Re: [PyrNet-L] Flock Guardian Pyr Problem

["Timothy M. Parks" <timparks@pacbell.net>]

Cindy, I must respond to this on
the grounds of responsible dog ownership


>From the dogs standpoint ( and remember, everyone wants it to be able to
>distinguish differences ), the woman is drunk, so she behaves in an
>erratic manner.  This is especially true to an animal, their lives depend
>on reading body language.  This is confusing and alarming to a dog.

All people behave in erratic manners according to dogs.  Whether the
woman reached out to pet the dog while she was drunk or not drunk
this should not have set the average dog off to viciously attack the
woman. If the woman was impaired, the dog should have enough sense
to know this.  It has been stated numerous times that this dog was
woman aggressive,  there is no more defense to this.  The court. deemed
this dog to be a menace and the average responsible dog owner would
agree.  Furthermore, the owner was hosting this woman in his house
and has a responsibility to her safety.  Clearly in this case, just giving
her a warning was not enough protection and he did not secure her
safety knowing the dog was woman aggressive


>The woman smells funny ( if we can smell a drunk, what do you suppose
>comes across to a dog, with their magnificent scenting ability? ), so now
>we have erratic behavior, and foul odor.  Confusing, I am sure.


I need to point out here the smell of alcohol does not make a dog dangerous.
They either like the smell or don't like it.  Likewise, the smell of
alcohol on a
person does not make the dog dangerous as does neither perfume or cologne..
Tying to pet a dog is not erratic behavior.  And nothing has been said
that she was erratic.  Again, there is no defense here to responsible dog
ownership.


>The most important of all is "impaired judgement " typical of drunks. 
>Inability to follow directions?  Is this suggesting something?  Coupled
>with everything else?

It only suggests to me that the dog owner did not do enough to secure
her safety with the dog.  He had a choice of continuing to host her in
his house or remove her from his house.  He chose to leave her alone
while he went to make coffee.  He has already admitted to this 
mistake.  Again, there is no defense here.


>Now, taking this one step further, suppose, just suppose, that by biting
>this woman, and sending her to the E.R., that in some very convoluted
>way, it kept her off the streets ( driving ) and saved some innocent
>people from dying in a car wreck caused by yet another drunk on the
>road??  Would that then make this dog a hero???

This statement, I must admit, shocked me the most.  First of all, the
woman was in a house, not driving, her safety was in the hands of
her host.  Furthermore, if he allowed her to get drunk to the point
of being impaired, then it is his responsibility not to let her drive.  And
with this twisted theory, your now suggesting that the dog is a hero
because it maimed a drunk woman.  I don't think it attacked the 
woman because she smelled of alcohol, but because she was a woman
and this dog was known as a woman aggressive dog.  It sounds like 
you would applaud anyone who took dogs downtown to sic on the
homeless and drunk people.  I can't see any part of this as a defense
of responsible dog ownership.


>You see Janice, there is more than one way to look at anything.  Those of
>us that want to get to the bottom of all the stories before killing an
>animal, are not wrong, we are just seeing another picture.
>Please remember, this was just a story to show how a picture can change,
>no one ( including me ) is saying that this is what happened.
>Cindy Henke

If you really did want to get to the bottom of the story, why not just
deal with what has been presented.  This case has nothing to do with
another case.  It deserves to be dealt with in and of itself. I'm sure 
the victim  does not want to hear about there being too many dogs
being put down as she has to deal with the pain and suffering that
this particular dog caused.  Furthermore, if owners would take more
responsibility in the ownership of their dogs, we would not be hearing
of all the dogs that are being put down due to their viciousness.
You have not made any kind of a defense to this particular case, but
rather you have tried to confuse the case as a defense.  Nothing you
have mentioned would be considered responsible dog ownership.

One more point, Cindy, that I would like to make is that there has
been only one post to this case that has mentioned that this woman
was drunk and you so quickly take that into account as a "fact",
However, numerous accounts that this dog was "woman aggressive"
seems to pass you by.  Woman aggressive means that this dog is a 
danger to women, no matter what their condition.  Again, the kennel
stated that this dog was vicious, it was in their care for the seven months
after the incident.  Finally, the matter was brought up before the courts
and was judged and found guilty.  What more do you want on this case?

Tim Parks