- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,659
Thank you
He is incredibly smart, very sweet, and a huge brat, but we love him lol.
Our new addition
- Thread starter Shell
- Start date
He is incredibly smart, very sweet, and a huge brat, but we love him lol.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,659
Thanks
He's doing very well so far, but his training at this point is just the basics.They grow so fast, don't they? He's super cute, I envy the puppy fun even though they can get on your nerves some times. Does he still have that funky breath?
I have never understood the bad reputation either. They can be guard dogs (as any dog can be) and had a sordid evolution but that's not their fault nor does it have any bearing on the breed as we know it today. Here, a lot of providers won't even give you home owner's insurance if you own one. Silly. I don't think of them as being unpredictable or anything which is really where the liability comes in. Their not like wolves or wolf crosses which I do disagree with- we know that temperament is controlled by genetics and has not been modified in wolves or associated crosses- I feel you need a wildlife permit if you are gonna go there as they are highly likely to be unpredictable due to their inherent independence and disposition. But our legislation is not very pragmatic or well thought out so breeds like your awesome pup get undue negative attention and may even cause a hassle in your life because the sweet cuddly puppy you live with happens to be on a blind "no no" list for your insurance companies.
I read a really nice article the other day about breed-ism with dogs. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
"Dog bites are not a disease. They are the result of complex interactions between sentient creatures of different species. They occur in the most uncontrolled and unscientific settings imaginable. However one breaks down the "factors" – whether related to the dog, the owner, the environment, or the victim – they cannot be measured against each other.
When the list of factors became too daunting, researchers attempted to limit them to a few, or even to one: correlating bite incident with the attributed breed of the dog, and presenting this correlation as a cause/effect relationship. Single-cause explanations are easily comprehended, and make a condition seem more manageable.
The problem is that focus on breeds puts the focus on the dog, at the expense of consideration of his relationship with the human beings who controlled him. This breed focus has hindered scientific inquiry and prevented the development of better informed public policy."
Pretty much spot on, no? I mean I do understand that there is more liability with a breed that could do harm if not well-raised, I have a great dane and his leaning on people alone could knock over an elderly person resulting in a broken hip or something which would not be an issue with a teacup sized dog. Same with bites, more catastrophic with more power behind them. But to say it is because the dog is a dane or dobie or pit is ludicrous. It's because the owner is not like you and me but instead like Michael Vick.
I have never understood the bad reputation either. They can be guard dogs (as any dog can be) and had a sordid evolution but that's not their fault nor does it have any bearing on the breed as we know it today. Here, a lot of providers won't even give you home owner's insurance if you own one. Silly. I don't think of them as being unpredictable or anything which is really where the liability comes in. Their not like wolves or wolf crosses which I do disagree with- we know that temperament is controlled by genetics and has not been modified in wolves or associated crosses- I feel you need a wildlife permit if you are gonna go there as they are highly likely to be unpredictable due to their inherent independence and disposition. But our legislation is not very pragmatic or well thought out so breeds like your awesome pup get undue negative attention and may even cause a hassle in your life because the sweet cuddly puppy you live with happens to be on a blind "no no" list for your insurance companies.
I read a really nice article the other day about breed-ism with dogs. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
"Dog bites are not a disease. They are the result of complex interactions between sentient creatures of different species. They occur in the most uncontrolled and unscientific settings imaginable. However one breaks down the "factors" – whether related to the dog, the owner, the environment, or the victim – they cannot be measured against each other.
When the list of factors became too daunting, researchers attempted to limit them to a few, or even to one: correlating bite incident with the attributed breed of the dog, and presenting this correlation as a cause/effect relationship. Single-cause explanations are easily comprehended, and make a condition seem more manageable.
The problem is that focus on breeds puts the focus on the dog, at the expense of consideration of his relationship with the human beings who controlled him. This breed focus has hindered scientific inquiry and prevented the development of better informed public policy."
Pretty much spot on, no? I mean I do understand that there is more liability with a breed that could do harm if not well-raised, I have a great dane and his leaning on people alone could knock over an elderly person resulting in a broken hip or something which would not be an issue with a teacup sized dog. Same with bites, more catastrophic with more power behind them. But to say it is because the dog is a dane or dobie or pit is ludicrous. It's because the owner is not like you and me but instead like Michael Vick.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,659
The holidays are exhausting to a Dobe puppy...Merry Christmas from Bruce and his people
and just for fun, one of Bruce with his ears looking handsome;
and just for fun, one of Bruce with his ears looking handsome;