Guess I should have been more respectful to the fact that my neighbor's Goldens were "bred to be family dogs" when their male raced across the street and tried to maul me. My bad..
Your assumptions speak volumes about your ability to comprehend sarcasm.
Ramblin Man aka "Waylon"she like shot straight up in bed and said "Where am I?" then laid back down and said "the turkeys are attacking, get the rabbits ready!"
2008 Arabian/APHA gelding
[QUOTE=Outrider;7441522]In this day and age we have WAY too many people, WAY too sensitive about WAY too many things and taking something that only deserves a "ho hum" response as a slight against themselves personally. [/QUOTE]
No one here has said pit bulls don't cause injury (or even death), BUT here's a couple flaws in that article that critical thinkers will notice:
There are no pictures of the dogs nor pedigrees. Doesn't say where the dogs originally came from, whether it was a breeder (and what kind of breeder) or a shelter or off the streets. All we have are the words of the media to go by. THUS - what it REALLY a pit bull? Or was it an American Bulldog (which is NOT a pit bull)? Or was it a Labrador mix (a lot of lab mixes are called pit bulls, but aren't)? Or a pointer mix like my dog? Or maybe it was one of the mastiff breeds! (A couple years ago a woman in San Francisco was attacked by a pair of Presa Canarios - BIG dogs, mastiff breeds, NOT pit bulls. Guess what the media did? Called them pit bulls. It took WEEKS for that mistake to be corrected, and even then it was barely acknowledged, so everyone still thought they were pit bulls.) Perhaps it was a boxer mix.... IF the dog came from a shelter or off the streets, there is no way to know for sure what it actually was! And since the general public (ESPECIALLY the media) are notorious for misidentifying dogs... I would not put ANY stock in a media report, UNLESS it posted pedigrees, registration papers, and very good photos with the report. Otherwise... if it attacks it is automatically labeled a "pit bull" no matter what breed it actually is.
If you watched the video it states the dog was an intact male. The majority of bites and attacks come from INTACT dogs, REGARDLESS of breed. Also states their second dog was a female, but does not state if she was intact. If she was, that could have had something to do with the attack - an intact male guarding his intact female who may have been in heat....
Article doesn't say what led up to the attack or how the dogs behaved prior to attack. A neighbor says "they always seemed like great pets" BUT how much does the neighbor really know about dogs in general and about these specific dogs? There could have been warning signs that were ignored: food aggression, stubbornness, disobedience. If these were dogs who had gone through an entire series of obedience classes and obtained their CGC, I would be surprised. BUT as far as we know, they never had any kind of formal training and were confined to the house day in and day out and allowed to get away with any every transgression... We don't know. This very well could have been a case of the "spoiled lap dog" gone bad, except with a large dog instead of a toy breed. We just don't know that, and the media will NEVER give these kinds of facts.
Finally, the media likes to play up the story, exaggerate, and get ratings. The media is a business, and NOT in the business of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The media is often a step shy of fiction in so many cases. There's a thread of truth woven into the entire cloth, and we don't know what that thread of truth is. When it comes to dog attacks, the media ignores those attacks that won't get the attention and ratings they want. Attack by Labs, Pomeranians, Chihuahuas, Huskies, Collies, etc. Those attacks are out there, probably equal to attacks by actual pit bulls, perhaps higher, BUT we never hear about them because no one cares. People only want to hear about and remember pit bull attacks. Kind of like everyone wants to remember the 9/11 attacks committed by foreign terrorists, but have all but forgotten the bombing in OKC by a homegrown terrorist. The general public wants someone to demonize, and it is typical "faux pas" to demonize "their own", whether it be their own people or their own dog of choice.
You might be interested in some of these articles...
Please note: My point in posting these articles is NOT to demonize other breeds, but to point out serious and even fatal attacks can come from ANY breed. Several of these articles actually have photos of the dogs, making it more clear what they actually are, where it is questionable in an article about a "pit bull" that won't even post pictures of the dog... I also want to point out a couple of these articles are about the same incidents. Notice how the articles can read differently depending on who wrote them... And to even the playing field I even posted the articles I found about my breeds of choice, the German Shepherd and Rottweiler. And these don't include the numerous articles I found that are no longer available on the web (includes recent reports! media seems awful quick to erase non-"pit bull" attacks from the public while keeping "pit bull" attacks around for years and years)...
I also find another fact interesting: A "pit bull" attacks someone and it is often killed on the spot. BUT if a different dog, such as a Labrador or Golden, attacks someone, they are often given another chance. One of these articles is about a Labrador who attacked a child. The neighbors weren't surprised, because the dog showed aggressive tendencies prior to the attack. Hmmm..... This just goes to show how biased society is against certain breeds of dogs, AND how irresponsible owners can ruin ANY dog of ANY breed. The problem is NOT the breed, the problem IS the owner.
And if you don't read any of these other articles, read this one:
The last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.
Viktor E. Frankl
"Those whom the gods love grow young" ~Oscar Wilde
~RIP Doe 1967-2010~
I love you and miss you
I wouldn't trust most Labradors with most children. The vet I work for who has worked with Labrador Retrievers his entire life says the same. While some of them ARE "family friendly" dogs... the majority are NOT. They're high energy working dogs who need a job, who can become human aggressive in the right circumstances, etc... not dogs to leave with your two or three year old.
The vet I work for owns two labs currently. Schooner and Cash. Both are field bred and trained, and very well trained and socialized at that. Both... if they're allowed to get away with it... would bite quickly if they got annoyed. They aren't allowed to get away with it though. So they stand it... but I know for a fact that they are well trained and well behaved dogs... but they would NEVER be left alone in a room with a child.
Same with ANY dog. There is not one dog breed that I would leave alone with a child under the age of 5. And at the age of 5, it'd be more like allowing them to play in the backyard together, or taking a well behaved dog on a walk. Not leaving them in a room together while I'm in another room. The dog has to have a place to escape. Not in every case, but most cases, the child is pestering the dog, and the dog is unable to escape, so it turns around and attacks.
But yeah... I don't at all like people calling Labrador Retrievers "ideal family dogs"... because they're NOT. While they CAN be... I'd prefer to see more of a guarding type dog like a German Shepherd or Mastiff or Croation Ovchar or something similar than a Labrador or other hunting type dog as a family dog. But even them... they're not nannies. They're not an excuse to leave your kid alone while you go do something else.
Maybe they're right
maybe there is something the matter with me
I just don't see how a world that makes such wonderful things
could be bad