I'm with Jim on this one -I think both sides make good points. It seems the world is roughly made up of the following:
(i) People who are dog lovers and will say "it's the owner not the dog" regardless of anything and treat their dogs like humans and make all the excuses in the world for them.
(ii) People who really hate dogs
(iii) People who don't love or hate dogs, but realize they are animals, not people.
I'm firmly in the third category.
I think to trivialize Jim or Brahan is dangerous. Having grown up with a really nice dog, I do think much is to do with the owner. But I also realize a dog is an animal and, for example, no matter what I thought of the dog ("soft as a brush") I wouldn't, for example, leave a big dog alone in a room with a small child. It's an ANIMAL and higher reasoning is one difference between humans (well, sometimes!) and animals. I think that's the point Brahan is trying to make. I also subscribe to the point of view that an animal can turn "nasty" even without prior indications (though this raises the question of what is an "indication", when does it have to happen, the frequency of an "indication" and even if there is one, does it matter?). Either you believe this or you don't -I happen to based on my experiences, so I don't think Brahan is crazy with that assertion.
Where I disagree with Brahan is his statement of putting them all down. That's ridiculous. Just my opinion! Crikey, just done what my mother always told me not to do -never comment on pets, children, family or politics!
Back to bikes.....
snapper_37 said:
Jim talks a lot of sense but so does Brahan, to be fair.
It's very simple.
The dog was only domesticated by humans for their own needs.
I would not trust my dog or any other dog off the lead in certain circumstances.
Let me expand. My dog that passed away was as soft as anything. I could have put a baby on the floor in front of her and no hassle. BUT, that is not what dogs are about.
Different breeds have different needs. They are built physically and mentally to be prepared to do certain tasks. Unfortunately, there are some SOBs who use the dogs as weapons to extract and use that basic need.
The Doberman who attacked Alec was probably doing what he thought was 'his job' and could have been freaked out by the bike. Now, I'm not condoning that, I'm just saying that natural instincts are still in-bred. So who is at fault here? The owner, who sounds like a responsible person, or the dog just going back to basics? Take your pick.
I have just taken my new dog out - staffie/lab cross and she has no signs of aggression. A dog off the lead, who was with sensible owners, came running straight to us. It IS intimidating but they hadn't bargained for their 'trained' dog to come running for another dog and not be recalled. Luckily, they played nicely, but it could have gone wrong.
Lisa21 - don't tell me you have had a life of pure luxury with the Weima because I am 99% sure that is not true? You control the dog, or the dog controls you ... but that is not the end of it.
Just my experience.
I don't know the exact history of the dog but that doesn't change the fact that years later the guy still has a reminder of someone's 'pet' on his arm. My point is that I see no reason whatsoever in having a dog which is capable of killing a human being. Ok so there's a grey area somewhere between a poodle and a pitbull terrier and I don't know exactly where it is but there are definetly some dogs that are more dangerous than others so why bother keeping them and having that potential risk around the house? I just don't get it.
had a jab to be on the safe side. they've given me a prescription for some antibiotics which might make me feel a bit queezy, so i'm passing on those, seeing as the wound was not deep and is healing fine.
.