SOB's Collected Ramblings 

Remember the dog owner who had his dogs seized after they attacked another dog - Dogs, It’s Raining Dogs 2? - well it turns out that he is even worse than I thought. His excuse for not keeping his dogs under supervision says it all, people, all:

"there was no leash law at the time"...

So not only has he failed his dogs by not establishing who is the pack-leader, he would only do so if there's a law that tells him to!

This guy really doesn't deserve his dogs back. Really. He also said:

"The people had just moved in across the street with their German Shepherd, my dogs went over"

Who the %#&!*% lets their dogs meet and greet a new dog in the neighborhood without supervision?!

His dogs might not be dangerous, but he sure is! This guy shouldn't be allowed to have dogs, his attitude and his failure to understand simple dog etiquette is appalling.

Well, fortunately the State of Virginia and the Prince Edward County Circuit Court realizes that this guy isn't fit to be a dog owner and have impounded the dogs. Whether he gets them back depends on whether he agrees to

"to register them as dangerous, keep them in a special kennel, pay fees each year, have them on a leash and muzzle when out, spay and neuter, and carry $100,000.00 liability or surety bond on each dog."

or not after the case appeal has gone through the courts.

I initially felt for this guy and his dogs - I still feel for the dogs, but any sympathy I had for the owner is gone.

"there was no leash law at the time"...

It's a pity it's illegal to euthanize bad, irresponsible and moronic dog owners.

Imported from external blog

Why if the owner of the dog that my dogs injured feels compensated, I am paying the vet bill, his dog is o.k. now and says forget the whole thing are they trying to deem my dogs dangerous ? Please Visit my petition thank you and tell your friends.

Sorry, but I cannot sign this simply because I was raised with the principle that a dog that responds to aggression is aggressive.

I am sorry for you and for your dogs, but my principles and my dog ethics tells me that if it were my dogs, I would have to put them down.

I would hate it, I would cry all the way to the vet, but I would do it. Because in my book it's the right thing to do. I have very harsh and strict ethics that way.

Harsh and strict ethics??????? They are animals doing what comes natural!!!Why are you a member of a dog lovers group??? That is one of the dumbest damn statements I have ever read in my life. You should have just stayed out of this period. These dogs need to be saved, and if you can't see that, then you don't know the first thing about love for an animal. How dare you!! Sickening!!

I was raised on a farm. I love animals, but I also recognize that as I am the human, I have certain responsibilities towards my animals and towards other humans and animals. One is to ensure that the animals I have are not put in a situation where they can do harm or be harmed.

First question - What were the dogs doing "off-property"? Second question - Why were they there without full supervision? Third question - Why were the responsibility issue resolved in favor of the other dog's owner?

Something here isn't kosher. And if you think I shouldn't be asking these questions - then go thank S, as she was the one who taught me that what people say about situations like this are mostly lies. She said that in the Breeder thread. So I am asking questions.

You are humanizing the animals. Euthanasia must be avoided at all costs, no matter what the dog has done or how sick it is or how miserable...3 or 4 years ago someone here in this group spoke about their 11 year old, blind, arthritic and sick dog and how they had kept him alive for almost a year "so he would get the most out of life..."

If a 40lbs St Bernard attacks or responds to attack, the result could be deadly. Unfortunately we don't get to euthanize the irresponsible owner, which is more my inclination here, so lets settle for disagreeing with each other. Here in Sweden the dogs would have been put down the same day, had the incident been reported to the police.

Animals are not humans and it's time we stopped treating them as if they were. A human who attacks another or responds to provocation with violence is put in jail - we don't jail dogs, we euthanize them.

If Boris ever attacks another dog, or responds to provocation with aggression, I will put him down too. Have no doubt about that - and I love that dog. But then I would never leave him without supervision, which means that he knows that his pack-leader will deal with trouble so he doesn't have to.

That's where this all originated - bad pack leadership. I think there should be a penalty for that, for abandoning one's dog so it has to fend for itself in case of crisis - i.e unwanted attention from another dog.

