Which is why I'm thinking about getting off this board. Too many people whose idea of communication is emoticons and mockery. For the record, oh verbally-challenged ones, it's pathetic to insult someone for having an opinion you disagree with. The idea is to have a conversation, which involves actual sentences like "You know, I disagree and here's why."
Homer's situation got me thinking
- Thread starter sam
- Start date
OK, you know that I disagree with you and here's why...
To say that a dog who bites should automatically be considered violent totally dismisses the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures. Do you honestly believe that ANY animal should be expected to live with abuse and continue to take it, never showing any signs of damage?
What about a dog who ends up in the system after being chained, neglected and abused, should they be expected to lay down and accept it, trust the next human....be put to death after what they've endured. The whole concept sickens me.
There are dogs that can not be rehabilitated, a very small percentage of the ones killed in shelters or euthanized by their owners decision fit into that category. It absolutely DOES happen and sometimes there is nothing anyone can or should do. But....to say that all dogs who bite should be put to death is not only absolutely ludicrous but shows a lack of understanding for canines entirely.
I've had and worked with the 'saints' of the canine world that you've described as the ones who, even when tortured, refuse to bite. I've also had and worked with the ones who you think don't deserve life because they were unable or unwilling to tolerate all of the horrid things that humans have expected them to endure without defending themselves or showing emotional/psychological damage. I've seen the latter do a complete 360 with proper rehab. In your book, they'd have deserved nothing but death.
I'm not suggesting that a level 5 biter can or even should be given that extra chance but do you know how few dogs fit into that category?
Over 95% of all bites fit into the level 1 (air snap - no contact) and level 2 - (contact - no broken skin) bracket. An extremely small number are level 3, broken skin, no medical intervention required. I do MOST of the bite cases in my area and I can count on one hand the number of level 4's I've worked with (always by OWNER REQUEST), in the past 2 years.
casablanca1 quote As to why the soft spot for biting dogs? I think a lot of people, particularly women, get off on 'saving' violent animals. It manages to be both nurturing (rescue a dog) and heroic (rescue a dog nobody in their right mind would rescue) and my theory is that it plays into a weakness women have for being martyrs
As for this last statement - how insulting to any of us in this end of the industry. When you confuse kindness for weekness you show a total lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding that you, with such conviction, expect dogs to possess.
Some of us could take a lesson from those canine 'saints'.
To say that a dog who bites should automatically be considered violent totally dismisses the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures. Do you honestly believe that ANY animal should be expected to live with abuse and continue to take it, never showing any signs of damage?
What about a dog who ends up in the system after being chained, neglected and abused, should they be expected to lay down and accept it, trust the next human....be put to death after what they've endured. The whole concept sickens me.
There are dogs that can not be rehabilitated, a very small percentage of the ones killed in shelters or euthanized by their owners decision fit into that category. It absolutely DOES happen and sometimes there is nothing anyone can or should do. But....to say that all dogs who bite should be put to death is not only absolutely ludicrous but shows a lack of understanding for canines entirely.
I've had and worked with the 'saints' of the canine world that you've described as the ones who, even when tortured, refuse to bite. I've also had and worked with the ones who you think don't deserve life because they were unable or unwilling to tolerate all of the horrid things that humans have expected them to endure without defending themselves or showing emotional/psychological damage. I've seen the latter do a complete 360 with proper rehab. In your book, they'd have deserved nothing but death.
I'm not suggesting that a level 5 biter can or even should be given that extra chance but do you know how few dogs fit into that category?
Over 95% of all bites fit into the level 1 (air snap - no contact) and level 2 - (contact - no broken skin) bracket. An extremely small number are level 3, broken skin, no medical intervention required. I do MOST of the bite cases in my area and I can count on one hand the number of level 4's I've worked with (always by OWNER REQUEST), in the past 2 years.
casablanca1 quote As to why the soft spot for biting dogs? I think a lot of people, particularly women, get off on 'saving' violent animals. It manages to be both nurturing (rescue a dog) and heroic (rescue a dog nobody in their right mind would rescue) and my theory is that it plays into a weakness women have for being martyrs
As for this last statement - how insulting to any of us in this end of the industry. When you confuse kindness for weekness you show a total lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding that you, with such conviction, expect dogs to possess.
Some of us could take a lesson from those canine 'saints'.
OK, you know that I disagree with you and here's why...
To say that a dog who bites should automatically be considered violent totally dismisses the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures. Do you honestly believe that ANY animal should be expected to live with abuse and continue to take it, never showing any signs of damage?
What about a dog who ends up in the system after being chained, neglected and abused, should they be expected to lay down and accept it, trust the next human....be put to death after what they've endured. The whole concept sickens me.
There are dogs that can not be rehabilitated, a very small percentage of the ones killed in shelters or euthanized by their owners decision fit into that category. It absolutely DOES happen and sometimes there is nothing anyone can or should do. But....to say that all dogs who bite should be put to death is not only absolutely ludicrous but shows a lack of understanding for canines entirely.
I've had and worked with the 'saints' of the canine world that you've described as the ones who, even when tortured, refuse to bite. I've also had and worked with the ones who you think don't deserve life because they were unable or unwilling to tolerate all of the horrid things that humans have expected them to endure without defending themselves or showing emotional/psychological damage. I've seen the latter do a complete 360 with proper rehab. In your book, they'd have deserved nothing but death.
I'm not suggesting that a level 5 biter can or even should be given that extra chance but do you know how few dogs fit into that category?
Over 95% of all bites fit into the level 1 (air snap - no contact) and level 2 - (contact - no broken skin) bracket. An extremely small number are level 3, broken skin, no medical intervention required. I do MOST of the bite cases in my area and I can count on one hand the number of level 4's I've worked with (always by OWNER REQUEST), in the past 2 years.
casablanca1 quote As to why the soft spot for biting dogs? I think a lot of people, particularly women, get off on 'saving' violent animals. It manages to be both nurturing (rescue a dog) and heroic (rescue a dog nobody in their right mind would rescue) and my theory is that it plays into a weakness women have for being martyrs
As for this last statement - how insulting to any of us in this end of the industry. When you confuse kindness for weekness you show a total lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding that you, with such conviction, expect dogs to possess.
Some of us could take a lesson from those canine 'saints'.
To say that a dog who bites should automatically be considered violent totally dismisses the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures. Do you honestly believe that ANY animal should be expected to live with abuse and continue to take it, never showing any signs of damage?
What about a dog who ends up in the system after being chained, neglected and abused, should they be expected to lay down and accept it, trust the next human....be put to death after what they've endured. The whole concept sickens me.
There are dogs that can not be rehabilitated, a very small percentage of the ones killed in shelters or euthanized by their owners decision fit into that category. It absolutely DOES happen and sometimes there is nothing anyone can or should do. But....to say that all dogs who bite should be put to death is not only absolutely ludicrous but shows a lack of understanding for canines entirely.
I've had and worked with the 'saints' of the canine world that you've described as the ones who, even when tortured, refuse to bite. I've also had and worked with the ones who you think don't deserve life because they were unable or unwilling to tolerate all of the horrid things that humans have expected them to endure without defending themselves or showing emotional/psychological damage. I've seen the latter do a complete 360 with proper rehab. In your book, they'd have deserved nothing but death.
I'm not suggesting that a level 5 biter can or even should be given that extra chance but do you know how few dogs fit into that category?
