Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Exactly. These animals are not inherently 'dangerous' people raise them to be that way. If you raise them in a loving home showing them positive attention and caring they'll return it 10 fold to you in loyalty and affection. There are some cases where they'll have certain instincts that may seem aggressive, but such things can be taught to them to ignore or forget.

My mother has a German Shepard (easily 160lbs) and when my 2 year old nephew is playing with him that dog will allow him to do whatever he wants. Poke him in the nose, stick his hand in his mouth, yank on the ears and he just takes it in stride or licks him in return.

You raise them right, they'll turn out right. You raise them to be violent killers and that's what they'll be.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Holy crap, man, put that dog on a diet. Although maybe pudgy dogs are friendlier? This is worth investigation!

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Of course, why would a pistol in the hands of a criminal scum bag on average kill and injure much more than an assault rifle in the hands of a decent citizen in peacetime if it was the weapon that made the decisions?
A dog however has a mind of its own, even if it almost always follows what it believes is the will of its owner.


I wouldn't by the way have anything against killing off entire especially dangerous breeds, after all they have all been created by humans for more or less dubious purposes, licensing would just be more fair to those who for some reason unrelated to violence really love them (although I doubt you could find many, in my eyes there is nothing that would make an ugly pitbull a better pet than e.g. a Great Dane).


Yes, but some breeds are more dangerous than others. If you want a loyal and affectionate dog that doesn't kill strangers, the smart thing is to choose a breed that wasn't bred by people who wanted them to be violent killers.

She should put it on a diet, 160 lbs is around twice the normal weight for German Shepherds. Too many poor pets die early due to overweight owners treating them like themselves, i.e. with a terrible diet and no exercise. It is such needless cruelty, but I guess it has the small benefit of keeping dogs calm as they don't have the energy to hurt anyone.

Anyway, almost all dogs that were raised well are kind towards their family, even though children every now and then are maimed or killed by dogs they were left unattended with by irresponsible adults it's how they act with strangers that usually is the issue. If a dog snarls at or bites people who try to walk past in the street I don't care if it is a peaceful little sunshine at home.

Usually yes, but raising them right apparently isn't something most people are capable of especially when it comes to breeds with stronger undesired traits.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

There are no dog breeds that are bred to kill people. There are dog breeds that people choose when they want a dog they can train to kill people. It's an important distinction.

Domesticated dogs are domesticated. When they attack people it's because somebody tried to breed the domestication out of them.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I agree and hope I didn't give an impression of anything else. I should have been more careful with my choice of words.

My point still stands though, a breed with peaceful characteristics makes much more sense for a pet than e.g. one that was bred for dog fighting.

Not necessarily if they e.g. believe that their owner is in danger.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

My dog never attacked anybody when she thought I was in danger. I think you've been watching too much Lassie.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You dont NEED to 'breed' a dog with the specific goal of killing people. Humans arent difficult to kill. we are slow and squishy. ANY dog in the 90lb+ range can f--- your world up. What people bred were things like damage tolerance, bite strength and endurance.

The Bloodhound was bred specifically for hunting human beings down. No thought was put into making them bear fighters because by virtue of them being dogs of reasonable size, they were already a match for humans.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

The bloodhound was bred to track human beings, not hunt them. It was bred for olfactory superiority, not as an attack dog; it's a bad example.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dogs are individuals and it may never have been in a situation where it judged the danger to be great enough, if every dog of a certain breed went around attacking people the opposition against dog ownership would be much stronger than it is.

I never liked Lassie to be honest, but delivering newspapers is an easy way to find out some dogs can be very protective about their owners and perceived territory and that angry German Shepherds are scary, especially when you realize that the owner is completely wasted and you left your knife in the car.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

And if it believes you're in danger, you are in danger.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

tracking is hunting. if the handlers of bloodhound teams werent highly trained in dealing with and controlling their charges, dont think for a second that a bloodhound that just 'tracked' (e.g hunted) you down over 4 miles of rough terrain wouldnt then proceed to bring you down. with its teeth. painfully. Its an excellent example. Why waste scent tracking ability breeding a large dog to be better able to bring down bears or large game when it needs only be strong enough to bring down a fleeing person.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Possibly, but not necessarily, even a dog can be wrong. ;)

