Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DarkBronzePlant · 07-30-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shome42
You're missing the point. I'm not trying to say that cars are never dangerous. They are. I'm saying that the danger/saftey of a car depends on the operator, not the car itself.

In the case of dogs, their danger isn't just a product of their owners' behavior. An owner can do all the right things, and the dog may still hurt someone! The main difference between a car and a dog is that dogs have wills of their own. In other words, despite your best efforts, the dog's will may supercede your own.

In the case of cars, this doesn't happen. The car does ONLY what you tell it to do. Of course, cars can experience mechanical failures etc, but still, the point is that under normal circumstances, you are in complete control of the car. Under normal circumstances, you are NEVER in full control of a dogs, as it has its own will that can ignore yours.

No, I am understanding the point. There have been plenty of fatalities that have happened, completely outside of the owner/driver's control. We have a stretch of highway, highway 93, that runs between Golden and Boulder. It gets quite windy. We've had more than a few fatalities from head-ons caused by a sudden gust of wind forcing a car into the opposite lane, right into the path of oncoming traffic. There's nothing the other driver could have possibly done to prevent it. That is, short of not driving in the first place.

That's just an example, but there are plenty of others. Brakes go out. Road gets slippery and causes cars to go out of control. etc. By your logic, if only a few injuries or fatalities occur in situations like that (which more than a few do) people should not be allowed to drive.

My final point is basically that shit happens. I agree in basic dog-owner laws. Owners should clean up their dogs' crap. Owners should leash their dog when they are taking them to a place where other people are. If they let them run free anywhere that's not unpopulated, keep them in a fenced yard. But sometimes, despite everyone's best intentions, bad things happen. If we tried to prevent all of these things, we would:

- Shoot all wildlife that is near human populations. Wildlife can't necessarily be controlled or reasoned with.
- Disallow balconies on high-rise hotels; lots of babies--who can no more be controlled or reasoned with than dogs--have crawled off said balconies.
- Eliminate sidewalks, especially in snowy/icy areas. Sure, everyone should try to keep their sidewalks snow/ice free. But as someone who owns a home in an area that gets relatively light snow, it's damned near impossible to do that in reality.
- Eliminate solid foods. Liquid foods rarely cause a person to choke, but solid foods do.
- Etc.
- Etc.

Life is life. Shit happens. We try to prevent shit from happening, but there is easily such a thing as going overboard.

Farren · 07-30-2003, 04:18 PM

Well shome

I wanted to keep my thoughts on the issue within the realm of common premises because I know my own feelings are controversial, but my position is that humans should just be willing to accept the possible dangers of animals and be less strung out about being in control

I'm a vegetarian (well, not strictly, started eating fish after 13 years) and I have an immense love for animals of all kinds. At the moment there I have a Pug, a Belgian Alsation and a Labrador and two cats of unknown lineage in the same room as me.

What I mean by accepting the dangers is that I'm even willing to get bitten by an animal and attempt to form a positive relationship with it afterwards.

King Rat chimed in about gun control earlier because we went hammer and tongs at each other over that - I feel guns should be severely curtailed. But I'm not being morally inconsistent, at least in terms of my own premises. I do feel its better to sacrifice some personal security for another living thing, but not for an inanimate object.

Of relevance and interest in that thread was an argument between two people who regularly went camping, hiking in areas frequented by bears. To paraphrase

Side A: You've got to be insane to go out where there are bears without a rifle.

Side B: I do it all the time. Bells on the shoes and a respectful attitude work pretty well, IME.

Which pretty much sums up how I feel. I don't think humans should be protected from animals because we're soooo "superior", I think our natural advantages give us the moral responsibility to act wisely around animals, and accept the consequences or learn lessons when things go wrong.

Its the same difference in thinking that seperates a leader who lords their position over their "subjects", and one who sees themselves as a servant of those people who have put their faith in the leader.

Viti · 07-30-2003, 04:39 PM

I added this as a late edit, so wanted to repost it
-------------------------------------------------------------------

And last but not least, most dogs are mixed breeds and it would follow that most bites are by mixed breed dogs. When reporting the breed for bite stat purposes, somebody chooses what they think is the dominant breed. Who is that someone? How are they qualified? I know dogs very well and I can barely identify my mixed breed...the shelter had him listed as a "Shepherd" mix, he looks like a Rottie mix to me, but also has traits that neither Rotties or German Shepherds have at all. So say he bit someone, the insurance guy or someone will pick a breed...what breed are they likely to choose?

ooh_child · 07-30-2003, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea
I added this as a late edit, so wanted to repost it
-------------------------------------------------------------------

And last but not least, most dogs are mixed breeds and it would follow that most bites are by mixed breed dogs. When reporting the breed for bite stat purposes, somebody chooses what they think is the dominant breed. Who is that someone? How are they qualified? I know dogs very well and I can barely identify my mixed breed...the shelter had him listed as a "Shepherd" mix, he looks like a Rottie mix to me, but also has traits that neither Rotties or German Shepherds have at all. So say he bit someone, the insurance guy or someone will pick a breed...what breed are they likely to choose?

