|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree [2008-07-02]
When you get mad, you kind of want to get even. . I think in this case, the people showed no concern for the little girl and that is hurtful to a parent. . I think they should have to pay for the medical bills and that is all that was asked of them at first. . Now, they will probably have to pay more.
I agree with you OP... [2008-07-02]
So many, many times we see and hear about animal versus human incidences and so many times it I agree with you 100%. You and your daughter deserve to feel safe and for her to be so afraid to go out and ride her bike is terrible. The money (which I hope you do get) will not help your daughter to overcome her fear, but hopefully it will make the neighbor take responsibility for their pet All my best to you and your daughter. She'll get through this, kids are very strong!
I totally agree [2008-06-25]
This reminds me of my MIL, and how she was too. She felt she could do what she wanted because she was the children's grandmother. This is a good time to establish a few ground rules where your child is concerned, while trying not to hurt her feelings, but she should know that she has to ask you about anything that concerns activities with your children. Children depend on us for their safety, and you can't replace your child if anything happens, so you have every right to say no I don't want my child doing that. I don't mean to pry, but what does the child's father think about her doing this? If she had really thought about this she should have realized this idea about taking a 9 month old baby on a 4-wheeler is totally wrong.
I do agree [2008-06-24]
I also don't think a 14 year old should be on one. It only takes one second - one stupid mistake. .
Agree, I have trained quite a few dogs -sm [2008-06-22]
some just take longer than others, I have found though that they train a lot faster if there is another dog in the house that is older and housebroken. I have had huskies take 3 months to housebreak before. My last husky was about 10 weeks old when I got her and by some miracle she was trained in about a month, but we had 2 other dogs in the house and they helped teach her I think. I get to go through all this again in a year or two when my daughter gets a dog my DH promised her....I am not looking forward to it. She keeps changing her mind on what she wants, Taco bell dog (Chiwahwa, I know I am butchering the spelling), or a Jack Russell, or maybe a pug. So who knows, I like big dogs, have a big boy husky now and a chocolate lab. Just have to make sure in this case the dog it not too small or these two will end up killing it which would not be too cool. (my husky goes after small animals in the yard, not sure if he would be able to differentiate from a pet dog or a squirrel/possom). We are trying to wait until the husky passes before getting this new dog, and he will be 9 in 2 years so his time will be done or very close at that point (I have never had a husky live pass 9.5). ---But bottom line is patience in house training a dog, yes it is icky but no worse than changing a baby's diaper, and if you have had kids then you can get thru housebreaking a dog, they are a lot easier to take care of!
While I totally agree re. depression...nm [2008-06-20]
to poster above who has done a fine job and counsels others on getting money into the bank, the stark reality is that no matter how much $$ one has in the bank, when depression hits - and it will - all that money isn't going to amount to a hill of beans that was covered by the floods in the upper states. The dollar bill has little value now, so when the depression hits none of it will be worth anything. Best stockpile on canned and paper goods (TP will be at a premium, I'm told by financiers) now with that $$ in the bank 'cause that's all you are going to have!
Agree....that's why so many end up in animal shelters abandoned... [2008-06-20]
xx
I agree [2008-06-19]
I agree with you about feeling blessed. Working at home, I save a lot in gas, and like you, we have no CC debt, almost have the house paid for and drive older vehicles that are paid for, have the smallest Dish bill possible ($6 per month), etc. . I feel like some people are so far in over their heads that they are going to find themselves in big trouble. . I do hate seeing that grocery bill going up every week though - next year, I will have a garden - only have tomatoes this year.
Totally agree 110%!!!! [2008-06-18]
n/m
Totally agree! [2008-06-18]
Michigan is in the pits of a recession....highest foreclosure rate, highest unemployment rate, people are moving out of the state left and right....very scary times here!
I agree with you. [2008-06-18]
When I got married it was my first but hubs second. My sister threw me a card shower but stated because I have my own home I donneed things but a mass or greeting cards in the mail box would be nice. I live in a different state now from most of my family. I found that my family and friends were nice and sent cards, some gift cards, a few gifts just when I happened to see them next time, or a phonecall. My husbandcard shower and it had something clever about showering us with good thoughts and wishes.
I used to agree with you until recently. sm [2008-06-11]
We have had a few pits over the years and they were fine. DH brought one home from work recently that he bought for $200, 6-month old fully registered. We had 2 pigmy goats in their pen. Within 3 hours of him bringing this pit home, it attacked and killed one of our goats. My kiddos were trying to get it off the goat before I knew it, could have killed them but they don't understand the seriousness, they were only trying to save their pet. When I realized what was going on, DH and I both tried to get that dog away and neither one of us could until the goat was dead. DH took him and shot him. Fast forward about 2 months and now there is a wild pit I guess someone dropped off around here. I have seen it maybe twice. Killed my kiddos' kitten. Heard lots of commotion one night and went out to see the kitten in its mouth. Not the same pit but you could tell this dog was pit. DH wasn't here but we are trying to locate that dog and it will be disappear as well if I see it on my property again. They don't kill to eat, they kill just to kill. A few years ago, my BIL brought his pit to our family reunion. Had him on a chain and my DS at the time was maybe 6. He as petting him but had a bag of cheetos in his hands. The pit attacked him and almost ripped is ear off before we got him away and probably the only reason we got him away from the pit was because the pit was on a chain and saw it happen instantly. My kids will NEVER be allowed around any pit whatsoever. I say Amen to the representatives trying to pass this bill. I agree with them 100%. You never know when they will attack and I personally now believe it has nothing to do with how they were raised. It is in their genetics.
