- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
Give yourself a smile
- Thread starter The Snark
- Start date
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
I'd been aware of Patrick's miraculous recovery for some time(see my internet "handle"), but something bothers me about this story, namely that it never once, not ONCE, mentions Patrick's breed. And yet, if Patrick had ever growled, nipped, or scratched anyone, lurid headlines of "VICIOUS PIT BULL ATTACK" would make every news outlet in the world, and the term "pit bull" would be used dozens, if not hundreds, of times in each printing. Anytime an APBT or "pit bull type" dog is a victim of something horrible like this, or when one does something noble and heroic, or simply serves in a capacity like a Service Dog, most media outlets either refuse to carry its story, or, if they do, they won't mention the breed, and sometimes won't even show pictures of the dog, so no one can even infer that it might be a "pit bull". Let a mutt bite or attack anyone, though, even a dog that bears no resemblance to an APBT or any other "bull" breed, and it will be picked up by every news service and internet media outlet on the planet. Even when dogs that cannot in any way be called a "pit bull" do something horrific, very often, when the story is reported, news agencies will show stock photos of either a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, APBT or Rottweiler instead of the actual dog involved, and often won't mention that dog's breed or type at all, leaving the sheeple who have been conditioned to believe that only "pit bulls" or Rottweilers do bad things to infer that the dog must have belonged to one of those types.
Patrick was lucky in more ways that one. One, he was found in the nick of time. Two, the vets treating him didn't just give up after immediately seeing his condition; most vets would have simply written him off upon seeing him as a lost cause, too far gone to save. Three, he didn't live in a place like Denver, CO, or Dade Co., FL, or Ontario, Canada, where even had he still been in fairly good shape, he would have been killed simply for what he is and what he looks like; ditto for his luck in not having been "rescued" by HSUS, who would have killed him for the same reason, or PETA, who would have killed him for simply being an ANIMAL, period.
My bet on who actually threw him down the trash chute is not his owner, as despicable as she might be for starving him, but on someone who simply hates his breed, who figured they were doing the rest of us a good deed.
Not trying to dim the smiles, because Patrick deserves 'em, but it's something that bothers me, along with stuff like this comment on one of the links in that Huffington post story, which I thought I'd share to let some of you know the mentality of the people we are up against:
"lovezion | Jan 16, 2012, 06:54 PM EST
This monster who calls herself a woman should be jailed for a very long time, then afterwards, she ought to be thrown to the radical muslims in their countries, naked!!! My curses to her!!! This is one of trillions of reasons why I don't believe in domesticating animals. Humans just do not deserve to live with them! I curse also the first human who thought about it and put into practice domesticating animals, which in 99.9% of cases it's purely for the exclusive convenience of the humans! I feel we owe it to the animals to (1) stop ALL animal breeding FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER; (2) under penalty of death if disobeyed, make a law absolutely prohibiting catching and bringing animals from their natural habitats!"(bold print mine)
Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pa...rk-garbage-chute-137409248.html#ixzz273YDmrvM
pitbulllady
Patrick was lucky in more ways that one. One, he was found in the nick of time. Two, the vets treating him didn't just give up after immediately seeing his condition; most vets would have simply written him off upon seeing him as a lost cause, too far gone to save. Three, he didn't live in a place like Denver, CO, or Dade Co., FL, or Ontario, Canada, where even had he still been in fairly good shape, he would have been killed simply for what he is and what he looks like; ditto for his luck in not having been "rescued" by HSUS, who would have killed him for the same reason, or PETA, who would have killed him for simply being an ANIMAL, period.
My bet on who actually threw him down the trash chute is not his owner, as despicable as she might be for starving him, but on someone who simply hates his breed, who figured they were doing the rest of us a good deed.
Not trying to dim the smiles, because Patrick deserves 'em, but it's something that bothers me, along with stuff like this comment on one of the links in that Huffington post story, which I thought I'd share to let some of you know the mentality of the people we are up against:
"lovezion | Jan 16, 2012, 06:54 PM EST
This monster who calls herself a woman should be jailed for a very long time, then afterwards, she ought to be thrown to the radical muslims in their countries, naked!!! My curses to her!!! This is one of trillions of reasons why I don't believe in domesticating animals. Humans just do not deserve to live with them! I curse also the first human who thought about it and put into practice domesticating animals, which in 99.9% of cases it's purely for the exclusive convenience of the humans! I feel we owe it to the animals to (1) stop ALL animal breeding FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER; (2) under penalty of death if disobeyed, make a law absolutely prohibiting catching and bringing animals from their natural habitats!"(bold print mine)
Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pa...rk-garbage-chute-137409248.html#ixzz273YDmrvM
pitbulllady
That is a very good point PitBullLady, no mention of breed at all. Irresponsible ownership results in both stories like Patrick's and also in vicious dog attacks, regardless of breed.
