OT: Vick Indicted

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:39 am

jondiehl wrote:
Feanor wrote:My wife's friend at work had her Labrador put down just this weekend for biting her baby on the finger.
Wow, that's harsh. You didn't mention the circumstances surrounding the bite on the finger, but 9/10 I suspect that bites like that are the child's fault, not the dog's fault.

My wife thought it was harsh, too, but I didn't get any details other than that the baby was only 18 months old.

jondiehl wrote:ANY dog can attack a child, even the most docile animal. I don't recommend any child under 3 or 4 be around a dog at any time alone.

Very true. Even though my pug would never bite anyone and barely has any sharp teeth, I can't leave him alone with my two nieces who are both under 3 because he gets excited and jumps up on them trying to get a hug.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:55 am

pk500 wrote:Yes, they are as big as a moron as Vick. At least Vick didn't risk the lives of innocent children in his barbaric dogfighting. An idiot who thinks that an animal that just a year ago was engaged in a regular combat is now rehabilitated and is safe around children is a f*cking moron because they are are literally risking the health, and possibly the life, of their child by having this dog in the home.

Just because a dog you assumed was safe attacked your kid, you want to believe that the people who adopted one of the Vick dogs can't be sure that their dog is safe, no matter what training and rehabilitation it has been thru. Five of the pit bulls are already therapy dogs for cancer patients and troubled teens or are in training to be so, but their owners are all morons... whatever.

pk500 wrote:Protecting your child is the most important thing in the world, much more important than the welfare of dog.

And yet you didn't tell the authorities about a dog that attacked the face of a three year old child without any provocation, just to keep the peace with your in-laws. Well, you are protecting your children from this dog by keeping it locked away, and any other unlucky kids that come into contact with it can take their chances and aren't anything for you worry about.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:18 am

Feanor wrote:And yet you didn't tell the authorities about a dog that attacked the face of a three year old child without any provocation, just to keep the peace with your in-laws. Well, you are protecting your children from this dog by keeping it locked away, and any other unlucky kids that come into contact with it can take their chances and aren't anything for you worry about.

It's a small farm town -- there are no town canine authorities. Want me to call the State Police over a dog bite?

I'm responsible for the well being of my children, and by pulverizing that chomping waste of flesh if it gets near my kids again, I'm doing just that. The dog's owner is responsible for its care and restraint, not me. If the owner chooses not to restrain the dog, I will take all measures to protect my kids.

A dog attacked my wife and infant son about 7 years ago, and she took the owners to the town. The dog warden ruled that the dog must be restrained at all times and would be destroyed if it got loose and attacked again.

It's a pretty safe bet that the county dog control in the rural county in which my sister-in-law lives would have issued a similar decree, if that. I'm not sure what nanny state you live in, but in my sister-in-law's neck of the woods, most dog owners take care of rogue, biting dogs with 12-gauge justice. In that instance, it was too bad I don't own a shotgun ...

Take care,
PK

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:43 pm

pk500 wrote:It's a small farm town -- there are no town canine authorities. Want me to call the State Police over a dog bite?

A dog bite to the foot of an 11 year old who was waving it in the dog's face, nope.

A dog bite to the face of a young child with no provocation, yeah, if the owner refuses to do the decent thing.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:18 pm

I'm sorry if my comment ignited a little heated debate here. Just to clarify I don't hate dogs or animals, the question was what to do with these dogs and again they should of been put down.

If these weren't Vick's dogs they would of been put down, but there was too much opportunity here for certain groups to get attention.

Someone said there are places to deal with animals like this instead of putting them down. where are these places? Why are so many animals put down because they can't find them owners? I'm not in favor of killing animals if there are places for them to live out their lives.

My point was simple, these dogs should not be in a family pet situation ever, there is just too much risk. With so many dogs that need a home sitting in pounds, I really don't get why someone would take one of these.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:35 pm

Did you read the SI article? It might answer some of your questions.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:56 pm

These pets are below us in the food chain. I don't condone torturing, but if you have to kill one to protect your family, you do so.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:39 pm

pk500 wrote:It's a small farm town -- there are no town canine authorities. Want me to call the State Police over a dog bite?

Yeah, that's what you do if want a dog put down. Esp if you feel your sister-in-law's dog is a threat to society. I grew up in a small town, too. We had county animal control.