• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

lefty's random dog thread.

NorCal

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
9,979
Reaction score
4,670
You do know demonic possession is never a good sign?
You have him exorcized although some would say that takes away from his true demon dog nature.

Originally Posted by thekunk07
uploading some now, here's a crappy one for now

IMG_20110105_103931.jpg
 

lefty

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
10,764
Reaction score
4,566
Originally Posted by gnatty8
I think the majority of dog owners keep dogs as companions/pets now, and not because they have strong herding instincts or their ability to retrieve game. The best thing to be is properly define what one is looking for in an animal and narrow one's choices from there. If I was looking for a good cattle dog, I might choose an Australian Shepherd or Border Collie. If I was looking for a good hunting dog, I might choose a German Short Haired Pointer. If I was looking for a pet, either of these dogs could work for me, and I would spend time with each breed to narrow my decision. In my case, I grew up around Rotties, so was already very familiar with their desirable qualities when it came time to choose my own first dog which was, you guessed it, a Rottie. I did not herd cattle with him, nor did I use him to protect me from brigands who might beset upon me as I travelled from town to town, selling prime rib and flank steaks.

Breeding and promoting a pet personality does nothing more than make breeds weaker and weaker and ultimately turns them into eloi.
*Note to self - create an weak, ineffectual, "happy" dog and market it as an Eloi - The Family Dog from the Future.*

Other than familiarity, what is it you want in a Rottweiler? Do you expect him to protect your family?


Originally Posted by gnatty8
Aggression with otehr dogs IS a fault to me, as I don't want to be sued or worse, have my dog mistake a child with an overly aggressive petting manner as a threat and maul him. I am entirely convinced by the evidence that neutering reduces aggressive tendencies in male dogs, so I view it as incumbent on me, who makes a personal choice to own a large, powerful dog in an urban setting, to reduce the likelihood he will injure another human being or dog. All of my Rotties have been aloof, reserved, and calm, but I give my business to breeders who focus on maintaining a flawless appearance, but breed towards pet quality dogs who will not be overly aggressive. As a dog owner, and a responsible member of society I view unjustified aggression towards anything, whether it is the mailman or another dog, as a major fault, and in my case, a disqualifying fault. You may not, which is fine, but please let me know if you ever decide to relocate to the South so I can be sure my kids don't play near your backyard..
laugh.gif



Absolutely not at all.
fistbump.gif


Canine aggression is not the same as human aggression and the notion that they are is simply silly. That note about canine aggression in the Rott came from the standard and it is not to be penalized while judging. If it is a fault to you perhaps anther breed is in order?

I could put together quite a bit of "evidence" from trainers and animal behaviorists that castration does not necessarily reduce aggression and can in fact, lead to an increase in inappropriate aggression. You see the issue isn't "unjustified" aggression as you call it, but aggression as a whole - you're trying to extinguish or curb it, whereas I'm saying you should learn how to control it.

This saddens me:

All of my Rotties have been aloof, reserved, and calm, but I give my business to breeders who focus on maintaining a flawless appearance, but breed towards pet quality dogs who will not be overly aggressive.
You're promoting the show breeding of dogs and the destruction of traits that make a Rottweiler a Rottweiler. You're helping destroy a breed that you profess to love. The average idiot knows no better, but you're an experienced guy.

I don't know how you can look at that AVMA report and come to any other conclusion that the health risks of neutering far surpass the benefits. That the temperament changes are pretty much a crap shoot.

I'm paraphrasing but ... "periodically you have to examine what you believe to be true and throw out that which offends you." I do this every day with regards to dogs. You have a year or so to do more research and decide if now is the time rethink what you believe about dogs/castration/aggression.

lefty
 

JLibourel

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
8,287
Reaction score
501
Originally Posted by lefty
Breeding and promoting a pet personality does nothing more than make breeds weaker and weaker and ultimately turns them into eloi.
*Note to self - create an weak, ineffectual, "happy" dog and market it as an Eloi - The Family Dog from the Future.*

Other than familiarity, what is it you want in a Rottweiler? Do you expect him to protect your family?