I didn't smile though, even though I know his particular story ended well. It just makes me absolutely nauseated and angry when I hear about this kind of stuff because you know for every rare miraculous recovery there are hundreds if not thousands of other animals that were not so lucky. There are some soulless people out there, seriously.
I didn't smile though, even though I know his particular story ended well. It just makes me absolutely nauseated and angry when I hear about this kind of stuff because you know for every rare miraculous recovery there are hundreds if not thousands of other animals that were not so lucky. There are some soulless people out there, seriously.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
Ah yes, the stigma of the Pit bull and the big bad machismo demand by the Shrunken Testicle Crowd. If truth in media was of any interest the animal would have no extraordinary renown in the way of viciousness and the owners that forced these animals to act like brutal savages would get the bad rap: SHIrT HEAD TRAINS DAWG TO MAIM BABIES!
PBL, your comment brings to mind a very sad unfortunate incident. Two Stafford-shires got loose and came into our yard. My dog attacked them. Killed one and so badly maimed the other it had to be put down. Okay and normal on the face of things. CRAP. Then talk got to snowballing it into a horrible mess. I keep a dog that trashes the deadly Pitt bull as a watch dog at a children's camp? Then to counterpoint and make things worse, my dog ate the animal it killed, chewing it up in plain sight of people watching from the road. Well, my dog, an unusual breed I'd rather not mention for fear of giving them a stigma, never attacked any animal except for food and humans were never on it's menu. But damn! All the stupid noise surrounding the incident because of the Pitt bull stigma and a dog eating another dog turned it into a months long 3 ring circus.
As for that comment you quoted. Don't you love absolute hypocrisy? Is that person, or the people who voiced similar sentiments, strict vegetarians who regularly protest the brutal treatment of animals at slaughterhouses? Take a visit there people. Watch the animals gutted and skinned while still twitching in their death throws. Etc etc.
As Roger Zelazney put it, "Indignation is cheap. Even Albert Schweitzer's reverence for life didn't extend to the Tsetse fly, the mosquito or the tape worm."
PBL, your comment brings to mind a very sad unfortunate incident. Two Stafford-shires got loose and came into our yard. My dog attacked them. Killed one and so badly maimed the other it had to be put down. Okay and normal on the face of things. CRAP. Then talk got to snowballing it into a horrible mess. I keep a dog that trashes the deadly Pitt bull as a watch dog at a children's camp? Then to counterpoint and make things worse, my dog ate the animal it killed, chewing it up in plain sight of people watching from the road. Well, my dog, an unusual breed I'd rather not mention for fear of giving them a stigma, never attacked any animal except for food and humans were never on it's menu. But damn! All the stupid noise surrounding the incident because of the Pitt bull stigma and a dog eating another dog turned it into a months long 3 ring circus.
As for that comment you quoted. Don't you love absolute hypocrisy? Is that person, or the people who voiced similar sentiments, strict vegetarians who regularly protest the brutal treatment of animals at slaughterhouses? Take a visit there people. Watch the animals gutted and skinned while still twitching in their death throws. Etc etc.
As Roger Zelazney put it, "Indignation is cheap. Even Albert Schweitzer's reverence for life didn't extend to the Tsetse fly, the mosquito or the tape worm."
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
Is your dog a native Thai breed, btw? I do know of a native breed in that country which can be a very effective guard dog and can most definitely take care of itself. You can PM me with your dog's breed, since you can rest assured that *I* will not be swayed by stigmas or perpetuate them. I've had purebred American Pit Bull Terriers, Akita Inus, American Akitas, wolves and wolf-dogs(mid to high content), along with Dingoes and Catahoula Leopard Dogs, all breeds with a bad rep, so I'm the last person to go about giving a breed a bad stigma. And I too, have had well-fed dogs kill and cannibalize other dogs. Akitas are pretty damn good at this, and most smaller dogs, to them, are just prey animals. Most primitive breeds do not even seem to realize that small dogs ARE dogs at all, but react to them the same way that wild wolves will react to foxes and coyotes-DINNER IS SERVED! My Carolina Dog would happily make a meal of my French Bulldog if she got the chance.
