Earlier this summer, a 5-year-old child with Down’s syndrome was reported missing. Hours later her body was found. Authorities charged the girl’s mother with involuntary manslaughter. But wait – this little girl was not killed by her mother. She was mauled to death by the neighbor’s dog.
With Michael Vick’s dog-fighting scandal fresh in the news, animal activists are pushing for laws to protect pit bulls. But what about laws to protect humans – especially children – from vicious animals?
PETA wants people to treat animals better. Where is AETP, Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People? Is there a Lassie or a Benji out there somewhere who will advocate for children? We need such an advocate, because the human public seems more interested in protecting the vicious dogs.
In Paducah a six-year-old boy was mauled by a neighbor’s Alaskan malamute. The boy is recovering. Community response? People fought over the dog, begging authorities not to euthanize it. They said he deserved “a second chance.” A second chance to do what? Make a clean kill next time?
About the same time, a child in Niagara Falls, New York was bitten in the face by a repeat offender. The shepherd mix had bitten another child just two weeks earlier.
The public did respond when Kaitlyn Hassard’s retriever choked her to death with her neck scarf: Over 300 people wanted to adopt the killer dog. If it had been the 6-year-old girl in trouble, how many families would have begged to adopt her? (Hint: Ask social services how many “older” children wait indefinitely on their adoption lists.) Many pet-owners were outraged that the dog was put up for adoption at all, insisting that the girl’s mother was at fault. “She should have never taken her eyes off her that kid for a minute.” Of course, they say the same thing every time a pit bull tears a little child’s face off.
Dozens of news stories each year report on small children disfigured or fatally mauled by such dogs. Invariably, the owner states the behavior was “totally out of character” and the dog was always gentle till now. Does it not occur to these pet owners that “out of character” behavior is very much in character for certain animals?
Pit bulls are not teddy bears, after all. These are large creatures with sharp fangs set in powerful jaws. They are bred to kill. Every fiber of their being is designer-engineered to clamp down on a throat and shake until the victim stops struggling. You can train some of them to act nice most of the time – much as a lion can be tamed – but the killer instinct is there, just beneath the surface, like a trip wire waiting to be triggered.
After the attack comes the tug-of-war between officials who want to destroy the dangerous animal, and the bleeding heart animal lovers who want to “rehabilitate” the animal or (more likely) proclaim its innocence while blaming the mother. If a dog ever harms one of my sweet babies, this will not be an issue. Instead, the two groups can haggle over disposal of the remains.
Ontario banned ownership of pit bulls after a toddler was attacked by three pit bulls that leapt a fence to tear into him. The rescue required half a dozen people and four of them, including both the boy’s parents, required hospitalization. The ban made sense to the province’s attorney general Michael Bryant, who said, “Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool, maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”
Some counties and one state (Virginia) actually have a vicious dog registry. If officials know where these dangerous animals are, why not destroy them before they can hurt anyone? These animals are desired because of their killer tendencies, not in spite of them. That’s why breeders breed them, that’s why people buy them, and we ought to just admit it.
Absurdly, families increasingly adopt a vicious breed and then domesticate it to play with children. According to a study by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, just three breeds are responsible for 74% of all attacks. Pit bulls top the list, followed by rottweilers, then German shepherds. The Centers for Disease Control says pit bulls kill three times as many people as rottweilers.
In over two-thirds of the cases Clifton studied, the very first known dangerous behavior of the animal proved to be fatal or life-threatening. Dogs bite 4.7 million people annually, and 800,000 dog bites require medical attention. In fact, dogs are the second leading cause of emergency room visits by children.
The majority of offending dogs bite someone at their own home or another familiar place. These dogs aren’t defending the home place, either; 77% are attacking their human family or close friends of the family.
According to the National Canine Research Council, fatal dog attacks are on the rise, having doubled in the last five years. Meanwhile, America seems to have lost all reason when it comes to pets. Dear Abby recently had to advise a reader that, no, it is not okay to shut your 2-year-old alone in a room so the boyfriend’s aggressive dog “Crusher” can roam the house. People have birthday parties for their dogs. They buy RVs so they can take them on vacation, and dress them in Halloween costumes. Some dogs have better health insurance than Georgia’s children.