I agree, don't let her get to you... [2008-06-10]
my stepdaughters were not the princesses they portrayed themselves to be and their dad soon caught on to the nastiness and disrespect they showed me (and still do!). This nut has her own problems, probably very low self esteem, makes her feel better to point out your flaws because she is so perfect...LOL! No judgements, just hoping it all works out for you!
I totally agree with Ship. I used to be a step-mom... [2008-06-09]
My situation was much different, though.
I think you guys need to talk and your husband needs to get his head out of his butt and let you be a step-mom to your step-son, i.e., allow discipline for one thing. I'm not saying beat the kid bloody, of course, but if you can't tell him no or make him do something, that's ridiculous.
Sounds like your husband has big issues and I know how some men are about therapy or changing in any way. Being a step-mother is NOT easy but if you want it to work and think you can make it work, steps need to be taken; this won't go away and you can't just *tolerate* having your step-son there and only being happy with your husband when step-son is not there. Much, much good luck to you.
I agree with not snooping unless you have reason [2008-06-05]
to believe something is going on, but like another poster said this really isn't any different than looking at their myspace page. We didn't even do that but other family members did it for us and we did it for them. Found out DS was possibly suicidal. We were dumbfounded. For the first time ever I snooped in his room and found a couple of other very eye-opening things. No drugs or alcohol but a possible eat-disorder. You just don't think about that when it comes to boys.
He lost a classmate earlier in the year to the choking game. I wonder if his parents had snooped if they would have found something that might have prevented this. And BTW, couldnhis little girl.
I agree [2008-06-04]
That is completely wrong of her. She is showing no appreciation for what you do for them. My favors would run out too. You have no obligation to help someone who canIt The blank would of course be a town far from them. Maybe they will get the hint, then again people like that usually don't.
I totally agree and I am hanging onto [2008-06-03]
my 95 truck which has too much new stuff, too, but it is paid for. This stuff worked just fine before. wonder where you are? my sister is a pilot, but I think your husband is safe, she has a mechanic already!
Completely agree with your post. Don't bring sm [2008-06-02]
ANYTHING to school or on bus. It will get stolen and how could you even prove the game belonged to your son?
Agree with chalk it up to experience.
As far as calling parents: You will be the one cursed out. They will never believe their little darling could pilfer anything.
I agree with giddy... [2008-05-29]
It is very sad. Why would your husband spy on you? That is not very nice. Does he have trust issues?
I agree. We have to pay out a lot. The stimulus checks should be for everyone! sm [2008-05-29]
I owed 4800 this year. BUT no stimulus check. Ok, fine, can accept that btu shoudnstimulus check go toward what I owe!!! Sorry but my bills are going up just like everone else so I donextra either??
I agree...not selfish at all..we have all felt like that at one time or another.. [2008-05-28]
although some of us probably don't want to admit that...glad she vented to us and not her mother...
Agree with you. If DC does not win, then [2008-05-21]
he can strike a contract to his terms, not be saddled with whatever AI wants him to do.
"for a while", I agree. But [2008-05-21]
most companies ask for 2-3+ YEARS of experience. That's a long time to work for min. wage!. No one is expecting to make big money as a new grad, but a decent, human wage would be nice.
Agree. I use liquid Tide, which is concentrated, so [2008-05-16]
nm
I agree. They also don't state how much their mortgage [2008-05-13]
if you don't live beyond your means you don't struggle.
I think she means [2008-07-03]
that with unstable dry sand, or even with sand of a wetter consistency, if a hole is too deep (over a child make whatever limit you feel safe with. There's nothing to fear if they keep it shallow.
This happened to a man I knew years ago with dirt, not sand, but I agree it would be possible in sand and probably easier done. He was working in a ditch deeper than he was tall, and when it collapsed on top of him, it killed him. I do believe that is what 'SM' is warning against.
I agree with you OP... [2008-07-02]
So many, many times we see and hear about animal versus human incidences and so many times it I agree with you 100%. You and your daughter deserve to feel safe and for her to be so afraid to go out and ride her bike is terrible. The money (which I hope you do get) will not help your daughter to overcome her fear, but hopefully it will make the neighbor take responsibility for their pet All my best to you and your daughter. She'll get through this, kids are very strong!
debt [2008-07-02]
I agree with transferring to 0% when the offers come. I have been doing that for years. Now, I just got an offer for 6.99% for the life of balance up to 12,000 dollars. Going to take that offer, (we are going to remodel our main but small bathroom) and pay off 2 1/2 cc; then what is left over, oh, and going to give my hubby 1000 to get out bike out of shop, so, what ever is left over, which should be 6 to 7000, will redo bathroom, payments won't be bad, like 190 a month and don't use your cards for a good while, just steadily pay. Hope this helps, and life is too short to stress over bills. Keep them in mind but at the same time, think of what you have.
maybe it's you... [2008-07-01]
who is pathetic. This person is simply expressing an opinion and you are being extremely rude. that no respect for another opinion. And I agree with them. what good will money do to alleviate your daughter's fears? Perhaps a more calm and reasoned approach would be more effective instead of aggravating the situation by engaging in battle. By law, hospitals have to report animal bites and the animal has to be impounded for a period of time. If none of this has happened, i find it hard to believe there was any significant injury. Chill out. Help your child and forget the legal battles. Do not be a part of the problems of this sue crazy society.
Yes, actually.....sm [2008-06-24]
she did put my daughter in the car with the car seat but WITHOUT the base for it. Doesn OK, she only went down her driveway, across the gravel road and up her son What if, what if, what if......My husband let her know that was not to ever happen again. Now we take the base out of our vehicle and leave it with her every time.
