Another news story about loose dogs

[Sigarms]

There are legitimate kennels and trainers that advertise protection dogs

First, very few people are willing to pay what a properly trained "protection" dog will cost.

Second, and this is only my opinion, an animal should never be used for main objective of protection.

As long as my dogs alert me of any potential danger (which they do too good of a job, particularly with the neighbors guina hens) I feel as if they have done their job. It is my job to protect my animals, not the other way around.

 

[dave1949]

First, very few people are willing to pay what a properly trained "protection" dog will cost.

Second, and this is only my opinion, an animal should never be used for main objective of protection.

As long as my dogs alert me of any potential danger (which they do too good of a job, particularly with the neighbors guina hens) I feel as if they have done their job. It is my job to protect my animals, not the other way around.

I did notice they were pricey - like starting at $8,000. So I agree that is a limited market. Some also claim to train police K9, drug, explosive, etc. dogs. I think if a police dept. gets a dog, it generally costs much more than $8K.

Like you, my basic instinct is don't send a dog to do a man's job, but:

In some fairly unusual combinations of situations I think a protective dog may be one of a few options. Let's say the person is not ambulatory or would be unable to use a firearm or younger teens home alone, and for some reason lives in an area where they don't feel safe. If the mere presence of the dog deters a crackhead-type or opportunistic intruder, it has done it job. That takes the right kind of dog with some training.

Something I wondered about while I was surfing schutzhunds - would training for schutzhund make a dog more or less apt to bite someone outside of training or competition? I don't know, but would think the training makes it less likely. Any ideas or experience on that?
Dave.

 

[Sigarms]

or younger teens home alone

Teach them responsible gun ownership and how to use them.

and for some reason lives in an area where they don't feel safe.

I'd move

Let's say the person is not ambulatory or would be unable to use a firearm

I'd guess that the people you've just mentioned that have a trained dog strictly for the use of protection would be almost nil if somehow you could compile some statistics.

If the mere presence of the dog deters a crackhead-type or opportunistic intruder, it has done it job.

I agree, a dog is a great deterent, however the question IMO is if that is the sole reason why you got the animial. Even in my area, we still have chained "junk yard dogs" (that lead a wonderful life I'm sure) to "protect" some rinky dink business after hours. However, there are always ways around a dog. You probably couldn't drive to my house without me knowing it, however, even if you got to the house unobserved, you couldn't actually come up to the house with my dogs making you think that you wouldn't want to come in (and all are actually harmless I think).

But then again, the question is IMO is why you got the dog.

That takes the right kind of dog with some training.

And I think those people and dogs would be in the minority by a great degree.

One reason why we've had the one Am Staff so long in our care is due to the reasons why people actually want her. More than a couple for protection, some for breeding, and some to be honest, I just didn't like the looks of them and their stories didn't make sense. I'm not sure, but I think she may not be going anywhere now.

God forbid people actually get a domesticated dog to love as a family member.

I don't know, but would think the training makes it less likely.

I would agree.

However, no matter how well you know your animal or how well it is trained, IMO I'd NEVER let a very young child in the presence of any dog without adult supervision. For myself, that's just common sense. I'm guessing though that some people who own dogs don't have much common sense.

 

[Western]

To me, it isn't about the breed so much, well maybe a little. A large animal with a "propensity" to aggression is just a time bomb, I suppose that could be any large breed when the proper environment is reached. I do think some breeds have a lower threshold and that would be the ones that seem to get into the news frequently.

Could you imagine an 80-100 pound chihuahua or rat terrier??

When I was a kid, I was bitten pretty good by a German Sheppard, I blamed the dog then and couldn't understand why my parents where more upset at ME?? I understand now, I had went into a neighbors fenced yard to retrieve a Frisbee. I had went into HIS territory. Had he been out running around, the rules may have changed.

To me the larger the breed the larger the responsibility, it all falls on the owner, so to me this 1 fact takes out all the argument over breed specifics. If you have an animal with the capability to cause serous damage it "should" behoove you to contain that animal.

