Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 11, 2010
News Such Nice Dogs...
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:30 AM
...and so good with children.
4
Clearly we must train our newborns the moment they are out of the womb to know how not to provoke these gentle creatures.
I mean this is all the kids fault right? Of course it is. GOD SAVE THE DOGS!! DOGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE!!!
I say this after a fucking bitch walking along Greenlake motioned for me to walk on the mud so her fucking DOG didn't have to get off the sidewalk!!!
I mean this is all the kids fault right? Of course it is. GOD SAVE THE DOGS!! DOGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE!!!
I say this after a fucking bitch walking along Greenlake motioned for me to walk on the mud so her fucking DOG didn't have to get off the sidewalk!!!
5
Journalists are such dirtbags. Honestly. Aren't they?
Because Seattle and King County really need some grown-up, responsible thinking about fixing the animal control services, and all we get from the Times is sensationalistic headlines about pit bulls. And Dan Savage piles on because he makes money off this bullshit too.
So when newspapers die and reporters lose their jobs, I feel sort of bad. But not that bad. It's a field that is ripe for reform, and some deep layoffs are a good way to clean house.
Because Seattle and King County really need some grown-up, responsible thinking about fixing the animal control services, and all we get from the Times is sensationalistic headlines about pit bulls. And Dan Savage piles on because he makes money off this bullshit too.
So when newspapers die and reporters lose their jobs, I feel sort of bad. But not that bad. It's a field that is ripe for reform, and some deep layoffs are a good way to clean house.
6
I was at the shelter on Friday looking for my lost kitty and saw a mom with 4 kids under the age of 8 adopting a gigantic pitbull. I took a pic on my camera phone so I can compare it to the news story that will be out in a few weeks and figure out which kid got killed.
8
I love the related articles at the bottom:
Sugared up kids are so much like pitbulls.
You might be interested in:
* Calif. boy, 3, dead after pit bull attack From Seattle Times Nation & World
* Girl who had pit bull maul 2 women pleads guilty From Seattle Times Local News
* General Mills to cut sugar in kids' cereal From Seattle Times Nation & World
* Officials seize 22 pit bulls near Graham From Seattle Times Local News
Sugared up kids are so much like pitbulls.
9
Pit bulls are getting a bad rap because they aren't getting properly trained by their owners. It's a sad story.
If you have small children, cats, or other dogs, you must get a dog that has had behavioral training in order to deal with them. Pit bull or another breed.
If you have small children, cats, or other dogs, you must get a dog that has had behavioral training in order to deal with them. Pit bull or another breed.
10
"So when newspapers die and reporters lose their jobs, I feel sort of bad. But not that bad."
With all the shit that "journalists" let happen with politics, THIS is what you harp on? Cry on, cry on. Pitbull hater haters have such a skewed perspective on what's important.
With all the shit that "journalists" let happen with politics, THIS is what you harp on? Cry on, cry on. Pitbull hater haters have such a skewed perspective on what's important.
11
It's a shame that Dan Savage recognizes lazy, easy, cheap, and uninformed headlines when it comes to drug busts, but not when it comes to bulldogs. Just goes to show that once someone's a believer of anything (Drugs are BAAAAD. Pitbulls are BAAAAD. Gays are BAAAAD) there's no point in trying to educate them, because they will refuse to see anything that doesn't support their beliefs, and only look at (and whip frenzies around) stuff that does support their beliefs.
I love your stuff, mostly, but Dan, really, give the pit bulls a rest. Pit bulls are like kinky sex, the key is how they're treated by their owners, not what they're construed to be by outsiders. Pit bulls with good, appropriate owners really are lovely dogs. Pit bulls with bad, inappropriate owners are awful dogs. So are chihuahuas, or any other breed. Go have a chat with Cesar Millan, he's done for pit bulls what you've done for kink. But if you're just a hater looking for more hate, give it a rest. You're smarter than that.
I love your stuff, mostly, but Dan, really, give the pit bulls a rest. Pit bulls are like kinky sex, the key is how they're treated by their owners, not what they're construed to be by outsiders. Pit bulls with good, appropriate owners really are lovely dogs. Pit bulls with bad, inappropriate owners are awful dogs. So are chihuahuas, or any other breed. Go have a chat with Cesar Millan, he's done for pit bulls what you've done for kink. But if you're just a hater looking for more hate, give it a rest. You're smarter than that.
12
@9, 11, etc: a lot of people don't get pit bulls because of their sweet demeanor, they get them specifically because their killing capability. They are rightfully the most intimidating dog out there and that's entirely the point. Don't expect most owners to train them do behave in any such way.
If a breed needs proper training in order to not KILL people, maybe there ought to be tighter restrictions on them.
