Cat Forum / General Topics / April 2006
cat haters
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Not so quick - 20 Nov 2003 22:05 GMT I used to be a typical cat hater. I never did anything mean to cats but I laughed at the jokes where cats were made fun of and laughed at the idea of turpentine on a cat's butt, etc. I didn't think it was a big deal that a friend at work strangled a cat (I didn't eat lunch with him any more though).
But since I've gotten to know cats it seems impossible that anyone but the sickest would hate cats once they got to know one that was nice. Maybe a feral cat or a disagreeable cat might give someone a bad impression but when you look at pit bulls as pets it makes one wonder what standards people use to measure suitability of a pet.
Our cats sleep with up. One can find a way to sit on your shoulder, at least twice a day (there is no defense). Another takes care of the other cats and nurses two even though she has never had kittens of her own and is spayed. They all get along with our new chickens (finally). They are all individuals with separate and unique personalities and they all have taught me something, one profound about not be concerned about physical appearances (she has a marking that looks like a bugger under her nose and I called her moco for a while. She's also the one who nurses the other cats.
I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm wondering if you are of the same opinion that the cat haters just haven't really had any experience with cats. It's hard for me to believe that there harsh words are based on something other than identifying with other people who had no experience either.
Iso - 20 Nov 2003 22:54 GMT Not so quick,
Regarding your measure of suitability of a pet, why did you choose the breed Pit Bull? Why not Presa Canario, Rottweiler, or Doberman? I am by no means attacking your post, I am just curious.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 08:55 GMT > Not so quick, > > Regarding your measure of suitability of a pet, why did you choose the > breed Pit Bull? Why not Presa Canario, Rottweiler, or Doberman? I am by no > means attacking your post, I am just curious. A friend was bitten on the face by hers. Two of my daughters friends have small children and a pitbull. And probably because of all of the horrible stories I've read that may or may not be media exaggerations... well not exaggerations but not complete in not naming the other dogs as well if they are as prone to sudden changes in behavior that are so violent.
I guess Chow Chow falls into that class too, although they seem like lovely dogs.
Sherry - 21 Nov 2003 13:06 GMT >A friend was bitten on the face by hers. >Two of my daughters friends have small [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I guess Chow Chow falls into that class too, >although they seem like lovely dogs. I think you'll find other breeds in dog attacks, but I'd guess a very hiighpercentage *are* pits. After all, they're bred for aggressiveness, since dog fighting is alive and well in the US.
Agua Girl - 21 Nov 2003 15:10 GMT > >A friend was bitten on the face by hers. > >Two of my daughters friends have small [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hiighpercentage *are* pits. After all, they're bred for aggressiveness, since > dog fighting is alive and well in the US. The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is with the damage they can do. The number one biter is actually the Cocker Spaniel. Logical since the dog was bred to herd sheep and the way they do that is to nip at the heels of the sheep. Pits have strong locking jaws. They are not naturally more aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or want a vicious animal because of their strength. They teach the dog from day one to be mean or vicious. The only problem with the breed itself is when it does bite, it does serious damage unlike a Cocker Spaniel. I know a lot of pits that are sweet loving family dogs and are not any more likely to turn on someone than my Golden Retriever was. It's not in the "nature" of the breed...it's in the nature of the owners.
And Dog fighting isn't legal in the US..it's just a really big place with a lot of dogs and not enough Animal Cops so it's hard to control.
AG
Torllorllorllorllski Blueprinting & Balancing - 21 Nov 2003 17:28 GMT Agua Girl aka Blonde DumbAss flushed and wrote :
>> >A friend was bitten on the face by hers. >> >Two of my daughters friends have small [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >AG You don't know a fuhking thing about dogs either, Blondy. No one will ever know that you've had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the scars and learn to control the slobbering.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT > Agua Girl aka Blonde DumbAss flushed and wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > ever know that you've had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the > scars and learn to control the slobbering. Just curious. How old are you?
Nadine - 21 Nov 2003 18:39 GMT AG wrote:
>The problem is not with how often pits >attack..the problem is with the damage they can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >not in the "nature" of the breed...it's in the >nature of the owners.
>And Dog fighting isn't legal in the US..it's just a >really big place with a lot of dogs and not >enough Animal Cops so it's hard to control. I agree 100% with this! Very well said.
Orchid - 21 Nov 2003 19:22 GMT >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is >with the damage they can do. The number one biter is actually >the Cocker Spaniel. Logical since the dog was bred to herd >sheep and the way they do that is to nip at the heels of the sheep. Are you out of your mind? Cocker spaniels are sporting dogs, like every other spaniel. They are bred to work through heavy brush to flush birds, and then to retrieve them after they are shot down. The cocker biting issue comes from poor breeding practises in the 50's that introduced rage syndrome into the breed.
>Pits have strong locking jaws. This is a complete myth. Neither American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have 'locking jaws'. Their jaws are no different than any other dogs' in a mechanical sense. No extra muscles, no 'lock', nothing.
>They are not naturally more >aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or >want a vicious animal because of their strength. They teach the dog >from day one to be mean or vicious. The only problem with the >breed itself is when it does bite, it does serious damage unlike >a Cocker Spaniel. Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive. A well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive. Unfortunately, because they are the currrent fad in ''ghetto dogs", you get atypical behaviours and temperaments such as human aggressiveness.
And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in attacks. Usually to the face.
Orchid
Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:40 GMT > >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is > >with the damage they can do. The number one biter is actually [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage > Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid Something makes it necessary, in some cases, to pry their mouths open in cases where they have been hanging on to their victims.
Orchid - 21 Nov 2003 19:55 GMT >Something makes it necessary, in some cases, to pry >their mouths open in cases where they have been >hanging on to their victims. Stubborness. We *are* talking about terriers here. I am a groomer and a trainer/behaviourist, and I've had to pry open the mouths of Yorkies, Westies, and Airedales before. All dogs have very powerful jaws. Just look at the tug of war games that people play with their dogs. An excited dog will clamp down on that rope (or whatever) and people can lift their dogs off the ground if they're strong enough. Dogs are predators, and they are predators designed to get a grip on something and not let it go. Their physiology reflects this. Pit bull type dogs have been bred to have an extremely high prey drive. They have also been bred to view other dogs as prey. This is where dog aggression comes in. Guarding breeds have been bred to have high prey drives and to see humans other than those in their pack (family, a handler, whoever) as prey. Pit bull type dogs, by the way, are lousy guard dogs.
Orchid
Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid
Agua Girl - 22 Nov 2003 07:25 GMT > >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is > >with the damage they can do. The number one biter is actually [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The cocker biting issue comes from poor breeding practises in the 50's > that introduced rage syndrome into the breed. No, not out of my mind, merely repeating what was reported. I know Cockers are sporting dogs..I do watch Westminster..but the report that stated there were more "dog bites human" reports against Cockers than any other breed went on to state the dog was originally bred to herd hence the propensity to bite. I took it at face value, assumed they must have been working dogs some time in the past. I appreciate your clearing up the misnomer even if you chose a particularly bitchy way of doing so.
