Jump to content
Dogomania
Sign in to follow this  
__crazy_canine__

Canine Science in School....

Recommended Posts

Well I just started my second semester meaning I have Canie Science! WOOHOO!!!! :lol:

Went to class and the teacher explained the course, then he went on to say stuff about him ownig a Golden Retriever and I thought "Oy!" I kinda thought maybe he thought, like so many people, that they are the perfect breed (even with no training.) Then he said he bred and showed dogs for years... which made me dislike him more (no offense, but i still dont like breeding with overpopulation problems.)

The only thing I was worried about was going into this class was having a teacher who disliked pit bulls....

Well we went around the class and we had to state our name and if we had any dogs. My turn: I said my name and said I dont have a dog but I volunteer with them. Finally we get to the last kid, ugh, well Ill just type up the basic conversation....

Kid: Yeah, uh, I got two pit bulls! A rednose ad a bluenose.
Teacher: Are they trained? (he asked everyone this)
Kid: Yeah, to fight!!! *proud look on face*
Teacher: Each other?
Kid: well... yeah..
*Counsler walks in*
Kid: ....uh, I mean no!... uh....
Teacher: So you trained your dogs to fight each other?
Kid: ...uuummmm.....
Counsler: He just doesnt want to get in trouble
*Teacher and counsler laugh and counsler brings him out in the hall (not b/c of the pit/fightin thing though!)

Im sitting here in utter disgustion! :o :evil:

Then the teacher goes into a discussion about "any breed can be a super breed, but any breed can also be a mean one" he went on about how its the owners fault not the dog. Im thinking, "YES! He [i]is[/i] a good teacher after all!" Then he said, "...pit bulls can be great dogs. Ive seen them do therapy work... just loving dogs!" I was so glad he said that especially right after people were just thinking about how mean they must be to fight.

Im still pissed that that boy is probably goin to bred his two dogs and fight them and he wont get in trouble! :evil: :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Then the teacher goes into a discussion about "any breed can be a super breed, but any breed can also be a mean one" he went on about how its the owners fault not the dog. Im thinking, "YES! He is a good teacher after all!" Then he said, "...pit bulls can be great dogs. Ive seen them do therapy work... just loving dogs!" I was so glad he said that especially right after people were just thinking about how mean they must be to fight. [/quote]
Okay, now let me get this straight. Although "some" breeds are bred to be guard dogs, attack dogs, dog fighting dogs, pest killing dogs and then there are some dogs bred to be to be a hunters helper by retrieving but to not bruise or damage the bird, point out prey, herd prey objects but not attack them, and then some breeds are just bred to be companions without the prey drive. So, basically all dogs are on the same level and the owner has to make them into what they want. so, all dogs are cast from the same clay and we owners mold them into guard dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs.
I think some people really kinda fluff up the whole "All breeds can be dangerous" conversation. Yes, in reality they all can bite, but, also in reality some breeds are bred to be more dangerous than others. They have not all been bred to be the same with the same level of aggression or trigger points. They all have enhanced behaviors. I would be more inclined to think a terrier (APBT) would be FAR more DANGEROUS than a Golden Retriever. Yes, a Golden will bite but they don't have the breeding to go into a full out mauling and killing where an APBT does.

By the way, I was seriously attacked by a sweet loving APBT which was bred by reputable breeders. The owner was a friend and he did obedience with his APBT and had gotten his CGC to do thereapy work with the dog. So, this dog could have been used to do therapy work and it seriously attacked me. It was an unprovoked attack and would not have been as serious by many other breeds of dogs.

I am just curious about this, I am not trying to start any thing. But, isnt this what we discussed here before about how the most dangerous owner is the one who doesnt do the proper research. A dangerous owner is some one who takes a particular breed and tries to mold the dog into some thing else just to "prove" to other people what they can do. A dangerous owner is the ones who take dog aggressive dogs and think they should be allowed in all dog parks etc and should be treated just like any other dog. And a dangerous owner is the one who gets peeved because a person tries to avoid their certain breed. I know myself, I will cross the road when I see certain guardian type dogs and some terriers and Rottweilers. I don't take chances of myself or my dogs to get attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, Im sorry Matty but I really dont get what that had to do with anything I said. :-? Maybe I missed something here?

He nor I ever said anthing about any dog being dangerous.. only mean. Any breed can be that. I agree though that the extent of damage is way worse with some breeds, but that has nothing to do with what I said... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Ummm, Im sorry Matty but I really dont get what that had to do with anything I said. Maybe I missed something here?

He nor I ever said anthing about any dog being dangerous.. only mean. Any breed can be that. I agree though that the extent of damage is way worse with some breeds, but that has nothing to do with what I said[/quote]
__crazy_canine__
I guess what Im trying to say is that is seems people are always saying stuff like Oh a Golden Retriever can be just as dangerous as a Rottweiler. I am trying to get across that the chances of an unsocialized guardian, dog fighting type breed to be more dangerous than a hunting breed or companian dog are really high. When people start classing all dogs in the same level of aggression or same low trigger points then they are not helping their breed very much.
If I was out to buy a dog to "protect" my home, or protect my livestock or to be a dog for police work that will attack a person. I am not going to choose a Golden Retriever or a Collie. Different breeds were breed specifically for different things to class them all at the same level of aggression or trigger points is just wrong.
It will be interesting what your teacher teaches you. :wink:
I am not trying to be stupid :D I am just curious as to what people are trying to get across. Are they trying to say that a Golden can be just as aggressive as a Rottweiler? Are they saying that in an actual attack a Golden is going to do the same amount of damage that say an APBT is capable of? I just don't get this whole every breed is the same and can be on the same level of danger to humans? :-? I just get so many different opionions and Im getting confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, its the whole Nature vs. Nurture argument, isn't it. Is behaviour taught, or is it encoded into the dogs DNA?

Personally,I believe it is a mix. I think dogs all have "tendencies" which are breed driven but that the owner plays a huge role in how the dog turns out. An irresponsible owner is one that doesn't try to curb the less desirable tendencies.

I have a GSD, and have worked hard to ensure that he didn't turn into an agressive dog. I recognized that being a guardian breed, I needed to be extra diligent with his socialization and bite inhibition.

However, I'm a little uncomfortable with your opinion that I perceive as bordering on eugenics; that everything is hard-coded and that's that. Nothing can change. A Rottie is a Rottie is a Rottie. Because if that's true for dogs then its likely true for us as well, isn't it?

I think when someone says a Golden is as dangerous Rottie, they are making a point that any dog can be dangerous, which I certainly believe. If I was talking to a young child about dogs, I wouldn't be saying "Be cautious around dogs, except for Golden's, because ALL Golden's are perfectly safe." We both know that certainly is not true.

The counter argument is that why do people always say that Goldens/Labs are perfectly safe, never agressive, great with children, etc when experience has shown this is not always true.

Edited to add:

The other thing is that we often overlook is the fact that many of these guardian/fighting breeds are often purchased by people seeking to project a certain image and who are not necessarily the most consciensious owners.

Maybe if a Golden was purchased by a rough-tough drug dealer, he wouldn't be such a nice dog.

Its like saying that minorities are more likely to commit crimes in the USA, without acknowledging the fact a dispropotionate amount of minorities live in poverty.


[quote name='Matty']
I guess what Im trying to say is that is seems people are always saying stuff like Oh a Golden Retriever can be just as dangerous as a Rottweiler. I am trying to get across that the chances of an unsocialized guardian, dog fighting type breed to be more dangerous than a hunting breed or companian dog are really high. When people start classing all dogs in the same level of aggression or same low trigger points then they are not helping their breed very much.
If I was out to buy a dog to "protect" my home, or protect my livestock or to be a dog for police work that will attack a person. I am not going to choose a Golden Retriever or a Collie. Different breeds were breed specifically for different things to class them all at the same level of aggression or trigger points is just wrong.
It will be interesting what your teacher teaches you. :wink:
I am not trying to be stupid :D I am just curious as to what people are trying to get across. Are they trying to say that a Golden can be just as aggressive as a Rottweiler? Are they saying that in an actual attack a Golden is going to do the same amount of damage that say an APBT is capable of? I just don't get this whole every breed is the same and can be on the same level of danger to humans? :-? I just get so many different opionions and Im getting confused.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay I get u... but, uh, I wasnt trying to mean anything about the amount of damage or the amount of aggressive either just that ANY dog can be mean if not raised (trained, breed, etc.) correctly.

I cant exactly answer ur questions (except for what I and my teacher meant) so Im sorry.

Well it was very interesting in class the other day. He was explaining the history of dogs.... and said they cam from wolves. I thought that was false? I mean I know theyre related but he was talking about the whole "cavemen tamed wolves" thing... :-?

We watched "The Wolf Within" from Animal Planet after he talked about that whole theory. Ive already seen it though.

Everything theyre teaching so far I already know lol!

We have to do a report on the breed of our choice too... can you guess what Im doin? lol Well its the AmStaff actually. Ive noticed most sites I went to dont have anything about how it came from the pit bull, only the StaffyBull.
Anyone have any good links for the full history of the AmStaff??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mutts4Me
I like this page on a whole, but the writing's pretty crappy

[url]http://www.moloss.com/brd/ab/b010/[/url]

Basically, I would find some good sites that tell the history of the APBT, as the histories are the same. Then you get to 1936, when the (American) Staffordshire Terriers became an official breed. That's when the AmStaff's history as an AmStaff starts. I think when you're reading how the AmStaff came from the Stafford, they're just meaning the fact that pit bulls came from Staffords, and until 1936, the AmStaff was a pit bull. They were the same for a while even after the split, until the two started being bred for different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the history of the dog has its roots in the wolf. not the timber wolves, or redwolves that we are familair with, but with a geneology that was actually traced back to China. of many thousands of years ago. But yes, the wolf is the dogs ancestor, just not the wolves we know today.

[quote]Maybe if a Golden was purchased by a rough-tough drug dealer, he wouldn't be such a nice dog.
[/quote]


I've told this story elsewhere, and I have to agree that its a combination of nurture/nature.There was a Golden here, seemed on the surface very sweet, like all of them do. However, spoiled rotten by his owners.
He bit a child in the face, tore half of it off. Not the "normal" golden behavior, but a spoiled dog is a spoiled dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, our purebred dogs are not "races" of Canines. Purebreds have been inbred to meet a certain standard. We humans are not purebred; we are races of humans. Mongrel dogs would be races of dogs, these dogs naturally evolved to adapt to a certain environment. Mongrel dogs evolved to be scavengers with low to moderate predatory drive.

With purebred dogs we have selected small populations of Mongrels and inbred the dogs. Man bred for certain enhanced drives and motor patterns. Man deselected some motor patterns to fulfill certain jobs. I certainly would not want a dog with a full predatory sequence to herd my sheep, retrieve game or flush or point game. I would want the full series of motor patterns and enhanced predatory motor patterns to hunt rats and other pests....this would be the Terrier class. Some breeds are also going to be more inclined to be offensive (more dangerous) and other breeds would be more inclined to revert to fear...a fearful dog will give plenty of warning before protecting itself...an offensive dog may or may not give warning.
So, yes there is a difference between different purebred dogs. By dangerous I don't consider a dog that may bite out of improper training to be naturally dangerous, or a dog that has been spoiled. With some dogs a bite could have been avoided with proper rules in the household...and proper socialization.

I consider a naturally dangerous dog to be one that has enhanced motor patterns with the full series of predatory drives. A dog that falls under this category that is not properly socialized, trained and controlled will be far far more dangerous than a dog without the full series of motor patterns. When you think that a dog with the full series of predatory motor patterns follows a certain sequence this is what makes it dangerous. A bite will lead to grabbing and tearing (mauling).

I have told the story many times of my sweet little Rottweiler Athena. When I first rescued her she had some dominance issues...but over all she was a nice dog which loved a good belly rub and would drop at any ones feet belly up for a belly rub. The vets I work with wrote on her file "Excellent dog", "good temperament"...she was a dream dog to work with even for other people.
With her I learned first hand what predatory drift was all about. I had her loose in a field, let her off lead and let her run. I started to jog a little and here comes Athena at a full gallop towards me...I'm thinking that she is going to be wonderful at recalls...I just slightly noticed before she came running her head slightly lowered. Any way she came running at me and grabbed my upper arm and tore my leather jacket apart. I am a strong person and was able to grab her and throw her to the ground to stop the attack. Once she was out of attack mode it was my sweet lovable little Athena back again. Do I think all breeds are capable of this...probably not. Rottweilers have enhanced predatory drives. I have had many dogs in my past, most of them rescues or given to me by local breeders with little socialization. I had never experienced predatory drift before. The more I talked with other Rottweiler breeders and fanciers the more I learned that this can be quite common in this breed...therefore they require A LOT of socialization..not all of them have this high of a predatory drive...but, the chance of it being there is great.
This attack (which can not really be considered aggression) but, this would have resulted in a mauling death for a weaker person...this prompted me to do research on predatory drives and motor patterns....and believe me, not all breeds are created equal in this department. All breeds do not start out with the same level of predatory motor patterns...the breeds were developed by playing with the level or deselecting motor patterns.
Any way, hope this helps a little
Just as a disclaimer, I am not saying that there are some dog breeds more inclined to bite than others. Biting can be the direct result not properly training, socializing, no house rules ...you can own a dog with a high predatory drive and never have the dog inclined or even tempted to bite.

Good luck with your course __crazy_canine__

[quote]Well it was very interesting in class the other day. He was explaining the history of dogs.... and said they cam from wolves. I thought that was false? I mean I know theyre related but he was talking about the whole "cavemen tamed wolves" thing[/quote]
Basically yes, our dogs did have a common ancestor with current day wolves. The ancestor is extinct. Our dogs evolved on their own to be local scavengers, this happened when man started settling down with permanent homes. This scavenger dogs lived amoung the humans and lived off the left overs man left. Our dogs became tame naturally, man had little to do with it...they just set the right opportunity for dogs to domesticate themselves. If you want to read a good book on this and the history of our dog read the book called "Dogs" by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger. This book was written by biologists who have actually studied domestic dogs, not studied wolves to understand dogs :roll: although they have studied all Canines including wolves and Coyotes. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EXCELLENT CASSIE!!!!

let me show you something else. I have a purebred Foxhound. Bred to hunt fox. and a Lab Mix. mixed with GSP, and maybe some GSD, and GOD only knows what else...Coyote, maybe? her mom had hints of it
in her facial structure......

my foxhound is purebred. completely harmless. she wouldnt harm a human fly. but if you put an animal in front of her, she would chase it til cornered, then bay for me to come kill it. would she kill it? no. she was bred to leave the kill to the hunter. she corners, traps, and waits. while baying the whole time (I FOUND it, where the hell are YOU?) she has already shown this trait. My lab mix? looks like a lab, but has NONE of the characteristics. she doesnt like people. she kills animals. she does not have the bite inhibition of a lab. no good at duck hunting, thats for sure.
she has takenn down a number of wild animals in my yard, squirrels, possum, even raccoons. she does not stop at "retreieving", she goes beyond the normal hunting dog breeding and kills. (and then brings them to me. gee thanks. good dog?)

at one time, and I dont know how they did it, but Free must have realized that her full force attack was NOT going to get the possums out from under the shed..she somehow enlisted Laurel, who went into full hunt mode and and had her dig the possum out from the shed. (foxhounds will dig to trap the prey, but they wont kill) unfortunately, as soon as the possum scrambled and ran, Free was waiting and caught it (this is actually typical of pack behavior) and brought it to the back door. I heard Laurel baying (found it ! FOUND IT!) and since she rarely ever bays outside, I went to check. I found Laurel and Free standing there, tails wagging 90 miles a minute, and Free with a possum in her mouth. very dead....

yuk. but it goes to show what the natural instincts and even the breed instincts will do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CC, here's some links for you:
[url]http://americanpitbullterrier.org/apbt_vs_ast.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.realpitbull.com/history.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqpre.html[/url] - check the history and faq of this
[url]http://www.amstaff.org/breedinfo.html[/url]
I'll pm a couple links to other boards where you might find some info as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cairn6']What I don't get it why him saying he has a golden retriever would make you go OY!! Golden retrievers are wonderful dogs why wouldn't he want to own one.[/quote]

not all people like them.
just like not all people like APBT or labs or rots, and all other breeds.
some breeds don't fit certain people's personalities.
like a person who was very active wouldn't want a laid back dog, and a lazy person wouldn't want a dog like a border collie.

I always said i would NEVER own a golden. I just didn't like all their hair and their personality, etc.
Then I got ozzy(he's a mix yes but he's so close to being pure it's not funny) and he is exactly what I have always wanted in a dog.
he's smart, gorgeous, fetches, swims, loving, and can be trusted off leash.

see now if Ozzy wouldn't have been dumped into my lap, i would probably still not like goldens, but now i like them and would like to have another golden or golden mix in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='AllAmericanPUP'][quote name='Cairn6']What I don't get it why him saying he has a golden retriever would make you go OY!! Golden retrievers are wonderful dogs why wouldn't he want to own one.[/quote]

not all people like them.
just like not all people like APBT or labs or rots, and all other breeds.
some breeds don't fit certain people's personalities.
like a person who was very active wouldn't want a laid back dog, and a lazy person wouldn't want a dog like a border collie.

I always said i would NEVER own a golden. I just didn't like all their hair and their personality, etc.
Then I got ozzy(he's a mix yes but he's so close to being pure it's not funny) and he is exactly what I have always wanted in a dog.
he's smart, gorgeous, fetches, swims, loving, and can be trusted off leash.

see now if Ozzy wouldn't have been dumped into my lap, i would probably still not like goldens, but now i like them and would like to have another golden or golden mix in my life.[/quote]
I know that all people don't like them. My point is he does and there is nothing wrong with that. Goldens are wonderful dogs. All dogs are great. Why would anyone question someones love of any breed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mutts4Me
[quote name='Cairn6']What I don't get it why him saying he has a golden retriever would make you go OY!! Golden retrievers are wonderful dogs why wouldn't he want to own one.[/quote]

:lol:

Because sometimes, people get a certain kind of breed, like Retrievers, because they've been told that they are the "perfect dog." And sometimes those people just get that kind of dog because they think they're perfect, and so they don't actually do research on what kind of dog is best for them. And that means they don't do research on dog breeds in general, so it wouldn't be all that unlikely that a person who just went out and got a retriever might harbor some unfair biases against certain other breeds of dogs that they've never taken the time to actually learn about.

That is my initial reaction when someone says they have a Lab or Golden. Maybe that's wrong of me, but it's not entirely unfounded. There are plenty of people like that, just as there are plenty owners of "dangerous" breeds who get them for the wrong reasons. It's not fair to judge either group, but it happens. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong when I meet a retriever owner who does know about other breeds and who doesn't think their breed is perfect. That's great. But while some people may cross to the other side of the street when they see a Pit, Rott, Dobe, or even GSD walking toward them, I inwardly groan when I initially come across retriever owners. I can't help it.

I actually like Labs and Goldens; I've never met one I didn't like, including my own lab, but they're not really what I want in a dog at all (which is not why I have issues with them, but I don't want anyone to think I have anything against retrievers themselves). I even liked my cousin's chocolate lab, who was friendly sometimes. Of course, he almost bit my mother twice, once coming a matter of inches from her nose, and he eventually had to be PTS because he'd bitten so many people. But generally, he tended to be a nice dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Mutts for explaining that. I have nothing against Goldens... just the people that dont realize without proper training ANY dog can turn out bad.

Im sorry its just something that drives me insane. I like Goldens but Ive never met one that hasnt had issues mostly b/c people think they dont need training to be "perfect" :roll:

Anyway, thanks to those of you who sent me links! Especially the links to forums you sent me Gooeydog! Theyre a BIG help.

Actually....


I have to ask something else...

Should I just cover AmStaffs or both them AND the pit bull? Since theyre so closely related. And if I do that should I include the StaffyBull too?

Or should I just stick to the AmStaff and explain the other breeds and their relation in detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cassie'][quote]Well it was very interesting in class the other day. He was explaining the history of dogs.... and said they cam from wolves. I thought that was false? I mean I know theyre related but he was talking about the whole "cavemen tamed wolves" thing[/quote]
Basically yes, our dogs did have a common ancestor with current day wolves. The ancestor is extinct. Our dogs evolved on their own to be local scavengers, this happened when man started settling down with permanent homes. This scavenger dogs lived amoung the humans and lived off the left overs man left. Our dogs became tame naturally, man had little to do with it...they just set the right opportunity for dogs to domesticate themselves. If you want to read a good book on this and the history of our dog read the book called "Dogs" by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger. This book was written by biologists who have actually studied domestic dogs, not studied wolves to understand dogs :roll: although they have studied all Canines including wolves and Coyotes. :wink:[/quote]