Over 95% of all bites fit into the level 1 (air snap - no contact) and level 2 - (contact - no broken skin) bracket. An extremely small number are level 3, broken skin, no medical intervention required. I do MOST of the bite cases in my area and I can count on one hand the number of level 4's I've worked with (always by OWNER REQUEST), in the past 2 years.
casablanca1 quote As to why the soft spot for biting dogs? I think a lot of people, particularly women, get off on 'saving' violent animals. It manages to be both nurturing (rescue a dog) and heroic (rescue a dog nobody in their right mind would rescue) and my theory is that it plays into a weakness women have for being martyrs
As for this last statement - how insulting to any of us in this end of the industry. When you confuse kindness for weekness you show a total lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding that you, with such conviction, expect dogs to possess.
Some of us could take a lesson from those canine 'saints'.
Thank you dr2little you said everything i was thinking and going to say, well said!
Friskycat, I knew she would. So, I left it to her. She knows what she's talking about and knows how to express what real dog lovers feel and would like to express. It would take me pages and pages. Doc has a knack for hitting the nail on the head. Well said indeed Doc. To think that dogs "should" have some responsibility for their "actions" when they've been totally screwed over by humans is totally anthropomorphizing them. Typical. Disgusting.
Going back to the original post, here's something I've noticed with people I've worked with. They seem to expect more out of their dogs then their kids.
The kid misbehaves, he gets a whispered "Stop, Tommy."
The dog misbehaves, it's a "Fido, stop it. I swear, he's usually not like this. Fido, you really need to start behaving like the good dog that you are."
Now, we all know that even very young children can reason. If its wrong today, it will still be wrong tomorrow. It takes a dog a lot longer to get that, and they will never be as skilled in reasononing as a child.
I just think it's a little funny. :lol-sign:
-Rosefern
The kid misbehaves, he gets a whispered "Stop, Tommy."
The dog misbehaves, it's a "Fido, stop it. I swear, he's usually not like this. Fido, you really need to start behaving like the good dog that you are."
Now, we all know that even very young children can reason. If its wrong today, it will still be wrong tomorrow. It takes a dog a lot longer to get that, and they will never be as skilled in reasononing as a child.
I just think it's a little funny. :lol-sign:
-Rosefern
I tell people that Victor was terrible when i got him, but they don't believe me. He was like a spring wound way to tight. He had been teased, he would bite through your hand to get the ball. WE started with bubbles because it was a no contact sport. He didn't sleep past dawn and then he couldn't hold still. I am not a morning person by any stretch of the imagination but he had me at the park for a run (him not me) so we could have peace. If you tried to turn him on his back it would be eaiser to hold a weedeater, he had never been cradled. Mom said "can't you take that dog back" but i presevered. I did worry that he got to angry and it didn't take much either. His prey drive was so high and tug was a game i would not allow, nor frisbee for he about killed himself. It took months of gentling and settling, and t-touch massage to calm him. He is still a high humming wire, but he is under control. HE lets toddlers reach into his mouth and take his ball. Brings it back when they toss it for him. In fact he is so good with children that he will be taking his temp test tomorrow for Pets for Life. You would never ever believe this was the same dog i brought home almost three years ago. Don't need a leash from a dog that slings himself 6 feet up trees after squirrels. It can be done if the dog is not insane. I have had an insane dog, crazy is just crazy. It fires off at inappropriate times. That dog did have to be put down. REscue takes time and patience. I can tell from the steps that you took including your very good vet, that you have a level head on your shoulders and will be able to tell the difference. I don't envy you the postition but i do feel that your dog is in very capable hands.
Yes, people expect far too much from their dogs, expect them to have the cognitive abilities of humans, humans value system and morals. They simply do not and are not wired the same. When expectations arise from that criteria, from projecting human qualities onto dogs, dogs get misunderstood, mistreated and abused.
my mom always joked that her dogs were always better trained than her kids. i think she did better with the repetitive nature of dog training and the set roles of master/dog. whereas children are constantly changing as they learn and grow and push boundaries and set into independance. dogs are placed in their role, and then stay there. kids need to be transitioned. my mom wasn't a transition person.
