very strongly about dog subjects. That's what I get with living with so many of them. Aaaanywaaay...

On the first thing, YES. It IS the owner's responsiblity. The dog doesn't know what's right and wron gin OUR society, it knows what's right and wrong in THEIR society. For them, it's perfectly acceptable to bite other dogs, people, whatever. In ours, it isn't. Dogs aren't equipped with knowing our society flat out and they must be taught, like children. If the owner neglects to do this then they're too irresponsible to even own a dog and the dog might even have to be put down for a dumb reason - an owner's laziness. People have to learn that dogs and little kids are so similar in this way. Kids do bad things. They are punished. Dogs do bad things. They, too, are punished. Kids don't know how to act in society from the beginning and have to be taught. Same thing with dogs.

Basically, I believe that if an owner doesn't train their dog, they shouldn't have one in the first place. Now, sometimes there are dogs that just can't be trained, but that's a whole new situation. At least TRY.

Second point. I think banning a certain breed of dogs from a country or something like that is complete CRAP. It's stereotyping. Okay, some dogs act this way. That doesn't mean they ALL do. Really, with proper training, pitbulls can be very sweet too. It comes back to training - either work hard, or take the easy way out and just ban them. Which is pretty pathetic and weak.

I'm very very very much against stereotyping, which is why I find this to be complete crap. I remember here a while ago there was an issue with a certain breed of dog (forgot the name). Several of these dogs were biting people, even though they were really sweet to their owners before. So, anyone who had that kind of dog was kind of taken suspiciously. But, there are also some other reasons as to why dogs might attack people that people are too stupid to realize.

-Dogs don't attack without reason.-

It's true. Little kids often like running around and screaming, and dogs have sensitive ears and good hearing, so they might attack to make the kid shut up. One of the puppies my mom sold bit someone on the hand really hard (thankfully they were good natured about it) and got a warning... once it's three warnings, the dog has to be put down. Know why she bit him on the hand? He had been mowing his lawn before, which makes quite a bit of noise, and he saw Nelli and reached his hand over to pet her. So, she bit him, possible because that noise was irritating her.

Back on to stereotypes, once again, not all dogs are like that. Terriers have a huge reputation for being terrors. Well, the Border Terrier is supposedly the mildest of them all, and they will still attack ither dogs and get into fights with other terriers. I have a Border myself, and he is THE sweetest thing. He loves everybody. One of our friends has a few mini schnauzers, and one of them is a male who likes to try to pick on Casey (my Border). Casey stands there, lets the schnauzer growl at him, and then walks away. A different Border would have probably started a fight. Which just shows there are exceptions to every breed and banning a whole breed can be complete crap. One of my friends has a rottweiler pit bull something else cross, and she's very sweet (and chicken xD). One would probably think she'd be vicious with those breeds in here.

Yeah. I'm rambling. I should shut up now. @_x;;

[Oily]

I have a slightly different stance. A lot is to do with the owner and training, of course, but there are dogs who are simply vicious, like some humans are. Our Royal Family owns dogs - I should think they've had the very best of trainers - and yet the dogs have a bad reputation for biting and chasing servants there.

Vicious dogs are incredibly frightening and can easily cause serious injuries or death. I wouldn't know if banning a breed was the best way, but you can't just discipline the owner and let the dog run around, potentially harming others. Owners here get a fine and cautions, then putting the dog down is the last step. I think that's fine.

[teghan62]

Oily said:

but there are dogs who are simply vicious

So what - they're vicious from birth?

Attitude and perspecitve is not heredity. It is picked up in their environment.

Our Royal Family owns dogs - I should think they've had the very best of trainers - and yet the dogs have a bad reputation for biting and chasing servants there.

Than maybe they DON'T have the best of trainers there. Maybe there's some extra things going on in there that the dogs don't like. Maybe the servants aren't treating the dogs properly. This really shouldn't be used as an example unless you know FOR SURE what goes on in there. o__O;

but you can't just discipline the owner and let the dog run around, potentially harming others

Of course not. The owner still has to be disciplined but the dog will most likely go to a pound or vet and STILL get put down - a waste of a life thanks to one's laziness.

[Tdyans at work]

On the one hand, I can understand to some extent that some cities/counties have reached the end of their ropes with dog fighting and have found banning certain breeds to be the only way to try to get things back under control. Yes, it is stereotyping to say all pit bulls are bad, as a properly bred and trained one should not be. The problem is, the authorities have to stereotype because people who do bad things with dogs do so first. Pit bulls are popular as fighting dogs because of their strength. One of the problems becomes that people who want fighting dogs, therefore, are breeding the dogs with the worst temperaments to get the best fighters. And I know I probably shouldn't get into this argument since Teghan's mom breeds dogs and she probably knows better than me, but temperament is part of breeding. That doesn't mean at all that it's ALL breeding, that only well-bred dogs from nice parents will be nice dogs or that dogs from lines with bad temperaments can't be trained to be good pets or that all dogs of a certain breed act exactly the same. But genetics does play a role-- it should never be used as an excuse for someone who's not responsible with their dog, and in fact, it's yet another problem of irresponsibility because people are breeding animals for the wrong reasons. So, these laws come about, I think, because fighting is so predominant in these areas that when an official encounters a pit bull, they just have to assume that it has been bred to be violent rather than take the risk of a seemingly harmless dog attacking someone later on.