Okay that makes sense.
I went back to read this packet we got and basically it said they same thing you did lol :oops:
I hate it when I do that (and I often do lol)

Oh and thanks for the good luck! :wink:

I cant wait until we get to grooming! Too bad I dont have a dog to bring in since we can. :cry:

Anyway back to my report! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mutts4Me'][quote name='Cairn6']What I don't get it why him saying he has a golden retriever would make you go OY!! Golden retrievers are wonderful dogs why wouldn't he want to own one.[/quote]

:lol:

Because sometimes, people get a certain kind of breed, like Retrievers, because they've been told that they are the "perfect dog." And sometimes those people just get that kind of dog because they think they're perfect, and so they don't actually do research on what kind of dog is best for them. And that means they don't do research on dog breeds in general, so it wouldn't be all that unlikely that a person who just went out and got a retriever might harbor some unfair biases against certain other breeds of dogs that they've never taken the time to actually learn about.

That is my initial reaction when someone says they have a Lab or Golden. Maybe that's wrong of me, but it's not entirely unfounded. There are plenty of people like that, just as there are plenty owners of "dangerous" breeds who get them for the wrong reasons. It's not fair to judge either group, but it happens. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong when I meet a retriever owner who does know about other breeds and who doesn't think their breed is perfect. That's great. But while some people may cross to the other side of the street when they see a Pit, Rott, Dobe, or even GSD walking toward them, I inwardly groan when I initially come across retriever owners. I can't help it.

I actually like Labs and Goldens; I've never met one I didn't like, including my own lab, but they're not really what I want in a dog at all (which is not why I have issues with them, but I don't want anyone to think I have anything against retrievers themselves). I even liked my cousin's chocolate lab, who was friendly sometimes. Of course, he almost bit my mother twice, once coming a matter of inches from her nose, and he eventually had to be PTS because he'd bitten so many people. But generally, he tended to be a nice dog.[/quote]
You mean kind of like when some people hear someone has a pit bull and assume they only want the dog because it looks tough and could tear someone apart. And that perhaps they are even fighting them. I'm sorry but the generalizations of some people on here that are so adament about the way pit bulls are protrayed negatively spend a lot of time talking about how horrible other breeds are. The automatic prejudice is no different then all the people that are called idiots because they don't understand how great the Pit bulls are. It seems to me if you want people to accept all dogs you should try keeping an open mind and stop assuming that other breeds are just like the ones you have come in contact with. It's as if the hatred some people have for Pit bulls has sent some of you so far the other way that Pit bulls can do no wrong and all other breeds are subject to looking at through a microscope to see all their flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALL dogs have flaws. there is not such thing as the "perfect dog"...ANY dog can be a perfect dog, if trained, socialized, controlled, etc. what it takes is someone understanding what that dog was bred to do, and work the training and the exercise around that trait. Goldens can be great dogs, I had one and loved him immensely. he was trained however by a professionsal breeder/trainer. he was almost the perfect dog, once I had been trained in how to continue his training after I got him. he still needed updates in his trainig, they are intelligent and will take advantage of you if you slack off. thats why it angers me so much when I hear the press on "the perfect family dog". they can be, if you put the time into it.

if you dont, you end up with the golden down the street. and this is true of ANY dog, not just goldens and labs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely understand where youre coming from, Cairn, but Im not judging the dogs, [b]Im judging the people[/b]... theres a difference. I said I love Goldens, I just hate how people think of them as "perfect."

I know that all breeds can be great dogs and that all breeds can be little devils. Its all in the owner and breeder. I just have a problem with people not thinking thats the way it is, because, well, it is. Yes I KNOW that a pit bull can do more damage than a Chi can and I KNOW that some breeds are more likely to bite than others but thats not my point.... my point is that its never the dogs fault, its the people's and I put all the blame and yes even prejudice on the people.

It was wrong of me to judge the teacher but I cant help what pops into my head when I think "Golden" just like a person whos been attacked or witnesses an attack by a pit bull probably cant help but think of their powerful jaws coming towards them and clamping down. Even if you dont blame the dogs, you cant help what comes into your head about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...