vraiblonde said:
Big deal. How many skin-breaking bites are there where the victim didn't die?
My daughter was mauled by a dog and that dog wasn't the product of an abusive or criminal home. I've been bitten, and THAT dog wasn't owned by abusers or criminals. Our former dog was a biter and he was raised like a baby.
So that whole article is horsepoop, based on my own experiences.
raised like a baby? it's a DOG. you can't reason with it like a human they don't think like that. being "mauled" happens for a reason. genetics, (poor breeding) and environment - upbringing etc. and yes i consider bringing a dog up like a human child WRONG evidenced by the fact the dog thought it's place in your pack was above even YOU who pays the bills - sorry to disagree with you Vrai. there are no other reasons. a dog bites me or mine, he gets a swift kick in the a$$ short and sweet. he comes back at me and means it, i raise the level of reproach... he comes back again, he DIES. period. bash me...call peta, whatever. a human is the top of the food chain. no i don't abuse my animals, i treat them better than many folks treat their kids. but i also understand they are animals. i understand why they do the things they do, and respond accordingly in my training and treatment. I have hosted many, many American Temperament Tests, and have judged my fair share of tests and dogs at formal AKC events. i'd say i'm qualified to evaluate temperament on pretty much any breed of dog.
did you read all the way to the end? the point is, banning aggressive BREEDS is the wrong thing. banning aggressive DOGS is the right thing. blaming the dog is also the WRONG thing. people breed dogs. people raise dogs. place the blame where it lies. THAT is the whole point of that story.