[Quote=Enright3]
This is a perfect example of perpetuating a huge myth. There are thousands, if not millions of dogs euthanized every month by overcrowded pet shelters; yet somewhere some bureaucrat want to show how humane
he is rather than show the system for what it really is. “Oh look we’ve retrained these dogs that had a ‘killer’ instinct bred into them.”
[/QUOTE]
What myth is being perpetuated? That pitbulls have a “killer instinct” bred into them? That’s your doing not some bureaucrat.
The dogs featured in the article are with non-profit organizations dedicated to rescuing pitbulls. There are similar operations for various other breeds, for mixed breeds, elderly dogs, handicapped dogs etc. Is one okay and not the other?
Additionally, Michael Vicks has been ordered to pay for all costs related to these dogs (housing, food etc) so taxpayers are not paying for any dogs that might be in a state/city/county operated shelter.
If the dog overpopulation problem is such an overwhelming concern to you, do you take similar umbrage at say:
-
People who breed their dogs because they think they might make some extra cash, sell the puppies to people who may breed the puppy they purchased (the offspring produced then perpetuating the cycle) or may give that dog up to a shelter because they can’t take care of
it?
-
People who don’t spay and neuter their dogs/cats and let them run indiscriminately around to breed?
-
People who impulsively buy a dog from a pet store or newspaper and then ship it off to a shelter when they can’t deal with it?
For the most part, these are the reasons why 4 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year. It is a huge drain on taxpayer money (not to mention
its potential for the spreading of disease and injury).
It is also, for the most part, entirely preventable if people would practice some semblance of personal responsibility. Yet, I don’t see any posts in Great Debates on the above subjects from you only some recreation outrage over a few dozen pitbulls that aren’t costing you a thing. Why is that?
[Quote=Enirght3]
Those dogs should have been put down. There are a LOT better candidates that could have been rescued.
[/QUOTE]
How do you know there are a lot better candidates for adoption? Did you meet these dogs?
From your article:
“The dogs have been under a constant microscope for six months, and have never shown one sign of aggression. Not one,” said Brandon Bond of All Or Nothing Pit Bull Rescue.
Seems like good candidates for adoption for me.
Here’s another article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/26/BA1CUM7M3.DTL
Again, sound like good candidates for adoption.
Most dog rescues have to pay huge amounts for insurance. A lawsuit stemming from a dog bite would ruin them. I seriously doubt they’re putting up dogs that going to go around attacking people no matter how much you’d like that.
[Quote=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I totally agree. Dogs for fighting are fighters both by training and by genetics: just like some dogs are bred to enjoy retrieving, and some dogs are bred to enjoy herding, some dogs are bred to enjoy fighting. A “retrained” dog may have a much lower chance of freaking out and killing a beloved pet–or child–than an unretrained dog; but it’s still a far greater chance than you’d get from one of the million or so dogs that are euthanized each year due to overpopulation. This is sentimental nonsense from people who don’t understand what’s going on with dogs in our country.
[/QUoTe]
2 million dogs each year are euthanized due to overcrowding not one million.
And how do you know that the dogs in the OP’s article are going to freak out and kill a beloved pet or child? And how do you know there is a far greater chance that these dogs are going to freak out and kill a beloved pet or child at a far greater rate than other dogs adopted from an arbitrary shelter?
Do you have any cites? Any stats? Other than scare tactics and fear mongering, what do you have?
Non-profit orgs. dealing with dogs like these have insurance costs first and foremost in their minds. One lawsuit, one round of bad publicity and they are out of business. To think otherwise is naive and simplistic. They cannot allow a bad dog to be adopted because they won’t be around if they do.
Not to mention, dogs don’t “freak out.” I’m sure there are some rare cases of brain tumors (IIRC, there was a problem with some Springer spaniels from a
particular genetic line) but dogs just all of a sudden snapping and attacking? Doesn’t happen. I would bet anything that in most cases where someone claims
their dog just freaked out, there were warning signs with the dog owner never properly socializing their dog in the first place and ignoring signs of escalating
behavior.
For the most part, pit bulls are dog-aggressive. I’ve never seen why people get in arms about something like that. I have a dog that is very dog-aggressive.
He’s not a pit bull and he’s never bitten another dog. Even though I live in a crowded area, it’s easy enough to deal with. Again, it’s a matter of personal
responsibility. The only problems I’ve ever encounter are with people who let their dogs off-leash (in areas that are clearly restricted to leashed dogs)
because they say they’re friendly (and apparently are therefore free to break the law and bother other people and their dogs). People with that kind of
self-entitlement shouldn’t have dogs in the first place.
For the most part, pit bulls are not aggressive to humans. While pit bulls were bred to be aggressive to other dogs, they were also deliberately bred
to be non-human aggressive.
Why is this? When you have dogs that are fighting each other in a pit, eventually you are going to have to separate the dogs from each other. A human
being has to do the separating. If you have a dog that is people aggressive, this becomes a problem.
IMHO, a well-bred, well-socialized pit bull is one of the safest dogs to have around people because they were historically bred to be people friendly.
This is a very good source of information on all things pit bull terrier related and it explains their history including what I’ve said above.
http://www.realpitbull.com
[Quote=GonzoMax]
That is what the representative of the Humane Society said on TV last year.
[/Quote]
The HSUS (if this is the organization that you’re talking about) has done more damage to pitbulls than Michael Vicks will ever do. Pit bulls were not that
common until the HSUS decided to scare up donation dollars by demonizing fighting dogs. They got their publicity and people who were never interested in
dog fighting decided to jump on the bandwagon (and no I’m not a proponent of dog fighting in any way shape or form).
Additionally, the HSUS lied about the manner in which dog fighters trained their dogs. Again, historically, the dogs were trained like athletes with conditioning was the important factor. Bait animals etc, abusing the dogs to make them mean…all a product of HSUS imagination.
I’m not a proponent of dog fighting in any shape or form but much of the blame for the increase in dog fighting in this country and the horrible conditions to
which these dogs are subjected lie squarely in HSUS’ lap.
But this is nothing new for the HSUS. They are essentially the same organization as PETA, they just do a better marketing job with the knowledge that people
are lazy and will happily donate when they see their glossy advertisements rather than do any real research.
http://www.cooldoghalloffame.com/dogs/fbi-investigating-hsus-fundraising/509
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
[Quote=j666]
I still think it’s a bad idea. Fighting dogs aren’t dangerous just because of their temperament or training. It’s a matter of musculature.
[/Quote]
And what of Great Danes, St. Bernard’s, Great Pyrenees, Old English Mastiffs, Bull Mastiffs, Irish wolfhounds etc. If it’s a matter of musculature, then they’re shouldn’t be any large breeds at all.
And Pomeranians, evil dogs that they are:
