Someone in this piece suggests that all Pit Bulls be singled out and heavy restrictions put on them.
Are these dogs any worse than Aunt Marthas little Pekingnese when it comes to bite risk in the presence of children?
Is it the dog or the owner that should bare to punishment?
For complete article click on link below.
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_112308_news_pit_bull_vancouver.1e172e86b.html
2 comments:
My dad was a career postal carrier. There were all kinds of dogs on his route, but the only ones that actually attacked him were a pair of "weiner dogs". They actually tore a huge chunk of skin off his knee.
IMO, it's the owners.
Bulldogs were bred for fighting, but how many attacks by bulldogs do you hear about?
What about wolf-hybrids? Is one generation enough to "domesticate" a wild animal? Yet how many stories do we hear of hybrids, or even feral dog packs, attacking humans?
Anytime someone says a dog attacked "without reason" or "without provocation" ... their story is immediately suspect. Unless a dog is rabid, it won't attack without provocation of some sort. Just because the human doesn't think there was reason for an attack, doesn't mean the animal thinks the same.
People who love dogs have some interesting ideas about how they think. They seem to see their dogs as children and, so, believe the dog essentially thinks in a human manner. Quite the opposite is true. Dogs are animals and they think like animals. They are afraid of things humans are not afraid of. They cannot be trusted to think like humans. They really like to eat soft and gooey things that would make humans sick rather than the hard kernels of pap they are fed. They attack for reasons humans cannot fathom. Who is to blame when the dog attacks? Certainly, both the dog, and the owner. Once the dog has attacked a human or animal, it cannot be "rehabiliated" so it must be killed by the owner. The owner, on the other hand, may actually see the error of her ways, but, since her ability to control her "pet" has been demonstrated to be so poor, she should never be allowed to have a pet, after paying all the victim's medical costs of course. One must ask, why do humans keep pets in the 21st Century? Are they the children people could not have, are they the soft fuzzy blanket people need, are the the current verision of slaves, are they the gun the human cannot stand to carry or do they enable the person's image as a German Baron sitting in front of a blazing fire with two huge dogs at his feet? Additionally, why would a person who needs the support of a dog buy a breed that clearly is a threat (like pit bulls and hybred wolves)? Are they having fun walking the line between good and evil, do they lack respect and responsibility toward other humans or are they just stupid?
Post a Comment