That quote from the AR nutcase should not be taken lightly, folks. There are more of them who actually think like that than most of you realize. It goes to show that their real motivation is NOT a love of animals, but a deep-rooted hatred of human beings.
pitbulllady
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
You certainly know your dogs. He was a pure blood Japanese version, trained to hunt bears - he was quite good at treeing them without coming in claw range. Dignity personified, never barked but sometimes would wander off a little and sing to himself. A weird low growl-moan-humming sound. I never considered him a cannibal, just extremely practical.
I can't really comment on that person who commented. I know they are all too common and nearly all would fit in with certain psychological aberration profiles. But, one also needs to remember, that general mentality is the norm in much of America. Watching their pseudo news entertainment and doing what the stupid tube tells them to do.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
Kinda had a feeling that's what he was. I had the real deals, too, quite different from the American version(I had a few of those, too), which has a lot of German Shepherd and Mastiff in its background. The Japanese version is basically a very large Dingo, with very primitive behaviors(kinda interesting that the primitive Asian breeds actually originated in or around what is now Thailand and spread via human conquest throughout Asia and the Pacific, as well as North America). I used them to hunt wild hogs, but they did have a tough time in our climate and in the swamps, so different from their native Alpine sub-Arctic home. These dogs are more like big cats, really. The way mine would move, their odd vocalizations, their independent, aloof behavior, giving and seeking affection only when they felt like it, fastidious grooming habits, was much more cat-like than canine. I was reminded a lot of my cougars and leopards. I kinda miss them, but like the big cats, that's an animal that you really need to be at the top of your game, physically and mentally, to deal with. When I was young, I didn't have much problems doing that, but now? Like so many other things, being able to keep and control something like that has been relegated to the growing list of "used-to-be-able-to's".
pitbulllady
Thomas2015
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 34
Logic and common sense are unfortunately becoming rarer as the years go on. While laws are put in place barring ownership on pitbulls, people neglect to see that the most common and serious dog bites are caused by Labradors and Chihuahuas. Also, in genetic testing, we've found that nearly every dog classified as "pitbull" in shelters by trained staff were actually breeds nowhere related to Pits: they just happened to look a lot like them. While we do have breeders that cause problems by breeding for looks and not for health of the animals, many are actually beginning to change their ways to promote the breeding of healthier, happier dogs. Breeding of wildlife also gives us a renewing population of animals that can be drawn upon in the case that native wildlife becomes threatened. And the goofiest thing: why do people go out and buy a multi-thousand dollar purebred that will likely have medical issues the rest of its life due to massive inbreeding, when you can drive a few miles and adopt a perfectly healthy dog already neutered or spayed with vaccines for around fifty dollars or even sometimes free? Common sense and research people . . . come on. As for Patrick's story, he is a lucky dog and I hope he lives a good, long, and happy life in his new home. And I hope that people will begin to see that many of the problems seen with the "Pitbull" breed are simply a result of bad people, . . . not bad dogs.
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
Thomas, there are certainly places for purebred dogs. Some of us, people like myself, bred dogs for a specific purpose, not just as pets. I bred working dogs, dogs that had to perform a specific and very dangerous task-hunting wild/feral hogs, arguably the most dangerous wild animal on this continent. You can't go to the pound and get a spayed/neutered couch puppy to do that; in fact, I've never seen a neutered male dog that had the drive needed for that, or even competition hog baying, at all. There are just a few breeds cut out for that kind of work. If you DID get extremely lucky and find that one-in-three-million shelter dogs that could cut it as a hog dog, you can't reproduce that ability. Once that dog dies, it cannot leave behind a genetic legacy of future hog dogs to carry on its abilities. I also showed dogs for many years before I got frustrated with the politics of showing dogs, and I can understand why those dogs cost so much. Those purebred breeders DO put a lot of money into genetic testing, etc., and have an extensive knowledge of genetics that few actual geneticists would possess, through first-hand knowledge. THAT I can justify, even if you do not want a performance-bred dog. Some people still want a dog that will turn out to look and act a certain way, a predictable way, with a known background insofar as its parents, grandparents, and upbringing. With a shelter dog, that's a crap shoot, especially if you get a puppy. Not saying that people should not adopt from a shelter; IF you want a pet only, and don't care how the dog turns out to look, etc., or you are willing to take a gamble that an adult dog might have some issues show up after you get it home, then I'd say go for it. Around here, most adult dogs wind up in shelters for a reason, often related to behavior, especially aggression, and their true colors often do not manifest in that environment. I just don't want that kind of guesswork when it comes to a dog, but if such specifics do not matter, then shelters and rescues are the way to go.
I DO second what you said, though, about the majority of dogs that are being called "pit bulls" having absolutely NO American Pit Bull/American Staff genes whatsoever. They are just a hodge-podge of breeds which, when assembled and mixed in a particular way, turn out to superficially resemble a known breed. Very, very few of the "gang-banger's" fighting and dope-guarding dogs are purebred anythings, and to compound the issue, there are the so-called "American Bully pits", many of which are still registered via several dog registries as American Pit Bull Terriers because some very unscrupulous out-to-make-a-buck breeders(yes, those exist, just like unscrupulous people exist in all facets of life and business) incorporated many other different breeds into those dogs' bloodlines and fraudulently continued to register them as purebred. Many of those breeds used in those mixes are traditional guarding/protection breeds, of which a real APBT is NOT, so naturally you're going to get that territorial, suspicious and protective temperament of a guarding breed, which brings me to your other comment about people paying thousands of dollars for a dog-I can justify doing that if you can afford it, and you are getting a dog of a proven, well-known background, but in this case, people spend that kind of money for MUTTS, dogs which have not had any health testing, whose adult size and disposition cannot be predicted due to all the different breeds that have recently gone into the blender, which do NOT conform to any breed standard, and which are often labeled in such a way as to confuse them with a legitimate pure breed. Most people, honestly, have never seen a real American Pit Bull Terrier and probably have no clue what one even looks like, thanks to all the wannabes out there. It is simply a conditioned, or rather, a BRAINWASHED, response to automatically consider any dog that bites or attacks to be a "pit bull" and to believe that all such dogs are by nature more aggressive and more dangerous than other dogs, part of the AR's well-orchestrated drive to gradually eliminate all dogs, along with their general denigration of purebred dogs in particular and their push to sterilize ALL dogs. You have yourself bought into their propaganda almost as much as those who believe that certain "breeds" are too dangerous and must therefore be eliminated; it all stems from the same source and ultimately serves the same purpose. The AR propaganda has effectively used the following ideals and generalizations to remove dogs from our lives bit by bit: certain dog breeds/types are inherently dangerous and must be eliminated for the sake of human safetly; certain dog breeds/types are only bred for cruel purposes and must be eliminated for THEIR own sake; purebred dogs are unhealthy and suffering and should no longer be perpetuated; purebred dog breeders are all evil, uncaring people who exploit their dogs for money and do not care about the dogs' suffering at all; the only good and healthy dogs are those which are adopted from shelters or rescues all dogs should be spayed/neutered and all dog breeding should stop until shelters are empty(never mind that this will inevitably coincide with dogs becoming EXTINCT), and you are an uncaring and bad person if you get a dog from a breeder and not from a shelter in the meantime.
pitbulllady
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
And then, there are dogthings that should exist only for testing exposure to the vacuum of space. IE foo foo things like the -bark once every three seconds for the entire duration of it's life- creatures. It was quite satisfying to watch my four legged companion turn one of those into lunch, breakfast, dinner or snack. I loved the frantic phone call I once received from my mother: "There are poodle bits all over the driveway! Oh, errm... never mind. He's cleaning the mess up. By the way, he ate another 12 of Pete's chickens. I've got the bill which I'd appreciate you paying promptly. He said (your dog) is his best customer. And Pete wants you to fix the hole he ripped in the fence."
I utterly loath the macho crap of owning a 'pitbull' thing. "I've got a pure bred pitbull and he can kill anything, hyuck hyuck." Yeah? I've got a syringe and a nice bottle of phenobarbital. I can fix your machismo problem if you want.