Consider a situation where you are out on a walk at night with your dog, lost in a phone conversation and are approached by a shady-looking stranger smelling of old alcohol and sweat who is listening to music and has started running straight towards you. You are made uneasy by the dark surroundings and further shocked by something in your conversation and send signals of fear that are observed by your dog, the next moment you run into the stranger. Is it an insane murderer who is going to slash your throat or just someone who has consumed alcohol earlier out exercising? Does your dog make the right decision?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Let's look at the definitions:

Tracking in hunting and ecology is the science and art of observing a place through animal footprints and other signs, including: tracks, beds, chews, scat, hair, etc

Hunting is the practice of pursuing animals for food, recreation, or trade. In modern use, the term refers to regulated and legal hunting, as distinguished from poaching, which is the killing, trapping or capture of animals contrary to law.

I bolded the important part. Bloodhounds were trained to track, not kill. They did not hunt quarry down "with their teeth" as you claim. The dogs were bred for their sense of smell; the dog's job was to find you so the people it was with could do what they want for you. Bloodhounds were often used in criminal investigations, and it'd suck pretty bad if the dog ate the criminal before the person could be tried.

Do you have a source that says bloodhounds are lethal killing machines or are you just making it up?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Source
Source
Source
Source

Your turn.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dude, here's the difference between dogs bred for fighting and mechanical/chemical/electrical weapons that humans use.

Normal weapons have one person who can choose what they do, and that is the owner.

Dogs have a mind of their own. Sure, they aren't terribly bright, but they can make the decisions like "defend!" or "fight or flight", that can end with some kid having a new furry, 150-pound throat piercing.

And as for killing them off: 1), we created them, so we can decide to "retire" the breed without much ethical qualms. You don't see too many dogs that were bred for turning roasting spits around anymore, do you? Besides, you don't need to take them out back and put a bullet through their brains, you can just sterilize them and they'll be gone in 20 years.


PS n0e, German shepherds are good police dogs, but they weren't bred for fighting exactly. They're strong, heavy enough to inconvenience a fugitive who has one latched on a limb, and smart enough to be trained for pretty much anything the police want them to be trained for. Sure, they can kill, but they're not quite as good as it as, say, a Rottweiler.

Roaming East: bloodhounds can attack, but they're really, really bred for the nose and the stamina. They rely on having a handler nearby to take down anything.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

What happens when they decide certain types of humans are more likely and more capable of committing crimes? Will we see genotypes like muscular strength phased out, or perhaps it's that thinking is the problem. It's a dog breed, but phasing out a breed opens a door to some disturbing thoughts.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Deal with each case as it comes, I say. Humans can be highly dangerous animals as well, but we don't ban those.

If a dog goes nuts and seriously hurts, or even kills somebody, then deal with it. Lock it up, put it down, castrate it, whatever is necessary. If a dog doesn't go nuts and hurt or kill somebody, then that's cool. As has been said before, although some breeds might be more prone to an aggressive disposition due to their breeding, if they're raised properly and taken care of well they'll never harm a fly.

You still have to be careful with certain breeds though. It is debatable that due to their breeding some dogs might be more prone to violent reactions to certain circumstances, but all dogs given the right (or wrong) situation can become violent, and in that situation some dogs can be more dangerous than others.

For example, with a canine like one of our English Springer Spaniels, the worst that could happen if you piss them off is that you get a bruised, slimy hand, possibly broken skin - they're gun dogs, originally bred to retrieve birds and rabbits and stuff after being shot, so their bite is pretty much physically incapable of causing serious harm to prevent them from causing damage to game. Aside from very young, feeble children, whom they typically guard rather than try to harm anyway, they can't cause you any significant harm, as well as being slightly harder to goad into that state of mind.

A Rottweiler on the other hand was bred as a large attack dog, with sharp teeth, a powerful bite, and a muscular body, and they can rip your throat out if you piss them off. Regardless of whether or not it is actually easier to piss them off because of their genetics, extreme caution still needs to be taken.

And all dogs, irrespective of how much of your body they can tear away with one bite, should never be left alone with children, so it's moot.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

my mother babies him. Although to be fair he has a huge yard to run around in and it's mostly muscle.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

As I mentioned earlier if you want to allow dogs and not guns then you need to advance a significant argument for it which just doesn't seem to be there. Most gunshots don't kill, at least as inflicted by a civilian, the people using the weapon have no real knowledge of how to do so and the weapon they're using is often illsuited to killing; being of low calibre, rate of fire, or accuracy. Just look at how few people are killed in school shootings compared to the number of shots fired.