As for my husband cutting the grass, I totally agree with you. I have learned if I want something done, I have to do it myself. That
I mean no disrespect when I ask..... [2008-06-20]
do you think you could have done a better job running this country? I would never want President Bush's job in a million years and only have respect for him and for taking the job on. I truly think he did the best he could given the circumstances he was given shortly after being elected. I know you will obviously not agree and that is fine, but I still say it is wrong to call anyone retarded. It is just wrong and uncalled for.
I wouldn't call anyone "retarded." sm [2008-06-19]
It is just pejorative and shameful. The President of the United State may not be the best speaker in the world, but he is certainly not mentally retarded. Calling him that is just uncalled for. Quitefrankly, you may not like him or agree with him, but please don't continue to call him retarded. It is also disrespectful to those that are truly mentally challenged. :(
recession [2008-06-19]
I agree with you. We live the same way, no CC and no car payments. My husband is disabled and he helps me and we have a 25 daughter still at home who buys the food. We can honestly say that God does provide for us. We We do give regular our tithes to the church, 10% as was in the O.T. and God blesses us. If more people followed these Bible principles, they would do better.
I agree [2008-06-19]
I agree with you about feeling blessed. Working at home, I save a lot in gas, and like you, we have no CC debt, almost have the house paid for and drive older vehicles that are paid for, have the smallest Dish bill possible ($6 per month), etc. . I feel like some people are so far in over their heads that they are going to find themselves in big trouble. . I do hate seeing that grocery bill going up every week though - next year, I will have a garden - only have tomatoes this year.
showers [2008-06-18]
I think itplease come to my wedding and buy me a gift that I have picked from Target.
I think a baby shower for a 2nd baby is fine if the 1st was a girl and the 2nd is a boy, something like that. I think (and this is just my opinion) that once you already have the clothes for the gender of baby you are having you shouldn't have one, but I have been to lots, some specified as diapers-only baby showers. Close family and friends will probably gift them anyway, but no need for a shower.
Just my opinion - see message [2008-06-18]
I think I read some place (like Ann Landers) where it is in really poor taste to have multiple showers for multiple marriages. I tend to agree. If the couple already has everything they need then the point of the shower is to just get even more stuff? I certainly would not bring a gift if they were tactless enough to register for something. The same goes for *money only* bridal and baby showers. Guess that is just my opinion, you asked...
I own a pit bull...sm [2008-06-13]
He lives inside with us and sleeps in my bed with me when my husband is out of town working. He is nothing more than a big baby. I believe you that your dog is amazingly sweet. Just because he has a certain breed in him does not guarantee he will be a mean, dangerous dog. I think it is WRONG to euthanize a dog because of its breed. It makes me very angry. I do agree with restrictions such as having a fenced in yard and not allowing them to roam loose. These dogs are very protective of their owners and WILL hurt someone if they are a stranger and they feel their owner is threatened. That is where dog owner responsibility comes in. My dog has never and will never be allowed to roam free. He stays in the house and I have a fenced in back yard he cannot get out of. I have signs posted on the fence in the backyard as a warning. He is not a mean dog but if a stranger he does not know approaches him or the back yard or comes to the door he will get aggressive. If someone my dog is not famiiiar with comes over I put him in the backyard. But as long as it is someone he knows and has met and he knows I am okay with them being here he is fine. He will lick them and wag his tail. He is just very protective of me. If anyone ever tried to hit me or attack me he would attack them. I had a friend jokingly look at CJ (my pit) and she said I am gonna hit your mama CJ and she reared back and hit at me. He did lunge at her. But I hollered and grabbed his collar and when I hollared he instantly sit. But I told her don't ever do that again. Beleive me she won't. CJ would never intentionally hurt someone unless he felt I or he was threatened. He is the biggest baby ever. If he knows someone he will lick them and love on them. To euthanize all pit bulls is stupidity. Unless you own one you don't know what misunderstood dogs they are. It is all in the owner and how responsible they are. If you don't own one you can't know how loving they can be. I can say without a doubt my pit would die to protect me if he had to. And the only time he will get aggressive is when a stranger approaches our house or the back fenced in yard. RESPONSIBLE ownership is the key. I don't even take CJ out for walks because I do not want to take a risk of him getting loose from me and feeling threatened by somone and hurting them. He will not have an opportunity to bite anyone because if a person he doesn't know comes over we put him out in the backyard in the fenced in area. If a stranger comes in the back yard when there are signs posted then they will just get bit possibly because they were warned. They can come to my front door anytime. But not the back. I think I am responsible and if my dog was aggressive to us or my friends or family who came over I wouldn't have him but he is not that way. It is only strangers.
It is about resposible ownership IMHO...sm [2008-06-13]
A dog will usually show some sign of being aggressive. I don't believe that they would just attack all of a sudden and never show a sign of being unstable. Granted there are some pit bulls who are very dangerous. Now I believe if your friend has a pit she should not let it run loose in the yard. She should have it where it is confined to a fenced in yard with posted signs. I wouldn't feel comfortable going there either if it was just loose. That is not responsible ownership. I don't agree with euthanizing them unless they are dangerous. But I do agree with restrictions on ownership. I don't believe you should be allowed to own a pit and not have a fenced in area for it. They think when a stranger approaches they have to protect their property and protect their owner. You can't just let them have free reign of the place and roam all over the property to possibly bite someone who visited. If they aren't loose to bite someone then they can't bite them. Just my opinion.
