Mickey Zeldes, Sonoma County, Calif. Animal Shelter Supervisor says regarding
the pit bull controversy: "I don't think you can judge a dog solely by its'
breed any more than you can judge a person by their skin color."
For the entire month of July, the shelter is giving free spays OR
neuters to any pit bull brought in. They also will try and extend the
time if they find there's a need.
Somebody has the right idea!
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Somebody has the right idea!
Sterilizing your pet is always a good idea. There are too many homeless animals. I worked in the pet industry for several years and saw many abuses and neglect of pets. It almost equals that of the children in our country.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Somebody has the right idea!
valerie wrote: Mickey Zeldes, Sonoma County, Calif. Animal Shelter Supervisor says regarding
the pit bull controversy: "I don't think you can judge a dog solely by its'
breed any more than you can judge a person by their skin color."
For the entire month of July, the shelter is giving free spays OR
neuters to any pit bull brought in. They also will try and extend the
time if they find there's a need.
wow someone does have the right idea
the pit bull controversy: "I don't think you can judge a dog solely by its'
breed any more than you can judge a person by their skin color."
For the entire month of July, the shelter is giving free spays OR
neuters to any pit bull brought in. They also will try and extend the
time if they find there's a need.
wow someone does have the right idea
Live life to the max as you only get to do it once!! make your dreams come true :-4
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Somebody has the right idea!
Angel chocobo wrote: wow someone does have the right ideaI 2nd that.
-
busydoin'nothing
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:38 am
Somebody has the right idea!
Hear! Hear!! Commendation Medals should be awarded! Thanks for posting this, great newspiece to start the day with.
Bonnie
Sundancer Farms
Bonnie
Sundancer Farms
Somebody has the right idea!
If more states would take that kind of proactive approach, pet overpopulation could be greatly reduced in this country.
Somebody has the right idea!
Let's stop two year olds from being eaten alive by Pit Bulls permanently. How about sterilizing the entire breed worldwide? That way, the current owners could keep their killer-animals, and the death rate for people being devoured by Pit Bulls would slowly decrease to zero.
After the breed is extinct, children should be able to play outside again without the fear of being torn limb from limb and being digested.
But of course Pit Bull owners would probably replace these murder-hounds with something equally violent...like Tigers. Oh wait! I forgot! It's illegal to own a violent unpredictable animal!
After the breed is extinct, children should be able to play outside again without the fear of being torn limb from limb and being digested.
But of course Pit Bull owners would probably replace these murder-hounds with something equally violent...like Tigers. Oh wait! I forgot! It's illegal to own a violent unpredictable animal!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Somebody has the right idea!
Here's the government's data:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Deaths to Humans from Dogs by Breed 1976 to 1998:
Pitbulls: 66
Rottweiler: 39
German Shepards: 17
Husky: 15
Malamute: 12
Doberman: 9
Great Dane: 7
Saint Bernard: 7
Sorry, Val....you can judge a dog by it's breed. Take a look at those statistics. You are in denial. Pit Bulls are killers. You can waffle and say it's the "human trainer" all you want, but the stats show that Pit Bulls are, by far, the most deadly breed. Pit bulls are the domestic equivalent of a pet "alligator". They have been bred to be "Pit" fighting killers for decades, and now they are genetically predisposed towards killing.
They are not "pets". And anyone who owns one is in danger of finding out what it's like to be "Roy" of "Seigfried and Roy." He, too, espoused about how gentle and manageable his tigers were all his life...until the day one almost bit his head off leaving him crippled and brain-damged. And just like you, he was so in denial that he still, to this day, says his tiger was safe.
The worst part of that table? Most of those killed were small children.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Deaths to Humans from Dogs by Breed 1976 to 1998:
Pitbulls: 66
Rottweiler: 39
German Shepards: 17
Husky: 15
Malamute: 12
Doberman: 9
Great Dane: 7
Saint Bernard: 7
Sorry, Val....you can judge a dog by it's breed. Take a look at those statistics. You are in denial. Pit Bulls are killers. You can waffle and say it's the "human trainer" all you want, but the stats show that Pit Bulls are, by far, the most deadly breed. Pit bulls are the domestic equivalent of a pet "alligator". They have been bred to be "Pit" fighting killers for decades, and now they are genetically predisposed towards killing.
