[tomb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a division between responsible pet owners who treat their dogs right, and those who abuse there dogs. Pit bulls that are abused will attack other dogs, and are strong enough to kill them. Other breeds, not so much. Just because you are a responsible pit bull owner does not mean everyone is. These poor terriers were BRED to attack other dogs. Because yours do not does not make a convincing cross-section of the dog's behavior.

I'm not trying to start anything here, but you're not gettting much support it appears. However, as a dog lover for many decades and an approved rescue adopter, I agree with you.

It seems like so much ego to believe that good handling and love will deny genes - the same ego that make many pet owners think they can walk their dog without a leash, or tame a bear, tiger, or other exotic animal as a pet. Breeds exist exactly for the reason of predicting behavior and certain physical traits. To deny that is accepting a level of risk that most would find unacceptable in any other situation.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not trying to start anything here, but you're not gettting much support it appears. However, as a dog lover for many decades and an approved rescue adopter, I agree with you. It seems like so much ego to believe that good handling and love will deny genes - the same ego that make many pet owners think they can walk their dog without a leash, or tame a bear, tiger, or other exotic animal as a pet. Breeds exist exactly for the reason of predicting behavior and certain physical traits. To deny that is accepting a level of risk that most would find unacceptable in any other situation.

Thank you, I appreciate that you really got my point, and you have some experience too. As much as you love your pet, and as gentle and tame as he may seem, if the genetics call for aggression it will come out sooner or later. I know first hand, as I have raised a "wild animal" for almost 20 years, and have the scars to prove it.

 

[braillediver]

Mitch

 

[sahwnfras]

Either way you plainsong are an owner of the dog, he would be alot less likley to bite you than a stranger. As a non-owner i am at more of a risk because you want a cool dog.

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sahwnfras /img/forum/go_quote.gif Either way you plainsong are an owner of the dog, he would be alot less likley to bite you than a stranger. As a non-owner i am at more of a risk because you want a cool dog.

I want a cool dog? Ok, thanks for letting me know...

FWIW, it's not hard to search Head-fi and see that I have a dachshund. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by her, but she's really friendly.

I don't understand the internet postering here. If you don't want to get educated about or be interested in, or think you can handle a certain breed, than don't. Do I have to state the obvious about conducting yourself in a safe manner around animals you don't know? Do I have to state the obvious that you shouldn't take on problems that are beyond your skill to fix, that you'll only make it worse and put you and the animal in danger?

Ok, fine, consider it stated then.

Would I take on a problem dog like that? I don't have the experience but I'd like to see how it works. Could I take on a problem horse that apparently, according to this thread, should be impossible to work with - well, I'd have to see the individual - yeah, we can tell a lot from the breed, but they are always individuals - to see what if anything I could contribute. I'm not about to take on some problem I can't handle, I mean, who would? Common sense here...

Since my experience is with "problem" horses, then I'll say that my horse came from the kind of background tomb describes. Yeah, she should have been a dangerous useless POS that should have just died already. Problem is no one told her that. She went from unwanted, nervous, aggressive, to a push-button reining fool who didn't put one foot in front of the other unless into the bit and tail flagged. That's just how she rolled.

So someone with similar experience with dogs couldn't ensure that a dog from a bad past could be absolutely safe? I don't buy it, of course it's possible. I'm not saying you want to continue that bloodline, but the individual itself can be a wonderful dog that you'll never get to know because you're scared of a breed name.

If knowing what you can and can't safely do is ego, and therefore means I want to put everyone in danger, then fine.

But to pigeonhole an entire breed based on myths, untruths, lack of real-life knowledge, and because the breed has some dodgy breeders (name me a breed that doesn't?), well, it begs the question of what else do you put into categories?

Very sad to see an entire breed get hated on just because the media told you to.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Very sad to see an entire breed get hated on just because the media told you to.

Nobody is saying hate the pit bull. Just realize that a pit bull terrier has the genetic disposition and capacity for deadly aggressive behavior. Some dogs were bred to hunt. Some dogs were bred to pull prey out of burrows. Some dogs were bred to herd sheep. And some dogs were bred to fight. The pit bull terrier was bred to fight. This is fact. And to say I am influenced by the media is a claim with absolutly no factual evidence to back it up. You know what I read and watch? No you do not.