In local papers, the pet food scandal gets far more press than the proliferation of lead in children’s toys and vinyl lunch boxes. Baby formula recalls are rarely mentioned in the paper, even when deadly bacteria is discovered in cans of fake breast milk. Week after week, we read how China is poisoning our pets. Does anyone care that they are poisoning our children? How easily we shrug off a host of companies committing fraud against children, including corporate giants like toxic-toy Mattel, and the formula-maker Nestle who is responsible for killing a million babies per year. Apparently, they can take our children. Just don’t hurt Fido!
Getting back to Michael Vick, it is interesting to note the extreme responses of the public, the press and even the NFL. Sure, his actions were heinous. But is dog-fighting really a worse crime than assaulting and stalking women? So many professional athletes have been accused of domestic violence that we have long since lost count. Their coaches have been known to bail them out of jail and put them on the field the very next day.
Bobby Chinourd – one of the few athletes actually to be convicted – was sentenced to just one year for terrorizing and threatening to kill his wife. The judge let him serve the sentence in 3-month increments during the off-season, not wanting to limit his time on the field. When Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a woman in a hotel, he received a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support. Even Rae Curruth, who paid someone to kill his pregnant girlfriend, did not elicit the public outrage aimed at Michael Vick.
When Hawaii quarterback Raphel Cherry was convicted of strangling his wife, head coach June Jones responded, "It just makes you sick for him and his family.” What makes me sick is that athletes who mistreat women garner more sympathy than an athlete who mistreated dogs. Our culture values animals more highly than women and children.
I like dogs. My family still laughs at how I spent one childhood summer living in a cardboard box on the porch because I didn’t want to be away from my mutt Old Yellar. I cried for two days when Old Yellar was struck by a car and died, and I have cried over several dogs since then. I won’t argue with the concept that all dogs go to heaven. I just think some should go sooner than others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Ms. Taylor,
I have a few disagreements with your editorial as you might expect from a coach, former athlete, and dog-lover.
"Their coaches have been known to bail them out of jail and put them on the field the very next day."
I've never heard of a coach "bailing out" a player who has been charged with assault of a female. Maybe coming to one's defense (like the June Jones incident you mentioned), which is many times the wrong thing to do, but not "bailing" the player out of jail (if you have evidence to the contrary please feel free to cite it).
"Even Rae Curruth, who paid someone to kill his pregnant girlfriend, did not elicit the public outrage aimed at Michael Vick."
I would consider the outrage over the Michael Vick crimes, and the lack thereof over the Rae Carruth tragedy, a problem of misguided prioritizing by the media. It is not the fault of the vast majority of athletes (except those who committed the acts) or coaches. It is because the media sees Vick as a high-profile player who has a name that will grab ratings. Who are Rae Carruth and Cherica Adams? Nobody to waste much coverage time on from the perspective of the media.
"When Kobe Bryant was accused of raping a woman in a hotel, he received a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and support."
He was also heavily criticized (more criticized than supported in my opinion) and had numerous endorsements pulled.
"Some counties and one state (Virginia) actually have a vicious dog registry."
I am quite afraid of the Breed Specific legistation you mention (rules for so-called "dangerous breeds"). Most any dog, left unattended, is easily capable of killing a small child. It has little to do with the size or strength of the dog, but much more to do with the way the dog has been treated and the level of supervision it is given. I am afraid of this legislation because I am the proud owner of an eighty pound American Bulldog. My dog's breed is on the edge of this type of legislation. English and French Bulldogs will be left out of it, Bull Mastiffs will likely be included. My dog is somewhere in-between. Is it really his breed that is violent? My in-laws have a two year old Labrador Retreiver who has had to share his attention with their two other dogs. He exhibits attention-seeking behavior. We no longer bring my dog to play with him because of the level of aggressiveness that occurs. It's that "Dangerous Breed" you say? Not quite. It is my American Bulldog who is attacked by the Labrador Retreiver until we pull the Lab off of him.
"Absurdly, families increasingly adopt a vicious breed and then domesticate it to play with children."
I guess you would consider me guilty also. My dog is quite capable of playing with my two year old, 30 to 40 pound niece without hurting her. Even though I am secure in the knowledge that he will never attack her, I would not leave the two together without my supervision for even two seconds. That is what responsible dog owners do. Any unattended animal can seriously injure a living being of similar or smaller size.
Understand that I do not support Vick, Bryant or any other athlete who makes similar irresponsible decisions. They set a bad example for our young men of tomorrow. I have been thrilled by the manner in which my athletes have suddenly stopped talking about Vick's "greatness". They used to idolize him, now they never mention him. That is a testament to their intelligence and knowledge of right from wrong.
There are so many other things in your article (and your numerous other articles) I would like to dispute, but I refuse to waste anymore time. I will say that I was amused by your George W. Bush "time remaining in office" clock. At least we seem to share similar views on that subject.
Thomas Moore, Rossville, GA
Ms. Taylor,
I disagree with many points in your article. However, I do not want to waist my time on all of them, so I will argue only a few.
The first problem that I have is your statement about pit bulls being the number one killer among dogs. I bet you didn't research into temperaments among dogs. Research shows that Pit Bulls score an 83.4% passing rate with the American Temperament Test Society. This is higher than Collies, Cocker Spaniels, and Dalmations to name a few.
Another problem that I have with your article is the statistics that you show about dog bites. Dog Bite Statistics are an unreliable sources of information regarding the "viciousness" or dangerousness of breeds for the following reasons:
1) Very few people can accurately identify dog breeds.
2) Breeds are not listed individually, but rather under group headings. My American Bulldog is mistaken for a Pit Bull all the time.
3) Bite stats take into account only reported bites.
4) Bite stats do not take into account the dogs of a specified breed who do not bite. No one knows the overall percentage of Pit Bulls who bite compared to, let's say, the percentage of Dalmatians or Golden Retrievers who bite.
5) Bite stats do not list "provoked" bites that occur at grooming shops and veterinary offices. If you were to ask a vet or a groomer they would probably tell you that smaller dogs have a worse temperament when it comes to trying to ge them to cooperate.
6) Bite stats do list the truly provoked bites. Such as dogs being teased or harrassed.
The last thing I have a problem with is your statement about BSL. I do not believe that a dog should be taken from an owner when said dog has not done anything to be taken away. If my dog were to be taken away, it would devistate me. It would be like someone coming in and taking your children for no apparent reason. BSL doesn't get rid of the root cause...which is people. Here is why BSL would not work:
1) Current laws are barely enforced. New laws are going to be piled on top of old ones. Take something as simple as the leash law. Leashes save lives, they prevent dog bites and attacks. Not everyone enforces this law.
2) BSL takes time, money and man-power to enforce. The
responsibility for the enforcement of laws falls on Animal Control and sheltering systems. These are agencies that are already dealing with massive surpluses of animals, more calls than they can sometimes
handle. Now they are being forced to deal with the additional weight
BSL puts on their shoulders.
3) BSL is predjudiced in nature. It punishes dogs and owners who have done nothing wrong. It is discriminatory against people who choose to own a particular breed of dog.
4) All dogs bite. All dogs can inflict harm. There is no scientific study to prove that one breed of dog bites more or causes more injury than any other breed of dog. There have been cases of tiny dogs, under 20
pounds killing or seriously injurying children.
5) If Pit Bulls and similar breeds are outlawed, then criminals and other people will find ways of getting their hands on the dogs regardless.They will also try to find other breeds to train they way they want.
I think we should all remember that is is not the breed of dog who is to blame, rather, it is the breeder.
Amanda Moore, Rossville, GA
Ok.. I'm of course going to dispute what you have to say also. And first and foremost you should get your facts straight and use factual information before you publish an article. Why should the breed of a dog be punished when it is the fault of unresponsible parents or dog owners that there fatal accidents happening. It is always published that "pit attacks another innocent child", well the first thing that upsets me about this is that you don't hear about a lab (just for example) attacking someone, well i was attacked by a full blooded chocolate lab, my own dog several years ago. I now own several American Pit Bull Terriors! I have had no problem with any of my dogs, my 3 year old nephew as well as my 5 year old niece play with my pets on a regular basis, and I have NO fear that they would ever hurt my family or anyone else, or I wouldn't have an animal that I would have to worry about. Don't get me wrong I know there are bad dogs out there and they are in all breeds, but just because people are ignorant and abuse pit bulls in having them fight, so they are punished. Yes I do think that if any animal harms a child or even an adult it should be punished (euthanized), but this goes for any animal. I also think that people should be responsible and be accountable for the actions, and quit punishing animals.
The amount of misinformation and errors in this article is shameful and would take an inordinate amount of time to address, so I will try to limit my comments to the numerous factual errors made by Ms. Taylor.
Firstly, the National Canine Research Council DOES NOT report, support, or claim as Ms. Taylor says that "fatal dog attacks are on the rise, having doubled in the last five years." This is patently untrue and a libelous misrepresentation of the findings of the NCRC.
Dogs are NOT attacking more frequently or more viciously than they were 10, 50 or even 100 years ago.
Secondly, the CDC DOES NOT report as Ms. Taylor says that "Pit bulls kill three times as many people as Rottweilers." This is NOT a factual or accurate statement.
Thirdly, Ms. Taylor cites a "study" done by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, and Ms. Taylor then claims that "just three breeds are responsible for 74 percent of all attacks." While Mr. Clifton's "study" is junk science at its worse, presenting a collection of randomly chosen newspaper articles as "a study", Ms. Taylor's statement implies that 74% of ALL dog attacks in the U.S. are caused by 3 breeds - this is an outrageously inaccurate, almost laughable statement. Certainly no reasonable or knowledgeable person can believe this to be true - nor is it.
Ms. Taylor's blanket "defense of people" and her demonization of dogs, particularly Pit bulls reveals her shocking level of ignorance about reasons and causes for dog attacks. This can best be demonstrated by an incident which occurred in her own Catoosa County and of which Ms. Taylor seems blissfully ignorant.
In 1997 while his mother and her boyfriend were sleeping off a drug induced stupor, young Dakota Randolph wandered into the yard where the mother's boyfriend had placed two dogs he recently acquired for less than humane reasons. The dogs, being acquired and encouraged to be "guard dogs", performed their function by attacking what they perceived to be as a small interloper. Sadly, Dakota was severely bitten. But the true horror of this "dog attack" is that Dakota lay bleeding in the yard for at least two hours that day before he was "discovered". This was an attack which never should have occurred, and once it did occur, Dakota might very well have lived, had he "found" two hours earlier.
Ms. Taylor is supremely worried about "laws to protect humans - especially children - from vicious animals" and "bleeding heart animal lovers who want to "rehabilitate the animal or (more likely) proclaim its innocence while blaming the mother."
Ok, let's do it your way Ms. Taylor, let's blame the dogs in this case and stop blaming these poor mothers.
But, now that Dakota's mother has finished her jail sentence for Involuntary Manslaughter, perhaps you will let her babysit your children.
To the survivor of the chocolate lab attack -- I hope you destroyed the dog that attacked you. Any animal that would attack its owner has no place in civilized society.
If you read my article, you should know that I mentioned a variety of breeds. My piece was not a teatrise against pit bulls or any other breed, but a call for sanity regarding dog attacks on people and what to do with the dogs who survive them.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Ms. Delise, I'm well aware of what happened to Dakota. It is one of the reasons I would never trust a pit bull or a drug addict with my children.
As for the doubling statistic, going from 15 to 31 is doubling, last time I checked. Of course, there are many, many more dog attacks that do not result in death. People end up with dozens or even hundreds of stitches. They lose fingers or hands. They are scarred (and scared) for life.
Do a google search for "pit bull" and you'll note that there have been several unprovoked attacks since I wrote my article. A woman in Freemont, CA was forced to hide her baby in a trash can while she battled a pit bull that came into her garage. She may loose the use of her arms.
Just a couple of days ago, a six-year-old boy was attacked by a pit bull. His sister was also injured as she sought to rescue him. The boy may face permanent disfigurement. Is that okay with you?
The animal control officer in that county said they'd had 72 bites so far this year, and most were from pit bulls.
And how about the two pit bulls that broke into a woman's house and mauled her in her bed? I suppose that is her fault for being in bed?
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Mr. and Mrs. Moore -- Thank you for your comments. I pray that you will reconsider letting your 30-pound neice play with your American bulldog, or that her parents will reconsider. While you might be able to stop an attack before it resulted in death, your niece could easily be maimed or disfigured before you were able to intervene. IMHO, that is a risk not worth taking.
Amanda, the stats you quote do not refute the pit bull's place as #1 killer. If breeders are to blame, then why do you oppose outlawing their activity? I have not particularly espoused breed specific legislation. The purpose of my article was simply to point out the outrageous leap of logic it takes to defend animals that kill children. Our society values animals more than children, and I find that troubling.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
"Anonymous," if you would like to try that post again without the insults, I will be happy to have it posted on my blog.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Ms. Taylor,
I appreciate your concern for our niece, but as a former athlete I still have considerable quickness and strength. My niece would barely have a scratch on her before I was on top of my dog and in control of him. Don't try to dispute that. You will never have the necessary proof to do so, because I will not allow the damage to occur. That said, proof doesn't seem to be necessary for many of your opinions, so you will likely ignore the fact that you don't have any.
Please do not pray for me or anyone else in my family.You do not know if I believe in that or not. I would appreicate you not forcing your religious beliefs on us. Yes, asking your "higher power" to protect us or influence our decisions is forcing your beliefs on us.
You mention killing any animal immediately for harming a human, I thought that Christians (I assume you are Baptist from your previous articles in the WCM) believed in forgiveness over persecution. What if this dog had never harmed anyone before? He is killed for one mistake? How would you like to have a one strike and you're executed policy? I'm quite willing to bet you would no longer be around, and I can assure you that I would no longer be around. If your argument with this point is that animals are not equal to humans, remember that is your opinion. You have previously stated that some men have the opinion that women are inferior to men. If you feel as though your ideas toward dogs should be adopted, then who is to say that those ignorant mens' opinions should not be adopted as well. Both are very likely the opinions of the minority. What is the difference between the two?
I am quite suprised that was all you decided to respond to from my post. Remember, silence is quite often perceived as agreement.
Thomas Moore, Rossville, GA
Ms. Taylor,
I need to slightly amend my previous post. I am rewriting my third paragraph.
You mention killing any animal immediately for harming a human, I thought that Christians (I assume you are Baptist from your previous articles in the WCM) believed in forgiveness over persecution. What if this dog had never harmed anyone before? He is killed for one mistake? How would you like to have a one strike and you're executed policy? If the dog is found guilty of killing a human then fine, execute it. But for just harming someone? How many of us have harmed another at least once in our life. Should we execute the fourth grade boy who throws a rock and causes a laceration on his classmate, neighbor, friend? No. Because he deserves a second chance in that scenario. If your argument with this point is that animals are not equal to humans, remember that is your opinion. You have previously stated that some men have the opinion that women are inferior to men. If you feel as though your ideas toward dogs should be adopted, then who is to say that those ignorant mens' opinions should not be adopted as well. Both are very likely the opinions of the minority. What is the difference between the two?
Thank you for the opportunity to amend my other post.
Thomas Moore, Rossville, GA
my family includes 2 dogs that are on most of the bsl, a pitbull and a mastiff. i trust both over most people. you seemed to have left out how many people are killed by other people. i do think that if a dog attacks for no reason it should be put down. but in most cases i belive that there is a reason for the attack, other than the dogs breed. im not saying that the parents are always to blame but how many of the attacks would be stopped just by poeple watching there kids and not letting them run around alone. i think it would also stop other crimes against kids. in some cases the dogs owner should be at fault as well. like if a child is playing outside alone and a dog is loose. the dog attacks the child. both parents and owner should be at fault. if a child wonders into the yard of a dog and get bit the parent is at fault. i think if someone is found fighting dogs then they should be forced to fight others like the dogs had to. its poeple that make dogs bad not the dogs. i have seen a small child stick its thumb into the eye of a pit and the dog did nothing but lick the child.
wasnt there a 6wk old baby killed by a toy breed not to long ago? should we ban those as well? why dont we just ban everything that kills people..cars, planes, water, fire, but the worst is humans....
Thanks for responding, Thomas. You are correct that in my opinion animals are not equal to people. I realize that others disagree and even prefer animals to people. In fact, that was the thesis of my AETP column: Our current society values animals more highly than women and children. Several people have argued with my statistics (which doesn't hurt my feelings, since I am not the researcher who compiled them!) but no one has yet disagreed with my central thesis.
I'm sure you did not realize this when you posted your reply, but you are engaging in a bit of double-speak. You tell me not to impose my religion on you by saying I will pray that you reconsider, yet attempt to use my religion to force me to comply with your idea about giving violent animals a second chance. If religion is of no value, then you have no right to impose your religion (which includes your view of my religion) on me. In fact, I could say that you are imposing your religion on me by telling me NOT to pray. I'm a Christian. You can't ask me not to pray. I will refrain from telling you what I'm praying about if you like, but I will still pray.
Since I do believe that religion has value, I will respond to your argument. Jesus died for humans, not animals. Obviously, God values the entire creation and we should, too. Matthew says not a sparrow falls from the sky that God doesn't know about, because God cares even for those small creatures only worth a few pennies. But lest we get carried away with such thinking, the point of the verse is how much MORE God cares about us human beings.
If you have read my other articles you know that I place great emphasis on being good stewards of earth rather than destroying our own habitat in the name of industry. I would not be in favor of destroying all dangerous animals -- tigers in the jungle, for example. But if a tiger begins raiding a village and dragging off small children, then clearly that particular tiger needs to be destroyed. The same goes for Fido, Rover and Benji.
The Old Testament laws certainly support me on this, specifically stating that any animal that kills a human must be destroyed. Of course Christians don't follow the OT laws, so it is a bit of a weak argument. Jesus for all his mercy and kindness said nothing about sparing animals. One might say that he saved some animals by becoming the sacrifice so that animal sacrifices in the temple were made obsolete -- but Jews would disagree with us there, pointing out that the majority of Jews continued to sacrifice until the temple was destroyed and asserting that the change was political in nature. Since most Jews rejected Jesus, it doesn't make a solid argument to say that he saved animals by becoming the sacrifice.
You are respectful in presenting your opinion. I am always happy to entertain respectful dissent. The column I write is an opinion column. While I often include statistics and facts, the point of the article is to present an opinion -- specifically MY opinion. I don't ask that everyone agree with me. I just want to get people thinking and talking.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
To the latest "anonymous," you said "like if a child is playing outside alone and a dog is loose. the dog attacks the child. both parents and owner should be at fault."
Do you have children? I'm curious because people make statements like this all the time, as if all "children" are the same. I would agree that a 2-year-old should not be outside alone. But it's perfectly plausible that a 6-year-old should be able to play safely in his own back yard. And a 10-year-old might ride his bike down the street to the neighbor's house for a game of basketball in the driveway. Children should be able to do these things without parents worrying that a savage beast is going to devour the child.
If someone is going to be locked up to prevent maulings, it should be the dogs, not the children.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
so dogs are the only thing that can harm a child? the same 6 or 10 yr old can be doing as you say and a human can come in to the yard or down the street and grab the child, rape and kill the child. and just as all children are not the same not all dogs are the same.
The difference is that when a human harms a child, the act is considered malicious (as it should be) and the person is generally tried in a court of law and put away -- though perhaps not for long enough. When a human hurts a child, we usually blame the one who did it. Unless the mother is the culprit, we don't pin the blame on her for the actions of other people. So long as her supervision was reasonable (which could mean a six-year-old playing in the yard while she is inside), we do not blame the mother.
But when it's an animal who harms the child, animal-lovers cry, "Don't hurt Fido! He's innocent! He's just an animal!" They blame the parent, even when the parent's supervision was reasonable. (The 6yo girl choked by the dog in her own back yard, for instance.)
Child predators act like child predators and they should pay for it. Savage dogs act like savage dogs and they should pay for it. More importantly, NEITHER ONE should be roaming the streets of our neighborhoods. A 10-year-old child should be able to ride his bike down the street to his friend's house and play that game of basketball in the driveway.
Whether the dog in question is a pit bull or a poodle makes no difference to me. Bad dogs should be destroyed. Bad owners should be punished also.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Ms. Taylor,
"I will refrain from telling you what I'm praying about if you like, but I will still pray." That's exactly what I asked for. Thank you for understanding and for standing your own ground. Just to clarify, I didn't ask you not to pray at all. I agree with your evaluation that what you thought I was asking you to do would be at least hypocritical, or at most worse than, what I was accusing you of doing. Just as I will not allow someone's religious beliefs to be forced upon me, I will also not allow someone else's beliefs to be compromised. For example, my football players are given an opportunity to pray together as each practice, game, other gathering. We try to make it clear that no one is expected to do this, and I have been happy that some choose not to do so. This means that the players who do so do not make this decision in fear of the reprecussions for not doing so. They actually want to.
Our discussion on the rest of this subject has come to the end of the road. We are both very set in our opinions, but have seemingly been able to find common ground.
I agree that all guilty animals should be euthanized, or at least punished severly, and their owners also held responsible. I will not defend a dog who has done such a thing. Just like you mentioned in your article, I would also want to bring the end to a dog who had harmed my child (or even dog for that matter). I just don't feel that a particular breed should be singled out and eliminated (which Breed Specific Legislation would make possible). I love bulldogs and particularly my American Bulldog. I would be devastated if I was told I could no longer own one, even though neither I nor my dog have harmed anyone in the way which BSL would be trying to circumvent. Most any dog is capable of being a good dog if it is raised in the right way, much like children. If they are raised in the wrong way, they will likely act in the wrong manner.
Although I love my dog very much, I would never put his live over my wife's (or future child's for that matter). I would be heartbroken over having to make such a decision for a long time, even if I had no other choice. I hope it will never come to that. My point is to say that I do not value my dog over a human, but I do love my dog very much. And I hope to continue to own American Bulldogs for the rest of my life. I hope to instill a similar love in the hearts of any children I may be privileged enough to conceive in the future.
I guess through my reading of your article, I interpreted that you wanted all dogs, especially those considered "dangerous breeds" removed from the Earth in a precautionary measure. Through your comments I have now concluded that you have a problem with "problem dogs", which I can understand. I just did not understand how you convict a dog without him committing a wrongdoing. That was my main disagreement with your column, and concurrently, your opinion.
Thomas Moore, Rossville, GA
Ms. Taylor,
I see plausible points in your story and in the comments of others. I am an extreme dog lover AND a parent of a small child. My child is not the least bit afraid of animal, and in fact her favorite dog is our neighbors English Bull Mastiff. As a parent, I am smart enough to not let my child be alone with ANY dog, including the toy breeds which seem just as menacing as the larger ones. I will not let her roam the streets when she is 6.. personally that is still WAY too young to go out by themselves. Yes,as a ten year old, she could be riding her bike, but she will be taught not to touch or go near any dog on the street and to specifically not go into someones yard to play with one. Just as you should teach your children to obey, you can also teach the animal.
On the other hand, as a dog lover I do not believe in euthanizing after one attack, depending on the severity of the attack. Yes, if they child is hurt badly, they dog should be euthanized. But if the dog nips, or barely bites, then maybe something of obedience school would work. If a human kills or hurts a child, they are not instantly put to death are they? They are tried and punished, but you feel as if dogs should be instantly murdered? I see no kind of justice there. So the comment about the anonymous not having children is kind of discrimanitory. Even if they don't have children, do you not think they have neices, nephews, cousins, and friends children that they care about? I'm sure if the crime fit the punishment then I'm sure that they would have no problem.
Hi, Tarayn! Thanks for your comment. I do not think every dog should be killed for a nip, no. That would be the death of every puppy I have ever known! It would depend on the circumstance, location and severity of the bite. I read a case today where a man was begging a judge not to euthanize his dog because the dog was nice to everyone except mailmen! The dog has permanently disfigured a 60-year-old mail carrier, who now carries the scars of dozens of stitches. That dog needs to be put down!
Also I'd like to point out you altered my position before responding to it. For example, I said it is reasonable for a 6-year-old to play in her own back yard -- which is a far cry from roaming the streets! As for the comment you say is discriminatory, it was actually a question. When someone starts talking about children and how they should be raised, it is reasonable to ask whether that person has ever performed the task themselves.
Finally, I'd like to assert that the word "murder" should not be used for the killing of a dog. Dogs are not people. They are pets. We love our pets and treat them like family, but they are still not people. If the killing of an animal were murder, then you should never wear leather or eat meat! I realize some people are total vegetarians and hold to that position. Most of us do not. The laws of the United States do not afford personhood to animals, and thus they cannot be "murdered."
Jeannie Babb Taylor
Should be "himself" or "herself" not "themselves." This blog needs an "edit comment" button!
