U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2011, 02:36 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 45,029,897 times
Reputation: 20425

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Not on my list of things to do. I don't see any value in a "pet" I have to lord over and master. I'm also wonering about people who like this... I have no desire to be anyone's master or to have someone else be mine. I have to wonder what human relationships are like among people who like to be master to their dog. Sounds like control issues to me....
When all else fails, jump to the personal insults! What part of "they don't need to be constantly dominated or lorded over" are you not getting? I've never had to show I'm the Master to my dog, it's just kind of an assumed relationship... we did basic training, where he learned to sit/stay/come/heel/etc, with a little fine-tuning on food guarding (with other dogs) and walking nicely on a leash. Aside from that, we mostly just enjoy each other's company - no sub/dom thing going on, and I'm not continuously reaffirming who's in charge. He knows this house is primarily mine, I know my cats think it's theirs, and thus we all get along quite harmoniously.

Quote:
If I ever did get a dog, it won't be a killer breed. There are more gentle breeds that are small enough to defend yourself against that are much less risky. I don't want to have to train an animal to be a pet. It's either pet material or it isn't. You don't take an animal that isn't and try to make it one. I would never think of having a lion as a pet. Sure, they can be trained but what's the value of a pet that needs to be trained unless it's being trained to do a job a human can't? Something that needs training to be a pet doesn't sound like pet material to me.
You don't think a cat needs training? It might be different from dog training, but they need behavior corrections too... especially my little feral rescue, who has actually made me resort to water bottle squirts (which I normally hate doing). She thinks counters are for jumping on, ALL plastic bags are for shredding, pictures on shelves are for knocking down, and that my 14 year-old cat is a punching bag. In fact, I had to correct her in the middle of typing this post.

Meanwhile, my dog also just tried to steal a napkin off the coffee table, and all it took was "No Rudy" for him to immediately back off. The cat, on the other hand, is still trying to chase old Kona. Call me crazy, but dogs seem MUCH easier to train than any cat!

 
Old 09-11-2011, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 45,029,897 times
Reputation: 20425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Google "Cat kills baby" then google "Dog kills baby". Compare and contrast. That is all.

What I don't like is that people have dogs that have violent tendencies as pets and put us all at risk for NOTHING other than stroking their egos because they get to be master to their dog. There is no purpose to having violent breeds like pit bulls and rotweilers as "pets". Animals you have to protect your children from are not pets. They are dangerous!!! And even if you don't have children, some of us do and you place our children at risk because you have to have this particular breed of "Pet".
Oh, please... so I shouldn't be allowed to keep a certain pet, just because somebody might cross my path with a child? Even if I have complete control over my pet, and/or it's completely harmless? My dog has never hurt anyone, let alone a child, so I'm not going to feel guilty for having one in my CHILDLESS home. I am not responsible for your children, nor am I responsible for catering to your unfounded paranoia. That's also why leashes were invented, and you have arms to carry your child if you fear a dog nearby.

Quote:
I remember reading a story a couple of years back about a woman who lived in an apartment and had a neighbor who had a killer breed of dog. She was petrified of the dog. One day, when it's owner opened the door to take it out, it attacked and killed her as she was trying to get into her apartment. It's not just their own kids they put at risk. It's all of us.

MAJOR EYE ROLL HERE Please google "cat suffocates baby". You'll go back more than 10 years to find one posting about a cat who fell asleep on a baby's face. Then google "dog kills baby" and see how many hits you get for the last decade. Cats rarely suffocate a baby and when it does happen, it it not because the animal attacked or is, inherently, dangerous. Cats like to cuddle with warm things. Babies are small and warm and if the cat is large enough, or positioned correctly, they could smother a baby but it is very rare, whereas, dog attacks on babies happen all the time.
See my post above... 34 fatalities (not all of which were children) out of nearly 80,000,000 dogs hardly qualifies as "all the time." Many children die in car accidents, and I don't see you calling for all cars to be taken off the road. Those things are death traps, don't you care?!

Quote:
How many children are treated in hospitals every year for dog bites? Cat bites? How many children are killed ever year by dogs? By cats?
You already told us those numbers, and they're not high enough to warrant such fears - nor to suggest these animals are "unfit for pet ownership." Again, dogs & humans have been co-existing for thousands of years, and it's not like people are constantly being killed. Pit Bulls also aren't a recently-created breed, in fact they used to be known as the ultimate family pet (called "nanny dogs" for their ability to be trusted around children). Unfortunately some bad owners have tarnished their reputation, but an attitude such as yours is just plain ridiculous.

