Lugnut
I'm Rick James #####!
vraiblonde said:Good. Then pick your attacker.
You seem rational in your arguments in other threads I've read. :shrug:
I don't understand your position on this. Are you against a specific breed(s) dogs? Against large dogs? You quoted me asking my opinion on liability and challenged me on what I would have done with a dog that behaved in a vicious fashion. In both instances we share the same opinion. What specifically did I post that you have a problem with? I don't get it. Was it my tongue in cheek The sky is falling reply's at the beginning of the thread?
I have yet to defend a vicious dog in any of my posts. My stand has been, and continues to be, that ANY dog can be dangerous it is NOT a breed specific problem but an OWNERSHIP problem. Whether the owner has malevolent intentions in training, or is simply ignorant and does not realize what they are unconciously teaching/reinforcing with regard to a dogs behaviour. Agression in dogs can be brought about more easily by coddling and spoiling than anything other than specific training.
Your question above is just plain silly "If you must be attacked..." it's a leading question and can only have one reasonable response which would of course be "the smallest dog possible"
Here's my version of a leading question:
If you MUST choose between a rottweiler with ATTS and Assistance Dog certifications (proving a sound TEMPERAMENT) sitting next to you and a border collie that's known to draw blood from every guest who enters the house, which one would you choose?
I don't really care one way or the other about specific BREEDS of dogs as long as they have stable temperaments
"Down with doggy racism!!!"