Personally , thanks to Dr2 , I think this thread has been well handled . It's not an argument folks , it's a discussion of opinions . Each dog , owner ,breed and situation is different . That is why I think each young couple ( before children ) should think hard and fast about what puppy they should get. I'm not knocking any breeds here , but I've known many a family who DID have to re-home their dog when they had a baby . They had their warning signs and couldn't take any chances , as much as it hurt .
I want my dog to be a dog. If I wanted my dog to be a person, I would be living with another person. I think people tend to pass their own insecurities onto their dogs, not to mention their own neurosis. Sometimes, this is why they pick the dogs they do. Not always so, but this is so often enough I bet. I imagine there's a whole level of psychology associated with pet choices in general.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that refusing to describe a dog as violent because of it's history is to dismiss the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures and that such a refusal means regarding dogs as instinctual, reaction-based robots that can't be understood in any moral terms. I find that abhorent.
I may be reading you wrong, but it seems at first as if you're dismissing positive behaviors - the dogs who don't bite - as essentially freaks of goodness, while the negative behaviors are embraced as workable and understandable. I don't see it that way; from my perspective, as you yourself mention later, most dogs aren't biters and even fewer are savage. Apart from dogs whose owners are committed to rehab, why should the minority of dogs who bite be rehabbed? Because of the shocking scarcity of dogs? The pressing need for biting animals? It just doesn't make much sense.
I used 'weakness' in the sense that "Polly has a weakness for ice cream" for example, or "Jim has a weakness for damsels in distress." An irresistable temptation, not a moral failing. For my part, I believe that many, many people in the 'rescue' world, particularly women, mistake pity for kindness. I won't go into the rather comprehensive slander against my personal morality except to say it's utterly inappropriate to make a personal attack of this nature. I said nothing personal about you or anyone else, and you're out of line to retaliate as if I had.
I may be reading you wrong, but it seems at first as if you're dismissing positive behaviors - the dogs who don't bite - as essentially freaks of goodness, while the negative behaviors are embraced as workable and understandable. I don't see it that way; from my perspective, as you yourself mention later, most dogs aren't biters and even fewer are savage. Apart from dogs whose owners are committed to rehab, why should the minority of dogs who bite be rehabbed? Because of the shocking scarcity of dogs? The pressing need for biting animals? It just doesn't make much sense.
I used 'weakness' in the sense that "Polly has a weakness for ice cream" for example, or "Jim has a weakness for damsels in distress." An irresistable temptation, not a moral failing. For my part, I believe that many, many people in the 'rescue' world, particularly women, mistake pity for kindness. I won't go into the rather comprehensive slander against my personal morality except to say it's utterly inappropriate to make a personal attack of this nature. I said nothing personal about you or anyone else, and you're out of line to retaliate as if I had.
Because it's just behavior. Dogs will do what works for them. If someone is bullying them and they snarl, and the person backs off, that aggression has been tremendously reinforced and they are likely to do it again. It's the same concept as the koehler-type training, where you yank on the choke chain until the dog sits, and its reward is the freedom from abuse while it's sitting. That's how I view aggression. In abuse cases, biting is nothing more than a behavior that has been reinforced by the absence of potent aversives. The dog isn't crazy. He's just, in some twisted way, trained to do that.
Often times, one incident is not enough to make a behavior occur often, but the scumbags who owned the dogs I work with always, always keep coming back for more. So the severity of the attack gets worse and worse in an attempt to repel them. It's a typical extinction burst. Now instead of being reinforced for snarling and air-snapping, the dog is reinforced for multiple bites. If the dog lets up and retreats afterward, the attacker will usually return, so the dog learns to pursue them before they can pursue him. It's scary stuff, but only logical when you look at it from the dog's point of view.
To me, aggression in a healthy young (not 12-15 years old) dog is no more difficult than jumping or barking in terms of modification. It's just more scary.