"My animals are human to me"

Yes, and that's the problem with most pet owners - they think their pets are humans.

Boris is a dog. He is also my best friend. For me not to treat him right, like a dog that is, give him good pack-leadership and care for his needs of supervision, would be equal to throw out any human kids on the street and tell them to fend for themselves.

Now, you disagree, fine - but that doesn't make Boris "poor", he is a perfectly happy dog, well-adjusted, non-aggressive even under stress and provocation, and well socialized. Nothing poor there, Judy. He is just as a dog should be.

I find it amusing that rather than just not sign the petition, you felt obligated to make sure everyone here knew why you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't.

Just can't resist those confrontations can you?

It's not about the confrontation. It's about what I consider right. Irresponsible owners are the reason dogs end up in shelters, pounds and rescues.

They abandon their dogs mentally and/or physically to take the responsibility [themselves as] best they can, and then they [the owners] complain or start petitions when the law catches up with them for their neglect.

As far as I am concerned, this owner left his dogs, one pregnant at that, without the supervision and protection they had the right to expect from him. The dogs responded to provocation, alternatively acted aggressively as a result of being left without supervision, what happened is the owner's responsibility, and I think he should pay for it. Obviously, when left without supervision the dogs resorted to aggression. Safe, secure, stable dogs in their right minds don't do that, so something is not kosher here, which was why I responded.

"where did you get this information from? what book? or was it something you came to the conclusion on all by yourself? Go to a dog training class one day..go see how "untrained" dogs or dogs in a large group interact or show dominance..if it was up to you..LOTS OF DOGS WOULD BE Deemed "DISPOSABLE"!!"

I haven't said that dogs are disposable. I have said that dogs that show aggression are aggressive. And yes, I do believe that aggressive dogs should be put down. I really do. Why?

1. Because clearly there's a lack in leadership on the part of the owner if a dog feels it has to respond with aggression instead of leaving the response to the pack leader. Putting the dog down is not to punish the dog, but to punish the irresponsible owner . If you do not know how to assert yourself as the pack-leader you shouldn't have a pack, and the moment you have dog, you have a pack.

2. We have no way of knowing if a first offense is the result of bad leadership or a neurological problem. It's either or. We cannot afford the risk of injury to humans or other dogs. Really we can't. Dogs aren't humans, however much some would like to think so. They are wonderful, they are many times better than humans in a lot of ways, but they are not humans. And we need to stop thinking of them as humans.

A dog that shows aggression does so because it's been abandoned by the owner as the pack-leader. IME an owner who have abandoned their dog this way will do so again, and that will in turn cause the poor dog to respond to the stress of being without a pack-leader through aggression. Like I said above - I more inclined to have the owner euthanized, unfortunately that is illegal, so better remove the dog.

IMO unless a dog has been abused in some way, it's cruel to re-home it, especially if it's an adult, which is why I'd rather euthanize than re-home.

To me the owner posting first here doesn't deserve to have his dogs back - because in the end he will abandon them again, and put them in a situation where they feel they have to respond with aggression as response to something they needed their leader to deal with.

Is it unfair to the dogs? Of course it is. But perhaps loosing his dogs or having them rated "dangerous" will teach him not to put his dogs in a situation where they are left to figure things out for themselves.

[Yeah, how do dogs show dominance? Well, the one loosing a "bid for dominance" sure doesn't need veterinarian care afterwards. I have seen it in the dog yard that Boris and I visit daily. No dog in that yard has ever needed medical care as a result of ordinary dominance establishment.]

[I have two possible scenarios - 1. The other dog was male and the pregnant female attacked. There's is the possibility that he attacked her, but then he would be mentally unstable and would need putting down, no mentally healthy male attacks a female 2. The other dog was female - in which case it's either way on who attacked first. However, then the male St Bernard would not have attacked the other dog, unless he's not right in the head, if he did, he will need to be put down. What he would have done if healthy, is place himself between the two females without violence - to cool down the situation. But it seems both are being implicated, they are the ones being charged with being dangerous, they together caused another dog to be injured in a way that meant it had to have medical care. So...well you do the math.]