:notworthy

I agree most wholeheartedly!

I adopt Akitas from rescue shelters. They last time my hubby & I went to the closest shelter, we saw over 40 dogs, and many weren't even close to the breed standard. All they had was a "curly tail", and that was good enough. Thankfully, the supervisor took in any dog "of need". We adopted 2 wonderful Akitas, who we trained correctly; and they are properly supervised AT ALL TIMES.

Now, our home insurance carrier has publically announced that we may lose our coverage because certain breeds are
considered "dangerous", including Akitas. What a crock of shit!! Where is the detailed study of Akitas to back this up? Just a bunch of insurance corps checking off a questionairre?

It is up to the owners, or breeders, to take responsibility for their animals. I do - take me to task if I don't. Do not condemn the breed for the "sins" of the creator.

MHB

Cynical-Chick · 07-30-2003, 11:13 PM

I hate the assumption that big dog =cruel, biter.

It's a breed fact that big dogs are sweet. AKA "Gentle giant." I'm talking Great Dane (I grew up with one; she was a total pussy [no pun intended]), St. Bernard, Newfie, etc.

If a dog is so trained, it will bite. If it or its master is threatened, it will bite.

My baby is a mix; he's never bitten anyone.

They're like teenagers, only sweeter and more loyal. They're a biproduct of their environment (agression and abuse vs. love and being spoiled); if they kill (attack), it's not necessarily something totally random.

Godless Dave · 07-30-2003, 11:27 PM

I wonder how many people's lives have been saved by trained rescue dogs on ski slopes and at accident sites.

Or because a trained police dog helped the cops catch a violent criminal.

Then there are the thousands of visually-impaired people whose service dogs allow them greater independence and quality of life.

And the epileptics who have been spared injury or death because their service dog predicted a seizure.

And all the rapists who were deterred by their potential victim's big dog.

brighid · 07-31-2003, 07:45 AM

Farren,

Quote:

What's interesting though is that when I google the same breeds come up time and again as the primary cause of these stats

As an owner of a doberman (and other large breed dogs in the past) I will say that the reason many of these dogs are on the is list IS because of poor training techniques of their owners. A doberman, pit bull, german shepard, etc. are not dogs just anyone should own. Working with our local doberman rescue (and where we got our latest dobie from) it becomes all to apparent that too many people don't understand the absolute necessity for properly training such large and strong dogs. I know too many people who fall in love with that cute puppy and take no care to understand the breed, or spend anytime training them. You cannot own a large breed and think what is cute when they are puppies is going to be okay when they are 100+ pounds of dog.

If an owner does not establish himself/herself as the alpha in the family many dogs will. Poor dog behavior is the fault of the owner, and uncontrollable dogs caused by genetic defect are the fault of irresponsible breeders that should be put out of business.

Most people don't understand dog behavior, or realize that dogs intrinsically have a pack mentality and the hierarchy of behavior that goes along with it. The more severe bites are going to come from a larger dog because they have larger teeth, but little dogs (at least in my experience) bit far more often but don't do as much damage for obvious reasons. Again, this is the fault of the owner. These dogs don't have any less of a pack/hierarchy mentality then big dogs do, but the just can't hurt a child or adult in the same way. I think the statistics don't truly reveal an accurate picture.

People are the ones who need to be trained properly before they ever purchase a large breed. Large breed dogs, such as those mentioned are awesome family companions and are great for personal protection. There are many reasons we chose a doberman: intelligence, strength, agility, loyalty and their ability to defend our home and his pack members. A kidnapper or child molestor isn't coming into our home or yard that is for damn sure. However, if you are admitted to our home by the permission of the Alphas (me and my husband) he will love you like you are a pack/family member ... as it should be and is proper for dog behavior.

It is a shame that these dogs get a bad rap when it is directly the fault of the owners and breeders (and people should not buy these sorts of dogs from a pet store!)

Edited to add : but you probably already know of that ...

Just ranting a bit... don't mind me.
Brighid

brighid · 07-31-2003, 07:53 AM

Godless Dave,

Aboslutely - about all the rescue and service dogs out there! Someday, we really hope to be able to train a service dog or two. They do so much good for so many people, and although it will be really difficult to give up a dog you have loved, trained and cared for it is a worth while cause!

Brighid

DarkBronzePlant · 07-31-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
Godless Dave,

Aboslutely - about all the rescue and service dogs out there! Someday, we really hope to be able to train a service dog or two. They do so much good for so many people, and although it will be really difficult to give up a dog you have loved, trained and cared for it is a worth while cause!

Brighid

And aside from all that, hell, how many people and families have had their lives brightened a little by owning a dog? shome42's argument seems to be "(1)occasionally bad things happen with dogs, and (2)good things never do, so (3) dogs ought to be outright banned", where point #2 is obviously far, far from the truth.

Viti · 07-31-2003, 09:57 AM

Good points everyone. I think it's unbelievable that I pay an extra premium on my homeowners insurance for my dogs because they show up on some list that may or may not be accurate. I also think it's ridiculous that shome42 and others support blanket breed bans based on this same sketchy information.