If a breed needs proper training in order to not KILL people, maybe there ought to be tighter restrictions on them.
13
Gay gay gay, Obama and pitbulls bad, gay gay gay, cops shot dead, gay gay gay, Amanda etc. Rinse and repeat.
SLOG is a broken record, and has been for months.
SLOG is a broken record, and has been for months.
14
@12: Yes, but that has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of pitbulls. It used to be that bad owners had Dobermans, Rottweilers or German Shepherds, and those owners gave the breeds a bad name.
Any dog (like any child) needs to be raised properly to avoid inappropriate aggression.
@11 ftw.
Any dog (like any child) needs to be raised properly to avoid inappropriate aggression.
@11 ftw.
17
I am so tired of hearing pit bulls are bad. Educate yourselves and quit perpetuating the nonsense. Yes, there are backyard breeders breeding flaws into a breed to make them "tougher" and "meaner". Educate people to stay away from backyard breeders...of any breed. Quit blaming the breed and and place the blame where it needs to be placed. But even a poorly bred dog, placed in a good home, can be a good pet. Stop spreading stupidity.
18
The danger of pit bulls is their sheer power (especially in the bitey area) and their tenacity when provoked. My family has a pit bull/beagle mix, and despite his history as having been a police rescue from a drug dealer, he's the sweetest dog imaginable. However, I wouldn't want to make him mad; I've seen what he does to his evening carrot. The trouble is when people abuse them, training them to constantly be aggressive, for the purpose of dogfighting or more commonly as a guard dog. This brings their killer instinct closer to the surface, requiring less and less provocation for them to go nuts, until the poor thing is as hair-triggered as a Luger. And that's when things get unpleasant.
19
Oh, yeah, it's just those "bad breeders" and "bad owners". Nothing to do with the dogs. Why, clearly, a poorly trained chihuahua is every bit as dangerous as a poorly trained pit bull, right?
Dog owners are stupid. Saying "if they're properly trained" is not only false, it's avoiding the subject, which is that there's no such thing as proper training and never will be, for the vast majority of dog owners. They're going to keep on buying untrained dogs -- there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. And when those dogs are pit bulls, they're going to attack people.
Ban the god damned things. Jail terms for breeders.
Dog owners are stupid. Saying "if they're properly trained" is not only false, it's avoiding the subject, which is that there's no such thing as proper training and never will be, for the vast majority of dog owners. They're going to keep on buying untrained dogs -- there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. And when those dogs are pit bulls, they're going to attack people.
Ban the god damned things. Jail terms for breeders.
20
I love pitbulls, and they are very sweet dogs. But they are also quite excitable dogs (I guess that's in part what makes them so sweet).
So, sometimes even a well-trained pitbull gets excited in a bad way, and thanks to its power that might result in desaster.
It's not only about training dogs, but also about "managing" them: keep them away from situations where they get too excited, don't leave them alone with children or with people who can't handle them, don't handle them when you are drunk or drugged, don't get into a violent argument in front of the dog, etc pp
So, sometimes even a well-trained pitbull gets excited in a bad way, and thanks to its power that might result in desaster.
It's not only about training dogs, but also about "managing" them: keep them away from situations where they get too excited, don't leave them alone with children or with people who can't handle them, don't handle them when you are drunk or drugged, don't get into a violent argument in front of the dog, etc pp
21
@11 - the difference being that Chihuahuas don't have a habit of mauling children. Good owners are great, but the attacks that keep popping up are indicative of the fact that we can't have faith in humans to raise aggressive breeds appropriately.
It isn't the dog's fault, and it isn't the fault of the good owners - but it is clearly a problem. What solution do you suggest? There are people who can raise tigers (or, for a less extreme example: wolves) well, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. 'But it's only the bad owners' doesn't make a difference unless there is an effective way to differentiate between good and bad owners.
It isn't the dog's fault, and it isn't the fault of the good owners - but it is clearly a problem. What solution do you suggest? There are people who can raise tigers (or, for a less extreme example: wolves) well, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. 'But it's only the bad owners' doesn't make a difference unless there is an effective way to differentiate between good and bad owners.
22
I don't trust that breed and the associated mixes and I certainly don't trust the owners of such dogs.
24
@19:
Fnarf, there's nothing wrong in buying an untrained dog.
You really need to train yourself with your dog, hopefully under the supervision of a professional dog trainer. A well-trained dog will only behave as well as its untrained owner will let it behave.
For the rest of your post: outlaw pit bulls, some other breed will take their place.
I think it should be made more difficult to own any dog, that might also make life easier on animal shelters. And make castration of all dogs mandatory (except of very few for breeding).
Fnarf, there's nothing wrong in buying an untrained dog.
