Re: [PyrNet-L] pyr rescue question GENERAL

[Adrienne Wilder <draggon@STC.Net>]

> 
> So I don't automatically think- gee if the owner couldn't live with this
> dog, it ought to be destroyed. I'd prefer to find out what the reasons are.
> And I do think good trainers, authentic trainers- are qualified to deal with
> aggressive dogs (this does not necessarily translate to the owners). And if
> not them, who? Who are the "experts"? 


When dealing with trying to find out if/why a dog is agressive you need 
a k-9 behaviorist.  Trainers know how to train.  They know the general 
idea of how to manipulate the dog psyci.  K-9 behavorists not only 
understand why it works, but *how* it works and like a detective they 
can break down the life history on a dog and find reasons for certian 
responses.

While I don't doubt the value and need
> for rescue groups- I do believe they will range in terms of policies,
> experience, caliber, goals, etc.
> 
> How does a dog lose its ability to coexist peacefully? If it had it to begin
> with, I'd say unless there was a medical condition, major loss of trust
> regarding human society occurred somewhere along its lifetime.

There are times when a dog has lost its trust of man.  there are times 
when a dog has been taught that it is okay to bite. (which for a pyr is 
absolutely a no no)and  There are times when a dog has lost its mental 
facilties.  
> 
> I don't mind hard line stances if I can understand the reasoning- but we'd
> never accept this sort of reasoning with regard to a violently anti-social
> teenager.
> Okay.  Here is the difference.  A dog, while intelligent lacks the 
ability to understand and deal with the world like a human being.  The 
dog reacts on a very basic level.  A human being, when they stray, has 
the ability to understand why, what they are doing is wrong. You cannot 
"explain" to a dog why some reactions are unexceptable.  You might be 
able to train them, but no training is 100% accurate.    

> I don't believe or accept that a dog's sole purpose is to exist with
> humankind anymore than I believe or accept that my *sole* purpose is to be a
> good wife to some man and bear children (I'm not knocking marriage or
> children- it's just not all that I'm living for). Though I realize there's a
> long historical relationship there regarding humans and dogs.

Sorry.  But the only way dogs can exsist is with human kind.  That was 
their reason for development, that is their reason for preservation 
today.  Once a dog becomes an endangerment to humans it has lost its 
"place."  Heck, we destroy *wild* animals that become "dangerous" why on 
earth should a dog, and animal that shares our homes, be given an 
exception.
We apply the same thing to our fellow humans as well.
  
It is not abad thing, or even an "insult".  It is the truth, though. If 
it were not, then dogs would simply not "be".


-- 


Adrienne Wilder  
Murrayville GA

"Oh, to be loved by a dog!"

Home of:
The golden gang,
Patou and the evil sister geese.
and many stray cats.