I utterly loath the macho crap of owning a 'pitbull' thing. "I've got a pure bred pitbull and he can kill anything, hyuck hyuck." Yeah? I've got a syringe and a nice bottle of phenobarbital. I can fix your machismo problem if you want.
Last edited:
Niffarious
Arachnoknight
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 170
I have to say, I generally really like your posts. But I actually found this statement uneducated and rather appalling.
Those 'foo foo things' are bred for the sole purpose of being a companion, and nothing more. There is NOTHING WRONG with wanting a dog just as a companion. My family always had pointers, as my father hunts, but also one small dog for my mom. She always had a small maltese or poodle for herself. Those dogs were trained as if they were a bigger dog (like the pointers) and were and are amazing family companions - smart and well behaved. The problem is not with the dogs' breed, but with owners neglecting to train them properly due to their inoffensive size. So here you are, sticking up for pitties who are much maligned due to poor ownership, but turning around with the same attitude on another whole group of dogs. That's got to me the most hypocritical thing I've read in a while. Unless that was pure sarcasm that flew over my head, in which case you have my apologies.
I keep whippets. Primarily for companionship, but I do take them rabbiting with my father once in a while. Their whole job is to keep me company. I lucked out and got an oversized male who is also an excellent guard dog (rare for such a friendly breed). I trained them to be companions and sporting dogs, so they are versatile, well trained and adaptable. Due to their appearance and sweet demeanour lots of people coddle this breed, resulting in a lot of anxiety-prone, fearful and weird dogs. When treated like a normal dog, they are the farthest thing from that...but any dog (of any breed) would be a wreck if coddled in such a way.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
You are quite right to call me on that. I will qualify my remarks. Primarily I refer to the dogs that are no longer dogs but ornaments that have traits and habits the owners loath but tolerate because of, for lack of a better word, the chic of owning that particular animal. To epitomize, a woman I knew, a veterinary assistant, has chronic debilitating insomnia from the half dozen or more cockapoos she always owned. Her defense was she loved that breed of dog. The yapping had her popping sedatives like candy and she had 2 nervous breakdowns from lack of regenerative sleep.
Uhhh, okay. Your call, lady. Your choice. But it sure appears you have crossed the line from pet ownership to psychosis with neurosis topping.
Thomas2015
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 34
Hey Pitbulllady! I love the response, and I agree with nearly everything you say. I would presume that during your breeding practices, you look for traits in your dogs that include health standards. You wouldn't want a dog that couldn't run, had arthritis issues, spinal problems, hip displasia, or any kind of problem that would interfere with the dog's overall ability to perform his task. This is an EXCELLENT example of what breeding SHOULD be: the breeding in of traits that make a dog healthier and more able to perform the tasks needed, whether that be hunting, pulling a sled, being a guard, or simply being a family pet, as well as the breeding out of unwanted problems that tend to follow a breed. The issue I run into is the idea that a dog should LOOK a certain way regardless of the health problems that ensue. There are literally innumerable examples, but here's just one: Rhodesian Ridgebacks. They're breed standard includes the prominent ridge that runs along their back. A show dog would never expect to win without that prominent ridge. However, that prominent ridge carries a host of medical problems, such as spinal meningeal foramens (or a hole in the dura of the spinal cord). Without the ridge, the breed loses this particular trait. So why are we breeding ridgebacks with a particular trait that causes life threatening health problems for puppies IF ITS ONLY A TRAIT BRED SOLELY FOR LOOKS? And the only thing I would disagree with you about is that purebred show dogs in particular DO tend to have life-threatening illnesses very closely following the breeds. Certain breeds are so unhealthy that they need caesarians just to give birth, due to their inability to give birth naturally anymore (pure bred English Bulldogs are a great example). I very strongly disagree with this form of breeding, and I feel like it does a disservice to breeds that grow up with a host of mutations that cause them misery and suffering. As for adoption from shelters, I find that most people who are looking for a family pet and end up buying a multi-thousand dollar pure-bred Chihuahua are surprised to find that their dog has problems with degenerative joint disease, patent ductus arteriosis, and atlanto-axial luxations. They spend thousands taking care of an inherently unhealthy pet (due to a plethora of abhorrent mutations) when they could have adopted a relatively healthy and disease-free puppy from their local adoption center for a hundreth the cost. Now, that being said, I understand that there are instances when you need a purebred dog (hunting boar for example) and a mutt just won't do. These dogs are bred for health (rather than looks), and are shining examples of the way we should breed dogs. But for the family who's just looking for a good pet to love and care for, wouldn't the average mutt from the pound be great, rather than an expensive show dog with health issues that follow it for the rest of its life?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
So to sum up, ideally speaking, pet ownership should always include the health and well being of the animal and be inclusive of altering the animal to exclude it from reproduction. If an animal is kept unaltered, with the intent of breeding, a greater degree of the aforementioned must be applied to wit, animal ownership. The owner is responsible for the health and well being of the entire species. While anybody can qualify for the first aspect, the second should never be taken in the same light. A far greater responsibility must be shouldered.
