956
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
956 points (93.7% liked)
Memes
45656 readers
1449 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No they aren't. They're only a problem when not raised right. They DO need a firmer hand in training like literally every strong breed, which not all owners realise and take into account, but neglecting that isn't their fault, it's on the bad owners.
You pointed out the solution: nobody should be allowed to keeep a dog unless they can prove they know how to correctly train and keep a dog. If the owners are the problem, the owners should be held accountable.
I completely agree. Can we stop with the rampant defamation of usually sweet dogs, then?
Well, as long as we cannot be sure whether a dog owner has done their duty and properly trained the dog, we can never be sure whether a stranger's dog is well trained or a purpously-trained killing machine. Or anything in between.
By that logic, we should ban cars, motorcycles, boats, aeroplanes, horses and almost all other dogs
Good luck with that..
Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.
Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.
Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.
You have to license dogs too. In both cases, a license does not mean safety.
Getting a license in america is not hard or stringent at all lmao.
Another issue that should be taken care of. But have you tried getting an aircraft license?
Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who's close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.
I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don't care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.
And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like "The dog has never done anything like that". That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.
I don't think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.
I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.
That's extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I've come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I've never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you've gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don't entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don't agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary... perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.
The issue is that for every good dog owner who trains their dog, puts it on a leash in public, picks up the dog shit and makes sure their dog can't cause trouble, there is also some idiot who got a dog on a whim, mistreats it and doesn't train it at all.
And most often the people who don't care for training their dog are also the people who don't care to secure the dog in public places.
I know that's a generalisation and there probably are some counter examples. But a "don't care" attitude generally runs through everything a person does.
And having a dog is a multiplier of what trouble that "don't care" attitude can cause.
That's why I am for licensing/inspections. For someone who does care it probably won't change much. They already go to a training course with their dog. Just give them a license for completing the training/make that training mandatory if you don't want to call it a license.
Any reasonable dog owner will be at vet in regular intervals anyway. Just let the vet not only check whether the dog is physically fit, but also if it obeys it's owner and if it shows signs of abuse. And make that checkup mandatory. It's better for the dogs anyway if they get their health checked regularly.
I see why you think it's not necessary, because you might be the kind of dog owner who cares and then it's just additional hassle. But, as I said, there are many who don't care, even if in your bubble (and I don't mean this word negatively) everyone cares for their dogs.
Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?
Social services don't pay for your dog's vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?
Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn't resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.
So how will you actually regulate it without a department of dog liscencing?
Let me add, we are talking about millions of dogs.
You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn't have to be funded by the tax payer. That's what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).
But seriosly, "but regulation costs money" is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.
Don't get me wrong. You put in a dog licensing facility I am all for it. I just think, and please correct me, the amount of political capital people would have to invest could be spent elsewhere and provide much greater returns.
That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.
Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn't want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.
They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like "The restaurants are all going to die". Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.
I don't have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.
For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.
https://www.tmz.com/2021/09/10/cesar-milan-queen-latifah-pit-bull-dog-junior-coverup-lawsuit/
So then when one of the premier dog trainers in the USA runs into significant issues with their pit bull... is it the dog or the owner?
It's Cesar Milan being a fraud who doesn't practice what he preaches.
Ah yes... the person with more than 25 years of experience must be wrong! Ya'll are a trip.
Did you even read the article? He left a poorly socialised dog untethered and unattended.
That would stil be extremely irresponsible dog ownership if he had been the undisputed king of dog trainers for 800 years.
Thus why the source should be questioned... it's TMZ, all trashy celebrity gossip. I doubt this incident even happened.
There are doctors with 25 years of experience that still fuck up constantly and get away with it.
Argument from authority is a fallacy for a reason.
The discussion is literally that there are bad owners and those owners are solely responsible for the pit bulls reputation. I'm proving that wrong by showing an "expert" in the field... If an expert in the field cannot do it... Then why would a lay person be able to?
This isn't argument from authority. You just like screaming random shit to shut down discussions because you don't have any better evidence against the argument.
Cesar Milan is considered a hack by almost every reputable dog trainer, and his methods conflict with every modern study I have seen on how to effectively train a dog.
Source? Citation? Anything?
I mean, you can Google it and find countless sources, if you really care they are readily available within seconds.
The Tl;dr is that his methods are based in dominance theory. Dominance theory has been widely debunked and the methods that arose from it are widely considered to exacerbate fear and aggression related issues in dogs. Caesar’s celebrity status has contributed to its persistence in the popular imagination.
You're citing a tabloid, not exactly a reliable source...
So you believe that cesar milan didn't have a pit bull and it didn't bite someone and didn't kill another dog?
You can literally pull up the court records if you want. Other sources can cover it perfectly fine.
https://www.citywatchla.com/animal-watch/22536-lawsuit-cesar-millan-s-pit-bull-kills-queen-latifah-s-dog-in-training-and-mauls-girl
https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/09/10/cesar-millans-pit-bull-killed-queen-latifahs-dog-attacked-star-gymnast-lawsuit-claims/
https://www.businessinsider.com/cesar-millan-covering-up-dogs-attack-on-queen-latifahs-dog-2021-9
What a weird hill to die on.
How does that say anything about pit bulls in general? Someone else brought up the fact that labs and German shepherds bite just as much as pit bulls. Where's the scaremongering about labs? Oh wait, they're the choice breed for service dogs? Maybe it's not the breed then.
I'm directly refuting the point that Pit Bulls are not bad, just their owners are. I don't give a shit about German Shepherds because there's isn't a disproportionate amount of them causing harm to humans.
Numbers say otherwise. Rottweilers and German Shepherds are after Pit Bulls.
Yes... they're number 2 and 3... Except between position 1 and 2 is literally a 20x difference. If #1 is held by pitbulls by such an astounding lead that they 20x ahead of #2... You don't look at #2 and #3 as contenders.
Got it. They don't count because Pitbulls are worse. Logic.
Yes... pits accounts for 66% and Rottweilers are ~10%... And Shepherd's are ~5%. When First places is 4.4 times further ahead than second and third place combined... It's pretty safe to make the claim they're worse. And it ends up being a very logical claim to hold. So thanks for agreeing.
I see. 10% doesn't matter.
LMFAO. You're the kind of person who blames individuals for global warming when it's companies that are fucking up the environment aren't you?
You seem to miss the point that when one population is distinctly attributable to the VAST MAJORITY of the problem... It's that Population that should be held accountable. Dog deaths could become a statistically irrelevant number with n<100 (each death would still be sad, but it would be exceedingly rare). Pitbulls are in the way of that.
I see. 10% is a statistically irrelevant number.
You're failing to acknowledge why someone who would be more concerned about a bigger number. 60 is bigger than 10 sir, and we should focus on 60, as it would have a greater effect for our effort
I didn't realize we could only focus on one thing at a time.
I didn't believe it at first, but it seems my doubt was misplaced.
You would think that a supposed professional dog trainer, who allegedly was aware that his dog was aggressive and had a history of biting other dogs, wouldn't just let such a dog wander around unattended. I guess he was too proud to admit he couldn't correct this dog's behavior.
Since it was settled out of court there is zero truth to any of it. Not saying it didn't happen, but there is no proof that it happened either.
There's plenty of proof. Documents were submitted to court. Just because there was a settlement doesn't mean it didn't happen