> >Pits have strong locking jaws. > > This is a complete myth. Neither American Pit Bull Terriers, > American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have > 'locking jaws'. Their jaws are no different than any other dogs' in a > mechanical sense. No extra muscles, no 'lock', nothing. So sue me for buying into a really common myth. There are 100's of newsreports each year that make that claim. I am not a vet, haven't studied canine anatomy..so I believed what I read, heard and saw.
> >They are not naturally more > >aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they are the currrent fad in ''ghetto dogs", you get atypical > behaviours and temperaments such as human aggressiveness. I disagree with this. Your statement says they are genetically dog aggressive..which would mean they all were automatically. Two of the pits I know are not necessarily well trained or well bred.. but they are both quite passive to dogs, cats and humans. I don't believe it's a genetic trait and since the jury is still out on genetic versus environment on humans I find it hard to believe we know this for sure about dogs. Of course if you want to point me to a link that scientifically proves it.......
> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in > attacks. Usually to the face. Yeah....we hear about people being seriously mauled and killed by Cocker Spaniels all the time. Pit Bulls have been scientifically proven to provide more pressure per sq inch in their jaws than most (not all, most) other breeds. This is a known...which is probably where the 'stronger and even the 'locking belief comes from. You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck doing that with a pit.
AG
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 11:27 GMT AG wrote:
> I disagree with this. Your statement says >they are genetically dog aggressive..which [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >dogs. Of course if you want to point me to a link >that scientifically proves it....... AG, the vast majority of Pits are dog aggressive, it's one of the draw backs of the breed. All of the Pit Bulls I have met are, and that's quite a few. Mine is fine with my other two dogs (she was 6 weeks old when introduced to them) but she absolutely hates other dogs, and has since she was around 6 months old (went after my brothers 11 yr old Chow mix). I raised her the same as my other dogs and with them I have always been able to introduce other dogs to them, but not her. I knew this about the breed before I got her and expected it, but I thought maybe I could get around it with proper training/socialization/introductions, but no go. I tried introducing her to a few different dogs, including puppies and if I had let her she would have attacked them. As for people and cats, well she adores both doesn't matter if they are children/adults or kittens/cats. Liking cats isn't what I would call the norm for the breed, but she does. LOL, as I am typing this all 5 of my 5 week old foster kittens are playing on her, one has it's head in her mouth having a good old time, and she is loving it.
Nice Guy - 22 Nov 2003 13:44 GMT Agua Girl flushed and wrote :
>> >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is >> >with the damage they can do. The number one biter is actually [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > >AG Wouldn't clues have more room to fit in your head if you got rid of some of the sh.t in there? Do the human race a favor: never breed.
Terri Gouge - 28 Nov 2003 23:56 GMT I attended a lecture last week on dog t dog aggression, and the lecturer who is a professional dog trainer, stated that dogs are not born with a gene that makes aggressive, its in the way they are raised that makes them aggressive and in how they are socialized when they are puppies.
> Agua Girl flushed and wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Wouldn't clues have more room to fit in your head if you got rid of > some of the sh.t in there? Do the human race a favor: never breed. oldmolly - 29 Nov 2003 13:23 GMT > I attended a lecture last week on dog t dog aggression, and the lecturer who > is a professional dog trainer, stated that dogs are not born with a gene [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > >clearing up the misnomer even if you chose a particularly bitchy way > > >of doing so. I am amazed that a report from your top dog show is completely wrong. Cockers, originally an English working gundog, and *still* used as such today, were bred to 'cock' game birds. I.e. flush them up into the air sor that they can be shot. *Corgis* however, were and are, cattle droving dogs, bred to rush in and bite the hells of cattle to get them moving. The fact that one of your top dogs shows has got the 2 breeds confused makes me wonder how much more misinformation is spread over there by an organisation which should know better.
> > >> >Pits have strong locking jaws. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > >of newsreports each year that make that claim. I am not a vet, haven't > > >studied canine anatomy..so I believed what I read, heard and saw. The jaws of certain breds are stronger, and can exert more PSI pressure than others. Rottweilers, and most of the bull breeds could be thus described.
> > >> >They are not naturally more > > >> >aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > >> > > >> Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive. Sadly you are correct in this. Generally unless a bull breed is extremely well socialise as a pup it will always be a risk to other dogs and small animals. The same is true though of any terrier.
>A > > >> well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive. Unfortunately, because [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > >for sure about dogs. Of course if you want to point me to a > > >link that scientifically proves it....... There is no science involved I'm afraid. Just simple genetics. Study any purebred dog with a specific use.
A collie will still work and herd even if it has been a house pet all of its life. A spaniel will still quarter a field and retrieve game, even if it has lived in a city all its life. A rottweiler, G.S.D., dobermann, boxer, bullmastiff, will still protect it's humans and their home, even to giving its own life. Terriers, even little pampered yorkies, are still keen and capable of killing small vermin. pitbulls, staffordshire bulls and similar breeds still have an inate bravery, resistance to pain, and the urge to fight because genetically, that is what men designed the breed for. Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of dogs, would understand this.
> > >> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in > > >> attacks. Usually to the face. *Some* cockers. The problem, as with any breed, lies frmly at the feet of man. Cockers (English) were popular as pets in the 1950's over here. They remained popular and as such, were regarded as a good source of income by puppy farmers. They were bred with no regard to temperament as are all farmed puppies. People buy them because they look sweet, forgetting that they are active dogs, bred to work. So, you have a poor quality pup, bred from substandard parents, both tempermentally and possibly physically, and fussed and babied, and because they look so sweet, are given little or no training, and hardly any exersize. In any breed this is a recipe for disaster. Then you have cocker rage syndrome,which is a mental illness. Also appears in golden retrievers and dachshunds incidentally. You see, if people get a big dogs, they usually give some obedience training, and do not allow it to become dominant. But cute little pretty cockers (awwww sweeeeet) get little or none, and become horrid little dogs who will bite. I have kept and bred cockers since 1972 (no longer breed) and know the breed. They are delightful, if given training, and as long as they come from sound stock. If you buy from a pet shop, a puppy farmed dog, then you are going to buy yourself a heap of trouble no matter what the breed is. The only cocker I have now, is a little red bitch, from puppy farmed stock initially. She is great. She had an acre of land to play one, and several other dogs to play with, plus *I* know what I am doing and make sure she never gets the chance to increase her position within the pack. If I pick her up and pet her, as soon as I put her down again, she will attack one of the other dogs. If I was a weak and silly owner who babied her, 100% she would be put down as a biter. I am completely sure of this fact.By the way, throughout the post I refer to the original English cocker.
> > >Yeah....we hear about people being seriously mauled and killed > > >by Cocker Spaniels all the time. Pit Bulls have been scientifically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >from. You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck > > >doing that with a pit. Exactly.
Orchid - 22 Nov 2003 22:08 GMT >No, not out of my mind, merely repeating what was reported. I know >Cockers are sporting dogs..I do watch Westminster..but the report [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >clearing up the misnomer even if you chose a particularly bitchy way >of doing so. My apologies for perceived tone, but there's very little more that I loathe more than falsehood presented as fact. A modicum of research into the Cocker Spaniel breed would have given you the truth.
>> This is a complete myth. Neither American Pit Bull Terriers, >> American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of newsreports each year that make that claim. I am not a vet, haven't >studied canine anatomy..so I believed what I read, heard and saw. So you believe everything the media tells you? Every information site about pit bull type dogs dispels this myth, and it does the breed a huge disservice to continue to spread this falsehood.
>> Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive. A >> well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive. Unfortunately, because [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >for sure about dogs. Of course if you want to point me to a >link that scientifically proves it....... Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were bred to fight other dogs. Temperament has a strong genetic component, which is believed to be passed through the paternal side of the genes. While there are pit type dogs that are not dog aggressive, they are the exceptions, not the rules. There are Labs out there that don't like to retrieve -- they also are the exception. I am a professional trainer/behaviourist. Around 12-18 months of age is when pits generally (but not always) 'turn on'. At this age, you find out if your dog is going to be highly dog aggressive, somewhat dog aggressive, or not dog aggressive. To acknowledge that pits are dog aggressive is not being hostile towards the breed, it's all about knowing the truth about the breed so you are prepared for it. Responsible breeders of AmStaffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are beginning to try and breed away from the dog aggression, but it's going to take years, if not decades.
http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/americanstaffordshireterriers.html "Animal aggression. Like the Pit Bull Terrier, most American Staffordshire Terriers are aggressive toward other dogs. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock. If anything goes wrong in the breeding, socializing, training, handling, or management of this breed, it is capable of seriously injuring or killing other animals."
http://gremlinpitbullrescue.2itb.com/about_pitbulls.html#key-traits http://www.realpitbull.com/agg.html
>> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in >> attacks. Usually to the face. > >Yeah....we hear about people being seriously mauled and killed >by Cocker Spaniels all the time. According to the media, pretty much any dog attack is perpetrated by a 'pit bull'. This is because most people have no idea how to identify a pit type dog. In a local paper where I live (Norther VA), a pit bull attack on a small child story was accompanied by a photo of the 'pit bull'. Which was a black and tan shaved-down cocker spaniel. The story was on page one. The retraction correcting the breed type was a week later on page 10, at the bottom, in small print.
>Pit Bulls have been scientifically >proven to provide more pressure per sq inch in their jaws than >most (not all, most) other breeds. This is a known...which is >probably where the 'stronger and even the 'locking belief comes >from. Cite please!
>You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck >doing that with a pit. Tell you what. Go to a dog park and rile up a cocker and get it to fully engage a bite on your arm. Then try to pry it off. Let us know how it goes, but I'll put in a prediction here. You'll be unsuccessful as long as the cocker stays fully engaged. When it gets bored you'll get it off, and not before then.
>AG Agua Girl - 23 Nov 2003 04:18 GMT > >No, not out of my mind, merely repeating what was reported. I know > >Cockers are sporting dogs..I do watch Westminster..but the report [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that I loathe more than falsehood presented as fact. A modicum of > research into the Cocker Spaniel breed would have given you the truth. Was that an apology??????
> >> This is a complete myth. Neither American Pit Bull Terriers, > >> American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > information site about pit bull type dogs dispels this myth, and it > does the breed a huge disservice to continue to spread this falsehood. I don't buy into everything I read on the internet more than I buy into everything I read in the news...although I will trust 20/20 before I trust some random internet site. There is more truth to it than you are letting on. They do have a stronger jaw measured pressure per square inch than a comparable sized dog. Their jaws are stronger than most..that is a reportable scientific fact.
> >> Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive. A > >> well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive. Unfortunately, because [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were > bred to fight other dogs. For how many years??? Temperament is only partially genetic at least in humans and most temperment type behaviours are directly related to survival. It's unlikely that a genetic trait tied to temperment would become common in a breed after only a few decades. Especially since it's a geographical issue as well. In Detroit they don't even try and re-home pit-bulls but that's not true in hundreds of other cities so to say the breed has a genetic disposition seems far fetched. And...since it absolutely can not be proven scientifically it's basically a matter of opinion. My opinion is that problem is not specific to the breed.
>Temperament has a strong genetic component, > which is believed to be passed through the paternal side of the genes. > While there are pit type dogs that are not dog aggressive, they are > the exceptions, not the rules. There are Labs out there that don't > like to retrieve -- they also are the exception. Labs have been breed to retrieve all over the country for a hell of a lot longer than pits have been breed to fight in specific geographical regions. Big difference.
> I am a professional trainer/behaviourist. That only tells me where your opinions come from..it in no way makes you an expert on genetics. I can bet that what you see in the breed is specific to your area since they don't tend to fly in dogs for breeding purposes when it comes to fighting dogs. Not like they have a special ring for them at Westminster.
> >> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in > >> attacks. Usually to the face. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the breed type was a week later on page 10, at the bottom, in small > print. That may be true in a small small number of cases but the fact of the matter is that pit bulls, (as well as a few other breeds) do have stronger jaws. I don't care if you want to believe it but unlike genetic tendencies it's a simple matter to test psi. Pits do more damage when they bite because they can. Cockers do bite more often (although I guess I don't know why..but they were the number one reported breed for it) but obviously don't do as much damage or there would be 20/20 investigations on them.
> >Pit Bulls have been scientifically > >proven to provide more pressure per sq inch in their jaws than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cite please! Just as it's simple for me to look up facts about pits, it is also simple for you...but ok. Since I don't have the original Time Life article from 15 years ago when I was looking for my first dog I did a quick yahoo search. Here.... http://www.edba.org.au/courier.html
and from this site, http://www.dogtraining.co.uk/education.htm
"Since large dogs are capable of bone-snapping jaw pressures of 200 to 450 pounds (91 to 204 kilograms) per square inch, it is critical that they be properly socialised and trained.
(Pit bulls, renowned for their courage and aggressiveness, can clamp down with steel-trap jaws capable of exerting nearly 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms) of pressure; several times that of a German shepherd). "
http://www.iacuc.arizona.edu/training/dogs/domest.html "The dog is equipped with one efficient weapon system-its teeth. Even the smallest dog can do great damage to a human if they feel threatened or if they become frightened. A mutt's powerful muscles of the jaw can exert a bite of 165 kg pressure, compared to the gnaw of a human at 29 kg! Some breeds, such as the Pitbull or Mastiff can bite even harder!"