You really need to train yourself with your dog, hopefully under the supervision of a professional dog trainer. A well-trained dog will only behave as well as its untrained owner will let it behave.
For the rest of your post: outlaw pit bulls, some other breed will take their place.
I think it should be made more difficult to own any dog, that might also make life easier on animal shelters. And make castration of all dogs mandatory (except of very few for breeding).
25
@14: the "intrinsic nature" of a PIT bull is, in fact, fighting. the first word in the breed name is PIT, the second is BULL. they were bred for BULL BAITING & PIT FIGHTING, and still are in the latter case.
would you assert that the "intrinsic nature" of a Shepherd or other herding breeds like Aussies or Border Collies is not HERDING SHEEP? or that terriers don't like to dig?
would you assert that the "intrinsic nature" of a Shepherd or other herding breeds like Aussies or Border Collies is not HERDING SHEEP? or that terriers don't like to dig?
26
Mr. Solomon, people give names to things to express their own desires, not because they have omniscient knowledge of the true nature. I refer you to the GMC "Yukon" or the Pontiac "Grand Prix" or the "Grand Old Party", for example.
27
Malcolm Gladwell addressed several of the commenters' thoughts including pit bulls being more dangerous than other breeds regardless of training level (they are not the breed most likely to maul a child), the effectiveness of banning a certain breed (pretty much a worthless idea), and the importance of training (a poor trainer will train any breed to attack, and I'm not going to sit here and illegitimize some poor person who was mauled by an atypical breed just because it wasn't a pit bull).
It's an interesting read, and I found it fairly balanced. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02…
It's an interesting read, and I found it fairly balanced. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02…
28
I'll be completely honest - pit bulls scare the shit out of me. Unfortunately, (people have told me) that they can sense that; that just scares me more. I don't hate the dog, but I'd definitely avoid owning one, personally...
29
A W post on day one, fatties on the same day. self referential posts seemingly weekly. Canned ham redux last week. And with this pitbull post, the game is over. who had January 11 in the Savage obsessive subjects pool?
30
I'm still waiting for Dan to go after Rottweilers, which are far more dangerous.
Stop being a lazy bitch, Dan. I want to like you.
Stop being a lazy bitch, Dan. I want to like you.
31
P.S. My aunt's pit bull, tank, once lunged for a cat in front of me. My cousin had left her cat at my grandmother's and it occurred to no one that a mother cat and her kittens should probably be put away before bringing a two hundred pound dog into the house.
I was eating in front of the TV and momma cat and tank rounded opposite corners at the same time. He went rigid and started to lunge and without thinking I sprang forward, threw my arms around his neck and held him down while my mother ran over and saved the cat.
For some reason it never crossed this bloodthirsty animal's tiny brain to so much as strain against me, and he wasn't even mine, not to mention I weighed a whole hundred pounds less than he did and his head was as big as mine. How's that for an anecdote?
And I've been attacked by dogs before. Just not pit bulls, and I've known a lot of them.
I was eating in front of the TV and momma cat and tank rounded opposite corners at the same time. He went rigid and started to lunge and without thinking I sprang forward, threw my arms around his neck and held him down while my mother ran over and saved the cat.
For some reason it never crossed this bloodthirsty animal's tiny brain to so much as strain against me, and he wasn't even mine, not to mention I weighed a whole hundred pounds less than he did and his head was as big as mine. How's that for an anecdote?
And I've been attacked by dogs before. Just not pit bulls, and I've known a lot of them.
32
@21: The simplest solution is to make dog owners legally liable for the acts of their pets. Which they already are. Problem solved.
Dogs kill about 30 Americans a year. Not a crisis.
Dogs kill about 30 Americans a year. Not a crisis.
33
I have always admired the breed. They have great proportions, and are strong loyal and smart. But I know my limitations and I'll never own one because:
A: I don't have have the time to properly train and socialize one.
B: I don't have the infrastructure--no fenced yard.
C: there's lots of other dogs and small children on my block, and I don't want the potential liability.
A: I don't have have the time to properly train and socialize one.
B: I don't have the infrastructure--no fenced yard.
C: there's lots of other dogs and small children on my block, and I don't want the potential liability.
34
Really? In this day and age with all that has been written and done. If you get a pit bull over let's say, an Australian Sheppard (one of the smartest and friendliest dogs), then your just an asshole. Straight up.
And for the record, I don't own a dog. I don't need that kind of validation to feel worthwhile.
And for the record, I don't own a dog. I don't need that kind of validation to feel worthwhile.
35
No dog is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate dogs, and train people. I am Cesar Millan, and I am the dog whisperer.
36
@32,
The punishments against irresponsible owners are a fucking joke. That couple in San Francisco who allowed their Presa Canario to murder their neighbor are the exception that proves the rule.
The punishments against irresponsible owners are a fucking joke. That couple in San Francisco who allowed their Presa Canario to murder their neighbor are the exception that proves the rule.
37
@Cola: Are you sure that was a pit bull and not some kind of mastiff or other giant breed? Most pits are well under 100 pounds. Glad to hear you (and the cats) weren't injured.
One point many people continue to ignore is that (leaving aside their earlier history in bull baiting) pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs, not humans. Aggression toward humans is simply not a typical characteristic of pit bulls (which is not to say that it doesn't ever occur, especially when bad owners are involved). A 2008 article in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science (http://tinyurl.com/yfe5cnx) found that although pit bulls had relatively high levels of dog-directed aggression compared with other breeds studied, they did not show high levels of aggression toward either their owners or strange humans. The full article is not available for free, but a nice summary was written by a dog trainer: http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/why-do….
Analogous to the argument for banning pit bulls: When they are involved in accidents, SUVs are far more likely to kill pedestrians/bikers/occupants of other cars than are smaller cars. Does that mean that SUVs should be banned?
One point many people continue to ignore is that (leaving aside their earlier history in bull baiting) pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs, not humans. Aggression toward humans is simply not a typical characteristic of pit bulls (which is not to say that it doesn't ever occur, especially when bad owners are involved). A 2008 article in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science (http://tinyurl.com/yfe5cnx) found that although pit bulls had relatively high levels of dog-directed aggression compared with other breeds studied, they did not show high levels of aggression toward either their owners or strange humans. The full article is not available for free, but a nice summary was written by a dog trainer: http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/why-do….
Analogous to the argument for banning pit bulls: When they are involved in accidents, SUVs are far more likely to kill pedestrians/bikers/occupants of other cars than are smaller cars. Does that mean that SUVs should be banned?
38
@26, that's a piss-poor parallel. a Dachshund is called "Earth Dog" because was created to follow critters into their dens. dog breed names are often descriptive of the exact breed purpose.
DACHSHUND. Blue HEELER. Australian SHEPHERD. Portugese WATER DOG. it's not marketing, or at least it wasn't until this millenium, with bullshit breeds like the labradoodle.
DACHSHUND. Blue HEELER. Australian SHEPHERD. Portugese WATER DOG. it's not marketing, or at least it wasn't until this millenium, with bullshit breeds like the labradoodle.
39
Pit bulls were outlawed in Ontario a few years ago. Owners who already had the dogs were allowed to keep them, but all of them had to be spayed/neutered and any puppies that are born are anesthetized. I know that sounds cruel, but we've had far too many attacks around here, and I'd take a dead dog over a dead kid.
41
@36: In Connecticut, dog owners are financially liable for the harm their dog causes. If their behavior is bad enough, they are criminally liable too. If your state is too lenient on bad dog owners, you should try to get that fixed. I doubt anyone will oppose you.
But breed-specific bans are useless - bad owners will simply fix on another breed. Unless you are willing to ban all dogs (and there you will meet strong opposition), penalties for irresponsible owners are the way to go.
But breed-specific bans are useless - bad owners will simply fix on another breed. Unless you are willing to ban all dogs (and there you will meet strong opposition), penalties for irresponsible owners are the way to go.
42
@32:
31 deaths in 2009. Indeed, hardly a crisis. But the issue is that a pit bull is MANY times more likely to cause harm than other dog breeds. You can scoff at 31 deaths, but death is kind of a big deal. Especially when the reason 31 people died last year is because some dude or lady wouldn't settle for one of the many, many other breeds. What a stupid reason.
"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
- Clifton Report (2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Re…
31 deaths in 2009. Indeed, hardly a crisis. But the issue is that a pit bull is MANY times more likely to cause harm than other dog breeds. You can scoff at 31 deaths, but death is kind of a big deal. Especially when the reason 31 people died last year is because some dude or lady wouldn't settle for one of the many, many other breeds. What a stupid reason.
"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
- Clifton Report (2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Re…
43
42 has got it.
My new neighbors have a pitbull. Sometimes they chain it up outside, though they try to stay by the door to keep an eye on it. Usually it's a nice dog, but one night a few weeks ago, it was hiding under their porch. Instead of being its normal happy, jumpy self, it ran at me snarling as I tried to walk by. The next time I saw it, it was back to normal. It was eerie.
My new neighbors have a pitbull. Sometimes they chain it up outside, though they try to stay by the door to keep an eye on it. Usually it's a nice dog, but one night a few weeks ago, it was hiding under their porch. Instead of being its normal happy, jumpy self, it ran at me snarling as I tried to walk by. The next time I saw it, it was back to normal. It was eerie.
