Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog News and Articles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:53 AM
bonster's Avatar
bonster bonster is offline
Disappointed :(
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 622
Default

Would an unleashed dog who ran into traffic (maybe with the 'violent' idea of chasing a bird) and got hit get pity? The dog can chose to go or stop - right?

You are placing the dog's judgement in the human context.

Shouldn't we humans get our own house in order first?

As for 'moral account' - I wonder what that should mean?

If two kids fight and one seriously injures the other, there would of course be no question of the death penalty!!! and questions would surely be asked of the parents.

But a dog (with an owner/"parent") attacking any human?? Shoot the dog -- job done? How is that moral?

I think we have enough disgraces within our own race to deal with before we start picking holes in another that we have chosen to domesticate.
__________________
-
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-29-2005, 10:21 PM
bridey_01 bridey_01 is offline
Kelpiefied
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Default

How can they be held responsable if they have learned these behaviours and never once been told it is wrong, nor corrected for it?
You can get any dog to attack someone if it is constantly allowed to display aggressive behaviours without any kind of input from you. This deosn't mean they are "bad" dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:32 AM
casablanca1 casablanca1 is offline
Happy
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
Posts: 1,736
Default

"Would an unleashed dog who ran into traffic (maybe with the 'violent' idea of chasing a bird) and got hit get pity? The dog can chose to go or stop - right?"

Oh, for heaven's sake, try to come up with a decent argument. A dog running free who gets hit by a car is hardly comparable to a dog who uses his freedom to attack another dog or a person. (of course, if the dog gets hit while crossing a road to attack someone, that's perfect)

"I think we have enough disgraces within our own race to deal with before we start picking holes in another that we have chosen to domesticate."

I think dogs are perfect. But when individual dogs start trying to literally pick holes in me or my dogs, I want something done to solve the problem. Saying that it's the owner's fault doesn't solve the problem of what to do with a dog who has (through whoever's fault) learned the joys of biting and killing.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:50 AM
casablanca1 casablanca1 is offline
Happy
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
Posts: 1,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bridey_01
How can they be held responsable if they have learned these behaviours and never once been told it is wrong, nor corrected for it?
You can get any dog to attack someone if it is constantly allowed to display aggressive behaviours without any kind of input from you. This deosn't mean they are "bad" dogs.
If we never interupt a normal dog's agression displays, it's true that they might escalate to the point where the dog will bite. It's not true that the dog's agression will typically progress to the point where they'll savage their victim. That's a very unusual behavior for a dog, and it comes from a very specific situation or dog. A normal dog might do it if pushed very, very hard -a person, for instance, who is attacking the dog physically and repeatedly and the dog can't flee. A normal dog, in normal circumstances, bites and backs off. This is pretty ingrained behavior, and isn't easily overturned even if their owner is a jerk who encourages the dog to be aggressive. That's why the worst jerks always wind up with fighting breeds, who are less inclined to back off.

My definition of a bad dog isn't one who has ever bitten. All dogs will bite, under the right circumstances. But I've seen dogs who enjoyed biting, who throughly relished their attacks on humans or their fellow dogs, and those are bad dogs, no matter whose fault it was that they weren't better trained or managed.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-30-2005, 09:55 AM
bonster's Avatar
bonster bonster is offline
Disappointed :(
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Oh, for heaven's sake, try to come up with a decent argument.
Just asking a question...

Quote:
I want something done to solve the problem. Saying that it's the owner's fault doesn't solve the problem of what to do with a dog who has (through whoever's fault) learned the joys of biting and killing.
In this case, the dog was shot, but what would your "something" be, how would you solve the problem?

I think there are two levels to this problem and that is why this discussion seems a little heated.

In specific cases sadly it may be necessary to put down or permaently kennel dogs gone bad. I don't think many would disagree.

However, having been at the end of agressive dogs once or twice I do try and look beyond the immediate situation (thankfully no harm has come...) and think 'why did this happen' and 'how could it be prevented' rather than wanting some kind of immediate 'revenge' against the animal.

Surely, generally/longer term addressing 'whoever' is at fault in a strategic way (though education, common practice, regulation, law etc) has to be the way? I mean - to try and stop dogs 'going bad' in the first place. That duty has to be with/placed upon the breeder/owner/keeper and is probably why they keep being mentioned. If this isn't done - idiot owners can get their pets shot over and over.... where does it end?
__________________
-
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:52 AM
casablanca1 casablanca1 is offline
Happy
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
Posts: 1,736
Default

I think there's no particular value in talking about education and legal recourse. That's never a contentious issue in the dog world. What is a contentious issue is the idea that it's more moral to kill some dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-30-2005, 12:11 PM
showpug's Avatar
showpug showpug is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,218
Default

Although I do agree that humane euthanasia may be the immediate answer for some dogs that have become vicious, I still stop and question the future of the owner. So we have a vicious dog attack and the dog is shot/euthanised. Okay, problem solved??....NOT REALLY. What happens when this owner goes out and buys another dog? Just another situation repeat. So we accomplish what in the major scheme of things?? There will still be horrible owners, vicious dogs and people getting attacked or killed. If there is no reprocussion for bad owners, than this problem will only escalate.

On another note, dogs are not "moral" animals. This is actually IMO what sets them apart from humans. Since morality is not an issue that is present in a dogs mind, then wouldn't it only make sense to blame an attack like this on behavioral instinct? I once again want to know more about the exact way this attack happened. I want to know what the girl was doing...where exactly the dog was...how exactly it happened. When I know TRUE facts, not "media" facts, then that is when I draw my final conclusion on if this was a nature or nurture issue.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-30-2005, 12:23 PM
bonster's Avatar
bonster bonster is offline
Disappointed :(
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
I think there's no particular value in talking about education and legal recourse
The article was obviously written with the same sentiment - it doesn't mention anything about owner-responsibility, in fact it says that the victims mother didn't blame the dog owning policeman, and does seem to put it that he shot the dog, she (the victim's mother) was happy... and that's that. Maybe not the whole story... but not the most balanced view and hardly educative.
__________________
-
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-30-2005, 02:38 PM
casablanca1 casablanca1 is offline
Happy
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
Posts: 1,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonster
The article was obviously written with the same sentiment - it doesn't mention anything about owner-responsibility, in fact it says that the victims mother didn't blame the dog owning policeman, and does seem to put it that he shot the dog, she (the victim's mother) was happy... and that's that. Maybe not the whole story... but not the most balanced view and hardly educative.
The reporter was merely reporting on a dog attack without much depth. I was trying to discuss the side of dog aggression that doggy people avoid like the plague. We all love to natter on about training and education and humane treatment, but when that emphasize-the-positive attitude turns as far south as it has in recent years - time after time, I've seen an emotional outpouring of grief and pity for a dog who's attacked someone's child or someone's pet, while the victim of the attack is barely mentioned - it makes me think this is more about making us feel good than about helping dogs. How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill other dogs? How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill a child? How does it help anyone to keep violent, dangerous dogs alive? We blame the media for bad news stories about certain breeds, we blame the media for not discussing bad owners, we blame bad owners for everything else, but there's a huge share of blame on our heads for protecting bad dogs either in word or deed.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-01-2005, 05:58 AM
oriondw oriondw is offline
user not active
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casablanca1
The reporter was merely reporting on a dog attack without much depth. I was trying to discuss the side of dog aggression that doggy people avoid like the plague. We all love to natter on about training and education and humane treatment, but when that emphasize-the-positive attitude turns as far south as it has in recent years - time after time, I've seen an emotional outpouring of grief and pity for a dog who's attacked someone's child or someone's pet, while the victim of the attack is barely mentioned - it makes me think this is more about making us feel good than about helping dogs. How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill other dogs? How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill a child? How does it help anyone to keep violent, dangerous dogs alive? We blame the media for bad news stories about certain breeds, we blame the media for not discussing bad owners, we blame bad owners for everything else, but there's a huge share of blame on our heads for protecting bad dogs either in word or deed.
Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

Thats just stupid to blame dogs for others stupid actions.

Its not up to you to decide what people can and cant keep. I guess you support banning all "violent and dangerous" dogs eh? Pits, rotts, labs... poodles. They all can be violent and dangerous
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site