They are not "pets". And anyone who owns one is in danger of finding out what it's like to be "Roy" of "Seigfried and Roy." He, too, espoused about how gentle and manageable his tigers were all his life...until the day one almost bit his head off leaving him crippled and brain-damged. And just like you, he was so in denial that he still, to this day, says his tiger was safe.
The worst part of that table? Most of those killed were small children.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Somebody has the right idea!
Jives, I respect you and care for you so much just from your posts
here. Don't you know that because of that I would love to belly-up
and agree with you? But I can't, I just can't. I'm not in denial, I know
pits have killed. I do resent you using the word "waffle" about me,
though. I'm far from a waffler. I'll keep my stance.
Where do we draw the line, then? It's as slippery a slope as there can
be. Do we outlaw all the dog breeds except ones who have no human
fatalities due to their bites? Okay, then according to the statistics you
cited, we would allow Wolf hybrids but not Labrador Retrievers. HUH?
Outlaw pit bulls and people who are irresponsible turn to another breed.
And those statistics don't take into account the years and years of
pb's lives lived happily and quietly unto OLD AGE. Or my beloved german
shepherd dogs. 66 lives lost is too many. 17 lives lost is too many. ONE
life lost is one too many. But what about all the lives saved by gsd search
and rescue dogs? Or the cadaver dogs, who recover remains for grieving
families? Or the dogs at the World Trade Center? Some of whom are
suffering lung/health problems from the dust they breathed while searching
the rubble? Would you have that breed gone, too?
A while back in our local paper, there was an article on a local pit "breeder"
who was the worst of the worst, a BYB for sure. Huge chains on his dogs
in the picture, and talked about how his puppy sales had severely dropped
off and he might have to get out of the "business". Kept at least one of
his dogs "chained in the yard". You ask any trainer/behaviorist what
chaining a dog in a yard will do to that dog. That's the kind of person
that makes a bad name for pit bulls. That, and the many out there who
keep a pit bull for the reputation. So they can walk around showing off
their "bad" dog.
I find myself wondering if you or someone you love has had a bad
experience with a pit bull. I'm sorry if that is the case.
A few years back, some friends came over with their 2 little boys, one
of whom was extremely frightened of dogs. Over the course of the few
hours they were here, the loving, gentle, sweet nature of my "fearsome"
german shepherd dog turned that little boy from a frightened one into
one that could give her cookies, and pats on the head, and tell her she
didn't need to be shut up any more 'cause he wasn't afraid any more.
That is what the right dog, raised the right way, has the power within
her to do.
:yh_peace
*BYB: Back yard breeder
here. Don't you know that because of that I would love to belly-up
and agree with you? But I can't, I just can't. I'm not in denial, I know
pits have killed. I do resent you using the word "waffle" about me,
though. I'm far from a waffler. I'll keep my stance.
Where do we draw the line, then? It's as slippery a slope as there can
be. Do we outlaw all the dog breeds except ones who have no human
fatalities due to their bites? Okay, then according to the statistics you
cited, we would allow Wolf hybrids but not Labrador Retrievers. HUH?
Outlaw pit bulls and people who are irresponsible turn to another breed.
And those statistics don't take into account the years and years of
pb's lives lived happily and quietly unto OLD AGE. Or my beloved german
shepherd dogs. 66 lives lost is too many. 17 lives lost is too many. ONE
life lost is one too many. But what about all the lives saved by gsd search
and rescue dogs? Or the cadaver dogs, who recover remains for grieving
families? Or the dogs at the World Trade Center? Some of whom are
suffering lung/health problems from the dust they breathed while searching
the rubble? Would you have that breed gone, too?
A while back in our local paper, there was an article on a local pit "breeder"
who was the worst of the worst, a BYB for sure. Huge chains on his dogs
in the picture, and talked about how his puppy sales had severely dropped
off and he might have to get out of the "business". Kept at least one of
his dogs "chained in the yard". You ask any trainer/behaviorist what
chaining a dog in a yard will do to that dog. That's the kind of person
that makes a bad name for pit bulls. That, and the many out there who
keep a pit bull for the reputation. So they can walk around showing off
their "bad" dog.
I find myself wondering if you or someone you love has had a bad
experience with a pit bull. I'm sorry if that is the case.
A few years back, some friends came over with their 2 little boys, one
of whom was extremely frightened of dogs. Over the course of the few
hours they were here, the loving, gentle, sweet nature of my "fearsome"
german shepherd dog turned that little boy from a frightened one into
one that could give her cookies, and pats on the head, and tell her she
didn't need to be shut up any more 'cause he wasn't afraid any more.
That is what the right dog, raised the right way, has the power within
her to do.
:yh_peace
*BYB: Back yard breeder
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Somebody has the right idea!
Jives wrote: Here's the government's data:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Deaths to Humans from Dogs by Breed 1976 to 1998:
Pitbulls: 66
Rottweiler: 39
German Shepards: 17
Husky: 15
Malamute: 12
Doberman: 9
Great Dane: 7
Saint Bernard: 7
Sorry, Val....you can judge a dog by it's breed. Take a look at those statistics. You are in denial. Pit Bulls are killers. You can waffle and say it's the "human trainer" all you want, but the stats show that Pit Bulls are, by far, the most deadly breed. Pit bulls are the domestic equivalent of a pet "alligator". They have been bred to be "Pit" fighting killers for decades, and now they are genetically predisposed towards killing.
They are not "pets". And anyone who owns one is in danger of finding out what it's like to be "Roy" of "Seigfried and Roy." He, too, espoused about how gentle and manageable his tigers were all his life...until the day one almost bit his head off leaving him crippled and brain-damged. And just like you, he was so in denial that he still, to this day, says his tiger was safe.
The worst part of that table? Most of those killed were small children.
jives, as you well know, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. I think it's very worthwhile to quote the *conclusions* of that CDC article, rather than merely quoting the statistics and eliding the entirety of the content:
Conclusionsâ€Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises
constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks
represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to
humans and, therefore, should not be the primary
factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs.
Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances
exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
(J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
now then, if you are willing to cite the CDC's statistics as authoritative, and as information from which conclusions can be drawn - as you've done on your own - then it stands reasonably well in kind that you would consider their *conclusions* authoritative, which contradict your own. Which are you prepared to align with?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Deaths to Humans from Dogs by Breed 1976 to 1998:
Pitbulls: 66
Rottweiler: 39
German Shepards: 17
Husky: 15
Malamute: 12
Doberman: 9
Great Dane: 7
Saint Bernard: 7
Sorry, Val....you can judge a dog by it's breed. Take a look at those statistics. You are in denial. Pit Bulls are killers. You can waffle and say it's the "human trainer" all you want, but the stats show that Pit Bulls are, by far, the most deadly breed. Pit bulls are the domestic equivalent of a pet "alligator". They have been bred to be "Pit" fighting killers for decades, and now they are genetically predisposed towards killing.
They are not "pets". And anyone who owns one is in danger of finding out what it's like to be "Roy" of "Seigfried and Roy." He, too, espoused about how gentle and manageable his tigers were all his life...until the day one almost bit his head off leaving him crippled and brain-damged. And just like you, he was so in denial that he still, to this day, says his tiger was safe.
The worst part of that table? Most of those killed were small children.
jives, as you well know, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. I think it's very worthwhile to quote the *conclusions* of that CDC article, rather than merely quoting the statistics and eliding the entirety of the content:
Conclusionsâ€Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises
constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks
represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to
humans and, therefore, should not be the primary
factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs.
Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances
exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
(J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
now then, if you are willing to cite the CDC's statistics as authoritative, and as information from which conclusions can be drawn - as you've done on your own - then it stands reasonably well in kind that you would consider their *conclusions* authoritative, which contradict your own. Which are you prepared to align with?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Somebody has the right idea!
Jives,
I'm curious, having only just today joined this forum I am unfamiliar with your background. Are you an animal behaviorist, trainer, vet, or otherwise educated individual? I find your statements on this subject interesting and would like to know more about where you are coming from.
Dogmom
I'm curious, having only just today joined this forum I am unfamiliar with your background. Are you an animal behaviorist, trainer, vet, or otherwise educated individual? I find your statements on this subject interesting and would like to know more about where you are coming from.
Dogmom
Somebody has the right idea!
anastrophe wrote: jives, as you well know, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. I think it's very worthwhile to quote the *conclusions* of that CDC article, rather than merely quoting the statistics and eliding the entirety of the content:
Damn that Anastrophe and his monstrous intellect!:D You weren't supposed to READ the article, Anastrophe! You were just supposed to note that it was from a government agency and think, "wow, Jives must be right."
LOL! Well, it's true, I'm busted! The article comes to different conclusions than mine. But I still think that Pit Bulls are far too dangerous for the general public to have without special licenses and training.
this sucks....(Jives slinks away with his metaphorical tail between his legs.)