Quote:
I will admit to keeping my cats away from the baby until the baby was bigger than the cat but that's because cats like to snuggle warm things. I did not use bumpers in my dd's crib or blankets because she might smother in them. A cat curled up too close to a baby would be a danger too but not because the cat is, inherently, dangerous. They just like to curl up with warm things. My cats were very protective of my babies. I did have one try to swat my dd because she had been crying for a while. Sorry kitty, baby doesn't shut off like an alarm clock. If only....
Ah-ha... so you admit to doing precisely what we've all stated about living with dogs & children. All it takes is a little vigilance, and not leaving your baby unsupervised with any animal. Is that so difficult? And by your logic stated earlier, you must be irresponsible to even HAVE a cat in the house with your baby. Oh noes!!

Quote:
Now, scratching or biting are risks depending on the animal. Some cats are high strung and should not be in households that have children. Just as some dogs are dangerous and should not be around children. As to parents who own these breeds in spite of their violent nature, let's just hope their offspring turn out smarter.

I don't know how often dogs, seriously, bite children but I, personally, know two people with large scars on their faces from dog bites when they were children and a third with scars on his leg. All three of these dogs were either shot by their owners on the spot or put down, as they should have been. When I was a teenager, the dog of a family down the street (a doberman appropriately named "Satan") mauled their baby. The baby survived the attack but had serious scarring all over her body. (They had just let the dog in and it just walked, calmly, up to the bassinet and grabbed the baby who was sleeping at the time.) My dd was bit by my step mother's dog and had to be seen by a doctor for the bite. Fortunately, she didn't scar but she did get a nasty infection. I really don't know a lot of people who have dogs yet I know of a lot of people who have been, seriously, bitten by dogs.
I used to be a pet-sitter, often looking after 10+ dogs weekly - yet I've only been bitten once in my life, and it was very minor & non-aggressive. My brother was bitten once by a Chow Chow, and went on to get a dog of his own. Bites happen, just like falls and accidents happen in life... my cats bite me regularly (harder than that dog bite), I've also been bitten by a few of my snakes, and yet I'm well enough to write this post. Nobody we know has ever been killed, however, so methinks you're being a tad dramatic.

Last edited by gizmo980; 09-11-2011 at 04:28 AM..
 
Old 09-11-2011, 04:39 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,738,526 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Oh,
See my post above... 34 fatalities (not all of which were children) out of nearly 80,000,000 dogs hardly qualifies as "all the time." Many children die in car accidents, and I don't see you calling for all cars to be taken off the road. Those things are death traps, don't you care?!






Ah-ha... so you admit to doing precisely what we've all stated about living with dogs & children. All it takes is a little vigilance, and not leaving your baby unsupervised with any animal. Is that so difficult? And by your logic stated earlier, you must be irresponsible to even HAVE a cat in the house with your baby. Oh noes!!



I.
So you think it's ok that dogs kill people because they don't kill too many????? The fact is, there is no reason to have breeds like Pit bulls and Rotweilers as PETS and they appear to be responsible for half of the dog mauling deaths!!! These particular breeds serve no purpose and are the greatest offenders. Did you read the rest of my post??? How about the 1000 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for dog bites? Or the 4.7 MILLION per year who are bitten by dogs???? Are THOSE numbers high enough for you?

As to keeping the cats away from the baby, it was not because the cats are violent or might maul or kill the baby if not supervised as is the case with dogs. It was because cats cuddle and we now know that we reduce SIDS if we keep babies from snuggling up against things that they can bury their faces in....like cat fur...or bumper pads...

By your logic, I should have put bumper pads on my babies' cribs because not very many babies actually die by suffocation because they rolled up against the bumper. The bumper pads are analgous to having a breed like a pit or rotweiler. Decorative and totally unnecessary but dangerous in some cases and you have no idea which ones will turn out to be dangerous so it's a crap shoot. We don't need the more violent breeds of dogs to be pets. They serve no purpose other than to stroke their owners egos because they get to play pack leader to a, potentially, violent breed of dog.