Canine aggression is not the same as human aggression and the notion that they are is simply silly. That note about canine aggression in the Rott came from the standard and it is not to be penalized while judging. If it is a fault to you perhaps anther breed is in order?

I could put together quite a bit of "evidence" from trainers and animal behaviorists that castration does not necessarily reduce aggression and can in fact, lead to an increase in inappropriate aggression. You see the issue isn't "unjustified" aggression as you call it, but aggression as a whole - you're trying to extinguish or curb it, whereas I'm saying you should learn how to control it.

This saddens me:



You're promoting the show breeding of dogs and the destruction of traits that make a Rottweiler a Rottweiler. You're helping destroy a breed that you profess to love. The average idiot knows no better, but you're an experienced guy.

I don't know how you can look at that AVMA report and come to any other conclusion that the health risks of neutering far surpass the benefits. That the temperament changes are pretty much a crap shoot.

I'm paraphrasing but ... "periodically you have to examine what you believe to be true and throw out that which offends you." I do this every day with regards to dogs. You have a year or so to do more research and decide if now is the time rethink what you believe about dogs/castration/aggression.

lefty


Well said, lefty. I now owned five fighting dogs (Tosas). While they varied in their degree of dog aggression, they were always, without fail, wonderful and totally reliable with children, despite a good deal of teasing from my damn stepson.

I think I have mentioned this story before, but I'll repeat it here. Probably my "hottest" Tosa was my first male, Zuma, who was imported directly from the Japanese fighting association for me. When he was nine months old, he hammered Rocky, a big, tough mix who was hitherto "king dog" of the neighborhood. As soon as Rocky's mistress and I broke up the fight, I was walking Zuma up the street. Two little girls ran out, saying, "Oh, there's Zuma!" and fussing over him. The big dog, still hot from battle, was totally affable and complacent with them. That is the true fighting dog temperament.

I ran into one of the little girls the other day. The cute little blonde is now a Hooters Girl. A young man whom I presume to be her beau was with her. He was a swarthy, thuggish-looking character, I regret to say.
 

dcg

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
506
Originally Posted by JLibourel
I ran into one of the little girls the other day. The cute little blonde is now a Hooters Girl. A young man whom I presume to be her beau was with her. He was a swarthy, thuggish-looking character, I regret to say.

laugh.gif
I recall reading the story before, but this is a worthwhile addendum. A classic Jan post (which I say as a compliment)!
 