I'm sure you could come up with a few dozen sites that state otherwise... that is the nature of the internet and why I didn't do a search before
> >You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck > >doing that with a pit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unsuccessful as long as the cocker stays fully engaged. When it gets > bored you'll get it off, and not before then. You know...perhaps this really is a geographical problem. You cited a story early about someone mistaking a cocker for a pit and now you seem unwilling to recognize what is considered as fact by the rest of the nation. Maybe they are cross breeding Cockers with pits in your area. That would explain the mistaken identity (since the only thing in common the two breeds have are that they are both dogs) and your experience with Cockers who bite as hard as Pits.
AG
Zake - 23 Nov 2003 12:43 GMT Agua Girl aka ShitForBrainz flushed and wrote :
<snip boring crapola>
Next time Cheryl, give us the short answer. You can lie in one sentence.
Orchid - 23 Nov 2003 14:48 GMT >> Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were >> bred to fight other dogs. > >For how many years??? Well, since England banned bull-baiting in 1835, which was the beginning of serious dogfights and the pit bull-type dogs, that'd be 168 years, which is around 85 generations. Temperament is one of the easiest traits to lock in to a breeding program -- in Russia there was an experiment in domestication. They took silver foxes, bred them solely for temperament, and in _five_ generations they had completely domestic foxes that were often mistaken for small dogs. So locking in dog aggression, which is merely a modification of the prey drive, would have been accomplished in relatively few generations. (Belyaev, 1979)
Labs, by the way, have also existed since the early 1800's. Why is one behavioural predisposition acceptable to you and the other not?
Dog aggression does not make pit types bad dogs. They are good dogs with an aspect to their temperaments that owners should be aware of. Huskies are cat-killers, Greyhounds are runners, PRTs are diggers, pit types are dog aggressive.
>Temperament is only partially genetic >at least in humans and most temperment type behaviours are >directly related to survival. It's unlikely that a genetic trait >tied to temperment would become common in a breed after only >a few decades. Actually, full domestication occurs in five generations which is, conservatively, ten years, or a single decade. An aspect of temperament is going to be easier to lock in.
>Especially since it's a geographical issue as well. >In Detroit they don't even try and re-home pit-bulls but that's not >true in hundreds of other cities so to say the breed has a genetic >disposition seems far fetched. And...since it absolutely can not >be proven scientifically it's basically a matter of opinion. My opinion >is that problem is not specific to the breed. Dr. Dmitry Belyaev, geneticist and Director of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, Siberia. Belyaevs study began in 1956, and by 1962, changes consistent with domestication were found in the tamed offspring. In 1969, after only seven years of selective breeding even greater changes were found, indicating that a domestication process was occurring (Belyaev, 1979).
It's not opinion. It's scientific fact.
>>Temperament has a strong genetic component, >> which is believed to be passed through the paternal side of the genes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >a lot longer than pits have been breed to fight in specific geographical >regions. Big difference. Not at all. Pits began as a breed as dogfighting dogs in 1835 in England. They are 'Pit Bull Terriers' because dogfights take place in pits, and they originated from crossing bulldogs and terriers. Originally know as 'bull and terriers', that was shortened to 'bull terrier' and then modified to 'pit bull terrier'. Labs have been bred as water retrievers since the early 1800's as well.
>> I am a professional trainer/behaviourist. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fly in dogs for breeding purposes when it comes to fighting dogs. >Not like they have a special ring for them at Westminster. I'm not discussing geographic changes in a breed, I'm talking about the breed itself. My 'opinions' come from years of study in canine behaviour and studying genetic research. For the gods' sake, I own *Bengal Cats* -- I have to know what I'm talking about regarding temperament inheritance to defend my own breed.
>That may be true in a small small number of cases but the fact of the matter >is that pit bulls, (as well as a few other breeds) do have stronger jaws. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >they were the number one reported breed for it) but obviously don't do as >much damage or there would be 20/20 investigations on them. 20/20 is interested in the 'shocking' story. Pit bulls are the 'shocking' dog these days. 15 years ago it was Rottweilers, 25 years ago it was Dobermans.
>I'm sure you could come up with a few dozen sites that state otherwise... >that is the nature of the internet and why I didn't do a search before So why believe one set of sites and not the other when citing? (sorry, couldn't resist the homonym game). Yes, pits have very powerful jaws -- that comes from the bulldog side of their ancestry where the dogs took a hold on a bull's nose/face and hung on through all the thrashing and gyrations that ensued. I guess the point I was trying to make is that many many breeds have extremely powerful grips -- American Bulldogs, Airedales, GSDs, Newfoundlands, and Saint Bernards are just a few of them that come off the top of my head. But none of these breeds have people spreading myths about them and their 'locking jaws'.
>You know...perhaps this really is a geographical problem. You cited a >story early about someone mistaking a cocker for a pit and now you seem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >have are that they are both dogs) and your experience with Cockers who >bite as hard as Pits. You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. No, Cockers do not have the jaw strength of pit type dogs. However, Cockers do have a significant jaw strength, enough that a human is not going to see a appreciable difference in ability to manually open the jaws of a fully engaged Cocker vs. a fully engaged pit type. Now, the cocker is going to let go more readily if beaten about the head while fully engaged, whereas the pit type has the terrier tenacity to hang on. This is why all responsible pit type owners should have a break stick and know how to use it.
The Charmed One - 23 Nov 2003 14:50 GMT Orchid <neko@ascendancy.net> wrote in message <1nf1svcl1po1h29kbhtftg9t0rpdccl1ub@4ax.com> :
>>> Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were >>> bred to fight other dogs. [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] >all responsible pit type owners should have a break stick and know how >to use it. Please post on topic or I may have to take action.
Fred - 23 Nov 2003 15:06 GMT > Please post on topic or I may have to take action. You really didn't need to, nor should you quote everything for a one line reply. Learn about Usenet before you try to police it.
The Charmed One - 23 Nov 2003 15:16 GMT "Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message <U14wb.3261$Pm4.889@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> :
>> Please post on topic or I may have to take action. > >You really didn't need to, nor should you quote everything for a one line >reply. >Learn about Usenet before you try to police it. I have been on Usenet for many years and consider myself an expert. You should follow your own advice. Learn where to put the '--'.
Fred - 23 Nov 2003 15:33 GMT "The Charmed One" <nat2sim@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
> I have been on Usenet for many years and consider myself an expert. > You should follow your own advice. Learn where to put the '--'. Then you should know that excessive quoting is lame, especially when your telling others how to conduct themselves on Usenet by being a self appointed net cop.
Are you also the hall monitor in school? lol
The Charmed One - 24 Nov 2003 16:39 GMT "Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message <Er4wb.3306$Pm4.708@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> :
>"The Charmed One" <nat2sim@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > >> I have been on Usenet for many years and consider myself an expert. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >telling others how to conduct themselves on Usenet by being a self appointed >net cop. You are the self appointed net cop here. You do not tell me or anyone else for that matter how to post. It is quite clear that you are new to Usenet.
>Are you also the hall monitor in school? lol Sometimes people like you, of less intelligence, need to be kept in line by intellectuals like myself.
nimue - 26 Nov 2003 12:25 GMT > "Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message > <Er4wb.3306$Pm4.708@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> : [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Sometimes people like you, of less intelligence, need to be kept in > line by intellectuals like myself. Myself is reflexive. You have used it incorrectly. You should have written "intellectuals like ME" NOT "intellectuals like MYSELF." One would think that an intellectual would know that. Now, to keep this on topic, since I know that is your little hobgoblin (although you seemed to ignore it with your "myself" post) I will ask a cat question. Why are my cats so adorable?
 Signature nimue
"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life
Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?
The Charmed One - 26 Nov 2003 14:51 GMT "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message <qZ0xb.139841$ri.19699168@twister.nyc.rr.com> :
>> "Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message >> <Er4wb.3306$Pm4.708@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> : [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >know that is your little hobgoblin (although you seemed to ignore it with >your "myself" post) I will ask a cat question. Why are my cats so adorable? Thank you. You have shown justification demonstrating the irrelevance of your contributions. Perhaps English 101 might progress your writing and comprehension competence.
nimue - 26 Nov 2003 23:24 GMT > "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message > <qZ0xb.139841$ri.19699168@twister.nyc.rr.com> : [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Thank you.
>You have shown justification demonstrating the irrelevance > of your contributions. Do you think the above sentence makes any sense? It doesn't.
>Perhaps English 101 might progress your > writing and comprehension competence. That was another terrible sentence -- really, really awful. I wonder if English is your first language. If it's not, I could excuse your mangled syntax, but not your rudeness. I have never heard a native English speaker use the word "progress" the way you do in that sentence. I don't have the time to begin to address the other problems in your writing. One more thing -- you forgot to stay on the topic of cats.
 Signature nimue
"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life
Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?
The Charmed One - 26 Nov 2003 23:26 GMT "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message <rCaxb.286420$pT1.131623@twister.nyc.rr.com> :
>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> <qZ0xb.139841$ri.19699168@twister.nyc.rr.com> : [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >time to begin to address the other problems in your writing. One more >thing -- you forgot to stay on the topic of cats. Sorry, of course you are correct. Please accept my apology for being so rude here.
Daz. - 27 Nov 2003 00:53 GMT > "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message > <rCaxb.286420$pT1.131623@twister.nyc.rr.com> : [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Sorry, of course you are correct. Please accept my apology for being > so rude here. Do I detect irony here??
Daz
Catski - 27 Nov 2003 14:31 GMT "Daz." <melchett@*underwear*the18th.com> wrote in message <bq3hs2$kks$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> :
>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> <rCaxb.286420$pT1.131623@twister.nyc.rr.com> : [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >Do I detect irony here?? No, that's just me butt fuhking you without KY.
:-) Daz. - 27 Nov 2003 18:52 GMT > "Daz." <melchett@*underwear*the18th.com> wrote in message > <bq3hs2$kks$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> : [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > No, that's just me butt fuhking you without KY. > :-) You seem to have the same command of the Queens English that nimue has .... God save America!! .... please!! ... ;o)
Daz
nimue - 27 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT >snip > > You seem to have the same command of the Queens English that nimue > has .... God save America!! .... please!! ... ;o) > > Daz Do you mean the Queen's English? Why don't you stay in my killfile? You are pathetic -- now stay in that killfile!
 Signature nimue
"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life
Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?
Daz, - 28 Nov 2003 01:46 GMT > >snip > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save > you." Spike to Buffy After Life When I want a lecture from someone who uses a bastard variation of the "Queen's English" as their mother tongue and is obsessed with inane rubbish, i.e. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (and you call ME pathetic!!) I will ask. Until then please try and learn how to use the computer and it's kill file facility.
Daz
nimue - 28 Nov 2003 03:49 GMT >>> snip >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Daz I don't think you can lecture me on English until you learn how to use apostrophes. Even if you did learn how to use apostrophes, you still couldn't lecture me about English, but at least you wouldn't look so stupid when you tried. Oh -- you might also want to investigate the difference between "try and" and "try to." You know, there is nothing pathetic about liking Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There IS something pathetic about the way you keep trying to evade my killfile. I am sure you don't know this, but many highly educated people admire and respect BTVS. If you don't believe me, just check out all the academic criticism at http://www.slayage.tv/, the website of Slayage, the online International Journal of Buffy Studies. Slayage's contributors are professors and people in the process of getting their doctorates -- and they think that Buffy is worth their time and their effort. There is some great academic criticism on that site -- but I think it will be too challenging for you.
 Signature nimue
"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life
Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?
Daz_ - 29 Nov 2003 00:50 GMT > I don't think you can lecture me on English until you learn how to use > apostrophes. Even if you did learn how to use apostrophes, you still > couldn't lecture me about English, but at least you wouldn't look so > stupid when you tried. You're the one doing the lecturing and that in itself I find amusing for the simple reason you only do it to "get back" at comments I have made to you in previous posts. Try a sensible argument for once instead of criticising what is after all only a means of communication that I assume even you don't have too much difficulty in understanding. The last thing on my mind is to lecture you on English. You obviously think you have that all wrapped up so your arrogance wouldn't allow any helpful pointers from yours truly.
> Oh -- you might also want to investigate the difference between "try and" > and "try to." Nope, unless you intend asking questions later.
> You know, there is nothing pathetic about liking Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Really? Well I guess not if you have just rushed home from school hoping you haven't missed an episode.
> There IS something pathetic about the way you keep trying to evade my > killfile. You keep harping on about this, don't flatter yourself by thinking that I am in any way trying to evade YOUR kill file. As I have said before, the kill file is a tool for the closed mind.
> I am sure you don't know this, but many highly educated people admire and > respect BTVS. If you don't believe me, just check out all the academic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > great academic criticism on that site -- but I think it will be too > challenging for you. Nimby, you little minx, you're having me on, right? If not please don't try and justify your obsession with one of the characters by likening yourself to academics who have gone for the soft option in their studies. I can imagine those students in a bed-sit at 3 in the morning drinking cider, fingering their wispy chin growth and discussing post modern culture, the cultural history of childhood education and the moral implications of Buffy showing her knickers when doing a karate kick while wearing a short skirt. Yet another example of falling standards in the closeted and cosseted world of academia.
Here is a scenario if you are into mass TV tripe. Picture this, a would-be employee at an interview... possibly played by James Marsters.
Drooling female Interviewer: "What was the subject of your dissertation at university?" James: (Trying to keep a poker face and speaking straight from his full heart) "Hem, The Sopranos, The X-Files and Buffy the, hem, vampire slayer" Interviewer swooning: "WOW! Who cares if you cant act, your the kind of person we need here at the Bank, when can you start?"
Nah, probably already been done. Maybe in "Sex in the city" or "Ally McBeal" another couple of gems from your side of the world.
Daz
nimue - 29 Nov 2003 01:23 GMT >>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message snip
>> I am sure you don't know this, but many highly educated people >> admire and respect BTVS. If you don't believe me, just check out all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nimby, you little minx, you're having me on, right? No. I am not. You could discover this for yourself if you would just check out the website.
> If not please don't try and justify your obsession with one of the > characters by likening yourself to academics who have gone for the > soft option in their studies. Daz -- you should write "try to," not "try and." I like BTVS. There is nothing wrong with that. Many educated, intelligent people like it.
> I can imagine those students in a bed-sit at 3 in the morning drinking > cider, fingering their wispy chin growth and discussing post modern > culture, the cultural history of childhood education and the moral > implications of Buffy showing her knickers when doing a karate kick > while wearing a short skirt. Yet another example of falling standards > in the closeted and cosseted world of academia. Go check out the website. Here is a brief sample of the kind of writing you might find (and not be able to understand): << [1] The transgression (or lack thereof) of conventional gender roles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a recurrent theme in Buffy criticism. Zoe-Jane Playden argues that Buffy challenges traditionally masculine definitions of autonomy by developing empowering models of community-based action (138). In contrast, Farah Mendlesohn points to the limits of the show's transgressiveness, exploring the mechanisms through which a queer reading of the Buffy/Willow relationship is systematically denied. >>
You might want to check out the credentials of the academics before you pass judgment. One of the contributors (and there are almost 50) is an English acadmic named Zoe Jane Playdon. Here's her bio: Zo?-Jane Playdon is Head of Education at Kent, Surrey and Sussex Postgraduate Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London. She was educated at the universities of Newcastle on Tyne, Leicester, Warwick and at Henley Management College, and holds doctorates in contemporary Irish literature and in management.
Oh, here's another contributor from the UK.
Alice Jenkins teaches English at the University of Glasgow. Her research focuses on Victorian and twentieth-century British literature, particularly literature and science, fantasy and science fiction, and literature and geography. She co-organised two major international conferences, Victorian Studies: Into the Twenty-First Century (University of Liverpool, 1996) and The 1830s (University of Salford, 2002), and with Juliet John has co-edited Rereading Victorian Fiction (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000) and Rethinking Victorian Culture (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).
Here is yet another contributor from the UK. Robert A. Davis is Director of Inservice Education and Senior Lecturer in Curriculum Studies in the Faculty of Education of the University of Glasgow. He was educated at the Universities of Strathclyde and Stirling, where he completed his doctoral studies in Literarture and Anthropology. He worked for several years as a teacher of English in a number of secondary schools across Scotland, entering the Faculty of Education in 1991. He has been a visiting lecturer in several institutions of higher education, including Fordham University, Australian Catholic University, Copenhagen University, and St Patrick's College, Dublin. In addition to ongoing research in critical theory and media education he has lectured, written and broadcast widely on literature and myth, literature and religion, early education, and the cultural history of childhood. He is a consultant to children's television, and serves on the editorial boards of several academic journals. His recent publications include studies of the poetry of Robert Graves, the uses of fear in childhood, and approaches to the teaching of literature and values education in multicultural contexts. He is also preparing a full length critical history of the English lullaby.
Now, try TO educate yourself -- go visit the website. You look foolish when you pass judment on things you know nothing about.
 Signature nimue
"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life
Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?
Daz_ - 29 Nov 2003 02:36 GMT > >>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message > snip [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No. I am not. You could discover this for yourself if you would just check > out the website. I did give it a brief coat of "looking at" and am not in the least bit interested. You it seems would appear to be impressed with people who use long words. Must be an age thing.
> > If not please don't try and justify your obsession with one of the > > characters by likening yourself to academics who have gone for the > > soft option in their studies. > > Daz -- you should write "try to," not "try and." Why? there is nothing wrong with colloquial expressions unless you are a purist.
I like BTVS. There is
> nothing wrong with that. Many educated, intelligent people like it. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Go check out the website. Here is a brief sample of the kind of writing you > might find (and not be able to understand): Meow!
> << [1] The transgression (or lack thereof) of conventional gender roles in > Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a recurrent theme in Buffy criticism. Zoe-Jane [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Now, try TO educate yourself -- go visit the website. You look foolish when > you pass judment on things you know nothing about. "go AND visit the website"
> -- > nimue I notice they are mostly women .....
"Sorry, of course you are correct. Please accept my apology for being so rude here."
Daz IMechE MCGI
nimue - 29 Nov 2003 03:23 GMT > "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message snip
> "go AND visit the website" No. There is no need for that "and."
> I notice they are mostly women ..... 21 of the 49 contributors are men. In other words, men contribute nearly half of the articles. One of the two editors is a man.
http://www.slayage.tv/ Here is another sample of the style of writing you will find. This was written by Alice Jenkins: <<2) The remarkable stylistic feature of "Hush," of course, is that utterances are not spoken, but written, despite the fact that both the "speaker" and the "listener" are present at the moment of utterance. Classically, writing has been thought of as a mediation or extension of speech, to be substituted for it in circumstances where the speaker and listener are not both present at the same time. Such a model has tended to conceptualize speech as primary and writing as secondary. Thus, Saussure argued that "language and writing are two distinct systems of signs; the second exists for the sole purpose of representing the first" (23). This is characteristic of the privileging of speech over writing that Derrida identifies as phonocentric and hence logocentric, that is, as privileging presence over absence. Writing, in the classical model, is for situations determined by absence and, Derrida suggests in "Signature Event Context" (1971), therefore "carries with it predicates which have been subordinated, excluded, or held in reserve [.]" (329)[1] [2][1][3] The iconic moment of writing in "Restless" (the final episode in season four), when Willow inscribes--or, to use Derrida's term, iterates--one of Sappho's odes on Tara's skin, puts the eeriness of writing in the context of presence to erotic use. >>
snip
> Daz IMechE MCGI
 Signature nimue
"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of course, but after that. Every night after that...every night I save you." Spike to Buffy After Life
Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women are crazy about him, doesn't it?
M.C. Mullen - 23 Nov 2003 04:47 GMT http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/americanstaffordshireterriers.html
| "Animal aggression. Like the Pit Bull Terrier, most American | Staffordshire Terriers are aggressive toward other dogs. Many have | strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, | including deer and livestock. If anything goes wrong in the breeding, | socializing, training, handling, or management of this breed, it is | capable of seriously injuring or killing other animals." What gets me about these dogs is that they often end up unwanted in shelters. There is only one dog in the shelter that cannot find a home - a beautiful Staffordshire Terrier!
Carola
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 10:54 GMT >This is a complete myth. Neither American Pit >Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, >nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have 'locking >jaws'. Their jaws are no different than any other >dogs' in a mechanical sense. No extra muscles, >no 'lock', nothing. While the locking jaw thing is a myth, a Pits jaw muscles are stronger then most. They don't have "extra" muscles just extra strong ones.
>Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG >aggressive. A well-bred one is extremely >HUMAN submissive. Unfortunately, because >they are the currrent fad in ''ghetto dogs", you >get atypical behaviours and temperaments >such as human aggressiveness. Yes, you're correct most pits are dog aggressive and human submissive. There are exceptions to every rule but this is the norm for the breed. Bad owners/breeders=bad dogs.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT > I know a lot of pits that are sweet loving family dogs and are not > any more likely to turn on someone than my Golden Retriever was. > It's not in the "nature" of the breed...it's in the nature of the owners. This is where I have a big disagreement. It is my understanding that pitbulls are, in addition to what you said in you post, also very unstable, and that a loving family pet may turn, without warning against a child in the family, or anyone else.
Dot S - 23 Nov 2003 01:28 GMT In the town where I come from, it is illegal to own either a pit bull or a rotweiller. Period.
Dot
Fred - 23 Nov 2003 03:08 GMT > In the town where I come from, it is illegal to own either a pit bull or > a rotweiller. Period. > > Dot What town is that?
Army_wife - 09 Apr 2006 06:20 GMT It is anatomicly impossible for a pitt to "lock" its jaws. It's a stubborn thing not a biological thing. Get a little education before degrading a gentle breed.
>> >A friend was bitten on the face by hers. >> >Two of my daughters friends have small [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >AG Orchid - 21 Nov 2003 19:27 GMT >I think you'll find other breeds in dog attacks, but I'd guess a very >hiighpercentage *are* pits. After all, they're bred for aggressiveness, since >dog fighting is alive and well in the US. Hi Sherry!
Pit Bull type dogs (American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers) used to be bred for DOG AGGRESSIVENESS, not human aggressiveness. In fact, as loathesome as people who fight dogs are, they are still breeding for human submissiveness in these dogs. Why? Because dogfights happen in pits. The owners of the dogs must be able to hop into those pits and stop a fight or remove the dogs from the pits without dying. Where you see the problem is in the people who want a vicious dawg to walk around on a truck chain. They are the ones breeding without thought to temperament, and thus bringing forth the idea that pit bull type dogs are vicious.
Orchid
Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid
Sherry - 21 Nov 2003 21:04 GMT >Hi Sherry! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Orchid Pit Bulls are a nightmare here. Organized fightsexist; everybody knows who does it but as soon as they bust up a ring, they just move somewhere else. It's a catch-22 at the shelter. When we get them, even as puppies, the *only* people who are interested in adopting them are the viscious-dawg-on-a-truck-chain types and we don't adopt to them. It's sad for the dogs. Most end up euthanized. Maybe it's just this particular (rural) area, or bad press. But most "normal" families, the ones who would be suitable adoptors, don't want them.
Sherry
Fred - 21 Nov 2003 22:15 GMT Here is a good web page for some correct information about pit bulls.
http://www.pitbullrescue.org/about.html
I have seen both sweet pit bulls and some of the very very dangerous ones. I blame the owners of the bad pit bull dogs.
Not so quick - 22 Nov 2003 03:18 GMT > Here is a good web page for some correct information about pit bulls. > > http://www.pitbullrescue.org/about.html > > I have seen both sweet pit bulls and some of the very very dangerous ones. > I blame the owners of the bad pit bull dogs. No offense but a PR page for Pitbulls isn't too objective. The part about breeding out biting people is unbelievable. Last month there was a story about a pit bull puppy that chewed off the fingers of a child who had been in a car accident and had no feeling in his hand.
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 10:59 GMT
> No offense but a PR page for Pitbulls >isn't too objective. The part about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >been in a car accident and had no feeling in his >hand. Not unbelievable, it's a fact. As for the finger chewing, I've heard of other dogs (different breeds, including mixes) doing the same thing.
Army_wife - 09 Apr 2006 06:23 GMT I own a beautifle female Am Staff and she is kind, loving, and gentle with my 4 and 6 year old boys. She licks the youngest and gets him laughing. The more he giggles the more she licks. The more she licks the more he giggles. He has actually wet his pants laughing so hard. Does she sound horrible to you?
>>Hi Sherry! >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Sherry Ted Davis - 21 Nov 2003 01:02 GMT >I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm >wondering if you are of the same opinion [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >on something other than identifying with >other people who had no experience either. Control freaks dislike cats - the more they associate with them the more they dislike them (usually). The reason is that people who must control everything in their environment dislike what they cannot control, and controlling cats is nearly impossible. On the other hand, people who like cats and come to know them well, often avoid using the word "own" in connection with their cats: I have thirteen cats, but I don't claim to own them. I own the dog.
T.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu - e-mail must contain "T.E.D." or my .sig in the body)
Daz - 21 Nov 2003 12:29 GMT > >I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm > >wondering if you are of the same opinion [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > control everything in their environment dislike what they cannot > control, and controlling cats is nearly impossible. Much like "trying" to control rats/mice etc, right Ted?
On the other
> hand, people who like cats and come to know them well, often avoid > using the word "own" in connection with their cats: I have thirteen > cats, but I don't claim to own them. I own the dog. Lost a dog and gained ANOTHER cat!!
Daz
Ted Davis - 21 Nov 2003 14:34 GMT >Lost a dog and gained ANOTHER cat!! I forgot to update the filter on this instance of the client - but I'll fix that now.
Two suggestions: learn to count - 13==13 all day long ... even from day to day and week to week; and don't jump to too many conclusions - there are several reasons why animal counts may change - in this case, the beagle was stolen (both were, but the mutt got away or was released - after somebody over tightened her collar).
T.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D." somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.
Daz. - 21 Nov 2003 19:00 GMT > >Lost a dog and gained ANOTHER cat!! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > day to day and week to week; and don't jump to too many conclusions - > there are several reasons why animal counts may change - Senility?
in this case,
> the beagle was stolen (both were, but the mutt got away or was > released - after somebody over tightened her collar). Not your fault then?
And there was me thinking you had lost it Ted.... what on earth must I have been thinking??
Daz.
M.C. Mullen - 21 Nov 2003 13:25 GMT | I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm | wondering if you are of the same opinion [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | on something other than identifying with | other people who had no experience either. Some people *are* really terrified of cats. I can understand that they go out of cat's ways. A friend who grew up on a farm is terrified because her older brothers threw the kittens at her when she was small, of course they dug their claws into her skin.
Carola
Nadine - 21 Nov 2003 18:35 GMT <snip>
>But since I've gotten to know cats >it seems impossible that anyone but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >people use to measure suitability of >a pet. Just wondering what standards do you mean? What suitability?
>Our cats sleep with up. As do some of mine, along with one of my dogs, the Pit Bull. Of course if it's cold they would rather snuggle up to the dog, which she loves.
> Another takes >care of the other cats and nurses >two even though she has never had >kittens of her own and is spayed. That's what my Pit Bull does, except the nursing part, as she is spayed and spayed animals can't nurse anything. But she has helped me raise many orphaned bottle fed kittens by cleaning them (top to bottom), keeping them warm and safe and playing with them as they got older. I also know of other Pits that do this and not just with kittens.
>They are all individuals with separate and >unique personalities and they all have >taught me something, one profound about >not be concerned about physical >appearances Exactly the same with dogs. They are all individuals and shouldn't be lumped into a category. Granted the type of breed, be it a cat or dog, does lend to some inherited traits but a lot has to do with how they have been raised.
>I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm >wondering if you are of the same opinion that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >other than identifying with other people who >had no experience either. I am in the same opinion that "breed" haters just haven't really had any experience with what they fear so. The Pit Bull breed is severely misunderstood. They have been bred to be not human aggressive. We have more problems where I work (Veterinary office) with small breed dogs trying to bite then any large breeds. IMO bad owners make bad dogs.
Glad you have learned that cats are great creatures. My husband hated them until he lived with one. We now have 5 of our own, along with 5 fosters, at the moment. And 3 house dogs, an Pit/Catahoula mix, an Akita, and the pure Pit.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:50 GMT > <snip> > >But since I've gotten to know cats [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > fosters, at the moment. And 3 house dogs, an Pit/Catahoula mix, an > Akita, and the pure Pit. I have had experience with pitbulls though. A friend was bitten on the face. I played with the dog quite a bit before that, and my daughters friend's pitbull had to be put in the bathroom when I came over because he tried to attack me once. I really fear for the safety of children in a house with a pitbull. I may be misinformed but it seems that they are especially prone to attack when frightened and that they will attack, rarely but seriously, when startled or 'bothered' by a child.
I know that the loyalty and love that a person feels towards their pet is deep. I don't know what happens to that love when one's child is scarred or traumatized or killed. Maybe the horrible stories about pitbulls are those that have been raised to be killers, but my friend's dog, that bit her face and left scars... You know I never saw her after that. I warned her about the dog. Maybe she thought it was some kind of curse...
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 11:59 GMT No so quick wrote:
> I have had experience with pitbulls though. >A friend was bitten on the face. I played with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that they will attack, rarely but seriously, when >startled or 'bothered' by a child. Sounds like the 2 Pit Bulls you met came from either irresponsible breeders or weren't properly socialized/trained by their owners (bad owners). Two dogs doesn't really qualify as real experience with a breed though. My pit/catahoula mix, which by the way is my most aggressive dog, it's the catahoula in him and only toward adult strangers, a down/stay works without fail, locking him in a room when people come over would only make the situation worse, is now 10 years old, my 2 children are now 14 and 17 and where raised with him. He has never so much as growled at them and my pure Pit adores all children, and adults including strangers. She has been around all ages of children, from infants to teens, with no problems what so ever (and some of these kids were so mean I would have liked to bite them myself). People have made the comment "oh, you have her as a watch dog" all I can do is laugh, because the worse she'd do is beat them to death with her tail (not docked) or maybe lick them to death.
>I know that the loyalty and love that a person >feels towards their pet is deep. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the dog. Maybe she thought it was some kind of >curse... I do love my animals but, they are animals, not humans. I can honestly say that if any of my dogs ever showed an aggressive tendency towards a child (no matter what the child did) it would be put down asap. It amazes me how many people are afraid of their own dogs. I have heard many, many times from the owners of Chihuahuas, Poodles, Malteses, Yorkies, ect...that have been raised as "babies" (human infants) "You want me to give him/her a pill? Without food? But it will bite me!" Why? Because they think because it's such a small breed that's it's cute when they growl or nip at them and let the behaviour continue. But now that it's time to have to medicate them they are unable to do so. Sad but true. A curse? LMAO
Not so quick - 22 Nov 2003 18:51 GMT > No so quick wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Sad but true. > A curse? LMAO I can't blame you for loving your pet but I'm afraid you have a little Ray Horne in you.
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 20:09 GMT >but I'm afraid you have a little Ray Horne in >you. Who might Ray Horne be?
The Charmed One - 22 Nov 2003 11:57 GMT > I used to be a typical cat hater. > I never did anything mean to cats [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > got to know one that was nice. Maybe > a feral cat or a disagreeable cat might Yeah, I totally agree with you here. I used to hate cats myself until we got one of our own. {Well we saved her actually] and now we have 2 of her Son's as well ;-)
Now, I couldn't really live without them now. They were my Sister's cats first, now they are ours ;-)
Nat
Dot S - 23 Nov 2003 01:38 GMT >I didn't think it was a big deal that a >friend at work strangled a cat (I didn't eat >lunch with him any more though). That is a very bad sign. Anyone who would do that to a cat will have no qualms about doing the same to a human. The Green River Killer talks about strangling cats when he was a child.
Dot
Fingers - 23 Nov 2003 12:45 GMT Dot S flushed and wrote :
>>I didn't think it was a big deal that a >>friend at work strangled a cat (I didn't eat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >qualms about doing the same to a human. The Green River Killer talks >about strangling cats when he was a child. How do you get up in the morning and make it through the day? Do you bump your head quite often?
Idiot
frlpwr - 23 Nov 2003 19:07 GMT > Dot S flushed and wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Idiot Only inasmuch as FBI profilers are "idiots". Along with bed-wetting and childhood arson, a high proprotion of serial killers tortured and killed animals as youngsters.
Army_wife - 09 Apr 2006 06:19 GMT Here's the thing. I am a dog person I married a cat person and even with this flaw I still love him. I too have never done anything bad to a cat and would never want to see of one or hear of one being hurt. I had two really amazing cats in my life time that were 20 plus years old before they died that is why I don't want another one. There will never be another Kally or Ginger. The one we have now is borderline psycotic but realitivly ok. I grew up with boxers and American Staffordshire Terriers that some have given the derogatory name of "pitt". It is NOT the dog it is the way the dog is trained and handled that causes problems. I have never had a bad one and never had an incident were I thought my safty or that of my children were in question. In fact we have an Am Staff now. She is just over a year old and the most "furocous" thing she has done to date is lick my four year old so much she made him pee his pants laughing. My husband is a military police officer and he can tell you as he has told many others they have more problems out of breeds OTHER than "pitts" and one cop even got attacked by a poodle. So before you judge us and our dogs remember its the deed that needs to be punished not the breed. Perhaps your friend wasnt the best "pitt" handler or didn't train her dog so well. I would rather have a "pitt" than a silly cat....besides no matter what breed cat you have or how smart it is...it still uses your house as a toilet.
>I used to be a typical cat hater. >I never did anything mean to cats [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >on something other than identifying with >other people who had no experience either.
|
|
|