I agree that allot of this problem arises from testosterone or the "cool" factor, which to me is great if the owner understands his true responsibilities.

 

[dave1949]

Teach them responsible gun ownership and how to use them.

I'd move

I'd guess that the people you've just mentioned that have a trained dog strictly for the use of protection would be almost nil if somehow you could compile some statistics.

I agree, a dog is a great deterent, however the question IMO is if that is the sole reason why you got the animial. Even in my area, we still have chained "junk yard dogs" (that lead a wonderful life I'm sure) to "protect" some rinky dink business after hours. However, there are always ways around a dog. You probably couldn't drive to my house without me knowing it, however, even if you got to the house unobserved, you couldn't actually come up to the house with my dogs making you think that you wouldn't want to come in (and all are actually harmless I think).

But then again, the question is IMO is why you got the dog.

And I think those people and dogs would be in the minority by a great degree.

One reason why we've had the one Am Staff so long in our care is due to the reasons why people actually want her. More than a couple for protection, some for breeding, and some to be honest, I just didn't like the looks of them and their stories didn't make sense. I'm not sure, but I think she may not be going anywhere now.

God forbid people actually get a domesticated dog to love as a family member.

I would agree.

However, no matter how well you know your animal or how well it is trained, IMO I'd NEVER let a very young child in the presence of any dog without adult supervision. For myself, that's just common sense. I'm guessing though that some people who own dogs don't have much common sense.

All good points SigArms. I am just examining the concept of dog ownership here, not trying to tell others what to do or not. Looking at the human side of the man-dog situation. Yes, a chained 'junk yard' dog is a sad thing indeed.

For 95% of dog owners, I would guess dogs serve no other purpose than to be a non-judgemental companion and bark when someone comes up the drive. Nothing wrong, and a lot right about that. For families, kids can learn alot about animal respect and care by example from the family dog, and that's good.

There are real working dogs however for herding, rescue & tracking, handicapped service, drugs & explosives, cancer detection (very new), epilepsy early warning and a few for protection too. If a person wants to have a trained protection dog, I don't see why that is a problem. I don't see it as abusive to the animal. Maybe I am missing something there.

Going back to the concept of how does it come about that dogs kill and severely injure people, I think the people side of it is where changes could happen that would reduce the number of incidents. How to get folks to see that, may begin by understanding the motivations for dog ownership through public awareness and education. What's cool and what ain't. Granted, for some people it will never work, but who is to say it may not have helped in the case that started this thread? Did these dog owners really understand what they owned - let alone why?

Sorry to have picked at a topic until it bleeds.
Dave.

 

[Sigarms]

Sorry to have picked at a topic until it bleeds.

Comes with the territory of the topic I guess

Guess you have a couple of factors on this topic that include rights of the indivual and the rights the public has to safety. Also to some point IMO is the fact of all the dumped animals in our society that need to be put down. Throw all these together and stir, and it can be an interesting topic

If a person wants to have a trained protection dog, I don't see why that is a problem. I don't see it as abusive to the animal. Maybe I am missing something there.

If a person wants a mutt hey can get a mutt. Problem is, some don't know the responsiblity of actually owning a dog IMO and guess what happens when real "work" is involved in training the animal? Now, make that mutt a trained guard dog, and IMO the responsibility "level" goes up fourfold IMO, as well as a person who wants to own a "bully breed".

Perhaps, and I'm just throwing it out there, if a individual wants to own an animal that is consider aggressive and or dangerous, they should be required to "jump through some hoops" to get the animal other than just paying a buck? However, get the state or goverment involved and we know what can happen. Then again, throw in some back yard breeders who know for whatever reason people want a "pit bull" and they can make some money not caring who they sell the animal just as long as it looks like a "pit bull", chances are you'll have some real interesting people paying $200 for a real "pit bull".

Could you imagine an 80-100 pound chihuahua or rat terrier??