lefty

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
10,764
Reaction score
4,566
Originally Posted by JLibourel
Well said, lefty ...
I didn't mean to pick on gnatty who is a decent enough fellow. And on the surface it seems like he's doing everything right: thoughtful search for a breeder, "responsible" ownership with regards to reproduction; all that the books tell you to do. But I would argue that his breeder and their dogs contribute nothing to the betterment of the breed and are a factor (however minute) in the breed's demise. Okay, this next part is long. It's a review of McCaig's book, The Dog Wars: How the Border Collie Battled the American Kennel Club and it lays out a compelling argument as to why show dog breeding is the detriment of the dogs we love.
In 1848, Queen Victoria was introduced to working Collies at Balmoral Castle. She became captivated by these intelligent dogs and brought a few back with her to London, where they became the rage -- hitting center stage just as the first dog shows were starting to take off in the U.K. With the rise of organized dog shows between 1860 and 1890, a show standard was written up for the Collie by John Henry Walsh (aka "Stonehenge"), a man who himself did not own or work Collies, but who felt himself expert enough in nearly every breed of dog to write a standard by which they could be judged by appearance alone. Needless to say, dogs were soon being bred to this "standard," which assigned large numbers of points to head shape and size, coat length, and coat color. A Collies ability to actually work sheep or take commands was not allotted a single point. In 1893, the fate of the Collie took another bad turn when the very young Czar Nicholas II sent 15 Borzois to the aged Queen Victoria. Intended as a diplomatic gift to curry favor with an aged dog collector who also happened to be his wife's grandmother, the Borzois more than left their mark, as they were soon crossed with Queen Victoria's Collies, thereby helping to create the strange-looking, impossibly narrow-headed dog we now know as "the Lassie" Rough-coated Collie. By the 1920s, these non-working and narrow-headed Collies appeared to be a different breed from the working Collies found in rural parts of Scotland, Wales and the rest of the British Isles. While the show dogs were increasingly homogeneous, the working dogs were of varied sizes and colors. Some had short coats and prick ears, others had longer coats and folded ears. The dogs themselves ranged from 25 to 75 pounds, and they came in a wide variety of colors from brown or red, to black and white, from dappled Merle to various hues of gun metal gray. In fact, almost the only thing all these dogs had in common was an obsessive devotion to work created by breeding worker-to-worker for generations. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Big one, little one, handsome one, ugly ones, long-coated, short-coated: nobody gave a damn. How's his outrun? Can he read sheep? Can he move a rank old cow?" - Don McCaig, Dog Wars _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Needless to say, these were not the kind of questions being asked by the folks at The Kennel Club shows! As a result of divergent selection criteria -- working ability versus conformation -- the smart, working, heterogeneous collies that had been so admired by Queen Victoria in 1848, were systematically selected out of The Kennel Club gene pool in favor of more homogeneous conformation stock. Could these pretty show dogs herd a cat across a living room? Perhaps, but no one had much illusion that they would be of any real use on a mountain side with 500 head of semi-wild sheep to pen before an approaching storm. Shepherds looked elsewhere for their working dogs. But what did that matter? How many people really had sheep to pen? Never mind that the sheep and the hill created the Collie. How could a dog be harmed if it still looked good? A non-working Collie could be bred to a non-working Collie, and it would still chase a stick. What else was needed? In fact, by The Kennel Club's light, what mattered was not the dog, but the name. And so, in 1924, when the International Sheep Dog Society (ISDS) brought working Collies to Hyde Park for a sheepdog trial, The Kennel Club objected. How could these feral-looking dogs be called Collies, they demanded!? They had no resemblance at all to the dogs in The Kennel Club ring! "Fine," the ISDS replied, and promptly began calling their working dogs by a new name: "Border Collies," to differentiate them from their non-working Kennel Club cousins. Much the same story played out with working Fox Terriers at about this same period of time (complete with Queen Victoria in a supporting role). Here too a breed of working dog, was quickly wrecked by Kennel Club breeders focused on pure conformation standards within a closed-registry system. And here too, the true working dog continued to live on in the countryside under a different name -- the Jack Russell Terrier. Move forward 100 years, and the tale plays out anew, as the Kennel Club bureaucracy circles back to try to round up two popular working dog breeds that somehow (how?) slipped out of sight and off their roles. "The Border Collie? The Jack Russell Terrier? Oh, we must have them." Never mind that these dogs had already been pulled onto the Kennel Club roles. By now the Kennel Clun dogs were ruined beyond recognition and operating under a different name. Time to try again! It is here, at the start of the Second Battle for the Border Collie that Virginia sheep man and writer Don McCaig begins his tale in The Dog Wars: How the Border Collie Battled the American Kennel Club. In its simplest form, McCaig's book is a battle between what works and what doesn't. On one side you have the American Kennel Club -- a 19th Century organization driven by 19th Century genetic theories and an almost Kremlin-like bureaucracy in New York City. These people have the strange notion that all canine breeds can best be judged at a glance while trotting a dog around a ring on a thin string leash. On the other side, you have a small collection of not-too-sophisticated farmers and sheep dog trialers; the very people who made the working collie what it is. These folks may not own a tuxedo or ball dress, but by God they know two true things; 1) that the show ring has never made a working dog, and; 2) that the mettle of a Border Collie can only be determined on the hill while working cattle, sheep or goats. The fact that McCaig is a partisan in this war does not mean he has not written a fair book. In fact, he is more than fair. While he mentions some of the breeds ruined by the Kennel Club's love affair with closed registries and show ring standards, he does not catalogue them (or their ills) to the extent he could. Nor does McCaig open up both barrels in order to blast the AKC' for their sordid history as puppy mill profiteers. Instead, McCaig's book focuses on the straight-forward history of the "Border Collie War" of the 1990s, leavening historical chronology with short divergent tales of his own working dogs, Silk, Moose and Harry. McCaig does a pretty fair job of puncturing the American Kennel Club lie that they "only register dogs," and that it is individual breeders -- not AKC policies -- that are responsible for the general decline in pure-breed quality and performance. In fact, McCaig notes, the Kennel Club does far more than register dogs. It also mandates that all AKC breed be maintained in a closed registry which almost guarantees mounting levels of inbreeding. The AKC also prohibits performance tests as a requirement of winning a championship, and they will not allow a club to ban puppy mill or pet store registrations which are a large part of the AKC's bread-and-butter business plan. The staff of the AKC have forced the rewriting of show standards (as they did with the Labrador Retriever), and they will not allow a breed club to mandate a health check as a condition of registration, even if the breed has a serious, pervasive, debilitating, gene-based health care issue such as deafness, cataracts or dysplasia. In fact, as McCaig makes clear, the AKC is really not interested in power-sharing with a strong breed club. If a strong breed club already exists outside the AKC, they are not willing to do much to woo its support in order to have them join the AKC. It's much easier -- and safer -- to simply create a new club from whole cloth; a simple matter of finding a few dozen people who are anxious to "get in on the ground floor" with a new AKC breed. These new AKC converts are likely to already believe that dog shows are the beginning-and-end-all in the world of dogs. What does it matter that geneticists have said that the AKC's breeding scheme is unsound and bad for working dogs? They will be careful and breed smart. So what if the AKC is a major engine driving the puppy mill and pet shop trade of dogs? If the AKC was not pocketing the cash, someone else would. And who really needs working dogs any more anyway? Sheep herding with dogs is an anachronism, and fox hunting has been banned in the U.K. The modern world is all about fly-ball, agility, and Frisbee. If the dogs have a little less obsession and drive, they will still be fine for that. And, so the AKC charges ahead and does what it wants. When the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club (founded in 1954) turned down AKC overtures because the AKC would not allow their Club to deny membership and registration to puppy millers and breeders that sold their dogs to pet shops, the AKC simply created its own Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club to compete. When the Border Collie folks said they would greenlight AKC admission only if there was a performance standard, the AKC would have none of it. When the Jack Russell Terrier folks opposed a too-limited conformation standard and maintenance of the breed in a closed registry system with no limits on coefficients of inbreeding, the AKC simply rounded up a collection of breeders who cared more about blue ribbons and green cash than the future of this working dog. McCaig gives a nod to these other dog battles, of course, but his concern is the Border Collie. McCaig details an AKC in which both officials and staff are secretive, arrogant and clannish. They think nothing of omitting facts, telling lies, and stretching the truth. When asked to explain their intentions, they become a collection of Know Nothings, and when asked to sit down to see if common ground can be found, they express outrage that -- after 100 years of wrecking dogs -- the entire world is not willing to roll over and give them the benefit of the doubt on their say-so alone. After all, they will tell you, they are the experts on dogs. What, you don't believe it? Well, just ask any of their all-breed judges who claim they can judge the value of a sheep-working dog at 40 feet, never mind that they themselves have never seen a sheep. Ask any one of the terrier judges who have never dug four feet to a fox, or carried a shovel out of their own backyard. You want to to know about whippets and greyhounds? Well the AKC has experts on chasing plastic bags on a string. Who would know more about running dogs than people with experience like that? Though McCaig's book is brutal in its accounting, his tone is generally dispassionate and he sticks to the facts. In fact, I would argue that McCaig's book is actually generous to the American Kennel Club. Recognizing that the organization is behaving irrationally -- spending money to lose money, winking at puppy mills, capriciously changing breed standards, and ignoring the wishes of both breed clubs and dog owners alike, he wonders what is going on. How could people, whom he generously supposes are neither evil nor stupid, be so terribly misguided? He dismisses the notion that it's all about money. He says it is not -- in discussions with the AKC they never mention money, and they seem offended that anyone would suggest theirs is a business (never mind the Madison Avenue offices, high salaries, black-tie galas, and plethora of cross-promotional activities with dog food companies, veterinarians, and dog toy manufacturers). McCaig generously suggests that the the AKC is guided by something else -- a vision that can best be described as religious in nature, since it seems to operate both independent of fact and based on faith alone. And what is that faith? McCaig writes: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Throughout the fight, I kept stumbling over a simple truth without quite seeing it: dog fanciers and their creature, the AKC, really do believe that what is most valuable about any dog can be judged in the show ring, that the show ring is the sole legitimate purpose and reward for all dog breeding. They even believe, against all evidence, that the show ring 'improves' breeds." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ And, to give credit, McCaig cuts them a little slack about their belief system. He even tries to identify in -- at least a little bit. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "The AKC's faith in the show ring is no more implausible than the fourth-century creed I recite every Sunday in the Williamsville Presbyterian Church." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ McCaig goes on to note that while AKC dog show folks really do believe a dog is all about looks, the AKC staff is motivated by something else in their eternal quest to pull ever-more breeds into the AKC show ring. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "When AKC staffers argued with traditionalists that they should abandon their venerable snobberies and recognize every breed they could, the staffers were just doing what staffers have done since the time of the pharaohs; increase their importance by swelling their organization." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ And so, in the end, McCaig tries to humanize the AKC. He does not forgive them their lies, their pettifoggery, or for what they have done to the Border Collie and other working breeds, but he does try to see the world through their eyes. Unfortunately, it's still not a pretty picture. One big issue seems to be that the staff of the AKC feels that their power in the world of dogs is slipping from their fingers. The United Kennel Club already registers more breeds, and other for-profit dog registries are popping up left and right. The American Press Corps (from Time magazine to ABC's 20/20) have informed everyone that AKC dogs are more likely to have specific genetic defects than run-of-the-mill pound puppies. And with their recent disastrous attempt to form an alliance with Petland, everyone now knows that a huge portion of AKC's bottom line comes from the registration fees pocketed from the sale of "misery puppies" cranked out by commercial puppy mill breeders. Slowly, the glow is coming off the rose. So what to do? Well of course, your double down your efforts and continue doing the same thing! Isn't that so often the way? So how does it all end? When the smoke and fog of war lifted, it turned out that both sides had lost the Border Collie War. The Border Collie had lost because they were now just one more dog within the American Kennel Club where they were to be judged on looks alone rather on the brains, obsessive drive, and bidability that make them truly unique in the world of dogs. The American Kennel Club lost because they not only activated a permanent (and growing) base of opposition outside of the AKC, but also because the public was apparently not deceived by their shennaningans. Ten years after the Border Collie were first drawn into the AKC, that organization registers only 2,000 border collies annually; only a tenth of the dogs the American Border Collie Association registers. And while McCaig notes that the AKC has twice the number of herding trial events as the ABCA, the AKC events are poorly attended because "ordinary citizens seem to understand what's real and what's not." At least for now, it seems, common sense has won out. The same can be said in the battle for the Jack Russell. Not only is the AKC version of the dog not as popular as the AKC had hoped it would be, but it is no longer even called a Jack Russell Terrier. Meanwhile, the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America continues to prosper and thrive as the largest Jack Russell Terrier registry in the world. It's focus: to preserve and protect the Jack Russell as "first and foremost" a hunting dog. And so, as George Santayana might have predicted, the world of working dogs has come full circle. The AKC once again has drawn into its folds a type of working collie (and a type of working terrier too), and put them on the fast track to ruin in a closed registry system with a pure-conformation standard. Within 50 years, these new AKC dogs will be as as close to their working cousins as chalk is to cheese, and 100 years from now, if the AKC is still around, the whole process will probably start all over again. Nonetheless, I suspect the working Border Collie and the working Jack Russell Terrier will continue to endure.
lefty
 