I find I have to repeat my point over and over here. Ok, here we go again. If you are a bad pet owner, the impact on your neighborhood is minimized if your pet is a poodle or an inside cat.

Because you are a responsible owner of an animal that was BRED TO FIGHT, does not mean everyone is. With the miriad of breeds available why would you pick an animal that was bred for hundreds of years to fight? You might as well buy a house on a flood plain.

 

[plainsong]

Plainsong, brick wall, brick wall, Plainsong...

Miniature dachshunds used to have problems with dwarfism traits... through breeding that was solved years ago and it's not something you tend to see even in the most poorly bred doxys..

But of course, other traits are impossible to breed out of other breeds, at least according to the Internet.

 

[Tuberoller]

I don't know if this thread has already crossed the line into political discussion but I'll add my two cents. I'll first say that I do not condone dog fighting and think it is absolutely wrong.

I'm thinking, after speaking with some of my southern relatives and visiting Mississippi and Alabama many times, that this type of behaviour is cultural and regional. One of my older uncles swears that he never knew dog fighting was and is against the law. The comments made by people such as Clinton Portis seem to confirm this ignorance of the law. If you hang out in the rural south for any significant length of time, you'll discover that dog and **** fighting is easy to find and quite pervasive. You'll also find that law enforcement is likely to look the other way.

While the response to all this seems very against Vick with most of the public I can tell you that the response at my weekly Dominoes game is very strongly in his favor. In that mix of Cuban, African, Indian, Eastern European, Asian and southern Americans there is confusion as to why dog fighting is not legal and sports like boxing (particularly youth boxing) and ultimate fighting are. This seems to offer the impression that Americans value the lives of animals more than they do those of humans.


Some of the calls for Vick to be banned from the NFL and jailed seem far,far out of line. If you do a search on the sentences handed down for repeat offenders in the state of Virginia, you'll find that jail time is extremly rare. I would love to see him heavily fined and suspended a few games but the calls for his head are silly.

I'm still miffed at people's responses to any perceived animal abuse. Is it really less of a crime to be caught driving drunk, abusing a spouse or battery to a minor than to be involved in dog-fighting? In the past few months there have been multiple cases of all the above involving celebs and yet the response has been far less passionate than this case (which is still unproven) involving Mike Vick. Again, I do not condone dog-fighting or any other abuse of animals and I'd love to see Mike Vick made an example of but the public response seems way over-blown.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller /img/forum/go_quote.gif While the response to all this seems very against Vick with most of the public I can tell you that the response at my weekly Dominoes game is very strongly in his favor. In that mix of Cuban, African, Indian, Eastern European, Asian and southern Americans there is confusion as to why dog fighting is not legal and sports like boxing (particularly youth boxing) and ultimate fighting are. This seems to offer the impression that Americans value the lives of animals more than they do those of humans. Some of the calls for Vick to be banned from the NFL and jailed seem far,far out of line. If you do a search on the sentences handed down for repeat offenders in the state of Virginia, you'll find that jail time is extremly rare. I would love to see him heavily fined and suspended a few games but the calls for his head are silly. I'm still miffed at people's responses to any perceived animal abuse. Is it really less of a crime to be caught driving drunk, abusing a spouse or battery to a minor than to be involved in dog-fighting? In the past few months there have been multiple cases of all the above involving celebs and yet the response has been far less passionate than this case (which is still unproven) involving Mike Vick. Again, I do not condone dog-fighting or any other abuse of animals and I'd love to see Mike Vick made an example of but the public response seems way over-blown.

Humans make their own choice to fight, they aren't forced into it, nor are they mistreated. In fact, most fighters are financially much better off and happy doing what they do, so the potential long term physical and mental hazards are offset (in their eyes) by the gains. These dogs are forced to fight for human pleasure, and are grossly mistreated in the process, so it isn't a fair parallel.

IMO, the intent of an action is very important, almost as important as the result (I still am stumped as to what the difference between murder and attempted murder really is, the penalty should be the same). The idiot celebs who drink and drive aren't doing so with the intent to harm anyone even though it is a tremendously poor choice than can have dire consequences. Dog fighting is intentional.