I would sincerely be afraid. I've mentioned it before, out of ALL the dogs that I have worked with, on average the chihuahua is one of the most aggessive dogs I've come across. One of the few dogs that actually bit me which came out of nowhere. God, I had to hold myself from wanting to punt that dog. Now, that is not to say all chihuahuas are agressive.

Out of all the dogs I have, our Jack Russell mix is the most fearless and tenacious (sp?). Scared the crap out of me when I saw her dragging a ground hog up the hill (drag 5' stop take a break, then drag another 5' and kept on going).

Perhaps thats why they say a guy suffers from "short man syndrome" when he's always looking for a fight.

which to me is great if the owner understands his true responsibilities.

On that subject, we just had a ruling here in North Carolina

NC judge: Pit bull attack not assault

What I find amusing is the picture they have of the "pit bull".

Something some may find interesting...

Pet Pitbull - Find the Pit Bull

 

[Bird]

On that subject, we just had a ruling here in North Carolina

NC judge: Pit bull attack not assault

What I find amusing is the picture they have of the "pit bull".

So the picture in the news article is not a pit bull, but we don't know whether that's a picture of the dog(s) in question or a stock photo that the news media had and used. One thing we do know though, and that is that there's another sorry judge who needs to be gotten off the bench.

 

[dave1949]

So the picture in the news article is not a pit bull, but we don't know whether that's a picture of the dog(s) in question or a stock photo that the news media had and used. One thing we do know though, and that is that there's another sorry judge who needs to be gotten off the bench.

I notice he urged the legislature to change the law. I guess he felt the current law wouldn't permit him to use it in this instance. I know what you are saying, but if the current law really is not applicable, his ruling would likely have been overturned on appeal. I would imagine the state representatives of that district got a few letters. Blaming the judge could be blaming the messenger.

If his ruling was correct, at least he put the law above other motivations - trying to find a bright side here Bird. If his ruling lacked guts, I don't know what would be in it for him to rule as he did, certainly not good publicity. I suppose he could have ruled it met the definition of assault just to put the owner through some legal heck. Or, for all I know, he just doesn't believe in locking up some good 'ole boy for letting his dogs get a 'little' out of hand.

If he is an elected judge, owners of mauling dogs can't represent much of a voting block.

You had a long career as a law officer and I imagine you met your share of feckless or confused judges.
Dave.

 

[Bird]

You're right, Dave. I'm not familiar with the wording of the law in other states, so there is the possibility the judge "interpreted" the law correctly. Of course, if judges are elected there, as they are in Texas, there are other possiliities as well. You know there's an old saying in Texas that "We have the best judges money can buy".

 

[Sigarms]

So the picture in the news article is not a pit bull, but we don't know whether that's a picture of the dog(s) in question or a stock photo that the news media had and used.

That is besides the point.

What is the point is the general ignorance shown by the news organization in trying to get it's facts straight. Given time and the knowing the general public, I have no doubt that if the news only had a stock photo of a chihuahua and had shown it saying the dog in the picture was a "pit bull", some people would beleive a chihuahua is a pit bull (sad but true in our society).

Here is a thought. Perhaps this is one reason (misidentification on a breed) why the stats on the pit bull could be misleading.

Anyone here who has some basic knowledge on firearms realizes the news does the same thing with firearms. Picture on the news of a Smith 686 and the reporter said it was a semi auto used in the crime Wonderful education we sometimes get on the news. I'm also still waiting to own one of the plastic guns that you can sneak on the plane because they won't show up on the metal detector LMAO

One thing we do know though, and that is that there's another sorry judge who needs to be gotten off the bench.

I'm not sure why. It's not for the judge to have commone sense (which I'm sure most have) but to follow the "letter of the law". The story mentioned that this was the first case of it's kind in NC (if we can beleive that). The judge however did make the reccomendation that the law be rewritten. This leads me to beleive that the judge did not agree with what he had to work with (as Dave mentioned).

I could be wrong (which I usually am) however I also beleive it was you who told me in another thread that I was nuts (or something along those lines) when I compared dogs to firearms and the responsibility people must show in owning both. Well, to some extent, the law and judge is agreeing with you.