Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should feral dogs be treated as pests rather than as pets? I think quite definitely so. When you say "dog" to someone they think of an animal that wags its tail and licks your hand. The animals can, without taming and training, be quite ferocious. Dogs are "sweet" because they respect humans as the alpha wolf. Feral dogs, not so much.
The article said nothing about feral dogs. Neither you or I know for sure, but that pack could have included dogs who have homes, come when they're called, and play fetch with kids. If dogs are allowed to roam free, they will find a pack to run with, and mayhem will ensue, which can include assaults on humans.
The article said nothing about feral dogs. Neither you or I know for sure, but that pack could have included dogs who have homes, come when they're called, and play fetch with kids. If dogs are allowed to roam free, they will find a pack to run with, and mayhem will ensue, which can include assaults on humans.
Even if that's true, those "owners" are totally irresponsible and deserve to lose their "pets."
Even if that's true, those "owners" are totally irresponsible and deserve to lose their "pets."
I totally agree.
Dogs are pack hunters by nature, and individual dogs vary all over the place on their genetic propensity to join in for the kill. I LIKE dogs, but even a chihuahua, if sufficiently motivated, has the equipment to take a kid's face off, and no one should ever forget that.
My dark suspicion is that, in Dallas, there are too many people who think that no damn gubmint is gonna tell them to keep their dogs on a leash.
My point is that assuming these dogs are feral - living wild - can lead people to ignore what may be a significant part of the problem.
Out here where sheep are raised in fenced pastures, study after study shows the the neighbors' pets kill more sheep than wild coyotes do.
well, then who on earth considers feral dogs pets to begin with?
Correctly speaking any dog you see on a city street is probably not a wild dog. Wild dogs are really those born wild, to wild parents, and who have never had an owner. Although there is a blurry line between “Feral” and “Wild”, a true wild dog is a dog such as a Dingo.
Well, I didn't say "wild" either. Those are three different categories. A stray pet dog has been owned before is still looking for a human to pack with.
"Feral" denotes, "once domesticated." Feral pigs, for instance, are not "wild" pigs, they are once-domesticated pigs, and will usually have some significant genetic differences from true wild pigs as a result of human selective breeding, as is true of dogs.
A feral dog is probably two or three generations away from its last "pet" ancestor. It's never been owned by a human and it packs with other feral dogs. But genetically, it's a dog and it will still show the markers of human selective breeding.
But there is no good social reason to capture and try to re-domesticate feral dogs, and I doubt that's the policy of any US community. Stray pets (or abandoned pets) are a different story, and there's not real ambiguity in the matter.
Well, I didn't say "wild" either. Those are three different categories. A stray pet dog has been owned before is still looking for a human to pack with.
"Feral" denotes, "once domesticated." Feral pigs, for instance, are not "wild" pigs, they are once-domesticated pigs, and will usually have some significant genetic differences from true wild pigs as a result of human selective breeding, as is true of dogs.
A feral dog is probably two or three generations away from its last "pet" ancestor. It's never been owned by a human and it packs with other feral dogs. But genetically, it's a dog and it will still show the markers of human selective breeding.
But there is no good social reason to capture and try to re-domesticate feral dogs, and I doubt that's the policy of any US community. Stray pets (or abandoned pets) are a different story, and there's not real ambiguity in the matter.
My dark suspicion is that, in Dallas, there are too many people who think that no damn gubmint is gonna tell them to keep their dogs on a leash.
My point is that assuming these dogs are feral - living wild - can lead people to ignore what may be a significant part of the problem.
Out here where sheep are raised in fenced pastures, study after study shows the the neighbors' pets kill more sheep than wild coyotes do.
I like dogs, coyotes and wolves myself. But the ones that aren't pure pets need to be made to retain their fear of man. Ditto with grizzlies, javelinas and any wild animal. An animal may learn to be friendly in order to forage; that doesn't make it safe.
Should feral dogs be treated as pests rather than as pets? I think quite definitely so. When you say "dog" to someone they think of an animal that wags its tail and licks your hand. The animals can, without taming and training, be quite ferocious. Dogs are "sweet" because they respect humans as the alpha wolf. Feral dogs, not so much.
Depends on the actions of the Canine.
A pack of Dogs in Dallas.... Did they just get loose from the owners yard? Or were they born and raised without human contact?
It is up to every human being, to be capable of protecting themselves from all forms of evil. And you will never ever know exactly when evil will raise its ugly head.
A pack of aggressive dogs? Depending on the size of the pack, a revolver may not hold enough firepower to make sure they do not become aggressive towards anyone else.
The police and animal control are false sense of security, when a pack of dogs see's you as prey.
The problem is, when a loose dog in the neighborhood, is of one of the bigger stereotyped breeds. Without any aggressive behavior, just wanting to see who you are(you may be walking your pet), and a lynch mob is formed to get the irresponsible owner, when no harm what so ever happened. The bully mentality of mob rule!
Should feral dogs be treated as pests rather than as pets? I think quite definitely so. When you say "dog" to someone they think of an animal that wags its tail and licks your hand. The animals can, without taming and training, be quite ferocious. Dogs are "sweet" because they respect humans as the alpha wolf. Feral dogs, not so much.
Back when I owned a little land, I considered feral dogs and cats as game animals with no closed season or bag limits.
The article said nothing about feral dogs. Neither you or I know for sure, but that pack could have included dogs who have homes, come when they're called, and play fetch with kids. If dogs are allowed to roam free, they will find a pack to run with, and mayhem will ensue, which can include assaults on humans.
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
I totally agree.
Dogs are pack hunters by nature, and individual dogs vary all over the place on their genetic propensity to join in for the kill. I LIKE dogs, but even a chihuahua, if sufficiently motivated, has the equipment to take a kid's face off, and no one should ever forget that.
My dark suspicion is that, in Dallas, there are too many people who think that no damn gubmint is gonna tell them to keep their dogs on a leash.
My point is that assuming these dogs are feral - living wild - can lead people to ignore what may be a significant part of the problem.
Out here where sheep are raised in fenced pastures, study after study shows the the neighbors' pets kill more sheep than wild coyotes do.
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Well, I didn't say "wild" either. Those are three different categories. A stray pet dog has been owned before is still looking for a human to pack with.
"Feral" denotes, "once domesticated." Feral pigs, for instance, are not "wild" pigs, they are once-domesticated pigs, and will usually have some significant genetic differences from true wild pigs as a result of human selective breeding, as is true of dogs.
A feral dog is probably two or three generations away from its last "pet" ancestor. It's never been owned by a human and it packs with other feral dogs. But genetically, it's a dog and it will still show the markers of human selective breeding.
But there is no good social reason to capture and try to re-domesticate feral dogs, and I doubt that's the policy of any US community. Stray pets (or abandoned pets) are a different story, and there's not real ambiguity in the matter.
I agree with both of the posters above. The article didn't say "feral", just a pack of loose dogs. I think jacqueg makes an important point: the so-called "owners" of these dogs are the real problem. My guess is that the owners don't put collars on them so that their dogs can't be linked to them if they cause trouble when they're running loose. Dallas doesn't have a "feral dog problem" but rather a "negligent dog owner problem".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