44
Good. I'm glad. Too many children running around. Their little unwashed faces and grubby hands, ugh! To say nothing of the inevitable expenses of their... education and disney movies and baseball gloves and whatever else they think they need. If anything, we should be thanking that dog owner!
45
I donated to fight Prop 2 in Florida, and asked Dan this question: "Is there a later scientific peer-reviewed study supporting the efficacy of breed bans that forms (in part or whole) the foundation of your opinion?"
As part of my preamble, I explained that I have searched online for such a study, but could not find anything. I could only find the CDC study of 2000, which actually states that there is no such evidence. I was hoping that there might be a later study I could read.
Dan's response was
"breed bans have worked in the UK, and they work well in Denver. i don't trust the studies you cite.
all the best,
dan"
Now, I am ecstatic that he did NOT simply tell me off. However, he didn't really answer the question, as he doesn't cite any study in the UK or Denver. So I am left with the conclusion that No, Dan Savage does not base his opinions of breed bans on any scientific evidence.
What I find interesting is that he "doesn't trust the studies [I] cite." I believe there was a study in the UK that also concluded that there is no supporting evidence of the efficacy of breed bans. But he doesn't trust scientific research? What does he trust? His gut?
I find that his response, while deservedly terse, spoke volumes. His opinions on breed bans are simply that: opinions. He is neither more nor less correct than the rest of us. In fact, his opinions can be said to be faith-based, since he chooses to discount evidence that does not agree with his ideas.
As part of my preamble, I explained that I have searched online for such a study, but could not find anything. I could only find the CDC study of 2000, which actually states that there is no such evidence. I was hoping that there might be a later study I could read.
Dan's response was
"breed bans have worked in the UK, and they work well in Denver. i don't trust the studies you cite.
all the best,
dan"
Now, I am ecstatic that he did NOT simply tell me off. However, he didn't really answer the question, as he doesn't cite any study in the UK or Denver. So I am left with the conclusion that No, Dan Savage does not base his opinions of breed bans on any scientific evidence.
What I find interesting is that he "doesn't trust the studies [I] cite." I believe there was a study in the UK that also concluded that there is no supporting evidence of the efficacy of breed bans. But he doesn't trust scientific research? What does he trust? His gut?
I find that his response, while deservedly terse, spoke volumes. His opinions on breed bans are simply that: opinions. He is neither more nor less correct than the rest of us. In fact, his opinions can be said to be faith-based, since he chooses to discount evidence that does not agree with his ideas.
46
Yes, Max. "Created to..." "For the purpose of..."
This is what they were hoping for when they bred the dog. It is their intent. But wishing for success and having success are not the same thing. Breeds that aren't particularly good at whatever they're named for aren't tossed aside, especially if they are cute and make good pets.
This is even doubly true given the way the AKC awards championships to dogs that merely look the part. They have driven German Shepherd Dogs to the point of being nearly crippled by extending the "lean forward" appearance of their legs beyond all reason, solely because it looks aggressive. This is why if you want a working German Shepherd Dog you have to import it from Germany, where science instead of greed drives the dog breeding industry.
And why the hell aren't German Shepherd Dogs called German Police Dogs? Does anybody herd sheep with them?
Terrible theory, Mr. Solomon. Especially since the AVMA, CDC, animal behaviorists, and all other experts are opposed to banning pit bulls, which clearly shows that people who know their business don't consider them a special threat. Whereas, these campaigns to ban pit bulls are created entirely by ignorant, crusading journalists and the movement to ban them is led and sustained by ignorant, crusading journalists.
This is what they were hoping for when they bred the dog. It is their intent. But wishing for success and having success are not the same thing. Breeds that aren't particularly good at whatever they're named for aren't tossed aside, especially if they are cute and make good pets.
This is even doubly true given the way the AKC awards championships to dogs that merely look the part. They have driven German Shepherd Dogs to the point of being nearly crippled by extending the "lean forward" appearance of their legs beyond all reason, solely because it looks aggressive. This is why if you want a working German Shepherd Dog you have to import it from Germany, where science instead of greed drives the dog breeding industry.
And why the hell aren't German Shepherd Dogs called German Police Dogs? Does anybody herd sheep with them?
Terrible theory, Mr. Solomon. Especially since the AVMA, CDC, animal behaviorists, and all other experts are opposed to banning pit bulls, which clearly shows that people who know their business don't consider them a special threat. Whereas, these campaigns to ban pit bulls are created entirely by ignorant, crusading journalists and the movement to ban them is led and sustained by ignorant, crusading journalists.
48
A lot of people do not know a whole lot about dog behaviour, so I will be the first to admit I do not like the idea of just anyone going off to buy a pitbull. I think people should pass a course before owning a dog--any kind of dog. I know I could handle a pit, but I have owned border collies, rotties and shepherds my whole life. Border collies are the best, most intelligent, loyal dogs you will ever encounter, and there is nothing you can tell me that will convince me otherwise. Come to think of it, I do not see the point in owning a pitbull. Rottweilers, sure, but rotties were originally bred for herding cattle, and their behaviour is very similar to any other cattle dog. They aren't nearly as unpredictable, and it would take a lot for one to attack a person or other dog. They also wouldn't keep attacking, and attacking, and attacking until the person was dead. Pits on the other hand, they were bred for that.
Because I have owned dogs my whole life, and have been to a million dog parks, used to compete in agility, disc competitions ... I am part of a larger dog community in Vancouver, and I've gotta say, with the exception of idiots that own and cannot take care of pitbulls, people that own big dogs are far better dog owners than people who own small, stupid little yippy things. I have never met a well-behaved small dog. Ever. I know exactly why that is, too. Dog behaviour is basically all the same, yet it is interpreted differently based on the breed. When a dog jumps up on you, this is a dominant behaviour, it is bad, and can lead to other dominant, territorial behaviours. When a big dog does this to an owner, they think "holy shit, this dog can push someone over, I have to do something about it!" so, they push the dog off, and scold them. The dog learns who is pack leader. When a little dog does this, people think it's cute, doesn't mean anything, and so the little dog gets away with it. The little dog then thinks it is dominant. It is the same thing with walking on furniture, sitting on someone's lap without permission, getting in your space, getting in a child's space (to a dog, space is respect), being overprotective of their food, etc. Big dogs, the problem is addressed because it is seen as problematic behaviour, whereas little dogs, it isn't seen as a problem. So you get all of the dominant kinds of behaviours showing with little dogs: the lunging, the constant barking, the snapping, the overprotectiveness. Of course, I do not think it is any real issue, because little dogs cannot cause any real damage to a person. Although, for the record, I have never been bitten by a big dog. Little dogs? Several times. Again, I do not care, because I am not scared of being bitten. I am not afraid of any dog, not even pitbulls.
Not to mention, whenever you go to obedience trials, the experts are rarely ever little dogs. Always big dogs. Over the years I have become convinced that people who own little dogs are not really "dog people"; they view dogs as accessories, or as children, a temporary thing, or maybe they're like Dan Savage, and they secretly hate dogs. Little dog owners almost never know what the fuck they are doing. That's from what I've seen, anyway.
More...
Because I have owned dogs my whole life, and have been to a million dog parks, used to compete in agility, disc competitions ... I am part of a larger dog community in Vancouver, and I've gotta say, with the exception of idiots that own and cannot take care of pitbulls, people that own big dogs are far better dog owners than people who own small, stupid little yippy things. I have never met a well-behaved small dog. Ever. I know exactly why that is, too. Dog behaviour is basically all the same, yet it is interpreted differently based on the breed. When a dog jumps up on you, this is a dominant behaviour, it is bad, and can lead to other dominant, territorial behaviours. When a big dog does this to an owner, they think "holy shit, this dog can push someone over, I have to do something about it!" so, they push the dog off, and scold them. The dog learns who is pack leader. When a little dog does this, people think it's cute, doesn't mean anything, and so the little dog gets away with it. The little dog then thinks it is dominant. It is the same thing with walking on furniture, sitting on someone's lap without permission, getting in your space, getting in a child's space (to a dog, space is respect), being overprotective of their food, etc. Big dogs, the problem is addressed because it is seen as problematic behaviour, whereas little dogs, it isn't seen as a problem. So you get all of the dominant kinds of behaviours showing with little dogs: the lunging, the constant barking, the snapping, the overprotectiveness. Of course, I do not think it is any real issue, because little dogs cannot cause any real damage to a person. Although, for the record, I have never been bitten by a big dog. Little dogs? Several times. Again, I do not care, because I am not scared of being bitten. I am not afraid of any dog, not even pitbulls.
Not to mention, whenever you go to obedience trials, the experts are rarely ever little dogs. Always big dogs. Over the years I have become convinced that people who own little dogs are not really "dog people"; they view dogs as accessories, or as children, a temporary thing, or maybe they're like Dan Savage, and they secretly hate dogs. Little dog owners almost never know what the fuck they are doing. That's from what I've seen, anyway.
49
We took on the responsibility of integrating dogs into our society long before known history. Considering we're not having an epidemic of dog maulings here, guys, Dan, give the banning ideas a rest.
