Hi guys, I have one last topic for you. I wanted to bring this up because I think that it is a huge problem here in New Mexico. Recently, a lot of press has been released about pit bull attacks. Just last week, a women from Truth or Consequences died when a pack of 4 pit bulls mauled her. One of the dogs was shot at the scene after it rushed an officer. The other three, last I heard, are expected to be put down if they are caught.
Why are these attacks allowed to continue? Do we have a larger number of dangerous breeds here or are we more lax about animal control? Is simply euthanizing the animals that attack enough to combat the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey everyone. I think that a lot of you have brought up some very good points thus far.
I guess what I'm trying to allude to is the idea of questioning "homeowner authority". Another example would be unruly or bully children. Every day, people are hurt due to things that are within others' control. When should government, if at all, step in to citizens' private lives?
I'm sorry for not just saying that...
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter.
11 comments:
I am not a dog fan. I do not understand why people choose to keep dangerous animals as pets. People do not normally have lions or chimps as pets because it is not practical and it is dangerous. Why pit bulls are not classified like this is a mystery to me. Some animals are wild and should not be kept as house pets. Putting them down does not solve the problem, obviously, as these attacks continue. They're only put down AFTER the damage has been done. Just ban this type of animal from the category of house pet.
I think it is definitely the owner of the dogs fault that they are they way they are. The owner should be charged because obviously the dogs were taught to behave in a violent manner. I agree with Eric that something needs to be done to prevent the violence. Putting down the dogs after takes care of one dog, but what about the rest? The problem here is obviously the owners.
Like Bridget said, I think the responsibility for the dogs is on the owners. If their dogs are violent, then they need to keep them under control, or just not have them as pets at all. There is a law that dogs need to be kept on a leash when they are out in public, and it is when owners disobey this law that other people get attacked by the dogs. I think this is an example where it is necessary to obey the authority, or for stricter laws to be put in place, in order to ensure the safety of others.
Like everyone said so far I think this is more of a 'nurture' issue rather than the 'nature' of the animals themselves. If a dog is abused or taught to be scared of people or other animals then it's more likely to be violent and turn against humans since it's so used to being treated badly by them. I have several friends who have pit bulls as pets and they have never had an issue with them as far as violence goes, so I seriously don't think it has anything to do with the breeds themselves being harmful.
When domesticated dogs do end up in the 'wild' so to speak, and on their own their tendencies of violence to the humans that abused them will naturally run wild. This behavior will only be increased as the dogs form packs, like the one that killed the woman in Truth or Consequences.
New Mexico is certainly lax about animal control, and the attacks should not be allowed to continue, but for right now euthanizing the animals that attack is really the only practical solution to the immediate problem. Long term, the state should be more careful about who they allow to own animals because if they're just going to abuse them and turn them into monsters then there's no point in letting them keep a dog.
I agree with what Amy said. I think that it is definitely a problem with how the dog is raised or treated by its owner because, if it was simply the breed, attacks would be much more common. I think it can be easy to blame the dog, but, when it comes down to it, the owner is responsible because many people have "dangerous" breeds of dogs without problems, and it only makes sense that a dog will attack people if it is abused by them or taught to fight.
I don't really know what the current laws about this are, but I think that owners of dogs who mauled a person should be subject to charges (depending on the situation, of course). Additionally, if it is proven that they were abusing the dog or making it fight, they shouldn't be allowed to own an animal, at least for some period of time (and I think there are laws in place about animal abuse).
Hi, all,
I hate to keep being such a stick-in-the-mud, but this topic isn't really all that relevant to class, either. How does this tie into questioning authority more specifically? Carly tied it in some by talking about the importance of following authority in this instance, so in order for you to earn points on this post, you need to do something similar; otherwise, your posts won't count.
Thanks!
Hi, again!
Lee did a great job amending her post topic, so go forth and respond to the newly revised questions. :)
Thanks!
I also think that this comes down to the government really cracking down on pet owners more than the animals themselves. The problem with dogs like pit bulls and other commonly used breeds of "attack dogs" is that they are huge and powerful. I know a tiny chihuahua that attacks anything that comes in its way but because of its size it does not cause nearly the same amount of damage.
In London and in Australia (among others), the goverment has banned the ownership of certain types of pit bulls and owners have to put them on tight leashes: neuter/spade them, microchip them and muzzle them when they are in public. Laws like these are also followed to some extent in some counties within the US but most state governments do not allow breed specific legislation.
I have no problem with the government implementing harsh laws like these. If people are not responsible enough to train their dogs not to attack, someone has to look out for public safety. Why should it be any different than with other things you own?
Like children -just kidding, I know children are not things and you do not own them per se.
Bully children should not be completely held accountable for their actions before a certain age because their aggression comes from home. Problem children a lot of times end up being taken to foster homes because they come from problem parents.
I think that is someone is not responsible enough to care and teach a dog or a child (...Not the same, I know ) right from wrong them maybe those creatures should be relocated. Questioning the ability of the owner to take on the responsibility of something is in my eyes reasonable.
The government should step in when there are clear victims- in the case of the aggressive dogs, there are multiple victims. In addition to the people who are attacked by the dogs, the animals themselves have been seriously harmed. True, while they may have been bred for aggression, they have also been provoked into their behavior- through starvation and abuse, typically. I think the government has a right to step in if animals are clearly being abused and if there's a significant chance of someone being harmed in addition to the dogs.
The large problem here is that many pitbulls and rotweilers are bred to be cage-fighting dogs and then released or get loose. Also, in the state of NM, another problem is coyotes. A lot of dogs that become wild are forced to group together and fend off coyotes and fight for food because as population increases and urbanization continues, the coyotes as well as the loose dogs are left to fight over the small amount of remaining food. These dogs are not "dangerous" or "vicious" by any means when born. They are the same as any other house pet. They are bred and taught to be aggressive and attack in order to fill the selfish needs of the owners.
This is a problem of regulation on pet owners. There is a definite need to interfere when the owners are suspected of being involved in animal fighting, neglect, abuse, or other cruelty such as collecting. There are also many pets that live in unfulfilling homes and it leads to an abundance of homeless pets that run away. Many of them are also not cared for medically such as having them spayed or neutered which leads to a greater population of dogs.
There should certainly be stricter rules on breeding, owning, and adoption of pets. There should also be harsher punishment for those convicted of animal cruelty or animal fighting. It is a difficult thing, however, considering the number of animals they are dealing with and the number of ways that people can obtain pets. Also, it is difficult to ensure safe and healthy homes for all pets when the funding for shelters and such is so low that over-crowding is common and so they are eager to send them home just in the hope that they don't have to be put down.
Unruly children is more difficult because there are all sorts of factors that may cause this and the blame can not be placed purely on homeowners. There are also economic, cultural, and social differences and a number of influences such as school environment, neighborhood, friend network, and other family members that may be in their lives besides their immediate caretakers. It is very easy to say that aggression is learned by the children from the parents but there are things such as abuse, neglect, mental disorders, and even just insecurities or economic hardships that may cause an individual to cope with such traumas through violence. It is very hard to pin point these causes because they are different for everyone and the require an in-depth look at the individual's profile. Though there is certainly an influence from the parents it is not necessarily fair that the parents alone be blamed for their childrens' actions.
Post a Comment