Now, that said, I don't really like these laws either, even though I can understand the reasoning for them, because I think more responsible pet owners and dogs are probably being harmed by them than the people who were already breaking the law in the first place and will probably continue doing so no matter what. The law-abiding citizens are the ones who will lose their pets because they're a certain breed, no matter what the circumstances. and the dogs never get a chance. I think it would be better to just require that people meet very strict guidelines before owning a "dangerous" breed, (or any dog at all for that matter would be even better.) They'd have to be willing to get training, etc., provide whatever care is proper for the particular dog, and take responsibility for whatever the dog does at risk of losing their right to own the animal if they cannot meet these requirements. Then the people who are using dogs to fight, etc. could still be punished, while good owners are unaffected.

Many good breeders and rescue groups already have requirements like this for the people who adopt from them, of course. The problem is that many people still get their dogs from pet stores, puppy mills, and from backyard accidents (no offense to anyone who has-- plenty of our dogs were from the latter). In an ideal world, we'd also be able to put strict regulations on breeding, requiring someone to pass tests and inspections in order to have a breeding license and requiring that all dogs not belonging to someone with a breeding license be fixed and that anyone who breeds animals without a license be fined. That would cut down on the number of homeless animals out there, increase the number of animals of all breeds that have been bred for good health and temperament, and help to regulate who owns dogs since there would be fewer avenues through which to attain them and responsible breeders would do extensive screening of potential owners.

[Deleted]

*sigh* Sadly, if it was a perfect world, there would be no idiots and we wouldn't have to go through any of this stuff.

I agree with basically everything Teghan said... I'm that kind of maniacal dog person. I don't really have my priorities straight, though, so I'll cease comment.

I disagree with the fact that some dogs are simply vicious. I believe that no being on earth - human, canine, feline, whatever - is born bad. It's all about instinct, really. As Teghan said, the dogs do what they know to do.
Dogs are descended from wolves, and wolves have a very strong pack heirarchy order. A dog who thinks that someone is not in their proper place, and thinks that someone is behaving inappropriately, the dog will react as is instinctual for it - which is most likely to bite, or perhaps merely growl and look threatening. If not trained properly, the dog won't realize that a bite would hurt a human much more than it would hurt a "packmate" of their own species.
That's why we need to train our dogs properly... so that way, we can help them figure out the boundaries of *our* society.
(Yes, Teghan, I'm stealing your view, but you can still have credit for it...)

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

You know, this whole thing... it just really irks me. You wouldn't kill a human because they come from a bad neighborhood and a bad family and could be dangerous. Heck, you couldn't even put them in jail for that!
My opinion is that killing perfectly healthy animals that have shown no signs of hurting anyone is just plain wrong, no matter how you look at it. Nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

<sub>On the other hand, these dog breeders are a menace to society. I say we have them "put down."

Hey! I'm kidding! You can put down the baseball bats! Sheesh!</sub>

[ncwidt5895]

Ember said:

You know, this whole thing... it just really irks me. You wouldn't kill a human because they come from a bad neighborhood and a bad family and could be dangerous. Heck, you couldn't even put them in jail for that!
My opinion is that killing perfectly healthy animals that have shown no signs of hurting anyone is just plain wrong, no matter how you look at it. Nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

<sub>On the other hand, these dog breeders are a menace to society. I say we have them "put down."

Hey! I'm kidding! You can put down the baseball bats! Sheesh!</sub>

I agree whole-heartedly.

Another thing that somewhat bothers me is the whole premise of animal shelters. We got all of our pets ever from them (in fact, our dog Charlotte, whose very sweet, was going to be put down within a few days). There are so many good dogs out there in shelters who end up being killed because there's simply not enough owners out there. What also irks me is people who have some grudge against 'mutts' and only like pure-breds, so therefore go to a breeder. Hey, I have nothing personal against breeders, just there's so many innocent dogs and cats and other animals that will die in a shelter because people want a pure-bred animal, or are too nervous to adopt from a shelter. Some shelter animals are the sweetest you can get.

Sorry for veering off topic... yeah...

[Tdyans]

Ember said:

_{On the other hand, these dog breeders are a menace to society. I say we have them "put down."}

Nah, let's just have them fixed. Probably a worse fate for people who are so obsessed with proving how macho they are that they have to own tough dogs and fight them, and it will keep them from spreading their own ignorance either genetically or through their child-raising skills.

The punishments seriously aren't harsh enough, in general, though.

And unfortunately, even when I was playing devil's advocate and trying to look at the justification for laws like this, I was being idealistic. The more likely case is that these laws get voted in because of people's prejudice and assumptions about all pit bulls because of a few bad apples who breed and train the dogs improperly. Of course, the result is the same, whatever the reason-- a few dog fighters who were already breaking the law might get caught or stopped before they begin, but for the most part, they'll continue to break the law while innocent people and dogs suffer the brunt of the consequences. Of course, one thing to consider, to play devil's advocate one more time, is that space in most shelters is pretty limited and they often have to choose what dogs to keep longer based on their chances of getting adopted. Because of pit bulls' unfair reputation, their chances might not be as good, except with the wrong kind of people. But again, that doesn't really justify putting them down right away and never giving them a chance at all, if they pass the same aggression tests as other dogs have to to be put up for adoption. And if the shelter can't keep them, there are rescue groups out there that often can, and can also take more time to screen potential adopters to make sure they're getting the dogs for the right reasons.

The funny thing is, I watch those shows now and then as well, and the other day there was a mother dog and a puppy found stray. The mother was a pit bull, so she was put down. The puppy, however, was not purebred-- I can't remember what they guessed the father was-- and because of that technicality, they were able to keep him alive and adopt him out. That was just kind of funny to me, the mentality of, "All pitbulls are evil and dangerous and have to be put down right away. Oh, but mix a little something else in there and they're fine!" But then, the shelter people probably look for any loophole they can, but it's just funny to me that the loophole exists and kind of nullifies the argument that pit bulls are naturally bad.