I'll get you Anastrophe, and your little dog too! :wah:
Damn that Anastrophe and his monstrous intellect!:D You weren't supposed to READ the article, Anastrophe! You were just supposed to note that it was from a government agency and think, "wow, Jives must be right."
LOL! Well, it's true, I'm busted! The article comes to different conclusions than mine. But I still think that Pit Bulls are far too dangerous for the general public to have without special licenses and training.
this sucks....(Jives slinks away with his metaphorical tail between his legs.)
I'll get you Anastrophe, and your little dog too! :wah:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Somebody has the right idea!
dogmom wrote: or otherwise educated individual?
You want education? I've got tons of it, Military training, Corporate training, multiple college degrees, you name it.
But why am I so anti-Pit Bull? That's what you really want to know right?
It might be that I see the teenagers that I teach stocking up on Pit Bulls like they were popsicles, then neglecting them, teasing them, torturing them, and bragging to each other in class all day long about "How vicious and tough" their dogs are, and how "cool it was to see their pit bull kill the cat or small dog that they threw into it's pen." I hear this almost every day.
It might be the articles in the Albuquerque Journal and the Daily times that talk about how some poor child got ripped to bloody shreds by a Pit Bull at least twice a year.
It might be the White Trash Circus that I see at the local K-mart each weekend. Each breeder a study in low-class slovenliness, drug abuse, and ignorance. All of which look as though they were just released from prison. What kind of owners do you think they will make? Is there some kind of axiom that states "the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to buy or breed the most violent kind of animal?" Sure seems like it!
Could it be that the Pit Bull is the guard dog of choice for the plethora of Methamphetamine labs in my town? That's not the dog's fault is it? Or will violent criminals always choose violent animals?
Well it might be any of those things...but it's not.
I hate Pit Bulls because two of them murdered and ate my best friend's grandmother, as she stayed in her house out on the reservation. Tore her into pieces and devoured her while she was still living. All we found was part of a torso, a hand, and what was left of her skull after they had gnawed on it for a couple of days. (Of course we got a little more of her back after the autopsy on the dogs.)
Ban all Pit bulls.
You want education? I've got tons of it, Military training, Corporate training, multiple college degrees, you name it.
But why am I so anti-Pit Bull? That's what you really want to know right?
It might be that I see the teenagers that I teach stocking up on Pit Bulls like they were popsicles, then neglecting them, teasing them, torturing them, and bragging to each other in class all day long about "How vicious and tough" their dogs are, and how "cool it was to see their pit bull kill the cat or small dog that they threw into it's pen." I hear this almost every day.
It might be the articles in the Albuquerque Journal and the Daily times that talk about how some poor child got ripped to bloody shreds by a Pit Bull at least twice a year.
It might be the White Trash Circus that I see at the local K-mart each weekend. Each breeder a study in low-class slovenliness, drug abuse, and ignorance. All of which look as though they were just released from prison. What kind of owners do you think they will make? Is there some kind of axiom that states "the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to buy or breed the most violent kind of animal?" Sure seems like it!
Could it be that the Pit Bull is the guard dog of choice for the plethora of Methamphetamine labs in my town? That's not the dog's fault is it? Or will violent criminals always choose violent animals?
Well it might be any of those things...but it's not.
I hate Pit Bulls because two of them murdered and ate my best friend's grandmother, as she stayed in her house out on the reservation. Tore her into pieces and devoured her while she was still living. All we found was part of a torso, a hand, and what was left of her skull after they had gnawed on it for a couple of days. (Of course we got a little more of her back after the autopsy on the dogs.)
Ban all Pit bulls.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Somebody has the right idea!
Oh and BTW Val.....you pegged it. And I have nothing but respect for you too! See you in a "lighter" thread soon! No hard feelings, Kay?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Somebody has the right idea!
I've seen some very caring PB owners. These people no longer dock their tails or cut their ears. I'd like to see all breeds go "natural". Anyway - these people just like the breed and have no desire to make them mean. I think a lot of the behaviour comes from neglect and improper training (including training to be mean). I've seen many "calm" breeds get "mean" when confronted with a new situation or neglect. I was bitten 5 times at work by dogs. Their owners were in shock. It was a new situation for the dog, the dog was nervous, the dog didn't like my blue shirt...... whatever the reason I was always careful when I was around unfamiliar dogs and still managed to get close enough to get lunged at.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper