Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 3, 2010
News Such Nice Dogs...
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:11 AM
...and so good with children.
2
Oy, Dan. Find a story where a large dog that wasn't obviously kept irresponsibly does something like this, and it may halfway look like you have a point. All this story proves is what every Humane Society or dog behaviorist or PRO Pit Bull or Mastiff group will already tell you about keeping them responsibly.
4
#2: Find a story where a gun that wasn't obviously kept irresponsibly hurts someone. All stories about shooting accidents and mass murders and serial killers and school shootings prove what every NRA or militia member will already tell you about keeping them responsibly.
6
Most people are idiots, and dogs that are strong and willful like these need an owner who is stronger and more willful than them. And you, Dan, know better than most how delusional people can be about bad situations they get themselves into. Keeping a nasty dog you don't know how to deal with probably comes from the same place as staying in a relationship with a nasty person you don't know how to deal with: people shouldn't do either, especially not weak people. I have two large molosser dogs, and believe me, they know who's boss. What's with your weird ire about pitbulls anyway, Dan? You're usually much more even-handed than this.
7
Psycho assholes with major emotional problems keep psycho aggressive dogs. Make owners 100% responsible (that is, treat the horrors the dogs commit as crimes personally committed by the owners). Then lock the fuckers up for a few years. Ownership of such dreadful dogs will drop dramatically.
8
Man, those owners deserve something much worse than a citation. Much much worse. Those poor children.
9
Go fuck yourself Dan. Your ridiculous notion that pit bulls should be banned is not based on reasoned logic. Go find a reputable dog trainer (note the word "reputable") and poll them on how dangerous pit bulls are versus other breeds. The problem is not in the breed, but in the owner. Solve the problem, Dan, don't pursue your band-aid solution of eradicating these dogs.
10
Yuck.
I'm kind of surprised no one has started offering self-defense courses that focus on dog attacks. With a little education, fighting off an attacking dog can be easier than fighting off a person.
I'm kind of surprised no one has started offering self-defense courses that focus on dog attacks. With a little education, fighting off an attacking dog can be easier than fighting off a person.
11
@9 "Go find a reputable dog trainer (note the word "reputable") and poll them on how dangerous pit bulls are versus other breeds."
You're kidding me, right? Ok, how about Cesar Milan. Any trainer who doesn't acknowledge the dangerous potential of gladiator breeds like pits and rotties is full of shit. And any owner who doesn't acknowledge that potential is criminally negligent.
You're kidding me, right? Ok, how about Cesar Milan. Any trainer who doesn't acknowledge the dangerous potential of gladiator breeds like pits and rotties is full of shit. And any owner who doesn't acknowledge that potential is criminally negligent.
12
@6 - "I have two large molosser dogs, and believe me, they know who's boss."
All very well, but do they know that other humans are boss, too?
I'm with Dan, if only because every time I walk past a house and some big dog appears at the fence and starts barking angrily at me, my heart jumps into my fucking throat. I know it makes me sound like a wimp, but I don't care; it's a really fucking horrible experience, and I don't think people should be subject to being snarled at by someone else's angry, hulking beast. Great that the dog loves you, Mr. Owner, but that thing would probably hurt me if it could, and it'd be nice if I didn't have to fear for my well-being just because you wanted an unfriendly breed.
All very well, but do they know that other humans are boss, too?
I'm with Dan, if only because every time I walk past a house and some big dog appears at the fence and starts barking angrily at me, my heart jumps into my fucking throat. I know it makes me sound like a wimp, but I don't care; it's a really fucking horrible experience, and I don't think people should be subject to being snarled at by someone else's angry, hulking beast. Great that the dog loves you, Mr. Owner, but that thing would probably hurt me if it could, and it'd be nice if I didn't have to fear for my well-being just because you wanted an unfriendly breed.
13
Oh, so the owner is "very sorry" about what happened, and so they weren't immediately ticketed? Bullshit. The owner of those dogs should be in jail right now, and he should be charged as if he himself had attacked and mauled those kids.
14
Dan, you are beating a pile of fur and entrails that were once a horse.
Pit bulls aren't inherently vicious; they're just powerful and have strong jaws and are therefore a lot more dangerous if they're mistreated.
Pit bulls aren't inherently vicious; they're just powerful and have strong jaws and are therefore a lot more dangerous if they're mistreated.
15
While this is indeed a terrible incident, Dan, I hope you will some day realize that the breed of dog is not necessarily the only deciding factor of such attacks. It is the abusive/negligent/moronic people who own them. The "very sorry" owners could very well be all three.
Of course, I understand that people are taking (and should acknowledge) certain risks in adopting/owning gladiator breeds. But discriminating against potentially lovely companions is unnecessary.
Of course, I understand that people are taking (and should acknowledge) certain risks in adopting/owning gladiator breeds. But discriminating against potentially lovely companions is unnecessary.
16
Who cares if it's the irresponsible owners' fault? If nobody was aloud to own a dog larger than a chihuahua inside the city limits, those irresponsible owners would have to do a lot less apologizing when their dog mauls a child who "provoked" it.
17
Dan, do tell me: how does your attitude towards dogs, as expressed here, differ from that of the Christian Right when they cite the occasional gay serial killer or gay domestic abuse incident, or crazy gay gunman as an example of how gays are dangerous? Statistically, dogs are amongst the best behaved demographics of our society.
Dan, as much as I love you and your articulated prose, I don't think hypocrisy becomes you.
Dan, as much as I love you and your articulated prose, I don't think hypocrisy becomes you.
18
sorry in advance for the rant, but i feel it coming on:
it's insane that in this country dog owners are not registered and 100% responsible for their animals. plus, its unacceptable that dogs that you can't get insurance for - rottweilers, mastiffs, and a couple of others I don't remember - are allowed to be bred and raised without educating the owner on how to manage and train their dogs, and holding them personally liable for their dog's actions.
i really hate pit-bulls personally - someone I dated had one - and it bit and mauled my neighbour when my boyfriend was away, but acted angelic when he was around...
some of these idiot 'animal lovers' and peta types - like my ex - would prefer to protect these dogs and blame either the human owners or the hapless victims
part of the love my ex had for his pitbull was the fact that the dog was the only "person" in the world that would love him unconditionally - that is, never complain when the dog was mistreated - since of course the dog didn't speak back, and was always grateful at mealtimes and for company.
human beings set up parameters about how they expect to be treated, and anti-social dog lovers like my ex - prefer unquestioning company to human company.
its one of those things that isn't spoken about enough, and Dan, thanks for being reasonable and logical about this, both in this post and over the years... it's a courageous position to take publicly...
ps yes, 'animal lovers' it doesn't mean i don't love dogs - i have a beagle named Ben who is rarely more than 3 feet away from me, even at the office.
it's insane that in this country dog owners are not registered and 100% responsible for their animals. plus, its unacceptable that dogs that you can't get insurance for - rottweilers, mastiffs, and a couple of others I don't remember - are allowed to be bred and raised without educating the owner on how to manage and train their dogs, and holding them personally liable for their dog's actions.
i really hate pit-bulls personally - someone I dated had one - and it bit and mauled my neighbour when my boyfriend was away, but acted angelic when he was around...
some of these idiot 'animal lovers' and peta types - like my ex - would prefer to protect these dogs and blame either the human owners or the hapless victims
part of the love my ex had for his pitbull was the fact that the dog was the only "person" in the world that would love him unconditionally - that is, never complain when the dog was mistreated - since of course the dog didn't speak back, and was always grateful at mealtimes and for company.
human beings set up parameters about how they expect to be treated, and anti-social dog lovers like my ex - prefer unquestioning company to human company.
its one of those things that isn't spoken about enough, and Dan, thanks for being reasonable and logical about this, both in this post and over the years... it's a courageous position to take publicly...
ps yes, 'animal lovers' it doesn't mean i don't love dogs - i have a beagle named Ben who is rarely more than 3 feet away from me, even at the office.
20
@11 Cesar Milan? Seriously? Okay, fine. One of his most featured dogs on the show is an incredible behaved and remarkably well tempered pit bull, named Daddy. There. Now go put your head back up your ass.
21
Didn't the author of "Love Story" die a few weeks ago? Being ripped apart by feral dogs means they are very sorry about what happened. This sentiment must be so comforting for the parents of the dismembered. As you were. Back to thinking about surviving in Port-au-Prince, Kabul and/or Detroit.
22
@12: Part of them knowing whose boss is knowing the rules, and the rules are that showing aggression towards any living thing (me, other people, my cats, squirrels, etc.) is not acceptable and leads to a good smack on the muzzle and a long stint in puppy prison. My dogs don't bark at passers by, as that would lead to the above punishment, and they're smart enough to want to avoid that.
Dogs are stupid as shit, but they thrive on regularity, discipline, and order. If you're good with them and show them the consistency they need, then you get a loving, loyal pet, regardless of breed.
Dogs are stupid as shit, but they thrive on regularity, discipline, and order. If you're good with them and show them the consistency they need, then you get a loving, loyal pet, regardless of breed.
23
Here's a nice clear example:
My mom had a rottweiler that she trained and socialized herself when I was a little kid. The thing would give me piggy back rides as a baby and was my pillow for years.
Meanwhile, her brother's family, which was a lot more unstable than my own, had a mastiff. It mauled my cousin when she was a toddler. She still has the scars.
Two dogs, both breeds with bad reputations, one raised in a stable home and well-trained and the other which was largely ignored and untrained in a chaotic atmosphere.
It can clearly go both ways, but there is no reason to think that dogs can't be sweet as well as sour.
My mom had a rottweiler that she trained and socialized herself when I was a little kid. The thing would give me piggy back rides as a baby and was my pillow for years.
Meanwhile, her brother's family, which was a lot more unstable than my own, had a mastiff. It mauled my cousin when she was a toddler. She still has the scars.
Two dogs, both breeds with bad reputations, one raised in a stable home and well-trained and the other which was largely ignored and untrained in a chaotic atmosphere.
It can clearly go both ways, but there is no reason to think that dogs can't be sweet as well as sour.
24
@23: In your anecdote, 50% of the dogs ended up mauling a child. Explain to me how this is supposed to convince anybody that regulating dangerous breeds is a bad idea.
25
@24 Because regulating dangerous breeds would mean that my mom would never be able to have purchased her rottweiler- which was purchased as a deterrent for anyone looking to take advantage of a young woman living alone (before my dad moved in), and clearly served a purpose that, say, a golden retriever could not. But the dog was not "dangerous," because, as a responsible owner, she spent over a year socializing and training it as a puppy.
The dog we purchased after the rottweiler died was a jack russell, like your name. Not a "dangerous breed." My dad mostly trained it, so it didn't get out as much. It was also the only dog we've ever owned to bite someone (my brother, who tried to push it off it's bed).
Like everyone else said on here, it's the owner, the training practices, not the dog. Any breed is capable of being dangerous, if it's not trained not to be.
The dog we purchased after the rottweiler died was a jack russell, like your name. Not a "dangerous breed." My dad mostly trained it, so it didn't get out as much. It was also the only dog we've ever owned to bite someone (my brother, who tried to push it off it's bed).
Like everyone else said on here, it's the owner, the training practices, not the dog. Any breed is capable of being dangerous, if it's not trained not to be.
26
@25: Okay, fine, it's the owner -- so what? Why should I care if the dog that bites me was mistreated by its owner? What possible difference could that make?
27
So all of you pit bull supporters: would you vote for a law that said you would be prosecuted as if the damage done by your dog was done by you, personally? If it kills someone, you get life in prison? If it mauls some one, you go to jail for assault?
I never hear your vocal proponents pushing for those laws - all they do is push against ban breeds. Why is that? Is it because deep-down you know you own a dog bred specifically for ruthless killing?
Breeding for traits is effective. Otherwise there wouldn't be a working-dog or sporting-dog group. A pure-bred pointer, when it spots game, will point, with no training at all. But somehow a pit-bull, when aggressively (in its mind) provoked, will not go for the kill.
I never hear your vocal proponents pushing for those laws - all they do is push against ban breeds. Why is that? Is it because deep-down you know you own a dog bred specifically for ruthless killing?
Breeding for traits is effective. Otherwise there wouldn't be a working-dog or sporting-dog group. A pure-bred pointer, when it spots game, will point, with no training at all. But somehow a pit-bull, when aggressively (in its mind) provoked, will not go for the kill.
28
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.
31
@11 you're full of shit and have never read a single Cesar Milan book. Dogs are always #1... dog, #2 breed, #3 person (i.e. personality). Their DOG behavior and instincts can always overcome their BREED instincts and both of them can be used to rehabilitate PERSONAL trauma. He does this on a daily basis as a part of his rehabilitation regimen.
32
Just wanted to tell you about a YouTube video about a pit bull rescued from Michael Vick's dog fighting operation, who is now working as a Therapy Dog. I think this proves that it is the owner, not the dog. Enough said!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zpP-CXz…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zpP-CXz…
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
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS