Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Vet visit......
Options
Comments
-
I was talking about Komondorok. I'm sorry if I was unclear. I work with the Greyhound rescue, so inevitably I am going to be bitten by a Greyhound, really. I have been bitten MANY times, but only once took stitches and nearly made me lose my nose. You'll notice I said it was the dog I least expected to bite me. Greyhounds are mainly of very mild temperament, and make lovely pets. However, like ANY canine, a dog in unfamiliar surroundings can become defensive. Hell, PEOPLE can become defensive. So it wasn't the dog's fault, per se. It was the handler.
And I have been to Ireland several times, and am about to move to Dublin.
WYKfits wrote:So one greyhound bit you and now its a 'vicious breed':D
As for their rarity, you obviously have never stepped foot on this island......:rolleyes:0 -
-
Hence my mentioning of a St. Bernhardwyk wrote:However, a Rottweiler is quite a bit stronger than your average Labrador. 0 -
You are quite right about the self-fulfilling prophecy. As I stated previously, dogs need a firm, but fair hand, and consistent guidance. Your average breed of dog, like say a Dachshund, rewards bad ownership with usually nary a problem, and at worse an ankle bite. Your average Rottweiler or American Pit Bull rewards a bad owner with a law suit. The image makes these breeds popular, and often with incompetent owners, and from what I have seen - owners whom shouldn't have ANY sort of dog, let alone one capable of great feats. They aren't only making up for a lack of self esteem, but also are often lacking in other departments as well. So now we have a popularity with a powerful breed of dog amongst a population of dog owners that may or may not be able to control such an animal. Though you can read this in the stats, the lawmakers do not necessarily see it this way.
But one thing we d have to consider is the fact that even a good owner can sometimes lose control of their dogs. Whether someone opens their gate, breaks into their house, a thunderstorm drives it nuts - what have ya. So one argument is that disallowing the larger, more aggressive breeds, limits the liability here.
What bothers me most is the popularity of the pitbull here, and how often they attack OTHER people's pets. These are statistics hard to show. I only know from personal experience with several rescues that Pitbulls do take their toll on other dogs, far mroe so than all other breeds combined. This is what annoys me personally about incompetent pitbull owners. We did not have this issue back in the 70's and 80's when Dobermans and Rottweilers were at their height of popularity. Something about the Pitbull makes it more aggressive towards other dogs. The last attack I saw, and documented, was a Pitbull jumping a 4' fence the owner refused to heighten even after being asked several times by his neighbor. Within days the Pitbull killed a neighbors Greyhound and terrier. Which meant the pitbull had to be put down as well later on by animal control. That man didn't know it, but when he brought that pitbull home, he killed 3 dogs.
Wezpeasant wrote:Hence my mentioning of a St. Bernhard0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
As I stated previously, aggression can have little to do with the breed in some circumstances(such as when a dog is lost, frightened, feels threatened, etc.). Though I see the argument for laws regarding aggressive dogs, as do most lawmakers, I also see the capability of the dog to do damage if it were loose on the general public. The Greyhound is one of the gentle breeds, especially when it comes to humans, as they have been handled by humans from birth on a daily basis. They were also bred to work in groups for hundreds of years, so aggression had to be nearly entirely removed from the breed for it to be successful. However, the worst bite I have is from a Greyhound. Life threatening? Hardly, but it DID bite me, and it most definitely is not known as an aggressive breed. Argue as you wish for a breed's temperament - but never forget the fact it is basically a domesticated Wolf, with genes that are predominately a Wolves's. So when instinct kicks in VS nurturing, they can become unpredictable. Like, say, my ex-wife.
I dunno if I would call it an argument, really. I am just making points. Though I wouldn't mind some breeds at least requiring registration, I'm not a particularly big fan of outright banning based upon breeds.
Afterall, in all of America, there are only about 10 fatalities a year from dog bites, and I would argue the dog ownership here, per capita, is easily one of the highest, if not the highest, in the world. So it is hardly en epidemic. 34,000 people die each year in driving collisions. THAT'S an epidemic.
As for Vets, I am sure as with every other occupation, some doctors are more specialized in some areas of the field than others. Also, their own personal experiences come to play. If a Rhodesian(lovely dogs) attacked someone or something in the Vet's clinic previously, you better believe they would have a bias in the future. In any case, it would be prudent to learn from the case and at least exercise caution in the future, no?
Here we have a lot of 'country' vets. They mainly deal with farm animals, hounds for hunting, and sheep dogs. Because I have a sheep dog, and a hound, I visit them often. They charge fairly, and do good work. It's all about the fit. Find a good vet for you.
Here's my Greyhound gallery. I have owned and do own a few:
http://www.pbase.com/wyk/greyhound Nearly all were, or are mine. You'll also spot my 140 lb Rottweiler in there as well
Wezpeasant wrote:Slight mistake in your argument there ...
Just because a certain breed is larger than others, doesn't make it more aggressive.
Large doesn't equal agressive, to the contrary: most large breeds are quite placid and have a high provocation threshold. (Unless they get tampered with by an irresponsible owner)
But I really think we should return to the topic of VETS, as the moderators here have asked not to discuss "dangerous dogs" anymore (after some arguments got very heated)0 -
-
Nala wrote:Wez, the moderators have asked for no more discussion of dangerous dogs, the thread about them was locked, this thread is about vets.
I understand. However, I was trying to help explain WHY some people, even Vets, may feel the way they do about large breeds in general. And cited some reasons lawmakers and vets have themselves seen recently. The OP clearly stated their issue was a vet that seemed to have issues with large breed dogs and aggression. I'm not really arguing for or against. And the thread doesn't seem to have gotten out of hand...yet. Even so, I'll stop. I think I've said enough to enlighten a few.Original Post wrote:I had to bring my RR Phoenix to the vet yesterday, he had small blisters and sores on his pads, an allergic reaction, had to be put on antibiotics.
Anyway when I came in to the vet first she goes 'oh a great dane', after I told her that he's a ridgeback she goes 'oh right they are vicious'!!! I couldn't believe what she was saying, I had to explain to her that they are not vicious it's a very gentle breed, and so on. If she ever met a vicious RR the owner was probably to blame.
Finally she was wondering why I had a halti on Phoenix, again I had to explain to her that he's a 'listed breed' and you have to keep a muzzle on him in public places, it was like she didn't have a clue what I was on about.....
I was fuming when I left. No wonder certain breeds have a bad reputation when even some vets seem to propagate the myths about them......0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement