Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
To simplify it: dogs are not capable of understanding our frame of reference. To have a successful relationship with the dog, you have to learn to view it as the dog does. When we think of applying our moral and ethical standards to the relationship, we have already failed. The point I have made, time and again, is that most failures in a relationship between a human and dog originate with the human. It's why I think that most people should not "own" dogs and largely why we continue to have problems with them. Most people have no problems, in spite of themselves, as the dog is fully focused on trying to make the relationship successful. Sadly, I would say that most of the incidents involving a dog would not occur with a more knowledgeable human involved. I have no idea what happened in this particular case, I suspect the investigation is ongoing, if it is not a foregone conclusion. I can tell you that the above photograph of the woman with the dog does not show a happy dog. I also don't know if it is one of the dogs involved, as they were described as being between 100 and 125 pounds, and that dog is nowhere near that.
Of course, that also involves the media, which probably gets at least half of every story wrong.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC911
Let's take humans out of the equation...my issue is how some PBs interact with other dogs or a well estsblished pack. They present a risk that I will not expose my other casual dawgy buddies too...too many dog fights under my belt for you or anyone else to change my mind. It's what they have been bred to do....and they do.
....and it's vicious when they do, btdt too many times  |
It is great if Humans can learn to interact with dogs and that many poor interactions could be avoided. However, from a statistical basis, some dogs seem to be bred to do ''the right thing'' regarding human interactions, and some have a proclivity toward violent interactions that can lead to death. This isn't a gun that relies on the owner to do the shooting, this is a living carnivore.
Saying that it is a joggers fault that someone's dog made them a cripple for life seems to support the argument that there are no bad dogs. However, statistically, there are breeds that are lethal, and breeds that simply are not, and don't ''want'' to be. I don't think you can say that any particular dog is immune to having a reaction that is apparently natural to a given breed just because it has been owned or trained by a knowledgeable handler.
Again, statistics. Everyone thinks they apply to someone else and that they are the exception. I personally think that many people get off on having a lethal dog, and that some people just think that certain dogs are cool, like Spuds McKenzie. Clearly from this conversation, there are a lot of people who believe that they are immune to statistics, special, or that ''it can't happen here''. Because well, you know, words...
I expect most owners who have been mauled or had dogs that mauled others thought the same thing. Stuff happens. Do you think we can always reliably predict trigger actions or instances in every case ? I'm thinking not. Again, statistics. Go ahead and play the odds. Just realize that they exist.