As to cats, once baby is bigger than the cat and able to roll over, they no longer pose a risk of suffocation. The baby, quickly, poses more of a threat to the cat than the cat to the baby. Cats aren't violent towards baby humans. They don't view a squealing baby as food or a threat or as something beneath them in the pecking order. 4.7 million dog bites per year testify to the fact dogs are violent.

Disclaimer: There are cat breeds that do not make good family pets and the smart thing to do is not have them as a family pet. Certain breeds of cat need to be solitary and need consistency. You don't have them in a family situation because they will bite and scratch. Fortunately, few cats are large enough to inflict serious bodily harm. Unfortunately, there are many dog breeds, kept as pets, that we know have the potential to turn violent, that are big enough to kill an adult.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-11-2011 at 05:30 AM..
 
Old 09-11-2011, 05:51 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
29,041 posts, read 45,029,897 times
Reputation: 20425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
So you think it's ok that dogs kill people because they don't kill too many????? The fact is, there is no reason to have breeds like Pit bulls and Rotweilers as PETS and they appear to be responsible for half of the dog mauling deaths!!! These particular breeds serve no purpose and are the greatest offenders. Did you read the rest of my post??? How about the 1000 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for dog bites? Or the 4.7 MILLION per year who are bitten by dogs???? Are THOSE numbers high enough for you?
No, not really... but you're switching gears here, from saying NO dog needs to be a family pet to "breeds like Pit Bulls & Rottweilers shouldn't be family pets." I sort of agree with that last statement, although not in such a breed-specific way - more in that some breeds (and specific dogs) are better with children, whereas others are too risky for my taste. But you've said numerous times that ALL dogs are a liability, and that is something with which I would not agree. In my experience Rottweilers, Great Danes, Mastiffs, Labs/Goldens, Boxers, Bulldogs, and a handful of other large breeds are great with children. Some breeds I personally wouldn't have around a child are Schnauzers, Chihuahuas, Dalmatians, Chows, Siberians & Malamutes. Pits are 50/50 in my book, sometimes awesome and sometimes unpredictable, which is why I don't plan to own any myself.

Btw, if these dogs "serve no purpose" (which is incorrect), what do you suggest we do with them? A mass genocide of all Pits and Rotties, even those who've never shown any aggression? And should non-parents be barred from owning them, just because you decided to procreate? Move to Denver, you'd be quite happy there.

Quote:
As to keeping the cats away from the baby, it was not because the cats are violent or might maul or kill the baby if not supervised as is the case with dogs. It was because cats cuddle and we now know that we reduce SIDS if we keep babies from snuggling up against things that they can bury their faces in....like cat fur...or bumper pads...
As to keeping dogs away from children (unsupervised), it's not because the dog is possibly going to kill them... it's because sometimes they like to play rough, they use their teeth & paws in playing, and some will guard food or toys. The child could also hurt the dog, by grabbing, hitting, or pulling on them too hard. Few dogs will literally go after a child with the intent to kill, so that isn't something I would generally worry about.

Last edited by gizmo980; 09-11-2011 at 06:01 AM..
 
Old 09-11-2011, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,738,526 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
No, not really... but you're switching gears here, from saying NO dog needs to be a family pet to "breeds like Pit Bulls & Rottweilers shouldn't be family pets." I sort of agree with that last statement, although not in such a breed-specific way - more in that some breeds (and specific dogs) are better with children, whereas others are too risky for my taste. But you've said numerous times that ALL dogs are a liability, and that is something with which I would not agree. In my experience Rottweilers, Great Danes, Mastiffs, Labs/Goldens, Boxers, Bulldogs, and a handful of other large breeds are great with children. Some breeds I personally wouldn't have around a child are Schnauzers, Chihuahuas, Dalmatians, Chows, Siberians & Malamutes. Pits are 50/50 in my book, sometimes awesome and sometimes unpredictable, which is why I don't plan to own any myself.

Btw, if these dogs "serve no purpose" (which is incorrect), what do you suggest we do with them? A mass genocide of all Pits and Rotties, even those who've never shown any aggression? And should non-parents be barred from owning them, just because you decided to procreate? Move to Denver, you'd be quite happy there.



