i thnk the reason news seem to only report pitbull attacks is that people assume that any dog that might bite someone is a pitbull. Dog has stocky shoulders...its a pit.. squarish shaped head..its a pit... dog has four legs and a wet nose. its a pit. there used to be a ton of 'quiz' type things out there of guess the pit where it had a bunch of images of dog, and its hard to tell the difference.
Rdnek, the iditarod is a bit inhumane, I agree, but you are way off to compare it to dog fighting. 50% death rate to about .3% death rate. I think if I were a dog I would take my chances in Alasksa. Kind of like dying in prison or the Wilderness. I agree let it play out before judgment is made, but what a moron. I could be wrong, but I think Shepards actually hold the highest biting incidence rate. Punish owners not the dogs. Banning Pit Bulls is also lame.
OK, innocence until proven guilty. That is the law. I believe Mr. Vic is due fair process, etc, etc. But, laws are our lowest standard of conduct in society. As it relates to his career, it doesn't matter if Vic is convicted of breaking the law. The law is not what's going to hurt this guy professionally. He might go to jail, which would hurt, but that is to be determined.
The court of public opinion, the media, special interests and economics are going to hurt him. In my view, his career is dead. The NFL, a private corporation, and the Atlanta Falcons, a private corporation, will do what is best for their business. Vic won't be good for business. They will toss him asside like a losing lotto ticket. His only hope is that Al Davis, the bad boy of owners, will pick him up once he's out of the legal mess.
As for Pit Bulls and other breeds deemed dangerous, I'm conflicted. I don't care to own the breeds because of the potential killing/pack instincts they carry. I think dog behavior is a combination of genetic predisposition and training, same with all intelligent life. So, with that belief, who's at fault when a dog does kill a person? Dog or owner? Well if you are a pit owner and you argue that a dog's training determines their disposition, then you are guilty if your dog attacks and kills someone. If you argue it is the dog because they are predisposed, then you set the breed up for discrimination and bans. If you are a politician, well, you go with the preponderance of your constituents.
A local government and its citizens do have the right to make laws, even laws that strip others of previously held property or "rights" for that matter. It is the whole argument of legislating common sense, IMO. On one hand, a reasonable and prudent person would be expected to use utmost care and good faith in preventing their dog from attacking and killing someone. Here lies the problem... Reasonableness and prudence are slippery slopes. So, on the other hand, who will protect the innocent from either the predisposed dog breed or the idiot owner?? I don't have an answer.
As a father with little kids, I don't mind the lessened chances of my kids getting attacked by a killer breed, but as a libertarian type the other side scares me, too.
He will never see the inside of a jail. Rich people never do, especially for first offenses and even more so if they are sports stars. Remember OJ?
Dogs are like people, its breeding and environment. Its not the breed. Meanest dog I have ever seen was a chesapeake. Sweet like a lab but if you teach em to be mean and they show traits in that direction then you have one mean dog. Whew, man that was a mean dog. Damn near tore off a door to kick my ass.
And btw, my dogs are german shepards and they look like a police dog. Wouldnt hurt a fly. They would however use that nose to find your sandwich.
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
As a Pitbull owner, as with any breed, I am responsible if my dog bites anyone. People in Denver and surrounding areas that have banned pitbulls have NO RIGHT to complain about Mike Vick. They have allowed thier city councils to order the murder of over 1200 Pitbulls who did nothing wrong except be pitbulls. Kinda reminds you of something a short German guy did in the 40s to a number of ethnic minorities. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that a Pitbulls are more likely to bite than any other breed. I am a local dog trainer who works with aggressive dogs and know as a fact that the tv stations only report the pitbull bites. They dont report any other breeds' bites. The number one biting dog in America is a Golden Retriever. The number one biting dog in Jefferson county is a Lab. CDC states only that pitbulls and Rotties are responsible for more fatalities than any other breeds. If we ban according to that statistic then we also have to ban : deer, cars, alcohol, tobacco, GUNS, lightining, etc. Ban the deed not the breed. Don't believe everything you see on TV. Be smart dog owners with good relationships with your pets and good things will happen. My female pit is a Therapy dog and loves people and dogs. We go to an old folks home and they love her. If anyone is interested in the real facts on Canine aggression, pick up "The Pitbull Placebo" by Karen Delise. It has the real facts.
yep, its funny my german shepard has been full on attacked 3 times in his life with a couple of vet visits, he sucks at fighting, and all by black labs.