If we banned pit bulls, the guys who want fighting dogs or junkyard dogs will switch to another breed. A recent study suggests American Cocker Spaniels are the most aggressive of all dogs. In the meantime, Mastiffs, which were used in the middle ages as war dogs. Considering training was not as well defined then as it is now, they also had a tendency to eat their masters. Should we ban them as well?
In the meantime, Dan, while the occasional pit-bull terrier may injure or even kill the occasional human, dozens more are being trained as we speak to sniff out ass-bombers (remember them?), and their service will save hundreds, if not thousands. So, lay the fuck off.
As I said, humankind signed that contract with canis lupis in blood long before we could write. It's our responsibility to deal with the occasional killer dog as it is to deal with the occasional killer child. But neither pose a terrible threat to the perpetuation of humanity.
If we banned pit bulls, the guys who want fighting dogs or junkyard dogs will switch to another breed. A recent study suggests American Cocker Spaniels are the most aggressive of all dogs. In the meantime, Mastiffs, which were used in the middle ages as war dogs. Considering training was not as well defined then as it is now, they also had a tendency to eat their masters. Should we ban them as well?
In the meantime, Dan, while the occasional pit-bull terrier may injure or even kill the occasional human, dozens more are being trained as we speak to sniff out ass-bombers (remember them?), and their service will save hundreds, if not thousands. So, lay the fuck off.
As I said, humankind signed that contract with canis lupis in blood long before we could write. It's our responsibility to deal with the occasional killer dog as it is to deal with the occasional killer child. But neither pose a terrible threat to the perpetuation of humanity.
50
I've adopted one puppy in my life. The rest were rescues. One of my rescues was a pit bull. She's the most well-behaved of my current dogs. She also plays the best with the puppy, who is a Jack Russell mix. I couldn't have asked for a gentler, sweeter dog. She was bought by people who wanted a "tough" dog for their children, and then were surprised when she knocked the toddler down.
So we should ban an entire breed because people are too stupid to know what breed is best for them? That's an entirely backwards way to approach a problem. Sure, you end up with the results you want, for awhile. But it's similar to sterilizing the poor so they won't have unwanted children. It's not the way to solve a problem. It's just the way to make a symptom go away.
So we should ban an entire breed because people are too stupid to know what breed is best for them? That's an entirely backwards way to approach a problem. Sure, you end up with the results you want, for awhile. But it's similar to sterilizing the poor so they won't have unwanted children. It's not the way to solve a problem. It's just the way to make a symptom go away.
51
My mother adopted a female rottweiler when she was living on her own in Portland, and raised her from a puppy. She wanted a dog that could look intimidating and had a big bark for obvious reasons- she was in a sketchier part of town. Eventually she met my dad and I came along, and I was raised with that dog in that same house in that same sketchy part of town. However, because my mom took the time (which was a lot) to socialize and train her properly, Gretel was as gentle as the golden retriever she now owns. That dog gave me piggyback rides as a baby just like the Carl books (anyone else remember those?). An intimidating looking dog has a purpose, but training is everything.
I'm going to graduate from college in a few years, and I'm going to get a rottweiler too, and train it right. Just because a breed has a bad reputation doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose and can be perfectly safe in the hands of responsible owners.
I'm going to graduate from college in a few years, and I'm going to get a rottweiler too, and train it right. Just because a breed has a bad reputation doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose and can be perfectly safe in the hands of responsible owners.
52
The entire idea of banning certain breeds due to 'violent tendencies' is ridiculous. Who bred those supposedly 'violent tendencies' into dogs, and why do you think we did it?
You know how people are always saying, "There should be a license before you're allowed to become parents," which is annoying and ridiculous because it's so completely unenforceable (without a lot of government intrusion and the creation of a possibly 1984-esque world)?
Well, requiring dog owners to get a breed-specific license is slightly more conceivable and enforceable. In addition, if dog owners were required to get a license prior to purchasing their dog, then maybe potential owners would actually take a minute to learn about the breed they're purchasing, rather than purchasing for stereotypes or looks.
When we bought our dog, a black lab puppy, during his teething phase he would mouth and bite on our hands. He also would get really excited when he saw up and jump up to greet us -- both of these behaviors kind of cute in a little tiny puppy, but now that he's 80+ lbs, they'd be really annoying. I'd never owned a dog before, so honestly, I probably would have just shoved his head away when he mouthed at my hands and feet, or pushed him off when he jumped on me, and not really driven the lesson home that he wasn't supposed to do that.
My husband grew up around dogs, ranging from labs ("friendly dogs") to pit bulls ("smart dogs") and lots of mutt mixes in between. So he knew how to firmly manage our pup, and taught me how to speak firmly, teach our dog to obey my commands, come when I call, sit when I tell him, and most importantly -- stop jumping and stop biting. Now that he weighs twice as much as our son, that's kind of important.
Incidentally, we have a family friend who also has a kids and a dog. Their dog is a pit bull. I love our dog to pieces, but I'd trade our friendly, floppy idiot lab for their pit any day. Our dog is a ball of manic energy that ricochets around the house; even our son can't keep up. Added to that, everyone who comes in the house is our dogs new best friend -- nobody is a stranger or a danger to our pup.
Our friends, on the other hand, have a pit bull who's scared of strangers, but when it thinks the kids are in danger will start barking and whimpering and jumping, trying to alert all the adults in the area. It plays gently with the toddler and "herds" the older boy when he has friends over, getting him to play with his friends instead of holing up in his room. It was beaten by it's previous (male) owners, so it's scared of adult men, hiding and slinking under tables when they come in the room, but it's a sweetheart around women.
More...
You know how people are always saying, "There should be a license before you're allowed to become parents," which is annoying and ridiculous because it's so completely unenforceable (without a lot of government intrusion and the creation of a possibly 1984-esque world)?
Well, requiring dog owners to get a breed-specific license is slightly more conceivable and enforceable. In addition, if dog owners were required to get a license prior to purchasing their dog, then maybe potential owners would actually take a minute to learn about the breed they're purchasing, rather than purchasing for stereotypes or looks.
When we bought our dog, a black lab puppy, during his teething phase he would mouth and bite on our hands. He also would get really excited when he saw up and jump up to greet us -- both of these behaviors kind of cute in a little tiny puppy, but now that he's 80+ lbs, they'd be really annoying. I'd never owned a dog before, so honestly, I probably would have just shoved his head away when he mouthed at my hands and feet, or pushed him off when he jumped on me, and not really driven the lesson home that he wasn't supposed to do that.
My husband grew up around dogs, ranging from labs ("friendly dogs") to pit bulls ("smart dogs") and lots of mutt mixes in between. So he knew how to firmly manage our pup, and taught me how to speak firmly, teach our dog to obey my commands, come when I call, sit when I tell him, and most importantly -- stop jumping and stop biting. Now that he weighs twice as much as our son, that's kind of important.
Incidentally, we have a family friend who also has a kids and a dog. Their dog is a pit bull. I love our dog to pieces, but I'd trade our friendly, floppy idiot lab for their pit any day. Our dog is a ball of manic energy that ricochets around the house; even our son can't keep up. Added to that, everyone who comes in the house is our dogs new best friend -- nobody is a stranger or a danger to our pup.
Our friends, on the other hand, have a pit bull who's scared of strangers, but when it thinks the kids are in danger will start barking and whimpering and jumping, trying to alert all the adults in the area. It plays gently with the toddler and "herds" the older boy when he has friends over, getting him to play with his friends instead of holing up in his room. It was beaten by it's previous (male) owners, so it's scared of adult men, hiding and slinking under tables when they come in the room, but it's a sweetheart around women.
53
I think it's really funny that people mentioned chihuahuas as a more appropriate dog. They're rats with fangs and they have a strong tendency to bite. And they can do some damage, especially to children.
I think people confuse "untrained" with "mistreated." An untrained pit bull is not a vicious killer; they are by nature highly people oriented (but sometimes dog-aggressive) and without training, will be a big pain in the ass (like most dogs) and if provoked will lash out (like almost every dog in existence - when threatened, they defend themselves. Duh.) Trained, they are lovely creature. Mistreated, they are dangerous, like any large dog.
Breed bans have been tried. They've never reduced dog bite injuries and deaths. The Netherlands got rid of theirs because after years of enforcing it, dog bite injuries had gone UP slightly.
So everyone calling for a ban on pit bulls is basically saying dog bites are bad (yes), we must prevent them (yes), and we must choose an approach that doesn't address the cause of dangerous dogs being around (bad owners) and doesn't work. Which is... well... really fucking stupid, when you think about it.
I think people confuse "untrained" with "mistreated." An untrained pit bull is not a vicious killer; they are by nature highly people oriented (but sometimes dog-aggressive) and without training, will be a big pain in the ass (like most dogs) and if provoked will lash out (like almost every dog in existence - when threatened, they defend themselves. Duh.) Trained, they are lovely creature. Mistreated, they are dangerous, like any large dog.
Breed bans have been tried. They've never reduced dog bite injuries and deaths. The Netherlands got rid of theirs because after years of enforcing it, dog bite injuries had gone UP slightly.
So everyone calling for a ban on pit bulls is basically saying dog bites are bad (yes), we must prevent them (yes), and we must choose an approach that doesn't address the cause of dangerous dogs being around (bad owners) and doesn't work. Which is... well... really fucking stupid, when you think about it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (53) RSS