gnatty8

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
6,139
Originally Posted by lefty
Breeding and promoting a pet personality does nothing more than make breeds weaker and weaker and ultimately turns them into eloi.
*Note to self - create an weak, ineffectual, "happy" dog and market it as an Eloi - The Family Dog from the Future.*


Wait, isn't this essentially what dog breeders have been doing for centuries, ever since those first wolves starting hanging around campfires looking for handouts?

Other than familiarity, what is it you want in a Rottweiler? Do you expect him to protect your family?
No, I don't expect a dog to protect my family. A pump action shotgun and a very visible alarm system would be a cheaper and more effective deterrent and option.

I expect a pet to hang out with me when my wife is pissed off at me. To accompany me on a walk when I don't feel like going alone.

To do funny things that give me belly laughs.

In short, to be a domestic companion.

Canine aggression is not the same as human aggression and the notion that they are is simply silly. That note about canine aggression in the Rott came from the standard and it is not to be penalized while judging. If it is a fault to you perhaps anther breed is in order?
I just don't know how to respond to this. You are implying that unless a person intends to judge their pets each day based on breed standards, they should not bother with a dog at all. WTF?

[/quote]

I could put together quite a bit of "evidence" from trainers and animal behaviorists that castration does not necessarily reduce aggression and can in fact, lead to an increase in inappropriate aggression. You see the issue isn't "unjustified" aggression as you call it, but aggression as a whole - you're trying to extinguish or curb it, whereas I'm saying you should learn how to control it.
And I can show you evidence to the contrary. Whose evidence is stronger? That's for each individual to judge, and I've made my choice. You won't convince me otherwise..
laugh.gif


In the end, don't take yourself so seriously, you are arguing with me as if I am ignoring your posts. I am not, I just don't agree with them.
fistbump.gif
 

gnatty8

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
6,139
Originally Posted by JLibourel

I think I have mentioned this story before, but I'll repeat it here. Probably my "hottest" Tosa was my first male, Zuma, who was imported directly from the Japanese fighting association for me. When he was nine months old, he hammered Rocky, a big, tough mix who was hitherto "king dog" of the neighborhood. As soon as Rocky's mistress and I broke up the fight, I was walking Zuma up the street. Two little girls ran out, saying, "Oh, there's Zuma!" and fussing over him. The big dog, still hot from battle, was totally affable and complacent with them. That is the true fighting dog temperament.


Are you trying to argue that this is acceptable behavior of a domestic animal, to attack and maul other animals?

If so, the root of the disagreement here is we have a different perspective on what is acceptable behavior from a domesticated animal that exists in a civil society. ****, I don't even think Michael Vick thinks this is acceptable in an animal anymore, at least not publicly..
lol8[1].gif
 

lefty

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
10,764
Reaction score
4,566
Originally Posted by gnatty8
Wait, isn't this essentially what dog breeders have been doing for centuries, ever since those first wolves starting hanging around campfires looking for handouts?

We've have improved upon the wolf by creating an animal more suitable for our specific needs. We are now pissing all that work away and dumbing once great breeds down to a puppy mentality. That's what your breeder is breeding for - a dog that looks like a Rottweiler but in truth, isn't a Rottweiler. Contrary to what its AKC papers may say.

Originally Posted by gnatty8
No, I don't expect a dog to protect my family. A pump action shotgun and a very visible alarm system would be a cheaper and more effective deterrent and option.

A dog is a visible alarm system and an effective deterrent and unlike a gun cannot be used against you. Burglars will pass by a house with a barking dog.

Originally Posted by gnatty8
I expect a pet to hang out with me when my wife is pissed off at me. To accompany me on a walk when I don't feel like going alone.

To do funny things that give me belly laughs.

In short, to be a domestic companion.


What if you could have all that and an effective protector of your family and home.

Originally Posted by gnatty8
I just don't know how to respond to this. You are implying that unless a person intends to judge their pets each day based on breed standards, they should not bother with a dog at all. WTF?


I don't think you understand what a breed standard is as it relates to temperament. Your animal is supposed to be x + y + z. You're pulling out z because it doesn't fit your needs or your layman's opinion of what the breed should be. I'm saying that if you pull out z you no longer have the breed. If your Rott is aggressive to other dogs, control it or don't bring to the park. Don't "punish" the breed because you believe that a proper temperament is inappropriate in modern society. Get another breed.

Originally Posted by gnatty8
And I can show you evidence to the contrary. Whose evidence is stronger? That's for each individual to judge, and I've made my choice. You won't convince me otherwise..
laugh.gif


In the end, don't take yourself so seriously, you are arguing with me as if I am ignoring your posts. I am not, I just don't agree with them.
fistbump.gif


I don't take my myself that seriously, but I don't use those little smilie things so maybe it hard to to tell. And we're not arguing.

I hardly expect to change your mind and it would be ridiculous of you to do so after a few posts. I think it would be great if you could look at your preconceived notions and reexamine them. I find it kind of nutty that after the AVMA says that castration could have serious health effects on your companion and the risks outweigh any benefit you would still castrate that little puppy to make him (and yourself) more acceptable at the dog park.

Originally Posted by gnatty8
Are you trying to argue that this is acceptable behavior of a domestic animal, to attack and maul other animals?

If so, the root of the disagreement here is we have a different perspective on what is acceptable behavior from a domesticated animal that exists in a civil society. ****, I don't even think Michael Vick thinks this is acceptable in an animal anymore, at least not publicly..
lol8[1].gif


It is acceptable and proper behavior in a fighting dog that has been bred to exhibit canine aggression. The point was that canine aggression does not mean human aggression.

Notice that Jan did not use the word "maul". You did.

lefty
 

JLibourel

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
8,287
Reaction score
501
Originally Posted by gnatty8
Are you trying to argue that this is acceptable behavior of a domestic animal, to attack and maul other animals? If so, the root of the disagreement here is we have a different perspective on what is acceptable behavior from a domesticated animal that exists in a civil society. ****, I don't even think Michael Vick thinks this is acceptable in an animal anymore, at least not publicly..
lol8[1].gif

Let me elucidate the story of Zuma and Rocky a bit more. The dust-up occurred while I was talking to Rocky's owner, a very, very nice lady who lives across the street from us. She was always very scofflaw about letting Rocky run off-leash. He had been in a number of fights with neighborhood dogs. Anyway, I was standing with Zuma at my side chatting with her while Rocky was nosing around in the park off-leash. Then Rocky came up with a tennis ball in his mouth, dropped it in front of Zuma, stared at Zuma and growled. In flash, Zuma (still barely more than a baby) had him down and was on him. Fortunately, I was able to get him off without too much difficulty or appreciable damage to Rocky. That's what I like about a good fighting dog. It has a warrior's creed that a challenge must be met and responded to appropriately. I don't want a psycho dog that wants to attack everything in sight any more than anyone else does. My males have normally been very amorous and playful toward bitches, maintained a lordly and benign indifferences toward little dogs, but if another male challenges them, they are good to go. And believe me, there are plenty of dogs from non-fighting breeds that are spoiling for trouble, not least of them Rottweilers. I know of one Rottweiler who came on a property where there was a kenneled Tosa (the brother of my dog Dempsey) and began fence fighting him. The Tosa smashed through some heavy gauge wire and crushed the Rott's skull. To make amends, the Tosa's owner gave the Rott's owner a Tosa puppy out of his next litter and everybody was happy. I couldn't agree more with what lefty and McCaig have to say about dog showing and show breeding. Some of you may recall that during the almost two years I was without a Tosa, I was considering a Staffie Bull. I went to several shows, and I didn't like what I saw, by and large. The breeders are trying to send a basically good breed down the same ruinous road the English Bulldog travelled 140 years ago. I saw squatty little dogs with splayed legs and proportionately enormous, pollywog-like heads prancing inanely around a show ring in front of old biddy judges who were "assessing movement"...I suppose determine which would be the best fighting dog if only we let them fight. I thought, "This is perversion. I'd much, much rather see them fighting each other. At least that way we'd soon know which were the best dogs." However much one may decry the sport of dogfighting, it gave the world some wonderful dogs. Some friends of my stepson brought a Pit Bull over the other night. What a charming, playful, delightful *****! My Tosa Cyrus spent most of the time chasing after her trying to make love to her--in vain, since her reproductive organs had recently been ripped out of her body. Amazing how we call such mutilation "fixing," isn't it?
 

NorCal

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
9,979
Reaction score
4,670
Any idea if the "Asta" mentioned below was the inspiration for the Asta of the Thin Man novels by Dashiell Hammett? From:http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com...-terriers.html In 1938 a German by the name of Max Thiel, Sr. bought his first Jagdterrier. Thiel hunted with this dog for only a few years before the start of World War II. During the war Thiel lost his dogs, but after the war he settled in Bavaria and purchased two female dogs, Asta and Naja. In 1951 Thiel came to the U.S, bringing with him Naja. He soon sent for Asta, who was bred and shipped pregnant. In 1954, Armin Schwarz Sr., imported a "champion" sire named Axel, and a few more litters were promulgated. In March 1956, nine Jadgt terrier owners met in St. Louis, Missouri, and formed the Jagdterrier Club of America, with the expressed goal of getting the dog recognized by the American Kennel Club. In fact, the club did not prosper and eventually died out.
 

lefty

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
10,764
Reaction score
4,566
The Thinman movies came out in the early '30s so the timelines don't jibe. And at any rate, Asta was a WH Fox Terrier. He was partially trained by the Weatherwax boys who also trained "Lassie".

Jagds are very cool dogs but hell to live with - you should get one.

lefty
 

gnatty8

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
12,643
Reaction score
6,139
Originally Posted by lefty
We've have improved upon the wolf by creating an animal more suitable for our specific needs. We are now pissing all that work away and dumbing once great breeds down to a puppy mentality. That's what your breeder is breeding for - a dog that looks like a Rottweiler but in truth, isn't a Rottweiler. Contrary to what its AKC papers may say.



A dog is a visible alarm system and an effective deterrent and unlike a gun cannot be used against you. Burglars will pass by a house with a barking dog.



What if you could have all that and an effective protector of your family and home.



I don't think you understand what a breed standard is as it relates to temperament. Your animal is supposed to be x + y + z. You're pulling out z because it doesn't fit your needs or your layman's opinion of what the breed should be. I'm saying that if you pull out z you no longer have the breed. If your Rott is aggressive to other dogs, control it or don't bring to the park. Don't "punish" the breed because you believe that a proper temperament is inappropriate in modern society. Get another breed.



I don't take my myself that seriously, but I don't use those little smilie things so maybe it hard to to tell. And we're not arguing.

I hardly expect to change your mind and it would be ridiculous of you to do so after a few posts. I think it would be great if you could look at your preconceived notions and reexamine them. I find it kind of nutty that after the AVMA says that castration could have serious health effects on your companion and the risks outweigh any benefit you would still castrate that little puppy to make him (and yourself) more acceptable at the dog park.



It is acceptable and proper behavior in a fighting dog that has been bred to exhibit canine aggression. The point was that canine aggression does not mean human aggression.

Notice that Jan did not use the word "maul". You did.

lefty


You are obnoxious, welcome to my ignore list. Only the second in close to 5 years, you should be proud. You remind me of a brainwashed cultist who repeats their mantras over and over and over, oblivious to the fact that they are having not winning converts.
 

lefty

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
10,764
Reaction score
4,566
Sorry you feel that way. It's just a conversation about dogs - a subject that I can be a little earnest about at times. You dogs and your breeder will have no effect on the Rott population and you should both be free to pursue whatever direction you feel is right for the breed.

Good luck with your dogs.

2954714-laughing-young-woman-and-her-purebred-rottweiler.jpg


lefty
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 36.7%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 59 39.3%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 15 10.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 26 17.3%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 26 17.3%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,147
Messages
10,578,746
Members
223,878
Latest member
timlockhaxtzbn
Top