[As for where I got the information - my mother, Jan Fennell and Cezar Milan, now there are opposing opinions about some of Milan's methods, and from what I have read from AA's {Animal Activists} some of his methods are violent, abusive and harmful and thus I would not and have not used myself, however, he is 100% right that it is the human who is the pack-leader, and that the human who has to take control over the pack - in fact in this Jan Fennell concurs.]

What about when they are protecting their territory? Or protecting their owners? or protecting THEMSELVES!!!

The thing is, they shouldn't have to do any of the above, if they have to it's because the owner has stepped down as the pack-leader.

I have only ever once had an aggressive dog, which I also put down - she was an abused private re-homing that I didn't know had a history of abuse. She was wonderful with people but couldn't cope with other dogs. And yes, she was dangerous, really dangerous. Had I known her history I would not have accepted her, but the original owner gave me a song and dance about allergies in the family. I had her for about 6 months, thinking that if only she got a leader she would recover whatever it was that was ailing her. She didn't. She eventually tried to kill a 4 months old puppy, who gave every sign of surrender - after ripping her leather leash in two, . Was I responsible for that? Of course I was. I took my responsibility.

with police dogs..who is the "pack leader"??? the officer or the dog? perhaps you should tell the officers since the dogs show aggression to PUT THEM DOWN!

Ever heard of something like "commands" - it's what an owner or handler gives the dog to have it perform in a certain way [in certain situations]. Like chase down a criminal or growl - are those behaviors voluntary? Something the [police] dog does without the command to do so? No. Would a police dog that did so without having been given a command by its handler be out of a job on the spot? Yes.

I am sorry, but your examples are silly.

Silly??? my examples are Silly???

[Yes, they are silly, because they aim at distorting what I have been saying, you use specific examples to refute a general principle, you can of course do that, but it's intellectually dishonest as well as a logical fallacy, but saying they are silly is the polite way of pointing out that your sense of logic is impaired.

For instance:

1. Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
2. Surgeons cut people with knives.
3. Surgeons are criminals.

It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions.

I say: Dogs that show aggression are aggressive and should be put down.

From this you deduce that since police dogs show aggression [on command], I must be saying that police dogs should be put down.

A simple logical fallacy of refuting a general principle with a specific example that is obviously an exception. And yes, the seeing eye dog or guard dog is an exception too, because, as the police dog, they have been trained for a specific task, that [the training] in itself establishes the pack order. If you so wish, the police dog, seeing eye dog or guard dog has been trained to respond "as an alpha dog" under very specific conditions - the dog has also been trained to recognize when those conditions are being met. Should the dog respond with aggression out-side those very specific parameters, it is indeed responding aggressively where there is no need. Such a police dog, seeing eye dog, or guard dog is unfit for their job, and in my mind should be put down like any other aggressive dog.]

[What is really interesting in this discussion is that NON-ONE has bothered to answer my valid questions - not the person posting the petition, nor any of his friends. Also, no-one seem to have even read any of my clarifying statements, that should make it clear exactly where I think the responsibility for the aggression lies - with the OWNER, not the dogs. Further no compassion or concern has been offered to the owner of the other dog or the dog, despite the fact that it was injured, and the owner of the St. Bernards obviously assumed responsibility for the attack, or he would not have agreed to pay the vet bills, would he?. It was injured so badly that it needed the services of a vet! People, get real, there're a lot of things that needs questioning here. What happens next time these two family dogs get in a fray? - They manage to kill another dog? Obviously this owner can't ensure that he can be a pack-leader, so why should he have his dogs back? Because he loves them? The owner of the other dog loves his dog too, the owner of the next victim of this irresponsible dog owner and his leaderless dogs loves their dog too. Whose love is better than the other?

Imported from external blog