Often times, one incident is not enough to make a behavior occur often, but the scumbags who owned the dogs I work with always, always keep coming back for more. So the severity of the attack gets worse and worse in an attempt to repel them. It's a typical extinction burst. Now instead of being reinforced for snarling and air-snapping, the dog is reinforced for multiple bites. If the dog lets up and retreats afterward, the attacker will usually return, so the dog learns to pursue them before they can pursue him. It's scary stuff, but only logical when you look at it from the dog's point of view.
To me, aggression in a healthy young (not 12-15 years old) dog is no more difficult than jumping or barking in terms of modification. It's just more scary.
OK, you know that I disagree with you and here's why...
To say that a dog who bites should automatically be considered violent totally dismisses the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures. Do you honestly believe that ANY animal should be expected to live with abuse and continue to take it, never showing any signs of damage?
What about a dog who ends up in the system after being chained, neglected and abused, should they be expected to lay down and accept it, trust the next human....be put to death after what they've endured. The whole concept sickens me.
There are dogs that can not be rehabilitated, a very small percentage of the ones killed in shelters or euthanized by their owners decision fit into that category. It absolutely DOES happen and sometimes there is nothing anyone can or should do. But....to say that all dogs who bite should be put to death is not only absolutely ludicrous but shows a lack of understanding for canines entirely.
I've had and worked with the 'saints' of the canine world that you've described as the ones who, even when tortured, refuse to bite. I've also had and worked with the ones who you think don't deserve life because they were unable or unwilling to tolerate all of the horrid things that humans have expected them to endure without defending themselves or showing emotional/psychological damage. I've seen the latter do a complete 360 with proper rehab. In your book, they'd have deserved nothing but death.
I'm not suggesting that a level 5 biter can or even should be given that extra chance but do you know how few dogs fit into that category?
Over 95% of all bites fit into the level 1 (air snap - no contact) and level 2 - (contact - no broken skin) bracket. An extremely small number are level 3, broken skin, no medical intervention required. I do MOST of the bite cases in my area and I can count on one hand the number of level 4's I've worked with (always by OWNER REQUEST), in the past 2 years.
casablanca1 quote As to why the soft spot for biting dogs? I think a lot of people, particularly women, get off on 'saving' violent animals. It manages to be both nurturing (rescue a dog) and heroic (rescue a dog nobody in their right mind would rescue) and my theory is that it plays into a weakness women have for being martyrs
As for this last statement - how insulting to any of us in this end of the industry. When you confuse kindness for weekness you show a total lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding that you, with such conviction, expect dogs to possess.
Some of us could take a lesson from those canine 'saints'.
To say that a dog who bites should automatically be considered violent totally dismisses the fact that they are thinking, feeling creatures. Do you honestly believe that ANY animal should be expected to live with abuse and continue to take it, never showing any signs of damage?
What about a dog who ends up in the system after being chained, neglected and abused, should they be expected to lay down and accept it, trust the next human....be put to death after what they've endured. The whole concept sickens me.
There are dogs that can not be rehabilitated, a very small percentage of the ones killed in shelters or euthanized by their owners decision fit into that category. It absolutely DOES happen and sometimes there is nothing anyone can or should do. But....to say that all dogs who bite should be put to death is not only absolutely ludicrous but shows a lack of understanding for canines entirely.
I've had and worked with the 'saints' of the canine world that you've described as the ones who, even when tortured, refuse to bite. I've also had and worked with the ones who you think don't deserve life because they were unable or unwilling to tolerate all of the horrid things that humans have expected them to endure without defending themselves or showing emotional/psychological damage. I've seen the latter do a complete 360 with proper rehab. In your book, they'd have deserved nothing but death.
I'm not suggesting that a level 5 biter can or even should be given that extra chance but do you know how few dogs fit into that category?