Thomas2015 and PBL gave many excellent examples of acting properly and responsibly when owning a breedable animal. The immediate response comes from many quarters demanding the right to unrestrained animal breeding. Well, people have that right as well. They can, and in the modern age do more than ever, produce animals that natural selection would have doomed to extinction. Whether they should have that right is academic. Little Patrick is a perfect example of a person demanding such a right when they do not have the best (if any) intentions for the continuing welfare of the animal and or progeny. Bottom line, yes you do have the right to cause an animal pain, discomfort and even death, as long as you maintain certain established norms of conduct.
So there is no end all be all solution and Patricks are inevitable. A product of our modern society similar to our throwing away millions of pounds of food each day while children are starving to death.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. No laws, regardless how sweeping or pedantic can replace that. When Patricks emerge we need to go beyond condemnation of the perpetrators and take good looks at ourselves. We the people have collectively permitted and condone Patrick production. It is only our own sense of responsibility and personal dignity that can change this and move mankind towards compassion and understanding, not only towards our animals but towards each other. Move society away from brutal primitive man towards a more enlightened age.
Thomas2015 and PBL gave many excellent examples of acting properly and responsibly when owning a breedable animal. The immediate response comes from many quarters demanding the right to unrestrained animal breeding. Well, people have that right as well. They can, and in the modern age do more than ever, produce animals that natural selection would have doomed to extinction. Whether they should have that right is academic. Little Patrick is a perfect example of a person demanding such a right when they do not have the best (if any) intentions for the continuing welfare of the animal and or progeny. Bottom line, yes you do have the right to cause an animal pain, discomfort and even death, as long as you maintain certain established norms of conduct.
So there is no end all be all solution and Patricks are inevitable. A product of our modern society similar to our throwing away millions of pounds of food each day while children are starving to death.
It all boils down to personal responsibility. No laws, regardless how sweeping or pedantic can replace that. When Patricks emerge we need to go beyond condemnation of the perpetrators and take good looks at ourselves. We the people have collectively permitted and condone Patrick production. It is only our own sense of responsibility and personal dignity that can change this and move mankind towards compassion and understanding, not only towards our animals but towards each other. Move society away from brutal primitive man towards a more enlightened age.
Niffarious
Arachnoknight
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 170
Wow, yeah I agree with you on that point. Those kinds of dogs drive me absolutely mental...I can't stand them. But, I also feel badly for them. Dogs crave leadership and a certain degree of structure, and those poor animals are usually neurotic from not having any of it.
It's not hard to train a dog to stop barking...to have so many, all acting like that? Once again, bad owner...
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
Many years ago, a school where I taught was visited by a group of real Masai warriors and one of their tribal chiefs from Kenya, and I was privileged to have a few moments to sit and talk with the chief, who was well into his '90's. He had spent a few days in and out of the school, visiting the different classrooms, and somehow, our discussion turned to animals and the relationship that Americans have-or don't have-with the rest of the animal kingdom. In the course of conversation, he left me with one of his tribe's pieces of wisdom; "never treat a dog like a man, or he will treat YOU like a dog". The mindset that we often now see in the US, that dogs are little four-legged people, is hurting dogs, tremendously. We expect them to think, act and moralize just like us and want the same things we so often want, none of which involve acting like a dog, most of which are indoors in front of a screen of some type. When dogs exhibit neurotic and often dangerous behavior as a result of humans trying to shove them into our own mold rather than accepting them as a totally different species, off the shelter they go in most cases, or in worst scenarios, they are killed, often after their behavior has escalated to the point where humans were injured. Dogs usually don't get the chance to be DOGS. Too many people assume that whatever they want, dogs must want, too, but that's not the case.
pitbulllady
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,498
Xerxes. Riddle me this oh Lady of Pittbull. Would Patrick have gone down the garbage chute if the knothead(s) had considered him a human?
