This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jenni78 on 23 June 2008 - 18:06
And it makes me wonder how fewer aggressive dogs we would have if the bad breeders wouldnt breed dogs with crummy temperments...sure you'll get a few...but it wouldnt be nearly the same number.
Why does a dog have to have "crummy temperment" (temperAment) to be aggressive? This kind of thinking is detrimental in itself; the plight of the GSDs today is largely the fault of this logic. GSDs are SUPPOSED to have good aggression...as are a handful of other breeds that have been diliuted by the fat women in cheap flat shoes running around in circles.
The key is control. Control your animal. Confine it so it cannot hurt innocents (people OR animals). I can't let my dogs all interact and run around together; it would be a bloodbath. I assure you all that not one of them has poor temperament, or they would be, um, no longer with us. However, I have had not one incident where one of my dogs got off my property and hurt an innocent animal or person. It is not a question of luck, or a question of aggression/lack of aggression. It's a simple matter of common sense and control.
The article is a great "turning of the tables" on the BSL morons. Instead of breeding wussified dogs for all the intellectually challenged pet "lovers" so that we have fewer aggressive dogs, why doesn't everyone just employ a tiny bit of common sense and learn how to handle the aggressive dogs they have, or stick to what they can handle? Why ruin good dogs for everyone with a brain? I will never understand this. 
by 4pack on 23 June 2008 - 18:06
Jenni, your my new hero!
by Jenni78 on 23 June 2008 - 18:06
LOL! Thanks, 4pack. It shouldn't be novel thinking, though. It's simple logic.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top