If you would like to further educate yourself on this issue [2008-06-12]
INTERESTING ARTICLE
I realize this is very long, but as an expert in this field, I want to re-post information I sent, in September, to another blogger concerned about the Best Friends summit.
I want to emphasize that the following information is based on years of dedicated research, and decades of dog training experience. I do not simply pass along information I've heard or read somewhere...which is sadly what most people, on all sides of dog-related issues, do.
I recognize that some of your readers may find parts of it quite controversial. That's okay. Facts are facts, even if they conflict with some other [expert's] unresearched opinions.
As such, I've opted to leave those sections in, because they're vital in refuting unfounded notions about dogs, canine genetics, and dog behaviour, which lead to myths about canine aggression.
Any individual point of controversy should not take away from the overall message of fact and reason that does not support the view that any entire dog breed could be considered dangerous.
Only once people stop repeating inaccurate information (no matter how good it may sound), will we ever hope to get to the heart of this issue, and start reducing the number of unprovoked dog bites.
The following was written off the top of my head, in response to concerns about the Best Friends' agenda. It is not a composed article meant for publication. Please also keep in mind, it has a decidedly Canadian perspective, although there is ample U.S. data referenced.
This is what I wrote (with a few minor clarifications):
Dear (blogger),
As you know, I am an expert in Canadian dog bite statistics.
After years of research, there are a number of interesting facts I right here, in one place.
The situation with unprovoked dog bites is not what nearly everyone believes it to be.
If I had one pet peeve, it is that most people merely repeat things they’ve heard or read. They don’t really know if what they’re saying is true or not. They merely “believe” those things to be true, and that’s enough for them, I guess.
You know what I say, “No matter how often or loudly a myth is repeated, it is still just a myth.”
Some people simply like agreeing with others. Some like to pretend they’re especially knowledgeable or have unique insight. Whatever the source for so many of these myths, years of research has proven the majority of beliefs I encounter about dogs are simply untrue.
Whenever discussing the issue of dangerous dogs, it's always important to remember a few key points about the dog bite statistics (especially as they pertain to Canada):
1. The most dangerous breeds in Canada are, in order: German Shepherd, Cocker Spaniel, Rottweiler, and Golden Retriever.
Why do I say this? Well, this is not dog bite data, but rather dog attack data based on the reporting information from the Canadian Hospital Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP).
The CHIRPP members (hospitals, and reporting physicians and nurses) have no reason to lie about the information they receive, surrounding the breed of dog that has attacked.
Why do I say the most dangerous? Well, because the CHIRPP data only applies to the most severe dog attacks (i.e. those injuries serious enough to require treatment in hospital). These are not little nips that can be treated with ice or even a band aid. These are severe dog bite injuries that need to be treated in hospital. The dogs that cause the most serious injuries in Canada belong to the above-mentioned breeds, more than any others.
Unlike municipal dog bite data (where any bite, no matter how inconsequential, or even against other animals, is counted), the CHIRPP data only relates to the most serious dog attacks against human victims.
2. 'Pit bulls' are rarely in the #1 spot in dog bite statistics.
Any measures to restrict or ban the #2, #5, or #37 'breed' of dog in the dog bite statistics, but not #1, is pure hypocrisy.
As faulty as the logic may be, if you're going to ban or restrict a type of dog in an attempt to reduce the number of dog bites, then it must be the ones who bite the most and/or cause the most serious injuries. Either way, that 'breed' is not 'pit bulls'.
3. There hasn't been one confirmed death of a child attributed to an unprovoked attack by a 'pit bull' in Canadian history. (There has been one unconfirmed death.)
4. The very first human fatality attributed to an unprovoked attack by a 'pit bull' in Canadian history occurred in May of 2006. Until then, every insinuation or claim about Canadians being in danger of being killed in unprovoked attacks by 'pit bulls' was totally unfounded.
(In the Ontario case in May, the dog was actually only part 'pit bull'. It was a Labrador Retriever/'pit bull' cross, and the dog's owner was the victim.) (It should be noted that there have been at least two human fatalities in Canada attributed to unprovoked attacks by Labrador Retriever crosses, yet this was the first for a 'pit bull' cross.)
5. Municipal dog bite statistics often combine reported dog bite data against both humans and other animals.
While I don’t have any problems with doing so, those citing combined statistics must be aware that the majority of the dog bite reports aren’t against people. To imply otherwise is, at best, misleading and, at worst, dishonest.
For example: Toronto has arguably the largest municipal ‘pit bull’ population in Canada. In 2004, 12 of the city’s estimated 30,000+ ‘pit bulls’ had been reported for biting. (That’s about 0.04% of the population, by the way; leaving 99.96% of Toronto’s ‘pit bulls’ completely innocent of such allegations.) However, the majority of those reported bites were against other animals. Only 2 of the 12 could even begin to be called “attacks” against humans.
So, when 2 out of at least 30,000 dogs of a loosely-defined type are involved in attacks in an entire year, is that really justification for not just trying to ban or restrict them, but for making sweeping generalizations about all the rest?
6. No matter what dog ‘breed’ tops the dog bite statistics, the vast majority of bites are still attributed to other breeds.
To better help people understand the absurdity of a breed-based approach to dog bite prevention, let’s imagine that ‘pit bulls’ are responsible for a virtually unheard of 10% of bites in some Canadian city. That still leaves 90% of biting dogs unaffected by any breed-based approach.
This is the primary reason why breed bans have been such a colossal failure wherever they’ve been tried. The majority of biting and attacking dogs are not affected, so their owners are free to continue to behave negligently.
7. All dogs can bite.
There is no such thing as a breed of dog that has never bitten, never attacked, never maimed, or never killed (a person or other animal).
8. It is the size of the victim, not the dog, which best predicts severity of injury in an attack.
While even the very smallest dog breeds have killed humans, the very largest dog breeds are rarely involved in attacks.
9. Adults are rarely seriously injured by dogs of any size, while children are the most common dog bite victims. Their attackers range from the very smallest to the very largest dog breeds.
10. The dogs actually involved in attacks are not genetically related in any meaningful way.
This goes right to the heart of common, yet completely unscientific, baseless claims about allegedly inheriting aggressive behaivours or being bred for aggression.
In short, the dogs involved in attacks are not closely genetically related to one another. This tends to refute the idea that the attack was due to some aberrant inherited gene.
Think about it. What could the Dalmatian that bit off a boy’s nose 10 years ago and the Golden Retriever that left 76 stitches in a girl’s face, just a few years ago, possibly have in common, from a genetic standpoint? Is anyone really trying to suggest they’re genetically related, and both inherited some sort of as-yet-undiscovered “attack gene”?
Even the Rottweiler that killed a child in New Brunswick and the Rottweiler that killed a child in Ontario don’t share any common ancestors in their pedigrees; making the whole notion of a shared genetic cause for attacks completely ludicrous.
Put simply, the individual dogs involved in unique attack incidents are not genetically related in any way other than that which makes them dogs.
11. Psychology defines aggression as learned behaviour.
I’ve been researching dog biting incidents since 1999. I have yet to find a dog involved in an attack that didn’t have a known history of aggressive behaviour.
Aggression has to be learned and practiced before it is perfected. I have yet to come across a case of a dog that attacked unprovoked, without ever having barked menacingly, growled, lunged, snapped, or what have you.
This completely refutes the (quite silly) urban myth that “some dogs just turn”, or that dogs can be THIS unpredictable. (i.e. friendly family pet with no history of ever having behaved aggressively one minute; then savage, unprovoked attacker the next)
As an experienced dog trainer (one who has spent many of those years SUCCESSFULLY re-training aggressive dogs), I can attest that dogs are not all that unpredictable. Sure, they might do something out of the ordinary, every now and then. However, for a dog to suddenly behave aggressively in a way that is truly threatening or injurious, it must have practiced those behaviours in the past. This is the nature of all learned behaviours. Only practice makes perfect. (I can elaborate more on that, if you wish.)
It’s as though people can’t imagine any other form of aggressive behaviour, other than biting. To help them along, I must point out that aggressive behaviours follow a fairly predictable scale of escalation. It may begin with staring or raised hackles (all merely indicating discomfort with a situation). That can lead to raised lips, growling, stiffened body posture, menacing barking, lunging, and attempted bites. Long before an unwarranted bite ever occurs, there are a litany of warning signs that the dog will eventually bite.
Even the most die-hard dog fighting breeders admit they have to start their puppies very young (often at six weeks), to turn them into superior fighters. When asked why they have to spend so much effort training their (allegedly bred-to-fight) dogs, none can provide a scientifically or practically sensible response. Most use made-up terminologies to emphasize what they believe are inherited traits, while playing down the daily training they force on the dogs. Yet it is clear that, without this ongoing encouragement, the dogs don’t become proficient fighters.
I’ve researched so many cases where the owner has allegedly claimed the attack was the first time the dog behaved aggressively, I now pay little heed to such statements. The neighbours almost always tell a very different story.
To use a more famous case as an example, little Courtney Trempe was killed by a dog the owner claimed had never behaved aggressively before. The owner went on to say he “couldn’t have known” the dog would attack, because it had never tried to bite a person. Well, it turns out the dog had not just attacked previously, but had actually killed two neighbourhood dogs in the past. That is an aggressive dog, by anyone’s standards.
But it does bring me to my next point…
12. Aggression is aggression is aggression. The idea that aggression can be species-specific is not based in any kind of scientific, statistical, or practical data. It seems to be little more than wishful thinking. Those perpetuating this notion tend not to have even attempted to validate this theory in any way.
There is a very disturbing myth being promulgated by a number of groups that should know better than to perpetuate unfounded myths. The idea that aggression towards other dogs is markedly different than aggression towards humans is scientifically and statistically baseless. (But I realize a lot of people learned this myth, and repeat it as though it is true.) I have to point out that the real-world data, in no uncertain terms, clearly refutes such theories.
Of the dogs involved in their first aggression incident towards a human, the vast majority had behaved aggressively towards other animals (usually other dogs) in the past.
Of the dogs involved in their first bites against humans, where the dog had no history of aggression towards humans, the majority had behaved aggressively towards other animals (usually other dogs) in the past.
Of the dogs whose first bite against a person resulted in that individual’s death, and where the dog had no history of aggressive behaviour towards humans, every one of the cases I’ve investigated involved dogs that had behaved aggressively towards other dogs in the past. (see the Trempe case example, above)
So, while some aggressive dogs may, for now, limit their aggressive behaviour to other animals, it in no way guarantees it will remain that way forever.
Most, if not all, the first-time human biters had only behaved aggressively towards other animals, in the past. Their owners, having believed the myth that aggression is species-specific in dogs, are always surprised when their dog-aggressive dogs bite someone.
Again, dog-aggression could remain contained, for a number of social and environmental reasons. Statistically, these dogs are equally as likely to bite a human, one day. Dogs with histories of aggressive behaviour (towards either humans or other animals) are almost exclusively involved in unprovoked biting incidents.
13. Nearly all unprovoked dog bites would not be prevented by dog control laws.
Since dog control laws typically only apply to the conduct of owners (and their dogs) when they’re on public property, it completely negates their ability to affect the circumstances that lead to the vast majority of unprovoked dog bites.
When it comes to total dog bite numbers, almost all take place on the owner’s property.
When it comes to reported dog bite numbers, the overwhelming majority take place on, or directly adjacent to, the owner’s property.
Supervised dogs in a public place account for less than 1% of all bites.
This makes public restraint laws especially ineptly-aimed and ineffective in reducing dog bites.
Most unprovoked biting incidents involve (typically an unsupervised) dog known to the victim. Whether or not the victim knows the dog, the bite usually takes place on the owner’s property (where the dog is either loose or tethered), or directly adjacent to the owner’s property (where the dog was either allowed to venture off the owner’s property, or “escaped”).
Very few unprovoked biting incidents involve a supervised dog. Simple supervision appears to be very effective in preventing dog bites.
When bites take place far from the owner’s property, the dogs involved were most likely loose, roaming, unsupervised dogs.
Simply put, public restraint laws don’t target the situations that actually lead to unprovoked dog bites.
14. Cities that address the real causes of unprovoked dog bites (i.e. lack of supervision & lack of socialization and training) are hugely successful in reducing the number of dog bites.
Calgary is the best example we have in Canada. They reduced dog bites by 70%, even during a period where the population doubled.
Calgary’s approach was to first enforce existing laws. They strictly enforce licensing, and boast a licensing rate of 90% (compared to most cites’ 10-20%). In this way, they have a better handle on the dog population in their community, which helps in making decisions and drawing conclusions.
They also have a zero tolerance policy for acts of aggression. (Something I’m personally totally in favour of. Dogs are not weapons, and anyone who unethically uses a dog for that purpose shouldn’t be allowed to own one.) Any report of aggressive behaviour of any kind results in a visit from animal control and a warning.
City officials are clear, in that they agree one of the biggest aspects of their success was the creation of ample off-leash areas for dogs to be exercised, socialized, and trained off-leash. With reportedly the largest number of off-leash parks in Canada, it’s no coincidence that Calgary also has the lowest dog bite rate of any major city in Canada.
Several years ago, I made this prediction, “When the studies are done, we’ll find the cities with the best access to off-leash parks are also the cities with the lowest percentage of dog bites.”
Calgary certainly suggests my prediction was correct.
Finally, Calgary increased the penalties for some transgressions. Combined with increased enforcement, the large percentage of licensed dogs, along with the higher fines, has led to Calgary’s animal control department becoming financially self-sufficient.
It’s win, win, win, in Calgary, all because they addressed the real causes for unwarranted aggression in dogs.
15. Breed-specific approaches to dog bite prevention have failed.
There isn’t one region that can claim a reduction in the number, or severity, of dog bites as a direct result of banning a breed of dog.
In Winnipeg, officials promoting the city’s long-time ban on ‘pit bulls’ often misleads the public by stating “’pit bull’ attacks” have been eliminated. Well of course they’ve been eliminated. ‘Pit bulls’ are banned in Winnipeg. You don’t have to be rocket scientist to figure that out. There are also no wooly mammoth attacks or saber toothed tiger attacks, either.
When Winnipeg banned ‘pit bulls’, German Shepherds, and their crosses, were far and away the most common biters in that city. After ‘pit bulls’ were banned, there was an average of close to 50 more bites per year, for the following decade. In addition to the rise in overall dog bites, the number of bites by German Shepherds and crosses, Labrador Retrievers and crosses, Terriers crosses, and Rottweilers and crosses, skyrocketed.
Kitchener is another example. The city of Kitchener banned ‘pit bulls’ in 1997, without ever having done an analysis on the city’s dog bite data. Only after ‘pit bulls’ were banned was it discovered they were #8 in the 1996 dog bite statistics, “right behind #7 Poodles,” as it is commonly said. In what could only be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, officials immediately halted the collection of dog bite data by breed.
Even so, while we don’t know which breeds have been doing the biting, we can still determine if the ‘pit bull’ ban has been effective in reducing dog bites in Kitchener. Every animal bite is required, by law, to be reported to the Medical Officer of Health. With a sleuthing, it was discovered that dog bites haven’t been reduced at all, since ‘pit bulls’ were banned in 1997. They’ve remained pretty constant.
According to a BBC report, hospitalizations due to dog bites rose 25% after ‘pit bulls’ were banned in England.
Officials from most of the cities that have repealed breed-specific laws have used terms like “ineffective” and “unenforceable”.
16. All dog breeds are genetically identical. Even DNA can’t distinguish between a Chihuahua, a ‘pit bull’, a Great Dane, and a wolf. (Yes, while there are occasional claims of in-roads, in this area, using markers, all dogs are still considered genetically identical.)
Those rare individuals with the personal expertise necessary to accurately attempt to determine a dog’s breed based on appearance alone typically are not employed in the various occupations charged with enforcing most breed-specific legislation. This leaves the subjective determination of a dog’s breed to the very inexpert animal control and shelter workers. In some cases, police officers must decide the dog’s breed, yet not one police officer is trained to (accurately) differentiate between dog breeds.
The same can be said of veterinarians. A veterinary license infers expertise in diagnosing and treating illness, for the most part. Neither practicing veterinarians nor veterinary students are required to prove any expertise in breed identification in order to obtain a license. Any expertise an individual veterinarian may possess, in terms of breed identification, or even dog training and behaviour, was most likely acquired outside the requirements of licensing.
Because the people enforcing breed-specific laws are not dog breed identification experts, the likelihood of misidentification is unconscionably great. (In Ontario, several dogs have already been misidentified, under breed-specific ordinances.)
17. The public is not in danger of unprovoked dog bites.
For instance, every recent dog-related fatality in Canada has involved dogs and victims residing within the same home. The same could be said for the majority of bites and attacks, as well.
This is very important information, in terms of quelling the public’s hysteria. “The public” is rarely involved in unprovoked biting incidents. Most bite victims knew the dog and were voluntarily interacting with it at the time of the bite. Most bite victims are bitten by their own dogs.
If you don’t own a dog, your risk of being bitten is very low. If you also don’t interact with dogs, or live next door to a dog that is routinely left unsupervised, or one that is known to behave aggressively, then your risk of being bitten is virtually nil.
Even when we don’t account for contributing factors (such as proximity) you are still more than 100 times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a dog. (In Canada, the likelihood of being killed by a dog you don’t know or live with is virtually zero.)
18. ‘Pit bulls’ are, if anything, less likely to bite.
In the U.S., ‘pit bulls’ are estimated to make up 9% of the dog population, yet they typically only make up 2-4% of dog bites, nationwide. In case your readers don’t understand what that means, it would be expected, purely on population alone, that 9% of dog bites would be attributed to ‘pit bulls’. Since less than half (even a third) of bites are reportedly caused by ‘pit bulls’, this suggests they’re much less likely to bite than should be expected.
19. ‘Pit bulls’ are less likely to kill than people.
In the U.S., even extremely conservative estimates suggest that only 0.00002% of the ‘pit bull’ population has killed. This is much lower than the human population (men, in particular).
Whatever someone’s views about ‘pit bulls’ might be, it can’t change the fact that at least 99.99998% have never, and will never, kill anyone.
20. 99.9% of all dogs, from all breeds, will never be involved in an attack.
Huge generalizations about dog breeds is not only unscientific, it’s not even practically accurate. I like to put it this way, “If any ‘breed’ were genetically programmed to attack, certainly more than 0.1% of them would.”
21. The media.
While I don’t want to get into a protracted discussion about the lack of honesty in media reports of dog bites, I will summarize by saying that reviewing media reports of dog biting incidents is not “research” because the media is extremely biased in regards to which stories it chooses to cover.
The media reports dog biting incidents involving ‘pit bulls’ to the near-exclusion of all others. In addition, they use other tactics to exaggerate the details, such as salacious language, or references to other dog biting incidents involving ‘pit bulls’.
There are countless incidents of media bias. In Ontario, a ‘pit bull’ killed another dog, and it was front-page news, that reappeared in the media for weeks. The owner was swiftly taken to jail. Around the same time, two Labs killed another dog, and attacked a ‘pit bull’ without any real media interest. The owner of the Labs was not charged with any serious offence.
There are other blatant incidents, as well. One weekend, two off-leash dogs (one of them being a ‘pit bull’) got into a squabble, and every major media agency reported the incident. That same weekend, a child was mauled by the family’s Golden Retriever, and not one media outlet covered the story.
A child was mauled so savagely by his grandfather’s Labrador Retriever, he required treatment at two Ontario hospitals. Only one media outlet covered this story in just one broadcast.
Again, relying on the media for the facts of dog biting cases is not advised.
Naturally, I could go on. But there you have a pretty good primer (off the top of my head), regarding the facts about the who, what, where, when, how, and why dogs bite unprovoked.
Because I kept encountering the same story, over and over and over again, in my research of dog biting incidents, I was led to create a dog bite prevention strategy that deals with the factors common to nearly all the cases I’d investigated.
I made it simple, and easy to remember. And I made sure not to include anything that would require an individual to develop some kind of expertise. People who don’t own dogs or aren’t experienced dog trainers still have a right to protect themselves from unprovoked dog bites. The following is what I call, the “3 Simple Steps to Dog Bite Prevention”:
1. Avoid unsupervised dogs.
2. Never leave children unsupervised with dogs.
3. Ensure our own dogs are properly trained and adequately supervised at all times.
By following these “3 Simple Steps”, we could virtually eliminate unprovoked dog bites in Canada.
It is not just important, but vital, to know what ACTUALLY causes dogs to bite unprovoked, if we ever hope to reduce those numbers. Obtusely theorizing about possible causes or solutions is not helpful and, as in the case of breed-specific legislation, is often harmful to both humans and dogs.
If you would like more information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marjorie Darby
Founder,
I've had bad experiences with them, but I disagree with the laws... [2008-06-12]
We used to have a rottie (died last year) and they have the same stigma attached to them. We were actually denied homeowners insurance with many different companies because we owned a rottie. The funny thing is, he was the biggest sweet dog you ever met, a giant teddy bear. Our chocolate lab was 100 times more likely to be aggressive/hurt someone, but of course they don
That said, I Because of my experiencw ith my rottie though, I don Dogs should be judged on an individual basis ONLY.
