LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007 From: Northern New Jersey Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: barelynangel LayfayetteLady, I have no clue what you are talking about. Where did i ever say there are dogs that are naturally more vicious. i SAID, and let me quote "I hate to say it but the irresponsible dog owner is the one refuses to recognize the very REAL possibility that their breed is one that has major instincts to attack or whatever its defined as. Caustion and realization and prevention are three things that make a responsible owner of these types of breeds. If you have an owner oblivious to the possible risk, that to me is when a dog is dangerous. There ARE DOGS that have major instincts to attack or "whatever its defined as." That isn't ignorance, its truth and if you deny same YOU are the one who is speaking in ignorance. The website has data that shows how many bites etc, show me a website that contradicts that. I haven't seen one. In fact i also posted a website that shows the DIFFERENCE between canine homicide and biting. Perhaps you are too eager to see my post as a NEGATIVE concept when it wasn't and you were too eager to want to say how ignorant my post was when again it wasn't. It was spot on to what most people are saying. As LaTigresse and others pointed out, it is ABSOLUTE ignorance to be in denial about your dogs and yes, on many occassions what a breed is capable of. If you seriously want to run around saying its okay to be ignorant and in denial what an animal breed is capable of when you own same, then fine, but i will disagree with you every time. Again, please show me a website contradicting the statistics. All that one webite does is state the statistics, but if you have different statistics then please show them to me. I never said anything like your last paragraph implies, perhaps you need to slow down and READ what was said instead of putting words into someone's post. That in and of itself is pompous of you to do. And if you read my post, you will see -- if you take your negativity glasses off, i speak of the OWNERS being in denial about what their dogs CAN be capable of. It is ignorant of an owner to own a dog and NOT be aware of what it is capable of -- if yo don't acknowedge what it is capable of how can you TRAIN it properly. And, yes, only someone ignorant would ignore what statistics do say, because like it or not, they show what a dog with bad owners can DO. Therefore, that gives them an idea of how to be good owners and train them a certain way. But of course, people can remain in denial and not train them with the understanding of what the dogs are capable of, and well gee, would that make them a BAD owner, yes? angel Gee, check out the bold areas....That's saying definitively (with a complete ignorance of dogs or breeding) that some are "known" to be more vicious. Perhaps you should read a bit of LadyConstanze's posts and learn a bit about dogs before stating things as fact. I realize it is a professional habit, but when you so obviously don't know what you are talking about, it is nothing more than being your usual know it all self. Quite obviously, you never learned much about statistics and you know NOTHING about statistical data regarding dog bites. Are you aware that small dog bites are not reported? The law (you are familiar with that entity, yes?) does not require it. What would that tell a logical person? That the data presented anywhere on dog bites is skewed and inaccurate. The ONLY (since you are so fond of your caps lock key) thing that you have said that has been FACTUALLY correct is that an owner must take responsbile for their pet, whatever it is, along with the concept that Sanity should make sure that he follows through the proper legal channels to make sure that the owners are held responsible for the damage their dogs did. You might be able to convince your bosses and others that you are a sharp cookie, but if you look at any of the other posts from people who actually are involved in animal rescue and training, you might actually learn something.
|