There is a serial rapist in Las Vegas that hides in yards, then enters through sliding glass doors...he sure as hell won't come near my house. My husband travels a lot...I felt much safer with my Rottie, O'Shea, who scared even nosy neighbors away with his bark.

Unless and until my dogs show any sign of being dangerous to the public at large I will fight to keep them. I am a good owner, I am a responsible owner, I know many other good owners via our local dog park where 30 or more big dogs and 50 people gather every weekend without incident.

Brighid, no problem, I feel the need to rant too. THese people with their evil little ankle biters already give me enough shit about "those dangerous big dogs". One asked me if Aurora was a Wolf (she's a 50 lb purebred Siberian...WTF?) and if I had registered her with the county and she would report me etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2003, 04:18 PM	#52
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	Well shome I wanted to keep my thoughts on the issue within the realm of common premises because I know my own feelings are controversial, but my position is that humans should just be willing to accept the possible dangers of animals and be less strung out about being in control I'm a vegetarian (well, not strictly, started eating fish after 13 years) and I have an immense love for animals of all kinds. At the moment there I have a Pug, a Belgian Alsation and a Labrador and two cats of unknown lineage in the same room as me. What I mean by accepting the dangers is that I'm even willing to get bitten by an animal and attempt to form a positive relationship with it afterwards. King Rat chimed in about gun control earlier because we went hammer and tongs at each other over that - I feel guns should be severely curtailed. But I'm not being morally inconsistent, at least in terms of my own premises. I do feel its better to sacrifice some personal security for another living thing, but not for an inanimate object. Of relevance and interest in that thread was an argument between two people who regularly went camping, hiking in areas frequented by bears. To paraphrase Side A: You've got to be insane to go out where there are bears without a rifle. Side B: I do it all the time. Bells on the shoes and a respectful attitude work pretty well, IME. Which pretty much sums up how I feel. I don't think humans should be protected from animals because we're soooo "superior", I think our natural advantages give us the moral responsibility to act wisely around animals, and accept the consequences or learn lessons when things go wrong. Its the same difference in thinking that seperates a leader who lords their position over their "subjects", and one who sees themselves as a servant of those people who have put their faith in the leader.

07-30-2003, 04:39 PM	#53
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	I added this as a late edit, so wanted to repost it ------------------------------------------------------------------- And last but not least, most dogs are mixed breeds and it would follow that most bites are by mixed breed dogs. When reporting the breed for bite stat purposes, somebody chooses what they think is the dominant breed. Who is that someone? How are they qualified? I know dogs very well and I can barely identify my mixed breed...the shelter had him listed as a "Shepherd" mix, he looks like a Rottie mix to me, but also has traits that neither Rotties or German Shepherds have at all. So say he bit someone, the insurance guy or someone will pick a breed...what breed are they likely to choose?

07-30-2003, 11:13 PM	#55
Cynical-Chick Contributor Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 11,424	I hate the assumption that big dog =cruel, biter. It's a breed fact that big dogs are sweet. AKA "Gentle giant." I'm talking Great Dane (I grew up with one; she was a total pussy [no pun intended]), St. Bernard, Newfie, etc. If a dog is so trained, it will bite. If it or its master is threatened, it will bite. My baby is a mix; he's never bitten anyone. They're like teenagers, only sweeter and more loyal. They're a biproduct of their environment (agression and abuse vs. love and being spoiled); if they kill (attack), it's not necessarily something totally random.

07-30-2003, 11:27 PM	#56
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	I wonder how many people's lives have been saved by trained rescue dogs on ski slopes and at accident sites. Or because a trained police dog helped the cops catch a violent criminal. Then there are the thousands of visually-impaired people whose service dogs allow them greater independence and quality of life. And the epileptics who have been spared injury or death because their service dog predicted a seizure. And all the rapists who were deterred by their potential victim's big dog.

07-31-2003, 07:53 AM	#58
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Godless Dave, Aboslutely - about all the rescue and service dogs out there! Someday, we really hope to be able to train a service dog or two. They do so much good for so many people, and although it will be really difficult to give up a dog you have loved, trained and cared for it is a worth while cause! Brighid

07-31-2003, 09:57 AM	#60
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Good points everyone. I think it's unbelievable that I pay an extra premium on my homeowners insurance for my dogs because they show up on some list that may or may not be accurate. I also think it's ridiculous that shome42 and others support blanket breed bans based on this same sketchy information. There is a serial rapist in Las Vegas that hides in yards, then enters through sliding glass doors...he sure as hell won't come near my house. My husband travels a lot...I felt much safer with my Rottie, O'Shea, who scared even nosy neighbors away with his bark. Unless and until my dogs show any sign of being dangerous to the public at large I will fight to keep them. I am a good owner, I am a responsible owner, I know many other good owners via our local dog park where 30 or more big dogs and 50 people gather every weekend without incident. Brighid, no problem, I feel the need to rant too. THese people with their evil little ankle biters already give me enough shit about "those dangerous big dogs". One asked me if Aurora was a Wolf (she's a 50 lb purebred Siberian...WTF?) and if I had registered her with the county and she would report me etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.