Nearly four thousand people go to hospital every year in the UK with injuries from dogs, (3,800 IIRC). How much damage has to be caused before it's too much? Even if you can set that point at some arbitrary number, say a couple of thousand, then by contrast to dog injuries there were only 792 people injured with handguns in 2002. Why should dogs, which cause much more damage than handguns, be legal while the latter not? If you want to advance the argument on the grounds of how much damage is caused then dogs should be banned and handguns allowed. I think we've already covered the problem with an argument from the nature of the thing, so I don't really see there's anywhere left to go without making a recourse to a, 'damage doesn't matter,' kind of argument which would involve the logical conclusions and associated problems which you've pointed out. Gimme my guns or ban the dogs seem to be the only ways out of the problem.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I don't know if you've ever owned a dog before, and perhaps my family has historically invested in one of the most insane breeds available, but they aren't exactly the same as a 'point and shoot' weapon - as in, they don't always do what you want them to do. The vast majority of canines out there probably aren't obedient enough to use as a malicious weapon, but rather most of those injuries will have been caused by dogs out of control, or dogs protecting their property - even if they are protecting said property against people who are actually allowed to be their (a situation my father apparently found himself in when when I was still crapping my pants without knowing any better). They aren't necessarily responding to an owner's "KILL HIM!" command. You can't really use them for a 'school dogging', which sounds inherently wrong for reasons beyond this conversation.

As you know I agree with you about legalising firearms, not just limited to handguns either, but comparing them to dogs isn't really appropriate. Dogs are their own beings, some are better trained than others, but even the most highly trained ones can rip off somebody's face without their owner wanting them to do so if the situation arises. Guns don't leap out of a cabinet and murder somebody of their own accord, after all.

Which is probably an even better argument against dogs than anything, but it's not really an argument in favour of firearms at any rate. The danger of dogs is probably more comparable to cars - cars are one of the most lethal killers around, being as they are multi-ton chunks of metal which have a predilection for smashing into squishy humans at high speeds, but they are still legal and they're not really designed to kill. More often than not, it's not the car owner's desire to squish a dude all over the M54, but it happens regardless.

It's the purpose of the thing that's in question with firearms. Regardless of whether you think they should be legal or not, nobody can deny that firearms are explicitly designed to harm other beings, whereas dogs are just cute family pets with teeth that can sometimes go berserk and bite off somebody's family jewels.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Dude, they're dogs. They do not have the same rights as humans, and to our knowledge they do not possess the same ability for "morality" or a sense of right and wrong. We euthanize dogs every day because they are an inconvenience, thousands of them. Clearly we have a large distinction between dogs and humans. This argument reminds me of the anti-gay marriage argument about bestiality becoming legal once gay marriage does.

Matt: I agree with you on most things, but there are some dogs that very clearly were designed/bred to harm other things. Rottweilers are most accurately known as "Rottweiler Metzgerhund". "Hund" is the word for dog, and "Metzger" is a term for butcher. I think the only way it could be more explicit what there critters were bred for would be for it to be named a "Krieghund" or "Moerderhund" or "batshit-unsinniger bösartiger Hund"(use freetranslation =p) or something.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

A pitbull just bit someone in a nearby city 2 days ago, saw it in the paper. Police came and then the owner couldnt restrain it, then it bit an officer and was shot like 5 times.

I dont hear about this type of thing with weimrainers.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

"Metzger" is referring to the people he accompanied (like the shepherd dog), not an aggressive trait. The dogs protected the cattle of the local butchers and traders in Rottweil and were also used as shepherd dogs.

They are still valuable for the police because they are very intelligent, attentive, obedient and hardworking.

In the right hands, the Rottweiler is also a child loving family dog.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Poodle attack brings lawsuit - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
CityNews: 3-Year-Old Child Mauled By Dog
BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Toddler mauled by dalmatian

Shall I go on, or are you satisfied?

And just to show how mean Rottweilers (and similar breeds) are by nature:



So yes, let's apply stereotypes to animals. We do it to people, so why not?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Of all the Rottweilers I've been around they're just big and docile. I've only really had Beagles and they're pretty relaxed too.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Another pitbull attack in a nearby city... 2 pits jumped a jogger with her dog and mauled her pretty bad.

Yet another point for the pitbull genocide movement.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

How about a more logical approach? Registry for potentially dangerous breeds, to see whether you are a fit handler/owner of the animal because your behavior and training is a huge factor in the behavior of your dog.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You are legally required to register your pets. How many people actually do it, do you think? You can make dog registration for dangerous breeds the law, but then you have to enforce it.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

People dont have to do that for their own CHILDREN to see if they would be fit handlers / owners of their children.

And you can be the best pet owner in the world, when that dog snaps and follows instinct and gets just out of your grasp, it goes and does damage. Go ahead and try and stop a pit from attacking. If you are even successful, you wont come out of it unscathed.

This animal has no good reason to be domesticated. There are plenty of other dogs out there that are more stable. You should not have a pet that has a statistical record of being violent that you could not snatch up by the scruff of the neck and throw it across the room if it growled at your month old daughter.

I have cats. My parents have 5 and when I moved out, I got a 6 month old from a shelter. I had her declawed on all four paws and neutered. She cannot replicate and she cannot hurt me other than playful biting at the most. If she bits hard she gets swated. (Mental conditioning...she bits too hard she gets pain back)

But she is over 2 years old now and a tiny cat. She will not be any bigger. I have total control over her.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Declawing is inhumane. Is regular nail clipping really such a hassle that you had to resort to chopping the poor cat's fingers off? They don't hurt much when they're blunt.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Comparing humans to animals in the sense of laws is completely different because you can actually communication with a human verbally (unless they are deaf).

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Actually combat dog breeds do not attack humans any more often than other dog breeds.
They merely have the physical assets to actually do the most damage as they were bred for they stamina and damage dealing capabilities.

The most common attacker is actually your lowly dachshund.
The problem with combat breeds is, that they attack problematic breeders.
Most people would not get one, because they are labeled as combat. And very often those that do, do their best to bring the dog's agression forward.

You need to manage the breeders first, dogs second.

Also why the hell did you have you cat declawed?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Tell me about it, one of those little guys bit me in the ass. I don't know how it managed to jump high enough to reach my ass but it did. I definitely did not expect it.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Seriously, what's the problem with mandatory sterilization of certain dogs that have a higher risk factor? It'd be killing two birds with one stone, helping to reduce the stray dog population and reducing the amount of (severe) dog bite incidents. It's a hell of a lot easier to see and enforce than any sort of "breed certification", you just check to see if anything's danglin' and clip 'em off.


Yes, that only applies to one sex, but I'm still not quite sure how strict this board is on descriptions of female dog's genitalia, and I'm not really sure how much more descriptive I really want to be.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I agree with this. Not that i clip the nails of my cat, i just don't see the point. There's a scratching post, she leaves the couch alone. She's not likely to attack and when she does you can always see it coming. There are kids around the house but them nails just teach them pets are not to be fucked around with. That is, if you can't be assed to be enough of a parent to teach them that in the first place.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

So is neutering inhumane?

Funny thing is my cat was found as a stray when she was 3 weeks old. She was going to be put down, so me and my wife took her. She has been the best cat ever. We can play and do whatever to her and she wont hurt us.

Declawing is not inhumane. It is bad for cats to be outdoor anyways, espically if they have been indoors for a long time. There is no need for claws then since my cat is indoor. My cat does not destroy furniture and can do whatever she wants. She doesnt even know she has no claws.

Have you ever had a cat? You try holding a cat when it doesnt want to be held, let alone hold its paw and clip a claw. If you slip and you hurt them, you hurt them more over the course of their life than a one shot one kill deal of a declaw procedure.
She still has her fingers she just doesnt have the nails in between.

But talking about eligeability to care for another creature, human or animal, crosses species lines.

I would beg to differ based on pure stastics. You hear and can prolly find WAY more instances of pit attacks than a lowly weiner dog.

What the hell does an inside cat need with claws? Other than to destroy the furniture she loves to play with?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Is a hysterectomy?

It is inhumane, and declawing has nothing to do with indoor/outdoor cats. None of my cats destroy furniture because we taught them not to and gave them sufficient alternatives.

I have six, all with claws.Don't pick them up when they don't want to be held. :) I also clip the nails of all six cats. It's very doable, even for the ones that don't like it. Chopping their fingers off because you don't want to do it is really not a good motivation.Don't slip when you're holding them. :)

Do you actually understand how declawing works? They don't just remove the claws. Please read up on it, something you should have done before deciding to mutilate your pets.

What do you need your fingers nails for? Let's rip them out. That doesn't hurt, right? Have you ever accidentally ripped a nail off? Now take into consideration that a cat's nail is part of its bone, not a separate nail. Let's saw one of your bones in half.

It's unnecessary and cruel.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You didnt answer my question. You could stretch it to be "is any medical procedure humane".

So you still feed their urge for destruction instead of eliminating their ability to do it?

Easier said than done. Some cats wont mind it, others will struggle till their last breath.

Ripping off an arm is mutiliation. Taking out a claw is not. And she was getting neutered in the same operation so life sucked for a week as she wore a lamp shade to prevent the neutering stitches from bring messed with and she was on meds. Im sure she doesnt even remember it.

I dont oppose the idea of my nails being removed, dont have to clip them then. And if I got vikes afterward for a week? Hell yea. I'd be fine with it.

Cept that the nail is used also as a form of protection on a sensitive part of the body. Human nails are not needed for any "defense". My cat lives a warm comfortable life inside and can act unrestrained without me worrying about her destroying my furniture. She doesnt have any complaints.

Well if it wasnt for me she would have been euthanised at 6 weeks old. So she doesnt seem to think so.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I think I did answer your question.

They're sharpening their nails, not destroying things for the sake of it. In nature they would do this on trees, for instance.

I have some of both. They're just cats; you can control them long enough to clip 20 nails.

I think chopping a bone in half when it isn't remotely necessary is both mutilation and inhumane.

You'd object the first time you had an itch you couldn't scratch.

She told you that, did she? ;)

Your cat had no idea she would be euthanized. It's a non-point as far as the cat is concerned.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

The choices we're presented with when there is an owner who would not be willing to have a claw bearing cat are simple enough: Death or minor disfigurement. It may be a non-issue to the cat, but given that the cat can't choose the human chooses instead.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You're forgetting the option of not getting the cat and letting someone else get it. People who declaw cats are just another example of humans who don't have enough respect for their pets to treat them properly. Rather than raising the animal right and taking care of it, they would rather take a shortcut. Unfortunately sometimes when dog owners don't take enough of an interest in raising their dog properly and insist on taking "shortcuts" they end up with untrained (or mistrained) dogs that do not behave properly.

I think at shelters they should put "do you plan to disfigure your cat for your convenience?" on the application, to better deny those people pets. People who want pets should take it seriously, not just consider the animal property that they can do whatever they like with. This is one of the biggest problem-causers as far as aggressive pets are concerned.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Apart from for extremely rare breeds there are far more cats than there are potential owners. It's not a case of, 'can I get a cat, will one be available?' There are always cats going free. If a cat doesn't get an owner because we're being fussy about its claws being taken out then even if it's bought by another owner that's one less owner taking a cat out of the system and one cat more in the system that's eventually going to be killed.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

You don't honestly think that situation is indicative of human interference as well?

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I feel that removing the claws from the cat ruins the cat owning experience.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

Obviously the population has been artificially inflated. In the natural world they'd die of natural causes. Slow painful causes. Still dead though.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I agree with you that declawing is unnecessary, but finger nails are made out of dead keratin, not bone. So it's not quite the same, but yes it would still hurt like hell. From the diagram in the link you added, it looks as though then severe a tendon between the actual toe and the claw to disconnect it. It's not really chopping off a finger, it's more like severing the tip of it.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

The fact that they're not made of bone was exactly my point. It hurts to lose a nail, but when we lose a nail they a) grow back, and b) don't have to cut through a bone and part of our fingers.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

It's much easier, and cheaper to buy a scratching post for them. Or just build one.

Re: Dangerous dogs.
 

I find keeping a cat indoors all the time inhumane, but declawing, that is in another league. Poor little cat. :'(

Some people just should not be allowed to have pets. :vikki:


Your cat would have been better off dead instead of a life of suffering, but the only real solution would have been to accept it as it was. Some destroyed furniture is to be expected if you have a cat, get a bunny if you prefer having your cables cut.


As a piece of advice, keep quiet about your crime (although declawing actually for some weird sadistic reason seems to be legal in the US), people who mutilate defenseless animals are not popular.