A---holes with dangerouse dogs

[littlefish 578]

So, would you leave a child and a dog in the same room unsupervised?

 

 

Of course i wouldnt,i cant read a dogs mind so i use the common sense approach as i explained.....but to say ALL dogs are capable of biting is plain wrong.....they are not,we just dont know which ones would and which wouldnt hence safety is best.

 

I'm not convinced by your theory that all dogs are not capable of biting. They all have mouths, most have teeth and under the right circumstances, could use them. Think of the possibilites.....

 

Thus, your theory of dogs not biting/dogs being left with children to me, does not make sense and could be dangerous.........of cousrse all dogs can bite and to take a risk where a child is involved, to me is irresponsible. I would never take it upon myself to assume any dog won't bite, regardless of how well I think I know them.

[gnasher16 30,046]

i think its either genetic or down to poor upbringing, just because no known human biters are in a dogs recent line doesnt mean that it isnt there under the surface it only takes a recessive gene or a throw back to a trait from its ancestors to cause an aggressive dog, like in pitbulls and other fighting dogs you will get breeders sticking with a line in the hope that they will get that one game dog again further down the line, if they can and do get that trait whats to say a negative trait cant be carried in the same way in any dog. Also a lot of people will breed a dog without knowing its history so you get inbreeding which can cause its own problems, you could go on all day about the causes and never find that one concrete answer. In this case inbreeding could be a possibility as the dog was considered extinct in the UK due to having a very limited active gene pool.

 

 

Gamedog breeders stick to a certain line for a variety of reasons.....its generally accepted breeding principal that dogs will always revert back to the average of what a line has to offer.....what this means in reality is predictability.....the main reason for inbreeding within a line is to cut down on the amount of variables within what a line can produce meaning the traits both desirable and undesirable become easier to predict.

So if an inbred dog is highly aggressive it must have been a total fool who bred for it.....by rights the more you inbreed the more aggression you lose due to a loss of hybrid vigour....we know very few heavily inbred dogs make great athletes for this reason.

Having been on the recieving end of a dog wired wrong,a dog who i bred,whos parents and 4 generations before that i bred or at least knew,a dog who was raised and treated like gold dust....i find it a fascinating subject....but one to which i have never found an exact answer other than the simple laws of nature.

[gnasher16 30,046]

I'm not convinced by your theory that all dogs are not capable of biting. They all have mouths, most have teeth and under the right circumstances, could use them. Think of the possibilites.....

 

Thus, your theory of dogs not biting/dogs being left with children to me, does not make sense and could be dangerous.........of cousrse all dogs can bite and to take a risk where a child is involved, to me is irresponsible. I would never take it upon myself to assume any dog won't bite, regardless of how well I think I know them.

 

 

Your not undestanding what im saying.....not all dogs have the capability to bite a human,some just dont have it in them.....BUT....we dont know which dogs these are so to leave a child alone with ANY dog is wrong.

Its like saying all people are capable of killing somebody with their bare hands simply because all people have hands !!....they are not,some people just dont have it in them to kill a person no matter what the provocation......do we know which people these are ? no of course we dont until such occasions arise.

I wouldnt assume a dog wouldnt bite either......but i still know that some dogs simply are not capable of biting,just dont ask me to guess which ones !

Edited December 28, 2010 by gnasher16

[littlefish 578]

I'm not convinced by your theory that all dogs are not capable of biting. They all have mouths, most have teeth and under the right circumstances, could use them. Think of the possibilites.....

 

Thus, your theory of dogs not biting/dogs being left with children to me, does not make sense and could be dangerous.........of cousrse all dogs can bite and to take a risk where a child is involved, to me is irresponsible. I would never take it upon myself to assume any dog won't bite, regardless of how well I think I know them.

 

 

Your not undestanding what im saying.....not all dogs have the capability to bite a human,some just dont have it in them.....BUT....we dont know which dogs these are so to leave a child alone with ANY dog is wrong.

Its like saying all people are capable of killing somebody with their bare hands simply because all people have hands !!....they are not,some people just dont have it in them to kill a person no matter what the provocation......do we know which people these are ? no of course we dont until such occasions arise.

I wouldnt assume a dog wouldnt bite either......but i still know that some dogs simply are not capable of biting,just dont ask me to guess which ones !

 

You are right, I don't understand what you are saying. Iv'e read it and tried but I can't get what you are saying. How do you KNOW a dog is not capable of biting?

You keep saying some dogs are simply not capable of biting. How do you KNOW?They all have the gear, all they need is the motivation, provocation, pain etc.

[gnasher16 30,046]

You are right, I don't understand what you are saying. Iv'e read it and tried but I can't get what you are saying. How do you KNOW a dog is not capable of biting?

You keep saying some dogs are simply not capable of biting. How do you KNOW?They all have the gear, all they need is the motivation, provocation, pain etc.

 

I,ll make it simple for you.......do you believe ALL people are capable of killing another person if subject to the right provocation ?..........no of course they are not,there are some people who just simply do not have the core capability within them to retaliate with extreme violence.

 

Same thing different species.

[littlefish 578]

You are right, I don't understand what you are saying. Iv'e read it and tried but I can't get what you are saying. How do you KNOW a dog is not capable of biting?

You keep saying some dogs are simply not capable of biting. How do you KNOW?They all have the gear, all they need is the motivation, provocation, pain etc.

 

I,ll make it simple for you.......do you believe ALL people are capable of killing another person if subject to the right provocation ?..........no of course they are not,there are some people who just simply do not have the core capability within them to retaliate with extreme violence.

 

Same thing different species.

 

 

I don't believe dogs and people can be so simply compared.

[gnasher16 30,046]

 

I don't believe dogs and people can be so simply compared.

 

 

Dogs,People,Fish,Birds,Spiders......its called the laws of nature mate .....and we all live by them regardless of species.

[danw 1,748]

 

I don't believe dogs and people can be so simply compared.

 

 

Dogs,People,Fish,Birds,Spiders......its called the laws of nature mate .....and we all live by them regardless of species.

 

Can you explain what you mean by the laws of nature and how do you place man and domesticated dogs within the confines of these laws when their breeding and evolution has been artificially accelerated by unselected and over breeding?

As a hint Darwins theory of natural selection would be a good place to start

[robo-christ 40]

Thats exactly what im saying,its neither !...if its genetic its passed on,meaning somewhere along the line at least 1 ancestor at some stage had to be a carrier........but what if none existed ?...........if its psycological,it would mean the dog has experienced " something " that has formed an unnatural emotional characteristic within that dog.....again,but what if none existed ?

 

So,what does that leave ?.....The law of nature,thats what it leaves....and the laws of nature are not always fair or pleasant.

 

Its about time us as students of dogs and dog breeding realised that not everything born of nature has a precise and simple explannation.......if it did we would ALL breed perfect dogs ALL of the time as we would have no excuse not to !....fortunately its a bit more interesting than that and as individuals we use our own understanding,which is often the difference between a well bred dog and a poorly bred dog....( a breeders understanding )

 

 

genetic codes are complex mate,it could be recessive,it could be passively carried in almost all dog's but only actually show itself every now and then.

and even more complex is what goes on in the mind,thing's that happen while we're still in the womb effect our state of mind as adult's so do the chemicals in our food etc etc

 

it doesnt have to be a cataclysmic event,the fact is we almost definately don't know a fraction of what association's are made in a young pup's mind imo.

 

im saying it's nature or nurture,but not necessarily that it's something we can control

[danw 1,748]

Thats exactly what im saying,its neither !...if its genetic its passed on,meaning somewhere along the line at least 1 ancestor at some stage had to be a carrier........but what if none existed ?...........if its psycological,it would mean the dog has experienced " something " that has formed an unnatural emotional characteristic within that dog.....again,but what if none existed ?

 

So,what does that leave ?.....The law of nature,thats what it leaves....and the laws of nature are not always fair or pleasant.

 

Its about time us as students of dogs and dog breeding realised that not everything born of nature has a precise and simple explannation.......if it did we would ALL breed perfect dogs ALL of the time as we would have no excuse not to !....fortunately its a bit more interesting than that and as individuals we use our own understanding,which is often the difference between a well bred dog and a poorly bred dog....( a breeders understanding )

 

 

genetic codes are complex mate,it could be recessive,it could be passively carried in almost all dog's but only actually show itself every now and then.

and even more complex is what goes on in the mind,thing's that happen while we're still in the womb effect our state of mind as adult's so do the chemicals in our food etc etc

 

it doesnt have to be a cataclysmic event,the fact is we almost definately don't know a fraction of what association's are made in a young pup's mind imo.

 

im saying it's nature or nurture,but not necessarily that it's something we can control

 

 

You are right about genetic codes in this unfortunate case the dog was the product of a breeding program designed to recreate a breed through out-crossing to a number of animals which have a similar physical disposition I wonder how much thought went into breeding animals of a sound temperament or ones which just conform to "breed standard" in its looks.

[robo-christ 40]

tbh i think anyone trying to 'resurrect' any breed are the exact type of people that should'nt be breeding in the first place.

[bird 9,868]

the bottom line is this, any dog over 40lb can kill if it really wanted to. But some breeds dont have the power or the tenacity to do that (maime or kill) like other breeds do. And its these breeds which are (most) dangerous to humans, and while people want keep these types of dogs, like i said before it will keep happening. The post was about a powerful type of dog attacking+killing a poor woman. And if it had have been not so powerful+driven,the woman may have come out of it with her life fact. It is the breeds, it that in a feckin nutshell

[robo-christ 40]

no its the people who dont handle the breeds properly.

 

im sure most people here want more right's to defned themselves etc and just generally be free?

well with freedom comes responsibility,the government uses the excuse that we as a people cannot be trusted with anything that can hurt someone,when the fact is they don't give a shit about our safety,they just want us to roll over and let them take away our freedom voluntarily (not that we could stop them anyway without any gun's).

[robo-christ 40]

i just look at it this way,could the government force us all into slavery?

would we be able to over throw them?

 

they already have all our fire-arms,theyre taking away our dog's,next they'll move onto martial art's etc

 

and the majority of easily led people will not only go along with them,they'll support them.

[danw 1,748]

i just look at it this way,could the government force us all into slavery?

would we be able to over throw them?

 

they already have all our fire-arms,theyre taking away our dog's,next they'll move onto martial art's etc

 

and the majority of easily led people will not only go along with them,they'll support them.

 

Again I totally agree as I said in my first post on this thread I may not want or need a large/powerful dog but I am damned sure I will fight to keep my ability to decide that my self

 

I am sure if breeders where more responsible or accountable for the dogs they sell and the people they sell them too then this would be a much rarer occurrence.