As to keeping dogs away from children (unsupervised), it's not because the dog is possibly going to kill them... it's because sometimes they like to play rough, they use their teeth & paws in playing, and some will guard food or toys. The child could also hurt the dog, by grabbing, hitting, or pulling on them too hard. Few dogs will literally go after a child with the intent to kill, so that isn't something I would generally worry about.
FACT: Pits and Rotweilers are responsible for half of the dog attacks. Eliminating half of the attacks is a good start. There is NO EXCUSE for having these animals as pets. They serve NO PURPOSE other than to stroke their owners egos.

I don't think any dog should be around children. Period. There are just too many dog bites per year. Too many children scarred but there are breeds that are gentler and if kept as barn pets or work dogs and away from children, acceptable. I would never have a dog as a house pet. They are pack animals. They will follow the lead dog even if they are not one of a particularly violent breed.

Personally, I don't see the point in wanting a, potentially, violent animal as a pet. I think lions are beautiful but I'd never consider trying to domesticate one. I'm in the same camp on animals like boa constrictors. Really any animal large enough to have the potential to kill humans. It's understandable when they are work animals like horses or sheep dogs or leader dogs. I don't get wanting, as a house pet, anything big enough to kill my kids with a history of doing so. IMO, THAT is poor parenting. If you want a pet, there are plenty that don't have a tendency to be violent that are not large enough to kill human children. There are hamsters, gerbils, fish, small reptiles, rabbits, birds, cats and a few smaller breeds of dog (some tend to be too high strung so you need to consider the breed). Why anyone would have, as a pet, a dog that is large, powerful and capable of killing their kids, is beyond me. I think any attempt to justify this is stupid. We don't NEED these dogs. They serve no purpose other than to satisfy some desire of their owner to be pack leader to a powerful animal.

I think we should start by outlawing the Pit and Rotweiler breeds and then continue from there until dog attacks have reduced to a reasonable level...although I'm not sure any level is reasonable given that dogs don't serve any more purpose, in most cases, than cats, rabbits and gerbils. When they are work dogs, that's a little different. Then you go with the breed that does the job best but you do not have them around children at all. I'd consider a german shepard to guard my business but I'm installing an alarm to protect my kids. Alarm systems NEVER kill your children. Never having your children killed is better than having them killed on rare occaision.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 07:21 AM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,717,452 times
Reputation: 26118
Pit bulls and Rotwielers are not at fault. It is irresponsible owners who get these dogs, and do not appropriately train and socialize the dogs.

Not unlike parents, who have guns laying around, and their children get ahold of the guns and kill people, accidently. Is that the fault of the child? Or the parent? It is the fault of the parent. And we can certianly cite statistics on deaths by guns, does that mean that all guns should be banned? And that NO one should have access to guns, because there are a few irresponsible people who don't know how to use, store, and keep the guns appropriately?

It is the same analogy to that of Pit Bulls and Rottweilers...the dogs are not at fault. The owners bear full responsibility.

I have guns in my home, my kids never killed anyone. I also had a Pitt Bull, he never killed anyone, or even bit anyone, he just lazed around like any other dog...but he was proprerly trained, and socialized. I trusted him with children, I never feared that he would go crazy and bite one. But, I also knew my dog, and did not allow circumstances where he would have anxiety, as a responsible dog owner. For example, if I had a crowd of children over for a party, I simply allowed the dog to take a break, he did not need to be in a crowd of unruly, children who may not know how to treat a dog properly. That is being a responsible dog owner. Not that I feared he would rip the face off of child, just that I knew that the situation could cause anxiety for him. And my responsibility was to not put him in those circumstances.

Same as the owner of these dogs, and a pack of dogs has a completely different mentality than a single dog. The owners put these dogs in a situation that created anxiety, and provoked the dogs.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,738,526 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
Pit bulls and Rotwielers are not at fault. It is irresponsible owners who get these dogs, and do not appropriately train and socialize the dogs.

.
I repeat: An animal that must be properly trained to be a pet should not be a pet. Even if this is true, the ONLY way to make sure that no pit or rotweiler is improperly trained and socialized is to get rid of the breeds. Sorry but eliminating just these two breeds would prevent half of the serious injuries and deaths caused by dogs. That would be a good thing. These particular breeds serve no special service that we'd lose if we didn't have them as pets.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 08:47 AM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,717,452 times
Reputation: 26118
By your argument, no dogs need to be trained for being pets...this is completely incorrect. It is almost the same as saying that Golden Retrivers make excellent guide dogs, without training. And BTW, Rottwielers are also used as guide dogs, and therapy dogs, and are excellent. After being trained, like all dogs should be.

Even cats need to be watched around kids, my Mother had a Siamese cat, who hated small children, and would bite them, just out of spite.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,738,526 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
By your argument, no dogs need to be trained for being pets...this is completely incorrect. It is almost the same as saying that Golden Retrivers make excellent guide dogs, without training. And BTW, Rottwielers are also used as guide dogs, and therapy dogs, and are excellent. After being trained, like all dogs should be.

Even cats need to be watched around kids, my Mother had a Siamese cat, who hated small children, and would bite them, just out of spite.
No, by my argument, animals that must be taught that your squealing baby isn't food shoudln't be pets.....

I've already said that work dogs are worth taking a risk on because there is a human benefit to offset the risk. There is no human benefit offsetting the risk for someone who just wants to own a pit bull because it's a pit bull.

I've also already said there are breeds of cat that should not be in households that have children or outside where children are. What's your point? However, there is a huge difference between being attacked by a siamese cat and a pit bull....your'e about million times (just guessing here but I'm sure the number is HUGE) less likely to die from a cat attack....

The violent breeds of dog don't compare to the more easily aggitated breeds of cat. Put this way because even the high strung siamese won't often attack without provocation. Cats will, usually, just stay away from things that annoy them, they aren't pack animals that vie for position or see their owners as the pack leader and they don't view a squealing baby as food. The biggest danger a cat poses it that it will try to sleep on top of a baby because they recognize the baby as a human and this is only IF they happen to like sleeping on humans or that a scratch or bite will get infected (same issue with rabbits, gerbils, hamsters, etc, etc, etc). A cat isn't going to maul a baby. It isn't going to mistake it for food. It isn't going to attack it because it sees it as being a lesser animal with a lower status in the pack.... Personally, I don't understand the attraction to the more high strung breeds of cat but when was the last time you read the headline "Baby killed by pack of siamese cats."??? Cats and dogs don't compare.

Through my entire life, I've found cats to be protective of babies brought into their households. I have a brother who is alive today because one of our cats realized he stopped breathing in his sleep long before my parents did. She didn't even like people. We only had her because no one else would take her. She guarded my brother until he no longer stopped breathing in his sleep and then just stayed away from those annoying little kids. One of my cats used to play bumper with my dd's. I'd put the baby on the couch, step back and the cat would jump up on the couch and lie next to her so she couldn't fall of and glare at me like I was an idiot for putting the baby on something she could fall off of. If I really wanted to freak her out, I'd put the baby in the middle of the bed and then she didn't know which side to guard. I have had one cat bite a child in anger and the mom was furious even though I told her about six times if she didn't get her kid to stop poking my cat (he had her cornered) in the eye, she was going to bite him. She was too busy cooing about how "cute" the toddler was who was poking my cat in the eye. Seriously, folks, if you're visiting someone's house don't let your kid poke their cat in the eye and coo about how cute the toddler is with the cat.

Now I did get rid of one cat before my dd was born but that cat had a sad history. She grew up with two Chows that treated her like a chew toy (their owner used to actually throw her at the dogs). As a result, she was more violent than your average cat and she bit hard because she was used to having to bite through dense fur. She did not belong in a household with children so I found her a new home when I found out I was pregnant. She had learned young to strike first and ask questions later when startled. She's living happily with a friend of mine. She likes life as on only cat in a calm, child free household.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-11-2011 at 10:51 AM..
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:47 PM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,717,452 times
Reputation: 26118
This was an extreme situation, and should be viewed on a continuum. While on a Bell curve scale, yes, Pitt Bulls, and Rotti's are probably a standard deviation above the norm on biting, along with many other types of dogs, that does not mean that NO ONE should be allowed to have them as pets. It means that if someone does get a dog that is more prone to anxiety reactive behavior, that means that person should have enough sense to train their dog appropriately, and control the animal. Same as when I had a dog that hated men, (smart dog) when strange men were around, he was on a leash, to remind him to mind his manners.

Last edited by jasper12; 09-11-2011 at 12:49 PM.. Reason: edit
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top