__________________
"I'm not here to make a record, ya stupid cracker" Governor Pappy O Daniel
Praise justice, it looks like the sorry sack of shit is going to jail after his plea deal. I certainly hope he does at least 6 months of actual behind-bars-time. Maybe him and Paris can get together and cry it out. Anyways....the evidence must be over whelming for him to plead guilty to a conspiracy charge. Personally, I think the prosecutors are being too easy on him. Off to jail, Sick Vick. I also hope this pretty much kills his career. We'll see in time.
As a father with little kids, I don't mind the lessened chances of my kids getting attacked by a killer breed, but as a libertarian type the other side scares me, too.
What defines these dogs as a "killer breed"? Because people who own them are too stupid or lazy to bother training them?
Dogs are smart. They just don't understand what we want them to do, because, ya know, they're not human. If people bothered to train their dogs right, so the dogs understand how we do and don't want them to behave, we wouldn't have this sort of problem.
As far as pits (or dobermans, or german shepards, or any other "dangerous " breed) goes, unfortunately, they do have a bad name for attacking only because there are idiots out their that believe they are aggressive dogs, get them, raise them and train them to be attack dogs because they believe that's what the breed is good at. People looking for a nice cuddly family dog or a companion are more likely to get a lab or something along those lines because they are the stereotypically "good" dogs. This is made worse by media emphasis on attacks by the dangerous breeds but not the "good" breeds, which just perpetuates the stereotype. I've know some very sweet, very cute, pit bulls that are like that because they were trained to be like that. I've known (and been bitten by, once) aggressive, mean labs and similar "good" dogs because they were not trained at all and/or abused. As long as those stereotypes are around, people are going to keep believing pits are dangerous dogs, raising and training them to fit that idea.
Hey Oopps, "killer breed" is a loose term and many breeds could fit the description, its not my term, the media is guilty on that account. You are right that training can determine most of a dog's behavior, but what about the left over instincts? I think all dogs have instincts dating back to the beginning of domestication. However, I think we all know why a breed is categorized and celebrated as such. Selective breeding has customized certain traits in all dog breeds. Certain breeds have more deadly potential than others, it is the pure and simple physics behind their characteristics. I do reject the stereo type that all pits or dobbermans or german shepards are "bad" or "killer" dogs, though. But let's face it, there are accounts of "good" family dogs getting loose with a pack and attacking or hunting, and people have paid the price with their life. The pack was doing what a pack is supposed to do. Or accounts of the family dog mauling or killing a toddler or baby. It is just my belief that certain breeds are more likely to follow instincts when absent a dominant alpha - in this case their master - and those certain breeds have the kill potential. I'm not talking bite potential, all dogs have the bite potential and I would think a pomeranian or pekenese would be the most guilty.
The kill potential, coupled with aggressive, poor or a lack of training could be enough to actually cause a dog to kill a person. But I think instinct falls in there, too. Who usually dies in dog attacks? I think it is young children, not because I have the facts in front of me, but it is nature, plain and simple. A dog that reacts to its instincts goes after the young and weak. I've seen multiple breeds of dogs track a small child, just as I've witnessed young big cats(lions, tigers, etc) track young kids - it was at a save the cats deal where you can interact with the young ones.
I don't support the ban on breeds, but I think it would be prudent to hold owners of certain breeds to certain containment and training standards. By the way, I think the meanest dog I've ever witnessed was a Chesapeak owned, ironically, by Mad Dog, a river guide I used to work with.
Linear Mode