J.
Should be "himself" or "herself" not "themselves." This blog needs an "edit comment" button!
J.
Ms. Taylor,
Murder in the dictionary is stated as to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. I have had many animals "murdered" by neighbors. They do nothing to provoke it, just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they are not by definition people, but they can still be killed. Taking the life of an animal is wrong when they have been raised as a "person."
No, I am not a vegetarian, nor do I plan to be one. But, the meats that I eat come from animals strictly raised for the purpose of producing food. If I had a pet cow, there would be no way I could eat it. But we are not talking about animals that are for eating. We are talking about animals that are raised for the purpose of companionship. I apologize for misdirecting the 6 year old comment. I can see your point about playing in your own backyard, but still, you should watch your children in your backyard. But again, a person can come by and take a kid out of their yard. It's a gamble everyday for anyone to walk outside. Anything could happen. Maybe the dog laws should be inforced more. Maybe the pet owners should be doing more. My neighbor has 3 children, older than age ten, three "dangerous" dogs. She had four, but as one of the Rotts started showing signs of feircness, she had it euthanized. Also, she built a huge privacy fence so that they can't get out. That is a responsible dog owner. Not all are. Like I said before, every day is a gamble, we just have to be as cautious as sanely possible. I feel sorry for all dog attack victims, and yes if it was one of my own I'd seek revenge. I'm just explaining my view on the fact that not all attacks are justifiable by death.
"These animals are desired because of their killer tendencies, not in spite of them. That�s why breeders breed them, that�s why people buy them, and we ought to just admit it."
unless you know every owner of every "vicious dog" as you called them then you have no right to say that. i have a pitbull that is no way shape or form visious. we have her because of how sweet she is. ive never had a pet of any kind that will sit there and comfort me when i am sick..she does when i cough she licks me and the harder i cough the more she licks.
" America seems to have lost all reason when it comes to pets"
"People have birthday parties for their dogs. They buy RVs so they can take them on vacation, and dress them in Halloween costumes. Some dogs have better health insurance than Georgia�s children."
we do this because they are as much family as any human.
and its better that we dress them in Halloween costumes then put them on a chain and never feed them!! my mother has her pet because it helps her deal with the "empty nest" and maybe people shouldnt have kids unless they can afford them and things like insurance. what is sad is the fact that some people dont treat there human kids as well as some of us do our furbabies.
i should not have to deal with the loss of my baby because people that have never even seen her hate her because of her breed. dont get me wrong if an animal is vicious the it should be put down. but not he whole breed because of a few. i have many people that the should meet my dog before hating her. i was told last week by a guy i work with that i have the best behaved dog that he had ever seen.
Yeah, and what about the time when a couple teenagers tied a german shepherds mouth and feet together while torturing the animal (gutting the animal alive) that they dog actually bit his own tongue off because he was in so much pain? Is that acceptable?
And what about the time when a few teenagers threw acid on a dog that wasn't even 1 years old yet.
I don't understand why you are so "for the people" all the time. The only defense an animal has is their mouth. People have guns, knifes, other weapons, and their hands.
I think people are the biggest threat to animals and the environment.
"...the two groups can haggle over disposal of the remains," that is just so wrong to say.
(Also, on the news channels that I have in NJ, they made just a big deal over the lead in childrens toys as they did about the pet food recall).
I feel we should ban irresponsible members of the media who spew trash as fact. Perhaps with should start here.
Not only are many of the points of this "article" erroneous; the writing is childish. My seven year old articulates better than this woman.
There are far too many errors to address contained within this article.
Anyone who cares to know how an unbiased group of professionals ranks these dogs can go to www.ATTS.org. Or read the study by Dr. I Lehr Brisbin.
Your claim that the National Canine Research Council says fatal dog attacks are on the rise is completely false. Please remove it from your post immediately.
Reported dog bites have dropped dramatically over the past 30 years thanks to better leash laws, anti-cruelty laws and public education.
Hysteria, hatred, and irrationality serve neither people, dogs nor the cause of public safety. Responsible, humane dog ownership does.
Further, historical evidence argues against the idea of dangerous breeds and shows that over time, while the breed of dog identified in severe and fatal attacks may change, reckless and criminal human behavior is at fault in over 90% of cases.
Post a Comment