Over 95% of all bites fit into the level 1 (air snap - no contact) and level 2 - (contact - no broken skin) bracket. An extremely small number are level 3, broken skin, no medical intervention required. I do MOST of the bite cases in my area and I can count on one hand the number of level 4's I've worked with (always by OWNER REQUEST), in the past 2 years.
casablanca1 quote As to why the soft spot for biting dogs? I think a lot of people, particularly women, get off on 'saving' violent animals. It manages to be both nurturing (rescue a dog) and heroic (rescue a dog nobody in their right mind would rescue) and my theory is that it plays into a weakness women have for being martyrs
As for this last statement - how insulting to any of us in this end of the industry. When you confuse kindness for weekness you show a total lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding that you, with such conviction, expect dogs to possess.
Some of us could take a lesson from those canine 'saints'.
I also agree with RD.
Quote casablanca:For my part, I believe that many, many people in the 'rescue' world, particularly women, mistake pity for kindness.
It sounds like to me you have a issue with WOMEN in particular, there are also Men Willing to go that extra mile to, but i can't help but see in both your posts, that you are targeting women.
It sounds like to me you have a issue with WOMEN in particular, there are also Men Willing to go that extra mile to, but i can't help but see in both your posts, that you are targeting women.
Exactly RD. Some good sense here.
Not our moral terms. Of course dogs are thinking, feeling animals. They just don't think like we do. Where they're coming from isn't where we're coming from. Their reasons for biting, for instance is not the same reasons necessarily that humans would have to attack someone. Humans attack people for reasons other than self preservation or fear. What's in their wiring isn't the same. They think, feel and have emotions but they're not the same as humans. They're another species with different reasons and mechinisms for why they attack and bite. It's got to do with instinct and self preservation, not morality. Why would they share our morals or our value system when they are descended from wild animals not that very long ago? Wild animals need to defend themselves or their species doesn't survive to reproduce and evolve. If an animal is abused, they either cower down and die or the fittest survive because they fight for life. Depending on what kind of abuse, what circumstances, what genetics, dogs will be affected differently. This has nothing whatsoever to do with morals or being "responsible" for their actions. They're animals!!!
You can look at it like that if you want to. To true dog lovers, individuals who are salvagable are worth as much as any other dog. Many dog lovers view these unfortunate animals as deserving of one last shot at happiness because up to this point, they've been abused and have not known trust of love of people.
People who can only see the sterile, big picture aren't true dog lovers IMO. To see the mentally healthy dogs, the vast number of dogs in general and the unstable dogs as a biological fact of life and only see it as that, to me is cold and unfeeling. It's not normal human nature to think that way....not about man's best friend, at least, unless someone doesn't like dogs very much.
Not our moral terms. Of course dogs are thinking, feeling animals. They just don't think like we do. Where they're coming from isn't where we're coming from. Their reasons for biting, for instance is not the same reasons necessarily that humans would have to attack someone. Humans attack people for reasons other than self preservation or fear. What's in their wiring isn't the same. They think, feel and have emotions but they're not the same as humans. They're another species with different reasons and mechinisms for why they attack and bite. It's got to do with instinct and self preservation, not morality. Why would they share our morals or our value system when they are descended from wild animals not that very long ago? Wild animals need to defend themselves or their species doesn't survive to reproduce and evolve. If an animal is abused, they either cower down and die or the fittest survive because they fight for life. Depending on what kind of abuse, what circumstances, what genetics, dogs will be affected differently. This has nothing whatsoever to do with morals or being "responsible" for their actions. They're animals!!!
You can look at it like that if you want to. To true dog lovers, individuals who are salvagable are worth as much as any other dog. Many dog lovers view these unfortunate animals as deserving of one last shot at happiness because up to this point, they've been abused and have not known trust of love of people.
People who can only see the sterile, big picture aren't true dog lovers IMO. To see the mentally healthy dogs, the vast number of dogs in general and the unstable dogs as a biological fact of life and only see it as that, to me is cold and unfeeling. It's not normal human nature to think that way....not about man's best friend, at least, unless someone doesn't like dogs very much.