I used to agree with you until recently. sm [2008-06-11]
We have had a few pits over the years and they were fine. DH brought one home from work recently that he bought for $200, 6-month old fully registered. We had 2 pigmy goats in their pen. Within 3 hours of him bringing this pit home, it attacked and killed one of our goats. My kiddos were trying to get it off the goat before I knew it, could have killed them but they don't understand the seriousness, they were only trying to save their pet. When I realized what was going on, DH and I both tried to get that dog away and neither one of us could until the goat was dead. DH took him and shot him. Fast forward about 2 months and now there is a wild pit I guess someone dropped off around here. I have seen it maybe twice. Killed my kiddos' kitten. Heard lots of commotion one night and went out to see the kitten in its mouth. Not the same pit but you could tell this dog was pit. DH wasn't here but we are trying to locate that dog and it will be disappear as well if I see it on my property again. They don't kill to eat, they kill just to kill. A few years ago, my BIL brought his pit to our family reunion. Had him on a chain and my DS at the time was maybe 6. He as petting him but had a bag of cheetos in his hands. The pit attacked him and almost ripped is ear off before we got him away and probably the only reason we got him away from the pit was because the pit was on a chain and saw it happen instantly. My kids will NEVER be allowed around any pit whatsoever. I say Amen to the representatives trying to pass this bill. I agree with them 100%. You never know when they will attack and I personally now believe it has nothing to do with how they were raised. It is in their genetics.
steps [2008-06-10]
I agree with you and feel very deeply for this poor child. This woman is hateful, immature, and a dozen other adjectives that I could add, but they just would not change her bad, bad, bad, bad behavior and attitude. Wonder if her husband knows she is trash-talking him online --- would love to here his opinion of this situation --- since she has unilaterally decided to air her dirty laundry in a public format. Who is spitful and immature????
Why do people get attacked on here? [2008-06-10]
You know I was just reading the below thread from the upset stepmom. I think it is so sad how so many people come to this board when they need support and during their time of need, they just end up getting attacked. Do these attackers ever think about their impact on the person who originally posted the thread? That person could be severely depressed and they are making them feel even worse. I just do not understand why these people who do not agree with the original poster just can The person is looking for support, not insults. Just like we are taught in kindergarten...If you do not have anything nice to say, then do not say anything at all. This is the most unfriendly and abusive discussion board I have even seen. There are much nicer MT boards and I am joining those. I am sick of the attacks on this board. These attacking posters have become mean, hurtful, hardhearted and noncaring. Maybe they are miserable in their own lives and want to trashtalk others on here. I personally think they should get a life.
You all sound like excellent parents [2008-06-05]
I don't have any kids myself and I was reading all your posts and you all sound like very good parents (the kind I would want to have if I was growing up). Sounds like times have changed since I was a teenager (lets see....over 30 years ago - ugh!!!!), but I do agree that parents have to know what's going on in their kids lives. I see a lot of horrible things in the news of troubled kids (school shootings, bullies and stuff, kids into drugs, or kids being mean and all the other stuff that goes on) and always wonder if their parents knew what they were up too.
Completely agree with your post. Don't bring sm [2008-06-02]
ANYTHING to school or on bus. It will get stolen and how could you even prove the game belonged to your son?
Agree with chalk it up to experience.
As far as calling parents: You will be the one cursed out. They will never believe their little darling could pilfer anything.
Well, that was kind of my point [2008-05-31]
I wasn My intention was that this young lady should be explained to by her parents the proper way to return a borrowed item for future reference (not that my son will be loaning anyone anything else). I agree that it I just think it shouldn't have went through that many hands in the first place.
Was married to a man with zero drive sm [2008-05-30]
I mean, he seemed to have some drive in the very beginning, but after about a year he seemed to have no drive at all! He would constantly complain about being tired...even after spending the entire weekend asleep on the couch. He took antidepressants and it didn He took sleeping pills to help him sleep more deeply, didnup for fun either. Hottie lingerie didn NOTHING WORKED.
We are divorced for some years. When my oldest child was a teenager and would stay over at dad I thought...mmm...same argument new wife! It wasn't me!!!
I have talked to enough of my friends to understand that some men lose interest or perhaps they lack any kind of a drive anymore. This is why my friends and I all agree that you need a younger man so that when his interest peeters out you LOL
To see msg.... [2008-05-27]
Ok, ok, calm down.
I do not try to make others feel miserable, the contrary,
I try to save marriages, because I believe in marriage and when it's broken, it's broken, no going back.
Done's husband is not really abusive. What they have is a communication problem. They have to stop writing letters and t a l k to each other.
They should actually go on a date: They should set certain days aside and agree to meet at a certain hour, let's say in the evening - children not present - and talk to each other, for an hour or so. Or go out, have some fun!
Each of them can tell the other one what her/his problems are. If the conversations become too heated, one should just get up and leave the room to calm down. No shouting and yelling is allowed and no insults.
I hope it can be fixed. Why do you a l l advise her to leave her family and start a new life? In my opinion this marriage can be saved.
Once again you are rude [2008-05-27]
I donhey, so what if your being abused the bruises are not visible, stay in, keep letting him treat you like this, because there is not a visible injury the kids don. You know what. The kids DO care. Kids want their parents to be happy. When the parents are happy they have so much more to give to the kids instead of having to hide the misery they are going through. Sure sometimes its hard in the beginning but kids are genuinely more happy when their parents are happy. And they will in turn learn to treat their spouses with respect. Of course someone should try counseling before just up and leaving, but if you have a spouse that writes you letters pointing out your errors and flaws and then feels they have done nothing wrong that is not healthy. If that spouse will not agree to counseling then there are another alternative and that is to leave. Do not stay in an abusive relationship and keep being abused by a spouse because you have to stay there for your kids. That was what people did in the 60s and 70s and probably before then. This is the year 2008. There are better ways to live.
What would you suggest? [2008-05-21]
Would anyone have suggestions for MTs looking for a higher pay rate? If one has good references, background, experience, and skills - what more can they do to earn a starting pay greater than 7 cents?
I agree that it is not much financially but with all things considered this seems to be the going rate these days for an MT with less than 5 years experience.
|
|
|