The crux of the biscuit is not in labels. Humans. Pets. Fluffybunnys. It's our viewpoint. Our view out over the dashboard. Extend respect. The same respect to your soul mate, you foo foo rat, your child, your champion blue blood, the dork doing 50 in a 15 zone. Respect. What we all want. What we all deserve, humans and other animals, if we can get past our assorted neurosisisis.
The crux of the biscuit is not in labels. Humans. Pets. Fluffybunnys. It's our viewpoint. Our view out over the dashboard. Extend respect. The same respect to your soul mate, you foo foo rat, your child, your champion blue blood, the dork doing 50 in a 15 zone. Respect. What we all want. What we all deserve, humans and other animals, if we can get past our assorted neurosisisis.
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
If the knotheads had been PETA supporters, yes. Remember-"a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". This organization kills 98% of the animals they get their hands on, so given that they believe humans and animals are equal, I wouldn't wager much on the longevity of any human children who might fall into their hands. People in our society adhere to a throw-away sort of mentality; it something is not perfect, if it doesn't live up to your immediate expectations, discard it and get a new one to replace it. And while people cannot legally discard children the same way they do with animals, many parents DO simply stick their kids in daycare or leave them at home alone, because they became too much work and aggravation. Hardly a day goes by, though, that you don't hear of some parent murdering their own kid because the kid interfered with the parent's lifestyle, got to be too much of a hassle. People do unspeakable things to children everyday, so while Patrick's chances of being tossed down a trash chute had he been a human child and not a puppy might have been somewhat less, they still would have been pretty good, and the possibility of much worse being done to him definitely would have been looming, too.
When I was in college, I did summer volunteer work at the nearest animal shelter. Most of the dogs there were either picked up as strays, or brought in due to severe temperament issues(biting, usually), or brought in because they were in poor health and the shelter would euthanize them for much less than the vet charged. Now, at the same shelter, there are dogs there which were brought in simply for being dogs, for doing normal dog stuff, but the owners' expectation were for the dogs to act like people, and people aren't supposed to poop on the floor or eat $130.00 Jordans. These same people will show up to bring their dog and their kids are running amok through the whole place, lacking any training as much as the dog is. It is just expected that both the kids and the dog are supposed to be born knowing how to be perfect. The kids call their parents by their first names, not by "mom" or "dad", because they seldom even spend time with these strangers. They are being raised by the government(school)and daycare centers. It's not unusual for people to bring in one dog to turn in to the shelter because they don't want to deal with its behavior, and try to adopt ANOTHER dog at the same time, like someone bringing in their old car to a car dealership to trade in on a newer, better model. People expect too much from dogs, their expectations created by movies and television and of course, that constant barrage from those who really do believe that animals have the same rights as us, so therefore should be held to the same standards of behavior and accountability as us.
pitbulllady
Niffarious
Arachnoknight
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 170
In a society where two incomes are often required to make ends meet, or a single parent must look after a child or children alone, Daycare is a necessity. Public education is as well. I'm not a parent and have no intentions of ever being one, but I would NEVER fault a parent for either of these things!
As well, I know first hand of people who have adopted dogs, were brand new dog owners, and wound up with dogs with SERIOUS behavior issues that they were not capable of dealing with. I in no way shape or form believe these people should have kept these animals or that they are bad people for making the choice to return them to the shelter. Keeping a dangerous animal around children or other pets is irresponsible at best, especially if one does not have the knowledge or experience to manage it.
I understand your sentiment, but using such a wide brush is dangerous - and the same tactic the people you profess to hate use against folks like us.
As well, I know first hand of people who have adopted dogs, were brand new dog owners, and wound up with dogs with SERIOUS behavior issues that they were not capable of dealing with. I in no way shape or form believe these people should have kept these animals or that they are bad people for making the choice to return them to the shelter. Keeping a dangerous animal around children or other pets is irresponsible at best, especially if one does not have the knowledge or experience to manage it.
I understand your sentiment, but using such a wide brush is dangerous - and the same tactic the people you profess to hate use against folks like us.