You say you are against animal abuse and dog fighting on one hand, yet say you are miffed at the responses to perceived animal abuse. Those two comments seem to contradict themselves, unless you don't see dog fighting as animal abuse?

 

[gloco]

It's beyond me how any person cannot understand why using animals to fight for profit or fun is illegal and frowned upon. A person chooses to box or fight in the UFC. Dogs, cats and any other animal imaginable do not choose, they are forced by humans for profit. I don't see how these pitbull fights are any different from some sick individual torturing animals for fun.

Tuberoller,

Cultural or not, its wrong. Animal cruelty should not stop at the state or regional line.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braillediver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mitch

Vick and the owner of this dog should be put in jail.

 

[elrod-tom]

I think what Tuberoller is saying is pretty clear: people seem a good deal less worked up about various and accumulated "bad choices" of our celebrities and sports figures than about the involvement of this particular sports figure in dog fighting. I suspect that it's because this is more of a (if you'll pardon the bad pun) "man bites dog" story. It's getting a lot of attention because it's unusual. Sadly, there's nothing unusual any more about some starlet being pulled over for drunk driving, or some professional athlete beating up his girlfriend. That it involves dogs - who doesn't love dogs? - makes the whole matter that much more incendiary.

I think that dog fighting is sick, and that it ought to be stopped in no uncertain terms. I abhor intentional infliction of cruelty. That said, I also believe in the food chain (if you'll pardon the expression)...I think it's more concerning when something happens to a human being than when it happens to a dog.

Personally, I think we'd be much better off if a lot of the hand-wringing that's going on here were directed towards the fight against the trafficing of young girls, or what's going on in the Sudan, or at any one of a number of other human rights issues that ought to be of concern to us right now. Sure, we can do both, but I can't help but feel like, for some, it's easier to get worked up about this because it involves a dog.

Sorry, that's just how I see it...

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think what Tuberoller is saying is pretty clear: people seem a good deal less worked up about various and accumulated "bad choices" of our celebrities and sports figures than about the involvement of this particular sports figure in dog fighting. I suspect that it's because this is more of a (if you'll pardon the bad pun) "man bites dog" story. It's getting a lot of attention because it's unusual. Sadly, there's nothing unusual any more about some starlet being pulled over for drunk driving, or some professional athlete beating up his girlfriend. That it involves dogs - who doesn't love dogs? - makes the whole matter that much more incendiary. I think that dog fighting is sick, and that it ought to be stopped in no uncertain terms. I abhor intentional infliction of cruelty. That said, I also believe in the food chain (if you'll pardon the expression)...I think it's more concerning when something happens to a human being than when it happens to a dog. Personally, I think we'd be much better off if a lot of the hand-wringing that's going on here were directed towards the fight against the trafficing of young girls, or what's going on in the Sudan, or at any one of a number of other human rights issues that ought to be of concern to us right now. Sure, we can do both, but I can't help but feel like, for some, it's easier to get worked up about this because it involves a dog. Sorry, that's just how I see it...

Nobody is putting a dog's life above human life here. The discussion is about animal abuse and those who are guilty of it. The topic can be broadened to include human rights abuses, but this will do little to advance the original topic. Yes you are right, there are more important issues to deal with. But it is best to deal with them one at a time, yes?

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nobody is putting a dog's life above human life here. The discussion is about animal abuse and those who are guilty of it. The topic can be broadened to include human rights abuses, but this will do little to advance the original topic. Yes you are right, there are more important issues to deal with. But it is best to deal with them one at a time, yes?

Fair enough...I was simply commenting on the disproportionate amount of coverage that this is getting as compared to, for example, the goings on in Darfur...and the relative importance of both.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough...I was simply commenting on the disproportionate amount of coverage that this is getting as compared to, for example, the goings on in Darfur...and the relative importance of both.

Well, maybe a new thread is in order. But I get your point. Priorities.

It is frustrating how much celebrities get covered in the news as opposed to some of the outrages you alluded to; news as escapism. It is like somebody does not what the general American public to see what is going on in the world.